Joe Bauer

The really, really sad reality of us as citizens in our American society today ( and obviously back in JFK days as well ) is how much we are all so secretly watched, spied on, investigated, tracked and followed if we ever engage in any kind of meaningful yet constitutionally protected protest ( including writing articles or books and making movies ) of anything questioning the highest echelons of our government and those who have the most power and influence in these.

It's a given now...and disturbingly accepted as just the way things are.

It's amazing how many things a citizen can do now ( even innocently, legally )  that will have them placed on some type of secret government watch list.

We have so many police agencies now and that are all connected to this massive surveillance matrix ( mind boggling in it's size and costs ) that it has to be one of the biggest budget industries in our society ever ... employing what...2 MILLION PEOPLE?!

With good salaries and benefits.

Trillions of dollars spent on this since JFK times?

Extreme paranoia of your own people and their thoughts. Not a healthy mind set.

Being a relatively new member, I hadn't seen this thread before.

I am intrigued by Ms.Palmer's assessment of her father Roger Craig.

It's obvious she has much personal bitterness towards him.

So much so that you really feel that she experienced something on a personal level that made her dislike Roger Craig to the point of saying almost exclusively negative things about him.  In my opinion it's a very biased emotional view and an unreasonably unbalanced one.

I am not a psychologist so the following are just my layman thoughts regarding Ms. Palmer's strongly negative views of Craig.

"his marriage didn't end due to repeated harassment and threats - unless you count his repeated threats to end his own life." 

The personal bias and bitterness toward Craig in that statement is so obvious. Her statement is more reflective of her personal feelings of animosity toward Craig than any reasonably objective assessment.

In regards to Craig mentioning killing himself ( which many people view as cowardly weakness and are even irritated by hearing such ) I can relate to Craig's despondency and hopelessness in this regard.

Has anyone here ever injured their back severely?  I have.

I had 4 bulging discs ( one severe, one moderate, two moderate to mild ) at one time after trying to move us and scores of heavy boxes myself at the age of 64 because we just couldn't afford the cost of help in this endeavor.

I went to an Urgent Care and the doctor there said it was just a sprain and to take some pain pills and it would go away!

In the next week or so, the pain didn't dissipate or go away. It just kept getting worse!

The doctors I saw later kept dodging my request to have an MRI and thought perhaps that I was exaggerating my pain? 

Finally, one doctor gave me a prescription for an MRI and that's when the real truth came out regarding my back being seriously injured versus just a sprain.

Even with Percocet and physical therapy the pain was intense ( could hardly sleep or get up in the morning)  and it took months to go away.

During those 3 to 4 months the 24 hour pain and drugged feelings from the pain meds made me think - that if I had to endure that kind of pain and loss of work, social and even intimacy life functionality for years -  that this might drive me to seriously giving some thought to ending my life.

That's what serious long term back injuries can do to a normal person.

In my 65 years, I have heard similar horror stories and seen people break down from this kind of pain due to back injuries alone.

Now, multiply Roger Craig's more serious back injuries ( and surgeries which often never heal right and cause even more pain! ) and time of suffering X10 versus my back injury episode.

Of course Craig occasionally contemplated ending his life!  

It wasn't his bad, weak, cowardly or irresponsible character that was the problem.

And when someone loses their ability to work and make enough funds to support himself and maybe even a family to something better than month to month...that's just another weight to bear for someone already stressed and depressed.

And I see Roger Craig's leaving perhaps a neglected ( maybe even abusive ) childhood (at what ... 12 years old ?) AND SURVIVING ??? ... by wandering to other people's ranches or farms and finding work as simply remarkable.

And as far as Craig trying to join the military by lying about his age - so did tens of thousands of others! 

So, this so-called Bi-Polar kid serves in the Army? With no disciplinary actions against him. He got along with hundreds of other soldiers? He was discharged early that is true. But are the reasons for that from serious emotional problems? This I don't know.

Then after the military he goes to Dallas and is humble enough to take on the job of dishwasher until he could find something better?

I too had to wash dishes in my later teens. 2 years worth!

I didn't have the funds to go back to school ( yet I had to pay the rent and feed myself ) and I didn't have any connections to higher paying work through friends or family or a good job market in this small town area or maybe even just a lucky break.

I too wasn't too proud to do this honest work until I could finally find something better. To me it was a sign of character to keep doing this kind of work when so many made fun of it.

And when I view Mark Lane's "Two Men In Dallas" documentary and Roger Craig's interview, I see a calm and thoughtful and perceptive Roger Craig.

 Bi-Polar people are usually manic in their speaking. Craig seems the opposite.

And when Ms. Palmer disparages Craig and his knowledge of rifles ( regarding whether the 6th floor rifle found was a Mauser versus an Italian MC ) ...you are struck by Ms. Palmer's ignorance of Constable Seymour Weitzman's ( a former sporting goods store manager and gun buff ) incredible on-site statement - with her father right next to Weitzman when he said this ... that "the rife was a Mauser."

