Blog Image

ecuador blog

About this blog

News and comments and events relating to Granada, 'the city where anything is possible, Granada, 'la bella y la bestia, and Federico Garcia Lorca's complicated love-hate relationship with the city, etc

Killing a poet, 4

Lorca disappearing and death Posted on Mon, June 25, 2018 09:26:26

This is the fourth and final part of my
reappraisal of the events relating to the killing of the great twentieth
century Spanish poet, written in the light of the reissuing of Ian Gibson’s El
asesinato de García Lorca
to include the latest and up-to-date evidence. Part
One considered the detention at the house of the Rosales family. Part Two dealt
with the time that the poet was held in the Civil Government building in la
calle Duquesa. Part Three was about Lorca’s arrival in Viznar, and this final
part will talk about the actual cold-blooded shooting.

PART FOUR: The Killing

Miguel Caballero
(Las 13 últimas horas...) calls into question the evidence of Manuel Castilla,
‘Manolo the Communist’, the gravedigger who led first Penón and later Gibson to
the spot close to where the monolith in memory of Lorca and all the victims of
the nationalist repression stands today. The seventeen-year-old Manuel Castilla
Blanco, who apparently only narrowly escaped the firing squad himself thanks to
his appointment as gravedigger, claimed to have been one of those who buried
the poet. There is much in his evidence that is very credible, such as the fact
that as a young political activist, he said he recognised the two anarchist
bullfighters he buried, but not Lorca, who had been absent from Granada for
long periods in the years prior to his death, and was not anyway a political
activist. But when an attempted exhumation in 2009 revealed that Lorca’s corpse
was not and never could have been in that spot, the veracity of his evidence
was put in doubt.

Manolo
signed a sworn declaration, presumably under duress, that he had not been
present at the burial of the poet, not having started his gravedigging duties
at Víznar until 21 August (Gibson page 220), but we know that
Nestares, embarrassed by questions about the events of that particular moonless
August night, events that were classified as top secret, gathered his team
together to school them on the ‘facts’, as Emilio Moreno Olmedo reported to
Fajardo Molina, to make sure nobody strayed from ‘the truth’. See //blog.granadalabella.eu/#post71, dated 9 November 2017. His
official paperwork relating to the events of that night also shows signs of
having been doctored, with the observation of three people being brought from
Granada (Lorca, Gadalí and Cabezas) amended to ‘five’, to include a couple of
petty communist-criminals and possibly a villain nicknamed ‘el Terrible’.
So when, in a recorded interview on 24 August 1978 (page 390), Castilla insists
that the people buried that night were ‘the teacher from Pulianas’, Galadí,
Cabezas, and Lorca, and nobody else
apart from these four’ (page 219), he is deliberately contradicting Nestares’s
clumsy attempt at falsifying the evidence, clearly less inhibited now that
Franco and Nestares are dead, democracy restored, and the new Spanish
constitution in the throes of being born.

On
the other hand, Gibson quotes Gabriel Pozo as hearing from Manolo himself that
he tricked both Penón and Gibson, having arrived after the killing. (Page 299.)
Caballero goes as far as to say it was well into September when he started his
grave-digging duties. Elsewhere, it is claimed that Castilla was recorded by
Gibson himself as giving himself away saying ‘this is where they say he was
buried’. However, Gibson, in his latest work, does not mention this.

Did Manolo
the Communist lie, to take advantage of the foreign investigators, or did he
make a mistake? It was twenty years after the event that he, apparently
fearfully and with some reluctance, led Agustín Penón to the supposed site of
the crime, in 1956. If he was mistaken then, it would have been easy for him to
repeat the mistake with Gibson, and with growing conviction, ten years later.
In a similar way to Angelina Cordobilla’s increasingly confident account of her
second visit to the Gobierno Civil that we now think did not take place.
Anyway, physically present or not on the night of the atrocity, Castill’a
evidence has a great deal of truth value for his gravedigging experience and
his proximity in place and time to the event.

When did the killing take place, and who took part?

Caballero’s argument that the killing took place not later than 4am on
the 17th loses its force once
we accept the evidence that Lorca in fact arrived in Víznar on the night of the
17/18th and was shot at dawn. At 4.45 according to Wikipedia.

Gibson doesn’t have much to say about the actual composition of the
firing squad and refers us to Caballero’s investigation. (Page 218/389.) In
this respect, the Falangist guard Pedro Cuesta Hernández, who had to take part
in the killing, is an important witness and seems to be fairly reliable. His
list of participants includes Juan Luis Trecastro, the Security Guard Antonio
González Villegas, who later extorted money out of the poet’s father (page
233), and his fellow Black Squad member ‘the Baker’ (Eduardo López Peso), as
well as Antonio Benavides Benavides, the man who Caballero demonstrates bore a
grudge against the victim and who was to boast of his part in the murder. ‘I
fired two bullets into the poet’s fat head,’ he was reported to have boasted to
his like-minded circle of friends, an expression mimicked with an even cruder
twist by Juan Luis Trecastro’s ‘I fired a bullet into the homo’s fat arse’. See
//blog.granadalabella.eu/#post66, dated 9 October 2017

Trecastro played a prominent role in the detention of the poet and was
an intimate associate of Ramón Ruiz Alonso, who we know drew up the charges
that led to Lorca’s arrest. He had a reputation as a braggart and his
involvement with the black squads was common knowledge in certain circles.
Although he toned down his boastings later on, he was for a while proud to be
seen as an active member of the firing squad that eliminated the privileged red
homo poet. Gibson, at least, is convinced he was physically there. (Page 229.)

Testimony
of Lorca’s last moments comes from José Navarro Pardo who tells how he learnt
from the driver who had brought Lorca to Viznar’ (a man called Arenas) that the
victim survived the first salvo of shots. (Page 218.) Elsewhere, this account
is confirmed by Manuel López-Banús, who
says Cuesta himself related how, after the initial salvo, Lorca got to his
knees and said ‘I’m still alive’ and had to be put out of his misery with a
fresh barrage of shots. This may well be the occasion on which Antonio
Benavides fired two bullets into the victim’s head.
Below: 1. Lorca Memorial Park on the road between Víznar and Alfacar; 2. The pine grove and the acequia running from Aynadamar, opposite the Memorial Park

POSTSCRIPT:
So, by way of conclusion, what do I think happened?

