Jump to content
The Education Forum
Derek Thibeault

Thursday at Ruth Paines House

Recommended Posts

On the Fair Play for JFK site on FB, a person asked if us CT'ers all believe Oswald is a patsy(which not all CT'ers do) then how do we explain Oswald going to the Paine's house on Thursday instead of his norm. To set him up they would have to make sure he goes home Thursday. So I am curious how we would explain that. I could think of some possible reasons but I don't have any evidence. There are a lot smarter people here that could help me to figure this inconsistency out. I don't buy the curtain rods story. I do think Frazier is untrustworthy in a lot of his story along with his sister. So how do we get Oswald home so we can get him "bringing his rifle to work"? I apologize if this has been gone over somewhere else on the site. Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So it just happened to be a random reason. So say he just goes back to his apartment instead. They still set him up but they don't have him bringing the rifle to work. Was that just lucky added evidence that he went there? Does Marina force him there?  That's pretty lucky for the conspirators that he had an argument with her and had to go back there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Derek Thibeault said:

So it just happened to be a random reason. So say he just goes back to his apartment instead. They still set him up but they don't have him bringing the rifle to work. Was that just lucky added evidence that he went there? Does Marina force him there?  That's pretty lucky for the conspirators that he had an argument with her and had to go back there.

Indeed, Derek. It's refreshing to see this kind of thinking on this forum. It's very rare. You're one of the very few here who actually thinks in a reasonable way regarding Oswald's out-of-the-ordinary behavior on Nov. 21 and 22.

Here's what I said to a CTer a few years ago....

"Don't you think it would be wise to evaluate Oswald's odd behavior on November 21 and 22 in connection with the physical evidence in the case, which all screams "Oswald"? Or would you prefer to isolate everything in a bubble and never be forced to assess Oswald's actions and movements in conjunction with all that physical evidence that came out of a gun owned by Lee Oswald? In my opinion, it's a package deal that fits together perfectly --- Oswald's actions + the physical evidence = Oswald's undeniable guilt in two murders in Dallas, Texas, on 11/22/63." -- DVP; June 2015

More:

https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/06/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-959.html

 

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the question is odd.  To set him up he needs to go there?  Not true.  The better question is to ask them, if LHO acted alone,  when did he formulate his plan.  Ask them that instead.  Ask them for proof to support their position.  

Edited by Cory Santos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Had he not been carrying the bag, BWF would have said he was walking with a limp, like he had something long and hard stuffed down his pants leg, or something like that. Immaterial to his being set up as patsy. Hadn’t a rifle already been seen in the Depostory a few days previous that was unconnected to LHO?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Indeed, Derek. It's refreshing to see this kind of thinking on this forum. It's very rare. You're one of the very few here who actually thinks in a reasonable way regarding Oswald's out-of-the-ordinary behavior on Nov. 21 and 22.

Here's what I said to a CTer a few years ago....

"Don't you think it would be wise to evaluate Oswald's odd behavior on November 21 and 22 in connection with the physical evidence in the case, which all screams "Oswald"? Or would you prefer to isolate everything in a bubble and never be forced to assess Oswald's actions and movements in conjunction with all that physical evidence that came out of a gun owned by Lee Oswald? In my opinion, it's a package deal that fits together perfectly --- Oswald's actions + the physical evidence = Oswald's undeniable guilt in two murders in Dallas, Texas, on 11/22/63." -- DVP; June 2015

More:

https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/06/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-959.html

 

I am a CT'er but we can still believe Oswald did it or was involved just not alone. I personally believe he wasn't involved in either murder but that doesn't mean there aren't things that need to be reconciled. I think it was a good question from a Facebook group that has a louder LN contingent. No matter what stance you take there are unreconciled things that can't fully be explained without some leaps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Derek Thibeault said:

I personally believe he wasn't involved in either murder...

Then how can you reconcile all the witnesses at the Tippit scene? Why did so many identify OSWALD as the person they saw (if it really wasn't him)?

And how can you reconcile the fact that the bullet shells at the Tippit murder scene were tied conclusively to the same gun that Oswald had on him when he was arrested?

