If Oswald was not the American who visited Odio on the evening of September 25, 26, or 27, 1963, who was? And who were the two Cubans? Based on the description of the three men given by Miss Odio, and the two war names of Leopoldo and possibly Angelo, the Warren Commission had the FBI conduct a far-reaching canvass of the anti-Castro community in the United States to locate them. On September 16, 1964, the FBI located one Loran Eugene Hall in Johnsandale, California. Loran Hall (whose name bears a phonetic resemblance to Odio’s “Leon Oswald”) had been involved in anti-Castro paramilitary activities in Florida. He told the bureau that he, a Mexican-American from East Los Angeles named Lawrence Howard, and William Seymour from Arizona (who, Hall said, resembled Oswald) had visited Odio in Dallas in September of 1963 to solicit funds for the anti-Castro movement.57 The FBI had not completed its investigation of this matter by the time the Warren Report, published on September 24, 1964, was submitted for publication, and the Report informed its readers of this fact.58 Within a week of Hall’s statement, and with the Warren Commission no longer in existence, Howard and Seymour were interviewed by the FBI and denied ever having met Odio. Howard said Hall was a “scatter-brain, unreliable, emotionally disturbed, and an egotistical liar.” On September 20, 1964, Hall himself recanted his story.59 Nonetheless, on October 1, 1964, in Miami, Florida (where Odio had just moved to from Dallas), the FBI showed photos of Hall, Howard, and Seymour to Odio, who said none of them were among the men who had visited her. Her sister Annie was also shown the three photos and she too failed to recognize any of the men.60 Additionally, an examination of the payroll records of the Beach Welding Supplies Company of Miami Beach, Florida, revealed that Seymour, the one who allegedly looked like Oswald, was employed with the company and worked forty-hour weeks during the period September 5 to October 10, 1963.61
The HSCA reinterviewed Hall, Howard, and Seymour, and again searched the anti-Castro community for the three men who had visited Odio, extending their search to even include pro-Castro activists. The search produced three men who may have been in Dallas in September 1963. Photographs of the men were shown to Odio, who could not identify them as the men who had visited her.62
Assuming Sylvia Odio is telling the truth, the identity of Leopoldo and Angelo remains unknown to this day. From their appearance, the things they said, their detailed knowledge of Odio’s father, the fact they had the identical petition in their possession that Dallas JURE leader Antonio Alentado had—indeed, from the fact they had Sylvia Odio’s home address—one can reasonably conclude they were, in fact, anti-Castro Cuban exiles. Certainly, no one has suggested they were pro-Castro Cubans, nor is there any evidence to warrant this conclusion.
It’s not even known where they were from. The assumption has always been New Orleans, simply because Leopoldo told Odio, “We have just come from New Orleans.” But they could have been from Miami, the headquarters for all of the anti-Castro groups63 and the city where the overwhelming majority of anti-Castro Cubans have always lived. New Orleans may simply have been a city where they had been for awhile, and the city from which they departed on their trip to Dallas. Indeed, although they never expressly said so, Sylvia Odio got the impression from the two Cubans at her door that after Dallas “they were leaving for Puerto Rico or Miami.”64
Even if they were from New Orleans, however, we cannot automatically assume that they would have been aware of Oswald’s confrontation with anti-Castro Cubans the very previous month, and hence, have known of Oswald’s real identity as being pro-Castro and most likely anti-Kennedy. Although there was mention of the confrontation in the media,65 it was a very minor story, and therefore the two Cubans may not have heard the news account. And since the anti-Castro movement was disorganized and fractured, we also cannot assume that word of the minor confrontation would have spread quickly in New Orleans’s anti-Castro community. For instance, Bringuier, who was very active in the anti-Castro movement in New Orleans, didn’t even know that there was an anti-Castro training camp in New Orleans across from Lake Pontchartrain.66
Whether Leopoldo and Angelo were from New Orleans, Miami, or elsewhere, if Leon was in fact Oswald, and they in fact knew he was actually pro-Castro, then the visit to Odio’s house makes little sense. Neither would Leopoldo’s words to Odio the following day. He would know that Castro was the last person in the world Oswald would want to harm.
