Greg Doudna

The blur analysis of Zapruder is gold for the timing of shots, because it is based on an automatic startle response of the nervous system occurring practically instantaneously after hearing a loud noise such as a gunshot. When combined with the observed reactions of people in the Presidential limousine in the Zapruder frames and collated with eyewitness testimony, this is powerful. Five blur analysis studies have been published (Alvarez, Wyckoff, Hartmann, Scott, Stroscio), arriving in close agreement with each other such that the main results on this are essentially now "settled science". These blur episodes in Zapruder indicate five, not three, gunshots. Onsets of blur episodes: Z152-158; Z180-193; Z227; Z313; and Z330.

A particularly interesting finding from the blur analysis concerns Z313, the head shot. JFK's head can be seen hit at Z313 with the spray of brain and bloody matter. But the blur episode begins at Z313. But that means that shot cannot have come from the TSBD, because if so the sound (the shock wave from the bullet breaking the sound barrier at the presidential limousine) would take longer to arrive to Zapruder and cause his startle response, than could be reflected in Z313. This has been calculated: if that shot had come from the TSBD as the Warren Commission said, the blurring could not have begun before Z314. However, the blurring is evident in Zapruder at Z313, inconsistent with TSBD but consistent with a shot fired from a shooter close behind Zapruder on the Grassy Knoll, which also was Zapruder's own impression of where that shot sounded like it came from. In other words, the blur analysis at Z313 is stand-alone evidence of more than one shooter and conspiracy (Cranor, "Neurology and Jiggle Analysis", http://the-puzzle-palace.com/files/jiggle.html).

But working out the rest of the shots and correlating what is seen visually in Zapruder with the witness testimonies and with the blur analysis indicating the timings of shots, involves many issues of interpretation and disagreement. I have struggled to find a way to make sense of the role of Oswald; also why the blur analyses indicate five shots when most witnesses heard only three. Here is my attempt at a theory to account for these questions. Imagine Oswald is not trying to kill anyone but is the shooter of his rifle from the TSBD. It is possible to interpret the Walker shooting as something in which Oswald intended to take a shot at Walker but miss, anticipated getting arrested and charged with attempted murder (not first-degree murder). In the JFK visit to Dallas Oswald is simply hired to do the same thing again: his task is to take two shots and miss, leave TSBD and be helped with a promised flight to Cuba where he will seek asylum, but JFK would not actually be hurt. So Oswald's understanding. This would account for all of the incriminating evidence pointing to him as the shooter, it would account for his not watching the parade among other people with a clearer alibi; it accounts for his flight after the shooting. It removes his expertise with firearms as an issue since it takes little skill to miss two shots. It also explains why shots were missed, why his rifle was not fully loaded, and other seeming lack of preparation. The three shell cartridges, one crimped and already there in the rifle prior to shooting, is ejected, then two missed shots. It explains why LHO does not fire before the turn of the presidential motorcade onto Elm Street. It explains why a professional conspiracy to kill JFK would be using non-professional Oswald, with LHO's willing participation. The rifle would have been in the TSBD a little before Nov 22, not brought to the TSBD that morning. The strange behavior of LHO reported to be seeking other employment in the days preceding the assassination in tall buildings and dropping comments about how a president could get shot ... maybe even the curtain rods story ... are not necessarily urban legend nor impersonators nor inexplicable: they could be LHO intending to incriminate himself, but the plan was that JFK would not be shot and LHO would received assistance to escape to Cuba. But LHO was double-crossed, did not know JFK would be killed, realized he had been set up, and the rest is history. The point of this scenario is an attempt to give a better explanation for missed shots in the JFK shooting. Anyway with that preamble here is one possible analysis of the five shots indicated from the blur analysis:

BLUR EPISODE ONSET/REACTIONS TO SHOTS

#1, Z152-158. Oswald TSBD, intentional MISSED SHOT. the "firecracker" sound witnesses hear. Connally, startled, turns to see.

