Chris Newton Posted December 11, 2016 Share Posted December 11, 2016 Lots of copies given out by Ruth P.? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Newton Posted December 11, 2016 Share Posted December 11, 2016 4 hours ago, Chris Newton said: I want someone to explain how Odom has the letter from Ruth on Nov. 5th if Lee didn't type his letter until Nov. 9th or 10th. So I'm going to quote my statement above because on review of the relevant testimony I've found that SA Hosty says he was given the original handwritten copy by Ruth Paine the morning of 11/23/63. He wasn't aware of the Paine copy until 11/24/63 when SA Odum overheard Hosty being berated by Shanklin for not destroying his copy. Hosty gave no explanation of why Ruth P. withheld the copy from him but stated that SA Odum, sent to re-interview R.P. by Shanklin, turned this copy over to Odum. It's commission exhibit #103, btw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted December 12, 2016 Author Share Posted December 12, 2016 (edited) Chris, OK, you have shown by Hosty's own WC testimony, that he admits he visited Ruth Paine's house on both November 1 and November 5. He also makes no notice of FBI agent Odum in this testimony. In his visit on November 5th, he took an FBI trainee with him -- Agent Wilson. Ruth Paine herself said that she never possessed the original -- except during the 20 minutes or so that she copied it by hand. Then she put it back precisely where she got it from, and sometime on Monday morning (Veterans' Day, November 11, 1963) it was gone again -- evidently recovered by Oswald himself. The very notion that Ruth Paine handed over the original to James Hosty seems to be a fabrication by James Hosty, or just a flaw in his memory. It never happened, according to Ruth Paine. According to Ruth Paine, then, the original of that letter must have been found in Oswald's room on 1026 North Beckley. Regards, --Paul Trejo Edited December 12, 2016 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Newton Posted December 12, 2016 Share Posted December 12, 2016 hmmmmm...... 10/18/63 FBI Cable https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=61074&search=Kostikov_and+Cable+and+orleans#relPageId=3&tab=page Summary of relevant communications: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=9901#relPageId=157&tab=page Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Newton Posted December 12, 2016 Share Posted December 12, 2016 15 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said: The very notion that Ruth Paine handed over the original to James Hosty seems to be a fabrication by James Hosty, or just a flaw in his memory. LOL. Sorry to burst your bubbles... From AG report on "Hosty Note" https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=118883#relPageId=2&tab=page Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted December 12, 2016 Author Share Posted December 12, 2016 20 minutes ago, Chris Newton said: hmmmmm...... https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=61074&search=Kostikov_and+Cable+and+orleans#relPageId=3&tab=page Chris, This is a most interesting FBI summary of a CIA document dated 10/18/1963. It seems to seriously challenge my theory. My remaining arguments are now as follows: that CIA cable calls LHO, "Lee HENRY Oswald." We know from the writings of Bill Simpich (2014) that the CIA deliberately modified the CIA 201 file on Lee Harvey Oswald, changing his middle name to HENRY in order to catch the Mole who impersonated Lee Harvey Oswald. The impersonation was determined less than one hour after the phone call itself, because that phone was tapped by the CIA in a serious way. The CIA Mole Hunt started on that very same day -- namely -- October 1, 1963. After that point, however, anybody who saw the CIA 201 File on LHO would report his name to be Lee HENRY Oswald. Now, this is what we see in this 10/18/1963 cable. Very interesting. Regards, --Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted December 12, 2016 Author Share Posted December 12, 2016 (edited) 14 minutes ago, Chris Newton said: LOL. Sorry to burst your bubbles... From AG report on "Hosty Note" https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=118883#relPageId=2&tab=page Chris, I believe you are mistaking Oswald's note to Hosty (threatening Hosty for harassing Marina) for the "Soviet Embassy Letter." In fact, I'm pretty sure this is your mistake. The note Hosty destroyed was from 11/22/1963, said that link, while Ruth handed Hosty the Embassy letter on 11/23/1963. The link you provided gives these dates -- I'm not adding this. Hosty is very, very clear that the note which he flushed down the toilet was Oswald's note threatening Hosty for harassing Marina. Regards, --Paul Trejo Edited December 12, 2016 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Newton Posted December 12, 2016 Share Posted December 12, 2016 Just now, Paul Trejo said: In fact, I'm pretty sure this is your mistake. Nope. I think you need to read the bottom paragraph (of the image I posted) as it relates to both Hosty's and Odum's interviews of RP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Newton Posted December 12, 2016 Share Posted December 12, 2016 And then this is the post where I jump up and yell "EUCHRE" and slam my remaining cards on the table: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted December 12, 2016 Author Share Posted December 12, 2016 16 minutes ago, Chris Newton said: Nope. I think you need to read the bottom paragraph (of the image I posted) as it relates to both Hosty's and Odum's interviews of RP. Chris, I read the full image you posted -- it does not support your case in the way you claim, IMHO. The final word goes to James Hosty himself. He is on film in his HSCA testimony -- but he repeats this again in his book, Assignment Oswald. Here's what he himself wrote: " 'What the hell is this?' Shanklin asked, holding what appeared to be a letter. I took it and immediately recognized the anonymous note I had received ten days before. The angry note asking me to leave the writer's wife alone and speak directly to him." (Hosty, page 29) That should be clear. Regards, --Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Newton Posted December 12, 2016 Share Posted December 12, 2016 Just now, Paul Trejo said: The final word goes to James Hosty himself. He is on film in his HSCA testimony -- but he repeats this again in his book, Assignment Oswald. Here's what he himself wrote: " 'What the hell is this?' Shanklin asked, holding what appeared to be a letter. I took it and immediately recognized the anonymous note I had received ten days before. The angry note asking me to leave the writer's wife alone and speak directly to him." (Hosty, page 29) See my last post above. Hosty and RP are both lying liars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted December 12, 2016 Author Share Posted December 12, 2016 11 minutes ago, Chris Newton said: And then this is the post where I jump up and yell "EUCHRE" and slam my remaining cards on the table: Chris, Although this is from the Attorney General, it merely repeats what Odum reported. Odum, furthermore, was not an eye-witness, but was reporting after the events occurred. Since James Hosty was an eye-witness, then whenever there is any contradiction, we should rely on James Hosty. The chances are higher that Odum simply made mistakes in his reporting. Regards, --Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted December 12, 2016 Author Share Posted December 12, 2016 8 minutes ago, Chris Newton said: See my last post above. Hosty and RP are both lying liars. Chris, Then you are relying entirely on FBI agent Bardwell Odum? Please, then, Chris, lay your cards out on the table and tell us, in your own words, what you believe really and truly happened. Regards, --Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Newton Posted December 12, 2016 Share Posted December 12, 2016 3 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said: Then you are relying entirely on FBI agent Bardwell Odum? I'm relying on the Attorney General of the United States. ...But you are saying, "he wasn't there" so I should rely on two people who's stories changed with the seasons and whom I suspect were in cahoots to at best CYA and at worst... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Newton Posted December 12, 2016 Share Posted December 12, 2016 https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62474&relPageId=193 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now