source. Few will know the origin is a certified madman!

So, as the Garrison story was hurting the bitter-enders, the Odio story, the origin of its counterpart, hurt the Commission and the FBI.

What can we know of the men in the story of The False Oswald? To begin with, what descriptions are available of them.

In an unsigned FBI Miami office report of September 26, 1964, in which there is no reference to the identity of the agent or agents who conducted the investigation and of whose report or reports this is but a summary paraphrase, Celio Sergio Castro Alba is described in a tabulation as about 33 years of age, 5' 9" tall, weighing about 160 pounds, with black hair, brown eyes, medium complexion, and with "no beard or mustache as of September, 1963."

Here, abruptly, the report and the description end. Originally they did not. Someone edited this evidence. The Xeroxed copy I have clearly shows that a piece of paper was laid over the bottom of the page tight up against the last line quoted above and going down to the number "5," indicating this is the fifth page of the report. The bottom of the overlaid piece of paper was not cut straight. The slight graceful curve made by the snipping scissors is clearly reproduced by the Xeroxing process, as is the straight cut at the top.

There is space for a half-dozen additional lines of typing;

It is possible that someone played a little game with history, obliterating part of the report just to entrance and intrigue those who in the future might have serious interest in it. Thus, it is possible that the editing was a "joke," or perhaps a little of the 'sloppiness" by which defenders of the government's investigation seek to excuse its error. But it is also possible that information vital to any subsequent investigation was removed by this game. Comparison of the tabulation in which the Castro Alba description is set forth with others reveals that, in this series of reports alone, the FBI gives a minimum of ten items and up to eighteen. The only other description with fewer than twelve categories is, again no doubt coincidence, that of Castro Alba, obtained from Lawrence Howard in Los Angeles on September 20, 1964. All of the other descriptions contain such identification items as "Peculiarities," "Characteristics," "Scars and marks," and "Tattoos."

When FBI Agent Leon F. Brown interviewed Loran Eugene Hall in Johnsondale, California, on September 16, 1964, he got the information Hoover sent the Commission to use in its already completed Report. Brown gave a five-star performance of a farce entitled "How the FBI Investigates a Presidential Assassination Without Really Trying" -- but no description of Castro Alba or William Seymour. He did not use those fabled powers of observation and description of all the heroic FBI. In fact, he did not even hurry. He dictated his report the next day and then did not get it typed for a week. This, remember, is the only part of the Report that was "incomplete" at press time, the only noted continuing investigation (R324). That Hoover hall some idea of Brown's investigation we know from the September 21 summary he rushed the Commission by courier (26H834-6), of the report that was not typed until two days later, September 23! (The finished Report was handed to the President September 24.)

Is this what is known as "The Hoover Magic"?

The "synopsis" of this series of reports says that Hall was "reinterviewed and advises that information furnished by him on 9/16/64 was incorrect and was furnished by error." This is another of the FBI codes. Reading the "reinterview" reveals an FBI effort -- and a very strong effort -- to get Hall to do that. The language of the second report is calculated to give this impression. But the content? Hall actually reaffirmed almost all of the information and added detail! This tremendous FBI dedication to truth and fact leads to unforeseen and, because these reports were secret, unreported complications. Hoover's report to the Commission was on September 21. The Hall reinterview was the day before. We know that the FBI does not train its agents to use telephone book that such cases as that of the mysterious Dallas colonel tells us. But is Hoover the only one in the FBI who can use the telephone? Could not Brown or his Los Angeles boss, if they made a mistake on such central evidence, get on the phone to Washington (it costs only a dollar al night) and say, "Sorry, boss, Hall told us wrong. Here's the real scoop?" No less perplexing is the fact that this reinterview was typed the same day as the first, September 23. In short, if the first was wrong (and in essence it was not), the written version need never have been wrong and the Commission need never have been "misinformed."

