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

[Paul Trejo]

12 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Jeff and Len both went through the document records and did their cross checking.  They concluded the call was on the day of the assassination.  Not the day after.  IN fact, the source was also covered up. The WC and Liebeler deliberately covered the date up.

As for Dave Andrews' question:  

Why was Ruth hanging out in Dallas in a half-crappy lower middle class house?  To reconcile with Michael?  To take in needy foreigners?  To hang out with Buell Wesley Frazier's relatives?

Wasn't there something better for Ruth Paine to be doing, like with her high-class, close-knit family?  Did Ruth Paine have a career, or was she just a housewife in limbo?

If you look at what the Paines did in the MInox camera charade at the suggestion of Hoover, and then read about what Buddy Walthers said about the files discovered in their home, and read the transcript of the FBI interview with the SMU student at Luby's Restaurant, you will see what the Paines were doing in that middle class home.  

According to Greg Parker, he will have some very interesting revelations about the Paines in his upcoming Volume 3 of his series on Oswald.

OMG, not more Probe Magazine cloak-and-dagger drivel.

As for Dallas Deputy Buddy Walthers, who claimed he found "six or seven metal filing cabinets" full of the names of Castro supporters in Ruth Paine's garage -- filing cabinets never seen by others, never photographed, never listed in any official list of items found -- get real.

The most likely explanation is that Buddy Walthers was part of the Radical Right JFK Kill Team in Dallas, and was trying like mad to frame Ruth Paine as a Communist, just as LHO was framed as a Communist.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited March 21, 2017 by Paul Trejo

[David Von Pein]

James DiEugenio said:

According to Greg Parker, he will have some very interesting revelations about the Paines in his upcoming Volume 3 of his series on Oswald.

 

51 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

OMG, not more Probe Magazine cloak-and-dagger drivel.

Yeah, Paul, there's always some "very interesting revelation" lurking just around the corner, according to Jim DiEugenio.

Just like early last year, when James made this bold assertion with respect to the debate about Oswald's Postal Money Order....

"Armstrong is coming. Guns blazing."  -- Jimmy D.; January 8, 2016

The end result of the above "blazing guns" of Armstrong was ..... absolutely nothing (AFAIK).

And David Lifton's "Final Charade" is supposedly going to be the next big "bombshell" book on the JFK case, hammering the final nails in the Warren Commission coffin. As if every last piece of evidence favoring Oswald's guilt is going to suddenly go sliding down the drain because of Mr. Lifton's persistent efforts. If he can manage that trick, then he's a miracle worker.

 

Edited March 21, 2017 by David Von Pein

[Paul Trejo]

24 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Yeah, Paul, there's always some "very interesting revelation" lurking just around the corner, according to Jim DiEugenio.

Just like early last year, when James made this bold assertion with respect to the debate about Oswald's Postal Money Order....

"Armstrong is coming. Guns blazing."  -- Jimmy D.; January 8, 2016

The end result of the above "blazing guns" of Armstrong was ..... absolutely nothing (AFAIK).

And David Lifton's "Final Charade" is supposedly going to be the next big "bombshell" book on the JFK case, hammering the final nails in the Warren Commission coffin. As if every last piece of evidence favoring Oswald's guilt is going to suddenly go sliding down the drain because of Mr. Lifton's persistent efforts. If he can manage that trick, then he's a miracle worker.

Welcome to the thread, David.

--Paul

[Paul Trejo]

16 hours ago, Michael Clark said:

I believe she worked for AID in South America. I read this along with some scathing criticism of the results of that "effort".

Michael,

You were likely reading Probe Magazine cloak-and-dagger drivel from the 1990's.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited March 21, 2017 by Paul Trejo

[David Von Pein]

8 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Welcome to the thread, David.

You're a little late with the welcome, Paul. I posted in this thread on Page 1.

 

Edited March 21, 2017 by David Von Pein

[Michael Clark]

4 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Michael,

You were likely reading Probe Magazine cloak-and-dagger drivel from the 1990's.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Paul, You added nothing here; just a cheap, speculative cloaked dagger in Mr. Di Eugenio's back.

You are the most prominent Paine apologist and you have interviewed Ruth. Can you say whether she did or didn't work for USAID in SA?

Cheers,

Michael

 

[Paul Trejo]

19 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

I identified the document as the "first" record.

I examined this phone call in some detail in the final section of - https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/a-new-look-at-the-enigma-of-the-backyard-photographs-part-5

Barger incorrectly stated November 23. Phone records later clarified November 22. Both Paines acknowledge collect call from Arlington to Irving on November 22, same phone numbers as Barger's report, and place it at 1 PM.

