Thursday at Ruth Paines House

[Cory Santos]

3 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

I agree. It was. But....

The wishing paid off ..... because Bonnie Ray vacated the 6th floor just in time for Oswald to do his dirty deed.

Oswald was one lucky SOB on 11/22/63. No doubt about it. But LUCK can certainly play a part in big events like the JFK assassination. Such as LHO's additional "good luck" with the weather on that Friday too. If it had continued to rain....who knows what might have happened. Perhaps a bullet would have been deflected. Or, perhaps, Oswald doesn't even attempt to fire any shots at the enclosed bubbletop at all.

I think that is all fair to say.  

[David Von Pein]

2 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

Could it be that Oswald wanted to get up to that 6th floor quickly before punching in on the lower floors just minutes later? Leaving Frazier behind as soon as possible would have been imperative.

Yes, I think that's quite possible.

But I think it's also possible that Oswald stashed his rifle temporarily out on the loading dock before he entered the building to be seen by Jack Dougherty (and this could be the reason Dougherty didn't notice anything in Oswald's hands at that time). And at some later time, Oswald retrieved the rifle from the loading dock area and took it upstairs.

All of this kind of talk is, of course, 100% guesswork on the part of anyone choosing to do the speculating. But, I'll admit, it is fun to guess about these things once in a while.

 

Edited January 19, 2019 by David Von Pein

[James DiEugenio]

What is fair to say Cory?

Did you see those Trade Mart invitations in David Joseph's essay?  And he had to ask someone why there was a crowd below.

Oswald was not even on the sixth floor at that time, let alone later.  And the WC knew this and that is why they had Givens lie his head off.

What luck?  The luck of having Ruth Paine lie about not telling him about that other job he could have had that paid more money, thus making sure he was at the TSBD?

Some luck.

 

[David Von Pein]

2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

What is fair to say, Cory?

Did you see those Trade Mart invitations in David Joseph's essay?  And he had to ask someone why there was a crowd below.

Oswald was not even on the sixth floor at that time, let alone later.  And the WC knew this and that is why they had Givens lie his head off.

What luck?  The luck of having Ruth Paine lie about not telling him about that other job he could have had that paid more money, thus making sure he was at the TSBD?

Some luck. 

You see, this is one of the big differences between conspiracy theorists like Jim DiEugenio and "LNers" like myself --- Jim sees everything through the darkened prism of "conspiracy" and "cover up". While I, on the other hand, don't possess such a mindset. I don't automatically jump to a "conspiratorial" conclusion about every single thing connected to the JFK case. Jim almost always does.

Jim never allows for even a possible non-conspiratorial answer to any of the things he mentioned in his last post. For example, the fact that Oswald asked some of his TSBD co-workers why there were crowds gathering at Elm and Houston Streets prior to the motorcade arriving in Dealey Plaza. This action taken by Oswald, in DiEugenio's mind, must indicate that Oswald really and truly wasn't even aware that President Kennedy was going to be driving by the Depository that day.

In Jim's conspiracy-infested brain, Oswald couldn't possibly have only been feigning his ignorance when he asked his fellow workers why the crowds were forming outside the building. But the overall weight of the evidence, which unquestionably favors Oswald's guilt in the murder of JFK, is telling me that Lee Oswald certainly was feigning his ignorance.

And Jim thinks the Warren Commission needed to have Charles Givens "lie his head off", just so the WC could have Oswald in almost exactly the same place he was when Givens and the other TSBD employees heard Oswald shout down the elevator shaft just a few minutes before Givens' encounter with Oswald on the sixth floor at about 11:55.

Were Lovelady, Williams, and Arce also lying when they each placed Oswald on an UPPER FLOOR of the Depository (either the fifth or sixth floor) at about 11:45 AM? If not, what was really gained by having Givens "lie his head off"? I don't see much of any "gain" at all. But I guess Jim does, therefore Givens gets to be labelled as yet another l-i-a-r in Jim's excruciatingly long list of liars connected to this murder case.

After a short while, it should become embarrassing for DiEugenio to call so many different people "liars". Just look at how many people he has called outright liars in just this discussion alone. It's pathetic.

More on Charles Givens here.

Re: The higher-paying job that James DiEugenio is convinced that Ruth Paine deliberately kept Oswald from getting, Click Here.

 

Edited January 19, 2019 by David Von Pein

[James DiEugenio]

What a pile of unmitigated malarkey.

The difference between me and you is simple: I am going by a fact based scenario.  And also by the enshrined standard of our justice system, namely that the defendant is innocent until proven guilty.

The WC did not even come close to that standard.  And their report was not admitted in New Orleans in the Clay Shaw hearings for just that reason.

 

As per Givens, oh please.  

Everyone should read this fine article by the late Sylvia Meagher to see what a lying cuss this guy was.  Same as Norman.  Here is the signature graph:

"Most of all, Givens’ testimony was suspect because in his affidavit to the Dallas police later that afternoon he said nothing about forgetting his cigarettes, returning to the sixth floor, or meeting Oswald there — an omission that was incomprehensible, if the encounter was authentic."

http://22november1963.org.uk/meagher-the-curious-testimony-of-mr-givens

 

And whatever Meagher writes here Pat Speer goes even further at his site on this subject.