Brown makes us wonder how Baby-face Nelson dared dream of a life of crime. With Hall right in front of him, Brown asked him to describe himself and gave Hall's description of Hall, not his own. He wrote, "HALL furnished the following physical description of himself on September 19, 1964." This, even for the FBI, is a fantastic demonstration of occult powers. On September 16 Brown obtained and on September 17 he dictated a description of Hall that Hall did not provide until two days later, September 19. If it is not Hoover's magic, it is somebody's!

FBI Agent Harry H. Whidbee hall the same self-confidence when he interviewed Lawrence John Howard on September 20, 1964, at Los Angeles. He also asked for a self-description. His words are, "LAWRENCE HOWARD furnished the following description of himself." If Howard gave descriptions of Hall and Seymour, Whidbee did not consider them worth bothering others with. After all, this was only the single unfinished part of the investigation of the murder of a President, and these only its central characters, so why bother them or Washington?

Whidbee is less of a streamliner than Special Agent Calvin W. Evans, for when Evans interviewed Seymour in Phoenix on September 18, he got -- or at least in his report he gave -- descriptions of not a single one of the others. Whidbee did get from Howard a description of "Cellios Albas": 35 years old, 6'10", 160 pounds, light brown hair, dark brown eyes, dark complexion, and with but a single "characteristic," "speaks little English." That, aside from race, sex and nationality, is the entire FBI description of the wrongly identified Castro Alba, except for this that in the body of his report Brown quotes Hall as saying: " 'Wahito' (Castro Alba's nickname, also given as 'Quarito') has an extremely dark complexion."

The two available descriptions of the one man are very close in age, height and weight. This would be true of a rather large percentage of men of similar ages and sizes. It is on the points of identification that the FBI gives us confusion. It describes this single man, of whom it has pictures, as at the same time having both "black" and "light brown" hair and a "medium" and a "dark" complexion.

The Brown description of Hall (perhaps because it came from Hall) includes more information than the unnamed Miami agents recorded about Castro Alba: Hall's "anti-CASTRO name" is Lorenzo Pascillo. He is 5' 11½", weighed 200 pounds when interviewed, 215 at the time Mrs. Odio was visited, is large, with black hair and hazel eyes, with a dark complexion, and "has worn mustache since 1960; hall full beard in September 1963." No other tabulated description of Hall is in any of these reports.

Howard is described by Whidbee as 29 years old (close to Hall's estimate of 27 or 28), 6'11" (exactly what Hall said), weighing "222 pounds (200 in September 1963)," against Hall's 235 figure, with "black, wavy" hair (Hall correctly said "black"), with a "medium olive" complexion (Hall said "dark"), and with these distinguishing features: "mustache, hall beard in September 1963, speaks English fluently and also Spanish fluently" and "fat." Whidbee omitted Howard's alias. Hall said it was "Alonzo Escurido." Nobody gave Castro Alba's.

To Evans, who had as much self-assurance as the other agents, "SEYMOUR furnished the following description" of himself: 27 years old, 5'6' 150 pounds, blue eyes, "brown-curly" hair, with no visible scars and marks and a "USN" tattoo on his left bicep. He is single.

In the reports, comments of these men about each other add to either the descriptions or the needless confusion, for the FBI could have been precise in its description of each and have presented no misinformation at all. It saw each of the men and it hall pictures of them.

Castro Alba said Hall "speaks very little Spanish " Hall said Hall "speaks Spanish fluently," but not the Cuban dialect.

Of Seymour, Hall said he was 25 or 26, 5'9" or 5'10', 155 to 160 pounds and "slender," with light hair and blue eyes."

Of himself Hall said he is taken for a Mexican. Howard, he said, is of Mexican descent. Of both, he "emphasized" they "wore full beard at the time."

If we combine these descriptions of themselves by the men in the story of The False Oswald, we find that Hall is: 34 years old, 5' 11½" tall, weighs 200 pounds (but 216 in September 1963), with black hair, hazel eyes, a dark complexion, has worn a mustache since 1960 and in September 1963 hall a full beard. He speaks English fluently but is also said to speak little Spanish.

