Gene Kelly

Bill Not sure if you read the article by Jack Meyers in Kennedys and King, but he characterizes the eyewitness testimony as: If the ballistics evidence in the Tippit case could rightly be characterized as messy, then the eyewitness testimony regarding the Tippit homicide would have to be labeled a toxic waste site by comparison. A better storyline for your production company would be to get Joe Pesci to do a remake of "My Cousin Vinny" and have him interview the four questionable witnesses against Oswald in the Tippit murder: William Scoggins, Ted Calloway, Helen Markham, and the delinquent/incredible Jack Ray Tatum. I can just see the late Fred Gwynne's facial expressions, as defense counsel Vinny deconstructs their stories. Gene

Paul Garrison "investigator" Richard Billing wrote about a gray suit-wearing "Spanish trace / shepherd" whom Bringuier noticed monitoring and taking photos of Oswald that day. The link is: http://www.jfk-online.com/billings4.html FWIW, here is what the Billings notes say: Garrison says Oswald almost definitely can be placed in the Carousel . . . Check statement of Harvey [sic] Wade (Vol. XXV, CE 2370) . . . Wade says Oswald was sitting with a white male, 30 to 32, stocky, dark, 200 pounds, etc. The Spanish trace continued . . . Wade made his statement on Nov. 26 . . . Said he saw Oswald in club Nov. 10 . . . Furthermore, the mind reading MC, Bill de Mar . . . Also in CE 2370 . . . He says a photographer snapped picture of table, whereupon Ruby grabbed film and tore it up . . . More on Spanish trace . . . Giant says the shepherd has a one-inch scar on left eyebrow . . . He was also seen by Bringuier and Miguel Cruz at Maison Blanche when Oswald passing out leaflets . . . He was wearing a coat and tie and sunglasses . . . He was taking pictures of Oswald . . . And was this not the guy driving the tan station wagon? . . . Garrison is convinced the reason the CIA sent the Commission the phony picture taken at the Cuban embassy is that the Shepherd appeared in the real one with Oswald, and the Company wasn't about to let him be implicated . . . "They didn't dare show the picture of the guy who was really involved" . . . Garrison theorizes Oswald knew he was on some kind of mission, but he probably didn't know details. Gene

Jim Luis Echeverria Alvarez, died last week at age 100. His political career began in 1945, when he married the daughter of a party boss and joined the Institutional Revolutionary Party (Spanish acronym PRI) and became the private secretary to the president of the party. Under the PRI, which ruled Mexico from 1929 to 2000, outgoing Mexican presidents picked their successors, who were then assured of victory. In 1970, Echeverría (selected by Díaz Ordaz) became the youngest PRI nominee for president. The DFS (Direccion Federal de Investigaciones) was a part of the Mexican Ministry of the Interior (Gobernacion). As secretary of the interior under President Ordaz, Echeverría controlled Mexico’s police and law enforcement infamous for crackdowns on student protesters and political killings. In 2006, a Mexican court issued a house-arrest warrant for Echeverria on charges of genocide for a 1968 massacre (and a similar human rights travesty in 1971) but later ruled that the statute of limitations had expired. The special prosecutor described Echeverria as “... the master of illusion, the magician of deceit". Echeverria's brother-in-law (Ruben Zuno Arce) became Mexico's top drug trafficker and was later imprisoned for the murder of a DEA agent. To punish politically active youth groups, Echeverria banned the recording and sale of rock music by Mexican bands, that remained in place until the 1980s. He was Mexico’s interior minister and president during the darkest days of one-party rule and repression (called "the dirty war"). He postured as a left-leaning maverick allied with Third World causes and supported the governments of Fidel Castro and Salvador Allende in Chile. His presidency was marked by economic turmoil (deficit spending, foreign debt and a devalued peso) and he was characterized by Latin scholars as “a failed, tragic figure in Mexican history". Gene

Not sure if Mr. Brown is testing the waters of more knowledgeable researchers here or not. I watched his YouTube segment and - as one response states - he puts on an excellent show, but only tells the official (government) account of the story. His narrative ignores other key facts such as: the Oswald wallet; Helen Markham's testimony and credibility (and her interview with Mark Lane); other witness accounts (Acquilla Clemons, Frank Wright, Doris Holan); Johnny Reynolds saga; Dallas Officer Harry Olsen (a Jack Ruby associate); the DPD Car 207 episode; the likelihood that Oswald was in the Texas Theater at just after 1 o'clock before Tippit was killed; Tippit's strange movement and behavior just prior to his murder ... this is simply not the entire story. The background and actions of DPD Captain William Roy Westbrook would be a much more interesting documentary to undertake for the JFK Truth Be Told production company. The DPD captain from the Personnel Bureau - where he was ostensibly responsible for background investigations of applicants and the investigation of personnel complaints - is seen controlling the post-assassination evidence closely and ensuring the incrimination of Oswald in the immediate hour after the murder. He arrived at the TSBD very early (and left early); then he arrives at the Tippit scene very early (but then left early). He is linked with the shells at the Book Depository, and with the shells and wallet at the intersection of 10th & Patton where Tippit was killed... as well as the grey zipper jacket, the gun found (or planted) on Oswald, and the bullets in his pocket. The ubiquitous Captain Westbrook was also in charge of the Texas Theater post-arrest disappearance of the list of theater patrons (since anyone who corroborated that Oswald was in the theater at 1:05pm would have exonerated him of the Tippit murder). And by 1966, Westbrook was working for the CIA in Saigon training South Vietnam's secret police. You just can't make such a storyline up. I think Allen Lowe sums it up very well. The Tippit killing is classic misdirection, that accomplished a number of objectives for the people who orchestrated the assassination. Other prominent researchers have offered a similar rationale for the murder of a police officer: James Douglass states "...the killing of Tippit helped motivate the Dallas police to kill an armed Oswald in the Texas Theater, which would have disposed of the scapegoat before he could protest his being framed." Harold Weisberg offered a simpler explanation: "Immediately, the flimsy police case (against Oswald) required a willingness to believe ... proved by affixing to Oswald the opprobrious epithet of 'cop-killer.'" Jim Garrison opined that the Tippit shooting was intended to draw as many police away from Dealey Plaza as possible; given the magnitude of the crime downtown, nothing less than killing a cop that would draw sufficient attention to virtually empty Dealey Plaza (and the department) of cops and allow conspirators who were involved to escape. Further, if Oswald was innocent of the Tippit murder, the foundation of the government's case against him collapsed." Some believe that Tippit himself was involved in the conspiracy, given his erratic and unexplained movements preceding his death. Tippit’s actions in the hour prior to his murder appear to be those of a key ground-level functionary in the plot, tracking and hunting for Oswald. Indeed, there is much more to this story ... Gene

Sandy Unfortunately, I don't know anything about this individual who was LHO's escort. You can add P. D. Scott to the prominent researchers who feel as you do. He had this to say about the Mexico City narratives: By looking closely at the Mexico Oswald stories, and particularly at their genesis in the corrupt drug linked Mexican DFS, we have learnt more about the CIA role in covering up important clues about the Kennedy assassination. Gene