The
detention proceeded more or less as described by Miguel Rosales with Lorca
being taken to the Civil Government in the late afternoon of the 16th. But he
was kept in custody until Valdés was able to get the go-ahead for the killing
from Queipo de Llano. On the night of the 17/18th he was transferred
to Víznar along with the anarchist bullfighters Gadalí and Cabezas, and
possibly schoolmaster Diáscoro Galindo. Then all four were held in the the
improvised prison known as ‘The Colony’, until the official firing squad and an
unknown number of black squad members arrived from Granada. Then the killing
went off more or less as Cuesta described it, plus Benavides´s credible
addendum.”

There
was a whole constellation of interrelated causes which contributed to the
killing of Granada’s outstanding poet. Some of those involved had personal
reasons to pursue Lorca to his death, while others did not, but they all went
about it with a similar and shared zeal and commitment to the reactionary
nationalist cause, aiming to stamp out the freedoms and opportunities opened up
by liberal republican democracy. Even the localised inter-family and
internecine disputes and rivalries that Caballero points out had been festering
for half a century and which for him are the main factors leading to the
killing were in fact grounded in the heightened political conflicts of the day.
Those disputes and rivalries contributed to and fed on the political conflicts
in equal measure. Ultimately, I go with Gibson and Lorca’s brother Francisco,
who said: ‘The atmosphere immediately preceding the Civil War had politicised
all of Spain in one direction or the other. You had to take a stand and my
brother Federico’s, standpoint was very clear’, and he lists the evidence of
Lorca’s commitment to the aims and ideas of the liberal Republic, which we also
find listed in Gibson’s first chapter.



KILLING A POET. 3

Lorca disappearing and death Posted on Wed, May 30, 2018 22:58:42

This is the
third part of my critical analysis of Ian Gibson’s re-working of El Asesinato de García Lorca, a book
originally published in France in 1971 and updated for republication in April
2018. Parts One and Two deal with the Lorca’s detention while staying with the
Rosales family and the time he was subsequently held in the Gobierno Civil building, before being
transferred to Víznar, where he was taken to be shot.

PART
THREE:Arrival at Viznar

Basing his
evidence on what Captain José María Nestares Cuéllar, the man in charge,
reported, Miguel Caballero (Últimas13
hora
s…) says Lorca arrived in Víznar shortly before midnight, on the
16th. Pedro Cuesta Hernández, who was one of the regular guards at the Villa Concha, improvised prison for the
condemned, testifies that Lorca was brought there between 10.30 and 11pm on one
of the nights between 17 and 20 August, though elsewhere he says about 10pm on
16 -18 August.

We have
previously ruled out the likelihood that Lorca was transferred to Víznar on the
same night as his detention. All the evidence indicates that Lorca was brought
to Víznar on the night of 17/18th August. Depending on whose
evidence you accept, it was before midnight, or after 3.30am. See Part 2 for
the reasoning behind this.

Gibson,
citing Fajardo, says that Nestares was disturbed in his sleep in the middle of
the night by the arrival of Lorca, suggesting the later time. But, before the
firing squad arrived to do its work, it seems certain that Lorca was held
alongside his three fellow victims, Dióscoro Galindo González, Juan Arcoyas
Cabezas and Francisco Galadí Melgar at the villa known as Las Colonias (Villa Concha).

The testimony of José Jover Tripaldi,

Tripaldi, who
gave Agustín Penón such a hard time in the 1950s, colourful and attractive
though his evidence is, might not be a reliable witness, as Caballero argues
strongly. Most of what he says could have been picked up in village gossip or
in the cafés of Granada, and even the picturesque anecdote about Lorca’s
last-minute improvised confession seems to have been in certain quarters part
of contemporary street folklore. Caballero insists that documentary evidence
indicates that Tripaldi was not around at the time of Lorca’s disappearance.

Caballero
makes a point of emphasising that his evidence is based on contemporary police
reports and civil and military documentation rather than on unreliable oral
testimonies, as Gibson’s was. This is little more than point-scoring, for of
course the sort of oral evidence that Gibson collected could never have been
recorded by official reports and documentation and anyway these in turn could
have been falsified by a regime whose legitimacy was questionable and which did
not necessarily want the truth, the whole truth, to be revealed. Besides,
Caballero’s faith in the written word must strike us as a bit naïve,
considering the nature of the regime that had taken control of Granada, and the
chaos that existed in those early days of the Civil War. Such records
themselves are often written reports of spoken declarations and their veracity
may be legitimately questioned, Lorca’s death certificate itself being an
illustrative example. (Page 234.)

Gibson, in
any case, chooses to disregard Caballero’s objections and go along with
Tripaldi’s account. (Page 213.) For me, the poet’s possible last-minute
confession is merely anecdotal evidence, with limited truth value.

There is
also, I feel, some inconsistency in Gibson’s accepting on the one hand Ricardo
Rodríguez Jiménez’s evidence – that Lorca was taken away on what must have been
his second night at the Gobierno Civil after
3am – and on the other Tripaldi’s narrative – that he offered ‘pastoral’
assistance to the victims in the hours they were held in Las Colonias while waiting for the arrival of the firing squad.
Tripaldi’s evidence of a longish waiting period after Lorca’s transfer from the
Gobierno Civil to Víznar is at odds
with Gibson’s account of the transfer taking place after three in the morning
(see Part 2).

Regardless of Tripaldi’s testament, the earlier
arrival time (before midnight) seems to me more plausible, otherwise the
killing must have followed on from the arrival almost immediately and hardly
required the victims to be held in Las
Colonias
until the firing squad arrived from Granada at around 4 in the
morning.

1. The acequia (water canal) ran through the Villa Concha and drove a mill. 2. Restoration work was carried out some years ago: these steps led up to the first floor of the Villa. 3. This is the view from the first floor after restoration. 4. Viznar is upper right; Alfacar slightly lower to the left; in the foreground, the munitions factory at El Fargue. 5. A sneaked view of the palace gardens. 6. The village square, with the church on the left and the archbishop’s palace on the right, ceded to the Falange during the Civil War.

A
forthcoming fourth post will consider the actual killing, including a
discussion of Manolo el communista’s
claimed participation as the digger of Lorca’s grave, a claim which has been
put in doubt since the first publication of Gibson’s work.



KILLING A POET. 2.

Lorca disappearing and death Posted on Mon, May 21, 2018 16:08:19

I was very
keen to read Ian Gibson’s re-working of El
Asesinato de García Lorca
when it came out in April 2018 and I immediately
set about analyzing the chapters 8, El
poeta en el Gobierno Civil de Granada
, and 9, Aynadamar, ‘La Fuente de las Lágrimas’ covering the events from
Lorca’s detention at the Rosales’s house to his death by firing squad on the
road between Víznar and Alfacar, a few kilometres to the north of Granada. This
part deals with evidence about Lorca’s time held in the Gobierno Civil
building.