Howard is 29 (or 27 or 28), weighs 222 pounds (200 in September 1963, or 235), with black, wavy hair, medium olive complexion (or dark), is fat, and had a beard and mustache in September 1963. He also is fluent in Spanish. He and Hall look like Mexicans.

Seymour: 27 years old (or 25 or 26), 5'6" (or 5'9" or 5'10"), weighs 150 pounds (or 155-160), with blue eyes, brown curly hair (or light hair), and is slender, speaking little Spanish.

Castro Alba: 33 years old (or 35), 5'9" (or 5'10"), weighs 160 pounds, has black hair (or light brown), brown eyes (or dark brown), is of a medium complexion (or dark, or extremely dark), and speaks little English.

These descriptions, while conflicting, are actually more alike than most in the Commission's evidence. In size and age, if not in distinguishing characteristics, they are quite close.

What did Sylvia Odio say of the two men who visited her with "Leon" Oswald? and whom she had seen in the hallway only briefly through the barely cracked and still-chained door?

The one whose fictitious name she seemed to recall as "Leopoldo" was "the tall one" and drove the car (11H372), either he or "Angelo" had "very thick hair" (11H383), had a mustache (11H388), and either he or Angelo "was very hairy" (11H371).

"Angelo" (11H370) was "on the heavy side," may have had "very thick hair," may have worn glasses part of the time (11H384) (which none of these men was asked by the FBI), was shorter, "very Mexican looking . . . lots of thick hair and lots of hair on his chest" (which is ignored about all the men in the FBI reports, although it can be a distinguishing feature), weighs about 170 pounds, and "had the strange complexion" (11H387).

In more general comment, she said "one of them was very hairy" (11H371); one was near 40 (11H377); they were "greasy looking" and "more like Mexicans than Cubans" according to the May 6, 1964, letter of the Secret Service Chief James J. Rowley in which we have additional interest.

Of the things they said of themselves, she recalled, "we represent the revolutionary council" (11H371), with the lower case letters rather than capitals used by the editor or stenographer, although there is a well-known anti-Castro organization of that name; "we have just come from New Orleans" (11H372); "I had the feeling they were leaving for Puerto Rico or Miami" (11H372) and from the Rowley letter, "they were going to make a trip."

Her description of "Leon" Oswald is in several respects, almost word for word the same as Russo used two and a half years later: he had a mustache or had not shaved recently and was "disgusting looking" because of his dark beard and unkempt appearance (these are the precise words of the Rowley report); "he hall not shaved" (11H371); "his hair was not so cut that day" (11H389), compared with pictures of the real Oswald; "he looks shaved here and he had not shaved that day" (11H386); "it is that unshaved thing that got me that day" (11H386); "though she thinks it was Lee Harvey Oswald, it may not have been" (26H837); "I have a feeling that there are certain pictures that do not resemble him. It was not the Oswald that was standing in front of my door" (11H388).

It cannot be said that Mrs. Odio gave descriptions identical with those later given of the men who had visited her. It can be said that they are much closer than the vague words of Howard Leslie Brennan in what was later touted into a description of Oswald. It is much closer than the "description" broadcast by the Dallas police and alleged to be that of the "assassin," (11H372) and, from the Rowley letter, "they were going o make a trip." These the Commission accepted without trouble or pangs of conscience. In fact, Congressman Ford eulogizes Brennan as the Commission's "most important"witness. Unlike Mrs. Odio, who was badgered, Brennan was kid-gloved, cajoled and rehearsed. By the standard with which the Commission judged its "friendly" witnesses, Mrs. Odio's descriptions are those of these men.

All the distinguishing characteristics that were lacking in "descriptions" the Commission accepted and used as basic to its conclusions are present here. To the degree that Mrs. Odio can be checked, they are accurate or reasonable. Where they cannot be checked, it is because the Commission and the FBI fell so far short of the minimum requirements, as in having no pictures of any of the men when they were available, or in not having Mrs. Odio confront them, when this had been within federal power to arrange by merely starting not in its last month to find them but in the first.

