From jmcadams Sun Jul 21 10:15:30 PDT 1996 Article: 1357 of alt.conspiracy.jfk.moderated Newsgroups: alt.conspiracy.jfk.moderated Path: netcom.com!jmcadams From: STEVE4439@delphi.com Subject: La Fontaines & Odio Part 2 Status: O Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII Message-ID: <01I6T0ANZ7BI8YEKSM@delphi.com> Sender: jmcadams@netcom19.netcom.com Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest) Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Mon, 8 Jul 1996 02:11:52 GMT Approved: jmcadams@netcom.com Lines: 334 [This is Part 2] According to Fonzi's documentary record, later on the same day that she spoke to her friend Mrs. Pick, Connell also spoke to another friend, Marcella Insua, the daughter of the man who ran the Cuban Relief Committee. She mentioned to Insua what her friend said about Ruby being in her law office. Miss Insua happened to have a class of American children to whom she was teaching Spanish. In class, she got into a discussion of the Kennedy assassination and mentioned that she knew someone who had dealings with Ruby. It also happened that in Miss Insua's class was the son of FBI agent Hosty, who immediately went home and told his father about the Ruby connection. The FBI contacted Insua who, in turn, put them in contact with Connell. And for some unknown reason, that's where the investigation stopped. I specifically asked Connell whether she told the FBI about her friend and about Jack Ruby's visit to the law office to get power of attorney drawn for his sister. She said: "Yes. The FBI has that information. I gave it to them at the interview." She said she has been puzzled about why it never came out in the Warren Report. She said: "I was rather surprised that they didn't see fit to mention it myself because I thought it was rather pertinent information. Ruby had never had power of attorney drawn for his sister before." I think that last sentence is especially significant, in view of my follow-up investigation, because it implies that Connell and her friend did discuss the particular matter of a power of attorney and her friend obviously told her that Ruby had not done that before. I asked Connell about the FBI reporting that she told them that Silvia Odio told her she had heard Oswald speak at a meeting. She said: "I really don't recall her telling me that. I just recall that Oswald came to her apartment and wanted to get her involved some way. But as I recall Silvia herself didn't tell me that, it was her sister who told me that." Connell said she couldn't imagine why the FBI didn't put that in their report. "Frankly, I was not impressed with these two FBI investigators," she said. "They were rather new on the job I think. They were not very smart in my opinion and I did more interviewing of them than they did of me. They made no notes at the time, so whatever they wrote down after they left I'm not sure would be a hundred percent correct." (11) The La Fontaines claim that Gaeton Fonzi, "perturbed" by the revelations of Connell's 11/29/63 remarks to the FBI "now claims that his HSCA investigative notes indicate that the information about prior meetings with Oswald was not told to Mrs. Connell by Silvia, but by one of Silvia's sisters, and that, moreover, the FBI misunderstood what was said." (12) As anyone can see from reading the excerpt above from Fonzi's 1976 memo to Dave Marstan, that is exactly the case: 1) that Connell didn't recall Silvia telling her about Oswald being at any meetings, it was allegedly Silvia's sister who said this (according to Connell in 1976), and 2) the FBI took no notes when they first interviewed Connell which could certainly explain all the confusion about what was actually said. Even Connell was astute enough to realize that she was not sure what they wrote down afterwards would be "a hundred per cent correct." Indeed. But the La Fontaines, ever ready to discredit Odio, plunge ahead and include in the chapter notes at the back of the book: Mrs. Connell herself, however, confirmed to Mary in March 1995 that (as she told the FBI) it was Silvia who told her she had met Oswald more than once prior to the assassination. (13) So, after selectively excerpting "out of the loop" Griffin's 4/16/64 memo, and after ignoring Dr. Einspruch's sworn testimony in 1978 about Oswald's visit to Odio being only a "one time experience," the La Fontaines now apparently want their readers to believe that their 1995 interview with Lucille Connell has more import than all the earlier evidence. They fail to provide the substance, context or specific question(s) asked of Connell in 1995 - just a short note about "confiding" to Mary. This is supposed to supplant sworn deposition and testimony taken much closer to the actual events in Dallas? Really, now. To accord more significance to a whispered confidence (now blatantly betrayed by writing about it in the book) that is out-of-context, over the evidence on record, is what the La Fontaines expect their readers and the research community to do? But what's worse, the La Fontaines mislead when they imply that after Odio told Connell her story of Oswald visiting her apartment, that Connell then called the FBI. Remember - it was the FBI that