Ruth Paine

[Thomas Graves]

"It is important to recall that the first attempt to mail the parcel was on Wednesday the 20th. It failed for postage due.

But Oswald was at the Paine home on Thursday the 21st, the night before the assassination. If the mailing had been successful, Oswald likely would have opened the package, and then handled the paper. He probably would have discarded it. If he had, one of two things would likely have followed:

1.) The police would have found the discarded wrapping paper.Or

2.) Ruth Paine would have found it. Either way, the police now would have fresh fingerprints on wrapping paper resembling the sack allegedly used by Oswald to carry a rifle into the Texas School Book Depository.

This is crucial because the official story states that Oswald stored the Mannlicher Carcano murder rifle in the Paine garage. To have Oswlald's prints, and only his prints, on a sheet of discarded wrapping paper would have been strong evidence that the alleged assassin had wrapped the murder weapon the night before.

The incredible thing about the above case against the Paines is this: this does not even come close to exhausting it." (p. 207)

As Sylvia Meagher wrote many years ago, it appears that someone knew where Oswald would be the night before the assassination, and what he would be accused of the day of the murder.

But beyond that, these person(s) also knew that a paper bag would become a key piece of evidence against the suspect, who was accused of acting alone. (Sylvia Meagher, Accessories After the Fact, p.64)

Jim,

Where did the bad guys expect that paper bag, theoretically / ideally with Oswald's fingerprints on it (but, strangely, with no gun oil on it), to be found?

In Ruth Paine's wastebasket?

Since the theory would be that Oswald had made the bag for transporting the rifle to the TSBD, how would the finding of it at Ruth Paine's house after the assassination help to frame Oswald?

--Tommy

Edited October 22, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[Paul Brancato]

Good question Tommy.

[Chris Newton]

Since the theory would be that Oswald had made the bag for transporting the rifle to the TSBD, how would the finding of it at Ruth Paine's house after the assassination help to frame Oswald?

What would compel someone, a "bad guy" or "bad woman" (wink, wink) to be truthful about where the material used to frame a suspect was found? If I was going to all that trouble to get LHO's fingerprints on a piece of paper, I'm not going to subsequently explain to anyone how I did it.

[Ray Mitcham]

"It is important to recall that the first attempt to mail the parcel was on Wednesday the 20th. It failed for postage due.

But Oswald was at the Paine home on Thursday the 21st, the night before the assassination. If the mailing had been successful, Oswald likely would have opened the package, and then handled the paper. He probably would have discarded it. If he had, one of two things would likely have followed:

1.) The police would have found the discarded wrapping paper.Or

2.) Ruth Paine would have found it. Either way, the police now would have fresh fingerprints on wrapping paper resembling the sack allegedly used by Oswald to carry a rifle into the Texas School Book Depository.

This is crucial because the official story states that Oswald stored the Mannlicher Carcano murder rifle in the Paine garage. To have Oswlald's prints, and only his prints, on a sheet of discarded wrapping paper would have been strong evidence that the alleged assassin had wrapped the murder weapon the night before.

The incredible thing about the above case against the Paines is this: this does not even come close to exhausting it." (p. 207)

As Sylvia Meagher wrote many years ago, it appears that someone knew where Oswald would be the night before the assassination, and what he would be accused of the day of the murder.

But beyond that, these person(s) also knew that a paper bag would become a key piece of evidence against the suspect, who was accused of acting alone. (Sylvia Meagher, Accessories After the Fact, p.64)

Jim,

Where did the bad guys expect that paper bag, theoretically / ideally with Oswald's fingerprints on it (but, strangely, with no gun oil on it), to be found?

In Ruth Paine's wastebasket?

Since the theory would be that Oswald had made the bag for transporting the rifle to the TSBD, how would the finding of it at Ruth Paine's house after the assassination help to frame Oswald?

--Tommy

Paper of the same type as the bag in the TSBD found in the Paine's Household with Oswald's fingerprints on. Slam dunk.