Also, it is important to note that some of the things she said are opposite to what would be expected. These men who said they represented the JURE and the Cuban Revolutionary Council she said did not look like Cubans but like Mexicans.. That is true of Hall and Howard, as they themselves declare. She said they were on a trip, as indeed they were. It is interesting, also, that Liebeler made no effort to encourage her recollection of what might have been consistent with an October trip, when they went to Florida with a load of munitions and drugs. She had the impression from something they said they were going that way, and in October.

No effort was made to get her thinking about the false names the men used. Remember, when all this happened to Mrs. Odio, who was beset by more than one woman's share of problems, she never expected to be called upon to give testimony about it. Remember also that Liebeler and the Commission delayed her testimony until the very end, did not call her early, as she should have been. For eight months, while she was, as human beings do, forgetting, she was also being badgered. "Leopoldo," as the government knew, is not a common Cuban name. Hall's false name was somewhat similar to that, "Lorenzo." Yet Liebeler did not once ask her -- nor did any agent who ever interviewed her -- "Could It have been 'Lorenzo?"'

Or, remember the captain at the New Orleans training camp, where the men were preparing for an attack on Cuba, the camp the FBI raided and captured a large store of munitions? His name is "Leovino." Could "Leovino" have been one of Mrs. Odio's visitors?

She was less clear about the second man, seeming to recall his "war name" as "Angelo." Hall, not Howard, gave the FBI Howard's "war name." It is "Alonzo."

Is it not remarkable that with one chance in 26 of getting the correct first letter of the "war name" of either correct if she were making it up, Mrs. Odio got the correct one for both?

J. Edgar Hoover suggested to the Commission, "you will note the name Loran Hall bears some phonetic resemblance to the name Leon Oswald" (26H835). He did not compare and did not suggest comparison between "Lee Harvey Oswald" and "Loran Eugene Hall." But if this is a valid basis for drawing conclusions, how much more is there in favor of the refugee woman, Mrs. Odio, compared with the fabled head of the FBI, in favor of "Lorenzo" versus "Leopoldo" and "Alonzo" versus "Angelo?"

Mrs. Odio was right on the heights of the men, including Seymour if, in spite of his alibi, he was the third man. She was right on the weight and height relationship between Hall and Howard. She was right about Howard being fat. She was right about one of the men nearing 40 if one was Castro Alba. She was right about their complexions. She was right about mustaches (we cannot tell about "thick hair" because the FBI reports, written and coming from interviews long after her testimony and interrogations, avoided this as they did with hairy chests). She was right about their coming from New Orleans. She was right about their making a trip. She was right about their being bearded and having an unkempt appearance. She was right about the Mexican-Americans looking like Mexicans. She was right, they were not Cubans.

Russo's testimony covers the same time period. What he said is exactly what Mrs. Odio said about "Leon" Oswald, the name by which each had been introduced to this person who could not have been the real Lee Harvey Oswald. She used almost exactly the same words in commenting on the "Leon" Oswald she saw as Russo used.

Those who had known Oswald and were called upon for comment were consistent in their descriptions of his personal appearance. He was always neat and clean.

In all I have read about him, in the pictures I have studied, I cannot recall ever seeing him unshaven or his hair or clothing in disarray. No one else, to my knowledge, has commented on it, but the day of the assassination he hall a stubble. This is because he overslept what the Commission tells us was his rendezvous with destiny. With about five minutes to dress and catch his ride with Buell Wesley Frazier, he had had no time to shave.

The shirt in which he was arrested, after all he went through in it, after a half-day at work, was neat and clean. I have made an extensive study of this shirt. It is not malodorous, it is not soiled.

