Customer Reviews

Oswald Talked: The New Evidence in the JFK Assassination

5 star:		(10)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(29)

 

 

The La Fontaine's "Oswald Talked" is a confused and rambling work that is awash in speculation and innuendo and starving for hard facts. Having as its foundation the very shaky recollections of a troubled alcoholic, this poorly researched mess tries to weave a complicated scenario of Oswald working with Ruby, Oswald working for the CIA, for the FBI, infiltrating gun running groups, infiltrating Cuban groups. So carried away did the authors get in spinning this yarn that they failed to notice that much of their "damning evidence" is not new and has long since been discredited or was easily explained away by researchers upon the book's release. It's ironic that the authors had, before this book, helped to debunk one of the most enduring mysteries of the assassination, that of the Three Tramps/CIA operatives, and now find themselves (deservedly) a target of debunkers. Somewhere their presumably sharp journalistic skills deserted them, and they ended up producing this volume of bilge. Ignoring documented facts and historical events, yet failing to deliver with hard facts of its own, this book is a sorry product from a team of writers who present themselves as professional investigators.

I had high hopes for this book initially, but no book ever written on the JFK case has disappointed me as much as this one has. It is a complete shambles from start to finish.

Although the title creates an image of Oswald spilling his guts to a chronic drunkard in a Dallas jail cell, the truth is that the authors have not been able to produce any proof whatsoever that such an incident occurred, except for the befuddled ravings of a troubled man with a chronic alcohol problem. FBI reports of their interview with Elrod show that he was confused about the identity of an "unknown" cellmate and further show that he couldn't remember whether his cellmate had told him tales about Ruby and gunrunning before or after Oswald was killed on 11/24/63. That should have been where this story ended. Does it? Of course not. The authors simply dismiss the FBI report (and choose not to include it in their book) because they claim the FBI lied.

They also accuse the Dallas Police Department of lying. And Silvia Odio, one of the most important witnesses interviewed by the FBI, who testified before the Warren Commission that Oswald had visited her apartment accompanied by two other Latinos six weeks prior to the Kennedy assassination, is also called a liar by the authors. Everyone is a liar who presents a problem for the theory being pushed in this book!

One wonders why anyone would choose to take the word of a self-admitted chronic alcoholic over *anyone* -- let alone the very people who were there and know Oswald was in isolation.

The authors spend very little time on this little jail house episode (despite using the device for their title), indeed, they spend very little time on Elrod (their main witness who did not come forward during the recent Assassination Records and Review Board hearings) at all - his brother Lindy Elrod seems to know more about what Oswald allegedly said than Elrod does and Lindy wasn't even in the jail! It is no wonder the tabloid shows picked up this story as it has that 'I was captured by a UFO' sensationalism to it. But it gets worse as the reader slugs through chapter after chapter of inconvenient witnesses being called liars, romantic fiction supplanting primary source documentation on Silvia Odio, and leaps in logic to conclude that Lee Oswald was an FBI informant on an out-of-control group of Cubans who were planning for a second invasion of Cuba.

First of all, Oswald feared the FBI and claimed he was being persecuted by them. Why would he agree to inform for such an organization if he felt they were persecuting him? But even if he was an informant, what was he informing the FBI of? A planned invasion of Cuba by Archives show that JFK and his brother RFK were up to their eyeballs in planning for a pretense to invade Cuba all through 1963. So he would have been informing the FBI of something they already knew was in the works. Some informant!

Second, even if he was an FBI informant, how does that exonerate him from the crime?

After reading this nonsense, the reader is no closer to a solution to the case than when he started.

This book is a testament to poor journalism and how not to investigate a murder. We've had enough books written by frustrated sleuths who have only confused this tragic case by injecting their own egos and pet theories into what is clear shoot Kennedy? The question is - did he have any help?' That's where the research stands today and this book does not come close to answering that question. It fails as an informative or interesting read, and it is a complete waste of time for anyone seriously interested in the JFK assassination.

Interesting premise, but like most tabloid pieces, lacking hard evidence.

I agree with the other reviewers here that this is a lousy book. I kept waiting and waiting and waiting for them to say what they're evidence is, because they say they have like a ton, right? But they don't. They have none, just a drunk witness and a lot of stuff from other conspiracy books.

So I say, skip them and their drunky witness and just go right to the books that they themselves use! Here are some of these books:

***** Not In Your Life Time by Anthony Summers ***** Crossfire by Jim Marrs ***** On the Trail of the Assassins by Jim Garrison ***** Deep Politics and the Death of JFK by Peter Dale Scott ***** Accessories After the Fact by Sylvia Meagher *****

These are good books!!