[Paul Trejo]

What would compel someone, a "bad guy" or "bad woman" (wink, wink) to be truthful about where the material used to frame a suspect was found? If I was going to all that trouble to get LHO's fingerprints on a piece of paper, I'm not going to subsequently explain to anyone how I did it.

Well, Chris, the only thing you've revealed here is your bias.

Nothing claimed by James DiEugenio in the past two days has implicated Ruth Paine in any material way. Y'all are REACHING...grasping at straws, actually.

Let's review:

(1.0) The FBI Airtel of December 13, 1963 says there is no indication the parcel was ever mailed. James disputes that, but doesn't tell us WHY.

(1.1) James claims there is a postmark on the package -- but says that the date is indecipherable, and there is NO POSTAGE on it (that can be seen).

(1.2) The benign explanation is that there was no postage on it, and the Postal clerk BEGAN to stamp it with a postmark, but then hesitated when he/she saw no postage on it. Therefore, it had a "partial postmark" and No Postage, so it wasn't mailed.

(1.3) So, it wasn't mailed -- just as the FBI said. Why does JAMES then dispute it? He doesn't say.

(2.0) In that same FBI Airtel, officer Twilley questions folks at the Irving PO and finds nothing. James expressed outrage at this, and disbelief -- but that's all. The fact that the FBI didn't pursue it makes James suspect a CONSPIRACY.

(2.1) Well, there was a Conspiracy to Cover-up the CONSPIRACY of the JFK Murder. That's no longer disputed by any reasonable readers.

(2.2) J. Edgar Hoover decided on the evening of 11/22/1963 that only the theory of a "Lone Nut" in the JFK killing could prevent threats to National Security -- such as riots in the streets, or Civil strife. He sold this to LBJ, who sold it to Allen Dulles and Earl Warren. There is the JFK Cover-up "conspiracy."

(2.3) All FBI Agents, starting the afternoon of 11/22/1963 were directed to CONCEAL and SUPPRESS all Evidence of a Conspiracy -- for National Security Purposes.

(2.4) Yes, famous writers since Jim Garrison, including Mark Lane, have jumped to the conclusion that since the US Government chose to Coverup the JFK murder, that the US Government itself must be guilty of the JFK Murder.

(2.5) But too many steps are missing in jumping to that conclusion.

(3.0) As for Holmes admitting that the package had been partly opened, James is outraged that this could happen after the JFK murder, with LHO's name on it. But Holmes *didn't* say WHEN the package was "Partly Opened." Nor does the term, "Partly", get a definition here.

(4.0) When the FBI finally open the package, what they find inside is a single sheet of wrapping paper.

(4.1) WRAPPING PAPER??!??

(4.2) So, this parcel package really contained NOTHING. That's the real mystery. But James and the CTers don't focus on that mystery -- instead, they JUMP to the conclusion that somebody was trying to Frame LHO with WRAPPING PAPER.

(4.3) On that slim bit of nonsense, the name of Ruth Paine, the Quaker Charity lady, is finally dragged in.

(5.0) The FBI (and James DiEugenio) examine the Wrapping Paper carefully. It was open at both ends, but the FBI called it a 'bag'. James objects to their terminology, fearing the FBI is hiding something.

(5.1) Attorney Carol Hewett handled the package says the 'bag' was cut off at one end (she doesn't say when) so nobody knows how long it could have been at one time.

(5.2) The FBI says that this Wrapping Paper was 18 inches long.

(5.3) Here is where everybody goes off into a CT fever -- people immediate assume that it must reflect the Wrapping Paper that LHO allegedly used to take his rifle into the TSBD on 11/22/1963.

(5.4) REALLY?!? There are several benign explanations for this -- the most obvious being a simple prank.

(6.0) No part of the parcel had any latent fingerprints. Whoever concocted the package (even if it was a jokester) was very careful to wipe it clean.

(7.0) James DiEugenio next tries to link this Wrapping Paper inside an Undelivered Postal Package to Ruth Paine!!