PART TWO:
So, when was Lorca taken from the Gobierno Civil?

It is here,
when it comes to the moment of the actual disappearing of the poet itself that
the trail gets hard to follow and Gibson’s and Caballero’s accounts of what
might have happened seriously diverge. Miguel Caballero argues that Lorca was
taken away to Víznar to face the firing squad as early as 10 – 10.30 on the
night of his arrest.

This doesn’t
leave much time for the serious confrontation that certainly took place between
Civil Governor Valdés and José Rosales, after which Rosales got to speak, if
briefly, with the poet. (Page 187.) In fact, Vila San-Juan in his García Lorca, asesinado: toda la verdad
puts the time of José Rosales’s audience with Valdés at 10.30, so they would
have had to have acted with lightning speed for Caballero’s time scale to be
maintained. Caballero’s main argument in support of the credibility of this
rapid action was his conviction that those who wanted Lorca dead were afraid
that the great influence of his father would thwart their plans again, as so
often had happened in the past, something well documented in Caballero’s
investigation.

Even so,
there is overwhelming evidence that speaks against Caballero’s thesis. For one
thing, it seems certain that José Rosales was not the last person who got to
see Lorca at the Civil Government. One who most certainly did was Angelina
Cordobilla, Fernández-Montesino’s (Lorca’s brother-in-law’s) maid, sent with a
basket of provisions for the detained poet.

Angelina Cordobilla’s Evidence.

At first, in
her interview with Agustín Penón in 1955, Angelina insisted that she had seen
Lorca only once at the Civil Government building but then, in relating the events,
she seemed to remember seeing him twice on consecutive days. That would have
been on the mornings of the 17th and 18th. This narrative then becomes the
narrative that she repeats again and again, over the years. (Page 199.)

However,
convincing ‘new’ evidence, from 2005, provided by Manuel Titos Martínez, which
places Lorca before the firing squad at dawn on the 18th, has become
the consensus to the extent it actually appears in Wikipedia as definitive
fact.

So, how
reliable is Angelina’s narrative?

Those who
reject her evidence imply that she was unwell, senile; unsound in body and
mind. When Gibson interviewed her in 1966, she was getting on, yet he found her
lucid and had absolute confidence in her evidence. This same woman, who Penón
interviewed in 1955 and who he judged to be around sixty-five, was physically
active, neither senile nor unwell.

Angelina
reports seeing Lorca on the morning of the 17th, the day after the
arrest. ‘The next day I took him his food,’ she relates, ‘and a packet of Camel.
He hadn’t touched the food I had taken the day before, but he had smoked the
cigarettes.’ Her vivid testimony makes a strong case for Lorca being held
overnight before being moved to Viznar. Could it be that on this second
morning, when she noticed the food had not been touched, Lorca himself was not
present, that she last saw him on the 17th, and that she was
mistaken only about the second morning, the 18th?

Backing up
Angelina’s evidence, Gibson lists a number of witnesses who saw or claim to have
seen Lorca in the Gobierno Civil building after 10.30 on the 16th:
Julián Fernández Amigo, Carlos Jiménez Vílchez, Emilio Muñoz Medina, Joaquín
López-Mateos Matres, Vicente Lara Jiménez, and Francisco Benedicto Domínguez
Aceitero, ‘el Bene’. (Page 191.) The weight of evidence indicates Lorca was
still there long after the Rosales-Valdés confrontation and apparently until
the following morning.

Another in
itself quite minor discrepancy lies in the fact that Lorca left the Rosales’
house wearing a white shirt, as Miguel López Escribano, for example, testifies.
(Page 181.) Yet later testimonies speak of him wearing a pyjama top; for
example, Agustín Soler Bonor claims to have seen him leaving the Civil
Goverment wearing ‘a pyjama jacket, not a shirt‘, and later, at Víznar, Manuel
Martínez Bueso, who accompanied Lorca’s car from the Falangists’ Viznar
Headquarters to Villa Concha, the improvised prison for the disappeared,
reported to his superior, José María Nestares, that he was wearing a pyjama
top. If Lorca left the Rosales wearing a shirt and arrived at Viznar wearing a
pyjama top, it is reasonable to suppose that someone had brought him a change
of clothes. Indeed, Angelina told Penón specifically that pyjamas were among
the supplies she carried the last time she went on her distressing errand.

Last but not
least, there is the testimony of Antonio Galindo Monge, son of Dióscoro Galindo
González, another victim who we know was shot alongside Lorca. Antonio says his
father was taken away at 2am on the 18th and he went to the military command a
few hours later in the hope of getting him released but was told his father had
already been put to death. The son’s evidence is backed up in this case by an
official death certificate. Galindo’s and Angelina’s evidence combined make for
a strong argument against Lorca having already faced the firing squad on the
morning of the 17th, as Caballero will have it.

Two conflicting reports on when Lorca was taken from the Gobierno Civil to
Víznar.

The
disappearing of the poet-playwright García Lorca happened effectively just
after José Rosales got to speak to him at around 10.30pm on the night of 16
August. Evidence of what happened after that has been clearly concealed and/or
tampered with. We know he was then taken to Víznar to be shot. But, did it
happen immediately after Rosales’ visit, or was Lorca held at the Civil
Government for 24 hours, and if so, why?

An important
witness and one who could be used to corroborate Caballero’s theory is Agustín
Soler Bonor. He claims to have seen Lorca being taken away from the Civil
Government without being able to verify the exact date:

‘One night in the month of August at
about 10.30pm I arrived at the Civil Government (…) At the door a car was
waiting (…) Inside there were two prisoners, villager-types (…) Going up to
the first floor I met Lorca coming down, escorted by two Assault Guards.’

Gibson
doesn’t include any information on this supposed eye-witness account. If it is
true, the two ‘villager-types’ could have been the anarchists Juan Arcoyas
Cabezas and Francisco Galadí Melgar who are known to have been shot alongside
the poet. Gibson quotes Molina Fajardo in saying that the two had been picked
up from the police station just round the corner from the Gobierno Civil and
brought to Víznar with the poet.

Soler
continues: ‘He was handcuffed and looked despondent and showed no sign of
recognising me.’

The
likelihood of this August night being the 16th, and just moments
after the poet’s brief conversation with the respected and influential
Falangist, José Rosales, seems pretty remote, in view of the evidence of
Antonio Galindo, Angelina Cordobilla, Manuel Titos Martínez, etcetera.