Also: ***** High Treason by Robert Groden and Harrison E. Livingstone ***** Best Evidence by David Lifton ***** The Killing of a President by Robert Groden ***** High Treason 2 by Harrison E. Livingstone ***** Cover Up by Stewart Galanor ***** Fatal Hour by G. Robert Blakey and Richard N. Billings *****

These are also good books, and you cannot say I am biased because these books have many different theories. That's the problem with the La Fontaines: they went in with they're own theory already decided and they were biased. Anybody can write a book like that!

So get reading! Just not trash like Oswald Talked!

*Oswald Talked* is without any doubt, the most important book ever written on the JFK assassination. You may have seen some of this story on national television or in the authors' articles in the Washington Post, but the book goes into much greater detail.

Supported by top researchers, Paul Hoch and Bill Adams, the La Fontaines had already made a name for themselves by discovering critically important arrest records that had long been hidden away by the Dallas police and the FBI.

These records not only solved the decades-long mystery of the "Three Tramps" (they were innocent), but led to another suspect arrested at almost the same time as Lee Harvey Oswald. His name was John Elrod.

Elrod had come forward in August of 1964 to tell the FBI that while he was incarcerated with Oswald, he overheard the alleged assassin identify a suspect who had been involved in the theft of weapons belonging to the army base at nearby Ft. Hood. Oswald also went into considerable detail, describing a meeting of the thieves at a motel, where the sale of the weapons was consummated. He also mentioned one other little detail - Jack Ruby was present at that meeting.

All of this might sound incredible, except for the fact that the FBI acknowledged Elrod's description, not only of one of the suspects badly damaged and bandaged face, but of the Ford Thunderbird that crashed after a high speed chase with the police. The Thunderbird's trunk, Elrod reported, was full of the stolen weapons. All of that turned out to match perfectly, with the case the FBI was then prosecuting, right down to the make and model of the car, as well as the contents of it's trunk.

It also matched the fact that one of the suspects they were prosecuting for this crime, was named Donnell Whitter. Whitter as it turned out, just happened to be Jack Ruby's mechanic.

But Elrod's story amounted to solid proof of the long-suspected notion that Oswald was an informant for the FBI. So, rather than thank him for his contribution, the FBI instead, reported that Elrod lied and wasn't even in the Dallas jail on November 22nd. Of course, like the mysterious "three tramps", Elrod's arrest record had by that time, been hidden and locked away. Years later, the Dallas City archivist would report that these records were placed under "federal seal", undoubtedly by the FBI, and were not even made available to other law enforcement agencies.

Likewise, all of the FBI's records, related to the incident, including the interviews with Elrod and others who were arrested that day (and might have told the same story Elrod did), have completely vanished. Had it not been for the efforts of the La Fontaines, this part of our history would never have been known, except of course to the principals in the case, and to those who tried so hard to cover it up.

There is a great deal more to this story, much of which is centered around the reasons why such an enormous effort was made to undermine Elrod. The fact that those efforts still continue today, is strong corroboration for the La Fontaine's conclusions about who was responsible for this assassination.

No other book on this subject has come nearly as close to unravelling this heretofore unsolvable mystery. This is why you will see, among these reviews, some of the most mean spirited attacks on the authors and their witnesses, that have ever been posted at Amazon.com.

Do not confuse this book with the usual "conspiracy buff" claptrap. This is a very solid piece of work by top-notch journalists, much of whose story has been thoroughly fact-checked and confirmed by the notoriously conservative Washington Post. It is well written, meticulously researched, and a very good read. Most important, this book is honest and objective. If you are even slightly concerned about this part of our history, you should read *Oswald Talked*.

"Oswald Talked" is by far the best book on the subject of JFK's assassination that I have ever read and I have been reading exposes on it for nearly thirty years. This book is extremely well researched and, while it doesn't name anyone in particular as the actual shooter...it does make some extremely enlightening and interesting connections between Oswald, Ruby, gun-running, Anti-Castro groups and the FBI and CIA. The LaFontaines use ACTUAL, previously top secret documents as their evidence. People who criticize this book for not acquitting or accusing Oswald in JFK's assassination are missing the point entirely. This book isn't about theories of hidden shooters in the grassy knoll, JFK's questionable autopsy results, the Zapurder film and the unexplained deaths of key witnesses. To me, this book opens discussion about previously overlooked theories and sheds light on the Red paranoia that was sweeping the nation in the volatile early 1960's and late 1950's. The book is more technical and theoretical. I don't think it was designed to solve the assassination but instead, to make you think. It also adds a touch of humor to break up the onslaught of documents being seen, in many cases, for the first time. I firmly believe that many JFK conspiracy watchers were annoyed that those millions of documents that were turned over to the Assassination committee a few years back never came out and said Oswald did or didn't do it. But the LaFontaines are showing us that that information may be buried there somewhere and they've begun to sift through everything to find out. I'll tell you, this book is over 450 pages and I read it in about two days...it was so engrossing, exciting and explosive.