Jeff,

Let's review your detailed examination of the famous Paine phone call in your essay.   By the numbers.

1.  "Confidential informant T-4" usually refers to a wire-tap in FBI lingo.   So, the likelihood is that it was indeed an FBI wiretap.   Good beginning.

2.   Captain PAUL BARGER finally remembered it, denied it was an FBI wire-tap, and said it was probably a telephone repairman who "accidentally" overheard it while "checking on the line."  (DTH, 1976).  BARGER had "forgotten" this in 1963.  Yeah, right.

3.  How could it be an FBI wire-tap, argued BARGER, since the FBI asked BARGER what happened?   What a silly man. 

4.  You then chime in, Jeff, saying: "The phone call itself, and its content, are not denied."  But that is a passive sentence.  You mean that BARGER did not deny the CONTENT.  But we just saw that BARGER is a big fat fibber -- and the original report was in his words -- so we have no confirmation for his claims, unless the Paines will confirm.

5.  You write,

"Michael Paine denied the content of the call during an interview conducted December 23, 1963 by FBI Special Agent Bardwell Odum.

“Mr. PAINE advised that on November 23, 1963, he did not make any statement to anyone that he felt sure LEE HARVEY OSWALD had killed the President but did not feel OSWALD was responsible ...

Mr. PAINE advised that what he did say, in fact, in a conversation with his wife, was that he was not sure that OSWALD had killed the President because at that time he had no facts at his command ...

Mr PAINE flatly denied at any time saying that he felt he knew who was responsible for the President’s death other than OSWALD.” (CD 206, p. 67)

5.1.  Let's unpack that.  First, Michael Paine denied the words forced into his mouth by PAUL BARGER as ordered by the FBI (probably JAMES HOSTY) to the effect that Michael knew LHO killed JFK.  Michael Paine added that "at that time he had no facts."  Nobody did (except perhaps James Hosty).

5.2.  Secondly, Michael Paine admitted some of those words -- e.g. "We both know who was responsible." 

5.3.  Thirdly, Michael Paine flatly denied that he knew who specifically was responsible for JFK's death. 

5.4.  HOWEVER, Jeff, your wording is too loosey goosey here.  You fudge things to try to imagine that Michael Paine did confess -- just like PAUL BARGER did.

5.5.  Michael Paine is more likely trying to say what Ruth Paine told me -- that they "both knew who is responsible" generically, namely, the same ones who published the "Wanted for Treason: JFK handbill," and the "Welcome Mister Kennedy to Dallas" black-bordered Ad in the DMN.

5.6.  Probe Magazine, cloak-and-dagger drivel tries to force Michael Paine to say that he knew who killed JFK -- SPECIFICALLY rather than GENERICALLY.

5.7.  Michael Paine is trying to tell the world that he meant that GENERICALLY.   And you aren't listening, either.

6.  We do agree that there was an illegal wire-tap on the Paine residence telephone, and that the FBI was likely the source.

6.1.  I think that FBI HQ was not the source -- but the local FBI in Dallas, especially James Hosty, bridge partner of Robert Alan Surrey, confidante of General Walker -- there is the source.

7.  You conclude, Jeff, by adding, "Michael Paine has yet to be asked directly who he thought, at 1pm on November 22, 1963, was responsible for the assassination."  Yet Michael Paine is still alive today.   Why don't you ask him?

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited March 21, 2017 by Paul Trejo
typos

[Paul Trejo]

14 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

You're a little late with the welcome, Paul. I posted in this thread on Page 1.

Doh!   

[Paul Trejo]

5 hours ago, Michael Clark said:

Paul,  .

...You are the most prominent Paine apologist and you have interviewed Ruth. Can you say whether she did or didn't work for USAID in SA?

Cheers,

Michael

Michael,

Ruth Paine is a Quaker charity lady, going way back.  She has been involved in Community Organizing for a lifetime.

Part of her Quaker charity did lead her to South America, in Nicaragua, where she took Quaker funds to neighborhoods where the local government was murdering Catholic nuns and others organizing the poor.

While she was there, of course, the murders continued.   While she was there, additionally, she would prepare reports for the Quaker newsletter, including photographs.

Because of the continuing murders, some of the locals began to circulate rumors, recognizing that Ruth Paine was involved with Lee Harvey Oswald back in the 1960's.  So, the local Catholic nuns became worried that the publicity was too much for the community, and asked Ruth Paine to please leave, because of all the worry.  Ruth Paine felt bad about it, but of course she saw the legitimate worry in this case where people were being killed on a daily basis.  So, she left.

