Jump to content
The Education Forum
James DiEugenio

The Real Ruth and Michael Paine

Recommended Posts

From here, that is around July of 1963, Nagell began to monitor the plot that finally was enacted in Dallas.

But when Oswald stepped onto center stage that summer, Nagell felt that something about the motivation behind the plot had changed. Why? Nagell wrote his friend Mr. Greenstein that the Cubans had gotten wind by now of the back channel Kennedy had been working on to effect a rapprochement with Castro. (p. 239) Two of the Cubans, Angel and Leopoldo, had convinced Oswald they were actually pro-Castro. And that they wanted to involve him in a plot to kill JFK. This was in reaction to plots enacted by the USA against Fidel. If he did so, Oswald would be furnished a "safe conduct" pass into Havana by the Cuban Embassy in Mexico City. Nagell told Russell he had been in Mexico City with Oswald, but not at the time of the notorious trip discussed in the Lopez Report. Nagell had told a friend of his, John Margain, about this trip. Russell later interviewed Margain and he confirmed certain details about it. (pgs. 240-241) Including the fact that Nagell told Margain that Oswald was being set up by the CIA and the Cuban exiles.

​This is what I mean. Nagell simply has too many corroborating witnesses, and artifacts not to be credible. Plus, why would the FBI and CIA be destroying so much evidence if he was not?

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Make sure the witness is discredited for people like Reitzes and Paul Hoch:

Nagell's attorney, Joe Calamia, was so intent on getting Nagell freed that he got his client to cooperate with the government in a psychological ruse.

An army doctor named Edward Weinstein had once treated Nagell after an airplane crash in the service. Nagell actually told the FBI about Weinstein himself. But the court made it clear that Nagell now had to lie about this in order to have any chance upon appeal. In other words, Thornberry and the FBI were striking a deal with the defendant: We will give you a chance to go free if you go along with our deceitful discreditation of you as a witness. Urged on by Calamia, Nagell went along with this ploy, but he did so kicking and screaming. (p. 408)

Eventually this is how Nagell was finally released. Weinstein said Nagell had suffered brain damage from his plane accident and therefore had "confabulated" his story about Oswald and what he did in the bank. Here is the problem with Weinstein's thesis: Nagell underwent an EEG and psychological testing at Springfield. The examining doctor wrote: "I did not find any evidence or finding suggestible of brain damage." (p. 407) This report was deliberately kept out of Nagell's second trial. By both the defense and prosecution. Calamia made a deal with the devil to get his client out of jail. Nagell got out in April of 1968.

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone here knows all about intelligence operations, I know. So please respond, based on your training and experience as a military intelligence officer in a war zone.

Since we taxpayers paid for your training please enlighten us and help us out of the darkness of ignorance and enlighten us

Martin,

I'll begin with a question. If you or anyone else here wants more, please just ask. I don't want to bore anyone.

The question is, what is "intelligence"? Not human IQ. But military intelligence. That is U.S. Army intelligence. Naval and Air Force intelligence are similar. Not to be ignored.

Intelligence is output not input. Intelligence is a product for consumers. Still with me, Martin? Good.

Question for you, Martin: Based strictly on what I've written, what is "intelligence"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or how about this:

As mentioned above, the FBI interviewed Nagell's sister after the assassination. It is clear from reading this book that Nagell was quite close to her. Right after he was arrested, but before the assassination, he wrote to her that "I have refused to offer an explanation as to certain overt acts ... Someday I shall explain everything in detail to you pertinent to this apparent disgrace." (p. 37) His sister's widower said that Nagell's mission was to eliminate Oswald before the assassination. (p. 39) He also told Russell that the FBI visited them in 1965 to see some of the papers Nagell had sent to them. While they were on vacation, the FBI broke into their home and stole some of the documents. (p. 40)

​Sandy, is this in the Retitzes article?