Jim This has turned into a very interesting thread, in part thanks to you. I am putting a paper together on Mexico City - a very convoluted story - as this helps me digest all of the various facts, evidence, and opinions. I've done this with many of the fascinating subtopics in the JFK story .... Tippit, the Paines, the autopsy, etc. Mexico City is one of the last pieces of the puzzle for me, and one that I hadn't previously understood well. But after considering this thread - and going back to the work of David Josephs, Bill Simpich, Larry Hancock, Greg Parker and yourself - the picture becomes clearer. Whatever was going on in Mexico City, it does appear integral to the plot to kill the President (i.e., crucial to what was going on, per Garrison). So many intriguing narratives: Silvia Duran's "protective custody" is telling; it seems there's a battle going on between FBI and CIA; connecting MC and the Odio visit; and the spy games being played against both the Russians and Cubans in Mexico City. This would make for a great Netflix series. You provide a rationale that rings true to me, and one that I can understand. I appreciate your insights and learn so much by reading your books and posts (which is why I participate in the Forum). Thanks to you, I have also come to see Jim Garrison as very much on the 'trail' ... what a courageous figure he was, going up against the powers that be (one man against the World) to establish the truth. I would certainly like to know more about Oswald’s dark-skinned, muscular Cuban escort and Garrison’s material on this “escort”. One question that I have for you is, why is it that many prominent researchers state that they remain "agnostic" on whether Oswald was in MC? The choice of that word implies that the truth is simply unknowable. Is it because it's buried under a mountain of disinformation (and inaccessible records) ... or that intelligence agencies are careful (and skillful) at never leaving a trail ... or is it that there are too many 'Oswalds' and we can never definitively know what Oswald's true role was (i.e., the guy Ruby shot and killed)? Gene

All: I have now posted this message in several of these disingenuous threads. I recommend studying what cognitive psychology calls the “illusory truth effect” - where we legitimize lies by reiteration (see: “I Heard It Before, So It Must Be True” by Susana Martinez-Conde, October 5, 2019, Scientific American; and “Illusory Truth, Lies, and Political Propaganda” by Joe Pierre, January 22, 2020. Psychology Today). Commonly known by the phrase "if you repeat a lie enough, it becomes the truth", this tactic is commonly employed in political propaganda, marketing, cult brainwashing and notably on social media blogs (e.g., repetitive posts on threads). This stems from the fact that we process repeated statements more fluently, and we mistake that feeling of fluency for a signal that the statement is true: If repeated enough times, the information may be perceived to be true even if sources are not credible The illusory truth effect is very evident on subject matter people perceive themselves to know about The effect can happen even if someone had previous knowledge that the information was false Further, we should beware of posts that have a suggestive (false) title ... the headline alone is intended to cement a false idea in our minds (see “When Correcting a Lie, Don't Repeat It. Do This Instead” by Steve Rathje, July 23, 2018, in Psychology Today). It appears that same tactic is being employed with this thread, similar to a number of threads that have appeared coincident with Max Good's film. The Psychology Today article's simple advice to counter this tactic and discredit lies - without repeating them and spreading them further - is to fact-check, and always lead with the truth. The facts should come first, so our minds will stop confusing “alternative facts” with real ones. Gene

All: For the record (and as posted elsewhere), I recommend studying what cognitive psychology calls the “illusory truth effect” - where we legitimize lies by reiteration (see: “I Heard It Before, So It Must Be True” by Susana Martinez-Conde, October 5, 2019, Scientific American; and “Illusory Truth, Lies, and Political Propaganda” by Joe Pierre, January 22, 2020. Psychology Today). Commonly known by the phrase "if you repeat a lie enough, it becomes the truth", this tactic is commonly employed in political propaganda, marketing, cult brainwashing and notably on social media blogs (e.g., repetitive posts on threads). This stems from the fact that we process repeated statements more fluently, and we mistake that feeling of fluency for a signal that the statement is true: If repeated enough times, the information may be perceived to be true even if sources are not credible The illusory truth effect is very evident on subject matter people perceive themselves to know about The effect can happen even if someone had previous knowledge that the information was false I see that same tactic being employed with this thread, similar to a number of threads that have appeared coincident with Max Good's film. We should beware of posts that have a suggestive (false) title ... the headline alone is intended to cement a false idea in our minds (see “When Correcting a Lie, Don't Repeat It. Do This Instead” by Steve Rathje, July 23, 2018, in Psychology Today). Rathje discusses experiments performed to examine the effects that incriminating innuendo delivered by media sources have on audience impressions (i.e., so-called fake news). The author's simple advice to counter this tactic and discredit lies - without repeating them and spreading them further - is to always lead with the truth. The facts should come first, so our minds will stop confusing “alternative facts” with real ones. Gene

I recommend studying what cognitive psychology calls the “illusory truth effect” - where we legitimize lies by reiteration (see: “I Heard It Before, So It Must Be True” by Susana Martinez-Conde, October 5, 2019, Scientific American; and “Illusory Truth, Lies, and Political Propaganda” by Joe Pierre, January 22, 2020. Psychology Today). Commonly known by the phrase "if you repeat a lie enough, it becomes the truth", this tactic is commonly employed in political propaganda, marketing, cult brainwashing and notably on social media blogs (e.g., repetitive posts on threads). This stems from the fact that we process repeated statements more fluently, and we mistake that feeling of fluency for a signal that the statement is true: If repeated enough times, the information may be perceived to be true even if sources are not credible The illusory truth effect is very evident on subject matter people perceive themselves to know about The effect can happen even if someone had previous knowledge that the information was false I sense that same tactic is being employed with this thread, similar to a number of threads that have appeared coincident with Max Good's film. We should beware of posts that have a suggestive (false) title ... the headline alone is intended to cement a false idea in our minds (see “When Correcting a Lie, Don't Repeat It. Do This Instead” by Steve Rathje, July 23, 2018, in Psychology Today). Rathje discusses experiments performed to examine the effects that incriminating innuendo delivered by media sources have on audience impressions (i.e., so-called fake news). The author's simple advice to counter this tactic and discredit lies - without repeating them and spreading them further - is to always lead with the truth. The facts should come first, so our minds will stop confusing “alternative facts” with real ones.

John Others have analyzed the Russian syntax of the note and made the same observation you have. In an April 2015 EF thread begun by Jon Tidd ("Who Wrote the Walker Letter?"), he points out that the characters used in the note were in some instances not written/formed correctly, there were numerous errors of case and errors of tense, and improper use of the infinitive. Further, the translation of the note contained errors and wasn't literal (i.e., the translation entirely overlooks how poorly this letter is written). In 2010, Greg Parker had a Russian expert compare the unsigned Walker note to letters written by Oswald when living in Minsk. His opinion on the orthography was that the Walker letter was written by a non-Russian, and that the Minsk letters were not authored by the same person. Greg concluded that someone tried to imitate what they thought was Oswald's level of Russian writing ability. Much of this depends upon one's view of Oswald's command of the Russian language, where opinions differ. Greg believes that Ruth Paine is a likely candidate for the note's author, and points out that Ruth's WC testimony mirrors the construct of the unsigned note: Senator COOPER - Yet he was intelligent enough that he had learned to speak Russian. Mrs. PAINE - His Russian was poor, his vocabulary was large, his grammar never was good. However, Ruth's view of Oswald's proficiency is in contrast to the more expert opinion of Peter Gregory, who once interviewed Lee Oswald in June 1962, in Fort Worth, while teaching Russian at the library. Oswald was looking for a job as a translator or interpreter: “I gave him a short test by simply opening a book at random and asking him to read a paragraph or two and then translate it. He did it very well. So, I gave him a letter addressed to whom it may concern that in my opinion he was capable of being an interpreter or a translator.” I would add that the FBI's fingerprint expert lifted 7 latent fingerprints from the note (found in a cellophane envelope tucked between the pages of the housekeeping book), but none was identical with the fingerprints of Lee or Marina. And only one of three HSCA experts were later willing to say the note was in Oswald's handwriting). At first, I found the story behind this unsigned note difficult to follow, but when you deconstruct the entire Walker chronicle, it becomes clear that the timing of everything surrounding the note is way too coincidental. The Warren Commission subsequently had problems with this note - and the Walker allegation in general - prompting Rankin to write Hoover a 6-page letter complaining that Marina's testimony was full of contradictions and recommending that she be requestioned. You could read this several different ways - depending upon how one views the complicity of the Commission lawyers and the FBI - but it appears that all parties were trying to get the cover story to be consistent. Regarding those pesky Paines, Carol Hewett's November 1997 analysis pointed out that one of the first published accounts raising a connection between Oswald and the Walker shooting came from none other than Michael Paine, who was quoted in the Saturday November 23rd issue of the Houston Post as suggesting that Oswald may have been involved. And if you have the patience to read through his WC testimony, he is obsessed with Walker, whose name is mentioned numerous times (just perform a simple word search, and it becomes obvious). I also find it quite telling that the WC almost forgot to question Ruth about this damming note ... but the charitable quaker didn't let that happen: RUTH: You have not yet asked me if I had seen anything of a note purported to be written by Lee at the time of the attempt on Walker. And I might just recount that for you if it is of any importance. JENNER: Yes, l wish you would. The icing on the cake for me is the observation by those who have since spoken to Ms. Paine. Whenever she meets with individuals who wish to talk to her about the assassination, she first asks for their position on the Walker shooting (what Joe McBride calls her "litmus test"). What this brings to mind is what cognitive psychology calls the “illusory truth effect” - we legitimize lies by reiteration (see: “I Heard It Before, So It Must Be True” by Susana Martinez-Conde, October 5, 2019, Scientific American; and “Illusory Truth, Lies, and Political Propaganda” by Joe Pierre, January 22, 2020. Psychology Today). This tactic is commonly employed in political propaganda, marketing, cult brainwashing and notably on social media blogs (e.g., repetitive posts on threads). Finally, and germane to the plethora of EF threads that have appeared coincident with Max Good's fine film, we should beware of posts that have a suggestive (false) title ... because the headline alone is intended to cement a false idea in our minds (see “When Correcting a Lie, Don't Repeat It. Do This Instead” by Steve Rathje, July 23, 2018, in Psychology Today). Rathje discusses experiments performed to examine the effects that incriminating innuendo delivered by media sources have on audience impressions. The author's simple advice to counter this tactic and discredit lies - without repeating them and spreading them further - is to always lead with the truth. The facts should come first, so our minds will stop confusing “alternative facts” with real ones. Gene

