Gene Kelly

14 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Comments on Oswald and Mexico City

Nothing about Oswald going to Mexico City assists, but only complicates, the Warren Commission conclusion that Oswald acted alone in killing President Kennedy. It runs counter to interest for the FBI and Warren Commission et al to fabricate evidence or influence witnesses or marionette-string Marina to have her say Oswald did go to Mexico City, after ca. midnight Nov 22, 1963. 

If there was incentive to cover up or suborn some witnesses to perjure testimony a certain way etc., would that not work in the opposite direction, toward if possible denying Oswald went to Mexico City? Was there even a brief period of time in which a complete coverup of Oswald's having been in Mexico City was contemplated at the LBJ/Hoover level? (But not carried out because it could not be carried out?)

As Steve Roe notes Silvia Duran's and the Cuban consulate's information was in Oswald's address book. There is no secure evidence Oswald was anywhere else during the days of Mexico City. Oswald wrote a draft of a letter in his handwriting in which he refers to having been in Mexico City. Marina spilled it that he had been to Mexico City. I have come to see that the Silvia Odio visit, far from being an argument against the Mexico City trip as often perceived and as the Warren Commission considered a difficulty, is a strong argument in support of it for this reason: the date of the Silvia Odio three-person visit can be securely established by argument to have been early eve. Wed. Sept 25, 1963. (More likely earlier evening according to Annie Odio's testimony than later in the evening of Silvia's, from Houston logistics considerations.)

Apart from the independent argument establishing that date, there is a further argument supporting that Wednesday date that I have not seen cited: in the very tiny and runon handwritten letter of Silvia's father, from his imprisonment in Cuba and writing past the eyes of his Cuban censors, Odio Sr. writes advice to family members and includes, buried in the tiny, runon difficult-to read handwritten sentences, a line of advice to Silvia to not go out Wednesday evenings with her girlfriends, that he does not think that is a good idea, at the same time telling her whoever claimed to know him on that occasion she must verify before believing. It may be that the "Wednesday evening" reference (not any other day of the week) is an allusion to what Silvia wrote in her letter to him (which has not survived, but it is clear she wrote him of the three-man visit to her), and supports that it occurred on a Wednesday evening, i.e. Wed Sept 25. Silvia was going out the evening the three men including Oswald visited her; Odio Sr. answering her letter about that visit comments on her going out on Wednesday evenings, q.e.d. a Wednesday, supporting the Wed Sept 25 date.

The point about the Wed Sept 25 date of the Silvia Odio incident is that is precisely the correct time to account for Oswald having been driven, first from New Orleans to Dallas that day, and then from Dallas to Houston that evening, to catch the bus from Houston onward for the Mexico City trip. The Warren Commission could find no evidence of or realistic mechanism of Oswald getting from New Orleans to Houston by bus, but assumed it must have happened that way anyway, when the solution is there was no bus to Houston for Oswald, but instead a witnessed presence of Oswald in a car being driven at exactly the right time on that trip. It resolves that mystery. The juxtaposition of the timing is the argument here that it was part of the Mexico City trip, and therefore that Oswald did go to Mexico City.

In addition according to sworn testimony, Oswald himself talked of the Mexico City trip in his final interrogation, not to Fritz, but to federal officials questioning him, as told by postal inspector Holmes who was present. This can be combined with calling into question the common report that Oswald denied he went to Mexico City in his interrogations. Oswald's words directly are not known to have been recorded, and have been represented as having him deny to Fritz that he went to Mexico City when asked in his first interrogation.

Agreed-upon facts are that the question was asked of Oswald by Fritz at Hosty's urging, and whatever Oswald replied was cut off by a knock on the door and Oswald then taken out for a lineup. The issue is what exactly did Oswald say in response to the question before the interruption. Hosty in little-known sworn testimony to the Church Committee, and I believe elsewhere (not only to the Church Committee), was very clear (in that testimony, though Hosty says the opposite in his book Assignment: Oswald) that Oswald did not answer the question before the interruption. There is no known record of Fritz ever asking that question again. So although it is widely believed and claimed that Oswald denied he went to Mexico City, there is some conflicting evidence on that point, competing hearsay, and it is not fully clear that he denied it.

Whatever he actually answered on Friday, by Sunday morning Oswald was openly discussing his Mexico City trip. I was surprised to notice that according to an account of Leavelle of the Dallas Police, he (Leavelle) and Fritz drank coffee in a restaurant across the street for a good part of the time between 10 am and 11:20, before it was time for Oswald to be brought down from Fritz's office for the transfer to be killed. (According to the accounts I can see, Fritz though in charge of the transfer does not appear to have been hands-on in charge of its timing, with the insistence on the risky daytime transfer from Chief Curry, who was receiving orders from the mayor's office above his level on that, though the whole issue of who was responsible for what is murky. ) Therefore the objection that Fritz never mentions Oswald speaking of Mexico City Sunday morning in Fritz's written reports of the interrogations may have a possible explanation in that Fritz and Leavelle were across the street drinking coffee when Oswald talked about Mexico City on Sunday morning. Leavelle:

"Around 10: AM while the Federal agents were talking to Oswald, Captain Fritz asked me if I would like a cup of coffee. We walked across the street to the White Plaza Hotel Coffee Shop had coffee and discussed the transfer. On our way back to the office ... By the time we returned to the third floor office it was about eleven AM. The federal agents were bringing to a close their questioning of Oswald ... ("Detective Leavelle's Personal Notes", n.d., https://www.seandegrilla.com/detective-leavelle-s-personal-notes)

That is, according to this account of Leavelle, Fritz was not even present most of the time before it was time for Oswald to go below to be killed. Here is what Holmes said was going on:

Mr. BELIN. Anything else about Russia? Did he ever say anything about going to Mexico? Was that ever covered?
Mr. HOLMES. Yes. To the extent that mostly about--well--he didn't spend, "Where did you get the money?" He didn't have much money and he said it didn't cost much money. He did say that where he stayed it cost $26 some odd, small ridiculous amount to eat, and another ridiculous small amount to stay all night, and that he went to the Mexican Embassy to try to get this permission to go to Russia by Cuba, but most of the talks that he wanted to talk about was how he got by with a little amount.
They said, "Well, who furnished you the money to go to Mexico?"
"Well, it didn't take much money." And it was along that angle, was the conversation.
Mr. BELIN. Did he admit that he went to Mexico?
Mr. HOLMES. Oh, yes.