#2, Z180-193. Just before disappearance behind the freeway sign. Another shooter (Dal-Tex building) with suppressor fires a bullet matched to Oswald's rifle. JFK is hit in the back and reacts. ("Beginning at Zapruder frame 194 the President assumed a posture that can best be described as a flinch which included bringing his arms in front of his body and shaking his head back and forth. According to Secret Service agent Roy Kellerman, he also spat out the words, 'My God, I'm hit.' Because the Warren Commission claimed in contradiction to all medical expectations that the President was clutching at his throat wound, I feel compelled to point out that  a person who has had his trachea perforated by a bullet is unlikely to be capable of coherent speech, and a person who has had severe blunt trauma of the spinal cord at the level of the neck is not likely to be capable of deliberate arm movement. Studies of gun shot wounds involving the vertebrae are uniform in reporting flaccid paralysis of the muscles innervated downstream from the trauma...What this means is that President Kennedy's visible reaction beginning at frame 194, about one sec after the shot detected at Z-175, could not have been a reaction to being shot through the neck." -- D. B. Thomas).

#3, Z227. Oswald TSBD, second intentional MISSED SHOT. Connally rapid movements react to the sound of the shot, not to being hit. The "lapel flap" is not from a bullet, and Connally is not hit at this point (http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg Subject Index Files/L Disk/Lattimer John Dr/Item 03.pdf; http://joliraja.com/lapelflip/lapelflaptd.htm).

#4, Z313. shot from Grassy Knoll, head shot with frangible bullet at close range, the kill shot of JFK.

#5, Z330. Another shot from the shooter of #2 with a bullet matching LHO's rifle. Connally is hit here. Either (a) JFK violently thrown left and backwards at Z313f moves him out of the way such that a bullet aimed at JFK misses JFK and hits Connally (in this case there is no JFK occipital entry wound or second JFK head shot, and the JFK throat wound returns to the early idea of being caused by some bone or shrapnel from the Z313 head shot, happening at Z313), or (b) a modified single bullet theory in which both JFK and Connally are hit with the same bullet entering at the rear occipital of JFK. 

In this way Oswald becomes a witting shooter, a patsy, and not a murderer of JFK, all at the same time; five shots are heard as three by most people; and a hit is carried out on JFK and blamed on Oswald. 

1 hour ago, David Josephs said:

I forgot to get back to this...    just a comment about the overall size of the place and the "reach out and touch him" distance it feels from fence to middle of Elm...

Of all the shot locations described... the fence line on the North grassy knoll and the last few shots... especially "back and to the left"... seems to me the closest and most hidden of shot locations... as well as the easiest with JFK only getting larger as he comes straight to the shooter...

I see sky, not badgeman or hatman in Moorman...  what I do see is the top of a hat just over the fence behind the tree...

 And in the last few frames of Z.... a similar object moving can be seen... (below)

Given what we know of JFK's wounds, an entry above the right ear and near the temple.... from the fence.... is most probable...
and since the limo gets absurdly close to this shooter...  it represents the easiest of the shots as well...

As well as a little curious... if you had been there yet....
DJ

Thanks David Joseph for clarifying. Makes excellent sense to me. No I have not been there, almost did in my trip to interview John Curington but logistics didn't work. I attended a Bible college in east Texas for 2-1/2 years long ago, just 80 miles from Dallas and never got there then either. 

On Zapruder, this article by Josiah Thompson, actually a transcript of a presentation of Josiah Thompson in 1998, convinced me that Zapruder has probably not been altered, as distinguished from unconscionably concealed for a time from the public: http://www.jfklancer.com/thompZ.html. Josiah Thompson from the first generation of researchers is top tier to me. But I have ordered the Fetzer, ed., book on Zapruder that you recommended and will check the articles in it by Jack White and others when it arrives.

19 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

The shot from the fence is absurdly close... once you've been there and seen it....

Hope that helps
DJ

 

David J., what is the point about the Grassy Knoll fence being "absurdly close"? Explain?

Cliff Varnell, in your three-shot reconstruction in which the first was JFK throat from the front, the second JFK in the back, and third the JFK head shot, where do you put Connally being hit?

I came across this in the archives of this forum from a Robert Prudhomme, Aug. 7, 2016 ( http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/22956-jfks-shallow-back-wound-revisited-for-the-umpteenth-time/page/6/), making a case for a rear occipital entrance --> throat exit, though Prudhomme connects it to a forward motion of JFK's head prior to, not after, the Z313 head shot.  The reason I ruled out pre-Z313 for this was because I did not see JFK's head at an angle pre-Z313 that would allow a trajectory from a rear-building shot in agreement with those two JFK wounds. I assumed a straight-line trajectory of the bullet going into the rear of the skull straight through to the throat. Yet according to the Lipsey HSCA deposition, "the consensus at the autopsy, at least while he was listening, was that the throat wound was caused by a bullet fragment from the shot that struck at the EOP, and that the bullet passed under the skull, grazing it as it passed."

