Derek Thibeault

I would assume if she saw the rifle or a weapon she would have said so. It just helps prove her opinion that he did it. There was no rifle in the garage. 

So what you are saying is we use Ruth Paine when it suits us but discard her when it doesn't?

I read that we have 50 witnesses that saw the presidential limo stop before the fatal head shot. I watched Doug Horne's doc on the Zapruder film, which was very good and shows a strong case of alteration of the Zapruder film that would have taken those frames out among other changes. If you believe in those items as I do, how would have Greer known when to stop the limo? At a certain place, after hearing the first shot(which would be tough), a sign(Umbrella man, other), completely by accident, or other? I don't buy into Greer shooting Kennedy. Also if Greer is involved by stopping on purpose, isn't that a huge risk, hoping he is not shot in the process, putting faith in the gunmen not to miss?

4 hours ago, David Josephs said:

https://kennedysandking.com/content/oswald-on-november-22-1963

I wrote a piece assuming Oswald must have had a plan....   not so much...

DJ

Thanks great article. It all makes sense...a lot of it's common sense i.e. Oswald not knowing the parade route ahead of time so he could get a job at TSBD. Curious how the lone nut crew would debate your article. It sounds like it was random that Oswald went home that night and perhaps Frazier and his sister may have been used to show potential guilt.

2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Derek:

Yes The Thin Blue Line was set in the Dallas Police Department.  Joe McBride refers to it often in his book on the Tippit case, Into the Nightmare.

 

Larry S:  As a result of the Innocence Project, we have learned that manufacturing of evidence is unfortunately common in our criminal justice system.   

If I recall correctly, that was the group Watkins worked with to uncover just how bad the DPD was.

BTW, if you read my book, the so called gun sack was an excellent example of this double decker of malfeasance.  As I argue, with help from Gil Jesus, the FBI found out what the DPD had done.  See, the TSBD did not order its paper and tape from a manufacturer but from a supplier.  Therefore, not every order was the same. It varied in thickness and hue. The FBI found this out when they tried to duplicate the so called gun sack themselves at the TSBD.  This is one reason for the two FBI reports, one saying that the sack exhibited the same "observable characteristics" as the paper in use at the Depository while the other said it was "not identical".

The FBI was using CYA tactics after they discovered the DPD perfidy. (DiEugenio, The JFK Assassination: The Evidence Today, p. 204)

Yes, I have been dying to read McBride's book but for some reason, it was fairly expensive. I think I will pick up Lisa's RFK book next. I had just finished Mary's Mosiac which was a good read and I know some of you here aren't fans, read the article at Kennedys and King about it. I had read that McBride's book is the best on the Tippett murder.

10 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Do you know how easy it would have been to say that he brought the rifle to work previously and stashed it?

The important thing was constructing the phony Klein's transaction.  Which the WC fell for hook, line and sinker .

Let me address one other point here, as I do in my book.  That is the whole idea of the corruption of the legal and judicial process.

As we later discovered, the DPD was the most compromised, corrupt, and rogue police department in any major city in America.  In fact, numerically speaking, Dallas outdid some states as far as framing innocent defendants.  They had it down to an art form. (DiEugenio, The JFK Assassination, pgs. 196-99)   If it had not been for the election of DA Craig Watkins, we might not have known just how bad it was.  And the cases that are exposed were mostly under the Wade/Fritz regime. Now considering the make up of the DPD, many Klansmen etc, and considering the statements of people like Alexander and Leavelle, there was no reason to suspect that technique would be suspended in this case.   And, as Pat Speer shows above,  there is ample evidence it was not.

Secondly, as I also discuss in my book, the antics of J. Edgar Hoover were also not exposed until too late. (ibid, pgs. 234-240)  Need I add that Hoover did not have any great love for the Kennedys?  He strongly suspected they would fire him in a second administration, which they were going to do. Therefore, as I show in my book--pages 240-70--the FBI was sometimes as bad as the DPD.  To me the outstanding example being he falsification of Ruby's polygraph, which not only the WC bought but many years later, Von Pein's heroine Jean Davison, bought into.  And this was years after the HSCA exposed it as a hoax.