Let alone the fact of the entire national media reporting this found rifle as a Mauser also for the first day or two.

And even if Roger Craig cheated on his wife and wasn't a good provider after being attacked and injured and followed and harassed ( for years!)  I believe that if anyone had to go through "half" of what Roger Craig went through they themselves could very easily also lose their sense of self and maybe even their moral compass from time to time and to different degrees. Judging Craig's over-all  character in this regard is ridiculous.

And whether Craig confronted someone on the steps of the TXSBD or above the grassy knoll who stated they were Secret Service, there is corroboration by other people, including DPD Officer Smith, who said they also confronted men in this area who stated they were Secret Service (even producing such I.D.! )  which the Secret Service themselves denied having there.

Sorry, Roger Craig cannot be downplayed as simply some Bi-Polar loser who was only after the easy money way out and to satisfy some extreme need for importance, attention and pity.  His end of life woes make all the sense in the world relative to his years of 24 hour-a-day physical pain and emotional and work ending stress.

I just viewed 2/3rds of the 4th video.

I am really wondering about some aspects of this.

When the subject of the RFK - girl in the polka dot dress came up, I just had to stop and consider the validity of keeping an open mind.

I'm not getting the point about Vicki and her extraordinary connection to the story. Of how she apparently knew things  beyond what some would consider normal.

Was she brought into some kind of mind-control program starting with strange phone calls to her from people she did not know?

I won't judge however.

I've read so many other strange tales regarding the assassination with seemingly improbable aspects yet still containing enough elements of truth ( as I perceive them) that I couldn't dismiss them as totally untrue.

I am about the same age ( slightly younger ) as Mr. Johnson. 

And I will say this about memories of actions and conversations from 50 years previous.

For some reason I can still recall "word for word" a few conversations ( if brief enough ) I had with people who made an impression on me from that long ago.

Yes, I can recall specific conversations with a girl or two whom I had my biggest crushes on. That kind of girl-to-boy interaction at that age is a very,very powerful emotion thing.

I can also still recall the exact words a fellow Junior High school student ( I even remember his name - John Nor---) yelled while we were out playing basketball on November 22nd, 1963.

John ran out to the football field and basketball courts and yelled to us all..."the president's been shot!"

He ran back to the school and our PE teachers got together for a brief second or two and marched us all back to the gym to shower and dress and report to our home rooms.

There our tearful home room teacher told us what they were hearing about JFK and said we could all go home at the end of that class.

I think at least half of all people can definitely recall specific conversations ( with specific words ) even 50 years previous if they are about very emotionally powerful events, especially the JFK/Ruby/Oswald one

Just reflecting on the point that I do think we can sometimes remember certain events (and specific words said during these)  even 50 years after they happen.

Mr. Johnson, could you share more of your thoughts on the shared aspects of your recollections of the Phillips, Oswald, Veciana meeting with Veciana's recollection of this same meeting?

Part of my sense of credibility regards your story relies on the very similar points ( to your specifics recollections )  that Veciana makes such as he and Phillips going to a coffee shop shortly after first meeting.

Did Veciana state in public this specific aspect of the meeting before ever meeting or conversing with you?

And did you state this coffee shop aspect of the recollection before ever hearing Veciana share this in any public domain way?

I guess what I am looking for is something that links your recollections and Veciana's in a way that could not be explained by either one of you hearing such from the other before you came out with your story.

At this initial point of hearing your Phillips, Veciana,Oswald meeting story my life experience gut instincts tell me you what you are relating is the truth as you know it.

Thank you Mr. S.

I guess it's just another one of those inconvenient "coincidences" that of the Chief Curry stated small number of Dallas police personnel "that even knew" Jack Ruby ( what was the number Curry stated - "50 out of 700?" ) that so many of those 50 just happened to be "right there" next to Ruby when he walked into the Dallas Police Department basement and got within feet of Oswald.

Ruby stated in his Warren Commission testimony that he recognized Sam Pierce ( Ruby calls him by his first name "Sam" ) at the ramp opening. Standing "right next" to Ruby when Ruby leaped into wide open Oswald's path was long time Ruby acquaintance ( 12 years ) Dallas officer William "Blackie" Harrison and across from Harrison was another officer who personally knew Ruby.  Officer Patrick Dean ( in charge of basement security that morning ) knew Jack Ruby as did Oswald body guard escort Jim Leavelle ( who hated Oswald much more for his belief he killed one of his fellow officers than whether Oswald killed JFK ) and who knows how many others of that "small group of 50 men" Curry mentioned just happened to be in the Oswald transfer area?

All "right there" close to Ruby in his brief DPD basement appearance?

Hmmm.

You might also want to see the You Tube video titled "Chief Curry Lies About His Men Recognizing Ruby " where Chief Curry states that  "we have not been able to find any of our men who recognized Jack Ruby during the time of the transfer."

