Jump to content
The Education Forum
  • Announcements

    • Evan Burton

      OPEN REGISTRATION BY EMAIL ONLY !!! PLEASE CLICK ON THIS TITLE FOR INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR REGISTRATION!:   06/03/2017

      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send an email to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team
Paul Brancato

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

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

David - I think Jim is right. I just read the Hidell info in Accessories, and see the part you refer to. My memory, and I looked carefully at this a while ago, is that the first inspection of the Paine house turned up a filing cabinet with numerous cards with Cuban names. It wasn't clear if these were pro or anti Castro. Normally when this is mentioned anywhere the speculation is that the cards belonged to Ruth. Since there is no further record of this astounding find, we are in the dark. But given that it is possible that Oswald was seen at an Alpha 66 safe house in Dallas, and that he was known to associate with exiles in New Orleans, I think it more likely they belonged to Oswald, and that he was monitoring them as part of some assignment, whether official or not. Just my take. I wish there was more info on this. It seems very important. 

Paul,

 

You might want to look at this 2014 thread from the alt.assassination newsgroup.

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.assassination.jfk/z2VxKzrDLEg

and read through Buddy Walthers' Report 

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/walther1.htm

"Upon searching this house we found stacks of hand bills concerning "Cuba for Freedom" advertising, seeking publicity and support for Cuba. Also found was a set of metal file cabinets containing records that appeared to be names and activities of Cuban sympathizers. All of this evidence was confiscated and turned over to Captain Fritz of the Dallas Police Department and Secret Service Officers at the City Hall."

and his follow-up WC testimony.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/walthers.htm

 

Steve Thomas

 

Steve Thomas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/21/2017 at 10:18 AM, David Lifton said:

How did SA Hosty know that Oswald was not living with the Paines before he made his pretext visit?

DSL RESPONSE: Because he had done some preliminary investingation, in the neighborhood. As I recall, he mentioned this somewhere in his testimony. he made that determination by questioning some neighbors.

If Lee Oswald typed this letter in the dining area and was so cautious of it’s contents, why was the rough draft left on the desk secretary in the living room? The door to the garage was three steps from the dining table.

DSL Response: Oswald was following the instructions of a handler. He wrote the letter in the manner he did, becuase it was a provocation that was deliberately written and intended to be "discovered."  In other words, he "played" Ruth Paine. (And, he got the better of her.  She discovered the letter, which was intended to be found, read it, and was very irritated, if not infuriated, by what she read. Here was a man telling lies (remeber: she didn't believe he had gone to Mexico City) and was writing this bizarre letter that was filled with what were, to her, outrageous fictions, and doing so on her typewriter, and in her home.  Bottom line: this was a set-up, it was designed to provoke Ruth Paine, and it worked.

Speaking of the desk secretary, it is a major part of Ruth’s story that it and the couch were rearranged in the living room but it magically appears in one of her statements in the dining area?

Not significant. Could be an FBI error of observaton, or transcription; OR. . she might have moved it there, on that day. I don't know.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1317#relPageId=796&tab=page

Why were there more spelling and punctuation errors on the typed document than the rough draft?

Very likely because Oswald typed the letter very hurriedly.

Would Lee Oswald really have misspelled his wife’s and daughters names as depicted in the typed version of the letter?

If he was working very rapidly, and "clandestinely," in limited time. . yes, I think that's entirely possible.


The letter was mailed from Irving on the 12th when LHO was in Dallas. Who mailed it?

These events took place over a 3-day weekend, and November 11, a Monday, was Veterans Day. So Lee's first day of work was Tuesday, November 12th, and it was on that morning that Frazier drove him back to Dallas, and to work. So Lee had all day Monday, Novmeber 11th, to mail the letter in any neighborhood postal box, or even on Tuesday morning, November 12th, on his way over to Randle's place, to get his ride to work.

 

The Ruuskies had problems believing the letter was real, as well (via Jim D) :

Why would Oswald type this letter in the first place?

