Jump to content
The Education Forum
Derek Thibeault

Thursday at Ruth Paines House

Recommended Posts

Did Stombaugh bring up this point, again from Pat Speer:

 

What's Goin ' On?

No, scratch that, too. Before anyone convinced I am mistaken about the bag in the press photos' not looking like the one in the archives spends one precious second trying to prove me wrong, they should help straighten out some of the basic facts about the bag. Basic facts like...the actual location of the initials on the bag visible in Warren Commission Exhibit 632. 

You see, I've studied both the bag in the press photos and the bag in the archives photos, and I can't figure out where these initials could be on the bag. Although the palm print depicted in the exhibit was purportedly near the closed end of the bag, none of the press photos showing the closed end of the bag, and none of the archives photos showing the closed end of the bag, show these initials. 

My inability to figure out where these initials are on the bag, or even where the section of bag depicted in Exhibit 632 is on the bag, makes me wonder if the palm print depicted in Exhibit 632 was on either of these bags. 

Let's see how this can be...

Perhaps the bag seen in the press photos was a bag found in the school book depository...that couldn't be linked to Oswald.

Perhaps a second piece of paper was found, which could be linked to Oswald...perhaps this was a piece of paper pulled from one of the orders he'd pulled on 11-22. Or perhaps it was a piece of paper Oswald touched at the police station. 

Perhaps then Exhibit 632 is a close-up shot of this second piece of paper, and not of a bag.

If so, well, then the bag currently in the archives was a bag created after the shooting, most probably from paper removed from the building on 11-22. Such a bag would not only be smaller than the bag shown Buell Frazier on 11-22, and therefore easier to pass off as the bag Oswald brought to work, but it would match the characteristics of the paper used in the depository, and thereby make its use by anyone other than Oswald seem unlikely. 

Or not. While I could be making a mountain out of a molehill, there's definitely some dirt here...

I mean, just look at this mess...

According to the report of the Dallas Detective who found the bag, L.D. Montgomery, the bag was initialed by Detectives Robert Studebaker, Marvin Johnson, and himself upon its discovery in the sniper's nest (24H314). All three of these men testified before the Warren Commission in Dallas on 4-6-64. So why weren't they shown the bag, and asked to verify their initials? Was it because the bag they'd signed had been switched with another bag?

And that their initials had been forged onto a different piece of paper entirely?

 

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW, again for newbies like Derek, the reason I quote Pat Speer on this is because, although I deal with this phony bag issue in my book, The JFK Assassination: The Evidence Today, I would have to type in lots of sentences since I do not have the book in Kindle form.

In the trade paper format I deal with this issue at length, from pages 199-206.  And from more than one angle.  

But Pat's  book is an online production.  So its easy to cut and paste.  But he does a good job on Stombaugh and the bag.

 

 

Bottom line: that rifle was not at the Paine home.  

 

 

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


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

BTW, again for newbies like Derek, the reason I quote Pat Speer on this is because, although I deal with this phony bag issue in my book, The JFK Assassination: The Evidence Today, I would have to type in lots of sentences since I do not have the book in Kindle form.

In the trade paper format I deal with this issue at length, from pages 199-206.  And from more than one angle.  

But Pat's  book is an online production.  So its easy to cut and paste.  But he does a good job on Stombaugh and the bag.

 

 

Bottom line: that rifle was not at the Paine home.  

 

 

I got your latest going through it now. Thanks for the links.

Share this post


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

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

Go Home Von Pein.

Just Go Home!

Share this post


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

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

For the same reason, perhaps, that everybody noticed he was missing from the lineup? The TSBD crew seemed to be a pretty observant bunch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Andrew Prutsok said:

For the same reason, perhaps, that everybody noticed he was missing from the lineup? The TSBD crew seemed to be a pretty observant bunch.