If DVP like liars then fine.  Just admit what they did to earn that moniker, at least then DVP would be honest.

[Cory Santos]

12 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

I agree. It was. But....

The wishing paid off ..... because Bonnie Ray vacated the 6th floor just in time for Oswald to do his dirty deed.

Oswald was one lucky SOB on 11/22/63. No doubt about it. But LUCK can certainly play a part in big events like the JFK assassination. Such as LHO's additional "good luck" with the weather on that Friday too. If it had continued to rain....who knows what might have happened. Perhaps a bullet would have been deflected. Or, perhaps, Oswald doesn't even attempt to fire any shots at the enclosed bubbletop at all.

And the luck continued as he somehow shot the President and ran down the stairs and calmly obtained a soda, and confronted at gunpoint stays calm and acts like nothing happened.  He then leaves without anyone saying "hey where are you going?"  

Then by "luck" he gets the beat on an experienced police officer and happend to go see a movie, which by luck, has another Oswald in the upper balcony.  His luck stops he gets arrested.  Lucky for the other Oswald.

And the luck continued as Ruby was not stopped from entering the basement despite Hoovers alleged warning.  It continued for Ruby who despite being known by DPD not to be a reporter, he was at a press conference and even openly corrected that LHO, who he allegedly had no knowledge of, was in the Fair Play for Cuba Committee.

Then, by luck , the investigation of LBJ stops, Hoover keeps his job  JFKs Vietnam policy ends... as I say, this is not luck, its not a strange coincidence, at some point if the jury box stinks there is a skunk.  Some people had luck, it was not LHO.

Edited January 20, 2019 by Cory Santos

[David Von Pein]

Meagher's quote above is not fair, and that's because Givens' 11/22 affidavit is so short, he hardly mentions anything. I don't think Givens was HIDING any info. He was just keeping it very short. This affidavit doesn't say much of anything....

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-w0_PeI0vrQU/Tvw2rR3PpSI/AAAAAAAABtI/NgDcjkTKobc/s1200-h/Charles-Givens-Affidavit.gif

From my 2014 article about this topic....

Givens' statement given to the FBI on November 22nd (CD5) is another matter for discussion. It's true that Givens didn't say anything about going back up to the sixth floor to get his jacket and cigarettes in that November 22nd interview with two FBI agents. But Givens did mention hearing Oswald shout down to have the elevator sent back up "so that he (LEE) could have the elevator returned to the SIXTH FLOOR" (DVP's emphasis).

So it's fairly clear from that FBI statement that Givens was saying he thought Oswald was on the SIXTH FLOOR and wanted an elevator to be sent back up to the SIXTH floor.

With such detail coming from Charles Givens himself about Oswald being on the SIXTH FLOOR shortly before noon on the day of the assassination, why on Earth would the FBI (or anyone else) feel the need to then coerce Givens to add an additional layer of lies to his story, which would be a fabricated layer of lies that essentially ADDS NOTHING NEW to the story Charlie Givens had already told the two FBI agents who interviewed him on November 22, 1963?

 

[James DiEugenio]

BTW, that too short excuse is similar to the technique used by Bugliosi  in his book.

He used it to go after Meagher for the BS that Shelly and Lovelady did to discredit Victoria Adams.

Guess what?  Barry Ernest proved that Meagher was right about this and that Shelly and Lovelady worked with the devil to try and discredit Adams.

 

Now, take a look at what Meagher says about Davey BS about the other workers and Oswald:

In a book published in 1967 (Accessories After the Fact, Bobbs–Merrill Co., Inc.), I discussed the discrepancies between the Givens story as set forth in the Warren Report and the corresponding testimony and exhibits, and the grounds for concluding that the story suggested perjury and collusion. It was logically inconsistent with a genuine encounter at about 11:45 between Oswald and a group of employees who were racing two elevators from the sixth to the ground floor, when Oswald had called to them to send one elevator back so that he could go down too.

Ten minutes later, if one accepted Givens’ testimony, Oswald declined to go down for the lunch break. Moreover, while Givens supposedly exchanged a few words with Oswald on the sixth floor, other witnesses observed him on the first floor. Most of all, Givens’ testimony was suspect because in his affidavit to the Dallas police later that afternoon he said nothing about forgetting his cigarettes, returning to the sixth floor, or meeting Oswald there — an omission that was incomprehensible, if the encounter was authentic.

 

[James DiEugenio]

This is even worse than I thought it was.  Givens did not come up with his cigarettes story until almost FIVE MONTHS later.  Excerpts from Meagher:

 

2/25/64 Warren Commission lawyers Joseph Ball and David Belin complete a first joint report, summarizing the evidence known by that date, and note discrepancies as to the time of Givens’ departure (and elevator race) from the sixth floor — 11:35 as against 11:40 or 11:45 a.m. Ball and Belin also note that Givens saw Oswald at 11:50 a.m. in the domino room and that three other witnesses also place Oswald on the first floor — William Shelley, at about 11:50 a.m.; Eddie Piper, at noon; and Mrs. Carolyn Arnold, who believed she had seen Oswald near the front door of the Book Depository at about 12:15 p.m. (Ball/Belin memorandum of Feb. 25, 1964, pages 101, 105–107, 110).