(7.1) How does James effect this sleight of hand? He notes that on 11/20/1963, a package was sent form the Irving Post Office to Lee Oswald at 2515 W. Fifth Street, Irving Texas (which is Ruth's home). It was not delivered at that time because of insufficient postage due on it.

(7.2) ON 11/23/1963, the DPD conducted their second search of Ruth's home, and found a "postage due notice" from the Irving PO. The HSCA grabbed the Irving officer, Gus Rose, who said that parcel was eventually picked up. Simple, right?

(7.3) But James DiEugenio raises the HW Reed affidavit which contradicts Rose (says James).

(7.4) For James DiEugenio, this was the beginning of "the cover up about this potentially crucial piece of evidence."

(7.5) What?!?

(7.6) First, no connection was established between the Wrapping Paper inside the Undelivered, Undeliverable Package with no Postage on it, and the LHO rifle.

(7.7) Secondly, no connection was established between the Undelivered, Undeliverable Package with no Postage on it and the "postage due" notice found at Ruth Paine's house.

(7.8) Yet James DiEugenio connects this dots in his own mind, and then claims to have found a "potentially crucial piece of evidence."

(8.0) Well, James is not entirely alone. Postal Inspector Roy Armstrong questioned Ruth Paine about this very issue in February 1964. Ruth Paine could only guess. If that postal object was for Lee Harvey Oswald, what could she do but guess? She was too polite to open other people's mail.

(8.1) Ruth guessed that it was probably a magazine, since LHO had subscribed to several magazines using Ruth Paine's address. These were itemized by the Warren Commision.

(8.2) They included: (I) a Russian newspaper from Minsk; (ii) a Russian digest named, "The Agitator;" (iii) a Russian satire magazine named, "Crocodile;" (iv) a Russian magazine named, "Ogonok;" (v) TIME magazine; (vi) The Militant newspaper; and (vii) The Worker newspaper.

(8.3) With all these magazines for LHO coming to Ruth Paine's house, no wonder she guessed that any parcel post coming to her house for LHO would probably be a magazine.

(8.4) James DiEugenio flatly denies that it was a magazine -- but he doesn't say why. He evidently wants to create a mystery out of a benign situation.

(9.0) James DiEugenio continues, that on 11/26/1963, the 11/23/1963 DPD search of Ruth Paine's home yielded a Property Clerk's Invoice with this item: "Postal Form, label bearing name George A. Bouhe, 4740 Homer St,. Dallas, Texas; Postal Form bearing name Lee Oswald dated 11/20/63."

(9.1) This benign situation is, for James DiEugenio, "startling".

(9.2) James is unclear about the meaning. More research is clearly needed to clarify what is so "startling."

(9.3) James asks: "What on earth would a postage due from for Bouhe be doing at Ruth Paine's?"

(9.4) Assuming James is right in claiming that the "postal form" was a notice for "Postage Due", it is curious because Ruth Paine denied ever hearing the name of George Bouhe before. Bouhe was a good friend of Marina Oswald (and despised by LHO, because Bouhe gave Marina lots of clothes and other gifts) from their Russian Émigré period -- and actually the wealthy Bouhe was considered to be the leader of that community.

(9.5) Yet the linkage of Bouhe's name with LHO's name provides a benign explanation. Marina and perhaps LHO were still in contact with George Bouhe -- after all, the Oswald's were financially hurting.

(9.6) Then James presumes -- without stating why -- that this "Postal Form" for George Bouhe 'must have' something to do with the Undelivered, Undeliverable Package at the Irving PO.

(9.7) I repeat -- no solid connections have been made between *any* of these artifacts named by James DiEugenio in his current narrative.

(10.0) It would surprise me to confirm Jim Garrison's claim that George Bouhe shared a common swimming pool with Jack Ruby -- since Jack lived in a common apartment complex, while George Bouhe was very wealthy. (Unless he meant that George Bouhe patronized Jack Ruby's famous Bordellos in Dallas, which Jack operated for wealthy Mafiosos in Chicago and Las Vegas).