Mr. BELIN. Did he say what community in Mexico he went to?
Mr. HOLMES. Mexico City.
Mr. BELIN. Did he say what he did while he was there?
Mr. HOLMES. He went to the Mexican consulate, I guess.
(Discussion off the record.)
Mr. BELIN. Now, with regard to this Mexican trip, did he say who he saw in Mexico?
Mr. HOLMES. Only that he went to the Mexican consulate or Embassy or something and wanted to get permission, or whatever it took to get to Cuba. They refused him and he became angry and he said he burst out of there, and I don't know. I don't recall now why he went into the business about how mad it made him.
He goes over to the Russian Embassy. He was already at the American. This was the Mexican--he wanted to go to Cuba.
Then he went to the Russian Embassy and he said, because he said then he wanted to go to Russia by way of Cuba, still trying to get to Cuba and try that angle and they refused and said, "Come back in 30 days," or something like that. And, he went out of there angry and disgusted.
Mr. BELIN. Did he go to the Cuban Embassy, did he say or not?
Mr. HOLMES. He may have gone there first, but the best of my recollection, it might have been Cuban and then the Russian, wherever he went at first, he wanted to get to Cuba, and then he went to the Russian to go by Cuba.
Mr. BELIN. Did he say why he wanted to go to Cuba?
Mr. HOLMES. No.
Mr. BELIN. Did--this wasn't reported in your interview in the memorandum that you wrote?
Mr. HOLMES. No.
Mr. BELIN. Is this something that you think you might have picked up from just reading the papers, or is this something you remember hearing?
Mr. HOLMES. That is what he said in there. 

Again, I do not understand the logic that all these witnesses were fabricating testimony--under oath with all the seriousness that means for personal jeopardy let alone conscience--and that physical evidence was being fabricated and planted to show Oswald was in Mexico City, against interest, when the interest of LBJ and Hoover after ca. midnight Nov 22, and then the Warren Commission appear to run in the opposite direction. I do not understand the thinking that says the FBI and Warren Commission were furiously undertaking extraordinarily elaborate machinations to fabricate witness testimony and physical evidence of an Oswald trip to Mexico City that never happened, when it flies in the face of plausibility and counter to reasonable motive. (What was going on in Mexico City when Oswald was there is of course a whole other set of issues, not to the point here.) There is also the question of was the CIA itself fooled, or was it knowingly fooling other agencies in reporting that Oswald had visited the Soviet embassy in Mexico City, and did the CIA have a track record of being fooled or fooling other agencies in that manner (I doubt it). 

Greg

I would seriously doubt the hearsay that Postal Inspector Harry Holmes relates here.  He states "he went to the Mexican Consulates, I guess ... ".  Then, he admits that none of this was reported in his memorandum of interview.  Holmes is not a reliable source on anything.  He is frankly a suspect in the entire affair.  

Holmes is the one and only person in Dallas to know the number of the money order that linked Oswald with the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle; the only person who claimed to have located the money order "stub" (and had access to postal money orders and GPO cancellation stamps); and then waited 4 hours before telling postal inspectors that this never-deposited, never-cashed money order could be found at the Federal Records Center in Washington, DC?

Harry D Holmes, a Dallas postal inspector, an active informant for the FBI (Dallas T-2 and T-10), who according to his abbreviated Warren testimony was "feeding change of addressses as bits of information to the FBI and Secret Service, and sort of a coordinating deal on it ..." (before he was cut off by David Belin and taken off the record). There exist no stenographic records or tape in evidence for Oswald's interrogation sessions ... just the word of Harry Holmes, whose summary was not submitted until December 17th, almost a month after the assassination. Then, under oath, he said he heard Oswald say things that others did not hear him say.  

The only non- law enforcement officer allowed to sit in during Oswald's final interrogation.  A guy who dropped his wife off at church the morning of Oswald’s transfer to county jail, and just happened to wander over to the police station where his friend Will Fritz was going to interview Oswald one more time, and asked to sit in Room 317 with Fritz, Forrest Sorrells of the Secret Service, and several deputies who were supposed to be guarding Oswald. And then Fritz allows Holmes to ask questions ...  a lowly off-duty postal Inspector walks in during an interrogation of the alleged assassin of the President and interrogates the prime suspect.

Really ... 

Gene

10 hours ago, Bob Ness said:

Is that correct? Source?

Bob

See the August 2021 Kennedys and King article by Paul Bleau "Exposing the FPCC, Part 2":

“Follow the money” is one of the things that the FBI and Warren Commission did not do in trying to understand how such a destitute person like Oswald could run an FPCC chapter, raise a family, and save money for Marina (at least $1600 in today’s money).[1] He was so poor that the White Russians paid for his YMCA fees. The FPCC added the following to this drifter’s cost of living: FPCC membership fees, renting of a space, hiring leafleteers, paying a fine for disturbing the peace, the purchase of rubber-stamping equipment, personal displacements, printing of up to five different pieces of literature, correspondence with the FPCC, and use of a Post Office Box…with not one single member to help absorb the costs. The following exchange between Oswald’s lawyer and Wesley Liebeler of the Warren Commission suggests something more plausible than Oswald giving away time and money for a passé organization rather than focusing on his growing family—he was paid $25 a day (Note that Oswald’s job at the Texas Schoolbook Depository paid $1.50 per hour):

This commentary is derived from Dean Andrews' July 21, 1964, Warren Commission testimony to Wesley Liebeler:

Mr. ANDREWS.  Only time I really paid attention to this boy, he-was in the front of the Maison Blanche Building giving out these kooky Castro things.

Mr. LIEBELER. When was this, approximately?  Mr. ANDREWS. I don’t remember. I was coming from the KBC building, and I walked past him. You know how you see somebody, recognize him. So, I turned around, came back, and asked him what he was doing giving that junk out. He said it was a job. I reminded him of the $25 he owed the office. He said he would come over there, but he never did.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did he tell you that he was getting paid to hand out this literature?  Mr. ANDREWS. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELGR. Did he tell you how much?  Mr. ANDREWS. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember telling the FBI that he told you that he was being paid $25 a day for handing out these leaflets?   Mr. ANDREWS. I could have told them that. I know I reminded him of the $25. I may have it confused, the $25. What I do recall, he said it was a job. I guess I asked him how much he was making. They were little square chits a little bit smaller than the picture you have of him over there [indicating].