contacted Connell (not the other way around) after they met with Insua. Some investigative work this is! To recap: although the La Fontaines had access to one of the HSCA investigators (Fonzi), and although they apparently had access to the original source documentation at the Archives (which is also available to the public), they either ignored or somehow missed important evidence that it was the reported actions of Jack Ruby just days before the assassination that actually led the FBI to Silvia Odio (in a roundabout fashion) in the first place; they ignored Dr. Einspruch's sworn testimony, that if Silvia had seen Oswald more than once - contradicting the notion that she knew him previously from several anti-Castro meetings - maybe he would have more confidence that one of the men who visited her was actually Lee Harvey Oswald; and they apparently missed the evidence on record, since 1976, that Connell did not recall Silvia ever telling her about knowing Oswald previously! The obvious question that the La Fontaines should have asked themselves is: Where is the evidence that there were any anti-Castro meetings with both Oswald and Odio in attendance, anyway? And why doesn't the original source documentation support the notion that Odio lied to Connell and Einspruch about this? This is crucial for their theory to work, yet, it doesn't seem to matter to them that there is simply not a shred of evidence for such a fantasy. And once this house of cards collapses, the remainder of their groundless theory on Silvia Odio collapses as well. But it sadly gets worse, for if we are to ignore all the documentary evidence, what are we to accept and believe? The La Fontaines provide the answer by relying on a love story "with attitude," written by Marianne Sullivan (who hated Silvia Odio) to bolster their beliefs and theories that Odio and possibly Father MacChann know more about the assassination than they have revealed. And just in case relying on this romantic novel - rather than evidence - isn't bad enough, the La Fontaines then proclaim authoritatively that this romantic fantasy "KENNEDY RIPPLES: A TRUE LOVE STORY" is "a memoir despite its title." A memoir? "Kennedy Ripples"? Is this part of the "New Evidence in the JFK Assassination" that the title of their book heralds? At this point you might begin to wonder, as I did, how the La Fontaines lost their way in the case, and how they could have made the serious mistakes they made. Were they on a deadline? Shouldn't they have interviewed Silvia Odio personally - instead of via a phone call - since she was so important to their theory as to rate an entire chapter? Shouldn't they have used Fonzi's knowledge and original notes on his investigations of Odio, Connell and Einspruch? Where is their proof that Silvia Odio is a liar? Where is the evidence that Odio or Father MacChann know more about the assassination than they've ever revealed? Are these answers to be found in a romantic novel? Such unhinged logic is distressing and depressing. There is more distortion, selective use of documentation and sheer speculation in this chapter than I have ever seen from some authors that support the "official version" of the assassination. This kind of "research" hurts us all because it sets us back and confuses issues that were resolved long ago. Some of the resolved issues that still stand despite the efforts by the La Fontaines include: 1). Silvia Odio is, without a doubt, a reliable and credible witness, despite the La Fontaines' new spin, 32 plus years after the fact. Her story of the visit by Oswald and the other two strangers was corroborated by both her sister Annie and, perhaps more importantly, by her own psychiatrist, Dr. Einspruch. Under oath, Einspruch testified that he recalled her mentioning the visit of the three men before the assassination. 2). There were no other anti-Castro meetings with Oswald and Odio present. Dr. Einspruch's 1978 sworn HSCA deposition of Odio only seeing Oswald once, clearly supports this as do Connell's remarks to Fonzi that she didn't recall Odio telling her such a tale of knowing Oswald from previous meetings. This is a pointless red herring and straw man that the La Fontaines have resurrected to support their mistaken notion that Silvia Odio is a liar. They do this to one of the few remaining living witnesses in the case, rather than explore the possibility that Griffin could have simply been wrong in his memo, and that since the FBI took no notes while interviewing Lucille Connell, they could have easily gotten a detail or two wrong. 