(10.1) We cannot be surprised that immediately after the JFK murder that George Bouhe came to visit Marina Oswald. I don't know what Bouhe told her, but after all, Bouhe was the leader of the Russian Émigré community, and according to George DM, Bouhe was infatuated with Marina Oswald.

OK, that's all that James DiEugenio gave us to work with. And there's no smoking gun here. There's very little here except NAKED SPECULATION AND INNUENDO.

So, Chris, what's the "wink wink" all about?

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited October 22, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Brancato]

Full of assumptions as usual, presumptions more accurately. And - quantity does not equal quality. Your endless reviews of material may help organize your thoughts, but do nothing to further factual debate. Mr. Eugenio sticks close to facts, and asks legitimate questions.

Paul - whatever happened to your theory that LHO was forced to cooperate with Banister Walker and the gang because they knew he had fired the shot that missed Walker and used that knowledge to control him? I suppose now you believe that he was a right wing nut, sympathetic to their cause, something that would certainly have surprised everyone that provably knew him. Well, then you have to account for his attempted assassination of the leader of that right wing movement. Yet you think Oswald fired no shots on Nov. 22, but was somehow involved with the plotters.

There is nothing particularly logical about all of this. If Oswald was innocent, we can largely thank his 'friends' Ruth Paine and George DeMohrenschildt, and his wife Marina Oswald, with helping to convict him in the public mind. That makes them suspect, either of forced cooperation as in the case of Marina, or willing participation, like the 'good Quaker' Ruth. Why on earth would Ruth Paine, if she was the Good Samaritan you seem to think she was and is, be estranged from Marina, the object of her 'Christian' charity? It's so illogical. Much more logical to conclude that once the deed was done and LHO was dead, there was no more need for pretense.

[Chris Newton]

Well, Chris, the only thing you've revealed here is your bias.

I already stated that I think the Paines, Kloepfers and G deM were assets of US Intelligence and the domestic "handlers" of the Oswalds.

This may be at odds with your supposition that Oswald was the patsy of the extreme right and Walker. I'm not entirely convinced that they were any more than a "wild card" in the hand dealt to Oswald. I do have some commentary and questions regarding Caulfield's book and your bias but I'm waiting until you get there - chapter 20.

The "wink, wink" was a little tongue-in-cheek baiting and I apologize for that. really

edit - misspelled Kloepfler

Edited October 22, 2015 by Chris Newton

[Paul Trejo]

I already stated that I think the Paines, Kloepfers and G deM were assets of US Intelligence and the domestic "handlers" of the Oswalds...

Well, Chris, I like to think I'm as well-informed about the JFK murder as anybody here -- but your claim is fairly new to me -- except as one of the many wild accusations we often see flying about.

I agree with you that George DM was connected with the CIA as an informant -- just as he worked with *anybody* in his past -- Leftwing or Rightwing -- to help his family recover their massive Ancestral Estate in Russia.

George DM was out for George DM. Anything he could do to get ahead was OK by George DM. That was his personality.

And besides all that, George himself admitted a CIA link. So, the case is closed on George DM. We agree.

As for the Paine's, however, they admitted nothing, and I don't even see a motivation, as we see in George's case.

One might propose that because Michael Paine's step-father was the filthy-rich *inventor* of Bell Helicopter, that Michael "must have" been in the CIA. That just doesn't follow logically. Too many steps are missing.

One might suppose that because Ruth Paine's sister was in the CIA, that Ruth "must have" been in the CIA. Again, there are too many steps missing.

What is the basis for your belief, Chris, that Michael and Ruth Paine were, as you put it, "assets of US intelligence and the domestic 'handlers' of the Oswald's"?

All I see is mere suspicion -- and that can be applied to ANYBODY, literally.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited October 22, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Glenn Nall]

Dear Paul,

regarding the remark, "Well, Chris, I like to think I'm as well-informed about the JFK murder as anybody here." (i don't know how to punctuate the end of a quote with a colon, so I'm winging it) :

Really?