"Everybody"? Who besides Roy Truly noticed Oswald's absence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oswald was being run by somebody.  Somebody went to the trouble of setting up the false trail of his purchase of the rifle.  It seems like at least part of that was done in advance.  They could have just left it hanging as to how he got the rifle to work.  On the bus from his rooming house would have been a stretch.  Maybe he really had an argument with Marina and wanted to make up.  Maybe they just got lucky he went on Thursday and were able to come up with the garage-blanket-bag story after the fact.  But with what we now know about Ruth and Michael Paine I have to wonder if this would have been left to chance.

Maybe Oswald figured out, overheard or was told something was up regarding JFK's visit to Dallas on Friday.  A protest, a "security test" as Vince Palamara alludes to, or a fake assassination attempt by a Cuban to force JFK into action on Cuba.  Something that might require him to get out of town for a while afterwards given his Fair Play for Cuba Committee/New Orleans activities the past summer (and some in Dallas more recently with anti Castro Cubans on Harlendale Street?).  His handler might have even suggested, you might want to go see you wife and kids Thursday night, you might have to leave town for a while on Friday.  Speculation on my part.  Not totally unreasonable I think. The Thursday vs Friday visit does not seem totally innocent in retrospect.

Ruth never transported the rifle back from New Orleans.  She never unloaded it.  Michael who arrived to help unload did not.  Marina never did.  All were questioned by the Warren Omission about it.  How did Ozzie get it to Irving?  Not hitch hiking, like he told Ruth he got there, she said.  Especially not if he was toting those seven small metal file cabinets found in Ruth's garage with info on Cubans in them.  There never was a rifle, that Oswald never ordered in Ruth's garage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I once thought Oswald was in place to try to stop the assassination ala The Parallax View but of course, I don't have enough evidence to ever prove that. Or at least to think he was stopping it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you know how easy it would have been to say that he brought the rifle to work previously and stashed it?

The important thing was constructing the phony Klein's transaction.  Which the WC fell for hook, line and sinker .

Let me address one other point here, as I do in my book.  That is the whole idea of the corruption of the legal and judicial process.

As we later discovered, the DPD was the most compromised, corrupt, and rogue police department in any major city in America.  In fact, numerically speaking, Dallas outdid some states as far as framing innocent defendants.  They had it down to an art form. (DiEugenio, The JFK Assassination, pgs. 196-99)   If it had not been for the election of DA Craig Watkins, we might not have known just how bad it was.  And the cases that are exposed were mostly under the Wade/Fritz regime. Now considering the make up of the DPD, many Klansmen etc, and considering the statements of people like Alexander and Leavelle, there was no reason to suspect that technique would be suspended in this case.   And, as Pat Speer shows above,  there is ample evidence it was not.

Secondly, as I also discuss in my book, the antics of J. Edgar Hoover were also not exposed until too late. (ibid, pgs. 234-240)  Need I add that Hoover did not have any great love for the Kennedys?  He strongly suspected they would fire him in a second administration, which they were going to do. Therefore, as I show in my book--pages 240-70--the FBI was sometimes as bad as the DPD.  To me the outstanding example being the falsification of Ruby's polygraph, which not only the WC bought but many years later, Von Pein's heroine Jean Davison, bought into.  And this was years after the HSCA exposed it as a hoax.

Now, if you pile up two law enforcement bodies that were riddled with malfeasance, and you place them in a position where there is no check on them--since the WC was pretty rudderless, I mean what do you expect from the likes of  Dulles--what do you come up with?  A forensic mess.  And the WC accepted it.  In fact, if you study Specter, he piled on. And you do not have to rely upon proving instances of the falsification of the record to prove this. The first generation of critics--Meagher, Thompson, Weisberg, Lane--did not rely upon that exposure at all.  They just showed that the 26 volumes of evidence did not support the conclusions in the report. The late Margie Field wrote a whole book based upon a rigorous demonstration of that.

The American system of justice relies upon the adversary system.  Whether one likes or not,  that is the case.  When the defendant has no one to represent him, then the DA knows that the rules of evidence and testimony will not apply.  This is how one gets rogue prosecutions and miscarriages of justice.

