Greg Doudna

21 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

I agree with you on most of this stuff, Greg. But I think it should be noted that officially Ruth Paine knew the Oswald letter to the embassy was important and yet, even so, failed to tell the Dallas Police about it on the day of the assassination. No, she held it to the next day to tell Hosty about it personally.

Another possibility is that Ruth phoned the FBI immediately after her concern and alarm at finding the note--she had a favorable contact with Hosty from the Nov 1 and 5 visits of Hosty--and was told some form of "thanks for calling--just hang on to it until I/we are there next on other grounds and we will pick it up from you then".

This would explain why Ruth said she was waiting for Hosty's next visit to give it to him, and would also explain why she did not turn it over to the Dallas police/sheriff's deputies on Fri Nov 22.

Paul B., I think there was Dixie Mafia involvement in the assassination. I think this has been almost in plain view, but missed for mistaken reasons. I am referring to the implications of Beverly Oliver as Babushka Lady.

Beverly Oliver/Babushka Lady

Once two photos commonly claimed to be of Babushka Lady are rightly rejected as being Babushka Lady (an older woman with headscarf down; and a sunglassed woman’s face on the other side of the JFK limousine passing by on Houston--neither being Babushka Lady), the remaining true photos of Babushka Lady match Beverly Oliver perfectly. Beverly Oliver says it was her; there is no other identification of that woman; the physical description fits including a posture quirk; and Beverly Oliver has shown the distinctive shoes she says she wore that day which match Babushka Lady’s shoes in one of the photos.

The Babushka Lady was in disguise, did not want to be easily identifiable. Beverly Oliver tells of having worn a wig. Then there is the headscarf and the coat. Babushka Lady talks to no one, no one knows who she is, she interacts with no one, simply photographs and then disappears to history… until 1970 when emerging as the widow of a leader of the Dixie Mafia.

Despite parking way down Commerce Street at the Colony Club (in her account in her book), Beverly Oliver in her almost unrecognizeable getup and with expensive camera--seventeen years old--walks a long way to Dealey Plaza and goes to exactly across from the Grassy Knoll for what turns out to be a perfect location to film the shooting and the assassination.

Then there is some questionable or bogus story of why that film shot by Beverly Oliver cannot be found by anyone today. (She claims the FBI stole it and may secretly still have it--doubtful.) 

In 1966 Beverly Oliver married George McGann, one of the most prominent figures of the Dixie Mafia. After McGann's untimely death in 1970, authorities believed an unknown number of murders had been done by McGann. It seems McGann just was into killing people professionally, was rather good at it and disposal of the bodies, which wife Beverly knew about and assisted in the body disposals at least once or twice. However Beverly Oliver was not charged with anything. She remarried a minister and became an evangelical Christian speaker and leader to the present day. In her book she describes her conversion experience which she situates to just before George McGann was murdered. 

When McGann was killed in 1970, widow Beverly denied to the press that she knew anything about him being part of organized crime but authorities disagreed. In her book, Nightmare in Dallas (1994), Beverly Oliver is open about husband McGann having been a Dixie Mafia leader and serial killer. 

Authorities found on McGann's corpse, after he was killed, a business card reading, "Buy your PROTECTION from Joe Campisi & Associates", with an address, phone number...and a black handprint (symbol of Sicilian mafia). Campisi of course was the #2 mob figure in Dallas (next to Civello #1), with Campisi personally connected to Marcello, Ruby, ...and McGann. In Peterson and Zachry, Lone Star Speaks (2020), the authors put some effort into deciphering the meaning of that business card, noting that Joe Campisi was a restauranteer and not known to be in any legitimate insurance business. A possibility not considered by the authors but which occurs to me is that the card was a joke, the humor in it being because, like what makes a lot of humor work, there was reality underneath the humor.

So: Babushka Lady definitely was Beverly Oliver—a solid identification. She went out of her way and got to exactly the shooting site where JFK was shot and killed--and filmed it. She was in disguise, not interacting with anyone but intent on doing a job. From her description in her book of how she was given the expensive camera, had the setup rigged up on her person underneath her coat, where she parked, how she disguised herself ... this was a professional job, she had to have had assistance and coaching, someone wanted it done, but why? 

I do not know if this connection has been made before, but it looks very much like she was filming the hit. Zapruder and Nix and others got their pictures and footage of the assassination by accident. But Beverly Oliver's filming was different--she was sent there to film the assassination attempt, the hit. Maybe someone wanted to document their handiwork so as to get paid. No wonder that film never turned up and Beverly would give some other story about what happened to it. I believe the ones who took possession of Beverly’s film were involved in the assassination and were not about to come forward with it.

The authors of Lone Star Speaks interviewed a number of persons who knew George McGann, and uncovered from a man who knew McGann a story of a confession by McGann of involvement in the assassination. This story has received almost no attention. Here is some material from Lone Star Speaks on McGann.

Lone Star Speaks, on George McGann

"Ruby was also connected to another member of the Mafia, Russell D. Matthews, who was an associate of mob boss Santos Trafficante. Matthews, like Joseph Campisi, became involved with the Dallas-based mob. Mathew was generous enough to allow his Turtle Creek apartment to be used by out-of-town 'guests' like Big Spring gambler George McGann. Matthews and numerous associates were described by informants and local officers as 'paid killers' ..." (p. 375)

"Ruby kept in contact with the Marcello organization by travelling to New Orleans and by making telephone calls to Carlos Marcello's brother Pete (. . .) After the assassination, the Justice Department documented a link between Jack Ruby, Frank Chavez, and Tony Provenzano, who was a captain in the Genovese Mafia family. (. . .) Roselli to columnist Jack Anderson: 'Ruby was one of our boys.'" (pp. 366-67)

"Jack Ruby's connections to the Chicago Mafia also extended to the Dixie Mafia. This means the fingers of the assassination plot spread from Dallas to West Texas (. . .) [Beverly] Oliver detailed her experiences with Ruby in her book, Nightmare in Dallas. She also briefly mentioned her husband at the time, George McGann, a man she described as a professional poker player with connections to the Mafia. (. . .) Though McGann did not grow up in Chicago, New York, or New Orleans, some of the people he began to associate with would have felt comfortable in the company of Al Capone and his associates. More than forty years after McGann's death, some authors are still ignoring his connections to cold-blooded, hired killers like his friend, Charles Harrelson. Harrelson was convicted of killing a Texas judge, John Wood, on May 29, 1979. He was also connected with George Edward (Pete) Kay and Kelsey Nix, both of whom were deeply involved in the Dixie Mafia. FBI records indicate that George McGann was involved with all of these men--and not just at poker parties." (pp. 382-89)

"The few authors who have even mentioned McGann or his acquaintances have trivialized McGann's activities. However, retired Texas Ranger Al Mitchell, who is familiar with the name 'George McGann' and with some of his former friends, shared some compelling information with the authors. 'When McGann and his group of West Texas boys planned robberies, murders, and poker stealing parties in Big Spring, Midland, Odessa, Lubbock, that part was not being controlled by the Dallas/New Orleans chain. Around Big Spring, McGann and his gang were called the 'Crossroaders.' But if their plans came from the higher individuals (in Dallas or New Orleans), those orders came from the Dixie Mafia,' Mitchell explained. (. . .) Some locals in Big Spring still maintain that McGann was never part of the Dixie Mafia. Some insist that the Dixie Mafia did not even exist. But after McGann's death in 1970, Dallas Police Capt. Paul McCaghren set the record straight. 'McGann was known to have connections in several southern states,' McCaghren stated emphatically to a newspaper reporter. McCaghren had met with other law enforcement officers from the southern states the year before in Atlanta, Georgia. 'We determined that there was a large gang with connections in the South. McGann topped our list of known Dixie Mafia members.'" (p. 390)

"McGann moved to Dallas in 1963 after his divorce. His circle of friends grew to include people well known to the FBI. He and R.D. Matthews, for example, became close friends (. . .) R.D. Matthews became close enough to McGann to be his best man at his second wedding [to Beverly Oliver]; he was also close enough to Joseph Civello to be considered his right-hand man. Civello was closely associated with New Orleans mob boss Carls Marcello (. . .) 'Everyone knew that George knew Jack Ruby,' [McGann friend Clifford Hart] told the authors." (pp. 391-93)

"McGann and John Currie became part-owners in a race track on the edge of Big Spring (. . .) According to Currie, it was at this track that he once met a man who identified himself as 'Chuckie from San Antonio.' Currie saw this same man several other times at the track; 'Chuckie' was obviously there to meet with McGann. 'Chuckie' was a tall, thin man with piercing eyes. Later, he moved to Midland and stayed about a year. During this time, his son 'Woody' would be born in Midland. 'Chuckie' was none other than Charles Harrelson! On that particular day at the race track, Currie overheard McGann talking to Chuckie about Carlos Marcello, the infamous underworld boss from Louisiana. From the conversation, he gathered that McGann was familiar with Marcello. In fact, McGann once mentioned going to Mardi Gras and meeting Marcello there. (. . .) One story that numerous people in Big Spring related to the authors involved a group of 'business associates' appearing in Big Spring with a dead body in the trunk of their car. According to those who remember this event, McGann was expected to dispose of the body (. . .) It is possible McGann had ordered a hit on someone and was paying the killers for a successful job. Like any good businessman, he checked the 'merchandise' to be sure the job was done properly." (pp. 404-8)