Who gained more by JFK's death?

Castro and the Russians?

Or LBJ, Hoover ( whom JFK was replacing after a 2nd term win) the CIA and it's long time hierarchy which Kennedy vowed to scatter to the winds, the Mafia which Hoover protected, Texas oil ( world's richest men at the time )  those who viciously hated blacks ( including Secret Service ) and saw JFK  as their protector and promoter, old guard military leadership who considered JFK to be an upstart who dared talked down to them, cold war MIC which had a total bag man in LBJ, extreme right wing nuts ( also racist ) like Walker-Banister, Eastern establishment wealth who felt JFK'S foreign and even domestic policy sympathies ( think Federal Reserve )  might truly threaten their interests and influence, JFK hating and blaming anti-Castro Cubans ... and on and on and on.

The wealthiest oil families celebrated JFK's brutal slaughter ( Murcheson maid May Newman - "The champagne and caviar flowed like for a week" ) as did hundreds of thousands if not millions of black hating southerners ( so many poor ) including school children who cheered in their classrooms at the news!

JFK was viciously hated by millions in his own country and society much more than anyone outside of it. To a murder celebrating degree!

JFK's slaughter should have much more awakened us all to the true reality of how sick with hatred and arrogantly corrupted our country and society had become in JFK's time.

And include the unprecedented corruption of our constitutional democracy 3 tiered balance government by non-elected groups whose power and influence was superseding those three and had even compromised our truth seeking fourth estate.

DALLAS, Nov. 24, 1963 (UPI) - Dr. Malcolm O. Perry said today that accused presidential assassin Lee Harvey Oswald was "lethally injured" by the time he arrived at Parkland Hospital's emergency room. -- "I could tell he was lethally injured when he came in," Perry said.

Dr. Tom Shires, chief of surgery at Parkland, said however that Oswald had an outside chance.

Shires made this formal statement:

"We first saw Mr. Oswald in the Parkland emergency room No. 2 around 11:30 a.m. (CST) Sunday, Nov. 24. At that time, he was unconscious, had no blood pressure, but made agonal respiratory efforts (dying gasps).

"The endotracheal tube was placed (in his throat to aid breathing) by Dr. M.T. Jenkins, chief of anesthesia. Intravenous fluids and blood were started (in the veins).

"There was a gunshot wound entrance over the left lower lateral (lower left rids) chest wall and the bullet could be felt in the subcutaneous tissue (beneath the skin) on the opposite side of the body, over the right lower lateral chest cage.

"It was probable, from his condition, that the bullet had injured the major blood vessels, aorta (main artery from the heart) and vena cava below the diaphragm. Consequently, he was taken immediately to the operating room and through a mid-line abdominal incision, the abdomen was exposed.

"Several liters (a liter is 1.057 quarts) of blood were immediately encountered. Exploration revealed that the bullet had gone from the left to right, injuring the spleen, pancreas, aorta, vena cava, right kidney and right lobe of the liver. The bullet then came to rest in the right chest wall.

"The major bleeding points were then identified and controlled. At this time, there was a low but measurable blood pressure.

"Massive transfusions were being given in multiple sites. At this time cardiac arrest occurred (his heart stopped). The left chest was opened and the heart was found in standstill.

"Cardiac massage was started and a pulse obtained with massage. Cardiac fibrillation (rapid and weak heart flutter) ensued and in spite of intercardiac (injected directly into the heart) drugs, and the fibrillation, no effective heart beat was ever established. When the signs of death were absolute, he was pronounced dead at 1:07 p.m.

"The patient never regained consciousness and died of massive injury from a close range gunshot wound."

After the formal statement, Shires said that the type of "shock" suffered by Oswald was "the most effective type" to kill people.

He explained there are about six quarts of blood overall in the body.

"Two thirds of it had emptied into the abdominal cavity," he said.

He said that while on the operating table, Oswald "groaned a time or two," but otherwise made no sounds.

Shires said that some people have been known to recover from the type of wound that killed Oswald.

"It all depends on the massive amount of blood lost, and how quick you can arrest the blood flow," he said. "You just don't know about this type of wound."

He said that while Oswald was on the operating table, he received nearly 15 pints of blood (nearly two gallons, or more than a complete replacement of all the blood in Oswald's body).

"I suppose he was conscious for a few minutes after he was shot, but when he got to the emergency room the pupils of his eyes were beginning to dilate in the method of dying persons," the doctor said.

He explained that a dying person goes through this pupil dilation from lack of blood in the brain.

He said that President Kennedy's eyes were already dilated when he was brought into the emergency room. In other words, Kennedy died faster than his accused assassin.

Kennedy's wound was directly in the brain which kills quicker than a wound in the abdomen, the doctor said.

Sounds like there was little that the third year med student could do. Almost nothing really.

What a loss to the world as far as being able to determine the who, why and how of JFK's death when Oswald's personal safety was left in the hands of the DPD.