Now, if you pile up two law enforcement bodies that were riddled with malfeasance, and you place them in a position where there is no check on them--since the WC was pretty rudderless, I mean what do you expect from the likes of  Dulles--what do you come up with?  A forensic mess.  And the WC accepted it.  In fact, if you study Specter, he piled on. And you do not have to rely upon proving instances of the falsification of the record to prove this. The first generation of critics--Meagher, Thompson, Weisberg, Lane--did not rely upon that exposure at all.  They just showed that the 26 volumes of evidence did not support the conclusions in the report. The late Margie Field wrote a whole book based upon a rigorous demonstration of that.

The American system of justice relies upon the adversary system.  Whether one likes or not,  that is the case.  When the defendant has no one to represent him, then the prosecution knows that the rules of evidence and testimony will not apply.  This is how one gets rogue prosecutions and miscarriages of justice.

The one commissioner who was on to this early was Richard Russell.  That is why he did his own inquiry and stopped going to most of the executive session hearings.  He realized it was a dog and pony show. He did his own inquiry and came to different conclusions.  Dulles, McCloy, and Ford knew he would be a problem at the last meeting.  They made sure his objections did not get into the record.  There was a fake stenographer at the last meeting playing her crossword puzzle instead of taking notes.  When Weisberg told Russell what happened, that was the beginning of the commissioners jumping ship.  

This ended  with Boggs saying that Hoover lied about everything.  

Which he did.

 

 

 

If I remember correctly The Thin Blue Line was in Dallas. It was an old boy's racist White Hat network.

I once thought Oswald was in place to try to stop the assassination ala The Parallax View but of course, I don't have enough evidence to ever prove that. Or at least to think he was stopping it.

15 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

BTW, again for newbies like Derek, the reason I quote Pat Speer on this is because, although I deal with this phony bag issue in my book, The JFK Assassination: The Evidence Today, I would have to type in lots of sentences since I do not have the book in Kindle form.

In the trade paper format I deal with this issue at length, from pages 199-206.  And from more than one angle.  

But Pat's  book is an online production.  So its easy to cut and paste.  But he does a good job on Stombaugh and the bag.

 

 

Bottom line: that rifle was not at the Paine home.  

 

 

I got your latest going through it now. Thanks for the links.

2 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:

I don't see what is so incriminating about Thursday instead of Friday. I thought the incriminating aspect of the Thursday visit was the allegation that Oswald picked up a rifle there and we have Ruth and Marina as witnesses even though they didn't see a rifle or Oswald with a rifle.

If LHO hadn't gone to the Paine's house that Thursday night, what would have prevented the official explanation from being "Oswald was keeping his rifle at his rooming house"? The only things that are lost are Oswald's change in usual schedule (hardly proof that he fired a rifle) and two questionable "witnesses."

Frazier and Randle are a different story.

I don't know enough about Linnie Mae Randle to feel like I could evaluate her honesty. I believe that I once read she was in the same social circle as Ruth Paine, and I mistrust anyone connected to the Paines. It would be foolish to believe that extraordinary pressure wasn't put on Randle to provide a story that would be seen as incriminating. All that said, I still don't have a solid reason to distrust her story of Oswald taking a long package with him that morning.

I think I have read and seen enough on Buell Wesley Frazier though, and I believe that he's honest. He has stuck to his story that the package Oswald had fit between LHO's cupped hand and LHO's armpit. If that's true, it couldn't have been the entire disassembled rifle.

So, was it part of the rifle, part of another rifle, another weapon, part of another weapon, another object, or just an unusually long sandwich? I don't know.

Frazier seems to be all over the place. It seems like Oswald might have been dropped off out front if so then Frazier is lying. There is not enough witnesses seeing Oswald enter the TSBD with or without a package. Something seems fishy with Frazier.