Although we have seen that the evidence of time and place compels the conclusion that Oswald could not have visited Odio on September 26 or 27, 1963, and most probably did not do so on September 25, there nevertheless are countervailing reasons why we cannot automatically dismiss Odio’s allegations—namely, her credibility and corroborating evidence. As stated, we can infer from the Warren Report (and the fact that the Commission had the FBI conduct an extremely detailed and comprehensive investigation of Odio’s story) that the Warren Commission staff did not write Odio’s story off and believed her to be truthful, though mistaken, in her relation of the events to which she testified. Among others, Wesley Liebeler, who examined her for the Warren Commission, said, “I think [Odio] believes that Oswald was there. I do not think she would lie about something like that.”67 Assistant Counsel W. David Slawson, whose area of investigation for the Warren Commission was the possibility of a conspiracy in the assassination, wrote in his report to the Commission that “Mrs. Odio has been checked out thoroughly through her psychiatrist and friends, and, with one exception—a layman [not identified] who speculates that she may have subconscious tendencies to over-dramatize or exaggerate—the evidence is unanimously favorable, both as to her character and reliability and as to her intelligence.”68 Moreover, the problems that caused Odio to seek psychiatric assistance were not those that could affect her perception or credibility, and Odio was not hallucinatory.69 A Warren Commission staff report noted that “Doctor [Burton] Einspruch [Odio’s psychiatrist] stated that he had great faith in Miss Odio’s story of having met Lee Harvey Oswald,” believing the story to be “completely true.” Einspruch, who had been seeing Odio on the average of once a week since April of 1963, said that while Odio was “given to exaggeration, all the basic facts which she provides are true.” He stated her tendency to exaggerate is that of an emotional type, characteristic of many Latin-American people, and being one of degree rather than basic fact.70 Manolo Ray, who had known Sylvia Odio and her family for years, told the FBI that Odio was an intelligent person of good character who would not have fabricated or been delusional about the incident at her door.71
Dr. Einspruch told the HSCA he felt Odio’s emotional problems were “situational.” In addition to the obvious problem of her husband leaving her to fend for herself and four children, Einspruch said Odio was not doing well economically, “she was an immigrant, her parents were imprisoned…she had all the difficulties one might anticipate a displaced person would have.”72
The HSCA, after a thorough evaluation of all the evidence, stated that “the committee was inclined to believe Sylvia Odio” to the extent that “three men did visit her apartment in Dallas prior to the Kennedy assassination and identified themselves as members of an anti-Castro organization,” and that “one of these men at least looked like Lee Harvey Oswald and was introduced to Mrs. Odio as Leon Oswald.”73 As is normally not the case with those who are lying, the HSCA noted that Odio was consistent with her story over a period of many years, with only minor details changing.74
The most important question, of course, is the following: Even if we make the assumption that Odio is being truthful, as the HSCA concluded and the Warren Commission implied, did she mistakenly believe the Anglo among the three men was Oswald? As discussed earlier in this book, there is something phenomenally distinctive about each human’s physiognomy. So much so that, as mentioned earlier, no two people (other than identical twins) look almost exactly like each other. So much so that even animals recognize people they’ve seen before. Though there are factors that militate against identification, such as poor vision, dis
tance, darkness and shadows, obstructions, oblique views, and so on, after you see and talk to someone close-up for several minutes, when you see that person again, particularly within a short period of time, a bell of recognition immediately goes off. This is why, if Odio is being truthful, it is extremely difficult to disregard her identification of Oswald.
The Warren Commission showed Odio several photos of Oswald. With two, she pointed out differences between the photo and Oswald. In one, Oswald looked shaven, she said, and on the night at her apartment, Oswald had a “little mustache” and he “did not look shaved.” In another, she said that although everything else was the same, the lips “did not look like the same man.” Also, “I am not too sure of that picture. He didn’t look like this…he was more smiling than in this picture.” Yet, even with these two photos of Oswald, she identified him as being the one in her apartment that night. And with other photos of Oswald, she made an unqualified identification. Asked whether one photograph of Oswald “was the man who was in your apartment,” she jocularly stated that “if it is not [Oswald], it is his twin.” Also, when shown New Orleans television (WDSU) footage of street scenes of Oswald in August of 1963, she identified Oswald, and added that “he had the same mustache.” When asked, “When did you first become aware of the fact that this man who had been at your apartment was the man who had been arrested in connection with the assassination?” she replied, “It was immediately.” “As soon as you saw his picture?” “Immediately, I was so sure.” When asked once again by Warren Commission counsel, “Do you have any doubts in your mind after looking at these pictures that the man that was in your apartment was…Lee Harvey Oswald?” she again replied, “I don’t have any doubts.”75*
No one examining the evidence in the Odio matter can feel too sanguine about the conclusion he reaches, yet I feel that the slight preponderance of evidence is that Oswald was, in fact, the American among the three men who visited Odio. I say that for several reasons. One is that there is, as trial lawyers like to say, that unmistakable “ring of truth” to Odio’s testimony. An imperfect analogy is a U.S. Supreme Court justice’s observation about obscenity, that he couldn’t define it but he knew it when he saw it. Most of all, of course, is her positive identification of Oswald from photos and film. Moreover, her physical description of height and weight matches Oswald. The men telling her that they had “just come from New Orleans” and Leopoldo telling Odio that the American had been a marine, and that he was “kind of nuts,” all fit Oswald precisely. And the name Leon Oswald is clearly too close to be a coincidence. Unless Odio had fabricated this entire story, and had gotten these identifying details on Oswald through media accounts, these details speak loudly for the fact that the American was indeed Oswald.