Few books on the JFK assassination have ever been as potentially exciting but ultimately worthless as Oswald Talked. When I first read the book, I found the story quite intriguing, but the more I thought about it, the less plausible it seemed. Later I learned that the authors had suppressed a great deal of evidence that discredited their thesis. Here are some of the Elrod. The FBI interviewed Elrod in 1964, while he was "an inmate of the Shelby County, Tennessee, Jail." Prior to his arrest, he had "been staying at the Harbor House, Memphis . . . a home for alcoholics," and he confirmed that "he, himself, is an alcoholic." (I'm quoting from the actual FBI report of Elrod's interview.) He volunteered the information that "on several occasions he has had difficulty remembering due to his extreme use of alcohol."

Elrod "had come to the Shelby County Sheriff's Office during the early morning hours of August 11, 1964, after having consumed some beer and vodka. He was at that time in possession of a sawed-off 12 gauge shotgun which had a pistol grip. He stated that he had begun to think of the possibilities of killing his wife from whom he is now separated." So "he decided he should come to the Sheriff's Office and talk, which he did." Elrod had a record of previous arrests, including two for DWI, one for assault, and one apparently for theft.

So right off, how credible is this witness?

2. In 1964, Elrod's story was that he had been picked up for investigation the day of the assassination, and placed in a cell with "a man whose identity he could not recall." Today, Elrod says this was Lee Harvey Oswald.

Elrod told the FBI that the cellmate spoke about being involved in some kind of gunrunning operation, had met with several accomplices a few nights before, and that several thousand dollars in cash had changed hands. According to Elrod, the cellmate named Jack Ruby as one of those involved.

It would be odd for someone to drop Ruby's name at that time, however, as Ruby was not yet the celebrity he would soon become. Indeed, Elrod "stated he could not recall whether Jack Ruby's name had been mentioned prior to the time of the killing of Lee Harvey Oswald." This would tend to suggest that whoever the cellmate was, chances are he was not Lee Oswald. The La Fontaines, however, do not reproduce this FBI report in their book, so the reader cannot know this.

3. The book presents no evidence that John Elrod was ever in a cell with Oswald, or even in the same cell block. None. Moreover, the record shows unequivocally that Oswald never had a cellmate at all.

Researcher Gus Russo interviewed literally dozens of Dallas police officers, who all agree that Oswald intentionally was kept isolated from other prisoners, and had a cell block all to himself. Researcher Russ Burr also interviewed a number of Dallas policemen, who all recalled the same exact thing.

Police Chief Jesse Curry wrote in his memoirs two decades ago, "The suspect, Lee Harvey Oswald, was to be kept in a maximum security cell in F block on the fifth floor. All other prisoners were removed from adjacent cells, and a police guard was kept directly outside of the cell opposite the door."

In the hours following the assassination, WFAA-TV in Dallas reported that Oswald "has been taken to a single cell on the fifth floor of this building," "an isolated cell under heavy guard where he will be held through the night." ABC reported the following day that Oswald had been kept "in an isolated cell. Prisoners had been moved away from the area." "There were two or three patrolmen watching him through the evening." Oswald Talked does not mention any of this.

Russ Burr used Warren Commission testimony and recent interviews to trace Oswald's whereabouts in the jail that weekend, and researcher Hazel Barrow independently compiled a similar chronology based on contemporaneous police reports. Between a documented twelve hours of interrogation, at least four separate eyewitness lineups, booking and arraignment procedures, a press conference, his allotted phone calls, and brief meetings with his wife, brother, and a representative of the Dallas bar, there seems to have been little opportunity for Oswald to shoot the breeze with a cellmate, even if he had one.

Incidentally, does Lee Harvey Oswald strike anyone as the type of person to be casually chatting about such things anyway?

4. Elrod also claims he was "chained to Oswald" and "appeared in lineups" with him. But we know for a fact the names of the men who appeared in lineups with Oswald, and none of them was John Elrod. Researcher Ian Griggs has made a comprehensive study of the lineups Oswald took part in, and calls Elrod's claim "patently untrue."

5. The La Fontaines theorize that Oswald was an FBI informant on gunrunning, which is supposedly how he would know about the things the cellmate allegedly told Elrod. The problem is that, for obvious reasons, law enforcement agencies recruit GUNRUNNERS to inform on gunrunning, not self-proclaimed Marxists. How would Lee Harvey Oswald ever go about infiltrating a gunrunning ring?

6. The La Fontaines speculate that Oswald must have been reporting to Dallas FBI agent James Hosty. By the authors' own admission, however, Hosty had not yet even opened a file on Oswald at the time they theorize Oswald's alleged "informant" activities began. Meanwhile, Hosty points out that Bureau regulations forbade him to even so much as interview Oswald at that time.

