UNDERSTANDING
SILVIA ODIO
by
Steve N. Bochan
UNDERSTANDING SILVIA ODIO:
WHAT THE LA FONTAINES DON'T TELL YOU
by
Steve N. Bochan
In their long awaited book, OSWALD TALKED, Ray and Mary La Fontaine devote
an entire chapter to Silvia Odio. Unfortunately, there is so much that
is misleading and erroneous about their treatment of Odio, it makes one wonder
if the rest of the book is as egregiously inaccurate. The only other book
that I can recall in a similar vein was CASE CLOSED. Both books made
me angry enough to hurl them once or twice across the room because I knew
that the author(s) knew better than what passed for their honest appraisal
of the evidence. But in this instance, the disappointment matched the
level of my anger and stung me: I thought the La Fontaines were good
journalists! I loved their piece titled, "The Fourth Tramp" on the Elrod
matter that appeared in The Washington Post two summers ago. (1) It was original,
and it seemed to be backed by startling new evidence. How could they have
gone so wrong then on Silvia Odio, when so much of the official source documentation
was readily available to them? Was journalistic integrity displaced
by sensationalism, all in an effort to sell a new book on the assassination
by adding a new twist to old evidence?
Rather than dissect the various and sundry errors in the chapter, point-by-point,
I will deal with the first one which also happens to be the linchpin of their
entire theory on Odio and, unfortunately for the La Fontaines, is so intolerable
that it destroys the remainder of their convoluted fantasy regarding Silvia
Odio and the assassination. They need to go back to the drawing board
- or at least review the primary source documents - and do some serious research
on Silvia Odio, lest they be accused of malicious rumor mongering. They might
even try interviewing her in person, but after the way they treated her in
the book, I doubt that this living witness (a member of a group where membership
is declining with each passing year) will be very cooperative with any future
endeavor to shed more light on the JFK assassination.
Let's start at the beginning . . .
When I saw that Silvia Odio had rated an entire chapter (Chapter 9, "It
Takes a Woman to Know") in OSWALD TALKED, I eagerly turned to that chapter.
But my heart sank quickly when I read the first sentence:
How do we know that Oswald attended anti-Castro meetings in Dallas during
the fall of 1963?
"How do we know" is right. I didn't know that we did know! Where is
the evidence for this? In all the years since the assassination, whenever
this erroneous story about Oswald (and Odio) attending anti-Castro meetings
surfaces, no one has ever come forward to substantiate it with any witnesses
who had seen them at these alleged meetings, or any other type of corroborative
evidence that any such meetings ever occurred with Oswald and Odio present.
That is, however, until the La Fontaines offered their "new evidence" that
Oswald attended such meetings by repeating this uncorroborated (and untrue)
story and then, amazingly, claimed that it was Silvia Odio who told this lie.
They continue:
Well, a female witness - termed "credible" even by J. Lee Rankin, general
counsel of the Warren Commission - let the matter out more than three decades
ago. Remarkably, no one has appeared to notice as yet, possibly blinded by
the klieg lights of her other, more sensational, assertions. To this
day, the latter have comprised an important structural prop for conspiracy
arguments, and continue to generate enthusiastic assessments of the witness's
reliability. Anthony Summers has called her claims "the strongest human
evidence" [of a conspiracy], HSCA investigator Gaeton Fonzi remains "absolutely
convinced" she was telling the truth, and -no!- the angelic Sylvia Meagher,
mistress of reason and noblest spirit ever to examine the Kennedy conundrum,
titled the exposition of her tale "the proof of the plot." But with
both new and overlooked information at hand, the flashy old tale suddenly
looks very much like an invention, proving only that even the Divine may (though
very seldom) err, like mere human scribblers.
It is important to note that Rankin considered Odio a credible witness -
that is true - as did Wesley Liebeler late in the summer of 1964, when he
warned Rankin that: 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.
