Paul Trejo

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Paul Trejo

  1. Mark, Different Bill Kelly, wot? Regards --Paul Trejo
  2. Alistair, Two great questions. 1. Marina said she took one photo and even insisted on that. 1.1. The WC attorney was relentless that she MUST have taken two, because he had two different poses in his hand! 1.2. He kept pushing the two photos in her face. See? See? 1.3. Finally, Marina realized he was never going to stop, so she shrugged and said, well, maybe I did, without knowing it, since I never operated a camera before. 1.4. This hassle happened more than once with the authorities. 2.0. WHY in the world would LHO want to have several variations? 2.1. First reason: plausible deniability. Each of the variations would NEVER be the original. 2.2. Second reason: LHO was immature, and wanted a momento of the historic occasion. Regards --Paul Trejo
  3. Ernie, I agree with you on this one. Harry Dean is a dramatic exception to many rules. I have a full time job and can't devote the necessary time to write an adequate biography for the exciting, international intrigue of the life of Harry Dean. One day -- soon I hope -- the role of Harry Dean in American history will obtain academic attention and Harry Dean will finally attain a proper hearing within the context of the JFK assassination. Regards --Paul Trejo
  4. James, The person to ask about the Baron is the Baron himself. He gave lots and lots of WC testimony, and he is referenced many times by many other WC witnesses, including Marina Oswald. Ruth Paine herself only saw the Baron once in her life before the JFK assassination, namely, on February 22, 1963 at a party at Everett Glover's house. Everett, an engineer, was a pal of the Baron's (from work) and also of Michael Paine (at Unitarian Church). The Baron was an eccentric man with a colorful life. Born fabulously wealthy in Russia, the Communists took his family's Estate, and the young Baron fled to Europe, where he supported the Nazis in hopes of defeating the Communists and getting his Estate back. The Nazis not only lost the war, but they slaughtered 20% of the Russian population. Now the Baron hated Russian Communists and German Nazis equally. He and his older brother fled to the USA. The Baron's brother did very well in the USA -- and the Baron did less well. Yet both men were very well educated, and did not suffer much. The Baron knew the family of Jackie Kennedy when Jackie was a young girl. These are the social circles the Baron moved within. In Dallas, however, surrounded by yokels, the Baron became a snob. He liked to fool people. He liked to shock people, actually. This came out in the WC testimonies, and he himself admitted it, under oath. Why would the Baron be interested in a "hillbilly" like LHO? (That was the Baron's actual word for LHO.) The reason was that LHO was an oddity -- a curiosity -- like a circus sideshow -- he was the Marine who defected to the USSR. So the Baron had to meet him. The Baron was astounded by LHO -- LHO could speak Russian more fluently than any American in Texas. LHO's grammar wasn't perfect, but his fluency was remarkable, said the Baron. In his first meeting, in perhaps August, 1962, at a White Russian gathering at Max and Gali Clark's (IIRC) LHO would answer questions for the Russian-speaking guests and then answer questions for the English-speaking guests with equal fluency. The Baron was thrilled. Even his own, university educated children could not do that, and here was this "hillbilly" doing it. The Baron admitted that he liked LHO. He really liked him. LHO bugged him from time to time -- he really was a poser, but he liked LHO. This is in his WC testimony. Later in 1962, when most of the White Russians were sick and tired of the melodrama of the Oswalds, the Baron stuck closer to the Oswalds, and took them to parties, even though the other Russian guests would groan about it. (This is also in the WC testimonies). The Christmas party of 1962 was a case in point. Then, in 1963, the Baron stayed close to LHO even in Dallas, in Oak Cliff, far from the genteel neighborhoods where most White Russians lived. LHO didn't like them. They were getting too fresh with Marina. The Baron on February 22, 1963, took the Oswalds to an engineer's party at Everett Glover's. He did not speak Russian. All of the guests there spoke