3/18/64 Givens, in an affidavit furnished by him to FBI agents Trettis and Robertson, states that when President Kennedy was shot, he was standing at the corner of Record and Elm Streets. “I returned to the Depository Building, and was told by a Dallas policeman that I could not enter the building. About an hour later I went to the Dallas Police Department and was questioned by the police for about 45 minutes.” (CE 1381, page 36.) Wearisome though it is, it must again be pointed out that there was no mention during the 45–minute interrogation of the cigarettes left and retrieved or of seeing Oswald on the sixth floor, nor were these alleged circumstances hinted at in the March, 1964, affidavit to the FBI, four months after the assassination.

4/8/64 Charles Givens gives sworn testimony to the Warren Commission in a deposition taken by lawyer David Belin, with no one else present except the court reporter. Now, for the first time, Givens tells the story (later embodied in the Warren Report) about the cigarettes forgotten on the sixth floor and the encounter with Oswald (6H 345–356, WR 143). Belin should have been fully aware that Givens had told a completely different story to the FBI and the police on the day of the assassination, and subsequently to the Secret Service and the FBI, since Belin had co–authored the report which discussed Givens’ accounts of his movements in considerable detail.

But Belin did not challenge Givens’ new story nor place on record that on several earlier occasions Givens had sworn to a completely different account of his movements and actions on the day of the assassination. Indeed. in one oblique question, he asked, “Did you ever tell anyone that you saw Lee Oswald reading a newspaper in the domino room around 11:50 … that morning?” (6H 354). Givens replied, “No, sir,” which meant either that he was giving Belin a false response or that the two FBI agents who had interviewed him on Nov. 22 had invented Givens’ reported statement that he had seen Oswald in the domino room at 11:50 a.m. Yet neither Givens nor the FBI agents were challenged or even queried in an attempt to determine which story was true and which was false. Did Belin thus passively and by omission became a party to collusion, perjury, and the suborning of false testimony?

6/3/64 The FBI promptly re–interviewed Givens, who told FBI agents Switzer and Petraski that he now recalled that he had returned to the sixth floor about 11:45 a.m. to get his cigarettes, etc. (CD 1245, page 182). The FBI did not even raise an eyebrow at Givens’ sudden recovery from sustained amnesia.

Edited January 20, 2019 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

To me the most sickening part of the above is this: the WC was a bunch of lawyers.  They had to have understood this.

I mean Meagher was not a lawyer and she did.

This is what she meant when she titled her book Accessories after the Fact.  The WC went along with the collusion and cover up.

And so did Vince Bugliosi.

Edited January 20, 2019 by James DiEugenio

[Ron Bulman]

I still have to wonder about the cause of the Thursday visit.  If Oswald was working for the company in some capacity, even if he was kept totally in the dark there is a good chance he might have suspected something might be up in relation to JFK's visit to Dallas Friday.  Given his work in New Orleans that summer with people like Guy Bannister, FBI- ONI- CIA, he had to know many within the last were virulently opposed to JFK.  If he was still working the anti Castro Cubans for one of those organizations he may have heard rumors through them.  Maybe he saw somebody he recognized at or around the TSBD in the days preceding the assassination like for example a Morales or someone like him.  Maybe even Ruby told him something was in the air.  Maybe he felt the need to reconcile with Marina, see his baby girls, and try to help them out with a little money before "something" possibly happened.  I tend to question just about everything Marina said at the time or to the Warren Omission as well as Fritz's copied 2-3 day later notes.  Which is about all there is regarding the motivation for the Thursday visit.  The curtain rod story is BS.

[James DiEugenio]

Ron:

I have to say that i felt that way about the curtain rod story myself for a long time.

I am beginning to think I was a little bit too dogmatic about that.

I say that for two reasons.  First, it appears that there might have been a record of some curtain rods found by the cops at the TSBD and that record disappeared.

http://www.whokilledjfk.net/curtauin_rods.htm

Second, Greg Parker alerted me to the fact that Ruth Paine did mention some curtain rods being at her place which were not hers.

[Ron Bulman]

But didn't his boarding house room already have curtains and curtain rods?  If so, if he brought curtain rods from Irving what was the purpose?  A pretense of some sort by him or something he was instructed to do?

Edited January 20, 2019 by Ron Bulman

[Cory Santos]

13 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

But didn't his boarding house room already had curtains and curtain rods?  If so, if he brought curtain rods from Irving what was the purpose?  A pretense of some sort by him or something he was instructed to do?

To hang them in TBSD of course to add some spruce to the place.

[James DiEugenio]

Ron:

 

To my knowledge that is accurate about the rods at his rooming house.

All I am saying is that there is some different data around now.  I do not know what to make of it.