Mr. LIEBELER. He was handing out these leaflets?  Mr. ANDREWS. They were black-and-white pamphlets extolling the virtues of Castro, which around here doesn’t do too good. They have a lot of guys, Mexicanos and Cubanos, that will tear your head off if they see you fooling with these things. 

Gene

12 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Oh my gosh, I've always been under the impression the J. Edgar Hoover thought that the Oswald at the CUBAN Consulate was an imposter. But reading the evidence for myself, I see that it was the Oswald at the SOVIET Embassy that Hoover said was an imposter.

Does anybody know if Hoover felt the same way about the Oswald at the Cuban Consulate? Or is our knowledge of that guy also being an imposter based only on other sources? (Duran's and Azcue's descriptions, Cuban intelligence, two CIA plants not seeing Oswald.)

 

Sandy

I think that Eusebio Azcue's statements are credible ... and he was adamant that the imposter in the Cuban Consulate on Friday Sept 27th was not our guy Ozzie.  There were also some other sources that testified to that effect.

The HSCA Lopez report states that Eusebio Azcue Lopez, a Cuban citizen, was the Cuban Consul, and he had diplomatic immunity.  The HSCA asked the Cuban government to make Azcue available for staff interviews and they complied with the Committee's request on April 1, 1978.  Azcue stated that Alfredo Mirabal, who in September 1963 had recently arrived from Cuba to assume the Consul's duties, had also been present during Oswald's visit.   During a second trip to Cuba, the HSCA (including Lopez and Hardaway) interviewed Mirabal. Both of these individuals were then available for the public hearings on September 18, 1978, where Azcue Lopez again told the HSCA at a public hearing on 9/18/78 that the Consul visitor was not LHO. 

There were also other witnesses that day at the Consulate ...two Cuban officials—Guillermo Ruiz and Antonio García—from the Commercial Office, located upstairs, were also eyewitnesses of the Oswald imposter’s making a scene at the Consulate, and both claimed they didn’t hear any threats against Kennedy.  I would refer you to a May 2017 Kennedys and King article "JFK Declassified: Tracking Oswald, Part 3" written by Arnaldo M. Fernandez which unravels some of this story.  Further, the declassified HSCA Lopez Report describes the following:

The Cuban Consulate was in a separate building from the Embassy.  In 1963, the Cuban diplomatic compound in Mexico City was at Francisco Marquez Street (Colonia Condesa) with two main entrances: One to the Embassy, on the corner of Tacubaya Alley, and the other to the Consulate, on the corner of Zamora Street. 

Gene

1 minute ago, Gene Kelly said:

Joe

On April 6th, Oswald was let go by Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall because, in his supervisor's opinion, he allegedly did not get along with his fellow employees. He then decides to move to New Orleans, and on April 24, Ruth drives him to the bus station; he arrives in NOLA and moves in with his aunt Lillian Murret.

On May 9, Oswald submitted an application for employment with William Reily Company, where his employment lasted a little more than two months until July 19th, when he was let go for allegedly spending too much time in Alba's garage (where he is apparently getting paid by either INS or FBI for unknown services. 

Meanwhile, Marina left Dallas on May 10th and arrives with Mrs. Paine, who stayed with the Oswald’s for 8 days. On May 14, Ruth Paine leaves New Orleans to return to her home in Irving.  

Lee apparently is paid $25 (by Bannister and Associates) for the leafletting stunts in August. On September 20th, Ruth Paine returns to NOLA, where Marina decides to return with her to Dallas for the birth of the baby; on September 23rd, they leave for Irving.  Lee will return a week or so later, on October 4th, allegedly with no job and no money. 

Gene

15 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

One could assume that Oswald had squirreled away some monies from his past employment before Ruth Paine's visit. I don't know how long before Ruth came to visit and then took Marina back with her to Irving, TX. Lee last worked or where.

Maybe he had some side money paid to him from his leaflet passing jobs?

It would be importantly interesting to know Lee's income and expenses the last month or two before Ruth took Marina and Lee packed it in and took off for Mexico via Texas.

Of course he had to pay rent, feed his family.

I would assume also he didn't give Ruth Paine any shared expense help monies. He may or may not have given Marina any monies when she left.

Did Lee move out of their NO apartment without contacting his landlord about doing so? Did he stiff her for some monies due at that time?

As Gene pointed out, Lee had three separate bus trips to get to Mexico. He had to rent a hotel room while in MC for almost what, 4 or 5 days? He had to eat while there. Oswald did know how to survive the cheapest way possible however.

He then comes back to Texas. I guess his last bus from Texas to MC was a round trip one?

But another bus to Dallas was a separate expense.

Oswald still had enough funds to stay somewhere in the Dallas area before he got the schoolbook depository job did he not? He had to eat. He had to wash his clothes. Maybe get a hair cut? Take city bus trips. All this before his first TXSBD job paycheck?

Lee had a duffle bag full of his clothes and belongings that he brought into his North Beckley room according to housekeeper rent taker Earlene Roberts. Did he take this on his MC trip?

Did Lee stay at a local YMCA house before moving into the N. Beckley room and perhaps was able to leave his duffle bag there until he moved to N. Beckley? Was the duffle bag stored at Ruth Paine's and Lee somehow got it from there to his room?

All of Lee's daily personal needs belongings were in that bag along with clothes? It also contained his pistol.

Lee's last unemployment check of $33 picked up in New Orleans alone would not have covered Lee's travel and living expenses to Mexico City and then Dallas/Oak Cliff until his first TXSBD job paycheck.

It may be a simple explanation that Lee had socked away another 50 to 100 dollars somehow before he ever left to Mexico City. Lee was as secret with his money as he was about everything else.

 

 

 

Joe

On April 6th, Oswald was let go by Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall because, in his supervisor's opinion, he allegedly did not get along with his fellow employees. He then decides to move to New Orleans, and on April 24, Ruth drives him to the bus station; he arrives in NOLA and moves in with his aunt Lillian Murret.

On May 9, Oswald submitted an application for employment with William Reily Company, where his employment lasted a little more than two months until July 19th, when he was let go for allegedly spending too much time in Alba's garage (where he is apparently getting paid by either INS or FBI for unknown services. 