English -- except for the Oswalds, the DeMohrenschildt's, and a new student of the Russian language, Ruth Paine. At that party, Marina Oswald was almost isolated, because all the engineers and their dates surrounded the "Marine defector" to ask him questions. LHO loved it. Marina had to take care of baby June in a bedroom with Jeanne DeMohrenschildt. Ruth Paine joined them, and tried out her unpracticed Russian conversational skills. Marina Oswald kindly and gently corrected Ruth, and Ruth thought that Marina Oswald was just a wonderful person, and wanted to be her friend instantly. According to Ruth Paine, she never saw George DeM before or after (until after the JFK assassination; and only in the context of the JFK investigations). Ruth Paine's friendship with Marina Oswald was a great joy to Ruth, a great relief for Marina -- especially since LHO was, according to Marina: (1) standing in the way of Marina's learning of English; (2) threatening to send Marina back to the USSR without him; and (3) not allowing Marina sufficient medical attention, since she was pregnant again. Ruth Paine would take a charitable interest in Marina Oswald at this point, and for the rest of 1963 -- to mixed results. Regards, --Paul Trejo
  5. Ray, Yes, they are my conjectures, based on some basic claims by interviewers: 1. Sandra [Styles] claimed she told [Barry] Ernest what she was now telling me: that she and Victoria Adams did not go to the rear stairs anything close to as quickly as Victoria had claimed. -- Sean Murphy; January 27, 2011 1.1. For the record, Vicki had claimed that they had gone to the rears stairs of the TSBD within one minute. 2. The minute-to-minute TIMING of Shelley and Lovelady's actions after the JFK shots is rightly discounted. 3. The ONE EVENT AGREED BY UPON BY THREE WC WITNESSES is that Shelley, Lovelady, Vicki Adams and Sandra Styles MET TOGETHER on the 1st floor of the TSBD. The soonest this could have occurred would be 6 minutes after the JFK shots, but more realistically 10 minutes after (because Shelley and Lovelady had walked all the way to the railroad tracks and back to the TSBD. Regards, --Paul Trejo P.S. If you ask me questions in this new FORUM software, you must now QUOTE my posts, so that I will get NOTIFICATION. Otherwise I cannot know I'm being addressed. This is different from the old FORUM software, which I thought was more user-friendly. Anyway, this is why it took me so long to answer your question. I've been QUOTED a lot in other threads and so I've been active in those.
  6. Tommy, Yes, I agree emphatically -- especially since James Di Eugenio generally promotes a CIA-did-it scenario with relish. For example, James has published (Destiny Betrayed, 1992, 2013) that Ruth Paine, a Quaker and mother of two in Irving, Texas, was in fact a hardened CIA agent assigned to "separate Marina from Lee." For what reason, James does not say -- but it sounds melodramatic. That reminds me -- I should review James' published works to see what he says about Marina, the Commission and Mexico City, within the context of Ruth Paine. This could be interesting. Regards, --Paul Trejo
  7. Tommy, Yes, correct; I had no intention to say that you endorsed it. Yet you did correctly perceive it. I maintain that the so-called "Blonde Oswald" remarks of Silvia Duran and Eusebio Azcue must be grasped within the context of sadistic beatings that they could have (and sometimes did) receive at the hands of the Mexican Police. Regards, --Paul Trejo
  8. Joe, I'm glad to focus on this one single point, namely, Liebeler's question to Michael Paine: "Did you make ANY remark to the effect that you knew who was responsible?" The trouble with that question was that it was a loaded gun. What made it loaded? It was AMBIGUOUS. It had TWO meanings, and you know it, I know it, and everybody knows it. The TWO meanings are: (1) that you merely made a passing remark about your opinion; and (2) that you, Michael Paine, were PART of the JFK conspiracy. The implication of Liebeler to Michael Paine cannot be missed. It whets the appetite of CTers to this very day. Liebeler meant -- did YOU have ADVANCE INFORMATION about the JFK assassination? Especially given the tense mood of the USA in 1964 when these WC hearings were underway, Michael Paine immediately saw the AMBIGUITY of this question, and he answered the SECOND MEANING