It is also interesting that according to the Lipsey deposition the original thinking of the autopsists was two, not one, head-shot bullets for JFK. The blur analysis of Zapruder fairly strongly and clearly suggests an additional shot followed very quickly after the head shot of Z313, which should be accounted for. This Z320-329 final shot could be a second JFK head shot; the Connally hit; both (modified single-bullet theory post-Z313); or a missed shot. My outline at the start of this topic proposed the third of those four possibilities for the post-Z313 shot, but there are different ways others think this should be put this together. 

~ ~ ~ [quoted from Robert Prudhomme] ~ ~ ~

Just to throw another monkey wrench into the works, it is interesting to return to Lt. Richard Lipsey's deposition to the HSCA.

While he was relating how the autopsists spent so much time dissecting lower organs in search of a bullet of bullet fragments, he also discussed the head wound and the throat wound. I can only assume he was relating what he overheard Humes, Finck and Boswell discussing, as Lipsey had no medical training himself, and was only an observer, and took no active part in the autopsy.

Lipsey related to the HSCA that the consensus was that one bullet struck JFK's just to the right of the external occipital protuberance while another bullet struck JFK's head in (you won't believe this) the cowlick area.

Look at this x-ray with the arrow pointing toward the external occipital protuberance (EOP) and imagine JFK leaning slightly forward, following the back shot, much like the figure in the x-ray is leaning forward. Now imagine a bullet travelling at a 23° angle downward (Dal-Tex Building?) striking JFK just to the right of the EOP.

Would the bullet enter the skull. or slide under the skull and impact the cervical (neck) vertebrae? According to Lipsey, the consensus at the autopsy, at least while he was listening, was that the throat woundwas caused by a bullet fragment from the shot that struck at the EOP, and that the bullet passed under the skull, grazing it as it passed.

We find additional clues to this matter in the HSCA deposition of Jerrol Custer, the x-ray technician who took all of the x-rays of JFK on 22/11/63. He claimed the x-rays he saw of JFK's neck are not the ones he was shown by the HSCA, and that the x-rays he recalled showed many bullet fragments in the vicinity of cervical vertebrae C3/C4.

If we allow for JFK's forward lean, plus the 3% downhill slope of Elm St., is it possible to line up a bullet path that passes through the right of the EOP (under the base of the skull), right side of cervical vertebrae C3/C4 and the right side of JFK's trachea at about the 2nd tracheal ring? I believe JFK was first shot, in the back, when behind the Stemmons sign, and this theoretical shot that passed under his skull may be the "lunge" forward we can see JFK making just as he appears from behind the sign; the one many people have interpreted as JFK "coughing up" a bullet. A bullet impact this high on the torso would account for the "lunge" forward.

If I am correct in this theory, and the Z film is authentic, we would know the exact moment a bullet struck and grazed the lower rear of JFK's skull. Not only that, we know the almost exact location of the entrance and exit wound, assuming the fragment continued on in a straight path. If we could determine the exact position JFK was in at this moment, it should be possible to determine exactly which window of the Dal-Tex Building th shot came from. 

~ ~ ~ [end quotation] ~ ~ ~

48 minutes ago, Micah Mileto said:

O'Connor recalls that Jenkins or someone else told him that the doctors had "...found a fragment of a bullet lodged in the intercostal muscle on the right rear side.." of the President's body.

 

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/pdf/md64.pdf

Thanks Micah, interesting.

I see from an anatomy chart that the intercostals go up as high as the collarbone area. O'Connor says later in that account, perhaps after a moment's further thought, that he "believes he was told this information by '...one of the corpsmen, possibly the photographer'." A fragment, not a whole bullet, as he remembered hearing it. I suppose there are three possibilities: related to the back wound, related to the throat wound, or erroneous report. But if a bullet fragment had been found, would it not have been recorded and turned over to the FBI for examination? 

Well that is interesting David Butler! Wonder what that was about--some misunderstanding?

I see also in that Nov 22 message that the original interpretation of the stretcher bullet was that it came from JFK.

On 7/14/2020 at 3:57 PM, David Josephs said:

Greg, I wish you all the luck and success you can find... 

