Does Lifton's Best Evidence indicate that the coverup and the crime were committed by the same people?

[James DiEugenio]

I already did answer it, now do you want me  to explain that also?

[Michael Clark]

2 hours ago, Chris Newton said:

 

David,

I'm simply trying to work out the provenance of the "Kostin/Kostikov" letter.

Ruth Paine has delivered conflicting and contradictory statements under oath about said provenance and her story raises questions and that is why we are discussing it. The "devil is in the details".

The letter itself is of great importance.

https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Valeriy_Kostikov_and_Comrade_Kostin.html?

We both agree that Oswald had a handler but I'm not suggesting that "handler" was Ruth Paine. I believe we are in agreement that whomever was Oswald's "handler" instructed Oswald to write the "Kostin/Kostikov" letter.

I understand your feelings toward the Paines and I respect your judgement about their intentions. The scenario you suggest sounds entirely plausible and could be true. If the facts bear it out I will happily fall into line behind it.

Speaking entirely for myself though, I believe Oswald was setup and the Paines have wittingly or unwittingly supplied a great deal of the most incriminating evidence against him. I think that fact and the mountain of coincidences we must climb to absolve them of any responsibility warrants that extra scrutiny.

 

I am following this kostikov letter, kind of peripherally.

I am getting the sense that Ruth may be some kind of handler of LHO, but he is unaware of that. Kennedy's trip has been announced and he is starting to wonder what is going on. He's not getting enough info and things are not adding-up.

The letter is kind of like Richard Case Nagell going into the bank and shooting a gun into the ceiling. He is now suspecting that Ruth is a player. He is blowing her plausible deniability, indirectly putting her on notice that he is now suspicious of her. He is also making it difficult for the FBI and CIA to deny that they had foreknowledge of his threat, should something happen.

Edited April 26, 2017 by Michael Clark

[Paul Trejo]

10 hours ago, Chris Newton said:

David,

...We both agree that Oswald had a handler but I'm not suggesting that "handler" was Ruth Paine. I believe we are in agreement that whomever was Oswald's "handler" instructed Oswald to write the "Kostin/Kostikov" letter.

... I believe Oswald was setup and the Paines have wittingly or unwittingly supplied a great deal of the most incriminating evidence against him...

Chris,

Jim Garrison, IMHO, identified that "handler" as Guy Banister -- the guy in charge at 544 Camp Street in New Orleans.

As for the Kostin/Kostikov letter -- it wasn't necessarily the result of a direct order -- but only of the circumstances of working with Guy Banister (and Clay Shaw, David Ferrie, Jack S. Martin, Fred Crisman, Tom Beckham, Ed Butler, Frank Sturgis, Gerry Patrick Hemming, Loran Hall and others), who evidently promised Oswald a job in the CIA if he would play ball in this "Operation Mongoose" style of a plot against Fidel Castro.

At least, that's what David Atlee Phillips suggested in his unpublished manuscript, The AMLASH Legacy (1988).

Oswald was likely playing in the persona of this "double-agent" charade for Guy Banister; not only in his trip to Mexico but also in his Kostin/Kostikov letter.  Oleg Nechiporenko (1993) explained that Oswald actually did meet Kostikov in Mexico City, but Kostikov thought Oswald was "psychotic."  Oswald didn't even remember Kostikov's name, and wrote, "Kostin" in this letter.  Oswald knew that the FBI would intercept it; but he was going to be a CIA agent (he probably believed) so he had no respect for the lesser officers of the FBI..

In addition to "playing"  the FBI, I agree with David Lifton that Oswald was also "playing" Ruth Paine.  Ruth was going to see James Hosty again, and Oswald wanted to be sure that Hosty saw this letter, too.  So, Oswald left it out on her secretary desk for days.

Marina Oswald testified that when Ruth Paine spoke in a friendly way to James Hosty in early November, 1963, giving Hosty information about Marina and Lee, that Marina lost her temper with Ruth, and told her in effect -- "it's none of your business!"

Little did they know that JFK would soon be dead, and that Oswald's rifle (said Marina) would be missing from Ruth Paine's garage.  At that point, Marina could only repeat to Ruth Paine, "I'm so sorry!  I'm so sorry!  I'm so sorry!"