Are you serious?

Regards,

Glenn

[Paul Trejo]

Full of assumptions as usual, presumptions more accurately. And - quantity does not equal quality. Your endless reviews of material may help organize your thoughts, but do nothing to further factual debate. Mr. Eugenio sticks close to facts, and asks legitimate questions.

Paul - whatever happened to your theory that LHO was forced to cooperate with Banister Walker and the gang because they knew he had fired the shot that missed Walker and used that knowledge to control him? I suppose now you believe that he was a right wing nut, sympathetic to their cause, something that would certainly have surprised everyone that provably knew him. Well, then you have to account for his attempted assassination of the leader of that right wing movement. Yet you think Oswald fired no shots on Nov. 22, but was somehow involved with the plotters.

There is nothing particularly logical about all of this. If Oswald was innocent, we can largely thank his 'friends' Ruth Paine and George DeMohrenschildt, and his wife Marina Oswald, with helping to convict him in the public mind. That makes them suspect, either of forced cooperation as in the case of Marina, or willing participation, like the 'good Quaker' Ruth. Why on earth would Ruth Paine, if she was the Good Samaritan you seem to think she was and is, be estranged from Marina, the object of her 'Christian' charity? It's so illogical. Much more logical to conclude that once the deed was done and LHO was dead, there was no more need for pretense.

Well, Paul B., I'm not the one making assumptions or presumptions here -- I'm pointing out that James DiEugenio is.

James DiEugenio cites facts -- but his questions are erratic, and his connections are equally erratic.

As for my theory about LHO being punished by the Walker/Banister gang for his role in the Walker shooting -- it's still alive and well -- although I have temporarily suspended it to entertain the possibility that Jeff Caufield's new book will show that LHO was a more willing worker for Walker/Banister.

Even then, my theory has empirical evidence from George DM's 1978 book ("I'm A Patsy!") in which he openly confesses that he and Volkmar tried to "switch" LHO from a Bay of Pigs protester into an Ole Miss protester. There's really no contradiction there -- although a subtle nuance is implied -- and some people can't handle subtle nuances.

I absolutely maintain that LHO wasn't one of the shooters at JFK. I absolutely maintain that LHO *was* one of the shooters at General Walker. To the best of my knowledge today, my theory is as unique today as it was five years ago when I joined this Forum.

In my theory, the Walker/Banister JFK conspiracy got hold of LHO's rifle through Gerry Patrick Hemming -- and I take Hemming's confession to A.J. Webermann on this to be a historical fact. This then shows that LHO, who was innocent of the JFK murder, was nevertheless in bed with his Patsy-makers.

This is eminently logical. It holds together far more pieces of the JFK evidence than any other theory I've seen.

As for convicting LHO of being the "Lone Nut" killer of JFK, that is the fault of Hoover, LBJ and the Warren Commission, and not of Marina and the Paines. It is true that the *ignorance* of Marina and the Paines served the WC purposes very well. The WC exploited their *ignorance* in more pages per witness than any others.

But again -- you do them an injustice. Marina and the Paines had consistently said they DIDN'T believe that LHO could kill JFK, but that the CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE presented by the WC was OVERWHELMING.

Well, that's just what the WC intended.

As for Marina's later estrangement from Ruth Paine -- that was done (1) at the demand of the Secret Service; (2) at the demand of the FBI; (3) at the demand of Marina's business manager; (4) at the demand of Marguerite Oswald, who said that Ruth Paine should be "horse-whipped"; and (5) at the demand of Robert Oswald, who was having an affair with Marina.

Marina Oswald was ultimately a part of the Oswald family. They were far, far from Quaker Charity ladies.

So, no wonder they became estranged. That wasn't Ruth's desire -- it was Marina's own decision.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited October 22, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Chris Newton]

Well, Chris, I like to think I'm as well-informed about the JFK murder as anybody here -- but your claim is fairly new to me -- except as one of the many wild accusations we often see flying about.

