• Announcements

    • Evan Burton

      OPEN REGISTRATION BY EMAIL ONLY !!! PLEASE CLICK ON THIS TITLE FOR INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR REGISTRATION!:   06/03/2017

      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send an email to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Joe Bauer

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

173 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

12 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

As a CTer I resent being placed in the same category as Ray.

 

At least we agree on something,Paul. I don't guess and present my guesses as facts. :up

Paul Trejo

"Here is how I believe 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{sic]

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

There fixed your post in red, Paul.

Edited by Ray Mitcham

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

21 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

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 FPCC 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... 

<snip> 

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

Edited by Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

21 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

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.

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

Edited by Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Paul I would like to share and debate opinions and views with you on this subject.

Whatever different takes you have on this one and so many others, you are decently civil in debating your views in my opinion and I respect that.

In regards to your point of Liebeler perhaps just " bungling his notes" when he states to Michael Paine a different day for the "who's responsible call" I disagree.

Whatever date Liebeler uses for the reported call, he clearly states to Michael Paine that the report cites a call between the numbers of Ruth Paine's "home phone" and Michael Paine's "office phone."

Paine knew this part of the reported call "between his wife's number and his office number"  was the important crux of the report because it places the call on the afternoon of the assassination and not on Saturday. 

I feel this is so, based on the assumption that Michael Paine didn't go into his workplace office on the next day 11,23,1963.

I may be wrong about that so if anyone knows differently, please correct me.

And Paine then says in regards to his 11,23,1963 time frame activities location "I was in the police station again, and I think I called her from there."

Paine uses Liebeler's stated next day date as a reference point to place himself in a phone call making location other than his office.

Which to me is Paine's way of suggesting and promoting the reported call record as wrong and/or not legitimate.

So right at this point, Liebeler has to decide whether the reported call record ( stating this was between Ruth's home phone number and Paine's office number ) is correct and legitimate and Michael Paine is lying, or the call record is incorrect and illegitimate and Michael Paine is telling the truth.

And so do we.

 

And Paine adds...

2 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

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. 

Instead of Paine just answering a simple and firm "yes" or "no" to Liebeler's first question;  "did you make any remark to the effect that you knew who was responsible?" he instead feels a need to answer with a qualifier ... "And I don't know who the assassin is or was: no, so I did not." ?

Sounds like Oswald's kind of round-about response to a reporter's question "did you kill the President?" in the Dallas Police building Friday night.

"No, I have not been charged with that, the first I had heard this was when a reporter in the hall axed me that question."

And then when Liebeler asks " You are positive in your recollection that you made no such remark?

Paine then replies with a simple "Yes."

But it's all about the date of this reported call between Michael Paine and Ruth Paine and whether the call numbers were Ruth's home phone and Michael Paine's office phone.

Not to mention the discrepancy of Ruth Paine admitting ( according to you Paul ) that the "who's responsible" discussion did indeed take place in the call versus Michael Paine saying it didn't.

Who's telling the truth here..Ruth Paine?...or Michael Paine?

I have been scouring Paine's WC testimony.

Again I must admit I am not as informed as I should be. Paine did indeed know of and see some of Oswald's received mailings such as the magazine the Worker.

He even discussed this with Oswald. Therefore my comments regarding Michael Paine instantly knowing what Buddy Walther's pulled out of one of Oswald's file boxes as a point of suspicion, are not as valid as I suggested they were.

 

 

Edited by Joe Bauer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

9 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

Paul I would like to share and debate opinions and views with you on this subject.

Whatever different takes you have on this one and so many others, you are decently civil in debating your views in my opinion and I respect that.

In regards to your point of Liebeler perhaps just " bungling his notes" when he states to Michael Paine a different day for the "who's responsible call" I disagree.

Whatever date Liebeler uses for the reported call, he clearly states to Michael Paine that the report cites a call between the numbers of Ruth Paine's "home phone" and Michael Paine's "office phone."

