Subject: Re: Liebelor's 180 Date: 26 Aug 1998 20:17:33 -0500 From: Steve Bochan Organization: Erol's Internet User Newsgroups: alt.assassination.jfk,alt.assassination.jfk.uncensored,alt.conspiracy.jfk Robert Harris wrote: > > > > No it isn't, Bobby. I asked Ray La Fontaine to produce his evidence of > > these so-called multiple meetings and the only thing he could come up > > with was the STEIG report which turned out to be no evidence at all. > > Yes, Steven - and I'm sure we all trust your recollection of what Ray said. > > Why don't you post his entire reply so we can judge it for ourselves > instead of being forced to settle for your interpretaion? As you wish. ------------------------------------------------------------- RLF > 8. Bochan claims there is "simply not a shred of evidence" (outside of Silvia's testimony to Einspruch and Mrs. Connell, that is) that Oswald ever attended meetings of anti-Castro Cubans. As usual, Bochan is wrong where Silvia is concerned. < SB > No, as usual, Mr. La Fontaine is once again wrong. Silvia did not give "testimony to Einspruch and Mrs. Connell." This is an absurdity and demonstrates a complete lack of accurate knowledge of what testimony means. Not surprising. Further, in deceptive fashion, Mr. La Fontaine quotes me selectively and completely out of context in order to misdirect the obvious flaw in his THEORY about Odio. My phrase "simply not a shred of evidence," in context, seems once again an appropriate way to close this discussion and place the ball squarely in the La Fontaine's court where they have foolishly allowed it to bounce aimlessly around without direction, like their book: [QUOTE] 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. [END QUOTE] RLF > Oswald was sighted by an anglo [sic] atendee, Edward Steig, at a Dallas DRE fundraiser in October 1963 - the same documented meeting attended by Gen. Edwin Walker. Oswald himself wrote of attending a meeting where Walker spoke. The FBI investigated this matter, interrogating Joaquin Martinez de Pinillos about it. < SB > It's "Edwin" Steig -not- "Edward" Steig. This would've been an interesting fact to have included in their book, but of course, they do not. Why not? Because it has NOTHING to do with Silvia Odio *AND* Oswald attending the same anti-Castro meetings. For the benefit of those reading this newsgroup who do not have access to Hosty's report on Edwin Steig, here it is in its entirety: [QUOTE] EDWIN L. STEIG, 713 Winifred Street, Garland, Texas, advised he attended a meeting of the Student Directorate of Cuba held on a Sunday evening at 8:00 p.m. some time during the month of October, 1963. There were about 75 persons present at this meeting which was held at the First Federal Savings and Loan Association Conference Room in the North Lake Shopping Village in Dallas, Texas. Mr. STEIG stated that another individual sat in the back of this room who he believes is identical with LEE HARVEY OSWALD. This individual spoke to no one but merely listened and then left. Mr. STEIG stated that most of the persons present signed a guest register which was taken by a Miss SARAH CASTILLO who held some position with the Student Directorate of Cuba. [END QUOTE] Once again, this has nothing to do with the fantasy propounded by Connell & Co. that Oswald and Odio attended some of the same anti-Castro meetings. Further, while Mr. La Fontaine wants to cling to Mr. Steig's commentary to Hosty *now* (not in his book) he curiously omits mention of "a guest register which was taken by a Miss SARAH CASTILLO who held some position with the Student Directorate of Cuba." Why, as an investigative journalist, surely it must have occurred to Mr. La Fontaine that if a guest register were made available as a record of those who attended this meeting, surely it could provide the PROOF - not hearsay, not innuendo, not gossip, but PROOF - that Oswald and Odio had attended this meeting. And where is this PROOF, Mr. La Fontaine? Could the FBI have already checked this out and discovered that Odio and Oswald were not in attendance? We're waiting Mr. La Fontaine .... Your entire theory depends on this Mr. La Fontaine .... Mr. La Fontaine, are you there? ------------------------------------------------------------- Postscript: Sarah Castillo was indeed interviewed and - surprise! - no Oswald and no Odio on the guest register. Subsequent to this exchange, we've had guest appearances by a "Big Grey" and a "Dee Braxon" -- attacking yours truly and anyone else who did not like their book because of the factual errors and deceptions contained therein. Poor Ray and the Mare. Can't be taken seriously by their fellow journalists or the mainstream media, so they resort to posting insults to people who know better than to believe their garbage. > > > > > You ought to step back and ask yourself why they cannot come up with > > anything stronger than hearsay and misleading reports like the STEIG > > report. They only fool the gullible with this. > > This is another unsupported addertion Steven. It is a huge zero. No it isn't, Bobby. See above. > > > > > > > > > > > Silvia Odio, whom you have claimed to believe was a very reliable witness, > > > told both her psychiatrist and her then best friend Mrs. Connell, that she > > > saw Oswald at these meetings. > > No comment, Steven? > > Do you really intend to just ignore the most critical part of this > controversy and then go on blithely asserting that "there is no > evidence"?? There is no evidence of multiple Odio/Oswald meetings. Connell changed her story when interviewed by the HSCA and Einspruch believed Odio saw Oswald *once*. > > > > > > > She also told Father Machann that Oswald was present at a meeting that > > > included Eugenio Cisneros, one of her partners in gun running. > > No comment again? > > But you just said there was "no evidence". I guess reports by the Secret > Service don't qualify as evidence, huh. This isn't eveidence of multiple Odio/Oswald meetings, Bob. Read it closely. > > > > > > > I really thought you knew all this Steven. Why do you continue to make > > > this obviously, false statement that there is "no evidence"? > > > > > > There is no evidence of multiple Odio/Oswald meetings. > > Of course there is - you just continue to ignore it. No, there isn't. You need to produce it, if you keep asserting that there is. Neither you, nor the La Fontaines have been able to do so because none exists. > > You learned a long time ago, how silly it sounds trying to argue that > Einspruch, Griffin, Connell, Machann, etc. were all full of it, so you > decided to just arbitrarily claim that "there is no evidence":-) I never said *they* were full of it, though I might have said you and the La Fontaines were. :-) > > What is sad, is that you probably now think you have a winning strategy:-) I base my beliefs on *evidence* not hearsay, rumor and innuendo. The La Fontaines can have you and the HARD COPY or CURRENT AFFAIR crowd, though. :-) Wonder if they've approached The National Enquirer? Bet there's a buck or two to be made there, Bob! STEVE "I think that it is fair to say, and certainly reflects my feeling, and it was certainly the feeling that I had of all of my colleagues, that we were determined, if we could, to prove that the FBI was wrong, to find a conspiracy if we possibly could. I think we thought we would be national heroes in a sense if we could find something that showed that there had been something sinister beyond what appeared to have gone on." -- Burt Griffin