Ron Bulman Posted July 19, 2017 Author Share Posted July 19, 2017 (edited) 4 hours ago, Max Good said: tHere's what Ruth told me about the filing cabinets. Unfortunately, I did not get a shot of the cabinet in her closet. Thank you for posting this. Asking to take a picture of the file cabinet might have been pushing your luck. Great stuff. Best of luck with the film. I'd love to contribute but to be perfectly honest still live pretty much paycheck to paycheck as the hope of retirement nears. https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1174121219/the-assassin-and-mrs-paine Six or seven of something like this per Deputy Sherriff Walthers in his report on 11/22/63 and again in 1964 in his Warren Hearing testimony. https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=86VvULs2&id=5709D30A6261D7A98BD14D988AD06EDA2D2801FA&thid=OIP.86VvULs2XrsXdAjr0ipd2gEsDH&q=retro+portable+file+cabinet&simid=608011824182593945&selectedIndex=13&qpvt=retro+portable+file+cabinet&ajaxhist=0 And if they are not the Paines then I guess Ruth hauled them back from New Orleans? Strange, Michael only remembers unloading duffel bags in his WC testimony. Ruth tends to laugh off a lot of questions from reporters over the years (in a disarming fashion) that a perssistent attorney would have pressed and grilled her on. Edited July 19, 2017 by Ron Bulman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Bulman Posted July 19, 2017 Author Share Posted July 19, 2017 (edited) I'd like to clarify something I kind of alluded to in an earlier post that has developed further in thought. Michael Paine was pointing his finger at Oswald from the get-go and a "files" comment supports this. He showed up unannounced during the search of the house on the 22nd. Deputy Walthers remembered talking to him "over the ironing board". "How does the guy think, what is he, what does he do?" He said, "He's a Communist. He is very communistic minded. He believes in it." And he says, "He used to try to convince me it was a good thing," and he says, "I don't believe in it". Shortly after this a letter was pulled out of one of the six or seven small metal file cabinets that had a letterhead on it. "and a letterhead that this Paine fellow had told us about, and he said, "That's from the people he writes to in Russia" I.E., those are his files, not ours? I know, speculations, jumping to conclusions. Illogical? Edited July 19, 2017 by Ron Bulman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted July 19, 2017 Share Posted July 19, 2017 Who was Oswald writing to in Russia? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Bulman Posted July 20, 2017 Author Share Posted July 20, 2017 On 7/18/2017 at 9:53 PM, Ron Bulman said: I'd like to clarify something I kind of alluded to in an earlier post that has developed further in thought. Michael Paine was pointing his finger at Oswald from the get-go and a "files" comment supports this. He showed up unannounced during the search of the house on the 22nd. Deputy Walthers remembered talking to him "over the ironing board". "How does the guy think, what is he, what does he do?" He said, "He's a Communist. He is very communistic minded. He believes in it." And he says, "He used to try to convince me it was a good thing," and he says, "I don't believe in it". Shortly after this a letter was pulled out of one of the six or seven small metal file cabinets that had a letterhead on it. "and a letterhead that this Paine fellow had told us about, and he said, "That's from the people he writes to in Russia" I.E., those are his files, not ours? I know, speculations, jumping to conclusions. Illogical? I don't think Michael was pointing his finger as part of a pre conceived plot. It's likely he knew just enough to realize some of the potential implications of what was happening and deflecting suspicion from himself and Ruth a deliberately trying to frame Oswald. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Clark Posted July 21, 2017 Share Posted July 21, 2017 (edited) 57 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said: I don't think Michael was pointing his finger as part of a pre conceived plot. It's likely he knew just enough to realize some of the potential implications of what was happening and deflecting suspicion from himself and Ruth a deliberately trying to frame Oswald. I am thinking the phone call was a sheep-dipping operation. Everyone, and I mean EVERYONE, including Nixon and Rabin, went through the process. The Warren report did not even have to support it, or be factual about that call; the message was sent, even Michael was given the "out" (that he was not at work on Saturday to take or place that call). The details could always be changed. The "Confidential informant" who spread the rumor which the WC saw-fit to ask-about in session, and his correct statement, could always turn-up later. Edited July 21, 2017 by Michael Clark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Clark Posted July 21, 2017 Share Posted July 21, 2017 Imagine later testimony, or an interrogation, if things rolled-out in a very different way. What's Michal or Ruth going th say;...."Insert vastly more incriminating statement that actually happened, and for which there is a recorded phone call or multiple witnesses" here.? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Clark Posted July 21, 2017 Share Posted July 21, 2017 I veered-off on to the phone call.... above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Bulman Posted July 21, 2017 Author Share Posted July 21, 2017 Test. Couldn't get last post to do so. Thought it was slow speed but waited an hour. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/oxford1.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Bulman Posted July 21, 2017 Author Share Posted July 21, 2017 (edited) On 7/19/2017 at 0:08 AM, James DiEugenio said: ,Who was Oswald writing to in Russia? That would have been a great question for Liebler to Michael Paine as he did the questioning of both him and Walthers. I guess the lone nutters would say "but he questioned Michael on 3/17/64 and Buddy not until 7/23/64, how could he know? A Proper Investigation would have contacted and questioned him on this. Buttt... LBJ was pressing to wrap up the "investigation" before it got any closer to the election... Well a proper investigation would have noticed the 6-7 metal files in the Dallas County Sheriff'S reports of Deputies Walthers, And J L Oxford prior to March 64 and Liebler would have asked him. Thanks to Jim's thread today on Ray Marcus author Joseph McBride posted a quote from his excellent book relating to that subject, that also quoted Deputy Oxford's report of 11/23/63. I didn't remember reading it when I bought the book a few years back and found it when I came home today but couldn't find the source. Forgive the one I did, I guess old John's good for something after all. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/oxford1.htm It seems to help corroborate the report of Walthers that there were 6-7 metal file cabinets/boxes and that they contained "literature from abroad". In the Garage. Looking for the source of Deputy Oxford's statement I came across the WC Hearing questioning of Dallas Police Department Detective Stovall, one of the six officers searching the Paine home and questioning the people there on 11/22/63. In it he states he found three metal boxes of Phonograph Records, In Ruth's Bedroom. Reconcile That lone nutt's. Edited July 21, 2017 by Ron Bulman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted July 21, 2017 Share Posted July 21, 2017 Nice catch there with Oxford. They were almost certainly boxes and not filing cabinets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Andrews Posted July 21, 2017 Share Posted July 21, 2017 (edited) The 1960s-ubiquitous Porta-file boxes: http://www.ebay.com/itm/1950s-RETRO-Vintage-PORTA-FILE-GREY-Metal-Box-Hamilton-Skotch-/272614063027?hash=item3f79107bb3:g:~eYAAOSwx6pYq1GJ Edited July 21, 2017 by David Andrews Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Brancato Posted July 21, 2017 Share Posted July 21, 2017 Whatever they were, it's still an open question in my mind - not whether they existed, but who they belonged to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted July 21, 2017 Share Posted July 21, 2017 6 hours ago, Paul Brancato said: Whatever they were, it's still an open question in my mind - not whether they existed, but who they belonged to. Paul: If they were Oswald's, why would they be so reduced in number and then stripped? And then subjected to the speculation and rumors section of the WR? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Clark Posted July 21, 2017 Share Posted July 21, 2017 1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said: Paul: If they were Oswald's, why would they be so reduced in number and then stripped? And then subjected to the speculation and rumors section of the WR? ...in order to remove the pre-text for a Cuban invasion. Since, in my view, there was a plan in-place to blame Pro-Castro Cubans for the assassination, manufactured evidence was in place to tie Oswald to Pro-Castro Cubans, in a conspiracy. Those files once held that evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Brancato Posted July 21, 2017 Share Posted July 21, 2017 Or they would have leant credence to the idea that Oswald was part of an intelligence operation. 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