Paine knew this part of the reported call "between his wife's number and his office number"  was the important crux of the report because it places the call on the afternoon of the assassination and not on Saturday. 

I feel this is so, based on the assumption that Michael Paine didn't go into his workplace office on the next day 11,23,1963.

I may be wrong about that so if anyone knows differently, please correct me.

And Paine then says in regards to his 11,23,1963 time frame activities location "I was in the police station again, and I think I called her from there."

Paine uses Liebeler's stated next day date as a reference point to place himself in a phone call making location other than his office.

Which to me is Paine's way of suggesting and promoting the reported call record as wrong and/or not legitimate.

So right at this point, Liebeler has to decide whether the reported call record ( stating this was between Ruth's home phone number and Paine's office number ) is correct and legitimate and Michael Paine is lying, or the call record is incorrect and illegitimate and Michael Paine is telling the truth.

And so do we.

And Paine adds...

Instead of Paine just answering a simple and firm "yes" or "no" to Liebeler's first question;  "did you make any remark to the effect that you knew who was responsible?" he instead feels a need to answer with a qualifier ... "And I don't know who the assassin is or was: no, so I did not." ?

Sounds like Oswald's kind of round-about response to a reporter's question "did you kill the President?" in the Dallas Police building Friday night.

"No, I have not been charged with that, the first I had heard this was when a reporter in the hall axed me that question."

And then when Liebeler asks " You are positive in your recollection that you made no such remark?

Paine then replies with a simple "Yes."

But it's all about the date of this reported call between Michael Paine and Ruth Paine and whether the call numbers were Ruth's home phone and Michael Paine's office phone.

Not to mention the discrepancy of Ruth Paine admitting ( according to you Paul ) that the "who's responsible" discussion did indeed take place in the call versus Michael Paine saying it didn't.

Who's telling the truth here..Ruth Paine?...or Michael Paine?

I have been scouring Paine's WC testimony.

Again I must admit I am not as informed as I should be. Paine did indeed know of and see some of Oswald's received mailings such as the magazine the Worker.

He even discussed this with Oswald. Therefore my comments regarding Michael Paine instantly knowing what Buddy Walther's pulled out of one of Oswald's file boxes as a point of suspicion, are not as valid as I suggested they were.

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

Edited by Paul Trejo
typos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Thank you for the time taken to respond.

Liebeler asked Michael Paine this one sentence, easy to understand question:

"Did you make any remark to the effect that you knew who was responsible?"  No dates mentioned.

Paine responds " ... no, I did not."

Liebeler "You are positive in your recollection that you did not?" Again no call date mentioned.

Paine " Yes."

Paine obviously used Liebeler's previous specific time date reference of 11,23,1963 ( versus 11,22,1963 ) as a convenient escape from having to answer a broader and more inclusive truth seeking question of  "Did you AT ANY TIME AND DURING ANY OF YOUR CALLS TO YOUR WIFE RUTH during this entire weekend time period say you knew who was responsible?"

One must wonder what Michael Paine's answer would have been to this broader and more thorough time frame question, which any competent and seriously seeking the truth attorney would have asked.

Paul, if you totally believe Ruth Paine's comment to you that the "who's responsible" discussion did indeed take place in at least one of the calls between her and Michael Paine that weekend, then you have to accept that Michael Paine did not answer Liebeler's question with the  "whole truth" , the broader time frame truth.

Of course one can clearly understand the motivation behind Michael Paine's stating his "who's responsible" denial answer, that he felt he could say without committing perjury because the question from Liebeler was framed only in the 11,23,1963 time period context.  

And that would logically be self-preservation from the super charged investigative suspicion onslaught he knew would befall him if he ever admitted saying the reported ominous intrigue quote to his wife Ruth during any of their calls between each other that entire weekend.

And it makes perfect sense that Ruth's phone would be tapped by the FBI considering their knowledge of and interest in Lee Harvey Oswald and his Russian born wife.

At that time agent Hosty was active in his monitoring of them both. 