"Beverly Oliver McGann Massagee stated that her then-husband George was actually 'assassinated.' In her book Nightmare in Dallas, she pointedly stated, "McGann was part of the Dixie Mafia.' In the October 1, 1970 issue of the Big Spring Herald, Paul McCaghren, who was the Dallas Assistant Chief of Police, alleged that 'McGann was a possible leader of a criminal organization known as the Dixie Mafia, active in southern states.' At the time, the paper also reported, 'McGann's widow denied that her husband was involved 'with any gang.' Beverly Oliver McGann later admitted that she knew how connected her husband was to organized crime." (p. 415)

"Law enforcement in Dallas connected the so-called Dixie Mafia to nineteen murders. There is no way of knowing how many of these murders are connected to George McGann. There is also no proof concerning who actually 'controlled' McGann. An acquaintance of McGann is unsure who McGann answered to, but he thought it might be Kelsey Nix, the right-hand man of mob boss Carlos Marcello." (pp. 420)

McGann and the JFK assassination

"Though McGann was known for being tight-lipped about his activities, he did finally share a fascinating story with three of his closest friends not long before he died. One night in 1970, McGann and his three friends were playing pool at the Interlude Lounge in Big Spring. McGann admitted to Jimmy Whitefield, Bill Moore, and Robert Mesker that he was worried about being killed himself. His companions asked why he was so worried. (. . .) McGann confessed that he had been in Dealey Plaza the day President Kennedy was killed. His reason for being there was to assassinate the President from a manhole on Elm Street. Supposedly, an 'associate' was there also to take photos so McGann would have proof for those who had hired him. For this historic assignment, he had been promised $25,000, which was a good deal of money in 1963.

"After a few moments of stunned silence, McGann's friends asked who had hired him for this 'hit'. His answer was a simple one: 'People in the Dixie Mafia.' McGann also shared with them that some other people they knew had also been in Dallas that day, too, namely, Charles Harrelson and Pete Kay. Both of these names were familiar to his pool-playing companions. They had seen them with McGann on several occasions, and had even met them in Huntsville. McGann elaborated that, on November 22, 1963, he was in a van with a false bottom and a trap door. The day before the assassination, one of his unnamed partners pulled the van over the entrance to an opening behind the white picket fence that separated the parking lot from that became known as the 'grassy knoll'. McGann slithered down into the drain undetected. His partner drove the van away. The parking lot, which was owned by a deputy sheriff, was reserved for employees. Anyone entering or exiting needed a key. McGann told his friends that he spent the entire night before the assassination and the next morning in the drain. This was to make sure he was not detected by any type of security that might check out the knoll and the parking lot area. (. . .) 

When McGann completed his story to his friends, the three men just nodded and continued their pool game. All three were surprised he had shared something this important with them in the pool hall. McGann usually took his friends to his office at Holiday Motors if there was going to be a 'serious' talk; this time he didn't. However, there were only the four of them in the lounge that evening, so no one else could have overheard the conversation. As shocking as the story was, none of his friends questioned its validity. 'George was a character--real quiet, didn't brag--so when he said something, you knew it was the truth. We believed him,' Mesker concluded. None of McGann's friends shared this story with anyone until recently. Two of the three men in whom McGann confided are now dead. Only one person remembers everything McGann said to his friends that evening. That person is Robert Mesker." (pp. 422-24)

There is no claim in this story that McGann took a shot or killed Kennedy, but it is a claim of involvement or an attempt. This story which appears to have come to the authors independently of Beverly Oliver is consistent with the location of Beverly Oliver/Babushka Lady's filming. The greatest cause for caution in this story of McGann's involvement is that it comes from only one witness speaking over four decades later—it is one of those things which could be true, sounds like it could be plausible, but how on earth is it possible to know at this late date. But Beverly Oliver as the Babushka Lady photographer is a different matter: the identification itself is a fact, can be taken to the bank. That her photography that day was involved with the assassination has a good argument based on analysis.

My conclusion: Beverly Oliver/Babushka Lady’s filming was done by ones involved in the assassination. That is not certain but is what it looks like to me. 

And if the relationship of Beverly Oliver/Babushka Lady’s filming to the ones who did the assassination is put together with her marriage to McGann in 1966 and an assumption of continuity of her circles, there is the case for Dixie Mafia involvement in the assassination. All of this activity would be consistent with a Marcello-run plot. 

Beverly Oliver writes concerning her 1966-1970 husband George McGann’s relationship to the larger mob world:

“Unknown to Beverly, R.D. Matthews and Joseph Civello [guests at Beverly’s wedding to McGann] were more than just gambling buddies of George’s. They were known by law enforcement authorities as armed and dangerous men—weighty figures in the infrastructure of Dallas’ small but growing underworld. The Cosa Nostro, or real Mafia, networked its needs in Texas and the south through a group of freelance non-Sicilian mobsters. The chain of command ran from Carlos Marcello, Mafia Chieftain in New Orleans to his man in Dallas, Joseph Civello, who networked ‘requests’ through R.D. Matthews in Dallas and Bill Jerden in Fort Worth. George operated under R.D. Across town there was another group of men vying for the same trade headed by Kirksey Nix, Jr.” (Nightmare in Dallas, 144) 

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

Oy vey. It seems likely she mis-spoke, and was thinking of the ACLU.

Think about it. Does the Secret Service know the identities of undercover CIA agents within the U.S.? No, they don't. 

And think about it some more. Would the Secret Service tell a Russian immigrant and wife of a suspected assassin that the people who've been helping her are spying on her? No, of course not.

The logical conclusion then is that she mis-spoke and was thinking of the ACLU. There is no way in heck they would have wanted anyone around her telling her rights, and that she didn't have to co-operate. That they warned her against the Paines because of their connection to the ACLU makes total sense, while their warning her against the Paines because they were CIA fails to make sense.

Thanks Pat. Succinct and to the point.

1 hour ago, Michael Crane said:

Skip to around 1:08:30.

https://youtu.be/OsItiPfnzLI?t=4081

Michael I see your point, this does get interesting. There was a quote from a Minox representative in NYC saying no Minoxes were commercially sold in the US below serial number 135000, reported in a 1978 newspaper article by Earl Golz. But all data published by the Minox corporation today of their historic serial numbers does not support the claim that there is anything amiss with the 27259 serial number of Michael Paine's Minox in itself, apart from the question of sales and distribution specifics. Please take a look at this: http://www.submin.com/8x11/collection/minox/minox_serial.htm. In this database Michael Paine's serial number is seen to be a Minox II manufactured in 1949-1950.

Taken literally, the quote in the Golz 1978 article is a claim that no Minox cameras of any kind manufactured before 1957 were "distributed for commercial sale in this country [USA], according to Kurt Lohn". And taken literally, it is a claim that any Minox serial number below 135000 "is not a registered number... not a valid number", i.e. all Minoxes in the entire world, 100% of them, produced before 1957. (Minox serial numbers only went past 135000 in 1957 and later.) Without clarification it does not make sense that no Minox camera in the entire world before 1957 had "a valid number".

Michael Paine told the FBI he bought his Minox retail in a US store in I think 1950. 

The Earl Golz newspaper article: http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg Subject Index Files/O Disk/Oswald Lee Harvey Property/Item 02.pdf.

I would be interested in an explanation of the quotation from Lohn of Minox Corp., NYC, in that Earl Golz article if anyone knows what was going on with that or could enlighten.

The question involves understanding the circumstances of Michael Paine's acquisition of his Minox II. (Nothing to do with Oswald.)

15 hours ago, Jon Pickering said:

The secondary assertion in your report - that Ruth recommended the ACLU to Marina Oswald - recalls the time the ACLU pressured Vincent Salandria into resigning from the organization one or two years into his revelatory writings on the central role the national security apparatus' had in Kennedy's murder. Unless there were two ACLUs at large at the time, that wasn't very friendly advice. In other words; kind of like what an agent would say, when the perception of the ACLU was still praiseworthy, to gain the trust of a vulnerable pigeon.

I do not agree that the ACLU is or was in 1963 a bad organization (no matter what happened with Salandria years later) but no matter: your question implies you accept that it was an ACLU issue of Ruth Paine's association that the Secret Service told Marina, not CIA, so that is at least some progress. 

4 hours ago, Michael Crane said:

Oswalds Minox had a 5 digit serial number & all of the commercially available ones had 6 digit serial numbers.

I believe there must be some mistake in your source of information. Michael Paine's Minox camera serial number of 27259 (5 digits) falls within the range of serial numbers for all Minox cameras manufactured in the year 1950 which were all 5 digit serial numbers that year, between 25643-31274, according to this database: http://juliantanase.com/minox-serial-numbers/. 