See previous responses. If my analysis is correct, Lee Oswald was a pre-selected fall-guy, and under the guidance and control of a handler., That verylikely means there was someone in the Irving, Texas, area, who was available to meet with Oswald (clandestinely) and assist him and advise im in engaging in this sort of thing. Of course (and again, if I'm correct), Lee Oswald was completely unaware that he (too) was being played, and being set up.He never suspected that he was being set up, and would be betrayed by a handler.

 

Ruth Paine, by her own account, played a few cloak and dagger games to acquire both the  original rough draft and her copy of it. Why would she sit on it until the day of the assassination when she gave the original draft to SA Hosty? And why, then, would she withhold her own copy until interviewed by SA Odum who had been sent to check up on SA Hosty whom FBI SAIC Shanklin was suspicious of?

Your first question is the important one. When she discovered the letter, Ruth's perception of the situation--as she explained--was that Lee Oswald weird, and--most important, as she testified, she just didn't believe him. So that's why I believe she didn't feel compelled to run to the FBI with the letter. As she made clear, she thought she had "a xxxx" on her hands; not someone involved in espionage.  And you don't go to the FBI just because an acquaintance of yours is behaving like a xxxx. After the assassination, she did turn the second item over to the FBI, within two days. As she said, she was fed up with it, and wanted to be done with it.


Bonus Question:

This research also revealed that SA Hosty parked his car in front of the unoccupied house next door on both the Nov. 1 and Nov. 5th visits. How was Marina able to “get the drop on the FBI” and sneak out to copy Hosty’s license plate number?

Marina was very clever. I can attest to that from speaking to her over the course of 15 years. If Lee said to her--as I believe he did (or must have): The FBI is bothering me (or "us"), it that man comes here again, I want you to get the license plate number on his car. . if that's what happened, I have no problem with the idea that Marina slipped away for a few minutes, wrote it down, and so  that's how it ended up in LHO's address book.

 

* * *

Hope these answers suffice.

Again, thanks for descending into that rabbit hole, and providing me with all those Internet links.

 

DSL

4/21/2017 - 10:35 a.m. PDT

Los Angeles, California

David,

 

Thank you for taking the time to answer all the questions above. I'm still very suspicious of a few points and I've taken a little time to put together a timeline of Ruth's various stories concerning the "letter".

I agree that the issue of why the letter wasn't passed to SA Hosty by Ruth is very important. I can easily imagine a scenario where the original draft letter was supplied to SA Hosty by Ruth prior to 11/22/1963 and that fact was covered up. The RP copy then turned over to SA Odum on 11/23/1963. As to Ruth's belief that LHO was simply a "wierdo", we have an interesting statement in her New Orleans Parish Grand Jury testimony in which she states she thought he could have been a Russian Spy:

2nd Q and A from the top is quite interesting:

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1199#relPageId=40&tab=page

Here's my crude timeline which is full of contradictions:

Saturday 9th
RP (WC III): Oswald asks to use typewriter
RP (WC III) “He typed it early in the morning of that day because after he typed it we went to the place where you get the test for drivers. It was that same day.”
RP (NOPGJ) “I let him use the typewriter at the dining table there, the only table…”
RP (WC II)   Notices “scrawling handwriting” on paper on desk secretary.
RP (WC III) “It remained there”
RP (NOPGJ) “later that evening on my desk, in the living room, I discovered what appeared to be a rough draft in his handwriting”
RP (NOPGJ) “so I picked it up and read it”
RP (NOPGJ) “I decided to keep a copy of the thing”
RP (NOPGJ) “Then I decided to go ahead and keep the original”


Sunday 10th
RP (WC III) “First one up and takes a closer look at this”
RP (WC IX) “Rearranged Sunday 10th November - that same day as I read note”
RP (WC III) Letter’s “residence on desk stopped”
RP (WC III) Moved furniture around
RP (WC IX) Desk secretary was in middle of north wall of living room now on east wall, where it is now.
MP  (WC II) “I would simply come in on Sunday when he (LHO) was there.”


Monday 11th
Veterans Day Holiday

RP Appt. w/Atty.    https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=40391#relPageId=295&tab=page
 

Tuesday 12th
Ruth files for divorce.