2 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

Then how can you reconcile all the witnesses at the Tippit scene? Why did so many identify OSWALD as the person they saw (if it really wasn't him)?

And how can you reconcile the fact that the bullet shells at the Tippit murder scene were tied conclusively to the same gun that Oswald had on him when he was arrested?

You turned on me fast LOL!

20 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Indeed, Derek. It's refreshing to see this kind of thinking on this forum. It's very rare. You're one of the very few here who actually thinks in a reasonable way regarding Oswald's out-of-the-ordinary behavior on Nov. 21 and 22.

Here's what I said to a CTer a few years ago....

"Don't you think it would be wise to evaluate Oswald's odd behavior on November 21 and 22 in connection with the physical evidence in the case, which all screams "Oswald"? Or would you prefer to isolate everything in a bubble and never be forced to assess Oswald's actions and movements in conjunction with all that physical evidence that came out of a gun owned by Lee Oswald? In my opinion, it's a package deal that fits together perfectly --- Oswald's actions + the physical evidence = Oswald's undeniable guilt in two murders in Dallas, Texas, on 11/22/63." -- DVP; June 2015

More:

https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/06/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-959.html

 

I am a CT'er but we can still believe Oswald did it or was involved just not alone. I personally believe he wasn't involved in either murder but that doesn't mean there aren't things that need to be reconciled. I think it was a good question from a Facebook group that has a louder LN contingent. No matter what stance you take there are unreconciled things that can't fully be explained without some leaps.

So it just happened to be a random reason. So say he just goes back to his apartment instead. They still set him up but they don't have him bringing the rifle to work. Was that just lucky added evidence that he went there? Does Marina force him there?  That's pretty lucky for the conspirators that he had an argument with her and had to go back there.

On the Fair Play for JFK site on FB, a person asked if us CT'ers all believe Oswald is a patsy(which not all CT'ers do) then how do we explain Oswald going to the Paine's house on Thursday instead of his norm. To set him up they would have to make sure he goes home Thursday. So I am curious how we would explain that. I could think of some possible reasons but I don't have any evidence. There are a lot smarter people here that could help me to figure this inconsistency out. I don't buy the curtain rods story. I do think Frazier is untrustworthy in a lot of his story along with his sister. So how do we get Oswald home so we can get him "bringing his rifle to work"? I apologize if this has been gone over somewhere else on the site. Thanks

On 9/8/2017 at 1:03 PM, Bart Kamp said:

Anatomy Of Lee Harvey Oswald's Interrogations

For those not knowing: I have been in the hospital a lot. I had eleven (!) operations on my foot from June 8th and in that period I was either in a hospital bed or heavily sedated in bed at home. I used this time period mainly to work on the next paper, when I had the clarity and will power to do so. Glad I did spend all that time on it, as it turned out to be much of a bigger mission than originally anticipated. The amount of 'players' of various law enforcement agencies involved and the legal side of this subject proved to be daunting tasks to take care of.

Just over 300 pages and filled to the brim with documentation, photographs and links to many videos about the many participants inside the D.P.D. bureau while Lee Oswald was in custody and being interrogated. Originally believed that there was not much around and that this would be the thinnest chapter of the 4, but due to the many people involved its size increased considerably and a picture has manifested itself nevertheless. And that is the main point of this exercise, to show a better overall picture of this particular situation inside the JFK Assassination

http://www.prayer-man.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Anatomy of Lee Harvey Oswalds Interrogations-final draft 060917.pdf

 

Can't wait to dig into this paper, amazing work!

The assassination of Lumumba has been criminally ignored.

From New Hampshire. Interested in the JFK assassination since I was a teen. Started with Henry Hurt's Reasonable Doubt in the '80s, Mark Lane, Crossfire by Jim Marrs and continued with many more of the well-known authors. I have read alternate views as well such as Case Closed and Reclaiming History. Also interested in the RFK and MLK cases. Amateur history buff.