The one commissioner who was on to this early was Richard Russell.  That is why he did his own inquiry and stopped going to most of the executive session hearings.  He realized it was a dog and pony show. He did his own inquiry and came to different conclusions.  Dulles, McCloy, and Ford knew he would be a problem at the last meeting.  They made sure his objections did not get into the record.  There was a fake stenographer at the last meeting playing her crossword puzzle instead of taking notes.  When Weisberg told Russell what happened, that was the beginning of the commissioners jumping ship.  

This ended  with Boggs saying that Hoover lied about everything.  

Which he did.

 

 

 

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Playboy: Let’s move on to the events that followed the assassination. What reason do you have for believing that Oswald didn’t shoot Officer Tippit?

Garrison: As I said earlier, the evidence we’ve uncovered leads us to suspect that two men, neither of whom was Oswald, were the real murderers of Tippit; we believe we have one of them identified. The critics of the Warren Report have pointed out that a number of the witnesses could not identify Oswald as the slayer, that several said the murderer was short and squat — Oswald was thin and medium height — and another said that two men were involved.

The Warren Commission’s own chronology of Oswald’s movements also fails to allow him sufficient time to reach the scene of Tippit’s murder from the Book Depository Building. The clincher, as far as I’m concerned, is that four cartridges were found at the scene of the slaying. Now, revolvers do not eject cartridges, so when someone is shot, you don’t later find gratuitous cartridges strewn over the sidewalk — unless the murderer deliberately takes the trouble to eject them.

We suspect that cartridges had been previously obtained from Oswald’s .38 revolver and left at the murder site by the real killers as part of the setup to incriminate Oswald. However, somebody slipped up there. Of the four cartridges found at the scene, two were Winchesters and two were Remingtons — but of the four bullets found in Officer Tippit’s body, three were Winchesters and one was a Remington! The last time I looked, the Remington–Peters Manufacturing Company was not in the habit of slipping Winchester bullets into its cartridges, nor was the Winchester–Western Manufacturing Company putting Remington bullets into its cartridges.

Playboy: How do you explain the fact that the Warren Commission concluded that the bullets in Officer Tippit’s body had all been fired from “the revolver in the possession of Oswald at the time of his arrest, to the exclusion of all other weapons”?

Garrison: The Warren Commission’s conclusion was made in spite of the evidence and not because of it. To determine if Oswald’s gun had fired the bullets, it was necessary to call in a ballistics expert who would be able to tell if the lines and grooves on the bullets had a relation to the barrel of the revolver. The Commission called as its witness FBI ballistics expert Cortlandt Cunningham, and he testified, after an examination of the bullets taken from Tippit’s body, that it was impossible to determine whether or not these bullets had been fired from Oswald’s gun.

Yet, on the basis of this expert testimony, the Warren Commission concluded with a straight face that the bullets were fired not only from Oswald’s gun but “to the exclusion of all other weapons.” They simply chose to ignore the fact that revolvers don’t eject cartridges and that the cartridges left so conveniently on the street didn’t match the bullets in Tippit’s body.

Edited by Rich Pope

Share this post


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

Do you know how easy it would have been to say that he brought the rifle to work previously and stashed it?

The important thing was constructing the phony Klein's transaction.  Which the WC fell for hook, line and sinker .

Let me address one other point here, as I do in my book.  That is the whole idea of the corruption of the legal and judicial process.

As we later discovered, the DPD was the most compromised, corrupt, and rogue police department in any major city in America.  In fact, numerically speaking, Dallas outdid some states as far as framing innocent defendants.  They had it down to an art form. (DiEugenio, The JFK Assassination, pgs. 196-99)   If it had not been for the election of DA Craig Watkins, we might not have known just how bad it was.  And the cases that are exposed were mostly under the Wade/Fritz regime. Now considering the make up of the DPD, many Klansmen etc, and considering the statements of people like Alexander and Leavelle, there was no reason to suspect that technique would be suspended in this case.   And, as Pat Speer shows above,  there is ample evidence it was not.