of the question. Michael Paine responded "...No, I did not." This meant, in obvious terms that we all understand, "No I did not have ADVANCE INFORMATION about the JFK assassination." It was precisely in this very context that Liebeler asked his next question: "You are POSITIVE in your recollection that you did not?" Michael Paine -- in the interest of honest self-preservation -- replied, " Yes." It was not perjury because the question itself was AMBIGUOUS. The fault was Liebeler's. If Liebeler wanted a more specific answer, he should have asked a more specific question. Liebeler's neglect to add a date to his question cannot be taken as an open-ended question, outside of the CONTEXT under discussion; legally, logically or morally. Under the circumstance of the Inquisition to which both Michael and Ruth Paine were subjected by the WC, Michael Paine's response was logical, understandable and defensible. Michael Paine answered the question. Michael Paine also avoided the INNUENDO that was lurking behind that LOADED question. Michael Paine was (and remains) a very intelligent American citizen. Finally, Joe, I appreciate your tacit concession that James Hosty was the culprit who ordered Ruth Paine's telephone to be tapped through Captain Paul Barger. I hope to return to that theme in a later post. Regards, --Paul Trejo
  9. Ernie, You didn't make it clear whether you were referring to panhandlers or not. This lack of clarify it common in your writing (much like the useless bulk in your huge posts). As for Harry Dean Research -- it is one of my newest projects. I am considering applying for an academic Grant to study the biography of Harry Dean as a World War Two Veteran, as a member of Fidel Castro's 26th of July Movement, and as an ordinary American Republican citizen who was caught between the twin pinchers of American Communism on the Left and the John Birch Society on the Right. I anticipate worldwide academic interest. 1. While it is true that Harry Dean is already in his late 80's, and has outlived most of his contemporaries of that period, nevertheless, modern historiography can work wonders in uncovering clues and facts in arcane documents so far lost to self-proclaimed experts like Ernie Lazar. 2, 3. FBI records will reveal further documents about Harry Dean in October 26, 2017, I predict, when the JFK Records Act comes to maturity. 4. There are few JFK researchers today interested in Harry Dean, because most (even on his FORUM) are still wondering why the CIA-did-it CT earth beneath their feet is quaking, and worrying about how to make it stop. The answer is, of course, the New Book by Jeff Caufield: General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: the Extensive New Evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy (2015). This has made the CIA-did-it CT earth tremble. There is no way to make it stop. Everything will change after 10/26/2017, when I expect to receive a Grant to begin Harry Dean Research. It will be HUGE. Regards, --Paul Trejo
  10. Ernie, As for proof -- all in due time. Harry Dean Research is really in its starting phases, because the past 50 years of JFK research were wasted in CIA-did-it CT's. The Radical Right CT of the JFK assassination is relatively new. We have had very little help in gathering and sorting the vast historical materials. As for your policeman-to-panhandler analogy -- that is vastly different from what Wesley Swearingen was talking about -- and you know it. Regards, --Paul Trejo
  11. Ernie, Don't forget that some of those FBI agents actually gave Harry Dean a few dollars cash for his trouble and gas from time to time. It's not just that Harry Dean claimed that -- it's that FBI agent Wesley Swearingen admitted that local FBI agents would dip into petty cash for just such occasions. Regards, --Paul Trejo