Or this:

Nagell's career in the armed forces was distinguished. In 1953, during the Korean War, Nagell attended the Monterey School of Languages. In 1954, he suffered through a plane crash. And although many have said that somehow this impacted him psychologically forever, the army cleared him of any kind of personality change afterwards. (p. 46) In fact, less than a month after the crash he was approved for a new intelligence assignment. (ibid) Working for Army Intelligence, Nagell opened the mail of suspected communists with postal inspectors right next to him. They broke into the offices of suspected communist organizations and stole whole file cabinets. (p. 47) It was in the winter of 1955-56 that the CIA first recruited Nagell. (p. 48) And in fact, the names of his two recruiters were found in his notebook. Russell called one of them and he confirmed that he had worked in the LA office of the CIA.

I don't believe Reitzes says anything positive about Nagell. I didn't read every single word of his very-long article (I skimmed what I didn't read), but the impression I was left with was that Nagell was in Military Intelligence for two or three years, and then was stripped of his top secret clearances due to "mental instability." And that he spent the rest of his life complaining to the government.

The article clearly was written with an agenda in mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dave Reitzes' article on Nagell is a hatchet job... 100% opposite of The Man Who Knew Too Much, from what I can tell. In his five page essay Reitzes doesn't even mention the ID card identical to Oswald's. (At least I couldn't find it.)

At first I wondered if what he wrote could possibly be true -- it makes Nagell out so bad. Then I realized, if Nagell were that bad, nobody would have taken him seriously. Nobody. And yet some did and still do.

Some people still take Jim Garrison seriously too, Sandy. And Garrison was pretty darn bad (as proven by the preposterous Garrison quotes below). What does that tell you about those CTers?

Let the hilarity commence.....

"I can't go into all the details on this, but the murder of Tippit,

which I am convinced Oswald didn't commit, was clearly designed to set

the stage for Oswald's liquidation in the Texas Theater after another

anonymous tip-off." -- Jim Garrison; 1967

From what I know, there is no reason to believe Oswald shot Tippit. But there is reason to believe he was set up. For example, that Oswald supposedly dropped his wallet there. (Yeah right! And later his wallet was ALSO taken from him after he was picked up at the theater. LOL) And after murdering Tippit, Oswald felt it necessary to empty his gun of the bullet casings, thus leaving behind evidence. (Yeah, right! Again!)

"The clincher, as far as I'm concerned, is that four cartridges were

found at the scene of the [Tippit] slaying. Now, revolvers do not eject

cartridges, so when someone is shot, you don't later find gratuitous

cartridges strewn over the sidewalk -- unless the murderer deliberately

takes the trouble to eject them. We suspect that cartridges had been

previously obtained from Oswald's .38 revolver and left at the murder

site by the real killers as part of the setup to incriminate Oswald."

-- Jim Garrison; 1967

What is wrong with this statement, Dave?

"If there's one thing the Warren Commission and its 26 volumes of

supportive evidence demonstrate conclusively, it's that Lee Harvey

Oswald did not shoot John Kennedy on November 22, 1963." -- Jim

Garrison; 1967

I agree with Garrison.. Much of the evidence clearing Oswald was included in the WCR's 26 volumes of evidence. But not in the WCR itself. Like the fact that residue wasn't found on Oswald's cheeks, though it WAS found on the cheeks on every one of several test subjects who also fired the gun.

"Lee Oswald was totally, unequivocally, completely innocent of the

assassination .... and the fact that history, or in the re-writing of

history, disinformation has made a villain out of this young man who

wanted nothing more than to be a fine Marine .... is in some ways the

greatest injustice of all." -- Jim Garrison; Spoken during an on-camera

interview for the A&E Cable-TV mini-series "The Men Who Killed Kennedy"

(Part 4; "The Patsy")

Yep!

"There is no 'overwhelming' evidence that Oswald shot from the Book Depository.

The only evidence available indicates that he did NOT." -- Jim Garrison; 1/31/68

That's right! I don't think there was any evidence that the gun was even shot that day. Even the neutron activation analysis of the bullet fragments in the limo -- which Bugliosi depended on so much -- has been proven unreliable.

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/jim-garrison-part-1.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is wrong with this statement, Dave?

Garrison KNEW full well there were multiple witnesses who SAW OSWALD HIMSELF dumping shells on the ground. But Garrison IGNORES all of those witnesses. THAT'S what's wrong with it, Sandy.