I'd only suggest to dig a bit more deeply before offering "conclusions", as opposed to theories or hypotheses.   

Some thoughts to consider

1. TOMLINSON's bullet is never authenticated as CE399... in fact, CE399 comes into existence when ROWLEY hands it to TODD
   CE2011 p.2.   https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1140#relPageId=430&tab=page  
    
2. Bullets do enter without exiting... FBI reports a bullet behind the ear IN ADDITION TO the bullet they are calling CE399
   Paul O'connor tells us a bullet was removed from the intercostal muscles in the lower right side of JFK's back
   A Dr. Young tells us corpsmen were sent to retrieve bone pieces and find another fully intact bullet....
   Cliff V is mentioning an exotic item that did exist and very possibly was employed to "freeze" JFK in place....

David, theory or hypotheses, yes. On #1 I hope you realize my summary outline of argument at the top of this topic had nothing to do with C399, but instead concerned only the original stretcher bullet, and in fact I think C399 was substituted for the stretcher bullet. Two of the four witnesses who saw the original stretcher bullet intact either on the stretcher or in the immediate moments after it was found indicated it was intact with a pointed nose, not intact with round nose as is C399--neither of those witnesses were either known to or called by WC--and FBI diplomatically reported to the WC that key figures in the chain of custody such as Rowley were unable to confirm it was the same bullet, which looks a little like a paraphrase of "that does not look like the same bullet". C399 of course was testified to be matched to Oswald's rifle, but the original stretcher bullet, the bullet of JFK's back wound per reconstruction, would be from a different rifle than Oswald's. 

On #2 could you explain your first and second sentences? What FBI report has a bullet behind (JFK's?) ear? Do you mean in addition to the stretcher bullet? (Not C399, which has nothing to do with the question here.)

And are you sure there is a reference to Paul O'Connor saying that a bullet was removed from the intercostal muscles in the right side of JFK's back? I cannot find Paul O'Connor saying that. O'Conner said those at the autopsy found a bullet went in JFK's back but did not exit anywhere else. But I cannot find O'Connor referring to seeing or knowing of a bullet removal.

Thanks David--  

Despite much effort searching archives of this forum I have not been able to verify what I thought was a memory of reading James Richards referring to his having named the de Torres identity of "Leopoldo" prior to Gerry Hemming. I apologize for that mistake. This means the Bernardo de Torres "Leopoldo" identification has no known prehistory before Gerry Hemming. That by definition makes it questionable, given Hemming's industrial-strength bullsh--t.

Also another point: a lot has been written and is known about Bernardo de Torres, but never any mention of use of a name "Leopoldo" by de Torres. Perhaps "Leopoldo" was someone not only tall (ca. 6'), ca. 165 pounds (thin), with a distinctive male-pattern-baldness, but also was named Leopoldo. The only reason people have been considering persons not named Leopoldo all this time is solely derivative from a speculation of Silvia Odio, who recalled use of "war names" of activists and warriors. But that was no more than speculation on Silvia's part. I now see that a CIA document from July 1978 sought to identify "Leopoldo" by looking at possible Leopoldos, and named 13 listings, two of whom were associated with figures named Angel: https://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=7276&search=Leopoldo_araujo#relPageId=2&tab=page. That was released in 1998 without anything censored. (For the same document now improved with some things blocked out, released April 26, 2018, https://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=159599&search=Leopoldo_araujo#relPageId=1&tab=page.) 

Update 10/22/20: I found the Education Forum post in which James Richards identifies himself as having proposed the de Torres identity for Silvia Odio's "Leopoldo", prior to Gary Hemming or Joan Mellen: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/14207-silvia-odio-a-new-look/

James Richards, April 7, 2009: "Just to clarify things, it was many years ago now that I suggested the 'Leopoldo' character in the Sylvia Odio affair was Bernardo De Torres. GPH agreed with this and later said same to Joan Mellon."

On 7/23/2020 at 1:24 PM, David Josephs said:

If we could proceed accepting that our Oswald was not in Mexico on those dates, it may help other things come into focus..

Well the Oswald Odio visit can be on Wed Sept 25th for those who think Oswald did not go to Mexico City, and on Wed Sept 25th for those who think Oswald did go to Mexico City. Everybody can be happy? 🙂

7 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

And what was Sylvia Odio's response when she was shown this photo?