The following should tell you all that you need to know about this mythical handgun: Two of the gun mail-order houses were the ones from which Oswald ordered his Smith and Wesson .38 revolver (Seaport Traders of Los Angeles) and his Mannlicher-Carcano rifle (Klein's of Chicago). Oswald allegedly ordered his pistol two days before Christopher Dodd's subcommittee began hearings on the matter on January 29, 1963. The subcommittee’s sample statistics later showed a purchase in Texas made from Seaport Traders. An investigator looking into interstate firearms sales at this time was Manuel Pena, the Los Angeles police lieutenant who was later one of the pivotal officers investigating Robert Kennedy's assassination. It was Pena who traced Oswald's telescopic sight to a California gun shop. Pena was the notorious LAPD officer (another recent addition to the LAPD just before RFK was killed) who controlled the police investigation and intimidated witnesses after the RFK murder. Pena was the trusted courier of key evidence being supplied to the FBI ... and he was affiliated with the same mercenaries and cut-outs used by JMWave operatives in various operations -- Saigon, El Salvador, Uruguay, Phoenix -- who were employed by cover with the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).

Denny That's an interesting thought, that the BYP were created to somehow complement the Walker shooting. To address your question about the backyard pictures, I would recommend reading the analysis done by Jeff Carter ("A new look at the enigma of the Backyard Photographs, Parts 1-3", July 2015, Kennedys and King). The timing of all of this is certainly interesting. Marina testified that sometime after March 27, but prior to April 10th, Oswald posed for two pictures with his recently acquired rifle and pistol, a copy of the March 24, 1963, issue of the Worker, and the March 11, 1963, issue of the Militant. And on April 13th - just three days after Oswald's alleged attempt on the life of Walker (for which the police had no suspects) - George and Jeanne de Mohrenschildt visited the Oswalds' apartment. Jeanne allegedly saw a rifle which was to be later linked with another inscribed "hunter of fascists" photo. Shortly after the contrived Walker incident, de Mohrenschildt moved to Haiti where he remained in a lower profile for four years. It's an involved and convoluted story, so bear with me as I lay it all out ... According to Jeff Carter, whomever was responsible for the backyard photos was "known to Oswald, was known to Ruth Paine, had something to do with the Walker 'assassination attempt', and had a hand in setting up Oswald as the patsy". In Jeff's keen analysis, all items within the photos were deliberately chosen by the forgers, including the odd inclusion on the Oswald figure of a pistol (invoking the Tippit slaying). Carter speculates that perhaps a shootout with the pistol-carrying assassin was the anticipated (planned) story in order to eliminate Oswald after the assassination. After the shot fired on April 10th, Walker implied to reporters that same evening that a domestic communist had done it (the “other side”) and criticized the Kennedys for downplaying the nation’s 'internal threat' responsible for the shot which had narrowly missed him. Some believe that the shot may have been a stunt with the approval of Walker (e.g., Gayle Nix Jackson, "Pieces of the Puzzle"), not the only such publicity stunt he attempted. Walker's accusations created problems for the initial DPD investigators in April, and the only unlikely suspect identified was one William Duff, a former roommate. As the Walker story later plays out, on November 30th, Ruth Paine sent to Marina (via the police) the Russian housekeeping book. The police in turn handed it over (along with a childcare book Ruth had also found) to the Secret Service, who still had Marina in “protective custody” at that point. On December 2nd - just three days before the FBI issued their report on the assassination to AG Katzenbach - the Secret Service discovers the unsigned and undated note written in very poor Russian. When first interviewed by FBI agent James Hosty on December 2nd, Marina initially claimed to have no prior knowledge of the note (untranslated at this point), which was in a cellophane envelope tucked between the pages of a book aptly called "The Book of Useful Advice". But her story would soon change... When the entire story is pieced together, it seems that the letter was needed because at the time, the ballistics evidence was not conclusive in the case against Oswald, and officials (i.e., the FBI) were relying on Marina's testimony to incriminate him. Under questioning, Marina translated the note, and subsequently confirmed (under threat of deportation) that her husband had written it ... and that Lee confessed to her (back in April) that he was the one who had made the attempt on Walker’s life. The FBI interrogators were instructed to “bear down on her” and sent an INS agent to Fort Worth to join the FBI team, to impress upon Marina the deportation threat if she didn't cooperate. Five days after Ruth provided the damming Walker Note, she was visited by two Secret Service agents who returned the unsigned note, since they apparently thought it was from her. As pointed out in an April 2015 EF thread on the provenance of this note, it's difficult to believe that Marina, a child of the Stalinist era (and erstwhile KGB accomplice) would squirrel away such an incriminating note (penned in Russian) for safekeeping in a cookbook. Its notable that one of the first published accounts raising a connection between Oswald and the Walker shooting came from the one and only Michael Paine, who was quoted in the Saturday November 23rd issue of the Houston Post as suggesting that Oswald may have been involved. Carol Hewett insightfully wrote that "Michael Paine's ESP must have been at work again considering that there were no new facts known to the public at the time the paper went to press that could remotely lead to an association between the two crimes" (see "The Paines Know: Lurking in the Shadows of the Walker Shooting” by Carol Hewett. Probe November 1997). Further, if you closely follow Michael Paine’s rambling WC testimony, it mentions Walker’s name quite frequently. Walker was also the subject of conversations between Oswald and Michael in both the Spring and Fall of 1963 ... Michael later (and predictably) downplayed these conversations, characterizing them as "“few in number and benign in nature”. Carol Hewett concludes that the Paines knew more about the Walker affair than they ever revealed to the authorities. Marina later stood behind her questionable story - that her husband was responsible for the Walker shooting - during her WC testimony. However, according to Hewett, she took the story one step further, stating that Lee had told her that both of the Paines knew that he had taken a shot at General Walker (perhaps throwing them under bus, since they had since dissociated themselves from Marina). The Paines both denied that Lee told them of his attempt on Walker's life, but if that allegation were true, it begs the question of why they continued to associate with the Oswalds. Marina does not state when the Paines learned of Oswald's role because she was not asked this obvious follow-up question. Marina told the following story: Mr. RANKIN Before you told the Commission about the Walker shooting, and your knowledge, did you tell anyone else about it? Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, to the members of the Secret Service and the FBI. Mr. RANKIN. Did you tell your mother-in-law? Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, I also told his mother about it. Mr. RANKIN. When did you tell his mother about the incident? Mrs. OSWALD. After Lee was arrested, on Saturday--he was arrested on Friday. I don't remember when I met with his mother--whether it was on the same Friday--yes, Friday evening. I met her at the police station. From there we went to Ruth Paine's where I lived at that time. And she remained overnight, stayed overnight there. I had a photograph of Lee with the rifle, which I gave. At that time, I spoke very little English. I explained as best could about it. And that is why I showed her the photograph. And I told her that Lee had wanted to kill Walker. This suggests an entire new line of inquiry ... that the Paines were somehow complicit in the Walker shooting, getting Oswald out of Dallas following the shooting. Ruth had just gotten Marina under her wing, perhaps in anticipation of Oswald's arrest for the Walker attempt. Carol Hewett points out Ruth's prescient assertion on April 7th - that she feared Marina was to be forced back to Russia - which showed "amazing foresight", considering that Oswald apparently feared that he would be arrested on April 10th or shortly thereafter (per the unsigned Russian note). Carol suggests that Ruth shared the same capacity for ESP that her husband Michael had. The Warren Commission later had problems with this unsigned/undated letter and the Walker story in general. WC General Counsel Rankin wrote Hoover a 6-page letter complaining that Marina's testimony on the Walker shooting was full of contradictions and was giving the lawyers "fits". Rankin laid out six areas that needed clarification and asked that Marina be requestioned. Apparently, all parties were trying to get the cover story to be consistent. However, an internal FBI memo stated that the FBI could not establish whether Oswald made an attempt on Walker's life. The story gets even better, as Carol Hewett's article points out, where the Warren Commission almost forgot to question Ruth about this damming note. But Ruth didn't let that happen. Towards the end of her lengthy testimony on March 21, 1964, she points out to Albert Jenner: RUTH: You have not yet asked me if I had seen anything of a note purported to be written by Lee at the time of the attempt on Walker. And I might just recount that for you if it is of any importance. JENNER: Yes, l wish you would. I have posted previously that the entire Walker story comes across as a stage act, designed to divert attention towards Oswald. It also put radical right factions on their heels, by drawing them into the milieu of suspects. The April 10th event appears theatrical, and Walker strikes one as a pathetic figure ... certainly not a plotter, but rather a marker that leads to the plot. However, what is intriguing is the connectivity of Ruth and Michael Paine to Walker. The so called "Walker note", the surveillance photo of Walker's house, and their frequent references in various statements to General Walker ... all derive from Ruth and Michael Paine. As one researcher wrote: "the entire put-upon Quaker charity, Good Samaritan act wears thin in the face of such coincidences". One of Oswald's suspect biographers (Edward Epstein) paints a misleading picture of Oswald by attributing the unsuccessful shot at Walker and the murder of Kennedy to Lee and characterizing him as a sociopath. According to John Armstrong, Epstein (an Angleton acolyte) "propagates and embellishes the legend of the Walker shooting and the celebrated backyard photograph of Oswald ... the one with a date and handwriting (in Cyrillic) on the back". Further, following George's de Mohrenschildt's coincidental 'suicide' (as the HSCA investigation was closing in), Epstein conveniently employed a handwriting expert who: “... immediately identified both the dating and the inscription as Oswald's writing concluded the Russian printing on reverse side was consistent with Marina's handwriting”. Oswald’s 7-week residency at Neely St. (starting on March 2nd) was mythicized as the "crucial phase in the history of his alleged penchant for political assassination". This is a period of time when, purportedly, he acquired a rifle and a pistol, posed with the weapons for the infamous backyard photos, attempted to kill Walker, and even thought of making an attempt on the life of Richard Nixon ... and then hastily moved to New Orleans to allegedly (according to Ruth Paine) avoid prosecution. Per researcher William Turner, the individuals behind this faux shooting (Volkmar Schmidt and Company) also had a hand in the "Wanted for Treason" posters that became prominent in Dallas (another overt head fake designed to focus attention on radical militant groups, and away from the true sponsors). The Walker shooting therefore smacks of misdirection, orchestrated by people associated with Michael and Ruth Paine, and George de Mohrenschildt. The timing of all of this is particularly fascinating, if one has the patience to pull it altogether. Lee is fired from his job at Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall on April 1st, allegedly takes a pot shot at Walker on April 10th, files for unemployment on April 12, then decides to move to New Orleans (Ruth drives him to the bus station on April 24th). Meanwhile, George de Mohrenschildt leaves Dallas on April 19th, travelling first to New York and Philadelphia, making preparations for his trip to Haiti. On March 13, 1963, he had concluded a questionable contract with the Haitian Government, which guaranteed $285,000 for a "survey" … $20 thousand in cash, with the remainder to be paid out in a 10-year concession on a sisal plantation. There were at least two cover stories for this venture: a Haitian-approved “geological survey” and a contemplated exploration of sisal and hemp plantation purchases or leases. Coming full circle - consistent with the social networking theory six degrees of separation - the HSCA later questioned a possible association between George De Mohrenschildt and William Avery Hyde (Ruth's father). The two performed similar work for the State Department, and both Hyde and De Mohrenschildt traveled on assignments abroad as consultants, gathering information and reports passed on to the CIA. Contracts for both the International Cooperative Alliance (CLUSA in the states) and the International Cooperative Administration (ICA) were coordinated through AID in the State Department. Both men developed an expertise in Latin America. (see “William Avery Hyde” by Barbara LaMonica, November 1997, The Fourth Decade). Fourteen years after the assassination, the HSCA interviewed Marina. Notably, before she agreed to the interview, Marina insisted on a grant of immunity. Her testimony was full of contradictions, and the Committe wrote: "When combined with the other testimony linking Oswald to the shooting (whose testimony has all the weight of a handful of chicken feathers), we regretfully refuse to accept the judgment of the Commission in regard to the Walker shooting, hoping that its prides and prejudices were a result of error and not expedience." Last (and not least), what convinces me of Ruth Paine's complicity is an interesting observation by those who have spoken to her in past years. Whenever she meets with individuals who wish to talk to her about the assassination, she first asks for their position on the Walker shooting. ... she apparently will only talk seriously with those who accept that Lee tried to kill General Walker. You just can't make this type of story up ... as Mark Twain once said: “Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't.” Gene PS. Here are references to investigative work associated with this Walker story: Bill Simpich, The JFK Case: The Twelve Who Built the Oswald Legend (Part 11: The Paines Carry the Weight) Linda Minor, who published a multi-part series on the Paines in 2014 Cited articles by Carol Hewett, Barbara Lamonica, Jeff Carter Books authored by George Michael Evica, Jim DiEugenio and Jim Douglass,