I don't think there was any evidence that the gun was even shot that day.

So, you don't consider CE567 or CE569 (the two bullet fragments found in the front seat of JFK's car) to be "evidence", Sandy?

Why not?

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/09/ce567-and-ce569.html

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OMG. Here we go again. Matters that DVP has been arguing for decades.

1. Hill said he did a fast frisk of Oswald when he was arrested. Nothing.

2. Those two fragments are of the head and tail of the same bullet according to the WC. Where is the middle?

Well, no on knew from about 1963 to 1968. Then in 1968 in preparation for the trial of Clay Shaw, and in reaction to Thompson's book, Ramsey Clark put together the Fisher Panel to review the medical artifacts, that is the x rays and photos. This panel saw something that the back in 1963. They found the middle of the bullet! It was right there shining like a beacon in the anterior skull x ray! So, in other words, a bullet cutting through nothing but air, cracks into thirds as it hits JFK's skull. Even before it strikes actual bone since the middle fragment is outside the bony area. Then, the tail of the bullet miraculously elevates itself over the middle and proceeds to follow the had of the bullet out the side of JFK's head an dingo the front seat.

I call this the second magic bullet. Two magic bullets in six seconds. Allegedly, Oswald fired four shots with that rifle he never ordered. Every one of them had magical qualities. In addition to this one, the Tague hit bounced off the pavement and magically sheered off its outer copper coating so as not to leave any copper trace on the curb, and the Walker bullet changed caliber and color in flight.

Oh what a web we weave when we first practice to deceive.

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is wrong with this statement, Dave?

Garrison KNEW full well there were multiple witnesses who SAW OSWALD HIMSELF dumping shells on the ground. But Garrison IGNORES all of those witnesses. THAT'S what's wrong with it, Sandy.

Oh, do you mean the witnesses who pointed to Oswald in a lineup? Or the ones shown a photo of Oswald and asked if that was the man... after everybody had seen Oswald's mug on television?

You must mean the former, because the latter is ridiculous on it's face.

Let's look at what one of the lineup witnesses, William Scoggins, had to say about the lineup:

".... you could have picked [Oswald] out without identifying him just by listening to him because he was bawling out the policeman, telling him it wasn't right to put him in line with these teenagers...."

Also, unlike the others in the lineup, Oswald was cut up and bruised. Don't you think witnesses would have been influenced by that?

And if that weren't enough, each of the men in the lineup was asked his name and occupation. So those viewing the lineup knew that the guy with the cut and bruises, "bawling out the policeman," also shared the same name as the suspect they had heard about on the news!

Yeah, that seems like a fair lineup.

Now let's take a look at the testimony of star witness Helen Markham:

William Ball: Did anybody tell you that the man you were looking for would be in a certain position in the lineup, or anything like that?

Helen Markham: No, sir.

William Ball: Now when you went into the room you looked these people over, these four men?

Helen Markham: Yes, sir.

William Ball: Did you recognize anyone in the lineup?

Helen Markham: No, sir.

William Ball: You did not? Did you see anybody - I have asked you that question before did you recognize anybody from their face?

Helen Markham: From their face, no.

William Ball: Did you identify anybody in these four people?

Helen Markham: I didn't know nobody.

William Ball: I know you didn't know anybody, but did anybody in that lineup look like anybody you had seen before?

Helen Markham: No. I had never seen none of them, none of these men.

William Ball: No one of the four?

Helen Markham: No one of them.

William Ball: No one of all four?

Helen Markham: No, sir.

William Ball: Was there a number two man in there?

Helen Markham: Number two is the one I picked.

William Ball: Well, I thought you just told me that you hadn't...

Helen Markham: I thought you wanted me to describe their clothing.

William Ball: No. I wanted to know if that day when you were in there if you saw anyone in there...

Helen Markham: Number two.

William Ball: What did you say when you saw number two?

Helen Markham: Well, let me tell you. I said the second man, and they kept asking me which one, which one. I said, number two. When I said number two, I just got weak.

William Ball: What about number two, what did you mean when you said number two?