Michael Paine's serial number dating his Minox to 1950 agrees with what he told the FBI, that that is when he bought it. 

3 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Jonathan:

DId you ask Roe about his business? That is steve roe consulting?

I would be interested who he consulted for prior to JFK Revisited debuting.

Since I cannot find any trace of that entity anywhere without relating to Stone's film.  Can you?

Sort of like Litwin's support for leftwing causes while working for Intel Pentium, on Wall Street and Bay Street.

Go ahead try and find that also.

This ad hominem against a commenter on this thread is not relevant to the topic and has the potential to make a commenter unwelcome. I ask you to stick to the topic.

Harold Weisberg wrote sensibly on the Minox camera long ago (thanks to Steve Roe for bringing the reference to attention). Weisberg, responding to a person who wrote him asking about the Minox, letter dated 2/16/95:

"Dear Mr. Stewart,

"Thanks for the SASE. It is more than 20 years since I wrote Post Mortem and I'm sorry I forgot my source on the Minox. Did I say Ruth's? Maybe I learned later that it was Michael's. I'm sure it was not Oswald's. The cops grabbed all they could and they had an enormous amount of Paine property, including their phono records even.

"Don't deduce too much from having a Minox. I never use mine for other than snapshots to show my wife where I'd been. I carried a better camera for good pictures. But that fit in the pocket."

(http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg Subject Index Files/S Disk/Stewart James L/Item 01.pdf)

As concerns the soviet embassy letter, Oswald left his draft out in the open for over a day, never even hid it, just left it out there lying around in the open in Ruth's living room, knowing Ruth would look at it. Oswald was the operative. He intended Ruth to find it and report it. Two handwriting experts testified that handwritten draft was in Oswald's handwriting and no handwriting expert has ever said it was not, so that is settled. Whether Oswald was or was not in Mexico City is irrelevant to the fact that Oswald wrote that he was; addressed it to a Soviet official by name in Washington, D.C., who was KGB/assassinations; left it out knowing Ruth would find it and maybe report it--that letter was part of an operation done by Oswald.

What Chris Newton did in this thread was establish that the sofa was in a different position in Ruth's living room in Nov 1963 than Ruth said it was in her later testimony to the Warren Commission. That is a fact, Chris showed it from the Nov 22 Alan Grant photograph. Now, how to interpret that fact? Nobody in all the prior discussion in this thread had considered the explanation for Ruth's sofa-moving on Nov 10 that became clear to me when I studied this--that it had to do with sun in the eyes. Not considering a mundane explanation for why Ruth would possibly have men in her house switch positions of furniture in her living room on Nov 10, a complex conspiratorial explanation was manufactured in explanation of the fact shown. 

The existential question therefore to readers of this thread is: why consider a mundane innocent explanation for a fact when a vastly more complex sinister one is possible?   

On 7/9/2020 at 11:55 PM, Greg Doudna said:

Chris Newton, you have established that Ruth Paine on March 23, 1964, testified under oath (technically, Friends' "affirmation" not oath but with the same legal force as oath) that her sofa was on the north wall of her living room on Nov 22. However the Alan Grant photo of Nov 22 shows the sofa on the east wall; your excellent analysis on that point is airtight. The suggestion is that Ruth Paine committed perjury, that she never moved her furniture on Nov 10 as she claimed, and that the motive for these multiple perjuries stemmed from an untrue invention of a claim of furniture moving on Nov 10 generated as part of her story of hiding the handwritten draft of Oswald's Russian Embassy letter. Here I propose a different interpretation of the same facts.

First, it can be established that Ruth Paine had a practice of moving that sofa between those two walls on other occasions. The evidence is that on the date of the WC testimony of March 23, 1964 held in her home, the sofa was at the north wall (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=43#relPageId=420&tab=page). But four months earlier the sofa was on the east wall (the photo of Nov 23). At some time between November and March the sofa had been moved from east wall to north wall.

The fact of this later move of the sofa removes the need to hypothesize an extraordinary explanation to account for the claim of Ruth Paine to have moved her sofa earlier in the exact same way, if one simple explanation can be discovered that accounts for all such sofa movings, not just one.

This raises the question: why would a woman in a house move a sofa from the east wall to the north wall, or vice versa?

I think the explanation that makes the best sense is related to avoiding sun in the eyes, at the times that television is being watched.

The television is set in the southwest of the room facing northeast. Its position does not change, and faces the sofa in either position of the sofa. There is a huge picture window in the southern wall. The sun rises in the east, sets in the west, and for a picture window with southern exposure, setting in the west would be direct sun on people sitting in the sofa if it is at the east wall. (. . .)

I researched and wrote this over twenty months ago on this thread.

On 4/25/2022 at 10:20 AM, James DiEugenio said:

That would have paralleled what the Secret Service told Marina Oswald about why they did not want her associating with Ruth anymore.  It would look too much like she was in league with the CIA. 

For anyone reading this thread I have addressed this allegation in a separate topic: "The Secret Service never told Marina that Ruth was CIA--never happened" at https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/27734-the-secret-service-never-told-marina-that-ruth-paine-was-cia-never-happened/. 

 

In the film by Max Good, "The Assassination & Mrs. Paine", in a dramatic final scene Good puts in front of Ruth Paine testimony of Marina Oswald to the New Orleans Grand Jury in which Marina says that the Secret Service told her Ruth was associated with the CIA. The camera closes in on the 87-year old Ruth Paine for her reaction. 

The charge--almost the finale in the Max Good film, the coup de grace, so to speak--that the Secret Service told Marina that Ruth Paine was CIA continues to be repeated as common currency to the present day among conspiracy-theorist circles, and probably many on this very forum have believed and continue to believe unquestioningly that it is true. But it isn't true. It never happened. But first, from the Max Good film: 

Good (hands paper to Ruth who looks at it): In 1968 Marina testified that the Secret Service told her you were associated with the CIA.

Ruth (reads it): Yeah well so what am I supposed to do with this?

Good: Whats your reaction? Why would they tell her that?

(on-screen: closeup of pages of Marina testimony in New Orleans saying Secret Service told her Ruth Paine was associated with the CIA)

Ruth: I had the impression it was her brother-in-law, rather than the Secret Service for somebody that told her to stay clear of me.

Good: Their thing is that you and Michael were involved in surveillance activities of the radical left. 

Ruth: What?

Good: That you and Michael were involved in surveillance activities of the radical left. Uh, and that—

Ruth: Who would be the radical left?

Good: Cuban sympathizers.

Ruth: Oh.

Good: Communists.

Ruth: Absolute news to me. I was not aware of surveilling anybody. Or watching Oswald.

Good: Maybe watching Oswald was a job you had to keep an eye on—

Ruth: Flake.

Good: --this young communist defector, who had returned—

Ruth: Nonsense. Absolute nonsense.

Good: Have you ever done any work for the FBI or CIA?

Ruth: No, I haven’t. No. I was not an Oswald sitter for the CIA or whatever kind of story they’re trying to tell.

The Secret Service never told Marina any such thing concerning an association of Ruth Paine with the CIA. Marina did say that, in her testimony before the New Orleans Grand Jury. But what Secret Service told Marina was to steer clear of Ruth Paine because Ruth Paine was associated with the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union). The Secret Service wanted to keep Marina isolated and talking and not have Ruth and especially the ACLU of which Ruth was a member and had talked about to Marguerite Oswald, interfere with their questioning of Marina. That is why they told Marina to not talk to Ruth Paine because of her association with the ACLU.

Here is one gem, direct quote, from the New Orleans testimony of Marina, not a native English speaker: 

Marina: "What is CIA?"

Here is another (unfortunately the transcript has missed some wording but what does come through gives a pretty good idea that Marina does not know which is which):

Marina: "I had the impression ... American Civil Liberties Union, I don't know"

And then this:

Marina: "Could she [Ruth Paine] be member?"

The New Orleans Grand Jury questioning was carried out by the office of District Attorney Jim Garrison. Members of Garrison's staff realized right away the Secret Service never told Marina Ruth Paine was CIA.

“Marina made one remark that pleased Garrison. She said the Secret Service had told her to beware of Ruth Paine ‘because she was a member of the CIA.’  However, [Assistant District Attorney Jim] Alcock told me later that by the way she answered – ‘that organization you join...’ it was evident she meant something other than the CIA, namely the ACLU.”—Tom Bethel, Garrison staff, diary

It can be known--not as a matter of conjecture but knowledge--that the reason the Secret Service wanted Marina not to communicate with Ruth Paine was because of Secret Service's fear of interference from the ACLU in their questioning of Marina.

Some of the material I present here has not been put together in this way before, so I urge careful attention to what follows.

The ACLU was a live issue at exactly the time the Secret Service told Marina what she remembered them having told her. The Secret Service had the Oswald women--mother, wife, toddler and baby daughters of Lee Oswald--sequestered in protective custody and was questioning both Marina and Marguerite during a period of several days following the assassination before the FBI took over. In the Secret Service's interview with Marguerite, Marguerite told the Secret Service of Ruth Paine's membership in the ACLU and how Ruth had told Marguerite that ACLU would assist in getting legal counsel. Marguerite had not remembered the name of the organization and the Secret Service went to some effort to identify the organization of Ruth Paine of which Marguerite spoke.