Paul The pieces start to come together when you read what Bill Simpich wrote - in "The JFK Case: The Twelve Who Built the Oswald Legend: Part 12: The Endgame”, AARC Library - about the barber Cliff Shasteen, and several other individuals with memorable Oswald encounters: What is particularly interesting is how even J. Lee Rankin, the general counsel of the Warren Commission, was forced to conclude in the last month of the investigation that something in the Oswald story was deeply wrong. At the beginning of September, counsel Rankin wrote a four-page memo to Hoover, telling him that the Commission needed to review the evidence around several individuals: The grocer Leonard Hutchison, the barber Cliff Shasteen, the auto salesman Albert Bogard, and the gun owner Garland Slack. The backstory involving all four of these men led right back to the Paines. It would have been hard for Rankin to ignore it. Most of this can be found in WC testimony, FBI memos and a September 1, 1964, Rankin letter to Hoover. Gene

Reading about Buddy Walthers gave me more perspective on the law enforcement environment in Dallas. There was animosity and jurisdictional friction between the DPD and Sherrif's Office. And Bill Decker was a very different personality when compared with Wil Fritz. If you read the story about Eric Tagg's mother, I am more struck by the hostile reaction that Rev. Holmes received, so perhaps there is some truth to the 4th grade student reaction. You should read the following account by Walter Own in Vanity Fair ("In Dallas, Some Schoolchildren Cheered the Day JFK was Shot"). It appears the author went to St. Marks, of all places (maybe he knew Hootkins). Here is a quote: In line at the school cafeteria, some of the boys said they were happy about the assassination. My mother told me they were only repeating what their parents said. Later, she liked to boast that I had brawled with the sons of the “Texan Kennedy Haters.” (I hadn’t. She was confusing them with sons of “the Texan Racists,” whom I had scrapped with.) My mother’s finishing school in Switzerland had done nothing to prepare her for Dallas society in the 1960s, and she did little to accommodate what she called “the vulgarity” of the place. Fifty years later, mention of Dallas still brings the color to her face. The Washington Examiner did refute the student cheering story in a March 2005 article, "Wrong from the Beginning" by Philip Chalk, which attributes its origin to Dan Rather, who is remembered (by the local Dallas CBS lead, Eddie Barker) as being "tendentious and unprincipled". Apparently, Rather took the story from the Methodist minister and "irresponsibly put the hearsay on the air": Approached earlier by the same minister with what was a second-hand account, Barker himself had run the story by the school's principal and some teachers, all of whom denied it outright. Because of the shooting, which took place at 12:30 p.m., the principal had decided to close the school early, though without telling the students why. The children at the school--including three of Barker's own--were merely happy to be going home early, he was told. There couldn't have been any spontaneous cheering at the news of Kennedy's murder, because no such news had been announced. Michael Hogan raised this in a brief January 2011 EF thread, "Did Dallas schoolchildren cheer Kennedy's death? In a 2013 interview with Austin Texas writer Jan Reid, she addresses this topic in a more balanced manner and states that that some respondents were extremely hostile to Rather (and Peter Jennings as well). While I don't know where the truth lies, I am sure there were crude reactions in many parts of the country where anti-Catholic and strong political sentiment existed. I was 13 years old in a Philadelphia Catholic grade school when the news broke; we too were sent home early, but it was only an hour or two (since we usually let out at 3pm). I don't recall being happy to get out of school a little early ... and everyone knew exactly why. The nuns were all crying (so was my dad when I arrived at home). No one that I knew cheered that day ... Gene

And Ruth flat-out denied it during her WC testimony ... a bold-faced lie: Mr. JENNER: Some local barber seemed to think that Lee had called regularly on Fridays or Saturday morning at the barber shop. Your impression of that is that that was not Lee who did that. Mrs. PAINE. That is my impression. Mr. JENNER. In any event, you don’t recall him ever buddying with or having a 14year-old boy with whom he went around while he was in Irving? Mrs. PAINE: I certainly do not recall. Mr. JENNER. Would your recollection be to the contrary, that he did not? Mrs. PAINE. My recollection is distinctly to the contrary. Albert Jenner leads the witness (" ... your impression is that that was not Lee") and she evades and in essence takes the 5th by stating "I do not recall", when asked about the 14-year-old boy (i.e., Hootkins). What a performance ... the terms palter, prevaricate and dissemble come to mind. Gene

Jim I don't follow your comment about "getting our early"? It is simply fascinating that Buddy Walthers looked/dressed so much like Decker ... Al Maddox opined that they may have been related, and obviously were close. Maddox didn't seem to know too much about the Warren Commission or any related stories, but he told an interesting tale about a government agent that he saw the night before the assassination in a "007" tailored suit jacket ... the type worn by FBI men, that deputies couldn't afford. There was also controversy about the bullet that killed Buddy ... some (including the accused convict) thought that it came from Maddox's gun who had struggled with the convict and actually shot himself. Eric Tagg lays out in detail the struggle that occurred in that motel room, and how Walthers died, in essence exonerating Maddox. It sounds to me as though Buddy was extremely loyal to Decker, and therefore later backed off about finding a bullet, and the specific details (i.e., file cards of Cuban sympathizers) regarding what specifically was in those 6-7 filing cabinets found at Ruth Paine's residence. Plus, there's the suspicious House on Harlandale that Buddy reported, as well as the James Tague wound. Buddy Walthers sure was in the thick of it. Roger Craig later painted a very unflattering picture of Buddy Walthers ... frankly, it's difficult to believe many of his very vituperative allegations. Perhaps this was Craig's way of getting back at Decker for firing him, by defaming Buddy. Gene

Jim I was not aware of the backstory about Cliff Shasteen, the Irving barber who cut Oswald’s hair in the fall of 1963, accompanied by a 14-year-old boy. Then, that same boy appeared by himself a few days before the assassination and ranted about the benefits of one world government and the plight of “have nots” in society. None other than Bill Hootkins, the one and only student at St. Marks that Ruth Paine tutored in Russian that fall. This certainly appears to be a staged vignette to create an impression - and ensure that this impression would be made known after the assassination. Young William - the erstwhile actor - was apparently practicing as a provocateur, and smearing Oswald as a communist by association (the barber Shasteen was obviously impressed). Young Hootkins' HS yearbook indicates that he loved singing the chorus to the Russian opera "Boris Gudunov", where the main character was suspected of regicide, one of the characters is named Marina, and the Catholic Church looms large. Ivan the Terrible's son, the eight-year-old Tsarevich Dmitriy Ivanovich, dies under mysterious circumstances and an investigation, ordered by Godunov and carried out by Prince Vasiliy Shuysky, determines that the Tsarevich, while playing with a knife, suffered an epileptic seizure and died from a self-inflicted wound to the throat. Dmitriy's mother is banished with him to Uglich by Godunov, but claims he was assassinated. A pretender to the throne appears in Poland, claiming to be Tsarevich Dmitriy, but believed to be in reality one Grigoriy Otrepyev. Upon conversion to Roman Catholicism, he gains the support of the Apostolic Nuncio Claudio Rangoni. Obtaining a force of soldiers, he marches on Moscow. The False Dmitriy's retinue includes the Jesuits Lawicki and Czernikowski, and monks of the Chudov Monastery. The Russian boyars oppose Dmitriy's Polish and Catholic alliances, and he is murdered shortly after wedding Marina Mniszech. Marina dismisses everyone. Alone, she sings of her boredom of Dmitriy, and of her thirst for adventure, power, and glory. The Jesuit Rangoni enters, bemoans the wretched state of the church, attempts to obtain Marina's promise that when she becomes Tsaritsa she will convert the heretics of Moscow (Russian Orthodox Church) to the true faith (Roman Catholicism), and encourages her to bewitch the Pretender. When Marina wonders why she should do this, Rangoni angrily insists that she stop short of nothing, including sacrificing her honor, to obey the dictates of the church. Geez ... you just can't make this stuff up! After leaving St Mark’s, young Bill studied no less than astrophysics and Mandarin at Princeton (his father, Seymour Hootkins, was in the oil and gas business). In her Warren Commission testimony, Ruth Paine described the entry of Hootkins’ contact details in her address book as being of just “mild significance” ... she then abruptly cuts Attorney Albert Jenner off regarding the phone number. Jenner is asking about Ruth’s address book, and a certain Globe Parcel Service, an address given to her by her Russian tutor, a service which will help send parcels to people behind the Iron Curtain. He then asks about the reverse of the G page, and the facing page of the H page, where Hootkins name occurs: Mrs. PAINE: Mild significance in that the name of my one Russian student appears here, Bill Hootkins. Mr. JEXNER. And his telephone number … Mrs. PAINE. Is there; yes. Mr. JENNER. Next would be-there are some empty pages. We better record that fact. The reverse side … Mrs. PAINE. They are not in your exhibit. Later during Ruth's March 21, 1964, WC testimony, Jenner asks about the barbershop incident, and her response is dishonest and deceptive: Mr. JENNER - All right. We have a report, Mrs. Paine, and you might help us with it on this subject, of a barber in your community, who recounts to the FBI that in his opinion Lee Harvey Oswald or what he thinks a gentleman who was that man, came to his shop reasonably regularly and had a haircut on Saturday, on Saturdays, and accompanying him was what he judged to be a 14-year-old boy. Do you recall Lee Oswald ever obtaining a haircut over any weekend while he was at your home? Mrs. PAINE - No. Mr. JENNER: Some local barber seemed to think that Lee had called regularly on Fridays or Saturday morning at the barber shop. Your impression of that is that that was not Lee who did that. Mrs. PAINE. That is my impression. Mr. JENNER. In any event, you don’t recall him ever buddying with or having a 14year-old boy with whom he went around while he was in Irving? Mrs. PAINE: I certainly do not recall. Mr. JENNER. Would your recollection be to the contrary, that he did not? Mrs. PAINE. My recollection is distinctly to the contrary. It also appears that the FBI investigation of the kid in the barbershop was token, and consisted of asking Ruth if she had any idea about who it was. Her response to the FBI was misleading and classic Ruth-speak: “She has no child even as old as school age and knows of no boy of about 14 with whom Oswald was ever associated in the neighborhood”. This Hootkins anecdote can be added to that long list of "coincidences" associated with Ruth Paine. Gene