  12. Joe, Thanks for setting aside for the time being the claims made by Buddy Walthers about Michael Paine. I agree to focus on the WC testimony of Michael Paine at this time. Here is my feedback. 1. Michael Paine and Ruth Paine were separated from September 1962 through November 1963. Michael took an apartment near Bell Helicopter, and virtually lived at the office. 2. However, Michael Paine loved his two children, and he visited twice a week, and he called Ruth Paine very regularly -- from his office. There could be a dozen of these calls every week. 3. Attorney Liebeler was not being specific enough. 4. I agree that Liebeler began his line of questioning refering -- in a clumsy manner -- to the controversial phone call that we all know as the CAPTAIN PAUL BARGER wire-tap. 5. Yet this was not under evidence as such. Liebeler didn't name Captain Barger, and didn't call it a wire-tap. 6. Still, Michael Paine had already heard the accusations that he "knew" who killed JFK, so Michael was ready for it. 7. Michael Paine began with the many rumors he had heard -- that his phone was tapped, but nobody would admit it was tapped -- that the phone numbers were from out of state, but nobody would admit it -- that the FBI was involved -- that the FBI wasn't involved -- and a whole chaos of State secrets and lies. 8. Then Liebeler shut that down. Liebeler would ask the questions. Just answer. Liebeler then asked very specifically about a call on Saturday, November 23rd, 1963. 9. OK, Michael Paine would answer that. What choice did he have? Liebeler is the attorney. Michael was on the witness stand. 10. As for Saturday and the calls made between Michael and Ruth that day -- and whether Michael may have called Ruth from his office phone, please consider: 10.1. We know that Michael Paine went back to sleep at his apartment on Friday night, 11/22/1963. This is in testimony. 10.2. Given that Michael Paine had no girl friend or other relationship during that time..he lived alone in his apartment... 10.3. Given that Michael Paine's apartment was walking distance from Bell Helicopter, and that Michael worked a lot of overtime... 10.4. Given that Michael Paine called Ruth several times a week, as was his habit... 10.5. The odds are good that Michael Paine went to work on Saturday morning, 11/23/1963 and called Ruth from his office phone. 11. Michael and Ruth Paine spoke on the telephone frequently -- from many different phones. During the JFK assassination weekend, when Marina Oswald was under seige, Ruth reached out of Michael more frequently than usual. 12. Liebeler's questions to Michael Paine were harsh, accusatory and ironically unclear and messy. Liebeler had something to hide, apparently. 13. Probably an illegal wiretap was what Liebeler was trying to conceal. 14. Michael Paine had no reason to lie -- he and Ruth had spoken on 11/22/1963 -- soon after the JFK shots -- and said, "We both know who is responsible." And by that, Ruth Paine said, they meant generically responsible, i.e. the Radical Right in Dallas which had published the handbill, WANTED FOR TREASON: JFK. 15. That phone conversation was not a crime. Therefore the Paine's had nothing to hide. Michael Paine would have answered about it, if the question had been clear. Objective readers can tell that a question about an 11/22/1963 phone call, or its content, was never made clear to Micheal. 16. Liebeler could not press the point because he was sitting on a State Crime -- an illegal wire tap. 17. Ruth Paine suggested this to me on 12/12/2015. "Who tapped us? Why? Why won't they come forward to this very day?" 18. That's the real question, Joe, and I think you're evading it. "Who tapped the Paines? Why? Why won't they come forward?" 19. Even years later, when Captain Paul Barger finally came forward, he claimed it was a telephone lineman's "accident." Really? 20. Now -- as for that final answer by Michael Paine: 20.1. Liebeler's question; "Did you make any remark to the effect that you knew who was responsible?" 20.2. Be honest -- the question was accusing Michael Paine of being an accomplice (at least after the fact) in the JFK assassination. 20.3. Liebeler should have asked, "Did you say, 'We both know who's responsible?' to Ruth?" 20.4. Then Michael could have answered, "Yes, we both knew that whoever published the WANTED FOR TREASON: JFK handbills was responsible." 20.5. But that wasn't the intent of Liebeler's question. And further, Captain Paul Barger added a fib to his handwritten transcript of the illegal wire tap. 20.6. Remember that Paul Barger forged: "The male voice said, 'He felt sure that Lee Harvey Oswald was the killer." 20.7. That was the REAL context of Liebeler's question. Everybody there knew it. Michael Paine had already heard the accusation. 20.8. Therefore, under the circumstances, Micheal Paine's answer was true, correct, and the only rational answer. 