Hi Joe--I think David Boylan said above that there is no confirmation that Odio saw that photo. But here is what Fonzi said about photos shown to Odio (https://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=60438&search=Fonzi_odio#relPageId=3&tab=page ).

She says she doesn't specifically remember being asked [by WC] about Loran Hall, Lawrence Howard or William Seymour but she was shown numerous photographs, many even after she had moved to Miami in September of 1964, but was never told the names of anyone whose photograph she was shown. She recognized no one but Oswald. (I showed her photographs of Hall, Howard and Seymour which were in Tattler, Sept. '75, and she recognized none of them.)

[...]

(Showed her all the photographs I had with me and she could identify only Oswald in any of them. Except for one photo which I believe was taken of individuals coming out of courtroom following hearing in New Orleans concerning the Bringuier-Oswald fracas.) She identified the man in the background (center left) as her uncle and said she didn't know her uncle was involved with Bringuier. I told her that according to an FBI report, her uncle, Dr. Augustin Guitart, admitted to being at that court hearing. 

[...]

She said she has always wondered who the other two men who came with Oswald were and has always looked for photographs of them.

On 7/23/2020 at 12:31 PM, Greg Wagner said:

Hey, Greg. Gayle Nix Jackson established the Odio visit as having occurred on Friday, September 27th. She was able to pinpoint the date via a 2016 interview with Silvia's priest, Father Machann, and a 9/24/63 Corpus-Christi Caller Times newspaper article. See pages 252-3 of her book Pieces of the Puzzle for details.

Thanks very much Greg Wagner. I have Gale Nix Jackson's excellent book and rechecked that. That comes from Father Walter Joseph Machann. I do not think the Fri 27th date is correct and will explain why. Machann was called by the Warren Commission and then by Frontline and could not understand why they kept trying to pin him down on the date (he did not realize the Mexico City timeline issue at stake). Machann confirmed that Silvia Odio had spoken to him of the visit of Oswald and two others, but whereas Silvia was uncertain as to the exact day, Father Machann thought he knew the exact day, because in his memory the Silvio Odio Oswald incident was the same evening of a "star-studded Galaxy ball" (per newspaper headline), a charity fundraiser for the Texas Association for Mental Health, with celebrities, dinner and dancing, the works, which took place on Friday, Sept 27, 1963. A photo of the newspaper article telling of this event is at Gayle Nix Jackson's p. 252. Machann said in his 2016 interview with Jackson (p. 282):

MACHANN: Oh, I see. That is why the Frontline people kept trying to pin me down on dates. The one thing I did tell them was that I remember that date because Silvia and Lucil;le were going to a celebrity party with that actress...I can't think of her name (Puts his hand to his eyes) What was her name? She was in a movie where she was married to Arnold Schwarzenegger. What's her name?

GAYLE: Jamie Lee Curtis?

MACHANN: That's it! That's her!

GAYLE: I don't think she was born then, are you sure it wasn't her Mom? The one who played in Psycho? Janet Leigh?

MACHANN: Well it may have been, I just remember Curtis. [Note: the newspaper clipping says Janet Leigh was in attendance, but no mention of Jamie Lee Curtis--gd] And I remember that Lucille and Silvia were going to this event and I felt slighted. I wondered why they didn't ask me to go (Sits forward in his chair and laughts) I would have liked to have gone. So, I told the Frontline people that's how I remember the date.

GAYLE: "I can't blame you! It would be fun to go to a celebrity party when you had all that stressful work to do.

MACHANN: (Laughs) I still remember that feeling of being left out.

Later in the interview Gayle returns to this and Machann repeats it again (p. 303):

GAYLE: So the day Oswald went to Silvia's home, that was the same day of the Galaxy ball?

MACHANN: Yes, that was the date. She went there the day the movie star came to Dallas. I can't remember if Silvia was in the paper or not.

However, I think the following testimony from Silvia shows that Machann was mistaken, and conflated two events very close together in time, both involving Silvia preparing to "go out" when the two plus Oswald were at her door. Silvia testified the visitors to her door were later in the evening, maybe 9 pm or so. According to the newspaper clipping in Gayle's book, the gala charity ball on Fri Sept. 27th started with cocktails at 7, dinner at 8, and dancing at 9, meaning if Silvia was in the process of dressing preparing to go to that event would she not be doing so at an earlier hour? Silvia never mentioned the charity ball, either in her WC or Fonzi HSCA interviews, which would be an easy event linkage to remember. Silvia said she was going out "to a friend's house", not to a charity ball. Her sister Annie had come over to babysit. From Silvia's WC testimony (https://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=45#relPageId=380&tab=page), p. 380 of the Mary Ferrell site's numbering at the link:

ODIO: It either was a Thursday or a Friday. It must have been either one of those days. In the last days of September. And I was getting dressed to go out to a friend's house, and she [Annie] was staying to babysit.