Thanks Paul,

Yes, wild preposterous accusations are my forte. Just some random wild thoughts:

Has anyone ever written anything about Alan Dulles' use of religious groups, the Quakers in particular, for nefarious purposes?

Was Adele Edison lying? Because if she wasn't than someone else other than the Walker clan was directing him to New Orleans.

I used the term "handlers" maybe directors or enablers would be better terminology.

Was there a connection between the Paines and the Kloepfers outside of Oswald and the Quakers? hmmm. Chapter 20.

Edited October 22, 2015 by Chris Newton

[Thomas Graves]

"It is important to recall that the first attempt to mail the parcel was on Wednesday the 20th. It failed for postage due.

But Oswald was at the Paine home on Thursday the 21st, the night before the assassination. If the mailing had been successful, Oswald likely would have opened the package, and then handled the paper. He probably would have discarded it. If he had, one of two things would likely have followed:

1.) The police would have found the discarded wrapping paper.Or

2.) Ruth Paine would have found it. Either way, the police now would have fresh fingerprints on wrapping paper resembling the sack allegedly used by Oswald to carry a rifle into the Texas School Book Depository.

This is crucial because the official story states that Oswald stored the Mannlicher Carcano murder rifle in the Paine garage. To have Oswlald's prints, and only his prints, on a sheet of discarded wrapping paper would have been strong evidence that the alleged assassin had wrapped the murder weapon the night before.

The incredible thing about the above case against the Paines is this: this does not even come close to exhausting it." (p. 207)

As Sylvia Meagher wrote many years ago, it appears that someone knew where Oswald would be the night before the assassination, and what he would be accused of the day of the murder.

But beyond that, these person(s) also knew that a paper bag would become a key piece of evidence against the suspect, who was accused of acting alone. (Sylvia Meagher, Accessories After the Fact, p.64)

Jim,

Where did the bad guys expect that paper bag, theoretically / ideally with Oswald's fingerprints on it (but, strangely, with no gun oil on it), to be found?

In Ruth Paine's wastebasket?

Since the theory would be that Oswald had made the bag for transporting the rifle to the TSBD, how would the finding of it at Ruth Paine's house after the assassination help to frame Oswald?

--Tommy

Paper of the same type as the bag in the TSBD found in the Paine's Household with Oswald's fingerprints on. Slam dunk.

Why did the sender make the package undeliverable? Just to have a plausible reason to send Ruth Paine a "12 cents postage due" notice which she received on 11/23/63? For what reason? (So the post office could put some microdots under the package's label?) Or did someone intentionally / unintentionally give the sender an incorrect address for Oswald? How did the post office know to send Ruth Paine the "postage due" notice (for a package addressed to Oswald) before (or immediately after?) Oswald was captured at the Texas Theater, anyway?

The package was undeliverable for several reasons. Twelve cents short on metered (!) postage, no return address, non-existent "601 West Nassau Street" address on label. (It is unknown if there was any kind of a "correct" address for anybody under the label.)

Questions: Was there any metered postage on the package at all? How much did it cost to send a comparable package from someplace in Irving, Texas to an address in Irving / Dallas in 1963, anyway? Twelve cents? More than twelve cents? Is it too late for the National Archives or FBI to find out if there was an address under the label? Isn't there be some kind of high-tech way to "see" under the label without removing it today? Has the handwriting on the label ever been analysed to try to identify who wrote it? Was the paper determined to be exactly the same kind of paper as the bag allegedly found at the TSBD was made from, or just kinda similar?

What's really strange is that the FBI said it found no fingerprints on the package. If true, makes me wonder if the person who put the "601 West Nassau Street" label on it wearing gloves at the time...