In deference to this thread -- all of this means that the JFK Cover-up Team (Hoover, Warren, LBJ, Dulles) was totally separate from the JFK Kill Team (Banister, Ferrie, Shaw, Walker, etc.).

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited April 26, 2017 by Paul Trejo
typos

[Paul Trejo]

10 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

I already did answer it, now do you want me  to explain that also?

No -- just indicate if it was YES or NO.    Or are you still evading it?

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited April 26, 2017 by Paul Trejo

[David Lifton]

On 4/24/2017 at 1:20 AM, Ray Mitcham said:

Since when does a bullet cause slits in a shirt rather than holes? 

Ray:  I sent you a private message some hours ago. I found  (I believe) what I was looking for.

Then I tried to send you a followup message, saying so. . . But your mailbox is full

You can email me privately at dsl74@cornell.edu for further details.

DSL

[Michael Clark]

11 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

No -- just indicate if it was YES or NO.    Or are you still evading it?

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Paul, I think he wants you to do a little research. It's probably a page or two back, in a reply written by the great author and renowned researcher, James DiEugenio.

 

Edited April 26, 2017 by Michael Clark

[Sandy Larsen]

On 4/24/2017 at 2:20 AM, Ray Mitcham said:

Since when does a bullet cause slits in a shirt rather than holes? 

When a projectile is traveling at a relatively slow speed, it will tear the fabric instead of "cutting out" a hole the shape of the projectile's cross-section. The same will happen when there is nothing backing the fabric to provide resistance against the movement of the fabric.

If the threads of the fabric running in one direction are weaker than those running in the perpendicular direction, the tear will come out straight, i.e. as a slit. Like this:

 

 

I believe that Ashton Gray has more-or-less correctly identified the holes in the shirt:

 

Ashton Gray's animated GIF.

All else are frayed threads.

 

[Chris Newton]

58 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

So, Oswald left it out on her secretary desk for days.

Your timeline is inaccurate, at best, but this really stood out because you took the additional effort to bold it. Unsurprisingly, it's also totally unsupported by the testimony of Ruth and Michael Paine.

[Chris Newton]

1 hour ago, Michael Clark said:

I am getting the sense that Ruth may be some kind of handler of LHO, but he is unaware of that. Kennedy's trip has been announced and he is starting to wonder what is going on. He's not getting enough info and things are not adding-up.

Michael,

Thanks for your comments. A lot of researchers have speculated about the Paine's possible role(s). I think that a "handler" directing an asset in the "CIA operational sense" would normally fall to a CIA Officer and in some rare cases, maybe to an Agent. I believe that its more likely that she/he/they were "informants" and therefore they'd be considered an "asset". We could speculate as to when any alleged relationship began and that might point to which agency might have been involved. If for instance, something developed when Ruth was visiting in Philadelphia that might suggest CIA involvement, a relationship which begins in New Orleans and/or Irving, TX. might point to the FBI.

On the other hand, there are countless researchers on both sides* that think the Paines were unfortunate victims of circumstances(s).

*(brilliant /idiotic not LN /CT

[James R Gordon]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

When a projectile is traveling at a relatively slow speed, it will tear the fabric instead of "cutting out" a hole the shape of the projectile's cross-section. The same will happen when there is nothing backing the fabric to provide resistance against the movement of the fabric.

 

Sandy,

I have no idea why you mention Doris Nelson. The only people who were in Trauma room 1 while JFK's clothes were removed were Charles Carrico, Diana Bowron and Margaret Hinchcliffe. Of those three the only person who testified that the bullet entered above the shirt collar was Charles Carrico, and it is clear you do not believe him. Doris Nelson may well have entered trauma room 1 at a later point, but by that time JFK's clothes had been removed.

I have not the slighest idea why you would suggest that the bullet fired from a Mannlicher Carcano would travel slow enough to cause tears to JFK's shirt as opposed to a penetration hole. I assume you have seen the research by Michael and Lucien Haag for "Case Cold." Their presentation proved that a Mannlicher Carcano bullet could travel through 46 planks of pine creating a small round hole in each. But you state that this bullet can only tear the front of JFK's shirt. Can you comment why this same bullet created:

a) a hole in the back of JFK's jacket.

b a hole in the back of John Connally's jacket

c) a hole in the back of John Connally's shirt.

d) a perfectly round hole on the front of John Connally's jacket.