I am in 100% agreement with Donald Jeffries's assessment.

Marina wants all the documentation released?

How about Lee's tax records?

"If it's true" that Marina has the legal right and power to authorize the public release of these, then this would be a huge addition to the documentation record.

I state this without knowing whether this legal situation is true or that Lee's tax records would be altered or even destroyed even if she authorized their release.

Marina states in the latter part of her letter that she has no money to leave her grand children?

I didn't know that her financial asset situation in her older age was such.

I always assumed ( guess I was wrong ) that life with this Porter fellow was at least somewhat more secure than the average persons on fixed retirement incomes.

And did Marina spend the money given to her as donations and that $100,000+ book ( or film? ) advance she received back in 1964?

$100,000+ ( plus thousands more in sympathy donations ) back in 1964 would be close to $750,000 in today's money.

Value of $100,000 in 1964. Inflation Calculator for Today's Dollars

7 hours ago, Michael Clark said:

Fascinating thread. And, according to Tim, it sounds like a fascinating period of time on this forum. Looks like a good place to dig around.

Cheers,

Michael

Yes Michael, totally agree.

I don't believe that so many attempts to injure and even kill someone like Roger Craig could take place without it being initiated by his actions and words threatening someone greatly. Someone of power.

I sure wish I had known about Roger Craig's financial and work struggles on top of his years of horrible pain injuries which all together would break any man eventually.

I was just a teenager and in my early twenties when he was alive.  I almost can't believe that thousands of people like me wouldn't have gladly sent what funds they could to Craig and his family for many years to help him survive after all he sacrificed for the truth.

Garrison got many, many tens of thousands of donated dollars in his investigation effort.

Tippit's wife got what?  ...the equivalent of a million dollars from sympathetic folks?  And Marina Oswald did very well in that department also.

But it sounds as if there was a relatively small amount of financial help for this unsung hero.

What a shame.

Roger Craig cleary mentiones Weitzman in Mark Lane's Doc. "Two Men In Dallas."

And Boone.

5 hours ago, Ray Mitcham said:

I remember reading a couple of years ago, that Weitzman's daughter said that her dad privately maintained till his death that it was a Mauser he found in the TSDB. Unfortunately I don't remember where I read it. Anybody else ever see the comment?

Yes, I would like to know more about Weitzman's daughter's statement.

And yes, Weitzman doesn't even mention Roger Craig as if he wasn't there. Same thing with Eugene Boone in the "Trial Of Lee Harvey Oswald."

Maybe Boone wasn't asked the right question, but Craig's recounting where he was on the 6th floor and as close to Boone and Weitzman as mere feet. you would think Boone would have done so.

Why would they both not mention Craig's close proximity to them in those most important minutes of discovery?

On 11/24/2009 at 11:29 AM, Bernice Moore said:

THEORY: BARKER IN DALLAS ON NOVEMBER 22, 1963?

When Michael Canfield visited Dallas in April 1975 he interviewed Seymour Weitzman, who was in a home for aged veterans. Seymour Weitzman had a nervous breakdown in June 1972 - shortly after Watergate. He requested that his doctor, Charles Laburda, be present during the interview. Seymour Weitzman told Michael Canfield he had encountered a Secret Service Agent in the parking lot who produced credentials and told him everything was under control. He described the man as being of medium height, dark hair and wearing a light windbreaker. Michael Canfield showed him photographs of Watergate burglars STURGIS and BARKER, and asked him if either of these men resembled the "Secret Service Agent" he had encountered on November 22, 1963. He pointed to BERNARD BARKER. He told Michael Canfield: "I can't remember for sure, but it looked like him. Couldn't swear it was him though...anyway so many witnesses are dead...two Cubans once forced their way into my house and waited for me when I got home. I had to chase them out with my service revolver...I feared for my life." A recent JFK Records Collection Computer search revealed that one page of a Warren Commission document that dealt with Seymour Weitzman and the tramps was referred to another agency for review. [NARA 180-10095-10367; see 180-10095-10355] When the HSCA attempted to question Seymour Weitzman, Dr. Charles Laburda objected: "Since Mr. Weitzman was treated for emotional illness for many years...information sought from him should be extracted from his testimony and depositions made at that time [1963 to 1964]." [ltr. VA Laburda 6.1.78] Seymour Weitzman, born January 28, 1922, died in July 1985.

http://www.ajweberman.com/nodules2/nodulec19.htm

On 11/24/2009 at 8:18 AM, Bernice Moore said:

ROBIN ...I AM THINKING THAT GRODEN'S MAUSER THEORY AS YOU CALL IT ...WAS ALSO SHARED BY SHAW AND OTHER EARLY RESEARCHERS...THEY REPORTED ON SUCH IN HIS BOOK COVER-UP..NOT POSITIVE...WOULD HAVE TO CHECK..BUT THE PHOTO SPOKEN OF WAS NOT THIS ONE..I BELIEVE IT IS WAS STATED AS BEING TAKEN OF AN OFFICER BRINGING IT DOWN HOLDING IT UP AS HE CARRIED IT DOWN THE FIRE ESCAPE STAIRS AT THE SIDE OF THE TSBD..FROM THE ROOF......PLUS IT WAS I BELIEVE 3 DAYS OR LONGER BEFORE THE DPD AND AUTHOURITYS FINALLY CALLED IT A M/C THEY KEPT STATING ''SEE EARLY REPORTS''..IT WAS A MAUSER I BELIEVE WADE ALSO DID AND THE NEWSPAPERS AND TV REPORTS ..AS THE AUTHOURITIES KEPT REPORTING IT AS A MAUSER...AND SO THAT IS WHAT THEY CONTINUED TO REPORT.THANKS ..B...

Interesting. I didn't know anything about Weitzman's mental breakdown and incarceration in an institution.

I will immediately dig into what info I can find on this.

His nervous public confession about making a mistake on the identification of the 6th floor rifle always seemed unsettling to my gut feeling instincts.

1 hour ago, Paul Trejo said:

Joe,

Thanks for setting aside for the time being the claims made by Buddy Walthers about Michael Paine.   I agree to focus on the WC testimony of Michael Paine at this time.

Here is my feedback.

1. Michael Paine and Ruth Paine were separated from September 1962 through November 1963.  Michael took an apartment near Bell Helicopter, and virtually lived at the office. 

Paul are you claiming that you know for sure that Michael Paine did physically go to his office for any amount of time on Saturday 11,23,1963?

2. However, Michael Paine loved his two children, and he visited twice a week, and he called Ruth Paine very regularly -- from his office.  There could be a dozen of these calls every week.

True, but this whole question about the " who's responsible" call only deals with the two days 11,22,1963 and 11,23,1963.

3. Attorney Liebeler was not being specific enough.

True, which gave Michael Paine the broader time frame truth answering escape out.

4. I agree that Liebeler began his line of questioning refering -- in a clumsy manner -- to the controversial phone call that we all know as the CAPTAIN PAUL BARGER wire-tap.

Clumsy manner?  Regards the dates?

5. Yet this was not under evidence as such.  Liebeler didn't name Captain Barger, and didn't call it a wire-tap.

But Liebeler still took this report seriously enough to confront Michael Paine directly about it.

6.  Still, Michael Paine had already heard the accusations that he "knew" who killed JFK, so Michael was ready for it.

7.  Michael Paine began with the many rumors he had heard -- that his phone was tapped, but nobody would admit it was tapped -- that the phone numbers were from out of state, but nobody would admit it -- that the FBI was involved -- that the FBI wasn't involved -- and a whole chaos of State secrets and lies.

8.  Then Liebeler shut that down.  Liebeler would ask the questions.  Just answer.  Liebeler then asked very specifically about a call on Saturday, November 23rd, 1963. 

Yes, Liebeler specifically asked about a call only "on that specific day".  Now that was clumsy ...  or incompetently too narrow?

9.  OK, Michael Paine would answer that.  What choice did he have?  Liebeler is the attorney.   Michael was on the witness stand.

What choice did Michael Paine have?  He had a choice to tell " the whole truth"  including what he and Ruth may have said to each other in other calls those two days.

10.  As for Saturday and the calls made between Michael and Ruth that day -- and whether Michael may have called Ruth from his office phone, please consider:

10.1.  We know that Michael Paine went back to sleep at his apartment on Friday night, 11/22/1963.  This is in testimony.

10.2.  Given that Michael Paine had no girl friend or other relationship during that time..he lived alone in his apartment...

10.3.  Given that Michael Paine's apartment was walking distance from Bell Helicopter, and that Michael worked a lot of overtime...

10.4.  Given that Michael Paine called Ruth several times a week, as was his habit...

10.5.  The odds are good that Michael Paine went to work on Saturday morning, 11/23/1963 and called Ruth from his office phone.

"The odds are good that Michael Paine went to work on Saturday morning." ?  On any typical Saturday I could buy that suggested scenario.

But PLEASE, the Saturday of 11,23,1963 was unlike any typical American Saturday one could ever imagine. For all Americans. Everyone was still in an unprecedented once or twice in a lifetime state of shock.

Now imagine how much greater this shock and concern and anxiety was for someone like Michael Paine ... that entire weekend! 

His wife and children's home was instantly barged in on and intruded upon and they were surrounded by a squadron of intimidating high energy suspicion minded police agency personnel and being hustled to and from the police station, not too mention the pressure from the press.  Things clearly must have been frighteningly traumatic, chaotic, scary and quite fragile for everyone involved and especially Michael's young family.

Why would Michael Paine waste any time going to his office that very next day (Saturday ) to do anything except maybe quickly picking up something he felt he absolutely needed in his family's extreme time of need fatherly protection role?

And heck, even Jack Ruby closed up shop that entire weekend!