Meanwhile, Marina left Dallas on May 10th and arrives with Mrs. Paine, who stayed with the Oswald’s for 8 days. On May 14, Ruth Paine leaves New Orleans to return to her home in Irving.  

1 hour ago, Paul Brancato said:

He probably just kept his money in cash 

Paul:

On September 17th, Lee obtains a tourist card good for one visit to Mexico City from the Mexican consulate in NOLA. Three days later, Ruth visits the Oswalds, and Marina decides to return with her for the birth of the baby (they leave for Irving on September 23rd.  On September 25th, Oswald collects an unemployment check of $33.  He (somehow) returns to Dallas on October 4th with no job, no money.  At this point, Marina (eight months pregnant) is living in suburban Irving at the home of Ruth Paine, who now limits Lee's visits with them. 

My point here is, he didn't have much money.  And all of this happens in the space of just two weeks.  Strange ... 

Gene

3 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Gene,

Thanks for the details.

In addition to what you wrote, I'm pretty sure that Duran said (not necessarily under oath) that the imposter was about 3" taller than her. I think  she was 5' 3", and so that would make the imposter 5' 6". Which agrees with Azcue's testimony.

 

During her HSCA interview, she told Ed Lopez the following:

LOPEZ - For example, let's start at the beginning. Was he tall, short?  TIRADO - Short.
LOPEZ - Short. Could you stand up for a minute, Gary? (Laughter.) Would you say he was as tall as Gary?
TIRADO - Yeah, more or less.
LOPEZ - Would you say he was taller than Gary?  TIRADO - No, I think just the same. He was about my size.
LOPEZ - About your height?  TIRADO - Yeah.
LOPEZ - Okay. And what's your height?   TIRADO - 160. I think 160 or 162.
LOPEZ - Was he skinny?  TIRADO - Yes. Skinny.
LOPEZ - Could you estimate how much he weighed?  TIRADO - About your weight, more or less.  He has stronger shoulders, perhaps, than yours.

5 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Duran agreed that the person was Lee Harvey Oswald when interrogated. It was only later when she saw a photograph of Oswald that she changed her mind.

As for the visa application, we don't know that Real Oswald's photo was even the one attached to it before it made it's way back to American authorities.

Meanwhile, J. Edgar Hoover said privately that the Oswald character in the Cuban consulate was an imposter. Duran and consulate Azcue both described the Oswald imposter as blond and short. Cuban intelligence said he was an imposter. (Given that they are in the intelligence business, I trust them only for corroboration.) And I think there were two U.S. undercover agents in the consulate who said Oswald was not there. (I trust them only for corroboration.)

 

Sandy

I read the HSCA interviews of Duran and Eusebio Azcue. The imposter who visited the Cuban Consulate that Friday was unfriendly, and persistent.  Sylvia described him as over 30, thin (and thin faced) with blue or green eyes, and blonde hair.  

Azcue described him as a white male, between 5'6" and 5'7", over 30 years of age, very thin long face, with straight eyebrows and a cold look in his eyes. He also said the man had blond hair.

Gene

On 12/27/2022 at 11:32 PM, James DiEugenio said:

Isn't that something.  To this day, no one can figure out for certain how and when Oswald got out of the Crescent CIty and  to Texas. 

Its really something.

Jim:

That 7-day period (from September 25- October 4) is fascinating, and the timeline telling:

1. September 20th: Nagell is arrested on 9/20/63, when LHO was still in New Orleans.
2. September 20th: Ruth visits the Oswalds, and Marina decides to return with Ruth for the birth of the baby
3. September 23rd: Ruth and Marina leave for Irving TX
4. September 25: LHO collects an unemployment check of $33 and leaves New Orleans (ostensibly by bus) where the Mexico City charade begins.  He allegedly takes three separate bus trips: leaving Houston early on the morning of the 26th and arriving in Nuevo Laredo on the Mexican border that afternoon; leaving Nuevo Laredo an hour or so later and arriving in Mexico City on the 27th.
5. September 27: Sylvia Tirado Duran (and her colleagues) spoke to someone calling himself Oswald on September 27. He came/left the Consulate three times that same day, persistent and angry, eventually being kicked out.  The imposter also visited the Soviet embassy the next day  
6. September 27th: Silvia Odio receives a visit in Dallas on Friday September 27th; two individuals along with Oswald, one named "Leopoldo" with an odd forehead (likely Bernardo de Torres) doing the speaking and seeking written letters of recommendation from JURE members. 
7. “Leopoldo” phoned Odio the next day to tell her how “Leon” had talked about the need to murder the President and that Leon” is “kind of nuts”, implicating the patsy. Not surprisingly, CIA did not allow the HSCA to later question de Torres (who later infiltrated Garrison’s investigation) about his activities.
8. On a Saturday morning in late September, two men visit Robert McKeown's house in Houston - Lee Oswald and a friend called Hernandez - willing to pay $10,000 for four rifles, 300 Savage automatics and a telescopic sight.
9. October 4th: Oswald returns to Dallas (after a failed attempt to go to Cuba and/or return to the Soviet Union) with no job, no money
10.  October 14th: Ruth and Marina were having coffee at a neighbor’s house, which leads to Lee's finding work at the Book Depository the next day

And as David Josephs has pointed out, from Sept 24 until Oct 31st, there is not a single FBI report on Lee Oswald.

Gene

JFK was severely misled about the entire BOP project ... the story circulated for many years to come was - as Jim states - a diversion ... misinformation manufactured by Hunt and Dulles after the fact. BOP was - like the Maddox/Gulf of Tonkin incident and other false flag operations - constructed to create a pretext for an invasion of Cuba (similar to Operation Northwoods). It was meant to fail ... and Dulles and his acolytes sacrificed the Cuban exiles for their own ends. The entire rationale that JFK withheld or cancelled the air cover, and caused the invasion's failure, is baloney. And what CIA did to Manuel Ray and his anti-Castro organization, Junta Revolucionario Cubana (JURE) was treasonous, as evidenced with the Sylvia Odio incident. No wonder that JFK fired Dulles. Dulles played the same disinformation trick when he approached Truman after the assassination, and Hunt was his willing ghostwriter. Hunt would later be found planting false history yet again when the false Diem papers were found in his White House safe. These duplicitous characters were manufacturing false scurrilous history, to smear Kennedy's legacy and reputation, and further their own selfish agenda. Because the official record is doctored and convoluted, it takes some digging and persistence to piece it all together.  How honest and intelligent historians can't see all of this today is baffling.    