Russo's testimony, therefore, raised questions in New Orleans, where Oswald hall this same reputation for careful personal appearance. Neil Sanders wrote about it in the States-Item of March 25:

New Orleanians who knew Lee Harvey Oswald when he last lived there are mystified by the ill-kempt unshaven picture draws of him by witnesses in the Garrison investigation. They remember the accused assassin of President John F. Kennedy as a great dresser who was always clean shaven.

*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*

Russo said he recognized Oswald as the man in Ferrie's apartment only after the district attorney's office touched up photographs of him by adding; a five-day beard and disheveled hair. But Oswald's landlady Mrs. J. J. Garner of 4911 Magazine, said she saw Oswald several times during September and he was always clean shaven and neatly dressed.

I never remember him needing a shave," she said. "He was always neat, certainly not sloppy."

*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*	*

But the owner of a garage next door to the coffee plant where Oswald worked said he was him nearly every day during June and more than half of July and he never needed a shave.

"As a rule, he wore a clean T-shirt and khaki pants with creases like razor blades said Adrian Thomas Alba, operator of the Crescent City Garage, 418 Magazine.

Sanders asks the obvious question: Are they "talking about the same" Oswald?

Those who have studied the Commission's evidence, those who know the descriptions given of Oswald, for example, and unquestioningly accepted by the Commission, know that in no case is there a witness who gave as much description, as many distinguishing characteristics, as many fine points of any kind, as Mrs. Odin did. Unlike the Commission's "friendly" witnesses, she was not briefed, not asked the kinds of questions that lead to the desired answers. She rendered this remarkable performance over haggling, needling and ridicule, over opposition, and without knowing anything that would ultimately turn up after her testimony and ten months after she saw the man.

Imagine how close to perfect her record could have been if the FBI had not been playing a child's game of cops and robbers in its disgraceful sham of an investigation of the Hall-Howard-Seymour-Castro Alba gambit -- if they had acted as though they really cared and were really investigating the foul murder of a President -- if they had had meaningful descriptions of the men, had really questioned them -- and if she had had a chance to see them or contemporaneous pictures of them -- which the FBI had and did not use! (see Whitewash 11 chapter 7)

Others saw those who might or might not have been some of these men -- others in New Orleans and at approximately the time about which Russo testified. The close parallel with Mrs. Odin's descriptions is striking in Whitewash (chapter 11) I tell the story of "Oswald's" classic drunk in the Habana Bar and Lounge at 117 Decatur Street. Orest Pena, a naturalized American and former FBI informant on what he took to be pro-Castro activity, owns it. His brother Ruperto, who describes himself as pro-Batista, and Evaristo Rodriguez, work for Orest. Bringuier's store and headquarters are close by, at 107 Decatur Street.

There is much to indicate this drunkard with the spectacular illness was not the genuine Lee Harvey Oswald. Oswald drank infrequently. The Commission turned up no evidence he ever got drunk. Also, this one was tied on (after a head start) beginning between 2:30 and 3:00 A.M. and long after Marina had joined him in New Orleans. It is not likely she would have been unaware of either his nocturnal absence or his illness. According to the May 15, 1964, report of FBI Agent Stephen M. Callander, Rodriguez placed the hour at between 3:30 and 4:00 a.m. and the time in September, which is consistent with Russo's testimony and the possibility of the same man being in Dallas at the time to which Mrs. Odin testified.

The drunken counterfeit Oswald and his unidentified companion entered the bar and ordered a tequila and a lemonade. The compounding of lemonades exceeded Evaristo's technical skill. He consulted Orest, who told him to sprinkle lemon flavoring in water and charge a quarter for it. "Oswald's" companion thereupon made conspicuous and unnatural cracks about the ownership of the emporium 'being vested in a man who, from his prices, must be one of the less desirable "imperialists" or "capitalists" (11H341). (This is astoundingly like what a man who looked like and gave his name as Lee Harvey Oswald but, according to the Commission, could not have been, did in an automobile agency in Dallas, where he also was remembered for his crack about "I might as well be back In Russia." It is, like the nasty observations at Pena's, the least likely thing for Oswald to have done and the most obvious thing for a counterfeit wanting to be remembered to do.) If all this -- the insults, politics and (shudder!) the "lemonade" -- did not attract sufficient attention, a nonstop vomit from and on the table, across the floor and cascading into the street did. It all worked. It is remembered vividly.