 

11.  Michael and Ruth Paine spoke on the telephone frequently -- from many different phones.  During the JFK assassination weekend, when Marina Oswald was under seige, Ruth reached out of Michael more frequently than usual.

But the phone tap report specifically states this one call was between Ruth's home phone and Michael Paine's work office phone. That narrows down the time frame to when they were both in those phone locations at the same time period on those two days.

1 hour ago, Paul Trejo said:

12.  Liebeler's questions to Michael Paine were harsh, accusatory and ironically unclear and messy.  Liebeler had something to hide, apparently.

13.  Probably an illegal wiretap was what Liebeler was trying to conceal.

14.  Michael Paine had no reason to lie -- he and Ruth had spoken on 11/22/1963 -- soon after the JFK shots -- and said, "We both know who is responsible."  And by that, Ruth Paine said, they meant generically responsible, i.e. the Radical Right in Dallas which had published the handbill, WANTED FOR TREASON: JFK.

15.  That phone conversation was not a crime.  Therefore the Paine's had nothing to hide.  Michael Paine would have answered about it, if the question had been clear.  Objective readers can tell that a question about an 11/22/1963 phone call, or its content, was never made clear to Micheal.

16.  Liebeler could not press the point because he was sitting on a State Crime -- an illegal wire tap.

17.  Ruth Paine suggested this to me on 12/12/2015.  "Who tapped us?  Why?  Why won't they come forward to this very day?"

18.  That's the real question, Joe, and I think you're evading it.  "Who tapped the Paines?  Why?  Why won't they come forward?"

19.  Even years later, when Captain Paul Barger finally came forward, he claimed it was a telephone lineman's "accident."  Really?

20.  Now -- as for that final answer by Michael Paine:

20.1.  Liebeler's question;  "Did you make any remark to the effect that you knew who was responsible?"

20.2.  Be honest -- the question was accusing Michael Paine of being an accomplice (at least after the fact) in the JFK assassination.

20.3.  Liebeler should have asked, "Did you say, 'We both know who's responsible?' to Ruth?"

20.4.  Then Michael could have answered, "Yes, we both knew that whoever published the WANTED FOR TREASON: JFK handbills was responsible."

20.5.  But that wasn't the intent of Liebeler's question.  And further, Captain Paul Barger added a fib to his handwritten transcript of the illegal wire tap.

20.6.  Remember that Paul Barger forged: "The male voice said, 'He felt sure that Lee Harvey Oswald was the killer."

20.7.  That was the REAL context of Liebeler's question.  Everybody there knew it.  Michael Paine had already heard the accusation.

20.8.  Therefore, under the circumstances, Micheal Paine's answer was true, correct, and the only rational answer.

21.  Again, Joe, Michael Paine never denied the 11/22/1963 ever took place -- but he was simply never honestly asked about it.  Plain as day.

22.  Both Ruth Paine and Michael Paine told the truth. 

23.  We can be absolutely certain of it, given the Inquisition mood of the USA in those days.  They would have been charged with perjury in a heartbeat.

24.  Finally, Joe, please don't raise what Buddy Walthers, that Big Fibber, claimed that Michael Paine said.  IMHO, Walther's was part of a larger plot to frame LHO and anybody he knew as Communists in an rumored Communist plot to kill JFK -- a rumor that was heard by US Secretary of State Dean Rusk before the day was over.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

She was a stalwart that I respected, appreciated and even liked as a person, just by reading her years worth of postings and feeling her energy from them.

What a sad loss.

Thank you for the time taken to respond.

Liebeler asked Michael Paine this one sentence, easy to understand question:

"Did you make any remark to the effect that you knew who was responsible?"  No dates mentioned.

Paine responds " ... no, I did not."

Liebeler "You are positive in your recollection that you did not?" Again no call date mentioned.

Paine " Yes."

Paine obviously used Liebeler's previous specific time date reference of 11,23,1963 ( versus 11,22,1963 ) as a convenient escape from having to answer a broader and more inclusive truth seeking question of  "Did you AT ANY TIME AND DURING ANY OF YOUR CALLS TO YOUR WIFE RUTH during this entire weekend time period say you knew who was responsible?"

One must wonder what Michael Paine's answer would have been to this broader and more thorough time frame question, which any competent and seriously seeking the truth attorney would have asked.

Paul, if you totally believe Ruth Paine's comment to you that the "who's responsible" discussion did indeed take place in at least one of the calls between her and Michael Paine that weekend, then you have to accept that Michael Paine did not answer Liebeler's question with the  "whole truth" , the broader time frame truth.

Of course one can clearly understand the motivation behind Michael Paine's stating his "who's responsible" denial answer, that he felt he could say without committing perjury because the question from Liebeler was framed only in the 11,23,1963 time period context.  

And that would logically be self-preservation from the super charged investigative suspicion onslaught he knew would befall him if he ever admitted saying the reported ominous intrigue quote to his wife Ruth during any of their calls between each other that entire weekend.