Hey Joe

I don't know much about Tucker Carlson, and don't follow Fox News.  At first blush, it seems he is just throwing that claim out there for attention and to stimulate controversy.  It appears he has a penchant for that with other topics.  Interestingly, his bio includes the following:

He then went to Trinity College in Hartford, Connecticut, graduating in 1991 with a BA in history. Carlson's Trinity yearbook describes him as a member of the "Dan White Society", an apparent reference to the American political assassin who murdered San Francisco Mayor George Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk.  After college, Carlson tried to join the Central Intelligence Agency, but his application was denied, after which he decided to pursue a career in journalism with the encouragement of his father, who advised him that "they'll take anybody".

Tucker aside, it's no new revelation to me that certain CIA factions were behind the assassination.  We've all been circling around that theme for many years, and the Agency certainly had the means, motive and opportunity.  After all, JFK was on a path to radically restructure the CIA - after he learned of their duplicity with the Bay of Pigs (and other policy matters) - and he was significantly curtailing their ability to wage paramilitary operations and unilaterally direct foreign policy.  When you read the first few Chapters of Jim DiEugenio's Destiny Betrayed, Jim makes it abundantly clear who orchestrated JFK's murder (and why).  Kennedy was reversing the Dulles brothers' self-interest decisions ... in Indonesia and with Sukarno, in the Congo, and in Laos and Vietnam.  When one reads what Dulles and Howard Hunt later said and wrote about Kennedy - all of which was misinformation and propaganda slander - it's difficult not to conclude that these individuals (and their cronies within the maverick Agency) conspired to whip up a Cuban exile frenzy and devise a plot to kill Kennedy and simplistically blame it on a pro-Castro Communist/Marxist lone nut.    

I am reminded of the Gary Underhill story, and how he alleged that he knew who was behind the assassination, and that "they" knew that he knew, and so he feared for his life. Underhill alleged that a "Far East" faction was responsible. I would note that is where Howard Hunt got his OSS start, operating behind enemy lines in China’s Yunnan province. Underhill was found dead six months later in what was questionably termed a suicide. William Turner looked into the death of Underhill and wrote about it in 1967 in Ramparts magazine.  Tying in this thread to Walton Moore and the Domestic Operations Division, refer to a 2005 EF thread, where the following was shared by Bill Kelly: 

Underhill's connection to the CIA was via the Domestics Contacts Division, the same branch as J. Walton Moore in Dallas, who handled both DeMohrenschildt and Hugh Aynesworth. There's also records related to Moore's WWII OSS assignment to China with Charles Ford, which certainly qualifies as part of the far east group.

So, it's hard not to suspect the CIA in this entire story. But I don't think it's necessarily a "bombshell".  Knowledgeable people have known or suspected that for a long time.     

Merry Christmas!

Gene

Thanks ... and good points about Hosty (as always). 

My thinking was more along the lines of Gerry Down's questions about J. Walton Moore, and how he was using George D.  When you pointed out that you had studied de Mohrenschildt at some length - and while he remained in contact with Oswald, the Russian community was more interested in Marina.   I recall reading somewhere (a close associate's characterization) that George being the eternal ladies' man, he was probably flirting with Marina, as opposed to "handling" Lee.  So that got me to thinking that J. Walton Moore - who should've (ideally) been less interested in Lee - wasn't.  Puzzling ... unfortunately, we don't know much about Moore, and he kind of disappears from the story after 1962. 

Staying more on-thread (Bannister, CIA), Emilio Americo Rodriguez sure seems like a person of interest, given his close associations.  Plus, he was recruited by the one and only Henry Hecksher.  And Arnesto and Emilio Rodriguez were at Oswald's arraignment.  Then there's the individual who wrote the 1960 investigative report on Bannister's firm (GB&A), Elphege Oswall Dumond ...  what a name. That Emilio worked closely with David Morales and Tony Sforza in Havana, and later at JMWAVE, is a red flag.  When David points out that Morales' intelligence team of AMOTs was run by Rodriguez and Sforza in Havana, that sets off alarm bells for me.  

Gene

On 9/14/2022 at 10:12 AM, Larry Hancock said:

Gerry,  it was up to the FBI to investigate both Oswald and Marina in regard to possible future contacts with Russian agents, or more likely Communist sympathizers or activists in the U.S..  The FBI did that directly and was of course also monitoring mail coming from overseas from Russia to Oswald, mail to the Russian embassy, etc, etc...and of course later mail to the FPCC as an identified subversive organization.  I think its fair to say that the FBI really did try to investigate Oswald and they filed a number of reports on him in Texas and later in New Orleans. 

As to the CIA, we have no indication they "investigated" Oswald in the same manner in an ongoing basis.  In fact we don't know that Domestic Ops via Moore and his contact with de Mohrenschieldt did much more than verify that Oswald did return to Texas as expected.  It seems likely that Moore got some feedback on Oswald's arrival in Forth Worth and his appearance within the White Russian community but I've never seen any sort of Domestic Ops investigative file on Oswald so I don't think CIA was duplicating the FBI contacts and tracking of Oswald (including his various moves, addresses, jobs, etc).

Larry

I am a bit late to the party here, but in reading thru this particular thread - as far as J. Walton Moore's interests and who was investigating whom - it struck me that CIA and FBI would be more interested in monitoring Marina (not Lee).   Ater all, she is a Russian national with family ties to their intelligence agencies, is suspiciously linked with a returning defector, and had all the appearances of a KGB "honey trap" while in Russia.

One would think that all of the various agencies (INS, ONI, FBI, CIA, NSA) would be much more suspicious of her.  Also, the White Russian community may have "liked" her more than Lee, but I'd think their suspicions would be heightened as well, which is why I don't buy their posturing as a protective cocoon for Marina, nor do I accept the standard rationale that they all just wanted to improve their Russian fluency.

Happy holidays!

Gene

Joe

I share your concern here.  The Domestic Operations Division was performing out of legal bounds in those days (not sure that it still persists) and clearly outside of the CIA's Charter.  In the 60's, those were some of the most outlandish (and illegal) activities that CIA conducted. They targeted anti-war groups and American "dissidents", and conducted all manner of dirty tricks (e.g., Operation CHAOS).  This was not aimed at something that threatened national security, and it strayed far from their original mandate of intelligence gathering ... which is the criticism that former President Truman made following the assassination.  Those were some of the worst abuses (imho) and - if for example you dig into the entire Charles Manson story - you'll find that the intelligence agencies had a hand in that fiasco.   