Most readers are familiar with the ACLU's long history and reputation for effectiveness as the premiere civil liberties' advocacy organization in America, often at odds with prosecutors and police investigators. 

The Secret Service would have had no knowledge of any CIA relationship with Ruth Paine, nor has any Ruth Paine CIA allegation ever been confirmed or repeated any Secret Service agent. The reason is because, notwithstanding Marina's words, it never happened that the Secret Service said that--it never was any other than the ACLU that was the subject of interest and what the Secret Service told to Marina. 

Below is the relevant portion of the transcript of Marina's testimony to the New Orleans Grand Jury (https://archive.org/details/OrleansParishGrandJuryTestimonyOfMarinaOswaldPorter8Feb1968/page/n71/mode/2up ). 

Juror:

Q. Do you still see Ruth Paine?

A. No, I like her and appreciate what she did. I was advised by Secret Service not to be connected with her, seems like she was … not connected … she was sympathizing with the CIA. She wrote letters over there and they told me for my own reputation, to stay away.

Q. The Secret Service told you this?

A. Yes.

Mr. Alcock:

Q. What did they say?

A. They didn’t say anything personal about her, but they said its better for me to stay away from her for a while, it seemed like she was sympathizing with CIA.

Mr. Garrison:

Q. Couldn’t they say she was connected with the Central Intelligence Agency, because that’s our conclusion about Ruth Paine.

A. I don’t know if she was connected with CIA, but they told me to stay away.

Mr. Sciambra:

Q. Did they say sympathize or associated with?

A. I don’t remember right now exactly, but the way I understood…

Q. Did they explain to you why it would be bad for you to associate with her if she was associated with the CIA?

A. I had the impression … the Civil Liberties Union, I don’t know …

Juror:

Q. Marina, did the Secret Service say to you, Marina, it is better for you not to see Ruth Paine anymore because it’s not good for you, she might be saying things to the CIA that might be detrimental to you, Marina?

A. No, because she … what is CIA?

Q. Central Intelligence Agency.

A. Could she be member?

Mr. Garrison: She probably is employee.

Mr. Sciambra:

Q. In other words, they gave you the impression…

A. Seems like she had friends over there and it would be bad for me if people find out connection between me and Ruth and CIA.

Q. In other words, you were left with the distinct impression that she was in some way connected with the CIA?

A. Yes.

Mr. Garrison:

Q. Were you surprised to learn that the FBI and the Secret Service were not clear as to just who was with the CIA? Did that occur to you as rather odd?

A. I was not questioning them so much.

Q. In Russia generally, if somebody is with the Intelligence Agency doesn’t the rest of the government know about it?

A. I guess so.

The below is from the Secret Service interview of Marguerite Oswald, either Nov 25 or 26, 1963, in which Ruth Paine's association with the ACLU was a live issue to the Secret Service (the transcription is mine from the recording). (https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/27394-november-2526-1963-ss-interview-of-marguerite-oswald-excerpt-2/#comment-447585) 

Marguerite Oswald. The other night, after I had rushed to my son’s aid here in Dallas, I had no place to go and Mrs. Paine said if I’d be willing to sleep on the sofa I could come out to her home.

Secret Service. This was after Lee was in jail, is that right?

Marguerite. That is correct.

SecS. I see.

Marguerite. So I had not seen my daughter-in-law. In fact I had not known even there was a new baby. So I went to where my daughter-in-law was living, which was at Mrs. Paine’s house. So I said we need to get an attorney for Lee. We have no money but he must have some rights. Do you have an attorney? And I said I didn’t like Marina making a statement without being represented. Mrs. Paine was her interpreter when Marina made the statement and signed the statement. I said I didn’t like that and that she should have been represented by an attorney before making any statement. Mrs. Paine says, Don’t worry about anything like that. I am a member of, now, uh uh, uh--I have tried to think of the name of the organization that Mrs. Paine told me she was a member of. And I have not been able to remember entirely. I was upset, and I was surprised that she was a member of an organization. Because to me, all of these organizations mean nothing. Birch Society, now I, I read about ‘em and I pass them off as nothing. So I didn’t pay too much attention to that.

SecS. Do you have any idea what it might be?

Marguerite. Well she said that don’t worry too--that Lee would be represented by counsel because she was a member, and they would see that Lee got a lawyer.

SecS. You don’t know what type of organization it was?

Marguerite. No I don’t, but I truly believe that if I heard the name, I may, I may know.

SecS.  <…>?

Marguerite. No, Cuba was not mentioned, that I’m sure. Uh, uh, uh, American Civil Rights, is there such a thing?--Rights. It was an organization that protects people’s rights. In other words she assured me that he would have a lawyer because she was a member of this organization. I didn’t like Mrs. Paine immediately upon entering her home. And then when she told me she was a member of this organization, then I don’t know—

SecS. Mrs. Oswald, of course we don’t want to put words in your mouth but there are several of these organizations. Uh, if we do name it and it sounds like the one that you heard it might help us. Uh, could this be the Committee for Peaceful Alternations? 

Marguerite. No.

SecS. Its not.

Marguerite. No.

SecS. In other words, it sounds to me like its some type of a welfare organization for people that are, that are in trouble.

Marguerite. Exactly.

This interview of Marguerite Oswald is exactly at the time and context in those several days in which the Secret Service, after figuring out Ruth Paine's organization was the ACLU and what ACLU was about, did not want the ACLU interfering. That is why the Secret Service persuaded Marina not to have further contact with Ruth Paine!--because of fear of the ACLU!

Marina refers to the Secret Service saying Ruth Paine and company "wrote letters over there". That refers to a letter the ACLU wrote Marina offering legal assistance and expressing concerns that she was being pressured by the Secret Service. Not the kind of letter the Secret Service appreciated. A letter which the Secret Service could very reasonably have blamed Ruth Paine for based on what Marguerite had told them. The Secret Service developed a favorable rapport with Marina, got her to talk to them and tell them a lot, and the Secret Service were averse to ACLU interfering, and averse to Ruth Paine because Ruth Paine was a member of the ACLU and had talked about the ACLU to Marguerite. That was the issue--not the CIA! Marina got ACLU and CIA confused, it always was about the ACLU between the Secret Service and Marina but Marina did not know which acronym was which.

The ACLU had issues with being red-baited. The ACLU was accused of being leftist and was in the news and public eye. The Secret Service wanting to have Marina be isolated, would tell Marina that it was in her best interests not to associate with Ruth Paine due to the ACLU affiliation, better for Marina's reputation, etc. and etc. (although the real reason was to not have disruption to Marina talking to the Secret Service without interference). This is from Marina's Warren Commission testimony:

Mr. Rankin. Now, Mr. Thorne is your attorney. I understand that he told the Civil Liberties Union people of Dallas it was all right for the Secret Service people to be there with you and that you liked that arrangement and did not want to be interfered with. Was that satisfactory to you?

Mrs. Oswald. Yes, that is correct.

Mr. Rankin. Was he speaking for you when he said that?

Mrs. Oswald. Yes, because I received a letter from Mr. Olds, a leader of that union [head of the Dallas Civil Liberties Union, the Dallas ACLU]. In that letter he said that he sympathizes with my situation, that he supposed that the Secret Service treated me very badly and stopped me from doing something. I answered him in a letter written in Russian which was later translated into English that all of this was not the truth.

When Marina told the New Orleans Grand Jury that the Secret Service advised Marina to shun Ruth Paine because "she wrote letters over there", this is what that meant--this very kind of letter from the head of the local ACLU threatening to protect Marina's rights before the law from being questioned by the Secret Service and FBI without counsel. They did not want that! 

It was the ACLU which the Secret Service was afraid of, in the motive to cut Marina off from Ruth Paine. (Not the CIA.)

Ruth Paine was a member of the ACLU. (Not the CIA.)

It was the ACLU which was the live issue. (Not the CIA.)

It was the ACLU which the Secret Service associated with Ruth Paine. (Not the CIA.)

It was the ACLU which wrote objectionable "letters", including one critical of the Secret Service sent to Marina by the Dallas ACLU. (Not the CIA.)

The Secret Service cited Ruth Paine's association with the ACLU as bad for Marina's reputation.

Marina called ACLU "CIA" and many conspiracy theorists for the next fifty-five years (!) taking Marina's "CIA" instead of ACLU as gospel truth, refusing to acknowledge that the Secret Service talked about Ruth's association with ACLU to Marina, not CIA. 

I hope that this setting forth of these facts will end this particular canard which has for so long functioned to smear Ruth Paine, and which has been so formative in shaping opinions of people about Ruth Paine. The finale of the Max Good film.

Just nothing there. The Secret Service did not tell Marina that Ruth Paine was CIA. 