--Tommy

Edited October 23, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[Paul Trejo]

Why did the sender make the package undeliverable? Just to have a plausible reason to send Ruth Paine a "12 cents postage due" notice which she received on 11/23/63? For what reason? (So the post office could put some microdots under the package's label?) Or did someone intentionally / unintentionally give the sender an incorrect address for Oswald? How did the post office know to send Ruth Paine the "postage due" notice (for a package addressed to Oswald) before (or immediately after?) Oswald was captured at the Texas Theater, anyway?

The package was undeliverable for several reasons. Twelve cents short on metered (!) postage, no return address, non-existent "601 West Nassau Street" address on label. (It is unknown if there was any kind of a "correct" address for anybody under the label.)

Questions: Was there any metered postage on the package at all? How much did it cost to send a comparable package from someplace in Irving, Texas to an address in Irving / Dallas in 1963, anyway? Twelve cents? More than twelve cents? Is it too late for the National Archives or FBI to find out if there was an address under the label? Isn't there be some kind of high-tech way to "see" under the label without removing it today? Has the handwriting on the label ever been analysed to try to identify who wrote it? Was the paper determined to be exactly the same kind of paper as the bag allegedly found at the TSBD was made from, or just kinda similar?

What's really strange is that the FBI said it found no fingerprints on the package. If true, makes me wonder if the person who put the "601 West Nassau Street" label on it wearing gloves at the time...

--Tommy

You have the right, reasonable questions, Tommy.

One thing is certain, however -- just because "Lee Oswald's" name was on the package -- that package will probably be famous for centuries into US History.

Another thing that will make the package famous is that it contained only one piece of WRAPPING PAPER! I cannot think of a more ridiculous package in US history.

What I doubt is the nonsense of JUMPING TO CONCLUSIONS on the basis of this puny bit of data.

Ray wants to connect this WRAPPING PAPER with the WRAPPING PAPER alleged to have covered LHO's rifle on 11/22/1963, and calls this leap of faith a "slam dunk". Brown paper is brown paper -- big deal.

But really, people, all we have here are dozens of QUESTIONS, and some pretty flimsy theories.

Tommy, you're asking the right question: W-H-Y ??

Why in the world would anybody send a package containing one piece of Wrapping Paper to "Lee Oswald" at a fake address, and include insufficient postage on it?

The very idea makes no sense in any PLOT or CONSPIRACY that anybody can name.

Finally -- what in Hades does any of this have to do with Ruth Paine, the Quaker Charity lady?

One really has to be desperate enough to grasp at straws to try to make hay out of the "Undeliverable Package."

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

Thanks Paul,

Yes, wild preposterous accusations are my forte. Just some random wild thoughts:

Has anyone ever written anything about Alan Dulles' use of religious groups, the Quakers in particular, for nefarious purposes?

Was Adele Edison lying? Because if she wasn't than someone else other than the Walker clan was directing him to New Orleans.

I used the term "handlers" maybe directors or enablers would be better terminology.

Was there a connection between the Paines and the Kloepfers outside of Oswald and the Quakers? hmmm. Chapter 20.

Chris, here are some answers:

(1) George Michael Evica -- an English Professor (like Peter Dale Scott with his so-called "Deep Structures") wrote IMHO a turgid, well-researched book of nonsense entitled, "A Certain Arrogance," in which he fumbled an attempt to blame wealthy people like the Paines for the murder of JFK -- because they were so well-connected.

(1.1) Talk about jumping to conclusions on every page -- the CIA controlled Albert Schweitzer College, and the CIA controlled the Quakers, and the CIA controlled countless Churches, and used Churches everywhere to accomplish their "nefarious" goals of world-domination. Pitiful.

(1.2) But really, what can one expect from an English Professor with only a slight command of History or Church? Right -- you get "Deep Structures."

(2) As for Adele Edisen, the first thing to remember is that the Oswalds never had a telephone number. Ever.

(2.1) To give Adele the benefit of the doubt, let us say that Jose Rivera was toying with her mind. The fact that he was a self-avowed Segregationist does put him in the same ball-park as Guy Banister and Edwin Walker. Yet, even granting that Rivera was teasing Edisen, the rest of the story seems contrived.