Rodriguez noted of the second man that he was a, Mexican, about 28 years old, 5'8" tall, weighing about 155 pounds, and having very hairy arms (11H341) another characteristic not mentioned in the series of reports on Seymour, Hall and Howard. Of "Oswald" he noted, as did everyone else, the receding hairline (11H343). Orest was of similar recollection. His portrayal is strikingly like Andrews's description of the "Mexicano" who could go to "fist city."

What were Hall, Howard and Seymour up to?

Inferring from their own account, albeit as filtered by the FBI, they were training Cubans for the invasion of Cuba, collecting money, arms, medicines and at least one boat for this purpose, making speeches, doing some of the gun-running themselves, and getting away with it.

As I pointed out earlier, this was illegal and against declared national policy. There was CIA support for and direction of these activities at this time and may have been a little later, but it was counter to President Kennedy's anti-invasion pledge that was part of the solution to the Cuban missile crisis. It is no secret that the CIA supervised the training of Cubans within the United States for such adventures. It is also no secret that ordinary citizens do not successfully engage in openly illegal activities that might compromise the national government unless they have at least covert support. In this field, that was provided by the protection and approval of the CIA.

From the internal evidence of the files, it seems that of this band Hall was the leader and the speaker, the money, munitions and, if they really had any, the drug-raiser. He also seems to have had least to do with training. When they were in Dallas, he did the arranging, saw those who were to be seen and, if the others are to be believed, the only one who knew who was to be seen and what was to be done.

To understand them, what they were up to, how they fit into the story of the assassination and of Oswald in New Orleans, and to get a better understanding of the nature of the so called investigation, we should examine the primitive reports that would not have earned Orest Pena passing grades in the correspondence course he took in detective work.

Assuming they made no honest mistakes and told no lies, the accounts are consistent with Mrs. Odin's Commission testimony and Russo's in New Orleans. These men were in Dallas "in the latter part of September," according to Hall. They were also in Dallas in October, for Hall and Seymour were arrested October 17 on a dangerous-drug charge. Hall said "that he recalled visiting Dallas five times during 1963," in January, April, June, September and October. With something more of an investigation and interrogation and with less knowledge and assurance that nothing would happen to him, Hall's memory and that of the others might have been sharper.

We lack background on the others but have a little on Hall. He claims to have fought with Castro and to have defected, then, in the United States, to have (to whom is carefully omitted) "offered to obtain medical supplies and funds to 'support a small invasion group.'" This is revealed not in Brown's interrogation of Hall but in Whidbee's report on Howard. Hall was caught later in October running guns. Howard knew about it and referred to the incident without revealing what had happened. Whidbee and the FBI, having all the evidence available, likewise and with delicacy, made no reference to it. It served Whidbee's purpose to quote Howard. That gentleman holds Hall as "basically responsible for having destroyed the effort which HOWARD, SEYMOUR and others of the invasion group had made to effect a successful invasion of Cuba. HOWARD said that HALL is a 'scatterbrain, unreliable, emotionally disturbed and an egotistical liar." Why did Howard have this low opinion of Hall, the very last thing -- the dramatic thing -- in Whidbee's report?

For that we have tp consult not Hall, not Howard, not the agents who interviewed them. Evans reserved that for the end of his report on his Seymour interview:

SEYMOUR explained that the trailer contained some arms which were destined for the anti-Castro forces, but that HALL was caught with these arms near Key Largo, Florida, by the U.S. Customs Officials who confiscated them. HOWARD and SEYMOUR became disgusted with HALL and the way he "ran off at the mouth" when be was stopped.