Greg Regarding Eric Tagg, his Dallas roots should be quite interesting for you, and which might explain why he wrote his 1998 book about Buddy Walthers. First off, Tagg is a musician who has worked as a session singer in Dallas, and one biography states the following: " ... then turned to leading worship in various churches around Dallas, where he serves today, a devoted follower of Jesus Christ. Not content with being merely a musician, Eric has worked on three books with Bible scholar David Eells, and, after reading nearly every book on the JFK assassination even wrote his own version of the events in his 1998 book "Brush with History". Tagg never talked to Buddy Walthers, who had been murdered almost 30 years previously, but did talk to members of Buddy Walthers family, and certain retired Dallas law enforcement individuals. He talked to Charles Klihr, an associate of General Walker and ostensibly the owner of the mysterious 1957 Chevy parked in Walker's Turtle Creek home at the time of the questionable attempt on Walker's life, as well as Edna Hartman, a witness to the bullet gouge in the grass in Dealey plaza. Eric Tagg spoke with Walthers’ wife Dorothy and daughter Cheryl, who refuted Roger Craig's unflattering comments and allegations. He also interviewed Walther’s partner, Al Maddox, in August 1998, who painted the following picture of Buddy and the collegial jealousy that existed in the Dallas Sherrif's Office: Listen, Craig was always... It’s just real difficult... The law enforcement profession itself is a very jealous bunch of people. Jealous of each other; jealous of somethin’ that someone has done, and Buddy did it all. And as I say, a lot of ‘em’s jealous of him. Walthers was part of several major evidentiary finds associated with the assassination. When Jim Garrison had Sergio Arcacha Smith subpoenaed in Dallas in April 1967, it was none other than Buddy Walthers who made the arrest, although the extradition request was turned down by then Governor John Connally. Author Tagg also explored the topic of the controversial extra bullet supposedly found in Dealey Plaza. When asked if Walthers actually found a bullet by the manhole cover (which Walthers later denied in his Warren Commission testimony), Al Maddox thought that he did: "I think he did. I heard him say, when they's coming down on him pretty hard — uh, what was the name of that attorney in New Orleans that was bringin’ all this stuff up, Garrison? Yeah, they was always wantin' that bullet. And Buddy went on television one time, with a fellow by the name of Murphy Martin... and Buddy told them there was no bullet. (Laughs) Tagg infers that Sherrif Bill Decker may have coached Buddy into denying finding the bullet (to not "rock the boat"). Tagg goes on to state that Walthers told his partner Al Maddox, Deputy Craig, his wife Dorothy, Inspector Sawyer, friends/family, and certain reporters that a .45 caliber slug was found and given to the FBI (but never provided as evidence). The Maddox interview also clarifies that Buddy Walthers and Sherrif Decker were close, and even resembled each other (i.e., like twins), especially since Walthers dressed almost identical to Decker (see attached photo). So, it's not hard to believe that Buddy would not do anything to upset his mentor. Most interesting, Eric Tagg is connected to Rev. William Holmes, a Methodist pastor, who gave a controversial sermon just after the assassination. While he didn't blame Dallas for the crime itself, Holmes described the city as "an incubator for political extremism and incivility, the kind of place where many worried an assassination might occur". The sermon made the CBS News, in which he described how children in a fourth-grade classroom in North Dallas had cheered the news of Kennedy's assassination. The local school superintendent demanded to know his source for the account of the cheering schoolchildren, but Holmes refused to share the name of the teacher in his congregation who had told him, citing concerns for her safety and pastoral confidentiality. Holmes subsequently received death threats, forcing his family to go into hiding (Reference: November 2013 article “Pastor paid price for JFK sermon” by Sam Hodges, United Methodist News Service). In 2008, Rev. Holmes spoke at the Dallas Sixth Floor Museum, where he finally disclosed who told him about the cheering schoolchildren ... Carol Tagg, a member of his Northaven congregation who taught music and heard the cheering children. The UMNS article goes on to state that, in a phone interview, Eric Tagg, her son, declared Holmes' account to be "all true" and added that while he wasn't in his mother's classroom, he was friends with children who were, and they verified the cheering. Small world ... Gene