The sad thing is that studies have shown that the retraction or correction of an error, even when the correction is fully acknowledged, still removes only part, not all, of the effects on thinking of the original damaging statement. (The same studies show the influence of an acknowledged corrected longstanding error is only fully removed when the preceding finding is also explained in addition to the error-correction itself, which is why I mentioned it just now.) 

This is an appeal to cease the abuse of Ruth Paine from this particular accusation. If truth matters.

And one day, perhaps even Jim DiEugenio will apologize to Ruth Paine for the damage the spreading of this particular false accusation has done to Ruth. 

Further analysis

There are three facts: there was assassination-involved activity at the TSBD; Oswald who either was involved or someone wanted it to look that way was employed at the TSBD; and the TSBD is strategic in location if one were planning an assassination of an anticipated presidential visit but without knowledge of specific selection of parade route.

There are basically three ways to go in interpreting Oswald's recent (before the assassination) hire or obtaining the job at the TSBD. If one follows the regnant theory (regnant in terms of early reporting and culminating in ratification in the finding of the Warren Commission), there is no need to account for Oswald's hire at the TSBD as other than an accident, and there is no problem there calling for explanation. In this view (LN or lone-nut), getting the job at the TSBD was random, and the assassination was a last-minute crime of opportunity or passion, in which Oswald had not even begun to prepare an assassination until starting maybe ca. 48 hours beforehand, after reading in the newspaper that the route would pass by the TSBD. If there were sufficient evidence otherwise demanding that Oswald be LN as the explanation for the assassination, the notion of a last-minute crime of opportunity/passion from the coincidence of his already being located at TSBD, and then the parade route passing there, would be the explanation.

I am in the camp which despite initial appearances believe there are compelling grounds for belief that Oswald was innocent and did not fire any weapon at Kennedy, even though I do not dispute a rifle played a role which was linked to Oswald. (I hold to a version of the Flip DeMey argument that an Oswald rifle was used but not fired by Oswald, and that the connection to the rifle itself was the initial mechanism of an intended framing of Oswald.)

For those who hold to a CT (conspiracy theorist, meaning "criminal conspiracy" in the legal sense) of the assassination, the problem becomes more difficult but calls for explanation: the whole matter of understanding Oswald's employment at the TSBD. The narrative explanations given by the Randles and Wesley Frazier and Ruth Paine, as well as Truly at the TSBD end, and Oswald's prior failed attempts via the TEC and other employment agencies to obtain a job, seem to hang together in denying that his TSBD employment as location could have been influenced on his or someone else's part to intentionally plant him (or himself) there in light of the assassination attempt to occur five weeks later. 

The strategic location of the TSBD again

The basic logic in which the TSBD's location is strategic despite not knowing a selection of presidential parade route is expressed in this claimed witness account of an overheard conversation between Jack Ruby and another individual identifiable (per argument) as Larry Crafard, on Oct 4, 1963, discussing what the witness understood to be a plot to assassinate Governor Connally.

"[Crafard]: There's really only one building to do it from, one that covers Main, Elm, and Commerce.

"Ruby: Which one is that?

"[Crafard]: The School Book Building, close to the triple underpass.

"Ruby: What's wrong with doing it from here?

"[Crafard]: What if he goes down another street?

"(distraction--------) 

It does not matter to the point here if one considers this part of the Carroll Jarnagin witness story to be accurate or inaccurate, it expresses the logic. The logic is: provided one anticipates the possibility or likelihood of a presidential parade route going through downtown, it could go west on Elm, Main, or Commerce, and for security reasons typically the route planners did not make final selection or publicize the exact parade route until as close to the last moment as possible. (Palamara and others being more of the experts on this. A lot of people assume the Secret Service was in charge of route selection, but while the Secret Service had significant input or perhaps routinely was de facto the decider, I suspect formally Secret Service was not the decider but its mandate was to protect the President whatever route was decided?) But whichever of those main arteries was chosen through downtown Dallas, they all come out into the open-space Dealey Plaza before the limousine would get on to the Stemmons Freeway. So if assassination-attempt planners had a good idea there could be or would be a presidential parade through downtown Dallas--that that was in the works--having a mechanism for a sniper possibility set up in advance in a tall building with line-of-sight sniper fire possibility overlooking Dealey Plaza no matter by which artery the parade arrived would be ideal. A tall building anywhere overlooking Elm, Main, or Commerce might work but only if that was where the route passed, which might turn out not to be the case. But Dealey Plaza was predictable. It is like setting up a military ambush at a ford or narrow crossing where the targeted party cannot avoid passing through. And given that logic, there probably were several buildings at Dealey Plaza that could have served or worked but the TSBD simply from its physical location was close to as ideal as possible for purposes needed at a time before the exact parade route was known. Even if there had not been that dogleg north on Houston and then left on Elm directly by the front of the TSBD as in the event, a sniper from an upper-story window in the TSBD could have a bead on the limousine however it passed through Dealey Plaza. So if there was an advance criminal conspiracy, TSBD was strategic.

If there was a criminal conspiracy, the way it would be done would be to get an inside man (if there was not one already) inside that building, not himself the sniper but able to get the sniper employed (easiest way for a sniper to have access to a window in the building) or assist in giving access to sniper(s). 

The point being: if there is a criminal conspiracy an advance man on the inside of a strategic location would be expected. Some recent hire. On the assumption that it was intended to involve Oswald as taking the blame for the rifle, he needs to be there. How can this be accomplished? I think it is necessary in any such reconstruction that Oswald be witting to intent to be at TSBD for reasons going beyond employment consideration. That does not mean Oswald intended to be party to murder himself--he could be functioning as an informant to the government in some capacity (I think so; though admittedly the evidence and details of which agency remain elusive). But Oswald has to be personally involved. The notion that an unwitting Oswald could be manipulated or tricked into being employed there without realizing anything, is just not plausible as a viable plan. What if an unwitting Oswald had been told of the job but decided for whatever reason it was not to his taste? Would the plot have been foiled and averted (at least Oswald's role in it)? What if Oswald found a different or better job he liked better? How prevent that from happening from an unwitting Oswald? Answer: you can't. Therefore the only viability is Oswald himself has to intend for himself to be at TSBD (or some building of comparable strategic interest). Oswald has to be party to his own set-up at that particular location, TSBD.

But though Oswald's witting participation in focus on TSBD (or comparable strategic-location) employment is a necessary supposition (to a criminal conspiracy theory) it is not sufficient. One could hypothetically just have Oswald go in cold and apply and hope he gets the job. How secure is that? Maybe, what, 20% odds of someone like Oswald going in cold to a downtown employer like TSBD and asking for work and being successful? 

Well, there has been all this focus on Ruth Paine making that phone call. First of all Ruth Paine made that phone call only after Linnie Mae Randle told Ruth and Marina about the TSBD possibility. Then Ruth (with urging from Marina according to Ruth) trying to be helpful cold-calls Truly at TSBD trying to put in a good word for Oswald. Well, that is going to be a net moving of the needle of chances for Oswald bumped up a little. If Oswald's chances are say 20% applying on his own, that Ruth Paine phone call establishing sympathy on the other end from Truly might bump Oswald's chances up to, what, maybe 25 or 30% now? (Because it does not matter if a stranger on the other end pleads for sympathy, most general managers of business operations think in terms of whether they are hiring or not for their internal business needs, not considering their first mission to be charity. If Truly was not hiring, or had all the workers he needed, Ruth Paine's phone call would have been unsuccessful.)

But if one really wants to get someone in at a place of employment, the best way is by means of an existing employee on the inside making an inside recommendation, knowing the inside details, who are the decision-makers, the timing windows of opportunity, the right position to apply for to get entry to the organization, all that. I believe recommendations for hires from existing employees are considered by employers one of the strongest positives in efforts to find good workers, and that kind of in-place assistance to an Oswald would bump those odds up to maybe 70% (or 80%?) for a motivated Oswald to be hired there, especially if the timing was right which the inside person could be in a position to learn and know. So it is still not 100% certainty, but it is a very good chance of succeeding, compared to the idea that a cold-call Ruth Paine phone call is what did it and could be relied upon to do it. 

Three options

So there are three basic options, provided Oswald on his own walking in the door and applying is not considered sufficiently reliable to ensure his employment there. Either Ruth Paine's phone call does it; an inside man recommendation does it; or Oswald is LN removing the problem from needing solution in the first place. Those are the basic three choices, and if one is CT then there are two basic choices.

The key point is that the Ruth cold-call telephone call had no reasonable prospect of reliability in ensuring success, and would not be a good business plan for any self-respecting people in the criminal-conspiracy assassination business. That leaves either Oswald was LN (job at TSBD was random) or else the other mechanism which is a decent plan if one was in the criminal-conspiracy assassination business wanting to accomplish placement of Oswald (along with Oswald wanting to place himself) in that particular building.

That is, an inside man--whoever, whatever, however--is far more realistic in assisting a motivated Oswald in successfully being hired there than a cold-call telephone call from Ruth Paine in Irving. It is still not the easiest argument to make--one has to suppose Oswald held off on being hired from other jobs not of strategic-location interest even though there is the appearance Oswald was seeking to be hired. But if there is a criminal conspiracy theory involving placement of Oswald in the TSBD (or comparable strategic location) one has to make that argument. But an argument that is actually realistic. In a realistic argument it does not matter whether Ruth Paine made that phone call or did not.