(2)
However, it needs to be emphasized that it is absolutely untrue that Silvia
Odio told anyone that she knew Oswald because he attended several anti-Castro
meetings. The fact is that "credible" Silvia has always denied ever
saying this. (3) The La Fontaines have created a straw man by bringing it
up, and then they make it worse by accusing her of making it up.
The two people the La Fontaines try to use to corroborate this outrageous
tale, always denied by Odio, do exactly the opposite: they refute it - although
you won't read that in the Odio chapter in OSWALD TALKED. (In fact,
after reading Chapter 9, you might feel a more appropriate title for the book
might have been "SILVIA TALKED.") Nevertheless, the simple truth is that
Dr. Burton Einspruch, her psychiatrist, and her jealous ex-best friend Lucille
Connell help destroy the tale that Silvia is alleged to have told, and this
is where the confusion begins for some.
As most students of the JFK assassination know, Odio has always denied ever
saying that she knew Oswald from several anti-Castro meetings in Dallas.
She denied telling her ex-best friend Lucille Connell this, and she denied
telling her psychiatrist Dr. Burton Einspruch this. Additionally, the
evidence on record from these two supports the fact that Silvia Odio never
said this, to wit:
1). Lucille Connell did not recall Odio telling this tale of Oswald
and Odio at several anti-Castro meetings to the FBI when interviewed by Gaeton
Fonzi in 1976. In fact when asked if Silvia Odio had told her that she
had heard Oswald speak at a meeting, Connell replied, "I really don't recall
her telling me that. I just recall that Oswald came to her apartment
and wanted to get her involved in some way." (4)
2). While under oath and answering a question about the Oswald visit
to Odio's apartment, Dr. Einspruch expresses his doubt that Odio really saw
the person we know as Lee Harvey Oswald, based on her ONE TIME experience
at her apartment:
EINSPRUCH: No. I don't think it was something she had just casually
fabricated. But I retained just my own, you know, personal doubt, like
I would even at this moment, that a mistake could have been made with a one
time kind of experience that she had with him [Oswald] under those circumstances.
Now, if she had said that she had seen him a couple of times, then I would
feel stronger about it. (5)
Dr. Einspruch, under oath, suggests that IF Odio had seen Oswald "a couple
of times" then he would feel stronger about her ability to identify Oswald
at her apartment. Doesn't this testimony, under oath, coming from someone
who probably knew Odio better than anyone else, demolish any notion that Odio
saw Oswald at any other time, let alone at anti-Castro rallies where presumably
other witnesses could have also seen them there? Why would Dr. Einspruch,
under oath, say such a thing (that Odio had only seen Oswald once) if he
believed she had seen Oswald previously at several anti-Castro meetings in
Dallas?
Instead of using all of this evidence which is on the record and available
to the public at the National Archives II at College Park, Maryland, the La
Fontaines chose to selectively excerpt from a memo written by WC investigator
Griffin on 4/16/64. In that memo, he asserts that Einspruch related
a story of Odio seeing "Oswald at more than one anti-Castro Cuban meeting."
This might be interesting except for two things which are immediately apparent
from reading the entire memo in context: 1) the memo never quotes Dr. Einspruch
directly and, 2) it is obvious that either Einspruch or Griffin (or both)
are confusing these alleged meetings, with the "one time kind of experience"
at Silvia's house with her sister Annie present. How could this be?
Two things come to mind.
First, had the La Fontaines not relied exclusively on only the weakest evidence
that, when taken alone, *appears* to support their erroneous theory that Odio
is a liar, they would have realized that the two people Griffin claims told
him about Silvia seeing Oswald at the alleged anti-Castro meetings, both
later either denied saying or negated the notion entirely as noted above.
The 4/16/64 Griffin memo is all secondhand information that never quotes
Dr. Einspruch directly. Instead, Griffin paraphrases constantly and
worse, he seems confused and "infers" what he thinks his witness really means
rather than following-up with a direct question to the witness (Einspruch).