Wednesday 13th

RP files for divorce

“Espionage” airs on NBC 9-10 PM

 

The above timeline makes these statements from her first WC session curious:

 

 

 

 

 

***Note: there is data in RP's archive at Swathmore that indicate the Divorce petition is dated 11/13/1963 http://www.swarthmore.edu/library/friends/ead/5109pain.xml

Edited by Chris Newton
added ***Note, corrected dates, added citation, deleted image

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

David Lifton and Steve Thomas:

When we start deferring to the likes of  David Von Pein on important evidentiary issues in this case, why even continue to debate?

I was not wrong about what I was referring to.  The part in Meagher's book Lifton referred to is not at all the same point Paul is talking about.  

Now, if LIfton--like Von Pein-- wants to say, well hey, it was all a mistake, the Warren Report was right, and it was some crackpot idea Walther's had, then fine. He will probably say the same thing about Marrion Baker's first day affidavit.  And it is what he has said about Jim Garrison for decades.

But after many years of study, sorry, I am not going to swallow it so easily.  This case did not end with the first generation critics.  In fact, what we are finding out today--as we are with Kennedy's biographers and his policies-- is just how much they missed.  And what both sets of authors left out was the bigger, more important part of the story.

 

 

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/18/2017 at 4:08 PM, Thomas Graves said:

Ostensibly perhaps then I guess that kinda almost settles it.

Thanks for the "input".

It may seem trite to say Thomas, but here's a quote by Doug Horne.

"...No doubt they were given a ‘World War III’ cover story like LBJ used on everyone else in the coming weeks.”

http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.ca/2012/03/what-happened-to-jfks-body-cover-up-on.html

Cheers (back to the Forum later - gotta get going cuz can't miss my beloved Maple Leafs vs. Washington Capitals).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

 This case did not end with the first generation critics.  In fact, what we are finding out today--as we are with Kennedy's biographers and his policies-- is just how much they missed.  And what both sets of authors left out was the bigger, more important part of the story.

You couldn't carry Vincent Salandria's jock-strap, DiEugenio.

You habitually promote high back wound Pet Theorists, you claim that JFK was struck in the back on the first hit, you have disdain for the clothing evidence, you claim Dulles was the only guy capable of pulling off the assassination command, you ignore Laos in your analysis of JFK's foreign policy, you habitually conflate the plot to kill JFK with the plot to kill LHO.

Latter-day JFK research has gone backwards.

Given all the wild geese chasing red herrings down rabbit holes --you're the lead goose.

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL:lol:

Without guessing at what I meant by that I said, here comes good ole CV with his Vince Salandria, clothing evidence.  When in fact I did not even mean Vince.  

To go into all the areas I meant, in addition to what I was talking about--which CV has no interest in at all--would take a small essay.  

But suffice it to say, what we know today about people like DeMohrenschildt, through Joan Mellen's biography, about the Paines, through the works of Evica, Douglass, and Jones/Hewit/ LaMonica,  about New Orleans through William Davy, about Oswald and the CIA through John Newman, about who Kennedy was through the works of Mahoney, Muelhenbeck, and Rakove, etc etc etc, all of this, and much more, has I think brought the JFK case to a much higher plane than just knocking down the WR.  Which was almost too easy in the first place.

So today I am not satisfied with accepting something labeled Rumors and Speculations from the Commission, and then adding, well the DPD cannot find it and Von Pein says its not for real.

My God, the DPD hid 15,000 pages of documents from the ARRB!  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW, this is what Vince Salandria thinks of me and my book, Destiny Betrayed, second edition:

 

Vincent Salandria, advisor to Jim Garrison

“Jim, you have written extremely well on a subject that is enormously complex. As to be expected, your conclusions and mine are not always precisely congruent. But on a subject as complex and prolix as the Garrison investigation you have demonstrated the integrity, intelligence, work ethic and passion for the truth that gave birth to a work product which you can be rightly proud. You have produced the finest history of the desperate struggle of Jim Garrison to employ his public office as a public trust in unsuccessfully prosecuting Clay Shaw.