Helen Markham: Number two was the man I saw shoot the policeman.

William Ball: You recognized him from his appearance?

Helen Markham: I asked - I looked at him. When I saw this man I wasn't sure, but I had cold chills just run all over me.

William Ball: When you saw him?

Helen Markham: When I saw the man. But I wasn't sure, so, you see, I told them I wanted to be sure, and looked, at his face is what I was looking at, mostly is what I looked at, on account of his eyes, the way he looked at me. So I asked them if they would turn him sideways. They did, and then they turned him back around, and I said the second, and they said, which one, and I said number two. So when I said that, well, I just kind of fell over. Everybody in there, you know, was beginning to talk, and I don't know, just...

Let's see... how many times did Helen Markham say she didn't recognize any man in the lineup before she finally admitted that (drum roll please) she wasn't sure Oswald was the one? It wasn't till she remembered those "cold chills running all over" her that she became sure.

So Dave, don't you think Garrison had good reason to disregard these witnesses.

(Source: Accessories After the Fact by Sylvia Meagher.)

I don't think there was any evidence that the gun was even shot that day.

So, you don't consider CE567 or CE569 (the two bullet fragments found in the front seat of JFK's car) to be "evidence", Sandy?

I retract my statement. It was based (partly) on a misunderstanding I had regarding the fact that the neutron activation analysis done on the bullet fragments has been discredited.

Still, I do not believe the gun was fired that day, and that the CE567 and CE569 bullet fragments were planted. And so, even though I retract the statement, I continue to believe it to be true.

Why not?

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/09/ce567-and-ce569.html
Edited by Sandy Larsen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still, I do not believe the gun was fired that day, and that the CE567 and CE569 bullet fragments were planted.

Oh, good! More "planted" stuff. Lovely.

And just how was the planting of the 2 front-seat fragments accomplished, Sandy? And who did it? And when? Care to elaborate?

And then, on top of CE567/569, you must ALSO think that all 3 bullet shells found in the Sniper's Nest were also planted, right?

Plus, CE399 was planted into the evidence pile of this case too. Correct?

And was Oswald's palmprint (CE637) planted on the rifle too, Sandy?

And, expanding on the evidence a little, was CE142 (the paper bag) planted too?

And the 2 LHO prints on that paper bag....also planted?

And the fibers matching the Paine blanket that were found inside that same paper bag? Also planted there?

And the multiple prints of LHO's on two boxes deep within the Sniper's Nest? Were those planted? Or do you want to use the standard CTer retort of -- Well, he worked there, you dummy! OF COURSE his prints were going to be on two boxes DEEP INSIDE the tiny little Nest where the assassin of JFK was firing at the President?

And, moving to Tenth Street, were the 4 bullet shells from LHO's revolver also planted?

And was Oswald waving around a gun in the theater, or was that just a lie by the police (and by Johnny Brewer)?

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DVP,

You make good points about the framing of Oswald and the cover-up. How can one believe the U.S. Government and the Texas government went to such lengths to pin the murders of JFK and J.D. Tippit on Oswald? You plead for simplicity.

You make good points.

You are a conservative who believes in government. I find that odd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jon,

When the entire lengthy laundry list of physical evidence is pointing irrevocably in one single direction (toward the guilt of Lee H. Oswald), isn't it about time to just admit that Oswald did it?

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still, I do not believe the gun was fired that day, and that the CE567 and CE569 bullet fragments were planted.

Oh, good! More "planted" stuff. Lovely.

And just how was the planting of the 2 front-seat fragments accomplished, Sandy? And who did it? And when? Care to elaborate?

You cannot be serious can you? Who had access to the car all that time? Where was it? Ever read Doug Weldon. Just admit you have not for once.

And then, on top of CE567/569, you must ALSO think that all 3 bullet shells found in the Sniper's Nest were also planted, right?