But
supposing this is the 17th and the man Soler describes is not one
who was simply dispirited, but one who had been locked up and held incommunicado
for several hours, maybe 24, maybe even tortured? He seems to be oblivious to
his surroundings and fails to notice the presence of the witness. How long
would it take to get to this state of resignation and apathy? Could he have
lost heart so quickly, and so completely, if this incident happened moments
after Rosales’s visit?

This
evidence does not tie in very neatly with the evidence of Diáscoro Galindo
being taken from his home at 2am on the 18th, several hours later.
Galindo, I suggest, was possibly picked up later and taken to Víznar
separately?

In total
contradiction to the evidence given by Soler Bonor, which Gibson for some
(undoubtedly well-founded) reason chooses to ignore in his latest overhaul of
relevant events, Ricardo Rodríguez Jiménez gives a colourful account of how
Lorca was taken from the Civil Goverment, and this Gibson does quote:

‘Each night I used to go to the
police station to hear Queipo de Llano’s last bulletin, which was broadcast
around 3a.m. (…) That night I left the station at 3.15am. Suddenly I heard
someone call my name. I turned around. ‘Federico!’ He threw an arm over my
shoulder. His right arm was handcuffed to that of a schoolmaster from La Zubia
with white hair. ‘Where are they taking you?’ ‘I don’t know.’ He was coming out
of the civil government building, surrounded by guards and Falangists belonging
to the ‘Black Squad’ (…) Someone stuck a gun in my chest. I screamed:
‘Murderers! (…) They locked me up for two hours and then they let me go.’ By
then, of course, it was too late to do anything.

Gonzalo
Queipo de Llano was of course commander of the Nationalist Army of the South
and so the supreme authority of the uprising in Andalusia. The white-haired
schoolmaster ‘from La Zubia’ is easy enough to identify as Diáscoro Galindo,
though he was actually from Pulianas. If Galindo was taken away at 2am, as his
son said, it is quite possible that he had been brought to the Civil Government
prior to being transferred to Víznar, on the morning of the 18th.

This account
can be made to fit in with the evidence of Joaquín López-Mateos Matres,
previously mentioned, who says that while on guard at the Civil Government on
the evening and night of the 16th he saw Lorca sitting alone, buried in his
thoughts and anxieties, ‘all evening and part of the night’ without witnessing
him being taken away at any point. ‘Part of the night’ can hardly only refer to
until 10.30pm, which is really not that long after nightfall, but to my mind it
fits in better with Rodríguez Jiménez’s declaration. What it does not fit in
with, though, is the bulk of the evidence about Lorca’s arrival in Víznar,
which points to a much earlier time of night.

Why was he held overnight in the Gobierno Civil?

Here
Gibson’s ‘dale café’ (give him coffee) thesis is well-known and convincing.
Valdés realised that Lorca was a Big Fish and he wanted backing from a higher
authority before sending him off to face the firing squad. The higher authority
was Queipo de Llano. (Page 200.) Queipo del Llano’s go-ahead could easily have
been given by telephone, as the line between Granada and Seville had been
re-established that same day, the 17th. In fact, it seems likely
that ‘the supreme authority’ called back to make sure his orders had been
carried out. (Page 201.)

If we are to
accept Caballero’s thesis that Lorca was taken to Víznar before midnight of the
16th, it would mean disregarding or finding an alternative explanation for the
‘give him coffee’ exchange as well as for evidence provided by Diáscoro
Galindo’s son and Angelina Cordobilla, and also for Titos Martínez’s
2005 findings. Once
again, Caballero’s main argument in favour of his 16th August thesis
is that his enemies wanted Lorca dispatched before his highly respected and
influential father had time to intervene to protect him.



KILLING A POET. 1.

Lorca disappearing and death Posted on Mon, May 21, 2018 15:53:18

Ian Gibson’s
re-working of El Asesinato de García
Lorca
, originally published in France in 1971, came out in April 2018 and I
immediately devoured the bits I had been waiting for: primarily Chapter 8, El poeta en el Gobierno Civil de Granada,
and Chapter 9, Aynadamar, ‘La Fuente de
las Lágrimas’
. They cover the events from Lorca’s detention at the
Rosales’s house to his death by firing squad on the road between Víznar and
Alfacar, a few kilometres to the north of Granada.

Gibson’s
decision to re-publish this work was, I am convinced, prompted by Miguel
Caballero Pérez’s 2011 publication Las trece últimas horas en la vida de
García Lorca
. Caballero’s work is a
deliberate and polemic challenge to Gibson’s original findings.

One thing
that convinces me of this is the trouble Gibson goes to to stress the political
aspect of Lorca’s social status, downplayed by Caballero, who prefers to see
Lorca’s murder in terms of personal vengeance and family rivalries. Indeed,
Caballero implies that Gibson is swayed in his judgements by his own political
sympathies. Be that as it may, Gibson dedicates his first of ten chapters, plus
a lengthy appendix of 35 pages, to demonstrate Lorca’s conscious political
leftwing posture.

Otherwise,
in reducing the time scale between Lorca’s arrest and his death to thirteen
hours as stated in his book title, Caballero is demonstratively refuting
Gibson’s originally much longer time frame. For me, the evidence indicates that
Lorca was held in the Gobierno Civil
building overnight; that Caballero’s timescale is unconvincing; that Gibson is
closer to the truth.

PART ONE:
The Detention.

While major
contradictions between the two investigations open up once the poet has been
disappeared, the facts about the detention of the poet at the Rosales’ house
are relatively straightforward. Caballero places the arrest with some
confidence between 1 and 1.30pm, although he is a bit vague about how events
subsequently played out over the afternoon. Gibson also, in this updated
version, tends to avoid specific time references. One of the very few is given
in José Rodríguez Contreras’s much quoted description of the exaggerated police
operation around the Rosales’s house deemed necessary to carry out the
detention: It must have been about one o’clock, he says, because ‘it wasn’t
every day you got released from prison!’ (Page 179. All page references to
Gibson’s Asesinato.)

Even so,
there is general agreement that the detention itself was held up for some time
because Esperanza Camacho (‘Mrs Rosales’) refused to let Lorca be taken away
without one of her sons being present, and it was Miguel Rosales who was first
located, at the nearby Falange Headquarters in the Monastery of San Jerónimo.
It was about 4.30, according to one version I read, when Ramón Ruiz Alonso, the
man with the arrest warrant, brought him back to the house. Then Lorca needed
time to get dressed, bid his farewells, which included saying a prayer with Aunt
Luisa (page 181), so it wasn’t until maybe 6 or 7pm that they arrived at the
Civil Government building. In his declaration to Ian Gibson in 1967, Ramón Ruiz
Alonso says it could have been 5, or 6, or 7pm, he doesn’t know. (Page 349.)
Another witness, Miguel López Escribano, a teenager at the time, says it would
have been 3.30pm when he saw Lorca leaving the house. But, as I said, Gibson
refrains from giving specific time references in this latest version of his
chronicle, admitting only the evidence of Eduardo Carretero, who reckoned that,
judging by the quality of the daylight, it must have been some time in the
afternoon. (Page 180.)