And it makes perfect sense that Ruth's phone would be tapped by the FBI considering their knowledge of and interest in Lee Harvey Oswald and his Russian born wife.

At that time agent Hosty was active in his monitoring of them both. 

Paul I would like to share and debate opinions and views with you on this subject.

Whatever different takes you have on this one and so many others, you are decently civil in debating your views in my opinion and I respect that.

In regards to your point of Liebeler perhaps just " bungling his notes" when he states to Michael Paine a different day for the "who's responsible call" I disagree.

Whatever date Liebeler uses for the reported call, he clearly states to Michael Paine that the report cites a call between the numbers of Ruth Paine's "home phone" and Michael Paine's "office phone."

Paine knew this part of the reported call "between his wife's number and his office number"  was the important crux of the report because it places the call on the afternoon of the assassination and not on Saturday. 

I feel this is so, based on the assumption that Michael Paine didn't go into his workplace office on the next day 11,23,1963.

I may be wrong about that so if anyone knows differently, please correct me.

And Paine then says in regards to his 11,23,1963 time frame activities location "I was in the police station again, and I think I called her from there."

Paine uses Liebeler's stated next day date as a reference point to place himself in a phone call making location other than his office.

Which to me is Paine's way of suggesting and promoting the reported call record as wrong and/or not legitimate.

So right at this point, Liebeler has to decide whether the reported call record ( stating this was between Ruth's home phone number and Paine's office number ) is correct and legitimate and Michael Paine is lying, or the call record is incorrect and illegitimate and Michael Paine is telling the truth.

And so do we.

And Paine adds...

2 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Mr. LIEBELER - Did you make any remark to the effect that you knew who was responsible? 
Mr. PAINE - And I don't know who the assassin is or was; no, so I did not. 
Mr. LIEBELER - You are positive in your recollection that you made no such remark? 
Mr. PAINE - Yes. 

Instead of Paine just answering a simple and firm "yes" or "no" to Liebeler's first question;  "did you make any remark to the effect that you knew who was responsible?" he instead feels a need to answer with a qualifier ... "And I don't know who the assassin is or was: no, so I did not." ?

Sounds like Oswald's kind of round-about response to a reporter's question "did you kill the President?" in the Dallas Police building Friday night.

"No, I have not been charged with that, the first I had heard this was when a reporter in the hall axed me that question."

And then when Liebeler asks " You are positive in your recollection that you made no such remark?

Paine then replies with a simple "Yes."

But it's all about the date of this reported call between Michael Paine and Ruth Paine and whether the call numbers were Ruth's home phone and Michael Paine's office phone.

Not to mention the discrepancy of Ruth Paine admitting ( according to you Paul ) that the "who's responsible" discussion did indeed take place in the call versus Michael Paine saying it didn't.

Who's telling the truth here..Ruth Paine?...or Michael Paine?

I have been scouring Paine's WC testimony.

Again I must admit I am not as informed as I should be. Paine did indeed know of and see some of Oswald's received mailings such as the magazine the Worker.

He even discussed this with Oswald. Therefore my comments regarding Michael Paine instantly knowing what Buddy Walther's pulled out of one of Oswald's file boxes as a point of suspicion, are not as valid as I suggested they were.

Mr. LIEBELER - Now, there has been a report that on November 23, 1963, there was a telephone call between a man and a woman, between the numbers of your residence and the number of your office, in which the man was reported to have said in words or substance, "We both know who is responsible for the assassination." Have you been asked about this before? 
Mr. PAINE - I had heard that--I didn't know it was associated with our numbers. I had heard a report that some telephone operator had listened in on a conversation somewhere, I don't know where it was. I thought it was some other part of the country. 
Mr. LIEBELER - Did you talk to your wife on the telephone at any time during Saturday, November 23, on the telephone? 
Mr. PAINE - I was in the police station again, and I think I called her from there. 
Mr. LIEBELER - Did you make any remark to the effect that you knew who was responsible? 
Mr. PAINE - And I don't know who the assassin is or was; no, so I did not. 
Mr. LIEBELER - You are positive in your recollection that you made no such remark? 
Mr. PAINE - Yes. 

According to Paul Trejo, Ruth Paine stated clearly that the call and it's "we both know who's responsible" conversation did happen. If this is the truth, then Michael Paine is doing a lot of purposeful obfuscating if not lying in his answers here to Liebeler about his knowledge of the call, what was said in it and when it occurred.

Liebeler says to Michael Paine that the report cites " a call between a man and a woman, between the numbers of your residence and the number of your office" and recounts the "who's responsible" conversation in it.

Paine responds that "I had heard that--I didn't know it was associated with our numbers." " I don't know where it was. I thought it was some other part of the country." ???

That sure sounds like a weak diversion response. If this reported call with it's heavy suspicion arousing conversation didn't happen and Paine clearly knew this ... why not just flat out say this without adding some meaningless meandering " I don't know where it was. I thought it was some other part of the country." ?