21. Again, Joe, Michael Paine never denied the 11/22/1963 ever took place -- but he was simply never honestly asked about it. Plain as day. 22. Both Ruth Paine and Michael Paine told the truth. 23. We can be absolutely certain of it, given the Inquisition mood of the USA in those days. They would have been charged with perjury in a heartbeat. 24. Finally, Joe, please don't raise what Buddy Walthers, that Big Fibber, claimed that Michael Paine said. IMHO, Walther's was part of a larger plot to frame LHO and anybody he knew as Communists in an rumored Communist plot to kill JFK -- a rumor that was heard by US Secretary of State Dean Rusk before the day was over. Regards, --Paul Trejo
  13. Ernie, This is quite simple. There are many, many FBI records that admit that Harry Dean supplied information about Communists. Now... SOME of those FBI records include negative remarks that say: (1) Harry Dean's information was unwanted; and (2) Harry Dean is wonky. Therefore by the rules of logic: A. Not ALL of those FBI records include negative remarks about Harry Dean. B. Therefore, SOME of those FBI records can be logically deduced to have been accepted gladly. So simple. Yet your bizarre bias against Harry Dean will never let you admit it. Regards, --Paul Trejo
  14. Alistair, In my CT, things are a bit more complicated. It was at the end of January 1963 that General Walker was formally acquitted by a Mississippi Grand Jury of all charges related to the deadly racial riots at Ole Miss University on September 30, 1962. From that point forward, George DeMohrenschildt (DeM) began to complain bitterly about General Walker to anybody who would listen. George DeM believed he was super-educated, and would loudly broadcast his opinions. General Walker reminded George DeM of Adolf Hitler -- who had slaughtered 1/5 of the population of Russia -- from whence George came. A young Christian engineer named Volkmar Schmidt agreed entirely with George DeM. There are different editions of that YouTube video, "FRONTLINE: Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald." In one edition, George DeM speaks before Volkmar Schmidt, and clarifies the context. Also, Volkmar adds that LHO spurred this conversation by complaining bitterly about JFK and the Bay of Pigs, and the slaughter of the Cuban Expatriates. (Volkmar is completely eliminated from other editions on YouTube. It's weird.) To fill out Voikmar's side of the story, I am proud to present an interview from a distinguished, late member of this FORUM, Bill Kelly, who interviewed Volkmar Schmidt in 1995. Here is a good link: Anyway, in George DeM's 1977 manuscript, he speaks further of the engineer's party in which Volkmar Schmidt tries to convince LHO that General Walker is the more rational target of hate. (Except in his manuscript, George DeM tries to hide Volkmar's identity, and says it was "some Jewish person" who was speaking with Oswald. Evidently, George DeM wanted to protect his friend.) But protect Volkmar from WHAT? In my CT, George DeM was tortured for the rest of his life because he could see -- better than anyone -- that he and Volkmar (and other young Dallas yuppies who hated General Walker) were legally ACCOMPLICES in the attempted murder of General Walker. Furthermore, in my CT, George DeM realized that LHO was made a Patsy in the JFK killing, and then was killed himself -- by the leadership of none other than General Walker, whom he, George DeM, had somehow convinced LHO to assassinate. The blame for the JFK murder and the LHO murder were therefore partly on George DeM's conscience until the day he committed suicide in 1977. Given this CT, I will expand upon the timeline that you supplied, Alistair. IMHO, these are the more likely dates: February 20 - March 31 -- LHO takes many photos of Walker's house, draws maps, makes plans and a scrapbook. Also, LHO processes many of these photographs at his job at JCS, where he also creates his Fake ID for Alek J. Hidell. March 12 -- LHO orders a rifle under the name of Alek J. Hidell. March 25 -- LHO picks up the rifle March 31 -- Marina takes one and only one 'Backyard Photo' April 1 - April 9 -- LHO makes several variations of the Backyard Photo at JCS, with the help of Roscoe White. April 10 -- LHO takes 'potshot' at Walker This was a major part of LHO's life from February through April 1963, in my CT. His obsession with this is probably what caused LHO to get himself fired from JCS. I think George DeM knew more about this period than he would ever confess. Regards, --Paul Trejo