So Lorca may
have arrived at the Civil Government as early as 4pm or as late as 7pm. What is
beyond a doubt, however, is that Civil Governor José Valdés Guzmán was away all
day on the 16th and didn’t return to Granada until 9.45.



bizarre bag of bones

Lorca disappearing and death Posted on Tue, April 17, 2018 12:46:48

Bizarre? Or what?

Among the many theories and anecdotes related to the various unsuccessful attempts to localise the remains of the murdered poet and his three fellow victims, there is one that has been going around for a number of years that always sounded to me so preposterous and absurd that I could not take it seriously. This is it:

In 1986 when they were constructing the park (the García Lorca Park in Alfacar) in memory of Lorca and all the victims of the nationalist repression, situated near the Spring of Aynadamar on the road from Víznar, they dug up some bones, the detailed examination of which they were afraid would hold up the completion of the park, so they put them in a plastic fertilizer bag and re-buried them.

Not only did they find bones, they also found a crutch, a very simple crutch made of wood, with a broad leather strap.

!!!

Maybe I need to remind you here that one of the men who faced the firing squad alongside Lorca was the lame republican schoolteacher Dióscoro Galindo.

According to José Antonio Rodríguez Salas, who was a guard at the park at the time of its inauguration, there was not only the crutch, but also four craniums!!! Into the plastic bag they went! So as not to delay the important and, for the local politicians, prestigious opening of the commemorative park. Could this happen anywhere else but in Granada?

The burial place of this bag of bones was carefully recorded. It turns out to be directly underneath where the massive stone fountain stands today, the fountain inscribed with Antonio Machado’s famous verses dedicated to the death of the poet:

Labrad, amigos,
de piedra y sueño en el Alhambra,
un túmulo al poeta,
sobre una fuente donde llore el agua,
y eternamente diga:
el crimen fue en Granada, ¡en su Granada!

[Construct, friends, from stone and dreams in the Alhambra, a sepulchre for the poet, over a spring where the water weeps and eternally repeats: the crime was in Granada, in his Granada!]

All the above so far is from Gibson’s updated version of his El Asesinato de García Lorca just published. At the time of writing, says Gibson, that was February 2018, Luis Avial had begun examining the base of the fountain with GPR (ground-penetrating radar).

Luis Avial has built up quite a reputation for himself with his GPR studies. He claims, among many other achievements, to have discovered the tombs of Cervantes in Madrid and of Boabdil, the Moorish Kingdom of Granada’s last ruler, in Fez (Morocco). He is motivated in this case, he says, because he himself is the grandson of a civil war victim. His investigations in Víznar go back to 2009, when he carried out a preliminary survey in the García Lorca Park in Alfacar, and prompted by Víctor Fernández, local journalist and avid Lorca-researcher, he actually examined the base of the fountain, and while noticing some anomaly in the geological structure that could possibly indicate some outside interference, the signal from his GPR did not suggest anything like a common grave with human remains. So he discarded his findings as irrevelant. How wrong he was (he says now: Granada Hoy, 16/04-2018). http://www.granadahoy.com/granada/Ladran-luego-cabalgamos_0_1236776888.html

It was ‘stubborn and tenacious’ journalist Víctor Fernández who refused to give up on his theory and kept on at Avial to help him with his search for evidence. Fernández insisted that it was not a common grave they were looking for, but a bag of bones, and that persuaded Avial to go back to the x-rays he took in 2009, and yes, there was undeniable evidence that something like a bag of bones and rubble could be there, beneath the monumental fountain.

Fernández’ tenacity has clearly a lot to do with the eye-witnesses he has interviewed, including workmen involved in the alleged infraction in 1986. (Follow link below.) As Avial concludes, the supposed osteological material might not be human, but animal; and it might not even be bones. But it’s a hypothesis that ought to be tested, if only for it to be eliminated it once and for all.

Which surely it must!?!

https://www.larazon.es/cultura/la-ultima-pista-sobre-lorca-la-fuente-de-alfacar-HK18039394



Gibson’s “Assassination of Lorca”: update

Lorca disappearing and death Posted on Mon, January 08, 2018 19:16:33

It’s
funny that just two months ago I could quote Ian Gibson as saying “I’m finished
with Lorca and I don’t intend to revise or update what I have written and
published about him up to now”, while today in the first month of 2018 I can
gladly announce that he is in fact working on an updated version of his book El asesinato de García Lorca,
first published in France in 1971, translated to English in 1979.

The
explanation of this contradiction included in my //blog.granadalabella.eu/#post72
is that Gibson tells Manuel Vincent in El
País
, 6 January 2018, that he started thinking about the compelling need to
update this particular work about six months ago, whereas my November quote is
from Maria Serrano, originally published in El
Público
on 27 February 2017. Gibson changed his mind soon after that
interview. I’m happy to say.

Most
of us know that Lorca biographer Ian Gibson has dedicated much of his life to
digging up the facts and details about Lorca’s life, times, works, and his
untimely death. His book about the killing of the poet had to be published in
France because it was impossible to publish it in Spain. He was a pioneer in
the field of Lorca research. Since then, things have changed.

For
one thing, Eduardo Molina Fajardo’s widow was allowed, or possibly encouraged,
to publish her husband’s research posthumously under the title of Los últimos días de García Lorca
in 1983. Franco had gone, the conspiracy of silence around Lorca’s murder was
being broken down (Gibson had played his part in this), and as a Falangist,
Molina Fajardo had access to sources that were not so easily available to
Gibson. These sources were given particular prominence by Miguel Caballero in
his 2011 publication Las trece últimas horas en la vida de García Lorca, which leaves behind the last days of Lorca’s life referenced by
Fajardo to concentrate on his last hours: Las
trece últimas horas
. Caballero’s findings were at the centre of my
attention for several months on my return to Granada at the end of the summer
2017 and were the subject of eight posts in all: //blog.granadalabella.eu/#post64 – #post71. There is no doubt in my mind that Caballero is the
catalyst for Gibson finally deciding to take a new look at his 1971 conclusions.