Ever hear of Tom Alyea? Or the FBI? :down When the FBI tested the weapon they came to the conclusion that only one of the bullets had been ejected by the rifle. And Alyea said that when he first got there on the sixth floor, the shells were separated by the length of a hand towel. That is not how they were arranged in the WC photos. And in fact when the FBI did tests this was simply impossible as a dispersal pattern. Alyea and Allen Eaglesham think it was either Fritz or Studebaker who rearranged the shells. (Reclaiming Parkland, p. 70)

Plus, CE399 was planted into the evidence pile of this case too. Correct?

My God, this is ridiculous. <_< John Hunt proved eons ago that CE 399 was substituted into the record and he used the FBI's own evidence to do it with. Davey kept on saying he was going to NARA to prove John was wrong. Well, he must be selling a lot of chicken, because he never made the trip. Or else he went there and could not find anything wrong with John's case. The FBI lied about this, they said Elmer Lee Todd's initials are on CE 399--THEY ARE NOT. Second, Frazier said he got the stretcher bullet at 7:30. Impossible since Todd did not got that bullet to deliver to Frazier until over an hour later. (Reclaiming Parkland, pgs. 224-26)

And was Oswald's palmprint (CE637) planted on the rifle too, Sandy?

Ever hear of Sebastian LaTona? Please say you did. :please The rifle was shipped to the FBI on the late afternoon of the 22nd. Latona, the best fingerprint man in America, examined it. His conclusion: no prints of value. Lt. Day then started lying his head off, how he had marked the areas etc and he told the FBI about them etc. Vincent Drain, the FBI courier, destroyed Day. He told Henry Hurt that Day said nothing to him about anything like that when he got the rifle. In other words, as Drain also said, the Dallas Police were getting all kinds of pressure about the lack of their case against Oswald and so they manufactured the prints after the fact. OMG, don't tell me you don't know about what happened at the funeral parlor? Or the famous print card, "Refused to Sign". Even though Oswald had been already printed twice? And Pat Speer proved that you can transfer prints from a card. (See Reclaiming Parkland, pgs. 190-92)

And, expanding on the evidence a little, was CE142 (the paper bag) planted too?

Oh you mean the bag that wasn't there? Even though the police had to be standing on top of it, but they missed photographing it? They shot the whole sixth floor, but somehow they missed it, right? And I have some land in Arizona for you that is lush and green. :shutup Davey tell us about Hoover's two memos about this one? Forgot again? Let me remind you: one said the paper samples on the gun sack were similar to the paper at the TSBD. The other said they were not. And Bugliosi screwed up on this and DVP did not call him on it. Bugliosi says they were written on separate days. Pat Speer notes they are not. The FBI then tried to lie their way out of this one by using two different excuses. They are both wrong. As I write in RP, "It now appears that the bag in evidence did not match the Depository paper samples and the document was later altered to say it did." Its pretty obvious, as shown by Speer on his web site, that the bag carried outside by the DPD is not the same bag in evidence today. It was cut down from it.

And the 2 LHO prints on that paper bag....also planted?

Davey you do not listen to anything at all do you? I mean besides cyber terrorist McAdams, Jean Davison (worst book ever written on Oswald), and Paul May (don't tell anyone I am photon since I have no credibility by my real name) who do you read? If Oswald never took that paper from the TSBD, and Troy West swore he did not--and he had to know--then how did he get the paper? You know what DVP once said about this when Gil Jesus had him nailed on the issue: West went to the bathroom and that is when Oswald pulled the paper. :lol: Now, the prints found are from his left index finger and his right palm. He carried the rifle across his body as he walked in, but no one inside saw him in this military position? And Pat found out that the WC misrepresented the prints in their report. Didn't know about that one did you? Listen to BOR sometime will you? Oh yeah you said it only has 15 listeners. It has thousands buddy.

And the fibers matching the Paine blanket that were found inside that same paper bag? Also planted there?

Baloney. FBI agent Paul Stambaugh said that he could not make any kind of definite match. Since there were too few fibers to examine. And BTW, when the DPD stored the blanket and the gun sack, guess what? They stored them right next to each other. (RP, pgs 177-78) But further Cadigan testified he could not find any oil or grease marks on the sack, even though the rifle had been soaked in cosmoline in its trip across the ocean. In fact he could not even find a crease in it. :tomatoes (ibid, p. 177)

And the multiple prints of LHO's on two boxes deep within the Sniper's Nest? Were those planted? Or do you want to use the standard CTer retort of -- Well, he worked there, you dummy! OF COURSE his prints were going to be on two boxes DEEP INSIDE the tiny little Nest where the assassin of JFK was firing at the President?