(2.2) Let's say that Edisen was half-right -- then Jeff Caufield's new book explains that Walker/Banister had control of LHO in New Orleans by April, 1963, and people as far away as Joseph Milteer of Georgia knew every move they made.

(2.3) In that case, it is possible that a racist like Jose Rivera could have known facts just as Joseph Milteer knew facts about the Walker/Banister plot -- and then toyed with Adele Edisen's mind and made her flip out.

(3) I see no reason, no evidence of any kind, to regard the Paines as "handlers" or "directors" or "enablers" of LHO -- who, anyway, was completely innocent of the JFK shooting itself.

(3.1) LHO's great crime was that he was in bed with this Patsy-makers; but he shielded Marina and the Paines far from that lot. As far as they knew, LHO was a "Loner" except for their small world.

(3.2) LHO visited the Paine's house for six full weekends from October through November 1963 -- and some holiday weekends, too. Yet he never took a phone call there -- never made a phone call there -- never brought a friend home -- and never mentioned anybody else to Marina and the Paines to them -- except General Walker (as Michael testified).

(4.0) When I receive the book by Talbot (any day now) I'll know more about what he might accuse the Paines of.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited October 23, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Thomas Graves]

Why did the sender make the package undeliverable? Just to have a plausible reason to send Ruth Paine a "12 cents postage due" notice which she received on 11/23/63? For what reason? (So the post office could put some microdots under the package's label?) Or did someone intentionally / unintentionally give the sender an incorrect address for Oswald? How did the post office know to send Ruth Paine the "postage due" notice (for a package addressed to Oswald) before (or immediately after?) Oswald was captured at the Texas Theater, anyway?

The package was undeliverable for several reasons. Twelve cents short on metered (!) postage, no return address, non-existent "601 West Nassau Street" address on label. (It is unknown if there was any kind of a "correct" address for anybody under the label.)

Questions: Was there any metered postage on the package at all? How much did it cost to send a comparable package from someplace in Irving, Texas to an address in Irving / Dallas in 1963, anyway? Twelve cents? More than twelve cents? Is it too late for the National Archives or FBI to find out if there was an address under the label? Isn't there be some kind of high-tech way to "see" under the label without removing it today? Has the handwriting on the label ever been analysed to try to identify who wrote it? Was the paper determined to be exactly the same kind of paper as the bag allegedly found at the TSBD was made from, or just kinda similar?

What's really strange is that the FBI said it found no fingerprints on the package. If true, makes me wonder if the person who put the "601 West Nassau Street" label on it wearing gloves at the time...

--Tommy

You have the right, reasonable questions, Tommy.

One thing is certain, however -- just because "Lee Oswald's" name was on the package -- that package will probably be famous for centuries into US History.

Another thing that will make the package famous is that it contained only one piece of WRAPPING PAPER! I cannot think of a more ridiculous package in US history.

What I doubt is the nonsense of JUMPING TO CONCLUSIONS on the basis of this puny bit of data.

Ray wants to connect this WRAPPING PAPER with the WRAPPING PAPER alleged to have covered LHO's rifle on 11/22/1963, and calls this leap of faith a "slam dunk". Brown paper is brown paper -- big deal.

But really, people, all we have here are dozens of QUESTIONS, and some pretty flimsy theories.

Tommy, you're asking the right question: W-H-Y ??

Why in the world would anybody send a package containing one piece of Wrapping Paper to "Lee Oswald" at a fake address, and include insufficient postage on it?

The very idea makes no sense in any PLOT or CONSPIRACY that anybody can name.

Finally -- what in Hades does any of this have to do with Ruth Paine, the Quaker Charity lady?

One really has to be desperate enough to grasp at straws to try to make hay out of the "Undeliverable Package."

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Paul,

Because Ruth Paine received a "12 cents postage due" letter / post card / note from the post office on 11/23/63.

That's why.

--Tommy