3). The two witnesses (Einspruch and Connell) whom the La Fontaines use to bolster their argument that Odio told a tale of knowing Oswald from seeing him at anti-Castro meetings, have both either denied or negate the argument by their own comments in interviews which are part of the original and primary source documentary record - read: evidence - in this case. In addition to the resolved issues noted above, the tactics used to try and paint Odio a liar fail miserably when the primary source documents are checked against the book. For example, the La Fontaines mischaracterize the very first FBI interview with Dr. Einspruch on 12/19/63, wherein Einspruch tells Hosty unequivocally that "Miss ODIO is telling the truth and not exaggerating." They want their readers to believe that Einspruch believes Odio is telling the truth about Oswald at anti-Castro meetings - something that is not mentioned in that memo, but they are inferring what Einspruch meant (not what Hosty wrote) much the way Griffin did. However, after all the Griffin nonsense and confusion over the tale of Oswald at anti-Castro meetings; after Odio's July WC testimony where she once again, under oath, denied ever telling Connell or Einspruch such a tale; and after Rankin wrote to Hoover about either proving or disproving Odio's story, the FBI interrogated Dr. Einspruch once again on September 11, 1964. In that interview by SA Alphonse J. Sutkus, Sutkus claims that Einspruch "expressed the opinion that if subject gave any incorrect testimony, it probably was the result of her misunderstanding the inquiries posed to her rather than a deliberate attempt to prevaricate." (14) So much for disproving Odio's story. Do the La Fontaines mention this? Of course not - they need to characterize her as a liar despite the earliest FBI and WC evidence and all subsequent evidence gathered during the HSCA investigations that support her credibility. Most importantly, however, it seems to me that the La Fontaines missed a golden opportunity to tie neatly together some loose ends that many people have either forgotten about, or, could be unaware of since the FBI did not pursue them. It was the reported actions of Jack Ruby, who, according to Mrs. Sanford Pick, came to the law office where she worked to obtain a power of attorney for his sister just days before the assassination (and days before killing Oswald), that eventually led the FBI to a very reluctant Silvia Odio. That bears repeating: It was the reported actions of Jack Ruby that eventually led the FBI to a very reluctant Silvia Odio. (15) Odio was a reluctant witness too scared to have ever come forward on her own. So was Connell, albeit to a lesser extent. The FBI found them. In the days since the assassination, Silvia Odio has maintained her privacy. She has not profited in any way from the tragic assassination - unlike the La Fontaines who have produced a segment for the trashy HARD COPY tabloid television show - and she has never sought any publicity via the lecture circuit or any other public venue. She simply wants to be left alone. I can only imagine how she will react to the La Fontaines joining others who have called her a liar over the years. Sadly, she will have confirmation, once again, after all these years, that the American people don't really want to know the truth... How is Silvia Odio today? According to Gaeton Fonzi, she is living a quiet life in Miami. (16) ~~~ NOTES AND SOURCES ~~~ (1) The Washington Post, Sunday, August 7, 1974, OUTLOOK, "The Fourth Tramp" by Ray and Mary La Fontaine. (2) Leibeler memorandum to Rankin, cited by Fonzi, pp. 114: One month later, with the Report already in galleys, the Odio incident was still a critical concern for staffers. In a memo to his boss, Staff Counsel Wesley Liebeler wrote: "There are problems. Odio may well be right. The Commission will look bad if it turns out that she is. There is no need to look foolish by grasping at straws to avoid admitting that there is a problem." (3) See Odio Warren Commission testimony, July 22,'64. Subsequent to her testifying, the FBI once again questioned her and Silvia "emphatically denied that she ever told Mrs. C. L. Connell that Lee Harvey Oswald had made talks to small groups of Cuban refugees in Dallas." See FBI Report DL 100-10461, 202 (9/9/64). (4) Interview with Gaeton Fonzi, 4/26/96. Also, see HSCA Doc. 180-10101-10283, Box 233, Memorandum dated 4/5/76, from Gaeton Fonzi to Dave Marston. (5) HSCA Sworn Testimony of Dr. Burton C. Einspruch, 7/11/78, p. 28. HSCA Doc. 180-10071-10440. (6) WC Doc. 179-40002-10171, Griffin memo to Slawson dated 4/16/64, 3 pages; Box 17B. (7) OSWALD TALKED, Ray and Mary La Fontaine, p. 17. (8) HSCA Doc. 180-10101-10283, Box 233, Memorandum dated 4/5/76, from Gaeton Fonzi to Dave Marston. (9) Ibid. (10) Interview with Gaeton Fonzi, 4/26/96. Fonzi told me that the La Fontaines called him several times over the past few years, though he could not recall any specific questions they had on Odio, which is strange since Fonzi was the HSCA investigator who researched and interviewed Silvia Odio, and certainly could have helped them in their "research" of her. (11) HSCA Doc. 180-10101-10283, Box 233, Memorandum dated 4/5/76, from Gaeton Fonzi to Dave Marston. (12) Since, according to Connell, the FBI "made no notes at the time, so whatever they wrote down after they left I'm not sure would be a hundred percent correct" it is very easy to understand how confusion might have ensued with reporting the story later, from memory, as it were. Even Connell acknowledges this in her interview with Fonzi. See HSCA Doc. 180-10101-10283, Box 233. (13) OSWALD TALKED, Ray and Mary La Fontaine, p. 426, footnote 43. (14) FBI (WC) Doc. 105-9958-164, 9/11/64, Einspruch interview by SA Alphonse J. Sutkus. (15) See HSCA, Vol. X, p. 34, n. 126. (16) Interview with Gaeton Fonzi, 4/26/96.