When Leibeler then asks Paine about whether he talked to his wife Ruth on "specifically" the 23rd of November versus the 22nd,  he allows Paine to evade and dissipate the "home residence number to his office number " call record question and to claim a different time and location alibi that he was at the police station and not in his office ( Paine wouldn't be in his office on a Saturday, especially that Saturday ) when  "I think I called her from there."  

This Saturday versus Friday call question by Liebeler and answer from Paine seems to me illogically contrived in their different time frame context and therefore highly suspicious in their implications.

13 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Joe,

I think the key to remember is that Buddy Walthers was deliberately giving out false information.  He knew that he had put four "little metal boxes" in his trunk -- but he told Dallas police that he "saw six or seven metal filing cabinets full of names of Castro supporters."

It turned out that one of those "little metal boxes" had some FPCC fliers in them, from New Orleans.   

See how Buddy Walthers was willing to give out false information -- very deliberately?

OK -- if you see that, then please tell me why you believe anything else Buddy Walthers' had to say.   

By this I mean, when he describes what Michael Paine said -- why do you think that was true?  

That is, why would you try to find out why Michael Paine said that?   The real question is why Buddy Walthers accused Michael Paine of saying it.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Paul, to me Buddy Walthers wasn't sophisticated and clever enough to give out false or made up information and do so capably without serious discrepancies quickly and easily being detected. His highest career position before becoming a Dallas County Sheriff was what... taxi driver?

There were some really negative statements about his personal character ( at least from Sheriff Roger Craig who worked with Walthers for years ) that could indicate Walther's may not have been a shining example of police oath integrity and I sense some of those charges could have been true.

But, I also believe that enough of Walther's testimony regards what went on at the Paine home when he and other officers arrived and searched the home was more honest and accurate than his detractors make out.

I believe he and others did see some FPC pamphlets among the items in the Paine garage. 

But my suspicion interest in the Paine home and garage search is more drawn toward Michael Paine.

He says to Walthers that Oswald is a Communist. But in another interview he says that the first conversation he ever had with Oswald, that Oswald seemed dissatisfied with both political systems here and in Russia, and that he " Oswald" indicated to Paine that he was a "Marxist / socialist " more than a Communist.

Michael Paine seemed to be "almost too willing" to share information about Oswald that incriminated Oswald and he didn't even see or talk to Oswald that much.

Paine knows exactly what Walthers is looking at when he pulls some "letter head" material from one of the file cabinets? That those are correspondences from Russia to Oswald? How could Paine be so on-the-spot specific knowledgeable about those pulled out Oswald papers?

Certainly Oswald didn't bring this folder out and show it to Paine and tell him what was in it.

When I read Micheal Paine's WC testimony I see just enough seemingly purposeful vagueness in his recounting of certain areas of his adult and young adult political interest background history and conversations and activities with Oswald to arouse my suspicion.

I think Micheal Paine's extra-curricular pro-active interest in going to political group meetings and at least one extreme far right one and instigating political conversations with Lee Oswald indicate an inclination towards something way beyond just a passing and passive interest.

And what really rattles my Michael Paine suspicion cage is when Liebeler leads him with a wrong date for the reported "we know who's responsible" call.

Liebeler changing that date in his question to Paine gives Paine "an out" in dismissing and downplaying that call, which Paine needed and jumped on.

And Paine's response and answer to that question was so dumbly oblique ( and purposely so ) that it literally sounded like jibberish.

Please,go back and reread Michael Paine's answer to Liebeler's questions about that call.

Paine was very uncomfortable with that question and stumbled noticeably past it.

And if that call was indeed on 11,22,1963, and not on 11,23,1963, then both Liebeler and Paine must be considered with more valid suspicion than less.

I just believe that Michael Paine knew much more about so many things. And that his role in this whole affair has never been adequately explained.

I would really like to know ( straight from Marina) whether Tunheim's statement that she refused to have Oswald's tax records released is true.

If it is, then I would want to know why.  If she refutes this statement by Tunheim, and says she was never asked...then I would be very suspicious of Tunheim.

Marina is still alive.

I sure would like to know how to present this question to her.

3 comments:

Dennis Bartholomew said...

I noted the following in Tunheim's remarks:

We were prohibited by law from releasing Oswald’s tax records unfortunately, they were in those files, but by law would not allow us to do that, we needed Marina Oswald’s permission that she refused to give, so those records were not released.

Marina still withholding permission after all these years? To what extent do researchers believe Marina to be part of the JFK cover-up, and did she play a role for Soviet intelligence? 

March 24, 2017 at 10:56 AM   Marina Oswald repeated so many times in her interviews over the years that she wished the full truth would come out about the JFK assassination. That the American people should know the truth.  Then "why" why on Earth would she refuse to let Lee Oswald's tax records to be released?   Now THERE'S an intriguing question for her to answer.