Buell Wesley Frazier, all these years, not until his book in 2021, I do not believe ever previously spoke of how he made an inquiry on behalf of Oswald in getting that job at TSBD. And although his wording is he asked if there was hiring, he frames it as "inquiring about work" and "talking to [someone] about a job" and "looking out for [someone]".

All these years, all the intense focus on Ruth's phone call as "what did it" (when it could not have been relied upon to have done it), when all along it is likely Frazier's own in-person word to Shelley and, through Shelley, to Truly, was more influential in "tipping" Truly in favor of hiring Oswald. Through the accident of what was public knowledge Ruth Paine became a lightning rod for the worst accusations regarding that well-intentioned phone call to help Marina's husband get a job. When Oswald's hire would have occurred the same as it did if Ruth Paine had not made that phone call--because of Frazier's good word on Oswald's behalf, which was followed by Truly hiring Oswald.

It is either Ruth Paine, or Frazier, or Oswald is LN. Those are the basic three options. It is a problem to explain how Oswald's hire at a strategic location could be accomplished in any CT, which is not a problem if Oswald was LN.

And of the two mechanisms, the cold-call telephone call from the stranger, or the inside-recommendation of an existing employee in good standing, it has to be the latter.

So even if there is still missing the formidable puzzle of how Frazier could be the mechanism exactly, by default that is where it must be looked, since Ruth Paine's cold-call telephone call as a mechanism is a non-starter, just looking at it realistically.

So that is the reasoning, prior to anything to do with the Dixie Mafia. And also I think Frazier is a good man now and I think he was a good man then. And yet parallel to how William Simpich seeks to have Ruth Paine only manipulated into getting Oswald the TSBD job etc. (Simpich under the impression like most that Ruth was capable of getting Oswald a TSBD job by means of a phone call), the mirror parallel to that would be some Simpich-like notion of Frazier as manipulated into getting Oswald that TSBD job. All we have are stories after the fact.

And so it is not really a good objection to the Frazier-mechanism idea for Oswald's hire at the TSBD for anyone to ask or expect me to explain exactly how it would have or could have worked--unless you are LN. But if you are not a LNer, then it is a matter of comparative explanatory power, between the Ruth Paine telephone call, or Wesley Frazier putting in a word to Shelley and Truly on Oswald's behalf.

9 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

Greg - are you saying that Frazier claims in his book that he recommended Oswald for a TSBD job at the behest of someone in the Dixie mafia? 

No, in fact he does not speak of the Dixie Mafia at all in his book. Here, I will post the relevant passages from both of the books.

Buell Wesley Frazier, Steering Truth (2021), pp. 34-35:

"Little did I know this innocent visit by my sister would change my life. While she was there, Linnie met with Mrs. Ruth Paine and a lady named Marina. Prior to living at 2439 West Fifth Street in Irving, Linnie and Bill had previously lived across the street from Mrs. Roberts and the Paines. Although she knew Mrs. Roberts and Mrs. Paine, this was the first time that I know of that Linnie had ever met or spoken to Marina Oswald.

"As Linnie would tell me later, somehow the topic of Marina's husband came up, that he was looking for a job. Marina had a young child and was pregnant with their second, and her husband was having the same run of bad luck finding a job like I had experienced a month earlier.

"As they were talking, Linnie suggested a few places she had told me to look. She also mentioned to Mrs. Paine I had recently been hired at the Texas School Book Depository.

"During her testimony, Linnie stated that she couldn't remember saying anything to me about inquiring about work for anyone, but I can tell you she did mention it to me in passing. Linnie had a way of looking out for people. She really cared about others and hated to see them go through difficult times. She never directly told me to talk to anyone about a job. I made the decision to ask on my own.

"I went to work the next day and spoke to Mr. Shelley about whether they were hiring, and he talked to Mr. Truly. Later that afternoon, Mr. Shelley informed me that anyone wanting a job could come in and fill out an application.

"I came home and told Linnie what Mr. Shelley had said. A few days later, Linnie told me that the husband of the lady living down the street with Mrs. Pane had gotten a job at the Texas School Book Depository."

Sara Peterson and K.W. Zachry, Lone Star Speaks (2020), pp. 179, 185: 

"Frazier shared memories of Oswald with the authors on three different occasions (. . .) Frazier's stepfather was not the only frightening individual in the young man's life. He also knew 'Pete' Kay, who was, along with his father, an important figure in the Dixie Mafia. According to Frazier, they offered him the chance to become a member of the 'family.' By then, Frazier had already met one group member, a man so heartless that locking eyes with him made his blood run cold. Frazier identified this man as Charles Harrelson; others who knew Harrelson also commented on how coldly he could stare down someone. Frazier decided to take his sister's advice and not take up the offer. They both thought he would be much safer in Dallas!"

29 minutes ago, John Butler said:

This is all I am going to say on this since I don't wish to side-track this discussion.  I find it quite interesting.  The things that have developed here are very fascinating.

Thanks John, I appreciate that. On your question on the Paines' asking for their camera equipment to be returned to them that police took Nov 22, in the DPD evidence photo, that is in documents on the Mary Ferrell site in which Ruth after her WC testimony sought to get her and Michael's property back, and the items were returned to them, here (see both pages): https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=59606#relPageId=69. 

David Josephs-- you stated that all the photography equipment including the Minox accessories in the DPD evidence photo belonged to Oswald, none to Michael Paine. I asked your basis for certainty, and you answered in part that there was no evidence Michael Paine had interest in photography, therefore the Minox camera equipment could not belong to him since someone who had no interest in photography would not own a camera. (Most Americans owned cameras, but that was your argument that Michael Paine was exceptional and did not own a camera.) When I pointed out that Michael Paine in FBI interviews told quite a bit about his photography, his Minox camera, when and where he bought it in 1950, where he used it, identified photos he had taken, etc., you said that doesn't count as evidence because nothing reported from Michael Paine is reliable evidence. So you had a claim that Michael could not have owned any Minox camera equipment that was unfalsifiable. 

When I asked what basis was there for claiming that Oswald ever owned a Minox in the first place, you claimed there was some indirect evidence and referred to Minox-sized photos in Oswald's possession. I asked what you meant and it turns out you got that from the Armstrong book. How does Armstrong know any of the Minox-sized photos in the National Archives were taken by a camera belonging to Oswald? Well there seem to be two claims he makes for that: a Minox-sized photo of a buddy of Oswald's at Atsugi named George Hans Wilkins, and a Minox-sized photo of Oswald himself. I do not have the Armstrong book but I do have the Weberman book which also mistakenly claims one of the photos developed from the Minox film found in the police search Fri Nov 22 is a photo of Oswald, except it isn't. And on the claim that a photo of a George Hans Wilkins was a Marine buddy of Oswald's, I did some checking and cannot find any verification of that (nothing turns up on the Mary Ferrell site, etc.). It looks like that claim is based solely on the photograph itself and therefore Wilkins is a buddy of Michael Paine's (not Oswald's). (If he was a buddy of Oswald's then he will not be on a Minox photo.)

You know that Ruth and Michael Paine said that light meter, other Minox accessories, were Michael's property and asked for the light meter et al back, and did receive it back as their property. You say they were l ying simply in claiming that was their property simply because you say so. When asked how you know it was Oswald's property instead of theirs you refer to asking for evidence as an unreasonably high bar.

At the end you showed a photo and said it may be of Oswald and some argument that another copy of it could be from a Minox. I have no idea who that is a photo of but it is definitely not Oswald, from just looking at it. I found that photo comes from a 1959 Fort Worth newspaper article about Oswald. It is not a photo of Oswald, there is no verification of that photo as Oswald's anywhere else, and the newspaper therefore used some wrong photo of somebody else. In any case, nothing there proves Oswald had a Minox or that any Minox photos came from a camera owned by Oswald. Anyway, thanks for engaging the questions, we'll just have to disagree here.  

1 hour ago, David Josephs said:

How would you explain the Minox sized photos in Ozzie's possession taken well before he ever met the Paines?

What are you referring to?

[May 5, 2022, NOTE: See my later (lower on this page 1, dated 5/3/22, 5:18 pm) "Oswald, the job at the Texas School Book Depository, and the assassination: an update and correction". That updates and I intend it to replace the argument of this opening; however for historic interest I leave this opener itself unchanged. gd]

 

In the Max Good film, "The Assassination & Mrs. Paine", Vince Salandria is filmed saying the following, which represents a more or less bedrock belief in some circles underlying why Ruth Paine has come under such severity of abuse. Here is Salandria, then I will give my comment. I invite reflection on my comment and thoughtful reaction. 