In fact, on the very issue of the alleged anti-Castro meetings and a remark
about the term "inflammatory" made by Dr. Einspruch, Griffin opines that:
"The term 'inflammatory' is Dr. Einspruch's and he could not clearly indicate
what it was that Oswald had said. In fact, I got the impression these
comments were pro-Castro." (6)
In other words, WC attorney Griffin is now actually interpreting things
rather than simply quoting directly from his witness, and he fails to discuss
what it was that gave him "the impression these comments were pro-Castro."
(What comments? Einspruch couldn't "clearly indicate what it was that Oswald
said.")
Second, and perhaps more importantly, the La Fontaines describe Griffin
as one of the WC attorneys who was left out of the loop and not informed
on matters such as Jack Ruby. (7) If that is true, then it would follow to
ask why the La Fontaines would use a document from someone whom they claim
was uninformed, to support their theory that Odio said she knew Oswald from
anti-Castro meetings? (It is true they say that Griffin was uninformed
on Ruby, but Ruby is part of the Silvia Odio matter as we will see in a moment.)
Parenthetically, in the same paragraph they discuss Griffin, the La Fontaines
write that Leon D. Hubert, another WC attorney, resigned from the WC investigation
"in frustration." Hubert and Griffin were the two attorneys who were
aggressively looking into Ruby's past and apparently were being kept in the
dark about many things. The problem is, after reading the La Fontaine
book, you never find out just how much in the dark they really were, or how
much in the dark the La Fontaines really are about the Silvia Odio incident.
******
In order to understand how Odio came to the FBI's attention in the first
place and how the reported actions of Jack Ruby led them, albeit circuitously,
to her, we have to examine the statements of Silvia Odio's ex-best friend,
Lucille Connell.
From Gaeton Fonzi's April 5, 1976 memo to Dave Marston, the following:
Connell says that she was speaking on the telephone with a friend of hers
who was secretary in a law office when Oswald was shot. "We both had our television
on," she recalls, "and saw Ruby shoot Oswald. And she said to me, "Oh
my goodness, Ruby was in our office last week and had power of attorney drawn
for his sister." (8)
Connell was speaking to her friend, Mrs. Sanford Pick, who worked for attorney
Graham R.E. Koch in Dallas. (9) The La Fontaines reference Koch on page
216 in another chapter titled, "You Don't Know Me" and unfortunately miss
the connection to Odio, although they do understand the significance of Ruby
wanting to set up the power of attorney. However, they write (as does Seth
Kantor in his book) that the power of attorney was to be with his attorney
Koch - not his sister:
Ruby's chief concern now would be in making the [Oswald] shooting look a
spur-of-the-moment matter so he could be back out in the street as soon as
possible and reap the rewards of being a popular hero. He already had
the perfect reason for being in the same block as the police station by going
on a legitimate errand to the Western Union office there [to wire the money
to Little Lynn]. Next he would need a reason for the gun. He stuffed
nine $100 bills, 30 $10 bills, 40 $20 bills and a number of smaller bills
into a pocket. It was supposed to be the federal excise tax money Ruby owed.
By carrying it with him, he created an understandable reason under Texas
law to pack the gun, too, even though he had no license to carry any hidden
weapon. But the excise tax payment story is phony. Only five days earlier
he had signed the power-of-attorney in the office of his tax lawyer, Gragham
Koch, granting Koch the right to negotiate with the IRS for an extended time
period to make those federal tax payments. There is no logical reason
for Ruby to be carrying all that money, except to establish an alibi.
The La Fontaines use Seth Kantor for this information but, ironically, even
though they had spoken with Fonzi over the past few years before writing their
book, no mention is made of how this part of Ruby's story led the FBI to
Silvia Odio. (10) In fact, the La Fontaines, in describing the deteriorated
friendship between Odio and Connell after the assassination, erroneously state
that:
Lucille Connell called the FBI on the heels of her conversation with Silvia.
(pp. 257)
This is completely misleading. It was the FBI that called Connell
- not the other way around - and it was after they spoke with Connell, and
Connell eventually bringing up the Oswald visit to Odio's apartment, that
Odio entered the picture.
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 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.
End of Page
Copyright 1998-2006
Cuban Information Archives. All Rights Reserved.