The FBI always manages to find direct quotations for prejudicial opinion, never for fact. So Hall's crime is simple and dual: He got caught and he did what is expected of citizens caught in the commission of a crime. He cooperated with the government. On its part, the generous government contented itself with confiscating the munitions. Hall was turned loose.

In a September 20 reinterview, Hall said he seemed to recall that on the trip about which Mrs. Odio testified it was not Seymour but Castro Alba who was with him. "He recalls now that he left Los Angeles in his 1956 Oldsmobile, pulling a small trailer of supplies (how delicate is the FBI!), about the middle of September 1963." (Here we have the identification of a car associated with these men. Ruperto Pena saw two Mexican-looking men already involved in an incident at Pena's bar and in whom he knew the FBI was interested. He got the license number and, speaking no English, gave it to Bringuier, who telephoned the FBI office. Neither of these men was asked for this identification when Libeler questioned them. The identification appears in none of the FBI reports.) It took them two and half days to get to Dallas and they remained "about four days." He left the trailer and drove to Miami in three days. No reason for abandoning the trailer was given or sought by the FBI, nor was Hall asked with whom it was left and where, according to the report.

From the Hall accounting he returned to Dallas, leaving Miami in early October. The FBI gives a few dates. Its specification is reserved for assault on the man who confirmed Mrs. Odio's story, despite the faithless representation of what he said by the FBI. Seymour was with him. He was not asked if he had made any stops en route, such as in New Orleans. "They stayed at Dallas for six days during which time they were waiting for a contact with a U.S. citizen, who he declined to identify, concerning a boat."

Hoover may be interested in knowing his men are not so tough as Customs agents. Hall talked for Customs. Or is it that the FBI is tough, but not where the CIA is involved? Whatever the reason, the name of the American to have provided a boat is not given, if it was ever really demanded and insisted upon by the FBI, which is unlikely.

Part of the time they stayed "at the home of a Dallas resident, but . . . he could not identify this person as he is unwilling to bring any Americans into any account of his activities." Again, that great FBI respect for thieves' honor. No insistence. Not remarkably, this intelligence appears in none of the other reports.

Hall also said "when he and SEYMOUR were arrested at Dallas, Texas, he was interviewed by several different representatives of various federal intelligence agencies. He also said that his photograph had been taken several times while he was in custody, both by Polaroid and by a mug shot when he was seated behind a board which had numbers in it. SEYMOUR also was photographed. Both were fingerprinted. HALL also said that a Dallas resident had made available $5,000, which HALL put up for bail, and that they were released . . . told . . . by the prosecuting attorney, one Mr. WADE', that charges had been dropped . . . they left Dallas, taking the trailer which had been left on his previous trip through Dallas to Miami.

All that tough-guy stuff with which we have been regaled for years? A punk says he will not answer a question (if, indeed, any questions were asked -- and these reports do not reveal that any questions were asked) or that he prefers not to, and the FBI falls apart. They are content not to have answers, not to have names. Not the name of the man at the bank, not the name of the colonel, not the name of the man in whose home these characters stayed, not the name of the man who put up bail, not the name of the man who was to have provided an invasion boat. Picture of the mighty FBI cringing when a "scatterbrain," an "emotionally disturbed" man who is a "congenital liar," a "loud mouth, boisterous, filthy-talking" braggart says, "I donwanna !"

These G-men, apparently, did not see the right movies in their boyhoods .

So we do not know all these vital things, these names. And we do not have these pictures. The FBI had pictures. Not one is printed. Not one is available in the archives, despite the attorney general's order requiring it.

Who are the "several different representatives" of the "various federal intelligence agencies"? Where are the reports of these interrogations? Is there not space in 26 large volumes for these reports? The Commission was allegedly investigating the murder of a President. Mrs. Odio's experience was reported to the investigators almost immediately. But not one report of any one agent of any one federal intelligence agency surfaced? Not one of these agencies was checked to see if it had any data on these men? Nothing is more likely than the CIA, with what these men were doing. The CIA was one of the arms of the Commission. It had nothing in its files? But if there was no volunteered information, did not the FBI ask its brother investigators if they had any information at all?