Secondly, as I also discuss in my book, the antics of J. Edgar Hoover were also not exposed until too late. (ibid, pgs. 234-240)  Need I add that Hoover did not have any great love for the Kennedys?  He strongly suspected they would fire him in a second administration, which they were going to do. Therefore, as I show in my book--pages 240-70--the FBI was sometimes as bad as the DPD.  To me the outstanding example being he falsification of Ruby's polygraph, which not only the WC bought but many years later, Von Pein's heroine Jean Davison, bought into.  And this was years after the HSCA exposed it as a hoax.

Now, if you pile up two law enforcement bodies that were riddled with malfeasance, and you place them in a position where there is no check on them--since the WC was pretty rudderless, I mean what do you expect from the likes of  Dulles--what do you come up with?  A forensic mess.  And the WC accepted it.  In fact, if you study Specter, he piled on. And you do not have to rely upon proving instances of the falsification of the record to prove this. The first generation of critics--Meagher, Thompson, Weisberg, Lane--did not rely upon that exposure at all.  They just showed that the 26 volumes of evidence did not support the conclusions in the report. The late Margie Field wrote a whole book based upon a rigorous demonstration of that.

The American system of justice relies upon the adversary system.  Whether one likes or not,  that is the case.  When the defendant has no one to represent him, then the prosecution knows that the rules of evidence and testimony will not apply.  This is how one gets rogue prosecutions and miscarriages of justice.

The one commissioner who was on to this early was Richard Russell.  That is why he did his own inquiry and stopped going to most of the executive session hearings.  He realized it was a dog and pony show. He did his own inquiry and came to different conclusions.  Dulles, McCloy, and Ford knew he would be a problem at the last meeting.  They made sure his objections did not get into the record.  There was a fake stenographer at the last meeting playing her crossword puzzle instead of taking notes.  When Weisberg told Russell what happened, that was the beginning of the commissioners jumping ship.  

This ended  with Boggs saying that Hoover lied about everything.  

Which he did.

 

 

 

If I remember correctly The Thin Blue Line was in Dallas. It was an old boy's racist White Hat network.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if he didnt go to the Paines house Thursday night, then the false narrative would have changed and they would have said he brought the rifle at a different date. The cover story is done looking backwards. what "facts" can be manufactured to support the situation as confronted. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The bag is not reliable evidence. would not likely have been admissible in court for a variety of reasons.  many witnesses have said their unsworn and unsigned statements produced by the DPD and FBI were changed. We have other numerous examples of how witness testimony and other parts of the historic record was "manufactured". I'm working on a piece that focus on this part of the "historic record".  As a result of the Innocence Project, we have learned that manufacturing of evidence is unfortunately common in our criminal justice system.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RAY MITCHAM SAID:

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

Good point Ray.  Mary Hollies said later after about 50 years that she saw Oswald on the elevator with a large package he said was fishing rods.  But, she lied about this in the beginning so why should one believe her later statements concerning Oswald.

Derek Thibeult said:

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.

My answer is a camera.  A large camera in a two handed camera mount.  Most folks don't pay attention to my musings because there is not any firm evidence to suggest it.  And, is easily put into problematic status when some one asks what happened to the camera.

I base my camera notion on Frazier saying the paper bag was about 22 to 24 inches in length.  I believe large grocery bags of that era were about 18 inches.  This could easily hold a camera of about 12 inches including mount handles.  The mount handles are the reason Prayer Man's hands are always in a certain configuration.

The only other evidence is visual images from 3 films.  These films are difficult to evaluate due to be at a distance or too blurry or distorted calling into question most of what is said about Prayer Man at the TSBD.  The films are:

John Martin

Dave Wiegman

Malcom Couch/Darnell 

Edited by John Butler

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

×