“When I first met Jim in New York, I told him that he would learn more about the power behind the killing of Kennedy from what would happen to smash his prosecutorial efforts than what he would learn through his investigation. Your explication in your book of the infiltration of Jim’s office by the CIA supports my prediction.

Thank you Jim for your fine work.”

From the horse's mouth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

BTW, this is what Vince Salandria thinks of me and my book, Destiny Betrayed, second edition:

 

Vincent Salandria, advisor to Jim Garrison

“Jim, you have written extremely well on a subject that is enormously complex. As to be expected, your conclusions and mine are not always precisely congruent. But on a subject as complex and prolix as the Garrison investigation you have demonstrated the integrity, intelligence, work ethic and passion for the truth that gave birth to a work product which you can be rightly proud. You have produced the finest history of the desperate struggle of Jim Garrison to employ his public office as a public trust in unsuccessfully prosecuting Clay Shaw.

“When I first met Jim in New York, I told him that he would learn more about the power behind the killing of Kennedy from what would happen to smash his prosecutorial efforts than what he would learn through his investigation. Your explication in your book of the infiltration of Jim’s office by the CIA supports my prediction.

Thank you Jim for your fine work.”

From the horse's mouth.

pro·lix
prōˈliks,ˈprōliks/
adjective
  1. (of speech or writing) using or containing too many words; tediously lengthy.
    "he found the narrative too prolix and discursive"
    synonyms: long-windedverbosewordy, pleonastic, discursiverambling, long-drawn-out, overlonglengthyprotractedinterminableMore

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

LOL:lol:

Without guessing at what I meant by that I said, here comes good ole CV with his Vince Salandria, clothing evidence.  When in fact I did not even mean Vince.  

To go into all the areas I meant, in addition to what I was talking about--which CV has no interest in at all--would take a small essay.  

But suffice it to say, what we know today about people like DeMohrenschildt, through Joan Mellen's biography, about the Paines, through the works of Evica, Douglass, and Jones/Hewit/ LaMonica,  

Which goes to the assassination of Lee Harvey Oswald.

29 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

about New Orleans through William Davy,

More Oswald.

29 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

about Oswald and the CIA through John Newman,

Uh hunh, more Oswald.

29 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

about who Kennedy was through the works of Mahoney, Muelhenbeck, and Rakove, etc etc etc,

What do they say about Kennedy's policy in Laos?

29 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

all of this, and much more, has I think brought the JFK case to a much higher plane than just knocking down the WR.  Which was almost too easy in the first place.

It would be great if you actually researched the JFK murder case -- not the Oswald murder case, or secondary aspects of the Kennedy administration.

Kennedy was shot in the back first?

Newbie Pet Theorist mistake.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

BTW, this is what Vince Salandria thinks of me and my book, Destiny Betrayed, second edition:

 

Vincent Salandria, advisor to Jim Garrison

“Jim, you have written extremely well on a subject that is enormously complex. As to be expected, your conclusions and mine are not always precisely congruent. But on a subject as complex and prolix as the Garrison investigation you have demonstrated the integrity, intelligence, work ethic and passion for the truth that gave birth to a work product which you can be rightly proud. You have produced the finest history of the desperate struggle of Jim Garrison to employ his public office as a public trust in unsuccessfully prosecuting Clay Shaw.

“When I first met Jim in New York, I told him that he would learn more about the power behind the killing of Kennedy from what would happen to smash his prosecutorial efforts than what he would learn through his investigation. Your explication in your book of the infiltration of Jim’s office by the CIA supports my prediction.

Thank you Jim for your fine work.”

From the horse's mouth.

Emphasis in the above is mine.

Jim Garrison wasn't allowed to investigate the murder of JFK -- save his interviews with Dealey Plaza witnesses and his questioning of Col Finck.

Other than that, it was all about investigating the murder of Lee Harvey Oswald.