Vince Salandria: If you wanted to have a conspiracy, you've got to complete the circle. In this case you've got to get the Oswalds into the Dallas area. You've got to get Oswald into the Texas Book Depository in time. People with a garage where the so-called murder weapon can be stored. Suppose its a conspiracy that says we'll just wait, somebody will get Oswald and his family into Dallas, we'll just wait--maybe he'll happen to find a job in the Texas Book Depository. Once you see a conspiracy, its over for the Paines! You can't close the circle without the Paines! There's no way they can be innocent! No way!

My response. It is a mystery why conspiracy researchers have focused on Ruth Paine, who had no capability to deliver a job for Lee at the Texas School Book Depository, as the means by which a criminal conspiracy to assassinate President Kennedy would accomplish placement of Oswald at that location, when a family member of the Dixie Mafia from south Texas—among the worst of gangland killers and in working relationship with the Marcello crime organization headquartered in New Orleans—found employment in the Texas School Book Depository a month earlier and then successfully recommended to his boss that Lee Oswald be hired as a fellow-worker, the day after his sister got word to Lee that Lee could apply there.

Why conspiracy researchers have ignored that believable mechanism by which a placement of Oswald in that location could have been accomplished—an inside recommendation—and instead have held a bedrock belief that the only conceivable way by which that could have come about was via Ruth Paine making a cold-call phone call as a total stranger, with no ability to know the best timing or assure a favorable response to her phone call, is one of the enduring mysteries of conspiracy-researcher logic.

That an inside-man pathway to a hire is approximately the true story of how Oswald was hired at the Texas School Book Depository—a favorable word on Oswald’s behalf to supervisors Shelley and Truly by an existing employee in good standing on the inside—is now confirmed in Buell Wesley Frazier’s recent book, Steering Truth: My Eternal Connection to JFK and Lee Harvey Oswald (2021), in which Frazier tells of such a role carried out by such an employee, himself (Steering Truth, 35).

On Buell Wesley Frazier’s upbringing in a south Texas Dixie Mafia family and the attempted recruitment of himself into that life at the time of his move to Irving at age 19 and getting a job at the future place of employment of Oswald a month later, see S. Peterson & K. Zachry, The Lone Star Speaks (2020), 185. (Frazier did not become part of the Dixie Mafia and is an honorable man, and has been one of Oswald’s staunchest character defenders over the years.) 

On the other hand the notion that a plot to assassinate a president would rely on a single mom in Irving to ensure a hire of someone else in a business in downtown Dallas by means of a cold-call telephone call—and for researchers to cite their own inability to imagine any other conceivable mechanism for how Lee could have been hired at that location, as the argument and the evidence for considering Ruth incriminated, is beyond outrageous.

In short, conspiracy researchers have embraced a mechanism with no plausibility by which to bring about one of the most critical and pivotal parts internal to the theory, smearing an innocent person in so doing, while completely failing to consider a different mechanism which had an argument for possibility. If there was a criminal conspiracy that killed JFK (as I believe there was), the Texas School Book Depository is strategically located and indeed would have been of interest in such a conspiracy in that that particular building provided the possibility of line-of-sight sniper fire on the presidential limousine no matter which route was chosen through downtown Dallas for the presidential parade. It just is ludicrous that Ruth Paine had anything to do with that except by accident.

14 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

The shape and size of the photos found in Oswald's possession, the reality of Oswald's work for the FBI, the unavailability of that camera to the public, the myriad of other cameras and supplies, the fact we know Oswald worked as a photographic assistant while there. is no indication Michael had any interest in cameras or photography...

The WC nor the HSCA saw it fit to ask Michael about his cameras, specifically THAT Minox, or any of his photographic skills or history...

Mostly it sounds to me that you simply have not yet accepted the FACT the FBI tampered, altered, created and removed evidence at virtually every step in the process and in virtually every area of the case.

NEWSFLASH:  OSWALD DID NOT DO ANYTHING HE WAS CHARGED WITH DOING

David, asking you for your evidence justifying a claim you make is not me lacking ability to do research. It is asking you for your reasons or evidence. I am familiar with the flawed Hewett article.

You answer that Oswald had a known history of photography such as his work at Jaggers, all true. That it would be plausible that Oswald would like to work with a Minox if he had one is not contested. But It is implausible that Oswald could afford one, or afford all of the Minox accoutrements (whereas cost of such a high-end camera was no obstacle to Michael). Oswald shows no ownership of expensive equipment in any other case.

But when you go to say "no indication Michael had any interest in cameras or photography", that is not in agreement with the record. The FBI interviewed Michael and Michael told the FBI how he bought his Minox camera, gave details, told of his use of it. Michael identified the photos developed from the Minox film as his photos. (So have most other researchers.) It is true that Michael's interest in photography as told to the FBI was just normal/personal/recreational kind of picture-taking. But to say there is no indication Michael had any interest in a Minox camera when there are FBI interviews clearly saying he did, and then to cite the opposite of what the documents say as your evidence that he therefore could not have had a Minox camera that he said he did have, does not strike me as logical.

The costliness of that Minox equipment is consistent with Michael ownership. The claim of identification of it from Michael, and FBI accepting that Michael's claim was correct, is consistent with Michael ownership. Ruth saying it was Michael's is consistent with Michael ownership. The "Michael Paine" nametags taken by police from the same drawer as that Minox accessory equipment, all Michael Paine belongings in that drawer, is consistent with Michael ownership. The Minox photos developed being Michael's photos are consistent with Michael ownership. And against that there is just nothing, in any evidence, that is not consistent with Michael ownership of that Minox camera equipment, the light meter, the self-timer et al.

But maybe the story of Oswald with a Minox is just too good of a story to need any evidence? 🙂

 

There is also this from the Holland McCombs/Life investigation:

"...notes of a phone conversation with one George Davis ... Davis, according to what [Wallace] Milam presented [from McCombs' materials], was 'a crane operator behind the Texas School Book Depository [who] saw a heavy set man leave the Book Depository and go to a railroad flatcar,' presumably just before or after shots were fired at the motorcade." (https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/9183-possible-origin-of-hidell-name/)

Does any officer match that description?

 

David Josephs--I think you have correctly identified the rectangular object above the camera case, which appears to be a metal case. You identify it as a self-timer, specifically a Hansa self-timer on an evidence list. I think you nailed it, and in so doing have advanced this discussion. Although I could not find an exact match on Google Images for a Hansa self-timer, this looks close: 

And this, different brand Autoknips, looks like it could be identical (though not a Hansa).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So that object is solved! A camera self-timer! 

But I have to press you on a different point. We see in the DPD evidence photo a number of Minox accessories and other items and some "Michael Paine" name-tags. Michael Paine identified those items as belonging to him, and such items were later returned to the Paines, a return of their property. The light meter--Michael Paine's. The Minox camera case--Michael Paine's. The binoculars--Michael Paine's. The name-tags reading "Michael Paine"--Michael Paine's. 

So all these Minox accessories, including now the self-timer, were identified by both the Paines and FBI when later returning them, as Michael Paine's. Everything Minox there in that DPD photo except for a Minox camera itself. All of this Minox equipment in the DPD evidence photo (accoutrements except for a Minox camera), is Michael Paine's, identified by Michael Paine as his, accepted by the FBI as Michael Paine's and returned to him because his, and right next to the Minox camera case and that self-timer in the DPD evidence photo, plain as day, are "Michael Paine" name-tags.

And yet, in answer to the question of who does that Minox equipment in the DPD evidence photo belong to, you answer with certainty, "The photo equipment all belonged to Oswald"!

And you give as reason for your certainty an explanation which makes no logical sense to me:

21 hours ago, David Josephs said:

The photo equipment all belonged to Oswald... a reoccurring theme is Oswald and his camera equipment wherever they may be... 

What does "a reoccurring theme" (elsewhere) of discussions of Oswald and other cameras identified as Oswald's have to do with identification of ownership of these items? That is not logical. Those Minox photographic accessories in the DPD evidence photo are photographed right next to Michael Paine name tags; Michael Paine identified all of that Minox equipment as his; there is no evidence that any of that Minox equipment found by police in the Paine house belonged to Oswald (as opposed to Michael Paine). No one disputes that police took some Paines' property by mistake when intending to take Lee Oswald's things.

How then can you be certain in asserting "the [Minox] photo equipment [in the DPD evidence photo and on the evidence paperwork] all belonged to Oswald"? On what grounds? 

On 4/25/2022 at 8:51 PM, James DiEugenio said:

Jonathan, you many conclude that the above is just suspicion.

But what do you make of the Minox camera escapade, where anyone this side of GD realize the Paines are getting rid of Oswald's  Minox. (I have seen the picture.)

No you haven't. And the idea that the Paines disappeared an Oswald Minox is completely ludicrous. There never was any Oswald Minox. The Michael Paine Minox camera was elsewhere in the garage when police grabbed all of Michael Paine's Minox accessories and Minox photos. That's what the FBI found, its what the DPD evidence photo shows, and Ruth Paine had absolutely nothing to do with that DPD vs. FBI foulup or snafu dispute, in which paperwork said 1 camera and 0 light meter were being shipped, but FBI received 0 camera and 1 light meter in that shipment, in agreement with the DPD's evidence photo unknown to FBI, photo taken before DPD shipped, and there is expert testimony as to how DPD officers, who did not use Minoxes in their work, could confuse the two.