Gene

15 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

Hi, Jean Paul - A recent article on the Politico site, which wasn’t especially sympathetic to the CIA, examined some of the Agency's reasoning about documents that have been withheld or redacted. We can also observe it in the redactions that were later unredacted. Much of what the CIA protected might strike you or me as almost silly. I think an agency like the CIA has an exaggerated sense of what constitutes a threat to "intelligence operations" and "foreign relations." It appears the CIA thinks anything that has any conceivable relevance to any living person or existing operation must be protected, which is surely overbroad. I would welcome it if Biden would cut through the crap and order the release of anything and everything because I'm confident there is no JFKA Bombshell (and would be fascinated if there were); I’m confident we’d see that both the CIA’s zeal to protect and the conspiracy community’s efforts to compel disclosure were much ado about pretty much nothing.

The conspiracy community seems to me to have a very exaggerated sense of the importance and impact of any conceivable JFKA Bombshell, as though it would be the equivalent of learning the skies were filled with aliens. This is somewhat understandable because a hypothesized JFKA Bombshell is the raison d’etre for the existence of the conspiracy community – the altar at which much of the community worships.

I really don’t think a JFKA Bombshell dating back to 1963 would be much of a bombshell in 2023. If the truth were that a group of high-level CIA officials 60 years ago were involved in plotting the JFKA, I doubt the public response would be more than “Fascinating – just what we suspected!” or that there would be huge ramifications for the CIA today. Why would there be?

The most troubling aspect of such a revelation would be, “Why did you feel compelled to hide this for 60 years?” Considering the revelations that actually have come to light about the CIA, is it reasonable to view the JFKA as being in some uniquely ghastly category 40, 50 or 60 years later? I don’t think so; others apparently do.

If there were actually 60-year-old documents showing CIA involvement in the JFKA, then no – I don’t see how they could conceivably fit within the excepted categories in the 1962 Act. This really underscores my point. When you look at the caliber of the individuals who have served as CIA Director since 1992, and the Presidents to whom they reported, it’s inconceivable to me they all would have sold their integrity to protect 60-year-old documents that legally should have been disclosed. If Angleton, Joannides, et al., really were out-of-control fiends from hell, why would a CIA Director or President in 1992, 2002 or 2022 feel compelled to protect them at the expense of his own integrity and risk to his own reputation? It makes no sense to me.

I would bet my life savings there is no JFKA Bombshell. If there ever was, it surely went poof more than 50 years ago. For the reasons described in the above paragraph, if a JFKA Bombshell existed in 1992 I’m confident it would’ve been released by now. If I’m proven wrong – super, I’ll be fascinated. I just try to go where rationality leads me.

Lance

For what it's worth, I tend to agree with some of what you say here.  I don't anticipate there ever being the "bombshell" that you allude to. To think such a record still exists is a stretch.  And the individuals responsible for JFK's murder were very good at what they did (imho) ... and likely too smart to commit anything incriminating to paper. 

I've always had a difficult time wrapping my arms around the records release aspect of this case. Nor do I put much hope in it.  Pouring thru the released records seems a tedious task, akin to putting a giant jigsaw puzzle together, using bits and pieces (i.e., little scraps of information) to gain more insight.  In fairness, I suspect there are certain documents legitimately withheld for valid reasons (personal privacy, means/methods, confidential sources, investigative techniques, physical safety etc.). However, there are suspect individuals (e.g., William Harvey, David Morales, George Joannides) that appear to be inappropriately protected, even though its 50+ years later and they're no longer alive ... that sends a message that something damaging to the official story is still being withheld. Which is important to those still interested in knowing what really happened. 

Last, knowing a little about federal agencies, my experience is that they're about self-preservation, and protecting their image.  While they are public servants who take an Oath, and public opinion is important, it's really not what drives them to change ... only Congress - which funds their activities and controls their staffing levels - can make that happen.   

Gene

18 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

I think Pat's timeline is correct, Reagan reinvigorated the Intelligence state with William Casey  But it never really got back to the level of the 50's and 60's, which doesn't mean you shouldn't be vigilant.

 

For those who take comfort in a "deep state". I don't mean to bust the bubble, but I don't think the government  can get away with 20% of what they could get away with in the 60's. But I don't claim to be an expert. But they certainly got better technology to track us. That's where some big problems are. Still the IRS has an over 30 year old computer system, which pretty much shows our government priorities.

 

Of course to contrast  there will always be Ben who claims the "deep state" are more powerful than ever and then he'll say that the stated 750 billion the pentagon says they spend this year is actually double that, mostly being black budget and some veteran's benefits, he wants to eliminate, that he got from an Indian article he read, I believe. So take it with a grain of salt, the estimate's are all over the place. But it's important to get some perspective, the OMB can't surreptitiously double the Defense budget and hope no one will see it.

 

The heyday of government funding was after the war where the U.S. emerged as the world superpower as result of largely remaining unscathed from WW2, and controlling nearly half the world's resources. And due to higher taxation rates, the size of the government skyrocketed and government department  heads became gods within themselves. That condition doesn't exist anymore.

 

Jean Paul, it wouldn't surprise me if Lance would also want the release of files.

Yes, Gene, and Truman released that one month after the assassination 12/22/1963, I believe. I've never heard that quote from Gates. That would be very powerful.

 

 

Kirk

That quote (about the worst thing ever done) was not from Robert Gates ... it was made by a knowledgeable investigator (a former NYC detective) that I had previously worked with, who was involved in the HSCA.  He related to me how extraordinarily difficult it was to get any meaningful information from the CIA, in spite of being a Congressionally sanctioned investigator.  And while I was skeptical (at the time) of CIA involvement in the plot, he was quite sure of it.  When I asked him how sure, he said that he would bet a year's salary on it. 

Gene  

3 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

Fred Litwin has produced a series of documents that call into question Jim's suggestion that the CIA is withholding some bombshell document by Edwin Lopez entitled "Was Oswald An Agent of the CIA?" I linked to Fred's post and discussed those documents in some detail.

I discovered an article by Lopez from 1996 that, on its face, casts doubt on what Jim says Lopez told him the very same year.