You mean the boxes that were rearranged before they were photographed? So we really don't know where they were at the time. Oh, you didn't know about that either did you? :news Or you probably did but you won't tell anyone will you? This is on Allan Eaglesham's wonderful site. Yep the DPD moved it around. (http://www.manuscriptservice.com/SN/) What else is new.

And, moving to Tenth Street, were the 4 bullet shells from LHO's revolver also planted?

This is getting ludicrous. That one was destroyed fairly fast by the police themselves. SOP to send the shells and bullets to FBI for identification. So the police only sent one bullet to the FBI. They said only one was found in TIppit's body, which was not true. When the WC found out this was a lie, they had the FBI investigate. The other three bullets were in the cabinets of the DPD homicide division. FBI could not get a match. So now they went to the shells. Guess what? Those great Dallas Police did not mention any of the shells on the same day evidence report! No joke. It was not until six days after the single bullet went to the FBI that the cartridges suddenly appeared on the inventory. Now the FBI said they now matched the revolver in question. You betcha. :idea

But even at that, Officer Poe said that they should have had his markings on them, and only two of them did. (RP, p. 101)

And was Oswald waving around a gun in the theater, or was that just a lie by the police (and by Johnny Brewer)?

Every time I think this guy cannot get worse, he does. Sylvia Meagher disposed of this one decades ago. If McDonald was telling the truth in his newspaper reports, then Oswald would have been nuts to do that. Because he would have been shot on the spot since McDonald had him dead to rights with his hand on his gun. So McDonald changed his story about having his hand on his gun. McDonald then lied about a "misfire" that kept him alive. When that was blown up by the FBI this changed to him getting his finger on the firing pin. (Meagher, p. 259) :ice McDonald also lied about what Oswald said to him that day. And Brewer backed him up in that lie. McDonald was such a nutty xxxx that he even lied about going to the Jefferson Library that day.

I cannot go into all the BS that came from McDonald. But click here for a good article on it. (http://jfkthelonegunmanmyth.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-filthy-lies-of-nick-mcdonald.html)

​I have been around Davey's tricks for a long time. The thing to remember about him, is that, like McAdams, he repeats the same discredited crapola in order to mislead people who have not known about him before. And cannot believe someone could be that monomaniacal. But he is.

Jon and Sandy, please read my book, Reclaiming Parkland, so you will not be taken in by this cheap carnival barker again. I say this not for me, two books will make me about four bucks. But it will save me the time of doing all this in order that you will not be buffaloed by this incurable and maniacal zealot. See, its easy to just twist a sheet of phony charges. Anyone can squeeze a toothpaste container. Its not easy to get it back in. But that's how bad the WC was. And its not easy to trace this stuff since the handling of it was beyond belief.

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jon,

When the entire lengthy laundry list of physical evidence is pointing irrevocably in one single direction (toward the guilt of Lee H. Oswald), isn't it about time to just admit that Oswald did it?

pardon me but, whose laundry list? The Warren Commission's and Bugliosi's? You HAVE to be kidding! Have you been awake these past 25 years?

"...cheap carnival barker..." comes to mind. That's the ticket!

Edited by David G. Healy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love it when Jimmy D. gets all worked up. What fun. And the fancy-filled "Everything's Fake" notions that emanate from JD's keyboard when he gets all red-faced are something to behold.

There is not a single piece of "Oswald Incriminating" evidence in this case that Jim DiEugenio thinks is legitimate. Is there, Jimmy? (Just admit you think it was ALL planted. It'll save a lot of time.)

(Remember just a short time back when Jimmy promised to never respond to any of my posts again? I wonder what happened to that pledge? I've often said Jim's memory is a short one.)

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/04/dvp-vs-dieugenio-complete-series.html

Edited by David Von Pein

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

×
×
  • Create New...