Pictures: Lorca researchers Molina Fajardo, Gibson, and Caballero Pérez

Gibson’s
updated work will be out in April! Molina Fajardo’s and Miguel Caballero’s
findings will be taken into consideration, of course, as will new facts
contributed by other researchers over the years. Gibson promises to review all
the theories about Lorca’s last steps as well as analyse all the searches for
the poet’s remains that have been undertaken to date, but to no avail.

Nobody
is anywhere near as well equipped for the task as Gibson. Nobody has his
overview, combined with his in-depth knowledge of Granada in 1936 and the
assassination of the city’s greatest poet.



CABALLERO VS GIBSON 4

Lorca disappearing and death Posted on Thu, November 09, 2017 13:42:37

CABALLERO
VERSUS GIBSON: 13 HOURS, OR TWO AND A HALF DAYS?

Part
4: The Killing

There
are, as we have seen, two different theories about the exact time that Lorca
faced the firing squad, one night in August 1936 on the road between Víznar and
Alfacar. At 4:45 on the morning of the 18th has been the consensus
until now and is what it says in Wikipedia. When I began this analysis of the
evidence, I did not realise that this date had been close to verified by a
letter dated 18 August 1936 and discovered by chance by Manuel Titos Martínez*,
in which José María Bérriz revealed that he had just heard from reliable
sources that Lorca had been killed that same night. Of course, this evidence is
not entirely conclusive, for Lorca had been disappeared and who knows how long
it might have taken for the news to reach the public domain? However, one of
Bérriz’s informants was his brother-in-law, Manuel Rodríguez-Acosta, a
nationalist related by marriage to and on intimate terms with Nicolás Velasco
Simarro, acting Civil Governor on the day of Lorca’s disappearance. (This man’s
role in the persecution of the poet is discussed in
//blog.granadalabella.eu/#post65 Who…? Why …? And where …? a critical review of
Miguel Caballero’s Las trece últimas
horas en la vida de García Lorca
.)

Caballero,
meanwhile, places the killing as not later than 4am on the 17th. He
gives two arguments to substantiate his claim. One is that José María Nestares
Cuéllar was removed from his position of command at Víznar for two days, 18 and
19 August, so he would not have been present to register Lorca’s arrival if he
had been brought there on one of those days. But if Lorca arrived in Víznar on
the 17th, and was shot before dawn on the 18th, then the
question of Nestares´s removal from command for these two days becomes
irrelevant. Secondly, Lieutenant Rafael Martínez Fajardo, who was encharged
with bringing Lorca to Víznar to face the firing squad, was member of a column
that captured the village of Huétor Tájar on 17 August, an operation that
lasted twelve hours leaving Granada at five in the morning. If, as Caballero
argues, the killing was carried out on the morning of the 17th, it
had to leave Martínez with enough time to join his column at 5am. But, once
again, if Lorca was brought to Víznar on the night of the 17th and
shot in the early morning, this argument also loses its force.

The
Falangist guard Pedro Cuesta Hernández is an important witness and seems to be
fairly reliable: ‘The firing squad was organised before dawn, at around 4am,
and it was made up of the same men who had come from Granada’ and he lists
J.L.Trecastro, the Security Guards Ayllón, Correa, Villegas, whom he describes
as belonging to the same ‘Black Squad’ as ‘the Pugnose of Plaza Nueva’ and ‘the
Baker’, and Benavides, the man who we have seen bore a grudge against the
victim and who was to boast of his part in the murder. He also includes in the
squad one ‘Blanco’, and ‘the Baker’ himself. Plus Arenas, the driver. And, less
willingly, by his own account, Cuesta himself.

Correo, Caballero names
as Fernando Correa Carrasco. According to Caballero,
however, Cuesta was mistaken about Antonio Ayllón Fernández’s participation, as
he did not in fact take over as head of the firing squad until 22 August,
replacing Mariano Ajenjo Moreno, who would have been the man in charge.
Caballero also denies Juan Luis Trecastro’s participation in the killing. I am
inclined to agree, partly due to his cocky copycat claim of firing two bullets
into the victim’s arse, obviously minted on his friend Antonio Benavides’s
abhorrent bragging. Even so, the possibility of a sort of ‘guest appearance’
cannot be totally ruled out. Although his proximity to the black squads was
common knowledge in certain circles, Trecastro himself was too prominent a
member of the respectable local bourgeoisie to appear in Nestares´s paperwork.
(See below.)

It
seems to me pretty likely that ‘the Baker’ was involved in the killing.
Francisco Murillo Gámiz, taxi-driver and once Lorca family chauffeur, said he
knew that the Black Squad that killed Lorca was made up of the Assault Guard
Villegas, the Baker and the Pugnose, and he relates how on ‘the day they shot
Federico’ the Baker approached him: ‘Have a Lucky (Strike). We took them off
Lorca’s body after we shot him this morning.’ Bravado? Maybe. There were plenty
of people in Granada who wanted to be associated with this abominable crime;
Trecastro being, of course, one of the most prominent.

Nestares
recalls the Black Squad that ‘the Baker’ belonged to. ‘They were really paid
killers. They were organised by Julio Romero Funes (Valdés’s right-hand man at
the Civil Government: there was no love lost between Nestares and Valdés),
although on some occasions they acted on their own account.’ José Rosales says
he knew the Baker from before the Uprising and names him tentatively as Eduardo
López Peso. ‘We would give him a few pesetas to carry out reprisals.’ I presume
by ‘we’ he means himself and his closest Falangist associates and by
‘reprisals’ he means acts of violence against leftwing opponents.

In the
early days, Lorca’s death used to be talked about as being at the hands of
these black squads, a name that has a frightening ring about it, presenting
them as gangs of uncontrollable psychopathic thugs taking advantage of a
situation of chaos and social breakdown. Luis García-Alix Fernández: ‘From the
first days of the Movement, diverse elements, among them Ramón Ruiz Alonso,
organised groups that, sometimes with the knowledge of the Civil governor and
at other times without it, went round dragging out of the houses or the places
where they were hiding those people they considered dangerous. And they met
every night in the central cafe La Granja,
to draw up the lists of executions they were going to carry out.’

In
fact, Caballero’s account reveals that there were no clear lines between the
official firing squads and the black squads, which were anyway by April 1937
fully integrated into the process of systemic state terror. Such is the case of
Salvio Rodríguez García, mentioned by Caballero as one
of Lorca’s killers, who was a black squad member up to April 1937, when all
still existing unofficial murder squads were formalised. Until then, black squad
members would sometimes support the official ones and gradually be absorbed by
them. Antonio González Villegas, for example, was a black squad member in the
first two weeks of the Uprising and was then incorporated into the assault
guards, while evidently maintaining his links to his unregulated associates,
the Baker and Pugnose. To me, it seems the term ‘black squad’ came to be used
to distract attention from the state-sponsored elimination of oppositional
forces, whereas in fact these murder squads were well organised and already,
just four weeks into the uprising, pretty much under the control of the Civil
Government authorities.