Based on the above, I asked a series of what I believe to be highly relevant questions. I received no substantive response but rather a series of juvenile retorts. The "part of the story" that I "do not understand" is clearly set forth in the questions I asked.

You say there is "nothing of substance" in my posts. Perhaps you can define "substance" for me, because my posts strike me as far more substantive than anything else in this thread.. Was your post substrantive? Cory's? Sandy's?

You certainly are entitled to be unconvinced and unimpressed by my arguments if I make any, but I don't believe I've made any here. I have set forth facts and asked questions.

My credentials? I have no idea what you're talking about, but I feel pretty sure my academic credentials and familiarity with the JFKA literature would compare rather favorably with any participant on this forum.

 

 

Lance

I come to this Forum to learn, and gain insight. Unfortunately, nothing you've ever posted has taught me anything or given me new perspective. You seem intent on demeaning/denigrating "conspiracy theorists" and telling posters that they're wrong or misguided (or worse).  So, I see no substance or original work in what you post ...  your arguments (as you call them) are simply unimpressive. 

Gene

This thread brings to mind former President Harry Truman's cautionary message in a column written for The Washington Post on December 22, 1963 (which he actually began writing nine days after Kennedy was killed). The headline said it all: “Limit CIA Role to Intelligence.”  Truman, who had created the Agency, stated:

“For some time, I have been disturbed by the way CIA has been diverted from its original assignment. It has become an operational and at times a policy-making arm of the Government ... injecting itself into peacetime cloak and dagger operations.”

The timing of Truman’s column - one month to the day after Kennedy’s murder - has been suggestive to many who suspect CIA involvement.  Truman didn't mention JFK's death in his column, but rather addressed the allegations of CIA complicity in the assassination obliquely:

“This quiet intelligence arm of the President has been so removed from its intended role that it is being interpreted as a symbol of sinister and mysterious foreign intrigue—and subject for cold war enemy propaganda."

Truman said he knew the first two directors of the CIA and called them “men of the highest character, patriotism and integrity” ... int the spirit of this EF Thread, he then added he could only assume the same about “all those who continue in charge.”  But he nonetheless recommended that the CIA’s operational duties should be terminated.  Truman also alluded to the CIA's subterfuge with the Bay of Pigs (where they tried to "mousetrap" JFK into a Cuban conflict), writing:

" ... the most important thing was to guard against the chance of intelligence being used to influence or to lead the President into unwise decisions.”

Truman apparently recognized that Dulles and his 'unrepentant associates' might not be above conspiring to get rid of a president they felt was soft on Communism and get even for their Bay of Pigs fiasco (see "Truman’s True Warning on the CIA" by Ray McGovern, Consortium News, 2013). The column didn't sit well with the recently fired Allen Dulles ... just four months later, Dulles paid Truman a visit and unsuccessfully tried to obtain a retraction.  Undeterred, Dulles nonetheless fabricated a retraction, falsely claiming that Truman told him the Post article was “all wrong,” and that Truman “seemed quite astounded at it.”  Jim DiEugenio has suggested that Dulles behavior constituted what prosecutors call "consciousness of guilt".  However, Truman denied any such retraction in a June 1964 letter to Look magazine, where he restated his critique of covert action, emphasizing that he never intended the CIA to get involved in “strange activities.”

As to considering this "disparate" group of Agency Directors over the past 20 years - and why it's unlikely they would collectively stonewall information on the Agency's involvement - I am reminded of what a former colleague, who had been an HSCA investigator, once shared with me about the CIA.  I was new to the assassination backstories at the time (circa 1992, when Robert Gates was DCI) and had expressed skepticism about CIA's role in the assassination, and why it hadn't been eventually exposed and/or acknowledged.  His response was simple and concise, and has resonated with me ever since:

"What makes you think that's the worst thing that they ever did?" 

Gene

3 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

Rather pointedly avoiding my rather pointed questions, but I'll assume discerning readers can draw their own conclusions.

Lance

I am a discerning reader, and I am unconvinced (and unimpressed) of your arguments. You add nothing of substance, and simply throw insults and childish retorts.  What part of the story about what was withheld and left out (by the HSCA) - as far as the Lopez and Hardaway investigation - do you not understand?  I am inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt, but what exactly are your credentials?  What do you bring to the table in this discussion?   If you can't be civil, or offer anything constructive, what is your intent here?

Gene

Greg

I would recommend that you read George Michael Evica's book "A Certain Arrogance: U.S. Intelligence's Manipulation of Religious Groups and Individuals in Two World Wars and the Cold War".  The use of the Paines - and hiding behind Quaker institutions and individuals- is a classic Allen Dulles strategy.  Evica notably wrote the following: 

Whoever masterminded the Oswald college action was knowledgeable about both the OSS's and the CIA's use of Quakers, officials of the World Council of Churches, and Unitarians as contacts, assets, and informants (often as double agents) and about the FBI's responsibility in tracking down and identifying Soviet illegals and double agents. Oswald was, therefore, a creature of someone in American counterintelligence who possessed precisely that double body of knowledge.

American Spymaster Allen Dulles, based in Switzerland, had abused religious (largely Protestant) individuals and institutions for U.S. intelligence through two World Wars and the subsequent "Cold War." His brother John Foster Dulles also used major religious groups (again, largely Protestant) from 1937 through 1959 to further both his own and the American establishment's political and economic goals.

The manipulation and subterfuge associated with the Paine's - and his close connections to their family - clearly has Dulles' imprimatur. 

Gene

Greg

Your points are well taken.  I do, however, find it "interesting" that the ersatz purchase of these incriminating firearms happens at just the same time that Ruth is 'courting' Marina, and the Oswalds as a couple are being separated by the Paines. I am not suggesting that Ruth had a hand in the supply of the weapons but given how close she becomes with Lee and Marina, it's conceivable that she knew about the mail orders. At some point, all of Lee's belongings are being stored in her garage, right?  Perhaps the best one could ever conclude is that it's simply a coincidence ... but as I've stated previously, there appear to be quite a number of coincidences that surround Ruth Paine. 

And as Ian Fleming once stated: "Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action.

