Chris Newton

…continued. Mr. Jenner. That is that Lee didn’t put it away, just left it out in the room? Mrs. Paine. That he didn’t put it away or didn’t seem to care or notice or didn’t recall that he had a rough draft lying around. I observed it was untrue that the FBI was no longer interested in him. I observed that it was untrue that the FBI came - [All of Mrs. Paine’s speculation about why the draft was left on top of the little desk secretary, (which stood along the north wall of her living room between her leather laze-boy and the door to the back hallway), is highly unlikely. Ruth testifies elsewhere that Oswald was so protective of both the draft and the original when he was typing it that his act of shielding the draft from view was what raised her initial curiosity and suspicions about the document.] [It is also never explained how Ruth associates the document she found with the document that was mailed. She admits that she did not see the typed document nor the draft when Oswald was using her typewriter in the kitchen.] Mr. Jenner. Why did you observe that that was untrue? Mrs. Paine. Well, the FBI came and asked me, they said - Mr. Jenner. Had the FBI been making inquiries of you prior to that time? [double whammy - unresponsive answer and then a redirect] Mrs. Paine. They had been twice. Mr. Jenner. November 1[st] and —— Mrs. Paine. November 1[st] and they told me the 5 [th]. I made no record of it what[so]ever. [strange because she recorded everything else on her calendar including the fact that Lee bought a rifle] …to be continued.

Paul, Let us review what Ruth actually said. Everything in brackets [CN] is my commentary or corrections. Part 1 Warren Commission Hearings, Volume III, page 15 Mr. Jenner. Now I would like to ask you a few questions about your reaction to that. You had read that in the quiet of your living room on Sunday morning the 10th of November. Mrs. Paine. That is correct. Mr. Jenner. And there is a number of things in that that you thought were untrue. Mrs. Paine. Several things I knew to be untrue. Mr. Jenner. That you knew to be untrue. Were there things in there that alarmed you? Mrs. Paine. Yes; I would say so. Mr. Jenner. What were they? Mrs. Paine. To me this - well, I read it and decided to make a copy. [The answer, above, is unresponsive to the question - CN] Mr. Jenner. Would you like the document back before you [to] help you? Mrs. Paine. No, no. I was just trying to think what to say first. And that I should have such a copy to give to an FBI Agent coming again or to call. I was undecided what to do. Meantime I made a copy. [What did keep her from picking up the phone and calling Hosty at the number he left? This is never explained. I also think “meantime” is a curious word to use, it usually denotes an interval, between finding the note and telling the FBI? or something else? - CN] Mr. Jenner. But you had the instinct to report this to the FBI? Mrs. Paine. Yes. Mr. Jenner. And you made a copy of the document? Mrs. Paine. And I made a copy of the document which should be among your papers, because they have that too. And after having made it, while the shower was running, I am not used to subterfuge in any way, but then I put it back where it had been and it lay the rest of Sunday on my desk top, and of course I observed this too. [The Paine copy of Oswald’s draft was given to FBI Agent Odum on 11/23/63 but was never entered as a WC exhibit, “they have that too” is a reference to the FBI having that document. She is suggesting that she made her copy of the Oswald draft while Oswald was in the shower. Elsewhere she testifies that she read the draft before any one else in the house had woken up. There is no mention of the english dictionary also “found” by Ruth in the same location but apparently both dictionary and draft sat unnoticed by either Marina or Lee for the rest of the day. Why not ask Lee, if Ruth was so averse to subterfuge, “Is this paper yours?”.] to be continued...

First off... I'm not interested in creating a narrative or fictional account whereby I tell you what Hosty or Oswald or either of the Paines were "thinking" or what their "intentions" were unless that bit of speculation is stated in evidence by their own testimony - about what they, themselves, were thinking. Everything else is hearsay, a legal term for "cow manure". Your failure is your constant departure from reality, which is well represented by your post above. Everything you wrote above that was preceded by a number is a stinky steaming Texas sized cow patty. It was Ruth's testimony wherein she describes the Nov. 1st meeting as an informal opening for confidence. I'm not quoting from Hosty's testimony. Somewhere there is probably a forum for Ruth Paine fan fiction where you could practice "self-insert", if not I suggest creating it and peddling your wares there. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fan_fiction

5. According to Ruth the first get together was an "informal opening for confidence" which took place between Ruth and FBI Agent Hosty on Nov. 1st. Ruth invited Hosty, who arrived alone (against FBI regulations), inside and he sat on her famous couch. They "conversed about the weather, about Texas, about the end of the last World War and changes in Germany at the time." I highly recommend picking up Ruth's actual testimony right here... https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=39&relPageId=24&search=weather ...as she goes off the rails. Classic disassociation. Where is the part where she tells Hosty that ....even though she doesn't know where Oswald is living, that she has all his stuff not ten feet away in the garage? She says she told Hosty about the job at the TSBD and that he was staying at an unknown rooming house. 6. The "forgot to tell the FBI" Oswald rooming house phone number is a problem too. Note: If the Paine line had a tap, as suggested elsewhere in this forum, then I assume the infamous call by Ruth "because Marina missed him so" would have revealed the Oswald rooming house number and conversation as well?