How was this bullet able to do all that and yet only tear the front of JFK's shirt?

Assuming that this tear as a bullet exit JFK's body ( which I do not subscribe to ) this exit hole is below the collar line. That places the wound at approximately at the level of the Clavicle. That is nowhere near Vertabra's 3 and 4. The bullet cannot be in two places at the same time. If you are stating that this tear is evidence of the bullet's exit, then this exit wound is nowhere near Vertrabra's 3 and 4.

JFK's shirt does not present the ambiguity of FOX 1. Because of the position of JFK's head on the table it is possible to argue that the wound is consistent with Vertabra's 3 and 4. the damage to the shirt is very different. There is no way to argue that this tear is not close to the Clavicle. The position of this tear is nowhere near vertabra's 3 and 4 and yet there is clear testimony that the exit hole in JFK's neck was adjacent to vertabra's 3 and 4.

James

[Paul Trejo]

9 hours ago, Chris Newton said:

Your timeline is inaccurate, at best, but this really stood out because you took the additional effort to bold it. Unsurprisingly, it's also totally unsupported by the testimony of Ruth and Michael Paine.

Chris,

Two days qualifies as days.  And yes, it is in Ruth Paine's WC testimony.

Mr. JENNER - It did make you curious?

Mrs. PAINE - It did make me curious. Then, later that day, I noticed a scrawling handwriting on a piece of paper on the corner at the top of my secretary desk in the living room. It remained there.  Sunday morning I was the first one up. I took a closer look at this, a folded sheet of paper folded at the middle. The first sentence arrested me because I knew it to be false. And for this reason I then proceeded--

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited April 26, 2017 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

23 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Answer this question, yes or no:  

Did Ruth Paine's sister work for the CIA in 1963?

Answer this question yes or no:

Did Ruth visit her sister in late summer of 1963, just before heading down to New Orleans to meet up with the Oswalds?

Answer this question yes or no:

When Garrison questioned her before the grand jury, did he not ask Ruth who her sister worked for, and did Ruth not reply that she did not know?

Again, answer yes or no:

When Garrison tried to find out where Sylvia lived, did Ruth not mislead him on this point?

Again, yes or no:

Within just three weeks of meeting Marina, way before the pregnancy, way before New Orleans, did Ruth Paine compose a letter to Mrs. Oswald asking her to come live with the Paines?

I await your reply to these simple and direct questions.

James,

In the spirit of good will, I'll move things along by answering your five questions.

1. Yes.  Ruth Paine's sister worked for the CIA in 1963 as a psychologist, and never spoke to Ruth about her work.

2. Yes.  Ruth visited her sister and all her family during her summer vacation in 1963.

3. Yes. Ruth never knew the facts of her sister's employment, because her sister never spoke about it.

4. No.  Ruth cooperated with Jim Garrison to the best of her ability and wished him well.

5. Yes.  Ruth had composed and often rewritten this undelivered letter to Marina Oswald to invite her to live with her -- way back in April, 1963, because Marina had been complaining that Lee Harvey Oswald had been threatening to send her back to the USSR without him -- and Marina was pregnant.  Ruth didn't send it because it was really a way for her to compose her grammar so that she could broach the topic in person.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited April 26, 2017 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

22 hours ago, David Lifton said:

In the Feb/March 1963 period, when it became clear that DeM would be leaving for Haiti, it was almost as if there was a "transfer of custody" of Marina and LHO over to Ruth Paine, and I always found that hard to accept as coincidence.  But I can easily see that being "arranged" if Dulles asked his former mistress if she new anyone in Dallas who might assist in the "resettling" of a returned defector, and so that's how Ruth Paine was "selected" for that task...

DSL

4/25/2017 - 10:35 a.m. PDT

David,

The evidence seems to support the claim that George DeMohrenschildt babysat Lee Harvey Oswald for the CIA (in late 1962 and early 1963 to ensure no connection with the KGB) in exchange for a lucrative oil exploration deal in Haiti.

Yet it is a leap to imagine that this was related to the JFK assassination.  Only if we imagine this can we also imagine that George DeMohrenschildt "handed off" LHO to Ruth Paine in some sort of CIA maneuver.

It boggles my mind to imagine that the gifted Ruth Paine would ask the gifted Michael Paine, "Honey, would you please consult with your mother's childhood friend to ask her how we should plan our lives?"'