Jeff Carter Your summary of how the Warren Commission and Wesley Liebeler handled the subject of file cabinets found in Paine's home is well stated. The downplay or avoidance of the entire topic is quite revealing in itself. Not only of what the discovery implies (which will be eternally debated), but the suppression of certain inconvenient facts (my emphasis) by the WC. And as you so succinctly state, all of this other noise is simply spin doctoring. The only “report” is the Supplementary Investigation Report, written by Walthers and dated November 22, 1963. The other so-called “evidence”, in context of Walthers’ description of “names and activities of Cuban sympathizers”, is, at best, an inference made by Warren Commission attorney Liebeler. The Commission had clearly noted Walthers’ description, as seen in the Rumors and Speculation section of the WR, but Liebeler notably failed to directly address this issue when he had Walthers before him. In fact, neither Liebeler or the Rumors and Speculation segment of the WR identify or refer to Walthers’ Report, despite it being the primary document on this matter. This failure, combined with the Commission’s careful language identifying “seven” boxes, indicates a deliberate process of making an inconvenient data point disappear. Pleadings that Walthers’ original Report had been superseded by other “evidence” appears as little more than partisan spin. It is also interesting that the metal file cabinets did not make it onto the Dallas Police inventory sheets, nor was it entered into evidence alongside Lee Harvey Oswald's belongings. Simple logic would conclude that the files belonged to the Paines. We have written statements - in the form of Dallas County Sheriff's Department, Supplementary Investigation Reports (more facts) - from three different sheriff's deputies (Walters, J. L. Oxford, and Harry Weatherford). Reading the literal WC testimony, it certainly appears that Liebeler prompted Walthers to backtrack on specifically what he had found in Paine's home, and then made it disappear in the "Speculation and Rumors" section of the WC report. I don't see how these intriguing facts would be considered as "speculation". Walthers later told author Eric Tagg that they "found six or seven metal filing cabinets full of letters, maps, records and index cards with names of pro-Castro sympathizers.” It is also of interest that Jim Garrison unsuccessfully tried to persuade Walthers to testify at the Clay Shaw trial in February 1969; but in June 1968, Walthers reported a bombing outside his home in Oak Cliff (perhaps an attempt to warn him off). And on January 10, 1969, Eddy Raymond (Buddy) Walthers was sent to a motel to question an escaped convict suspected of a double murder, where he was shot dead at age 40. There are several useful references about Buddy Walthers: “Brush with History: A Day in the Life of Deputy E.R. Walthers” (1998) by Eric Tagg; “E.R. Walthers: Searching for the Evidence: The Witnesses" (a website created by George Washington University's Digital History course, taught by Dr. Diane Cline); and "When They Kill a President (1971) by Roger Craig. Craig claimed that Walthers success was a result of the close relationship he enjoyed with Bill Decker, the sheriff of Dallas. Craig's account of Walthers is not very complimentary: Buddy soon was promoted to detective. He had absolutely no ability as a law enforcement officer. However, he was fast climbing the ladder of success by lying to Decker and squealing on his fellow officers. Walthers' ambition was to become Sheriff of Dallas County, and he would do anything or anybody to reach that goal. It was very clear Buddy enjoyed more job security with Decker than anyone else did. Decker carried him for years by breaking a case for him or taking a case which had been broken by another officer and putting Walthers' name on the arrest sheet. Gene

I've posted some of my thoughts previously in a related October 2020 thread on Fletcher Prouty. But the new information in the Kennedys and King article about what Colonel Prouty shared with Len Osanic puts his testimony/remarks in a different perspective and makes reasonable sense. In retrospect - given that Prouty was experienced in government "inquiries" like the Taylor Committee Investigation of the Bay of Pigs, the Rockefeller Commission, HSCA and ARRB - he was wise to temper his remarks and not play into what was being scripted. This is very tricky territory for a government employee, and I've had similar experience with so-called blue-ribbon panels and task forces - all of which have unavoidable agendas, right or wrong, and biased members - which can turn out to be personally damaging. So, Fletcher was wise to be circumspect in his comments with ARRB. While the AARB's basic responsibility was to identify pertinent records (i.e., evidence), it wasn't just about documents ... they were attempting to 'substantiate' (read dispel or refute) Prouty's allegations. ARRB's use of the word "allegations" immediately caught my eye (i.e., red flag), as this has special implications to anyone who has worked in government (myself included). Prouty had made statements, in a variety of venues (not just Stone's JFK movie) and the AARB was tasked with running these down to substantiate the claims. The stated purpose of his ARRB interview (in part) was: Determine the extent to which his various allegations or statements regarding the assassination are based on his own personal knowledge or experience; and should he disavow factual knowledge from his own experience, to determine whether he is aware of other factual data that could tend to prove or disprove his allegations. With all due respect to the more negative views expressed in this thread, I don't think this 1996 ARRB interview destroys Prouty's integrity or importance, nor should we dismiss what he has written and talked about. Gene

An Idiom ... a long and involved explanation; a thing of which an explanation would be long and involved. According to William Safire, Nixon always liked the locution: "In 1977, he told a reporter, Austin Scott, about the terrible personal pressures on former Attorney General John Mitchell, and concluded, ''And so, that's the human side of the story, which . . . I know that you and the press, you can't be interested in that. You can only be interested in 'Who shot John.' Well, go ahead ... '' The phrase was used by John Wayne in his last film that featured a young Ron Howard, to describe another gunslinger's actions after he had a drink/got drunk. He used the term "who shot John" to describe the whiskey. It was in the scene where he was teaching Ron Howard how to shoot a pistol. "You never know what he might do once he gets enough of that "who shot John" in him, Pilgrum! Gene

Jim: In response to the "Garrisonism" comment, I found this interchange from Greg Doudna's interview of John Curington in March 2018 to be telling, as far as an agenda is concerned: GD: What about Garrison, in Louisiana? JC: Well, he came in our office. He became a big pest. I imagine I talked to him maybe twenty-five or thirty times. He had nothing to hang his hat on. Of course, he was always trying to get a little money. And Mr. Hunt, as far as I know, never let him have a nickel. GD: He was asking Hunt for money? For what? JC: to help build his case. GD: How’s the money going to help build his case? JC: Well, you have to have traveling expenses. You have to—and he’s on a limited budget with the DA’s office—you know he was just an attorney there. GD: But he suspected Hunt. How is he asking a suspect for money? JC: Well, I never got that feeling in talking to him. Mr. Hunt may have met him a time or two, but he’d step into my office, when Garrison came in. GD: So, Garrison was seeking extra funds for the investigation? JC: Yeah. He was seeking funds to help him on the investigation. Of course, as a district attorney, you know, you have certain things available to you, but if Garrison could pick up ten thousand here, or twenty thousand there, he wouldn’t be averse to it, no. Garrison wanted to make a name for himself, and he didn’t care whose toes he stepped on to do it there. And he got laughed out of the courtroom. GD: OK. Thank you, Mr. Curington. Curington reappeared in 2018, publishing memoirs of his time with H. L. Hunt, co-written by one Mitchel Whittington who has stated that he makes his living writing regional books about history, folklore, and the supernatural. One review of the book calls it a 'pious fiction', and had this to say: The reader will be disappointed with lacking first-hand sourcing, as this is just another of those books. Even though warned by other reviews, it reads like an old Classic Tales comic book and/or Cliffs Notes pamphlet. There is a constant feeling of the all-encompassing phrase 'believe me when I tell you' lingering about the shallow text. If you consider Hunt and/or Murchison Jr were likely involved with "the deed" itself, you'd best look for other writings in which their names appear with "Momo" and "Bulldog" because this appears as frosting without a cake or vice versa. The author almost apologetically warns you, early and later vaguely, of his haphazard inferences. The book does not jibe with known facts; he has written a pious fiction. In 1975, Curington was convicted of mail fraud in connection with embezzlement schemes, and received a probated sentence, with no jail time. Joan Mellen analyzed Curington's June 1977 National Enquirer story in Our Man in Haiti and characterized it as disinformation history. Casing the Dallas Police station, the night before Oswald was killed by Ruby, and the alleged Hunt meeting with Marina Oswald, appear far-fetched, and not to be taken seriously ... and are consistent with the title/content of this thread (i.e., incredible allegations). Gene

Jim I try to avoid acrimonious debates with other posters and want to give Greg (and others) the benefit of the doubt, plus learn what I can from their posts. That said, it's a red flag for me that anyone would try to exonerate or defend the Paines - on any level, for any assertion - as they stand out to me as treasonous and criminal, just as they stood put to Vincent Salandria. I am a Philly guy, and Vince Salandria is one of the true heroes of the search for truth in Kennedy's murder. The Paines have Philadelphia roots and backstories that hit close to home for me. Michael and Ruth were married in Philadelphia in 1957, and they lived in Paoli (nearby where I attended college). Ruth moved in with Michael at the Arthur Young farm in Paoli, where the couple remained until the summer of 1959. Ruth later took a job as the Principal of the Greene Street Friends School. in the Germantown section of Philadelphia. Whenever I drive past these familiar locations, I can't help but think about these two evil individuals, which still chills me to this day. It's also a big red flag for me when someone tries to discredit you, as I very much respect your work and opinions. Gene