Ruth Paine's testimony is that she could see the line "the FBI is no longer interested in me" above the fold, the draft having been folded in "half". This initially caught her eye concerning the document which she states she noticed on her little desk secretary in the living room. She further stated that she "knew" this to be a lie and the statement angered her in-so-much-as Oswald had used her typewriter to create his letter to the embassy. This is where her "story" begins to fall apart. 1. She testified she noticed the letter sometime Saturday after returning with the Oswalds from their shopping trip. She also testified she did not read it until early Sunday morning. 2. The draft had to have sat there, in the open, unnoticed by Oswald and Marina as they watched TV and moved about the house, for 18+ hours despite Marina stating to the FBI when shown the document that she never saw it before. She also immediately recognized Lee's handwriting and expressed shock that it was in Ruth's possession. 3. Ruth claims she never saw the document that Oswald typed and that Oswald covered the draft so she could not see it when he was in the kitchen typing. How then did she "know" that this document was in fact the same document Oswald typed? 4. How, and why, did Ruth hide this draft document from the Detectives that were searching her house and property? Why did she not mention it in her written statement to the DPD or to Marina despite their "friendship" and the fact that she allegedly had it hidden and in her possession for at least 10 days prior to the assassination?

That's an inaccurate statement unless Ruth has "alternative facts" to reveal. By Ruth's testimony he had typed the letter between shortly after breakfast and when they left to go to the Driver's Testing Facility. Marina stated that he had re-typed the envelope several times. Ruth stated that she noticed the draft folded in half on her little desk secretary sometime in the afternoon on Saturday. There is no other mention of Oswald typing anything at any other time. "the weekend" = 2-3 hours max.

They don't seem to be doing any network traffic management. Does anyone else see ridiculous slow d/l rates?

Wasn't a home on 5th street "unoccupied", (Hosty claimed to have parked his car in front of the unoccupied home)? Could this have been used for surveillance as well?

Ruth Paine's WC testimony is as follows: March 21st at 9:15 and 2:25 in Washington, DC before Asst. Counsels Redlich and Jenner March 23rd at 7:30 PM in Irving, Texas before Asst. Counsel Jenner, SS Agent John Joe Howlett and Warren Commission transcriptionist. March 29th at 2:20 PM in Washington, DC before the commission. March 30th at 9:05 AM in Washington, DC before the commission.

That would be almost impossible to determine without an original that you could tilt to see how the different inks reflect light. I think the main reason to put him on a bus is the plausible denial of conspiracy... i.e no one took him there in a privately owned vehicle. So anything that didn't fit well with a "bus trip" timeline got obfuscated or swept under the rug.

Was this the result of a black bag job (a tap) or was there a physical operator and transcriptionist assigned to monitor that line? It's Paine that mentions an operator not Liebeler. If it was a black bag job then it raises lots of questions about when it was installed. This is why there was probably limited questions and no follow up.

Was the Paine garage secure? I think not, in fact, in a "real" trial a real defense lawyer could make a good argument that all evidence located there should have been tossed.

It's not clear if the "Kostikov" letter, sent by LHO to the Russian embassy, was intercepted because of it's destination or because it was sent by LHO. Has it been determined if HTLINGUAL targeted LHO directly or did the operation simply include all mail sent "to" and "from" the USSR, as well? If the operation targeted LHO then it's ridiculous to think it would not have targeted any PO Box he established in his true name. Remember that it was the "change of address" notice that triggered the FBI in New Orleans to contact Dallas to re-locate LHO in OCT. '63. That event would support the idea that LHO himself was the target of mail surveillance. interesting HSCA claim: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=30142&relPageId=3

One of the things that doesn't sit right with me is the total nonchalance of both Paines in regards to the FBI visits of early November (and late Oct. if you want to believe Marina and the SS). I'd think that being visited by the FBI would be a big deal, even today. If the visit had nothing to do with me and they were just asking about someone I knew, I'd still be pretty shook up over it. I know I'd be pretty nervous if the same person they were looking for had a bunch of stuff in my garage and I decided not to mention that fact. Oh shoot... they asked where he lived and I forgot to give them his phone number. Four days later they're back, two of them this time, asking the same old questions... I forgot about that all stuff again. drat. Then to get dragged downtown by the Sheriff and the DPD in a squad car because that guy that the FBI was out to my place looking for... he shot POTUS! Don't ask me why I didn't mention the letter I stole from the alleged killer to them. It slipped my mind too.

Ron -you can find the story in both Hosty's and RP's WC testimony and Hosty's HSCA, as well. Apparently, if you read FBI Agent Bardwell Odem's testimony, Hosty committed a host of FBI violations, (excuse the pun), when he showed up at Ruth's alone. On Nov. 5th, he brought an agent-in-training over there with him and did not go inside. I think we've successfully hijacked the thread, sorry. For the record, I think the Carcano 91theory unlikely. Highly unlikely. The only detail that gives me pause is the earlier reported discrepancies , (Probe maybe?), found between photos of the serial number on the rifle.

