[ Main Site Menu ] [ Back to Fonzi Menu ] [ Index to Site Documents ]

Steve N. Bochan


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."


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)
(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 1998-2014 Cuban Information Archives. All Rights Reserved.