ON TRIAL: LEE HARVEY OSWALD" Trial Of Lee Harvey Oswald (PART 23) (CLOSING ARGUMENTS AND VERDICT)

[Ray Mitcham]

Just now, David Von Pein said:

Ray, I told you yesterday that I was only guessing. How many more times do I have to admit that?

And do you really think that Ruth Paine had a clipboard and an inventory sheet at the ready when she drove Marina and the Oswalds' possessions from New Orleans to Irving in late September of '63? Why on Earth would you think that each individual item she transported would be remembered specifically by Ruth when she testified? (She certainly didn't recall the rifle package being amongst LHO's possessions either. But we know there was one. At least *I* know it.)

 

Glad to see that you confirm that you are mainly guessing.

"At least "I" know it"
 

LOL Please show us how you know it

Please Dave, just not another guess. 

[David Von Pein]

Oh, I'm sure even you could figure it out, Ray. If you concentrate hard enough. Give it a try.

Edited March 24, 2017 by David Von Pein

[Ray Mitcham]

3 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

Oh, I'm sure even you could figure it out, Ray. If you concentrate hard enough. Give it a try.

Really, David. You "know" that a rifle was in the effects brought from New Orleans. Please tell us how you "know" this nugget of information.

[David Von Pein]

12 hours ago, Ray Mitcham said:

Really, David. You "know" that a rifle was in the effects brought from New Orleans. Please tell us how you "know" this nugget of information.

Didn't you know? I was a stowaway in the back of Ruth's '55 Chevy when she drove from Richmond, Indiana (my hometown), to New Orleans in September of '63.

More here ----->  "I think [Von Pein's] family knew Ruth Paine"

Edited March 25, 2017 by David Von Pein

[Ray Mitcham]

45 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Didn't you know? I was a stowaway in the back of Ruth's '55 Chevy when she drove from Richmond, Indiana (my hometown), to New Orleans in September of '63.

More here ----->  "I think

[Von Pein's] family knew Ruth Paine"

I should have expected a non-answer. Par for the course for LNers

[David Von Pein]

Oh, good! Ray is going to play dumb about how the rifle got into Ruth Paine's garage. And he's going to pretend to not know the answer to the question he asked me.

Par for the course for CTers, of course.

Edited March 25, 2017 by David Von Pein

[Ray Mitcham]

You're playing even dumber, David. Please tell me how the "rifle" got into the Paine's garage? 

[Paul Trejo]

On 3/24/2017 at 8:37 AM, David Von Pein said:

Paul,

Buddy Walthers never once said in his WC testimony that it was his opinion the "filing cabinets" even belonged to Ruth & Michael Paine. They were merely recovered from Ruth's garage (which is where most of the Oswalds' stuff was located as well). And at least one letter in one of the "cabinets" was likely Oswald's letter---not Ruth's. This fact becomes quite clear when reading Walthers' testimony.

So what makes you think Walthers was trying to nail only Ruth & Michael to the wall when it comes to the subject of the filing cabinets?

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

Edited March 27, 2017 by Paul Trejo
clarity

[Paul Trejo]

On 3/24/2017 at 1:01 PM, David Von Pein said:

Walthers did....

Mr. WALTHERS -- ...and then we found some little metal file cabinets---I don't know what kind you would call them---they would carry an 8 by 10 folder, all right, but with a single handle on top of it and the handle moves.

Mr. LIEBELER -- About how many of them would you think there were?

Mr. WALTHERS -- There were six or seven, I believe...

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

[Paul Trejo]

On 3/24/2017 at 0:45 PM, Joe Bauer said:

If Michael Paine told

 In regards to Michael Paine's describing to Walthers and whoever was with him in the garage  what they were looking at after Walthers ( "we" opened one of them and seen what it was " you have to wonder how MP knew that those letters and stuff were not just Oswald's belongings but he knew the specific detail that these items were "from the people he writes to in Russia."

Oswald wasn't there. Michael Paine came to the house after Walthers and other DPD personnel had already been there.

So Paine obviously just saw those Oswald papers spur of the moment.  Either he had gone through them at some point prior or his wife Ruth had and perhaps told Michael Paine the specifics MP  just described. Oswald for sure didn't show the Paines his personal letters.

I wonder if MP  went through Oswald's "stuff" at some point when Oswald wasn't around as he seldom was.

Just some observations that beg questions about MP.

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

[Paul Trejo]

12 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

Oh, good! Ray is going to play dumb about how the rifle got into Ruth Paine's garage. And he's going to pretend to not know the answer to the question he asked me.

Par for the course for CTers, of course.

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

Edited March 26, 2017 by Paul Trejo
typos

[Michael Clark]

18 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

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.

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 had it in his duffle bags 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 continuing member of Guy Banister's team to Kill Fidel Castro, including "Leopoldo" and "Angelo" (who were members of Interpen), LHO was clueless that he was soon to become their Patsy.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

LHO was going to take his Manlicher Carcano from Mexico City, to Cuba, on a transit visa to Russia, and shoot Castro while laying over in Havana?

And of course, Lee put a tag on his duffel-bag that read: "handle with care, rifle enclosed, carefully sighted-in to shoot a head-of-state".