Gene

Thanks Denny.  I started pulling this list of milestones a week or so ago, but it kept growing.   There is more to add, like the incidents in the weeks prior to the assassination at the Bolton Ford dealership, the shooting range, etc. Plus, the paramilitary sightings at Lake Pontchartrain on the property of William McLaney.  I am still compiling this list, but the Parrot Jungle anecdote is telling (similar to the Odio visit).  The FBI issued reports on it, and it's been highlighted by Larry Hancock:

Mrs. Lillian Spingler of Miami stated that she is employed as a clerk in the gift shop at the Parrott Jungle, a tourist attraction located in the Southwest section of Miami. In approximately the first week of November and very probably on November 1, 1963, on a Friday afternoon about 2:30 p.m., that a male whom she assumed was probably a Cuban approached her at her counter in the gift shop at the Parrot Jungle and asked her for a piece of paper. He remarked to her that he obtained much more knowledge from reading the newspapers than the average person because he reads every line and in between the lines. 

She felt that this individual was seeking attention, and although the store was empty at the time, she did not wish to give him any more time because he was a bit loud in his speech, and the manager of the gift shop does not want the clerks to engage in too much conversation with the visitors. She said that he continued to talk, however, although she did not pay too close attention, until he remarked that he did not like the way the Government of the President and Washington D.C., possibly a statement to the effect he intended to go to Washington, D.C., he stated something to the effect of “shooting between the eyes.” She then realized that he must have been referring to shooting President KENNEDY, and she paid closer attention to him. 

He continued that he had a friend who was smarter than himself who could speak more languages than himself, including Russian. He said this friend was a Marxist and an American citizen, who - 3 – had served in the armed forces. At this point, he mentioned that "Lee" (using the given name for the first and only time, in place of his previous references to his friend), is a sharpshooter, and that he has a very good eye. He further remarked that his friend was brilliant, but that he did not know where his friend was at that time, although he believed he was either in Texas or Mexico. Spingler thought that the unknown Cuban might be a person with a mental problem, and that he was, in fact, referring to General Lee.

Gene

Just now, John Cotter said:

Great stuff Gene.

Thanks John ... like many, I have tried to unravel the enigma that is Lee Oswald.  Was he a doppelganger (and John Armstrong's theory), was he witting (or just used), did he work for Customs and/or the FBI as an informant, why did he defect (and return with Marina)?   Richard Nagell's observations.  

While there are many views on his Bonafide's, his short life has been meticulously studied and is well-chronicled.    

Gene

9 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

That is an excellent chronicle Gene.  I could not have done better myself.

Thanks Jim. 

The Paines simply fascinate me, and not just because of their proximity to the Oswalds.  They have local relevance for me, as a Philadelphia native, and I am familiar with many of the locations that Ruth and Michael frequented, including where they were married. The Providence Friends Meetinghouse - which I have been to - is a Historic Quaker meeting house on North Providence Road in Media, Delaware County, Pennsylvania. The meeting house and adjoining burial grounds (no longer used) were deeded in 1935. In 1955, Providence Monthly Meeting became part of what is still an active worship center today.

Michael Paine spent two years at Harvard before transferring to Swarthmore; he left after a year. Ruth studied at Antioch College in her home state of Ohio. After a two-year courtship, she and Michael married at Media Friends Meeting, just down the road from Swarthmore College, on December 28, 1957.  Ruth’s correspondence, and related materials are found in the Ruth Paine Hyde Papers on Marina Oswald, RG5/109, a permanent collection of Swarthmore’s Friends Historical Library donated by Paine to the College in 1985.  Here is what the college bulletin states:

“The endlessly probed story of JFK’s assassination isn’t complete without Ruth and Marina. Their papers at FHL can be read as a tiny beacon in this chapter of American history—a light illuminating the Quaker ideals of community and friendship—or as a complicating shade hinting at a darker truth. Whatever conclusion readers come to, these files, housed forever on Swarthmore’s campus, are fascinating reading”.

Gene

8 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

Bulls**t. You don't have a speck of proof to back up your above speculation....and you damn well know it.

Plus, if you think Ruth Paine was part of some plot to "plant" LHO in the TSBD, then you have no choice but to bring Linnie Mae Randle into the plot too.

Are you sure you want to do that, Gene?

 

David

I realize that Oswald is an enigma, and there are many views of what he was up to (witting or not).  But there has been quite a lot of legitimate research into his young life ... it's actually been under a microscope for more than 50 years now.  So, all of those milestones I mention (in the 9-month period of March-November 1963) are well-recorded and independently substantiated.  All that you have to do is connect the dots and form your own conclusion.  

What I didn't include is the years prior to 1963. The Paines moved to Irving Texas in September 1959, at the same time that Oswald was defecting to the USSR.  Bill Simpich has done some good work in analyzing this period, stating that the ostensible reason was for Michael to work at Bell Helicopter ... but the timing was remarkable. Simpich points out that it was the only weekend that Oswald spent in Irving between 1956 to 1962.  While he believes that the Paines were being used or manipulated themselves (likely by Allen Dulles), they were certainly up to something.    

Michael and Ruth moved to the Dallas suburb of Irving in 1959, during the same week that Oswald came to visit his mother in Irving before he left for the USSR. When Oswald came back to the area in 1962, the Paines were still there. It was like they had been waiting for him.

Wittingly or not, the Paines were now in an ideal locale to assist Oswald, particularly if his trip to the USSR was unsuccessful.  When he returned to the US, Oswald sought out Peter Gregory, a so-called "oil consultant" who had immigrated from Russia in 1923.  It seems that everyone now wanted to learn Russian from Marina ... Gregory had his son Paul take Russian lessons from her (a storyline that Ruth will later use). Notably, Peter Gregory and Max Clark later assisted the Secret Service in translating a lengthy interrogation of Marina after the assassination.

Fast forward to early 1963, Ruth Paine met the Oswalds and George de Mohrenschildt at a party held by Everett Glover on February 22, 1963.  Ruth was introduced to Marina because Glover knew that she was studying the Russian language. Shortly afterwards, Ruth asked Marina to live with her so that she could "improve her Russian".  Michael and Ruth then ostensibly split up and were living in different houses.  Ruth's claim that she wanted to improve her Russian (as a reason to take in Marina) rings hollow to me. Despite Ruth’s years of Russian study, her Middlebury roommate described Ruth’s Russian as “very poor”. Ruth went so far as to tutor one young student in Russian during 1963.  But notably, there is no evidence that she continued her study of Russian after Lee Oswald’s death.

You are entitled to your opinion - one that I won't try to change, and respect - but it is difficult for me to accept all of this as innocent happenstance.  

Gene