The hypothesis of fabrication is difficult to square with the facts here. Odio certainly can’t be accused, for instance, of wanting to attach herself, for publicity purposes—as so many people do—to a high-visibility public event. To the contrary, she contacted neither the authorities nor the media about her belief that Oswald had visited her. Rather, she deeply feared her being associated with the incident. The only person she is sure she told, when he called her on the day after the assassination, was her psychiatrist.76 In this vein, when CBS’s Martin Phillips contacted her to be on a Dan Rather CBS television special on the assassination, she refused.77 It should be further noted parenthetically that Odio subsequently declined Mark Redhead’s further entreaties that she testify at the London trial, even though she was aware that the trial would be shown on national television in the United States and in many foreign countries, including England, France, Germany, and Australia. It simply stands to reason that if Odio had fabricated the aforementioned details about her visits that evening, this would be the work of someone who was intent on getting the story out. But, as we have seen, Odio did not do this. Nor has she ever attempted to profit, in any way, from her story, the first time she even granted a television interview being for a PBS Frontline special thirty years later.
Also, and perhaps most importantly, if Odio had fabricated her story, it is almost inconceivable that she would have said that before the assassination that Oswald was in the presence of two Cuban members of JURE, the anti-Castro group formed in Miami whose founder, Manolo Ray, had very close ties to Odio’s parents. In fact, as indicated earlier, the parents cofounded, with Ray, the MRP, some of whose members became the original nucleus for JURE.78 Indeed, Odio, herself a member of JURE, was actively involved in the anti-Castro movement and “desperate” to do anything she could to free her mother and father from their imprisonment in Cuba under Castro. She would never have thought that putting the presidential assassin in the company of JURE members before the assassination would be helpful to any of her dreams. In fact, why would Odio be trying to implicate any anti-Castro group in Kennedy’s assassination? Only by Odio saying that Oswald appeared at her door with pro-Castro Cubans would Odio or any other Cuban exile have any hope of igniting a U.S. response that would topple the Cuban dictator. The fact that the story she told could only, if at all, be prejudicial to her interests is circumstantial evidence she was telling the truth. Adding further credibility to Odio’s story is her telling her father and psychiatrist, prior to the assassination, of the visit by the three men. The fact that she did not mention the name Leon to her father, and may or may not have to her psychiatrist, is inconsequential, since prior to the assassination the name of the American who visited her that night had no significance. When her psychiatrist, Dr. Einspruch, called her on the day of or the day after the assassination, he recalls she did mention “Leon” to him as being Oswald.79
Finally, there is corroboration for Sylvia Odio’s story in the form of her younger sister, Annie, who answered the door when the three men came to the apartment. Annie Odio, without the emotional and psychiatric baggage that some feel corrodes the credibility of Sylvia Odio, also positively identified Oswald as being the American and one of the three men. When she first saw Oswald on television on the afternoon of the assassination, her first thought, she said, was, “My God. I know this guy, and I don’t know from where! But I’m not going to tell anybody because they’re going to think I’m crazy.” When Annie spoke to Sylvia later that day and Sylvia reminded her of the three men at the door, Annie then remembered where she had seen Oswald.80
My belief in Odio’s story, though I’m not prepared to take it to the bank, and though it admittedly does not rise to the status of certainty or even beyond a reasonable doubt, necessarily constitutes a rejection of the Warren Commission’s conclusion that Odio’s story is not believable because Oswald could not have been at her door when she said he was. The distinction between literary fiction and nonfiction comes to mind. It is said that one advantage an author of fiction has is that he can give wings to his imagination, whereas in nonfiction one is restricted to the facts. However, to be good fiction a story should be somewhat believable. But nonfiction doesn’t have to be believable. If it happened, whether it is believable or not is irrelevant. The likelihood is that the event Odio described did, in fact, take place, most probably on the evening of September 24 or 25, 1963. In an April 28, 1964, letter to J. Edgar Hoover, Rankin, general counsel for the Warren Commission, wrote that “the only time [Oswald] could have been in Odio’s apartment appears to be the nights of September 24 or 25, 1963, most likely the latter.”81
With respect to September 24, the Warren Commission concluded82 that “under normal procedures” Oswald could not have received his Texas unemployment compensation check in New Orleans, which was dated and mailed on Monday, September 23, 1963,83 before 5:00 a.m. on September 25, 1963, a Wednesday (see earlier text). However, Marina told the FBI that Oswald received his unemployment check every Tuesday.84 In fact, the Warren Commission itself said that Oswald cashed the previous week’s check at the Winn-Dixie Store in New Orleans on Tuesday, September 17, 1963.85 If, then, Oswald had received his next check on Tuesday, September 24, it’s possible he cashed it at t
he Winn-Dixie Store between 8:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. on that day, not, as believed, the following day, Wednesday, September 25.
If that happened, Oswald and his two Cuban friends could have departed New Orleans by automobile during the daytime on September 24 and reached Sylvia Odio’s door in Dallas, 530 miles away (approximately an eight-hour drive at 65 mph), by nine o’clock that evening, September 24. In fact, Marina told the Warren Commission that Oswald told her he intended to leave New Orleans the very next day after her departure on September 23, 1963, that is, September 24.86 (There was a conflicting story, however, that Oswald was seen leaving his apartment in New Orleans on the evening of September 24 carrying two suitcases,87 which, if true, would have made it impossible for him to have been in Dallas that evening.)
Reclaiming History Page 234