Dallas District Attorney Henry Wade did not think of this on his own as soon as he heard Mrs. Odio's story? None of the arresting police remembered it? They never checked their own files? The FBI Dallas office never checked its own files, for the record of this arrest was filed there.

But the knowledge did not leave the FBI field office until after Rankin asked for additional information in his letter of August 28. Are we to assume that the same records did not exist in Washington? The Dallas FBI was on a first-name basis with all the top police brass, so they went to a minor clerk and accepted her statement she had no pictures of these men and then allowed her to conduct their further investigation, which also did not yield the pictures. The report that the police had no pictures is somebody's lie. The men themselves report the taking of both mug shots and Polaroids.

The men say Henry Wade told them the charges had been dropped after the unnamed "Dallas resident" put up the $5,000 Hall used for bail. But the knowledge did not leave the FBI office until after Rankin asked for ;additional inquiries in his letter of August 28, 1964.

Henry Wade tells me, "I have no recollection of ever having talked to either man." He confirms the arrest and had one of his investigators check it in the "records division of the Dallas Police Department." His office "has no records" of "any charges having been filed against either." This is not the same as having no records. And it is not a denial of Hall's statement that Wade, personally, told them the charges had been dropped. Wade says he has "no recollection." Who else can say whether he remembers?

The date of the arrest was October 17, 1963. Wade referred me to the police department.

The Dallas Police Department does not write letters. They took mine and stamped on it, "The files of the Dallas Police Department are confidential and cannot be released except to law enforcement agencies." The stamped signatures are those of Charles Batchelor, chief, and Captain George M. Doughty of the Identification Bureau.

Now, I did not ask for the "release" of these files. I asked for information that is generally public. Certainly there can be no secrecy over the fact of the arrest, for the District Attorney himself sent me that data from these very same files. Is it possible that bail records are secret?

Or is it possible the Dallas police have not changed after changing chiefs?

Who are all these people in all the many different federal and local agencies protecting? Not those arrested, for they speak of their arrest and the prosecuting official feels he can make this fact known without violation of law or their rights. If it is not for the protection of the men involved, who or what is being covered up?

Who was training Cubans in the United States for the invasion of Cuba, the activity in which both men were engaged at the time of their arrest? Who can violate laws, specifically the firearms and neutrality laws, with impunity? Who can involve the government in violation of its own declared policy and get away with it?

There is but one answer: The CIA.

Rather than destroying Sylvia Odio's story, though, the FBI actually reaffirms everything, with one exception: the presence of Seymour on the September trip. But if there was error in Hall's first FBI interview, and Seymour was not on that September trip and was on the October one, what happens to his alibi?

It is advanced by the FBI on the very first page of the Miami report. Seymour's employment by the Beach Welding and Supplies Company ended October 10, a week before his arrest in Dallas. He quit because his mother was sick and he had to go west to her. But, according to Hall, after October 17, Seymour was going east, back to Miami. Seymour himself told Evans that it was not until after Hall was caught running guns and made the undisclosed confession to the Customs service that he and Howard "returned to their homes."

Howard, in his statement to Whidbee, dated this in January 1964.

Also not subject to simple explanation -- neither the Commission nor the FBI attempt any -- are the extensive arrangements preparatory to the visit to Mrs. Odio. They were extraordinary. The briefing was elaborate and careful. These men told Mrs. Odio they were friends of her father. "They used the underground code word names of her father and mother and seemed very familiar with her family and conditions in Cuba" ( R6 ). This could hardly be accidental. These were total strangers who had been well prepared for whatever mission they were on.

"He gave me too many details about when they saw my father and what activities he was in, I mean they gave me almost incredible details about things that someone who knows him really would . . ."