Both Valdés and Nestares seem to have been
quite meticulous in recording their respective roles in consolidating the
nationalist hold over Granada. Valdés was so meticulous in recording how he
executed his savage repression that he kept well-ordered and detailed files,
the one labelled ‘File 8: Re García Lorca’, significantly, found to be empty,
though. Nestares, who was effectively in control of a battle front, needed to
keep accurate records, in particular of movements between Granada and Víznar,
but also to cover his back with regard to the unofficial executions that were
taking place in his area of command.

Caballero
expresses his great satisfaction with the testimony of Nestares, especially in
the way it ties in so neatly with that given by his ‘assistant and friend’,
Martínez Bueso, a factor which he thinks gives it particular credibility. Yet
we know that Nestares was with some frequency questioned about the events of
that moonless night, events that were classified as top secret. And we know
that he gathered his team to school them on the facts, as Emilio Moreno Olmedo
reported to Fajardo Molina, to make sure nobody strayed from ‘the truth’. His
official paperwork relating to the events of that night shows signs of having
been doctored, with the observation of three people being brought from Granada
(Lorca, Gadalí and Cabezas) amended to ‘five’, to include a couple of petty
communist-criminals and possibly a villain nicknamed ‘el Terrible’. When Manuel Castilla, Manolo el comunista, says the people buried that night were ‘the teacher
from Pulianas, Galadí, Cabezas, and him, Lorca; nobody else’ he is referring to
this clumsy effort on the part of Nestares to falsify the evidence. Elsewhere, Nestares reports that Funes gave the order to Martínez
Fajardo to bring Lorca plus Galadí, Cabezas, and ‘the Terrible’ to Víznar; but
I have found no other trace of or reference to this latter individual. I
mention it here as an example of Nestares’s occasionally creative record
keeping

Testimony
of Lorca’s last moments comes from two sources: José Navarro Pardo and Manuel
López Banús. From the former we hear how ‘the driver who had brought Lorca to
Viznar’ (Arenas, supposedly) told him how the victim survived the first salvo
of shots, an account confirmed by the latter, who says Cuesta himself related how,
after the initial salvo, Lorca got to his knees and said ‘I’m still alive’ and
had to be put out of his misery with a fresh barrage of shots. This may well be
the occasion that Antonio Benavides fired two bullets into the victim’s head.

Photos:
the drawing is a version of Goya’s ‘2 May
1808’
celebrating the people of Madrid’s resistance to the Napoleonic
invasion, slightly amended to suggest Lorca’s facial features in the figure of the
martyr. The painting is in the Prado of course and I think I got the drawing
from an article about Lorca in the ABC newspaper, twenty years ago.

Note:*Titos
Martínez, Manuel (2005). Verano del 36 en Granada. Un testimonio inédito
sobre el comienzo de la guerra civil y la muerte de García Lorca
. Granada.

So, by
way of conclusion, what do I think happened?

The
detention proceeded more or less as described by Miguel Rosales with Lorca
being taken to the Civil Government in the late or mid afternoon of the 16th.
But he was kept in custody until Valdés was able to get the go-ahead for the
killing from Queipo de Llano. On the night of the 17th he was
transferred to Víznar along with the anarchist bullfighters Gadalí and Cabezas.
Schoolmaster Diáscoro Galindo joined them in the improvised prison known as
‘The Colony’, until Martínez Fajardo arrived from Granada with the official
firing squad and an unknown number of black squad members. Then the killing
went off more or less as Cuesta described it, plus Benavides´s credible
addendum.

Does
it matter?

Does
it matter? Whether it was the 17th or 18th? The time he
was ‘disappeared’ from the Civil Government? Who was ‘ultimately’ responsible?
To what extent was Horacio Roldán able to pull strings and influence events?
Did Queipo de Llano have the last word? Was Ruiz Alonso manipulated by Juan
Luis Trecastro or was he motivated by his petty grievances vis-à-vis the
Falange? Should we blame Valdés’s stomach ulcer and his consequent bad humour?
Or maybe the offence taken by Velasco at Lorca’s anti-Guardia Civil poems? And the million-dollar question: the location
of the poet’s remains.

It
shouldn’t matter, but somehow it does. To some extent I share Ian Gibson’s
exasperation at not knowing what happened to Lorca’s
bodily remains. ‘If
we don’t find them,’ Gibson complains, ‘the unanswered questions, the theories,
the arguments – and the lies – will go on forever’+. (Personally, I
am not convinced that the locating of Lorca’s remains will tie up the loose
ends. Frankly, I feel it might throw up as many questions as it answers!)

After
five decades, Gibson declares himself finished with his Lorca project. ‘I do
not intend to revise my books nor write any new ones.’+

Perhaps
it is time for me to take a page out of Gibson’s book and turn my attention to
other matters, matters that are more pressing in the present than unpicking the
tangle of testimonies, facts and fictions, lies and half-truths, arguments and
counterarguments that lie eighty years in the past. Then again, they dug up
Richard III in a Leicester car park after more than 500 years, so …

Note: +María Serrano. 27/02/2017 público.es



CABALLERO VERSUS GIBSON 3

Lorca disappearing and death Posted on Tue, October 31, 2017 08:34:04

CABALLERO
VERSUS GIBSON: 13 HOURS, OR TWO AND A HALF DAYS?

Part
3: The disappearing

The disappearing
of the poet-playwright García Lorca happened effectively just after José
Rosales got to speak to him at around 10.30pm on the night of 16 August.
Evidence of what happened after that has been clearly concealed and/or tampered
with. We know he was then taken to Víznar to be shot. For me the date and the
time of the transfer to Víznar are still unresolved questions. Did it happen
immediately after Rosales’ visit, or was Lorca held at the Civil Government for
24 or even 48 hours?

An important witness and one who could be
used to corroborate Caballero’s theory is Agustín Soler Bonor. He claims to
have seen Lorca being taken away from the Civil Government without being able
to verify the exact date: ‘One night in the month of August at about 10.30pm I
arrived at the Civil Government (…) At the door a car was waiting (…)
Inside there were two prisoners, villager-types (…) Going up to the first
floor I met Lorca coming down, escorted by two Assault Guards.’
Civil Government building, calle Duquesa; today part of Faculty of Law; behind Botanical Gardens:

If this is true, the two ‘villager-types’
could have been the anarchists Juan Arcoyas Cabezas and Francisco Galadí Melgar
who are known to have been shot alongside the poet. The only problem with this
is that it contradicts testimony saying they were captured in a cave outside
Granada and then taken directly to Víznar. However, Galadí’s family are
convinced he was captured in Granada, at the Fuente del Avellano.