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see what is so incriminating about Thursday instead of Friday. I thought the incriminating aspect of the Thursday visit was the allegation that Oswald picked up a rifle there and we have Ruth and Marina as witnesses even though they didn't see a rifle or Oswald with a rifle.

If LHO hadn't gone to the Paine's house that Thursday night, what would have prevented the official explanation from being "Oswald was keeping his rifle at his rooming house"? The only things that are lost are Oswald's change in usual schedule (hardly proof that he fired a rifle) and two questionable "witnesses."

Frazier and Randle are a different story.

I don't know enough about Linnie Mae Randle to feel like I could evaluate her honesty. I believe that I once read she was in the same social circle as Ruth Paine, and I mistrust anyone connected to the Paines. It would be foolish to believe that extraordinary pressure wasn't put on Randle to provide a story that would be seen as incriminating. All that said, I still don't have a solid reason to distrust her story of Oswald taking a long package with him that morning.

I think I have read and seen enough on Buell Wesley Frazier though, and I believe that he's honest. He has stuck to his story that the package Oswald had fit between LHO's cupped hand and LHO's armpit. If that's true, it couldn't have been the entire disassembled rifle.

So, was it part of the rifle, part of another rifle, another weapon, part of another weapon, another object, or just an unusually long sandwich? I don't know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was never any rifle at the Paine household.

Which would not mean they could not have framed Oswald through the Paines anyway.

They could have just said that he picked it up previously and gone through with that whole blanket act.  

 

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


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

There was never any rifle at the Paine household.

And Jim can utter the above junk even though Marina said she saw the butt end of a rifle sticking out of the blanket in Ruth Paine's garage.

But I'm supposed to think Marina did nothing but tell one lie after another after the assassination, right James?

I guess she wanted to frame her own husband, so she told the story about seeing the rifle in the garage. Eyeroll-Icon-Blogspot.gif

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh puhlease.

As attorney Larry Schnapf said, Marina Oswald would be utterly shredded upon any real cross examination.  Even the junior lawyers on the WC did not want to use her as a witness, and in a real trial it is highly unlikely she would have been allowed to testify.  

But I would have preferred she would have since she would have been reduced to rubble.

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


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

Marina Oswald would be utterly shredded upon any real cross examination.

Jim,

Do you really and truly (deep down) believe that Marina Oswald was lying when she said these things in her WC testimony?....

MARINA OSWALD. After we arrived, I tried to put the bed, the child's crib together, the metallic parts, and I looked for a certain part, and I came upon something wrapped in a blanket. I thought that was part of the bed, but it turned out to be the rifle.

[...]

Mr. RANKIN. After your husband returned from Mexico, did you examine the rifle in the garage at any time?
Mrs. OSWALD. I had never examined the rifle in the garage. It was wrapped in a blanket and was lying on the floor.
Mr. RANKIN. Did you ever check to see whether the rifle was in the blanket?
Mrs. OSWALD. I never checked to see that. There was only once that I was interested in finding out what was in that blanket, and I saw that it was a rifle.
Mr. RANKIN. When was that?
Mrs. OSWALD. About a week after I came from New Orleans.
Mr. RANKIN. And then you found that the rifle was in the blanket, did you?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, I saw the wooden part of it, the wooden stock.

---------------------

"I saw that it was a rifle. .... I saw the wooden part of it, the wooden stock." -- Marina Oswald

 

 

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Davey just doesn't know when to quit.  He is having a very bad day today.  

I don't know if DVP has ever heard of a guy named Stombaugh.  But he was the FBI agent who was called as an expert for hair and fiber evidence.  His testimony is in volume 4, and it is the epitome of just how bad the WC really was.   The WC desperately wanted him to link the blanket to the rifle in any possible way that  he could. He could not.  He had to resort to the shirt and that got rather sticky. I can do no better than link to Pat Speer's analysis of Stombaugh and what his testimony really meant:

"I noted it had been dusted for latent prints. So I proceeded to pick off what fibers were left from the small crevices and small grease deposits which were left on the gun. At the point of the butt plate, the end of the stock…I found a tiny tuft of fibers which had caught on that jagged edge, and then when the individual who dusted this dusted them, he just folded them down very neatly into the little crevice there, and they stayed.”   