That's what happened.  Now -- in the Probe Magazine cloak-and-dagger drivel, led by Carol Hewett and her quislings (and echoed by James Di Eugenio to this very day), Ruth Paine was herself part of the death squads in Nicaragua.   According to the misguided mind of Carol Hewett, since Ruth Paine "must have" worked for the CIA to murder JFK in 1963, so she "must have" worked for the CIA in support of the Nicaraguan death squads.

This sort of political pornography is the disgusting output from Probe Magazine in the 1990's that intelligent people have always despised.

A lawsuit on behalf of Ruth Paine still seems to me to be the correct action to take here.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited March 21, 2017 by Paul Trejo
clarity

[Michael Clark]

42 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Michael,

Ruth Paine is a Quaker charity lady, going way back.  She has been involved in Community Organizing for a lifetime.

Part of her Quaker charity did lead her to South America, in Nicaragua, where she took Quaker funds to neighborhoods where the local government was murdering Catholic nuns and others organizing the poor.

While she was there, of course, the murders continued.   While she was there, additionally, she would prepare reports for the Quaker newsletter, including photographs.

Because of the continuing murders, some of the locals began to circulate rumors, recognizing that Ruth Paine was involved with Lee Harvey Oswald back in the 1960's.  So, the local Catholic nuns became worried that the publicity was too much for the community, and asked Ruth Paine to please leave, because of all the worry.  Ruth Paine felt bad about it, but of course she saw the legitimate worry in this case where people were being killed on a daily basis.  So, she left.

That's what happened.  Now -- in the Probe Magazine cloak-and-dagger drivel, led by Carol Hewett and her quislings (and echoed by James Di Eugenio to this very day), Ruth Paine was herself part of the death squads in Nicaragua.   According to the misguided mind of Carol Hewett, since Ruth Paine worked for the CIA to murder JFK in 1963, so she "must have" worked for the CIA in support of the Nicaraguan death squads.

This sort of political pornography is the disgusting output from Probe Magazine in the 1990's that intelligent people have always despised.

A lawsuit on behalf of Ruth Paine still seems to me to be the correct action to take here.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Thanks for the clarification, yet you make no mention of USAID.

 

[David Von Pein]

A lawsuit on behalf of Ruth Paine still seems to me to be the correct action to take here.

Hear, hear! That's what I said four years ago....

"Naturally, no conspiracy theorist can think of ANY other solution to ANYTHING relating to the JFK case OTHER than "it's a conspiracy". No non-sinister explanation would even be entertained by the likes of a conspiracy monger. .... So, Ruth Paine is automatically guilty of--something. The conspiracy-happy kooks aren't sure just WHAT she's "guilty" of. But she's got to be guilty of SOMETHING, that much the conspiracy buffs know for sure. The conspiracy nuts who want to hang Ruth Paine are sickening. I only wish she could sue the pants off of at least one of the idiots who has slandered her name since 1963. She couldn't lose." -- DVP; July 10, 2013

 

[Paul Trejo]

1 hour ago, Michael Clark said:

Thanks for the clarification, yet you make no mention of USAID.

Michael,

IMHO the USAID angle was Carol Hewett's fantasy, hoping to link USAID to this Quaker Charity effort in Nicaragua, so that some vague insinuation of CIA interest could add cloak-and-dagger melodrama.   Either that or Carol was paid to do this hack job. 

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited March 21, 2017 by Paul Trejo

[Jeff Carter]

Paul T - Michael Paine’s statements to the FBI’s Odum should be considered in context of his WC testimony three months later (March 18, 1964), when he dissociates from the phone call and says “I didn’t know it was associated with our numbers…I thought it was in some other part of the country.” With Odum he is clarifying the content of the call, with the WC he denies any such call (although with the caveat such call occurred Nov 23).

What’s really going on? Hard to say - the “source” is obfuscated in the record, an incorrect date is attributed, and the original reporting officer appears to make up stories two months after the fact and then again twelve years after the fact. But the fact of the call at 1 PM on November 22 is established, and that the Paine’s discussed who might be responsible for the shooting in context of Oswald seems to have been established. The dispute is whether this: “the male voice was heard to comment that he felt sure LEE HARVEY OSWALD had killed the president”, is accurate information or not (i.e. that is what actually was said). 

It seems apparent that all parties - Paines, FBI, Barger, WC - contributed to making this go away in 1964.

[Paul Trejo]

2 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

Paul T - Michael Paine’s statements to the FBI’s Odum should be considered in context of his WC testimony three months later (March 18, 1964), when he dissociates from the phone call and says “I didn’t know it was associated with our numbers…I thought it was in some other part of the country.” With Odum he is clarifying the content of the call, with the WC he denies any such call (although with the caveat such call occurred Nov 23).