No doubt you've done considerable work on LHO, but given the compartmentalization of intelligence operations you are clueless when it comes to the murder of Kennedy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, David Lifton said:

Filing cabinets are big items--I know. I have over 45 of them--2 drawer, 4 drawer, and 5 drawer.  Items that big couldn't just "disappear"--I don't think. So my take on this, over the years, is that what someone called a "filing cabinet" was in fact a little metal box with some 5 x 7 index cards inside. And that's why, when I was carefully reviewing the FBI (and/or DPD, I forget which just now) "property lists," the presence of those particular cards excited my interest. And that's why I ordered copies of them.

David L.,

It's clear from Buddy Walthers' Warren Commission testimony that Walthers was NOT talking about the great big type of "filing cabinets" that you'd find in offices. He specifically used the word "LITTLE" before he used the words "FILE CABINETS". And he then goes on to describe in more detail the size of those "cabinets" [see 7 H 548]....

"...and then we found some little metal file cabinets—I don't know what kind you would call them—they would carry an 8 by 10 folder, all right, but with a single handle on top of it and the handle moves." -- Buddy Walthers; July 23, 1964

Also see:
jfk-archives.blogspot.com/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-87/File-Cabinets

DVP
4/22/2017; 3:48 a.m. EDT
Mooresville, Indiana USA

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

David Lifton and Steve Thomas:

When we start deferring... on important evidentiary issues in this case, why even continue to debate?

 

Jim,

 

I wasn't "deferring" to anyone.

 

I was simply pointing out to Paul that the issue of "filing cabinets" or "little metal boxes" containing Cuban names has been addressed before, and where that information came from.

 

As to their size, Buddy Walthers also said in his WC testimony, 

"then we found some little metal file cabinets---I don't know what kind you would call them---they would carry an 8 by 10 folder, all right, but with a single handle on top of it and the handle moves. 
Mr. LIEBELER. About how many of them would you think there were? 
Mr. WALTHERS. There were six or seven, I believe, and I put them all in the trunk of my car..."

 

It would be hard to imagine putting six or seven, two-drawer, or four-drawer filing cabinets in the trunk of your car.

 

Steve Thomas

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"then we found some little metal file cabinets---I don't know what kind you would call them---they would carry an 8 by 10 folder, all right, but with a single handle on top of it and the handle moves."

If you Google up "metal file boxes," you'll see these narrow portable models popular in the 1960s, with a handle on the top that swung down for storage, and a key lock on the front.  My parents had several in the house.  Six or seven would fit n the big 'ol trunk of a 1950s-1960s car.

Here's the exact brand we had, Porta-File.  That thin wire handle was painful to the palm:  Everybody tried to peel the stickers off to make them look professional, but the glue always trolled them.

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Vintage-Porta-File-TANISH-Metal-Box-NO-KEY-Hamilton-Skotch-Corp-/132135956496

http://www.ebay.com/itm/1950s-RETRO-Vintage-PORTA-FILE-GREY-Metal-Box-Hamilton-Skotch-/272614063027?hash=item3f79107bb3:g:~eYAAOSwx6pYq1GJ

Edited by David Andrews

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/20/2017 at 5:36 PM, Paul Trejo said:

James,

During the final week of September,1963, was Marina Oswald eight months pregnant, without health insurance, without money, and without having seen a doctor yet?

With Lee Harvey Oswald out of work?

Please give us your opinion

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

BUMPED for James DiEugenio

During the final week of September,1963, was Marina Oswald eight months pregnant, without health insurance, without money, without having seen a doctor yet, and with Lee Harvey Oswald out of work?

Yes or no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Michael Clark said:
pro·lix
prōˈliks,ˈprōliks/
adjective
  1. (of speech or writing) using or containing too many words; tediously lengthy.
    "he found the narrative too prolix and discursive"
    synonyms: long-windedverbosewordy, pleonastic, discursiverambling, long-drawn-out, overlonglengthyprotractedinterminableMore

Michael, in the context of Vince Salandria's comments, he was talking about Garrison's case being

"complex and prolix" not Jim's contribution, which I sure you meant.

Edited by Ray Mitcham

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

×