  15. Joe, You are comparing apples and oranges. WC attorney Wesley Liebeler asked Michael Paine about a call made on Saturday, November 23rd. Michael Paine merely answered his question obediently and correctly. Ruth Paine told me about a call made on Friday, November 22nd. Michael Paine did not in any way, shape or form, commit perjury. Was Liebeler part of some conspiracy? We dont' know yet, but it is also possible he just bungled his notes. It is the duty of every witness to answer the attorney's questions -- and not attempt to correct the attorney. Otherwise, our legal system would break down. The fault was Liebeler's in the testimony you cited, Joe. Regards, --Paul Trejo
  16. Joe, You make some points worthy of review with regard to Michael Paine, and I am willing to review them all with you. However, let's first deal with the Buddy Walthers issue, please. You rightly say that Buddy "wasn't sophisticated and clever enough to give out false or made up information and do so capably without serious discrepancies quickly and easily being detected." I agree with this -- so let's be kind to Buddy Walthers and say that he was merely sloppy in his speech, and was only exaggerating the facts, and was perhaps happy to boast in front of his peers that he found material more important than he actually found (i.e. "six or seven filing cabinets full of names of Castro supporters"). I will grant all of that, for the sake of argument. Still -- these are serious flaws in communication. It means that the TRUTH was not Buddy's highest value in his communication. Now, Joe, if we can agree on that, then I will ask you -- for the sake of argument -- to stop repeating Buddy Walther's alleged quotations of Michael Paine's words to him AS ACTUAL FACTS. Please let Michael Paine speak for himself. If he contradicts himself, then we have him. Otherwise, why accept this sloppy speaker's word for what Michael Paine said? If you are willing to do this, Joe, then I will spend all the time you wish on the words of Michael Paine, from his sworn WC testimony. But one thing at a time, please. Agreed? Regards, --Paul Trejo
  17. Alistair, Yes, I think this follows from many statements made by George DeM in his WC testimony, but especially in his manuscript, I'm a Patsy! I'm a Patsy! (1977) which he finished only days before he committed suicide. George DeM had been called to testify for the HSCA in 1977, but he refused to go -- he would die first. But before he died, he did try to explain himself in the context of Lee Harvey Oswald. In that manuscript (which is free in many places on the Internet) George makes his own hatred of General Walker explicit. He only hinted at it for the WC attorneys, but he spelled it out in his manuscript. Also, there is a YouTube video from the 1990's, entitled FRONTLINE: Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald? which speaks to this point. It is a 2.5 hour video, but I am only interested here in less than 2 minutes of it -- starting at minute 36:50 to about minute 38:15. There we find Volkmar Schmidt admitting that he worked to convince LHO that General Walker was evil. (George DeM would say, "as bad as Hitler.") Here is the link: When Marina Oswald asked LHO why he tried to kill Walker, LHO said, "because he is as bad as Hitler." The evidence is clear to me. I also believe that others besides George DeM and Volkmar Schmidt were involved in this informal "plot" against General Walker. Volkmar and George DeM only meant it as serious political talk -- but they didn't realize that LHO was a man of action -- or as some would say, a loose cannon. Regards, --Paul Trejo
  18. David, As a CTer I resent being placed in the same category as Ray. Here is how LHO's rifle came to be in Ruth Paine's garage. 1. LHO held his rifle back when he loaded up Ruth Paine's station wagon in New Orleans on September 23, 1963, and Ruth and Marina and all their kids drove back to Irving, Texas. 2. LHO took his rifle with him to Mexico City, where he traveled in an automobile with two accomplices: "Leopoldo" and "Angelo." It was in the trunk. 3. LHO took rifle with him to Dallas from Mexico City after he failed miserably to get his instant visa into Cuba. "Leopoldo"and "Angelo" drove LHO to Dallas. 4. LHO kept it in a duffel bag when he roomed in Dallas in various places. 5. Without Ruth Paine's knowledge, LHO brought it to her garage one day in October, and placed it among the wide variety of junk that Ruth had in her garage from Marina Oswald's move from New Orleans. 6. Viola! 7. As a loyal member of Guy Banister's team to Kill Fidel Castro, including "Leopoldo" and "Angelo" (who were members of Interpen), LHO was clueless when he was instructed to bring his rifle to the TSBD on 11/22/1964, that he was soon to become their Patsy. Regards, --Paul Trejo
  19. Joe, I think the key to remember is that Buddy Walthers was deliberately giving out false information. He knew that he had put four "little metal boxes" in his trunk -- but he told Dallas police that he "saw six or seven metal filing cabinets full of names of Castro supporters." It turned out that one of those "little metal boxes" had some FPCC fliers in them, from New Orleans. See how Buddy Walthers was willing to give out false information -- very deliberately? OK -- if you see that, then please tell me why you believe anything else Buddy Walthers' had to say. By this I mean, when he describes what Michael Paine said -- why do you think that was true? That is, why would you try to find out why Michael Paine said that? The real question is why Buddy Walthers accused Michael Paine of saying it. Regards, --Paul Trejo
  20. David, This is the right way to solve this riddle that has plagued CIA-did-it CTers for decades. The sworn testimony of Buddy Walthers. Finally we get down to cases. It's a play on words, and I think Buddy Walthers knew it. He didn't mean FILING CABINETS, and he knew it damn well. He knew that others would think of the standard Filing Cabinets that most offices and most Police offices around the USA were using in 1963. Instead, he was talking about "little metal boxes with handles" of 12 inches by 4 inches -- or about that size. These WERE itemized and classified by the FBI in official records. There were not "six or seven", but four IIRC. The point is that Buddy Walthers was EXAGGERATING in order to whip up an Anticommunist frenzy against Ruth Paine at the time. That's how I read it. Regards, --Paul Trejo
  21. David, I agree with your key point -- that the accusations that Buddy Walther's made about finding "six or seven filing cabinets filled with names of Castro supporters" -- was made to various members of the Dallas Police, and not made under oath. That's a fair point. I accept it. Of course -- CIA-did-it CTers still want to make hay about this, and still want to accuse Ruth Paine of having these -- as her way of spying for the CIA on all these Castro supporters. However, Buddy Walthers -- off the record -- did not intend that interpretation -- rather, Buddy Walthers meant to say that Ruth Paine herself was a Castro supporter -- which is to say, a Communist. Now -- I accept your argument, David. We can forgive Buddy Walthers for this whopper because he was not under oath. It went nowhere -- except into the fevered imaginations of CIA-did-it CTers. Furthermore -- relevant to this post -- the topic never came up during Bugliosi's BBC Trial of Lee Harvey Oswald (1986). Yet I keep it on my shelf, David, because it keeps coming up for CIA-did-it CTers (my main opponents these days). And I remind them that Buddy Walthers' inquisition to find Communists related to LHO in the JFK slaying, was related to a movement so large in Dallas that it caught the attention of US Secretary of State Dean Rusk the very evening of the JFK assassination. In fact, Dean Rusk was so upset about the unconfirmed rumors from Dallas that the Communists killed JFK that he called Texas Attorney General, Waggoner Carr, to complain about it. Carr then called Dallas DA Henry Wade with the complaint, and Wade said he had no idea where the rumors came from, but he had no evidence of any sort to confirm a Communist plot to kill JFK in Dallas. In any case, the "Communists-did-it" nonsense in Dallas official chanels stopped the night that Dean Rusk called Waggoner Carr -- 11/22/1963. Regards, --Paul Trejo