What’s really going on? Hard to say - the “source” is obfuscated in the record, an incorrect date is attributed, and the original reporting officer appears to make up stories two months after the fact and then again twelve years after the fact. But the fact of the call at 1 PM on November 22 is established, and that the Paine’s discussed who might be responsible for the shooting in context of Oswald seems to have been established. The dispute is whether this: “the male voice was heard to comment that he felt sure LEE HARVEY OSWALD had killed the president”, is accurate information or not (i.e. that is what actually was said). 

It seems apparent that all parties - Paines, FBI, Barger, WC - contributed to making this go away in 1964.

Jeff,

I agree with you that the source is "obfuscated in the record."  My opinion is that the FBI first, and the Warren Commission second, and then the local Texas police third, all worked to hide their wrongdoing.

The FBI HQ figured out by 3pm CTS that the local Dallas FBI was involved in the JFK assassination, along with key members of the Dallas Police and Sheriff's Department, as well as the local Dallas Secret Service.

It was indeed High Treason -- but the Cold War was raging, and the USSR would have exploited the Truth -- so the Truth had to be kept secret for 75 years.

Therefore, the "Lone Nut" fiction of Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) was born by 3PM on 11/22/1963.

J. .Edgar Hoover knew that LHO was no member of any Communist Party, and no officer of any FPCC branch.  (He stated this plainly to RFK before 3PM CST.)  Hoover also knew that the New Orleans FPCC was run out of 544 Camp Street by Guy Banister, a former FBI chief.  So, Hoover figured out very quickly that the JFK murder was a Radical Right plot.

The wire-tap on the Paine's phone was an FBI job -- and Irving Police Captain Paul Barger was coaxed into it by the Dallas FBI (i.e. James Hosty).

Hoover also figured out that James Hosty was part of the plot.  (We can know this today because Hosty's 1996 book, Assignment Oswald, argues that LHO really did contact KGB assassin Kostikov in Mexico City.  Yet in 1996, only people who were part of the plot to frame LHO knew the full myth, as Hosty knew it.)

So, to keep the Truth from coming out, the FBI, the WC and the Texas Police all lied about the Paine's phone tap.

IMHO, the answer to the dispute is very clear -- based on Michael Paine and Ruth Paine themselves.   Paul Barger's claim that Michael said that he knew Oswald was JFK's killer at 1pm is FALSE.

That was the story being pushed by the JFK Killers.  They had tried to frame LHO, and now they were trying to frame the Paines.

It is ironic that Probe Magazine had really taken the side of the JFK Killers when it tried throughout the 1990's to frame the Paines for the murder of JFK.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited March 21, 2017 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

4 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

Hear, hear! That's what I said four years ago....

"Naturally, no conspiracy theorist can think of ANY other solution to ANYTHING relating to the JFK case OTHER than "it's a conspiracy". No non-sinister explanation would even be entertained by the likes of a conspiracy monger. .... So, Ruth Paine is automatically guilty of--something. The conspiracy-happy kooks aren't sure just WHAT she's "guilty" of. But she's got to be guilty of SOMETHING, that much the conspiracy buffs know for sure. The conspiracy nuts who want to hang Ruth Paine are sickening. I only wish she could sue the pants off of at least one of the idiots who has slandered her name since 1963. She couldn't lose." -- DVP; July 10, 2013

David,

You and I have different opinions about the JFK murder.  You are convinced there was no conspiracy, and I am convinced that there was.

However, I welcome your participation in a discussion of JFK CT's because so many JFK CT's are brain-dead.

I hope I can convince you that one JFK CT is supremely correct -- namely -- the one articulated by Jeff Caufield in his recent book, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: the Extensive New Evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy (2015).

If Caufield's book had appeared 50 years ago, the USA could have avoided a half-century of wasted ink.   But Caufield's work is the result of recent FOIA releases of FBI documents under the JFK Records Act -- so, there was no way these facts could have been known in the 20th century.

General Walker hated JFK more than Carlos Marcello hated JFK.  Granted, hate itself is not the same as murder -- but I invite you to consider the facts presented by Caufield.  (Now, his book is 900 pages long -- and so I don't expect you to read it anytime soon.)  

Also, there is plenty of work to do to debunk the nonsense in the JFK CT community that is still being poured out into the Internet by old guys stuck in the 20th century, pretending they are Mark Lane, Harold Weisberg and Jim Garrison. 

Probe Magazine represents the very worst of the JFK CT literature, iMHO.  I welcome all your efforts to tear those ridiculous theories to shreds as they richly deserve.  You can count on my support.   Also, if you ever set up a lawsuit to go after any publications of slander against Ruth Paine, you can also count on my support.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo