26-10-2015, 10:00 AM
Peter Lemkin Wrote:Brian Castle Wrote:Yet another gay man in Oswald's life? What's your take Peter, was Oswald gay? Seems half the people in this story are gay somehow, or... let's see, Jack Ruby's roommate George Senator was a fixture in the Dallas gay scene for a very long time, then there's Rose Cheramie who says Ruby and Oswald were having a gay affair, then there's the whole business with Clay Shaw, there's David Ferrie, there's those two gay guys across the street at the Adolphus doing the revue, ... whole lot of gay vibe running through this story somehow. There must be an angle in here somewhere - I remember my dad telling me (who was in the oil business in Venezuela for a while), that in certain circles it was considered respectable for gay men to have girlfriends and wives and maintain as much of a normal life as possible. He said they called those people "bisexual", and I remember asking how you could be both at once, and he said "they're not really, they're just pretending". This was early 60's, yes? A lot of "that level of understanding" was going around.
I think you took the least important aspect of the talk to even comment about. No, I don't think Oswald was 'gay'. If he was bi or was involved in bi activity as part of his intelligence activities, I'm agnostic and find of very very very low priority. Yes, Ferrie and Shaw were gay and Ruby it is unclear if he was bi...but again, I fail to see how this is relevant or important. I'll spend no more time on this re-direction of an important talk. Garrison did not spend much time on this matter and he himself was wrongfully accused of being gay [and in close with the Mafia]. All kinds of techniques are used to assassinate people and derail the important facts.
Hm. Well, file it but don't forget about it. It's just another curious relationship that needs clarifying.
Meanwhile... Angelo Murgado does go out of his way to say that Leon was already present in Silvia Odio's apartment when he arrived with Leopoldo. Joan Mellen concludes that "Angelo had been betrayed by a man he thought he could trust" (Leopoldo, who was allegedly Bernardo de Torres). However this conclusion would seem to require more detail if Leon was already present when both men arrived. Mellen seems to indicate that all three men came to visit at once (she says Oswald "was introduced as" a man who could do anything), so either she got the story wrong or Murgado subsequently changed it.
Murgado's story is he ran across Oswald in New Orleans in the summer of '63, and the Silvia Odio visit took place on Sept 25. Murgado takes pains to point out that Oswald was already in the apartment but he offers no reason.
Mellen says:
Quote:Angelo Murgado and a fellow veteran of the Bay of Pigs, in September, were the men who traveled with Oswald from New Orleans to Dallas where they visited Sylvia Odio. (Mrs. Odio testified that the three traveled together although Angelo says that when he and Leopoldo, who drove from New Orleans together, arrived at Sylvia Odio's, Oswald was already there, sitting in the apartment. That "Leopoldo" and Angelo both knew Oswald, there is no doubt).
http://joanmellen.com/wordpress/kennedy-...PYmtr.dpuf
But Murgado's son says:
Quote:When my father went to meet with Silvia, he has assured me that Oswald was already in the apartment. The only reason Oswald was known to my father was the same way most of New Orleans new him... through the newspaper and other media outlets. Oswald if you remember was working very hard at getting himself noticed. My father says he never even shock hands with Oswald nor did he speak with him as his business was with Sylvia. At no time did my father have any type of association with Oswald besides this brief encounter.
http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKmurgado.htm
So here Murgado's son is specifically saying that Angelo Murgado did not know Oswald, and presumably he's offering this as the reason his father felt "betrayed" by Bernardo de Torres.
Mrs Odio suggested in testimony that all three men traveled together, however that could have been said out of fear.