Greg I don't have a position (or interest) in whether Ruth was performing surveillance of "leftists" (i.e., Cuban sympathizers). More to the point, during his March 1964 Warren testimony, Michael Paine made a comment to Commission Counsel Wesley Liebeler that Oswald had a certain “business to do” keeping track of various groups. It's unclear from his statement whether this was a slip of the truth or if he was fabricating to incriminate Oswald. However, Liebeler didn't follow up on this curious comment. So, it's possible that the metal file cabinets (and what was inside of them) was simply one more piece of incriminating evidence against Oswald. Or maybe it was Michael who was surveilling Mr. LIEBELER - Were you at the house on Saturday? November 9th? Mr. PAINE - I was at the house probably on Saturday and certainly on Sunday. I think that weekend I remember stepping over him as he sat in front of the TV, stepping past, one of these things laying on the floor and thinking to myself for a person who has a business to do he certainly can waste the time. By business I mean some kind of activity and keeping track of right-wing causes and left-wing causes or something. I supposed that he spent his time as I would be inclined to spend more of my time if I had it, trying to sense the pulse of various groups in the Dallas area. Hoover appears to have been annoyed by Ruth's frankness. After certain comments she made to the press complaining about leaks of her testimony, Hoover sent a memo to the FBI Dallas Field Office urging them to reprimand her. Michael Paine appears to be an "actor" and disingenuous ... an avowed pacifist, who worked for Bell Helicopter. You provided information labelled as "Update on the Ruth Paine metal file boxes-- important" (emphasis added) that included the FBI comment that Ruth was a sincere Quaker who believed in God. I do not think that has anything to do with what was in those filing cabinets, who was compiling it, and what it was being used for. I am not interested in cross-examining Jim DiEugenio ... nor being cross-examined by you. Gene

Greg Are we then left with this? "It should further be noted that several metal cases of correspondence of Ruth Paine's were inadvertently taken by the Dallas Police Department on November 22, 1963, under the mistaken impression that they were correspondence of Lee Oswald's. This correspondence was examined by Special Agents Ronald E. Brinkley, Ben S. Harrison, and Leland D. Stephens. This correspondence was examined again on December 5, 1963, by Special Agents James P. Hosty, Jr., and Warren C. De Brueys at the Dallas Police Property Room. This correspondence reflected that Mrs. Ruth Hyde Paine is apparently a sincere Quaker and believes in God. Mrs. Paine, in one letter, made a statement that we should help Latin America to prevent Latin America from becoming Communist controlled. This correspondence also showed that Ruth Paine was concerned with aiding persons less fortunate than herself." Suely, you don't believe this simple but misleading FBI characterization. The Paines were certainly not a coincidental accident of history ... I see nothing coincidental whatsoever about them. As Vincent Salandria once remarked, they are "beacons" that light the way to the people behind the murder of John Kennedy. And they were very predicably used by Allen Dulles and his cabal: "Once one recognizes the Kennedy assassination as a conspiracy, one must conclude that the Paines had been carefully selected by the U.S. intelligence services to fulfill their important functions. Probability theory, a branch of mathematics, dictates that the invaluable work of the Paines, which served to incriminate Oswald as the assassin, and to frame him, could not have been left by the conspirators to happenstance. One cannot rationally attribute to happenstance the cause of the series of actions of the Paines, which served to impute guilt to Oswald. Such a conclusion defies the axioms and logic of probability theory. So, the Paines were a necessary part of the conspiracy to kill Kennedy and to frame Oswald. It also necessarily follows that since the Paines had been assigned their roles by the assassins, the Paines could serve as beacons showing the way to identify the conspirators who had selected them. If there was true justice in this case, Ruth and Michael Paine would be indicted rather than treated as victims, and truth, if not justice, will be better served”. I've posted on this topic previously, mostly in response to the diatribes of Paul Trejo. Your long posts and logic seem to follow a similar pattern. Here are ten reasons not to proceed with Ruth's beatification: The Paines moved from Pennsylvania to Irving Texas (where Marguerite lived) the same September 1959 week that Oswald left his mother and defected. When Oswald returned to Dallas in 1962, the Paines were still there ... as though they were waiting for him. Lee and Marina randomly meet the Paines at the Glover White Russian party. When the enigmatic George de Mohrenschildt left for Haiti, Ruth and Michael stepped-in as his "benefactors" ... almost as a hand-off to the Paines. The Oswalds move in with them for nothing more than Russian language tutoring - to better learn Russian - in order to teach at St. Mark's School to one lone sign-up student. Both the Paines and the Oswalds maintain separate residences from their respective spouses ... serving to obfuscate any future examination of links or associations. Michael and Ruth conveniently separate (ostensibly for cruel treatment) but remain amicable; Mike watching over Lee, while Ruth watches over Marina. ut the assassination somehow reunited the Paines, and Michael moved back in with Ruth. Two babysitters whose marriage ends in 1971. Ruth appears on the scene to whisk Marina away whenever Oswald has somewhere important to go (e.g., New Orleans, Mexico City). Ruth's visits to the Neely Street apartment coincide with the same days the rifle and revolver are ordered/shipped. Obtaining the critical/timely job for Oswald at the TSBD via a random conversation with a neighbor. Marina Oswald was cut off from Ruth Paine within days of the assassination ... advised by the Secret Service to stay away from Ruth because “she was sympathizing with the CIA.” In her New Orleans grand jury testimony, Marina stated: “Seems like she (Ruth) had friends over there and it would be bad for me if people find out a connection between me and Ruth and CIA.” Damming evidence against Oswald flowing exclusively from the Paine garage (e.g., backyard photographs, Kleins order, radical magazines, Mexican bus ticket). Their incredulous lack of knowledge of a rifle (early on) followed by their certain knowledge of its storage/discovery in their garage. The incriminating Walker shooting note found in a book sent to Marina (after the assassination). Ruth later claimed that she gave a great deal of thought to Oswald's alleged plot to kill Walker - how he had cased and photographed Walker's house while planning the murder - which to her, was proof that Oswald acted alone, and that he had shown he had the means and the desire to kill a public figure. The mysterious Minox camera, which the FBI changed the property invoice description as a "Minox light meter". Two months later, the FBI allegedly picked up a Minox camera from Michael Paine described as rusty and inoperable. Paine said in a television interview that the camera had been returned to him by the FBI in the summer of 1964; and that his apartment was burglarized and all of his camera equipment, including his Minox camera, was subsequently lost. No one was more instrumental in making the ersatz case against Oswald than the Paines. The Paines are the most quoted testimony in the Warren Commission record (over 6,000 questions) ... no one is even a close second (in the witness chair for a combined nine days). They were the "darlings" of the Warren Commission. And Allen Dulles was 'helpful' to Ruth Paine's testimony on more than one occasion. Each time her Russian language tutor is mentioned, Dulles headed off the line of questioning by asking something else before Ruth can answer. When the Commission finally did get around to asking Ruth Paine about her Russian language tutor, Dulles was conveniently absent from the hearings that day. They are characterized as an average middle-class religious couple who just happened to associate with a Marxist assassin and his Russian wife. most accommodating to the Oswalds before November 22nd; but highly incriminating for Lee afterwards. A virtuous Quaker -Unitarian couple who belonged to the ACLU (ideologically liberal) but did nothing to help Oswald with legal assistance after the assassination. To the contrary, they performed skillful/scripted character assassination of the alleged lone-nut assassin. For the following 30 years, they remain untouched (i.e., HSCA, ARRB), untainted (albeit with income tax returns classified) and under-investigated I hesitate to wade into this thread, but any absolution of the Paines is a hot button for me. Frankly, it insults my intelligence. I could've added more facts and examples, but ten seemed enough. And to quote Ian Fleming, once is happenstance, twice is coincidence ... three times is enemy action. Gene