I think there's much more to this. There was a concerted effort by all involved to distance themselves from any foreknowledge. My own suspicions at this time could include potentially embarrassing revelations about who knew what prior to 11/22/63. No one can claim that anything stored in that garage was 'secure'. When James P Hosty allegedly visited Ruth Paine, alone, on Nov. 1st and "shot the breeze" with Ruth while sitting on the couch in the living room., did Ruth mention that all Oswald's stuff was in the garage? Why the hell not? Of course, we have their testimony that they didn't and just because something defies logic doesn't mean it's untrue.

It's my assumption that the boat is the one pictured in my post above. Simply because it's a boat in the garage and the only boat we have any evidence of, despite this evidence being "after the fact". The boat was on the rack according to Ruth's testimony here: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=39&relPageId=17&search=boat and here: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=39&relPageId=27&search=boat If "the boat" testified to was not hung from the ceiling of the garage in the WC garage photo and/or it was not the sailfish in the photo, what happened to it? It's interesting that Michael doesn't mention the boat. If I was a really suspicious person I might think his entire explanation is a lie and he had nothing to do with unloading the car since he doesn't mention the boat at all. Curious. I do not think that everything that Ruth Paine testified to was a lie... but I think her entire testimony should be struck, if any part of it turns out to be perjury. I think once you show part of it to be untrue then it's dangerous to "cherry pick" the rest of it. Furthermore, I think It can be shown that Ruth perjured herself at least three times both in the testimony as to the provenance of the Oswald draft of the "Kostin" Letter and subsequently in testimony designed to undermine the "first responder's" testimonies about their observations (RE: the Paine home) on 11/22/1963 [because their statements conflicted with the story that Ruth Paine was now telling.] This undermining was abetted by the WC in their lines of questioning and their alteration of the Paine home floor plan that is an extant WC exhibit (CE 430).

Outside of the main argument to this thread (in which I agree with you)... ...I think your standing on very swampy ground when you cite any part of Ruth Paine's testimony to support a theory. In another recent thread, in this forum, I've found some serious inconsistencies, perjurious testimony and indications of probable collusion to alter evidence with the WC and Counsel Jenner. Ruth testimony of how her car was unloaded is equally vague. Note what appears to be a "sailfish" type sailboat in the garage. In the quoted portion above, Ruth is very evasive as to how her station wagon was unloaded and it's never explained who did it. Ruth says she "helped". Marina was 8+ months pregnant. Trivia: There was a sailboat strapped to the car's roof rack. I think it can be seen, faintly, attached to the ceiling in the WC photo taken of the garage interior. Who took the sailboat off the roof rack of the car and put it up there? Not very pregnant Ruth and Marina. https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=39&relPageId=27&search=boat Why didn't MR. JENNER ask her who else unloaded the car?

No problem Tom. I'm bust too so understood. No rush, it might not be anything at all. I don't know what the fate of the dictionary is or even if there are samples of the pages in question. There were few, (if any), publications in evidence that have pages reproduced that were also deemed, (by the WC), to be of doubtful importance. I'll see if I can find anything.

I, for one, appreciate the heads up. Surprise Attack was my favorite recent, (in the last year or so), non-fiction read. I'll be picking up a copy of this one. Fascinating subject.

Calling Tom Hume.... Hey Tom, The FBI says "there's nothing to see here... move along". What say you? ...assuming this is that item:

Ron, Thomas Graves may have some info on this but he's off the forum for a little while. He may be back soon. In the meantime, this is a good starting point: https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/David_Morales_-_We_Took_Care_of_That_SOB.html

[If the Alan Grant photo is accurate and was taken later on the same night -then the couch is on the east wall when this event occurs, not on the north wall. This testimony would be another instance of willful perjury if that photograph is accurate.] Yes, and if the couch is on the east wall and the drapes were open, the lawmen could easily have seen anyone sitting there as soon as they came around the corner by the garage. In fact I think that's exactly what Detective Rose describes: Let's just step through his statement... "We walked up to the house... ...and I could hear the TV was playing, and I could see the door was standing open... ...and I could see two people inside sitting on the couch, and just as soon as we walked up on the porch, Ruth Paine came to the door." Rose does not say he walked up onto the porch and then made observations, he says he made these observations and then walked up to the porch. The true location of the couch, now lends more credence to Detective Rose's recollections. Note: it's clear in some images that there is an outer "half - screen" door and a traditional front door together at the front of the Paine home. Therefore it's difficult to determine exactly what is meant when the Detectives say the door was open and Ruth says it was closed. Are they both talking about the screen door or the main door? Are they talking about different doors? I don't know. I could make a guess and say the screen door was closed and the front door was open and that's why Detective Rose could hear the TV. In that case they could both be technically correct.

When I first read the Ruth Paine testimony to the WC, I was confused by the entire "line of questioning" concerning the front door and the sofa and "who could see what". The questions seemed centered around trivial matters that had no obvious purpose. Compare the above account to these two below: Det. Rose: Det. Walthers:

https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/document/cia-rdp70-00058r000300010046-7