Ruth Paine said plainly and repeatedly (within more than five thousand questions from the WC attorneys) that she went to the party of Dallas engineer Everett Glover because she was struggling to learn conversational Russian, and Everett promised there would be an interesting, Russian-speaking couple at this party.

Ruth never met George DeMorhenshildt in her life -- neither before this meeting nor afterwards, as she told the WC in 1964.  Also, most of the attendees of this party in late February 1963 were English speaking, and they surrounded Lee Harvey Oswald in the living room, pressing him for information about the USSR, which he was glad to answer.   Ruth was bored with this.

But Ruth tried with some difficulty to meet Marina Oswald, because baby June was cranky, and Marina retired to a bedroom with the baby and with Jeanne DeMohrenschildt (who was fluent in Russian).  Ruth joined them.  Ruth tried to join their Russian conversation, but she could hardly keep up.  She kept stumbling over conjugations.  To her delight, Marina Oswald was kind, charming, with perfect, aristocratic Russian grammar, and Marina gently helped Ruth correct her sentences. 

In addition, Marina Oswald was a young mother -- like Ruth -- and so Ruth decided that she would expend great energy to make Marina Oswald her friend.  Ruth had a lot of time for Marina Oswald after that.  Learning Russian was her original goal -- but the charm of Marina Oswald overtook that goal, and Ruth simply enjoyed being in Marina's company.  In the weeks that followed, baby June would get along well with Ruth's two children, Lynn and Chris.  Ruth had a new friend.

To turn this into any sort of cloak-and-dagger scenario fails to do justice to the testimony, the credibility -- and the sincerity -- of Ruth Paine.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited April 26, 2017 by Paul Trejo

[Chris Newton]

4 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Mr. JENNER - It did make you curious?

Mrs. PAINE - It did make me curious. Then, later that day, I noticed a scrawling handwriting on a piece of paper on the corner at the top of my secretary desk in the living room. It remained there.  Sunday morning I was the first one up. I took a closer look at this, a folded sheet of paper folded at the middle. The first sentence arrested me because I knew it to be false. And for this reason I then proceeded--

One of Ruth Paine's accounts (your quote above) alleges that Oswald typed the letter in the kitchen on Saturday morning before a trip was taken to the Driver's License testing facility. The Oswald family, with Ruth in tow, then went shopping and returned home "Later that day", which I'll assume means "sometime in the afternoon". After they returned Ruth Paine saw the note on her desk secretary in the living room.

Question for Paul Trejo: Do you think Ruth Paine was a good housekeeper? Is it your impression that the living area was neat and organized or cluttered?

So by her account she found the note later that day (Saturday) and then copied it and filched the original "Sunday Morning", early.

How many "days" was that?

 

 

[Paul Trejo]

7 hours ago, Chris Newton said:

Question for Paul Trejo: Do you think Ruth Paine was a good housekeeper? Is it your impression that the living area was neat and organized or cluttered?

So by her account she found the note later that day (Saturday) and then copied it and filched the original "Sunday Morning", early.

How many "days" was that?

Chris,

My impression is that Ruth Paine was a good housekeeper, though things could get out of control in times when there were too many visitors.

On this particular weekend, not only were Marina and her two babies visiting for a long visit, but Lee Oswald was there, as well as Michael Paine.  

Plus, Ruth had two toddlers of her own.  It was a full house.

In addition, Ruth had asked Michael and Lee to move furniture around for her that weekend.  So, it seems to me that although Ruth was usually neat and tidy, this weekend was an exception.

Lee had asked to borrow Ruth's typewriter on Saturday morning.  He would shield his papers with his body as Ruth walked by --drawing her attention to it.

When Lee was done, he left his original on Ruth's secretary desk.  He left it there the rest of the day, as if to tempt her.

On Sunday morning, Ruth gave in to the temptation and read the letter.  She was outraged.  It said negative things about the FBI, while Ruth held a favorable opinion about the FBI.

Ruth tried to show it to Michael, who hated to pry. He looked at the first scrawl: 'Dear Sirs,' which looked like 'Dear Lisa' to Michael.  This was a very private letter, he said, and told Ruth to put it back.

Saturday to Sunday is two.days.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited April 27, 2017 by Paul Trejo
typos