  22. Tommy, The truth is that I have enjoyed your "gadfly" persona on this FORUM for many years. It's just that I never knew what CT you yourself held. Now I have a clearer idea -- even if the answer is: "None at all." You have made several discoveries in this FORUM over the years, Tommy. The first that comes to mind is your thread, "If Oswald was an Intelligence agent, how did he become a Patsy?" Brilliant. There are others, but you also discoved David Morales on Canal Street ("Neck-scratcher) watching LHO hand out FPCC handbills. Yes, I'm very impressed. Anyway, I do appreciate your informed push-back and your able employment of logic. Finally, you correctly perceived my argument about a Blonde Oswald. 1. Duran and Azcue's description of a so-called Blonde Oswald differ. 2. Duran was subject to physical abuse and beating by the Mexican Police. 3. Azcue was terrified by the Mexican police. 4. You suggest a bribe of cash -- but there are more powerful motives than cash -- like personal safety. 5. We must remember that these were clerks for the CUBAN CONSULATE in Mexico City. They were fans of FIdel Castro. 6. So, they were hated immediately by most Mexicans, and especially by the Mexican Police. 7. Their testimony suggests that they knew the bureaucratic procedures of Cuban visas, in relation to Communist protocol. 8. They both saw, for example, that LHO had produced a Communist membership card -- but Communists didn't HAVE membership cards. 9. Azcue saw quickly that LHO was a provocateur, and that LHO's behavior showed that he was "not a friend of the Revolution." (Lopez Report, 2003) 10. So, Duran and Azcue were both leftists -- and so they both had much to fear from the Mexican Police. 11. Now -- here was the biggest story of 1963 -- the murder of JFK -- and the main suspect was in Mexico City. 12. So, the fact that we can see both Duran and Azcue back-pedal like mad, with the Mexican Police standing over them, is no mystery. 13. So, Tommy, IMHO, the mood in Mexico probably went something like this: 14. "Are you talking about some blonde guy?" "There was a blonde guy in here that day, right?" 15. "Yeah, he was short and skinny, too." "And don't forget that large Russian dude!" 16. "The Oswald that *I* saw looked NOTHING like the guy they arrested in Dallas!" 17. "I had nothing to do with the JFK assassination -- HONEST! PLEASE DON'T HIT ME!" 18. The mood, IMHO was like that. Regards, --Paul Trejo
  23. Tommy, Under this new FORUM software, when you Edit and Bump a post, there is no way to QUOTE the post with the tools provided. Regards, --Paul Trejo
  24. Tommy, I completely noticed it. You evidently missed my point. There WAS no blond Oswald in Mexico -- there was only a RUMOR about a blond Oswald in Mexico. All the best, --Paul Trejo
  25. Tommy, I'm surprised that you don't have a CT. Where is all your research pointing, then? Anyway, let me respond to your questions. 1. In the chaos of the JFK murder investigation, people have been killed. 2. Mexico City was particularly dangerous, because it was ILLEGAL to be a member of the Communist Party. 3. Dallas Texas, at least, was trying to make a case that the Communists killed JFK. (We know this from Dean Rusk). 4. The Mexican Press was also trying to make the case that the Communists killed JFK. We see that in attacks on Silvia Duran. 5. A great literature of fiction was published in Mexico about Silvia Duran -- mainly making alleged "sex tapes" of LHO and Silvia into public scandals. 6. So, when people who met LHO in Mexico City were questioned about him, they regularly exclaimed -- "That wasn't the Oswald that "I" saw!" 7. Suddenly, their memories went blank, Did I see LHO? Are you sure? What day was it? What hour? Was he this big Russian dude? 8. Oh, THAT LHO. No, the LHO I saw would NEVER look like the LHO that killed JFK. 9. In other words -- please take the interrogation lamp out of my eyes -- I had NOTHING to do with the LHO whom you say killed JFK. 10. In other words -- I did not help to kill JFK! 11. It was perhaps somewhat milder in Dallas Texas, when Buell Wesley Frazier had to defend himself from charges that he "transported the murder weapon that killed JFK." 12. It was perhaps somewhat milder in Irving, Texas, when Ruth Paine, who was Marina Oswald's charity landlady, was accused of having "six or seven metal filing cabinets full of names of Castro supporters" in her garage. 13. It was certainly more ferocious in Mexico City -- and so we must take those Mexico City reports about LHO in December 1963 with a huge grain of salt. Regards, --Paul Trejo