There are many, many other major problems with Oswald Talked, far too many to describe here. In a 1996 interview, James Hosty probably summed things up best himself when he said, "I can make up all sorts of stories too -- maybe I ought to write a book and say that the La Fontaines were behind it."

Even by the standards of Weird Reviews, the "reviews" that this book has provoked below are so bizarre as to be suspicious in themselves -- is someone intent on creating the appearance that only a 32nd Degree Loony would bother with this book? Are the "reviews," in fact, part of some nefarious conspiracy??? Does it take a 33rd Degree Loony such as myself to recognize all this? In any event, the book is undeniably tedious and self-congratulatory, and I admittedly skimmed entire sections as the authors launched into ever-more-convoluted theorizing about Oswald's role in the assassination. I assume they did this because it's very difficult to publish A 500-Page Book when all you really have are A Couple of Pieces of New Information that could be summarized in three pages. The only things you really need to know, which I will now tell you, are that (1) the authors were responsible for bringing to light Dallas Police Department arrest records showing that the "three tramps" were, in fact, three tramps and not E. Howard Hunt and two aliens from Zeta Reticuli, and (2) the authors were also responsible for bringing to light the facts that in addition to the three tramps another derelict was arrested and placed in the same holding cell area as Oswald on 11-22-63, that he overheard Oswald commenting on a pre-assassination meeting about gun-running with Jack Ruby and another character (who was being brought through the holding area as Oswald made his comments), that he gave this information to police in Memphis in 1964, that he was interviewed by the FBI at that time but his story was discounted because -- mysteriously -- there was no record of his arrest in Dallas, that in 1992 the authors discovered his arrest records in Dallas and documented from a phone log that he was in the same cell block area as Oswald, and that he is still alive (or was in 1996). Anyway, that's about it for useful information, and frankly I wish the authors had fleshed out the facts in item #2 a lot more thoroughly instead of launching off in other directions. The part about "Oswald talking" hardly seems to me to be the sort of stuff of which hoaxes are made -- the gun-running is clearly established, what the derelict overhead Oswald say doesn't amount to much apart from the reference to Jack Ruby, the fact that the derelict told his story in Memphis in 1964 is beyond dispute, and the whole thing would've gone unnoticed if the authors hadn't discovered the derelict's arrest records nearly 30 years later and managed to locate him. So the authors' evidence seems to fit nicely in the overall scenario that Oswald didn't act alone, even if you reject 95% of everything else they have to say. This book is understandably unpopular with assassination researchers who have made their livings out of theories that the Three Tramps Who Weren't Really Tramps are the key to it all, but it does seem to me that the authors are responsible for some genuinely new and important evidence. There are some other interesting tidbits as well, and overall my assessment is that this book is worth your time so long as you're prepared for it to be six or eight times as long as it needs to be, very confusing at times and self-congratulatory to the point of being irritating. The authors also fail to make any connection between the assassination of JFK and the Roswell UFO crash, which was a big disappointment to those of us on the 33rd level of looniness. What's the frequency, Kenneth?

Was Lee Harvey Oswald a deep covert clandestined intelligence operative infilstrated into the Soviet Union? This is the question asked by Ray and Molly Fontaine, who reveal that Oswald had a top-secret CIA card with his picture on it. If this book had focussed on that one bombshelf it would be the most signifigant automation in the field. Instead it becomes macabre.

this has some interesting things but it leaves many loose ends,like it does not say who is on the grassy knoll,it does not say who impersonifies lho in many locations,it does not say about what he did in japan or ussr or mexico(important) it doesn not say about maurice bishop or clay bertram or radio control or u/2 or umbrella man or nagel or mr hunt or marita lorez. nor body alteration or autospy or x rays or single bullets or anything really.how many guns??does not say.did they getaway pilot???do not know.

Have you ever believed something to be fact, but not known how to prove it? The proof to the level of culpability of Oswald is contained within the pages of this book.

The authors do not concern themselves with who actually pulled the trigger, but rather concentrate on documented facts that either went unreported or were largely ignored for over thirty years.

Forget about laying Oswald at the feet of the KGB, the CIA, FBI, Mafia, Cubans or anybody else. The circles this man traveled in are well documented in this book. There is little speculation here. Rather, there are legitimate questions asked, researched and answered by the authors that would prevent anyone this side of Earl Warren from determining that this was a one man operation.

While the names and dates are sometimes difficult to follow, a clear and detailed timeline is provided at the end of the book that makes the purchase price a bargain for this alone.

You may come away from this book not knowing who pulled the trigger, but you will now know who pulled the strings.

For those interested in the subject, be prepared to take it into the shower because you will not be able to put it down.