This duster would be Lt. J.C. Day, the same Dallas Crime Lab Detective who “found” Oswald's palm print on the rifle after giving it to the FBI and having them find no identifiable prints on the rifle. Day explained later that he'd lifted this palm print off the rifle on the night of the assassination before sending it to the FBI crime lab in Washington. He said he was surprised they'd found no trace of this print upon inspection. He admitted further that he had not protected this print, or marked its location, in any way. Nor had he sent a note along with with the rifle explaining the work he had performed, and that he'd lifted a palm print from the underside of the barrel on a part of the barrel only accessible when the rifle is disassembled. He'd also failed to photograph the print while it was on the rifle (which is pretty much standard procedure). From such mistakes reasonable doubts arise. 

Stombaugh, continued: “These I removed and put on a glass microscope slide…because this little group of fibers—little tuft of fibers, appeared to be fresh. The fibers on the rest of the gun were either adhering to a greasy, oily deposit or jammed into a crevice and were very dirty and apparently very old…the other fibers I cleaned up, removed the grease and examined them but they were of no value.  They were pretty well fragmented…They all appeared old…in excess of a month or two months.”  Returning to the “tuft,” Stombaugh explained: “this was just a small tuft.  They were adhering to the gun on a small jagged edge. In other words the gun had caught on a piece of fabric and pulled the fibers loose. They were clean, they had good color to them, there was no grease on them and they were not fragmented. They looked as if they had just been picked up. They were folded very neatly down in the crevice…they were adhering to the edge rather tightly…it had the jagged edge sticking up and the fibers were folded around it and resting in the crevice…I believe when the fingerprint man dusted it he probably ran his brush along the metal portion here…Of the butt plate, and at the time the brush folded these down into the crevice...Because of the presence of fingerprint powder being down in and through the crevice here.  It looked as if it had been dusted with a brush. You could make out the bristlemarks of the brush itself.” Stombaugh had thereby testified that the fibers found in the butt plate crevice did not end up there on their own, and were apparently folded down in there only AFTER Day had dusted the butt plate.  

When asked what it would take for someone to loosen the threads from the jagged edge, he responded “Well, I would imagine if one took a brush and started brushing pretty hard these would have worked loose and come out…They were adhering to the jagged edge...they were adhering pretty tightly to the gun. I believe through ordinary handling of the gun eventually they would have worked loose and fallen off...I had to take a pair of tweezers and work them out…And after I had the fibers lifted up which could have been the original position they were in, then I had to pull them off. They were wrapped around rather snugly to the sharp edge.” Later, when asked if the rifle should have had fibers from the blanket, he replied  “No, because the gun was dusted for fingerprints and any fibers that were loosely adhering to it could have been dusted off. The only reason, I feel, that these fibers remained on the butt plate is because they were pulled from the fabric by the jagged edge and adhered to the gun and then the fingerprint examiner with his brush, I feel, when brushing and dusting this plate, stroked them down into that crevice where they couldn’t be knocked off. In time these fibers would undoubtedly have become dislodged and fallen off the gun” (4H56-88).   

If Oswald had been allowed an attorney, he (or she) would have just loved Stombaugh. Stombaugh pretty much admitted it's possible the fiber evidence was planted. He also gave an indication who did it, or at least knew about it. When asked if he was "unhappy" about being handed a rifle that had already been dusted for fingerprints, and asked to inspect it for trace evidence, Stombaugh replied: "I was; however, it is not uncommon for fingerprint processing to be given priority consideration. They wanted to know whether or not the gun contained any fibers to show that it had been stored in this blanket."He then explained who this "they" was: "Well, this is our Dallas office. They sent the gun in wanting to know this fact." 

 

In light of the above, we know why Marina said what she said. And we know why people like Ball did not want to use her at all.

The woman is to be pitied, not used in any forensic way.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

Then how can you reconcile all the witnesses at the Tippit scene? Why did so many identify OSWALD as the person they saw (if it really wasn't him)?

And how can you reconcile the fact that the bullet shells at the Tippit murder scene were tied conclusively to the same gun that Oswald had on him when he was arrested?

You turned on me fast LOL!

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...