On 4/25/2022 at 8:51 PM, James DiEugenio said:

That Buddy Walthers found metal filing cabinets with names and addresses of suspected commies at their home. 

Absolutely not true. Walthers himself directly testified to the WC that he never saw any such addresses or contents of those filing cabinets, that is Walthers himself testified that what you are claiming did not happen; none of the other police officers or any other witness claimed to see what you are claiming; and once those file cabinets were taken, Dallas police then and FBI later saw fully all of the contents and found nothing at all incriminating of Ruth, so it is not as if there is any mystery on that in terms of any known evidence or witness's testimony. Ruth never is known to have attended a leftist meeting other than ACLU, had no fraternization or associations with any communists other than Lee as Marina's husband, never went to a meeting of Cubans, never was involved in a Cuban organization. Why you have no conscience about smearing Ruth Paine on the basis of a totally unverified claim by Walthers that Walthers himself explicitly repudiated under oath in his 1964 testimony ... 

Does the possibility never occur to you that you might be accusing someone innocent in what you say? Does that never trouble you or give you pause? 

In the words of the Senator McCarthy/Army hearing, have you no shame?

Fifth appeal: is no one who still thinks the paperwork saying a Minox camera was shipped to FBI is accurate, able to give a straight answer to the following question?

The Minox light meter in the DPD evidence photo--how did it come to be received by the FBI lab in the evidence shipped to it by DPD, when there is no Minox light meter in the DPD paperwork of what was sent?

Bonus points for also answering who that Minox light meter belonged to, and why you think so.

More bonus points for proposing a plausible mechanism for the error in the paperwork concerning the light meter--how could such a mistake possibly have happened?

1 hour ago, David Lifton said:

FWIW (at this late date): Yes, the (planned)  cover-up was an integral part of the overall conspiracy.  (Otherwise, its just a shooting, with an ad hoc cover-up).  

It just seems a lot simpler and a lot more common and a lot more intuitively sensible to have a shooting with an ad hoc coverup. 

I have seen the phenomenon many times of people coming across circumstances, an archaeological dig, which would be analogous to a scene of a crime, trying to figure out the story of how things came to be that way ... and in that struggle to explain the details of that scene, coming up with explanations which are wrong or mistaken or stretches in reasoning. Then people get locked into their own stories and double down on them, in the academic world, when other later voices point out incongruities and problems in the original theory. As humans there is the drive to explain, to have a story that explains, and gaps are filled in to make a story work, even when not all moving parts fit together well. 

It just seems more intuitive that there be a murder operation focused solely on having success in the murder (and patsy set up to be blamed if so, along with getaway plans), without the extraordinary complexity of planning coverup afterward involving reading trained medical professionals, law enforcement professionals, civilians et al into having covert bit parts of a complex plot for which there is no certainty at the outset that that particular one (Dallas Nov 22) is even going to come off as planned. (The "what if it had rained harder Nov 22?" question, etc. So often in successful assassinations several failed attempts precede the one that works.) 

Risk of someone leaking. Risk of someone blowing the whistle. Risk of someone talking afterward who had been read into a bit part of the coverup beforehand. Risk that one or more of all of the planned actors in advance getting their roles wrong.

Some of the errors or stretches in original reasoning in such early narrative interpretations of an archaeological site, or scene of a crime, seem in retrospect so egregious that it can easily become interpreted as having been knowing dishonesty, even though that is not actually what happened. In the academic world there probably is a relatively high incidence of dishonesty in the form of scholars or professionals setting forth an original theory or argument, then challenged and shown wrong, but sticking to the original in public for reasons of pride and status even if privately now aware of the possibility they had gotten it wrong. But there is low incidence of scholars or professionals starting out knowingly or intentionally getting it wrong in the first place (because it is not pleasant to have errors later shown publicly). Just speaking from observation of how it works in the world of archaeology.

Could you speak to this consideration David, with respect to the planned vs. ad hoc coverup? (I always listen and often learn from what you have to say.)

Thanks Richard Price. So there is agreement on at least two facts: no Minox camera in the DPD photo, and there is paperwork saying one was shipped to the FBI. You make the point that the camera's absence in the photo is not decisive that the camera existed in DPD possession (somewhere outside the photo), in agreement with the paperwork saying there was one shipped. 

But if you will stay with me here, please follow... (and I hope respond).

If those were the only two facts that would be one thing. But please, please consider the following additional facts which cannot be avoided but must be addressed and explained:

• (i) In the DPD paperwork there is Minox camera film. There are two reported Minox cameras from the Paine house: the one on the DPD paperwork at the time of the DPD photo (which shows no Minox camera), and another Minox camera said by Michael Paine to belong to him, turned over at a later date when it was requested. Michael Paine also identified all of the photos that were developed from the Minox film in the paperwork as his photos, taken by him. Which Minox camera (of the two reported at the Paine residence) do the rest of the Minox accoutrements such as the undeveloped film go with? One, the other, both?
• (ii) The light meter in the DPD photo. Why is it not on the paperwork of what DPD sent?
• (iii) If DPD sent a Minox camera as the paperwork says, why did FBI say they never received one?
• (iv) If DPD did not send a Minox light meter as their paperwork says (that they did not), why did FBI say they received one?
• (v) There is expert testimony that Dallas Police officers did not normally use nor were familiar with Minox cameras. There is expert testimony that a Minox light meter would be easy to confuse as a Minox camera, by someone unfamiliar. (Drain)
• (vi) There definitely was a Minox light meter in the DPD photo. Which of the two reported Minox cameras in the Paine house does that light meter go with? 
• (vii) If there were two Minox cameras in the Paine house/garage, each will have had a light meter. But only one light meter is in the DPD evidence photo. Is there not a missing second light meter to go with the second Minox camera (if there were two Minox cameras)?

Is not the only possible solution indicated from the evidence that the paperwork saying there was a Minox camera is wrong? Not as a matter of maybe or conjecture or could be, but as a matter of simple clear to-the-point evidence?

• the FBI said they never received a Minox camera, even though the paperwork says one was shipped to FBI. First clue there is a mistake in the paperwork.
• In the DPD evidence photo is an item which testimony says could be confused in appearance as a Minox camera by police officers not familiar with Minox cameras or alert to the differences, i.e. a plausible mechanism for how a mistake in the paperwork concerning a mistaken ID of a Minox camera could happen, according to expert testimony.
• The specific item identified by expert testimony as the potential mechanism for a mistaken identification of a Minox camera in the paperwork--a Minox light meter--by coincidence is visible in the evidence photograph but missing in the DPD paperwork. Second clue there is a mistake in the paperwork.
• By an amazing further coincidence, that specific item right there in the evidence photo, the light meter, is however reported received by the FBI even though the paperwork says no light meter was shipped! How does the light meter which is visible in the evidence photo skip over to being received by the FBI without being on the intervening list of items sent? A real puzzle!(?) Third clue there is a mistake in the paperwork.
• A physical Minox camera elsewhere in the house is turned over by Ruth and Michael Paine, identified by Michael Paine as his one and only Minox camera in the house and identified by Michael Paine as associated with all of the Minox accoutrements in the evidence photo (light meter, undeveloped film, camera case, etc.). Fourth clue there was a mistake in the paperwork.
• Finally, there is no Minox camera in the DPD evidence photo, consistent with the other indications of a mistake in the paperwork. Fifth clue there is a mistake in the paperwork.

Why the notion of DPD paperwork inerrancy, like scriptural inerrancy, and with it an outlandish conspiracy supposing many perjuries and crimes willingly committed by close to a half dozen persons who keep it secret for life and why would they risk criminal penalties on themselves for this in the first place? And for what? All to disappear an Oswald Minox camera for which there is no evidence Oswald had one in the first place? (Oswald had no other expensive equipment; Marina never saw him with one; nobody else saw him with one; the Minox film when developed has all been identified as Michael Paine's Minox photos; no paperwork establishes that any Minox equipment belonged to Oswald instead of Michael Paine.)

How is it that two oddities claimed by the FBI in what they received--no Minox camera; one Minox light meter--without FBI ever having seen the DPD evidence photo--agree on both counts with the DPD's own evidence photo?

Not one oddity, but two. How could FBI, without any knowledge of that DPD evidence photo, have reported it received (0 camera, 1 light meter) what the DPD evidence photo shows (0 camera, 1 light meter)? 

(Even though the paper work shows: 1 camera, 0 light meter) 

How did that DPD evidence photo happen to agree with what FBI received, against the paperwork? Not only on the missing Minox camera. But on the light meter too?

The evidence and Occam's Razor says a paperwork error and an officer mistake is what happened.

p.s. David Josephs, thanks for your answer but I cannot agree with this: "By not including the camera in the photograph (for which the FBI and DPD were working together) the door was left open for "corrections" later as necessary." I do not believe it is accurate that the FBI had anything to do with the DPD evidence photo. This seems to be introducing yet further complexity unnecessarily.