Soler continues: ‘He was handcuffed and
looked despondent and showed no sign of recognising me.’

This could have been just moments after the
poet’s brief conversation with the respected and influential Falangist, José
Rosales. Feeling rather optimistic on account of Rosales’s promise to make an
official intervention with higher authorities on his behalf, Lorca’s high hopes
are then dashed when immediately afterwards he is handcuffed and led away.
Maybe he has heard that he is being taken to Víznar and knows it can mean only
one thing…

A second possibility occurs to me. Was the
man Soler describes one who was simply dispirited, or one who had been locked
up and held incommunicado for several
hours, maybe since the day before, maybe even tortured? He seems to be
oblivious to his surroundings and fails to notice the presence of the witness.
How long would it take to get to this state of resignation and apathy? Could he
have lost heart so quickly, and so completely, if this incident happened
moments after Rosales’s visit?

In total contradiction to the evidence
given by Soler Bonor, Ricardo Rodríguez Jiménez gives a colourful account of
how Lorca was taken from the Civil Goverment: ‘Each night I used to go to the
police station to hear Queipo de Llano’s last bulletin, which was broadcast
around 3a.m. (…) That night I left the station at 3.15am. Suddenly I heard
someone call my name. I turned around. ‘Federico!’ He threw an arm over my
shoulder. His right arm was handcuffed to that of a schoolmaster from La Zubia
with white hair. ‘Where are they taking you?’ ‘I don’t know.’ He was coming out
of the civil government building, surrounded by guards and Falangists belonging
to the ‘Black Squad’ (…) Someone stuck a gun in my chest. I screamed:
‘Murderers! (…) They locked me up for two hours and then they let me go.’ By
then, of course, it was too late to do anything.

Gonzalo Queipo de Llano was of course
commander of the Nationalist Army of the South and so the supreme authority of
the uprising in Andalusia. The white-haired schoolmaster ‘from La Zubia’ is
supposedly Diáscoro Galindo, though he was actually from Pulianas. If Galindo
was taken away at 2am, as his son said, it is not impossible that he had been
brought to the civil Government prior to being transferred to Víznar, though
this of course would have been on the morning of the 18th, not the
17th.

This account can be made to fit in with the
evidence of Joaquín López-Mateos Matres, previously cited, who says that while
on guard at the Civil Government on the evening and night of the 16th
he saw Lorca sitting alone, buried in his thoughts and anxieties, ‘all evening
and part of the night’ without witnessing him being taken away. ‘Part of the
night’ might possibly refer to until 10.30pm, which is really not that long
after nightfall, but to my mind it fits in better with Rodríguez Jiménez’s
declaration. What it does not fit in with, though, is the bulk of the evidence
about Lorca’s arrival in Víznar, which points to a much earlier time of night.

Basing
his evidence on what Nestares reported, Caballero says Lorca arrived in Víznar
shortly before midnight, on the 16th. Pedro Cuesta Hernández, who
was one of the regular guards at the Villa Concha, improvised prison for the
condemned, testifies that Lorca was brought there between 10.30 and 11pm on one of the nights between 17 and
20 August, though elsewhere he says about 10pm on 16 -18 August. [This is an old photo of Villa Concha. It was demolished not long after these events.]

The general consensus is that Lorca arrived
in Víznar after nightfall, after the gravediggers had been locked in, otherwise
somebody would have recognised him, the gravediggers being mainly composed of
liberal university professors, politicians, professionals, and the like: people
who would definitely know the famous poet and dramatist by sight. At nightfall
they were locked in on the upstairs floor.

The testimony of José Jover Tripaldi, who
gave Agustín Penón such a hard time in the 1950s, colourful and attractive
though it is, must be discarded as unreliable. Most of what he says could have
been picked up in village gossip or in the cafés of Granada, and even the
picturesque anecdote about Lorca’s last-minute improvised confession was in
certain quarters part of contemporary street folklore. Caballero insists that
documentary evidence indicates that Tripaldi was not around at the time of
Lorca’s disappearance.

Finally, last but not least, there are the
well known ‘Give him coffee’ instructions that Valdés received from Queipo de
Llano which is supposed to have given the go-ahead to have the poet eliminated.
Valdés was used to consulting with his superior over cases of exceptional
importance and for the express purpose of such consultations a radio had been
installed at the Civil Government. We have it from people close to the civil
governor that Valdés, every night after Queipo’s speech on Radio Seville, would
consult the General about the day’s events and it was after one such
consultation that Lorca was dispatched. In one version Germán Fernández Ramos,
a drinking companion of Valdés’s, claims he heard Valdés phone Queipo twice
before sealing the poet’s fate. The Ideal
newspaper, incidentally, reported the re-establishment of telephone
communications between Granada and Seville on 17 August.

If the exchange really took place after
Queipo de Llano’s radio broadcast, it must have been late at night. The
earliest this consultation could have taken place of course is after Valdés’s
return to Granada at 9.45 on the 16th, and in all events Valdés would have to
have moved very fast and it hardly seems possible that he could have had this
conversation and then got Lorca sent off to Viznar to arrive there shortly
before midnight. Against that, Ruiz Alonso always insisted that Valdés himself
had told him on the morning of the 17th that Lorca had been shot, on
orders received from Seville, i.e. from Queipo de Llano. To complicate matters
further, the radio broadcast theory fits in rather nicely with the dramatic
testimony of Rodríguez Jiménez.

In any case, if we are to accept the
evidence that points to Lorca being taken to Víznar before midnight of the 16th,
it would mean disregarding or finding an alternative explanation for the ‘give
him coffee’ exchange as well as for evidence provided by Diáscoro Galindo’s son
and Angelina Cordobilla. Once again, Caballero’s main argument in favour of
this thesis is that his enemies wanted Lorca dispatched before his highly
respected and influential father had time to intervene to protect his son.

Photos:
Gobierno Civil/Civil goverment building https://letralia.com/175/fgl05.jpg 5.11.07 Fernando Guijarro Arcas

‘The Colony’/Villa Concha http://www.ideal.es/granada/20130609/local/granada/viznar-pide-junta-cesion-201306091138.html 09.06.13 EUROPA PRESS | GRANADA



Next »