 

Edited by Joe Bauer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Paul Trejo said:

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. 

Paul are you claiming that you know for sure that Michael Paine did physically go to his office for any amount of time on Saturday 11,23,1963?

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.

True, but this whole question about the " who's responsible" call only deals with the two days 11,22,1963 and 11,23,1963.

3. Attorney Liebeler was not being specific enough.

True, which gave Michael Paine the broader time frame truth answering escape out.

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.

Clumsy manner?  Regards the dates?

5. Yet this was not under evidence as such.  Liebeler didn't name Captain Barger, and didn't call it a wire-tap.

But Liebeler still took this report seriously enough to confront Michael Paine directly about it.

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. 

Yes, Liebeler specifically asked about a call only "on that specific day".  Now that was clumsy ...  or incompetently too narrow?

9.  OK, Michael Paine would answer that.  What choice did he have?  Liebeler is the attorney.   Michael was on the witness stand.

What choice did Michael Paine have?  He had a choice to tell " the whole truth"  including what he and Ruth may have said to each other in other calls those two days.

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.

"The odds are good that Michael Paine went to work on Saturday morning." ?  On any typical Saturday I could buy that suggested scenario.

But PLEASE, the Saturday of 11,23,1963 was unlike any typical American Saturday one could ever imagine. For all Americans. Everyone was still in an unprecedented once or twice in a lifetime state of shock.

Now imagine how much greater this shock and concern and anxiety was for someone like Michael Paine ... that entire weekend! 

His wife and children's home was instantly barged in on and intruded upon and they were surrounded by a squadron of intimidating high energy suspicion minded police agency personnel and being hustled to and from the police station, not too mention the pressure from the press.  Things clearly must have been frighteningly traumatic, chaotic, scary and quite fragile for everyone involved and especially Michael's young family.

Why would Michael Paine waste any time going to his office that very next day (Saturday ) to do anything except maybe quickly picking up something he felt he absolutely needed in his family's extreme time of need fatherly protection role?

And heck, even Jack Ruby closed up shop that entire weekend!

 

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.

But the phone tap report specifically states this one call was between Ruth's home phone and Michael Paine's work office phone. That narrows down the time frame to when they were both in those phone locations at the same time period on those two days.

 

1 hour ago, Paul Trejo said:

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

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

2 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

Thank you for the time taken to respond.

Liebeler asked Michael Paine this one sentence, easy to understand question:

"Did you make any remark to the effect that you knew who was responsible?"  No dates mentioned.

Paine responds " ... no, I did not."

Liebeler "You are positive in your recollection that you did not?" Again no call date mentioned.

Paine " Yes."

Paine obviously used Liebeler's previous specific time date reference of 11,23,1963 ( versus 11,22,1963 ) as a convenient escape from having to answer a broader and more inclusive truth seeking question of  "Did you AT ANY TIME AND DURING ANY OF YOUR CALLS TO YOUR WIFE RUTH during this entire weekend time period say you knew who was responsible?"

One must wonder what Michael Paine's answer would have been to this broader and more thorough time frame question, which any competent and seriously seeking the truth attorney would have asked.

Paul, if you totally believe Ruth Paine's comment to you that the "who's responsible" discussion did indeed take place in at least one of the calls between her and Michael Paine that weekend, then you have to accept that Michael Paine did not answer Liebeler's question with the  "whole truth" , the broader time frame truth.

Of course one can clearly understand the motivation behind Michael Paine's keeping his "who's responsible" denial answer framed only in the 11,23,1963 time period context.  

And that would logically be self-preservation from the super charged investigative suspicion onslaught he knew would befall him if he ever admitted saying the reported ominous intrigue quote to his wife Ruth during any of their calls between each other that entire weekend.

And it makes perfect sense that Ruth's phone would be tapped by the FBI considering their knowledge of and interest in Lee Harvey Oswald and his Russian born wife.

At that time agent Hosty was active in his monitoring of them both. 

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

Edited by Paul Trejo
typos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0