Jump to content
The Education Forum
Derek Thibeault

Thursday at Ruth Paines House

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:

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.

Frazier seems to be all over the place. It seems like Oswald might have been dropped off out front if so then Frazier is lying. There is not enough witnesses seeing Oswald enter the TSBD with or without a package. Something seems fishy with Frazier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I ask Jim a straightforward question --- Do you really and truly (deep down) believe that Marina Oswald was lying when she said these things in her WC testimony? --- and Jim starts talking about fiber expert Paul Stombaugh. As if Stombaugh's testimony has anything at all to do with Marina's testimony concerning whether she ever SAW A RIFLE in the Paine garage.

Well, maybe Jimmy's having a bad day.

 

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


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

Frazier seems to be all over the place. It seems like Oswald might have been dropped off out front if so then Frazier is lying. There is not enough witnesses seeing Oswald enter the TSBD with or without a package. Something seems fishy with Frazier.

RAY MITCHAM SAID:

Only two people said they saw Oswald carrying a package. Frazier and his sister.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

And given the circumstances, why would you expect anybody else to necessarily have seen Oswald with the package?

It's early in the morning on Nov. 22. Lee walks toward the Frazier house. Linnie Mae happens to be looking out the window and sees LHO with the package. Then the only other person that I would have completely EXPECTED to see the package---Buell Wesley Frazier---sees the paper bag on the back seat (and sees LHO carry it into the TSBD Building).

And, as mentioned previously, it's quite possible that Oswald might have stashed the bag/rifle in the Loading Dock area BEFORE he ever entered the inner door that led to the TSBD's first floor (where Jack Dougherty was). But we also know that Dougherty said he only saw LHO that morning out of the "corner" of his eye. So why would you expect him to have necessarily seen any package even if Lee had it with him at that time?

So, IMO, the argument about "Only Two People Saw Him With The Package" is a very weak argument given the time of day and the conditions of Oswald putting the package in the back seat of Frazier's car (where nobody BUT Frazier and Oswald himself could possibly see it on the way to work). Therefore, I wouldn't necessarily expect anyone else to see that brown bag. And, quite obviously (given the overall evidence and testimony), I'm right---nobody else did see it.

More....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/03/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-914.html

Share this post


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

The WC desperately wanted him [Paul Stombaugh] to link the blanket to the rifle in any possible way that he could. He could not.

Actually, he did (although indirectly). It was a linkage between the paper bag (CE142) and the blanket---via some fibers found in the bag that generally were consistent with fibers from the blanket.

And since all reasonable people know that a RIFLE was stored in that blanket.....and if the bag had fibers from that blanket in it....well, then, the math is pretty easy to do after that. (Although, I'll admit, the fiber connection is certainly not definitive. But the fibers in the bag were consistent with the blanket fibers.)

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


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

You turned on me fast LOL!

I didn't turn on you. Why do you say that? I was merely asking two logical questions about the Tippit murder.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Davey now has to make like he does not understand that Stombaugh's failure to do anything at all to connect the rifle to the blanket was a big problem for the  WC.  Because, to any normal thinking person--automatically excluding Davey-- it indicated  the rifle was not in the blanket.  That is why they had Marina do what she did.

Davey also ignores the fact that Speer also showed how they were so desperate to connect that rifle to LHO that it looks like the DPD stuffed some shirt fibers in the butt plate.

 

But it is actually even worse than that.  Why? Because it probably was the wrong shirt.  This brings in the utterly risible testimony of none other than Mary Bledsoe, who may be worse than Marina.

Share this post


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

Davey now has to make like he does not understand that Stombaugh's failure to do anything at all to connect the rifle to the blanket was a big problem for the  WC.  Because, to any normal thinking person--automatically excluding Davey-- it indicated  the rifle was not in the blanket.  That is why they had Marina do what she did.

You don't care how many people you call liars, do you?

Pathetic. As always.

 

2 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Davey also ignores the fact that Speer also showed how they were so desperate to connect that rifle to LHO that it looks like the DPD stuffed some shirt fibers in the butt plate.

Good! More liars! More planted stuff!

 

2 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

But it is actually even worse than that.  Why? Because it probably was the wrong shirt.  This brings in the utterly risible testimony of none other than Mary Bledsoe, who may be worse than Marina.

Good! Another l-i-a-r!

(What's one more worthless l-i-a-r, right Jim?)

The last count of the number of liars in Jim's JFK World ---- Way too numerous to tally.

 

Share this post


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

The paper bag to the blanket.  This makes your argument even worse.  

First, you ignore the evidence of the fibers the DPD most likely put in the butt plate because they did not have anything else..

  But to resort to the the bag?   HA HA HA HA  ROTF  :o

Good! More liars! And MORE fake evidence!

Keep 'em comin', Jimmy.

I'm waiting for the "Jackie's Fake Pillbox Hat" theory.

Re: The Bag....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/frazier-randle-and-paper-bag.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/16/2019 at 4:52 PM, James DiEugenio said:

Bledsoe has the credibility of Brennan.

Oh good! The non-stop parade of worthless scumbag witnesses continues (via Jim's Fantasy World Of Conspiracy & Covering Up).

OK, Jim, let's keep it going....

What about Linnie Mae?

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Bart Kamp said:

Go Home Von Pein!!!!

Where's "home"? Any chance of an answer this year, Kamp?

Share this post


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

  But to resort to the the bag?   HA HA HA HA  ROTF  :o

Just citing the actual evidence, Jim. Look it up. In Stombaugh's testimony.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And in Stombaugh's testimony are these points brought up?  (From Pat Speer)

 

The Tell-Tale Tape

You see, there's also the FBI photo of the bag before they coated it with silver nitrate (a chemical used to bring out fingerprints, which forever stains paper). This photograph is Exhibit 14 in Warren Commission Document CD 1, the FBI's 12-9-63 Summary Report on the assassination. Although the proportions of the bag in this photograph have been distorted by the photographer's taking this picture while the bag was laying flat on the floor before him, it is still suggestive that the bag in evidence is not the bag pulled from the building. The bag in the photograph has numerous pieces of paper tape along its right side. NO paper tape is visible anywhere on the front side of the bag in the news photos. There is also a piece of tape in the middle of the open end of the bag. No such piece of tape is visible in the news photos. The press photos do, on the other hand, show the paper by the open end of the bag to be badly crinkled. No such crinkling is apparent on the bag in the FBI exhibit. The bags in the photos, in fact, bear little resemblance to one another.

Unless the side of the bag seen in Exhibit 14 is the opposite side of the bag seen in the news photos, then, we have conclusive evidence the bags are not the same.

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

×