"viola!" Indeed....

And Paul, "As a CTer ... resent(s)'being placed in the same category as Ray"

At least Ray knows when he is telling funnies.

Laughing,

Michael

Edited March 26, 2017 by Michael Clark

[Joe Bauer]

13 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

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

Paul, to me Buddy Walthers 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. His highest career position before becoming a Dallas County Sheriff was what... taxi driver?

There were some really negative statements about his personal character ( at least from Sheriff Roger Craig who worked with Walthers for years ) that could indicate Walther's may not have been a shining example of police oath integrity and I sense some of those charges could have been true.

But, I also believe that enough of Walther's testimony regards what went on at the Paine home when he and other officers arrived and searched the home was more honest and accurate than his detractors make out.

I believe he and others did see some FPC pamphlets among the items in the Paine garage. 

But my suspicion interest in the Paine home and garage search is more drawn toward Michael Paine.

He says to Walthers that Oswald is a Communist. But in another interview he says that the first conversation he ever had with Oswald, that Oswald seemed dissatisfied with both political systems here and in Russia, and that he " Oswald" indicated to Paine that he was a "Marxist / socialist " more than a Communist.

Michael Paine seemed to be "almost too willing" to share information about Oswald that incriminated Oswald and he didn't even see or talk to Oswald that much.

Paine knows exactly what Walthers is looking at when he pulls some "letter head" material from one of the file cabinets? That those are correspondences from Russia to Oswald? How could Paine be so on-the-spot specific knowledgeable about those pulled out Oswald papers?

Certainly Oswald didn't bring this folder out and show it to Paine and tell him what was in it.

When I read Micheal Paine's WC testimony I see just enough seemingly purposeful vagueness in his recounting of certain areas of his adult and young adult political interest background history and conversations and activities with Oswald to arouse my suspicion.

I think Micheal Paine's extra-curricular pro-active interest in going to political group meetings and at least one extreme far right one and instigating political conversations with Lee Oswald indicate an inclination towards something way beyond just a passing and passive interest.

And what really rattles my Michael Paine suspicion cage is when Liebeler leads him with a wrong date for the reported "we know who's responsible" call.

Liebeler changing that date in his question to Paine gives Paine "an out" in dismissing and downplaying that call, which Paine needed and jumped on.

And Paine's response and answer to that question was so dumbly oblique ( and purposely so ) that it literally sounded like jibberish.

Please,go back and reread Michael Paine's answer to Liebeler's questions about that call.

Paine was very uncomfortable with that question and stumbled noticeably past it.

And if that call was indeed on 11,22,1963, and not on 11,23,1963, then both Liebeler and Paine must be considered with more valid suspicion than less.

I just believe that Michael Paine knew much more about so many things. And that his role in this whole affair has never been adequately explained.

 

 

Edited March 26, 2017 by Joe Bauer

[Michael Clark]

Well put Joe.

[Joe Bauer]

Mr. LIEBELER - Now, there has been a report that on November 23, 1963, there was a telephone call between a man and a woman, between the numbers of your residence and the number of your office, in which the man was reported to have said in words or substance, "We both know who is responsible for the assassination." Have you been asked about this before? 
Mr. PAINE - I had heard that--I didn't know it was associated with our numbers. I had heard a report that some telephone operator had listened in on a conversation somewhere, I don't know where it was. I thought it was some other part of the country. 
Mr. LIEBELER - Did you talk to your wife on the telephone at any time during Saturday, November 23, on the telephone? 
Mr. PAINE - I was in the police station again, and I think I called her from there. 
Mr. LIEBELER - Did you make any remark to the effect that you knew who was responsible? 
Mr. PAINE - And I don't know who the assassin is or was; no, so I did not. 
Mr. LIEBELER - You are positive in your recollection that you made no such remark? 
Mr. PAINE - Yes. 

According to Paul Trejo, Ruth Paine stated clearly that the call and it's "we both know who's responsible" conversation did happen. If this is the truth, then Michael Paine is doing a lot of purposeful obfuscating if not lying in his answers here to Liebeler about his knowledge of the call, what was said in it and when it occurred.

Liebeler says to Michael Paine that the report cites " a call between a man and a woman, between the numbers of your residence and the number of your office" and recounts the "who's responsible" conversation in it.

Paine responds that "I had heard that--I didn't know it was associated with our numbers." " I don't know where it was. I thought it was some other part of the country." ???

That sure sounds like a weak diversion response. If this reported call with it's heavy suspicion arousing conversation didn't happen and Paine clearly knew this ... why not just flat out say this without adding some meaningless meandering " I don't know where it was. I thought it was some other part of the country." ?

When Leibeler then asks Paine about whether he talked to his wife Ruth on "specifically" the 23rd of November versus the 22nd,  he allows Paine to evade and dissipate the "home residence number to his office number " call record question and to claim a different time and location alibi that he was at the police station and not in his office ( Paine wouldn't be in his office on a Saturday, especially that Saturday ) when  "I think I called her from there."  

This Saturday versus Friday call question by Liebeler and answer from Paine seems to me illogically contrived in their different time frame context and therefore highly suspicious in their implications.

Edited March 26, 2017 by Joe Bauer