And again, p. 382 of the Mary Ferrell site's numbering, referring to her three visitors at the door.

ODIO: They kept mentioning that they had come to visit me at such a time of night. It was about 9 o'clock, because they were leaving for a trip. And two or three times they said the same thing. They said, "We may stay until tomorrow, or we might leave tomorrow night, but please excuse us for the hour." And he mentioned to or three times they were leaving for a trip.

[...]

The next day Leopoldo called me. I had gotten home from work, so I imagine it must have been Friday. And they had come on Thursday. I have been trying to establish that. He was trying to get fresh with me that night...

I suggest Silvia Odio's testimony in 1964 of the circumstances of her going out that evening is correct and Father Machann is incorrect. In Silvia Odio's HSCA interview, Gaeton Fonzi's report (https://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=60438&search=Fonzi_odio#relPageId=3&tab=page ).

She recalls when she was interviewed by Hosty that he kept pressing her to remember the specific day that the three men came to her apartment and she couldn't specifically remember. Still they kept pushing her for the exact date. ("I kept telling them that I don't remember the date but I know that it was in the last days of September because we were moving at the time and that we had boxes all over the living room and that in order to open the door we had to jump all over the boxes. But I could swear I don't remember the day, but when I read the Report I found they had set a day and that they had done it for me.") ("I only remember it must have been the last days of September because we had already a lease for another apartment and that it was the middle of the week, not a Saturday or Sunday.")

And again regarding the date (Fonzi report): 

Silvia specifically remembers that when Leopoldo called her back on the telephone and told her about Oswald talking about killing Kennedy, it was not a weekend day (Sat. the 28th or Sunday the 29th) because she remembers working that day and getting the call after she came home from work, about 7:30 p.m. She is pretty sure it was not the day after their visit, but the following day (which would make it Friday the 27th at the latest; because Monday was the 30th and she was moving by then.)

If the Leopoldo followup phone call to Silvia Odio was Fri the 27th, and it occurred "not the day after their visit, but the following day", that would agree with Wednesday the 25th as the evening Oswald was there.

Wednesday the 25th as the date of the Oswald visit to Silvia Odio removes the argument from timeline incompatibility with Oswald's trip to Mexico City per the reconstruction I have outlined. The Warren Commission and FBI spent a lot of fruitless time trying to reconstruct bus schedules from New Orleans to Houston, trying to confirm Oswald's presence on some such bus from New Orleans to Houston, and came up with nothing. It is somewhat astonishing that so little, if any consideration, was given to the possibility that Oswald got from New Orleans to Houston by car--WC's only consideration of that idea seems to be over the issue of whether Oswald could drive and had rented a car. Whereas the Silvia Odio visit has Oswald in a car as how Oswald got from New Orleans to Dallas, and Silvia Odio said they told her that the three of them were leaving on "a trip", then they left with Oswald in a car . . .

The Warren Commission, the MacAdams site (article "Silvia Odio: the Mother of all Sightings"), and some researchers conclude that Oswald could not have both been at Silvia Odio's front door and gone to Mexico City due to a supposed contradiction in timeline. WC and MacAdams cite the contradiction to exclude the Odio sighting of Oswald. Some researchers cite the same contradiction to accept the Odio sighting and exclude Oswald from having gone to Mexico City. The FBI documents investigating the issue of when Oswald could and could not have left New Orleans, focusing on the time of mail arrival of an unemployment check mailed from Austin which Oswald picked up from his post office box in New Orleans and cashed before leaving, is very strong. The only attempt known to me to address the timeline issue and argue that Oswald both visited Silvia Odio and went to Mexico City, in a book by Jean Davison, could only do so by supposing some unknown greater speed of the mail getting from Austin to New Orleans. But Davison could not explain how, and the FBI interviews and evidence on that point just looks extremely difficult to contest. I have studied those documents and tried hard mentally to imagine any credible alternative explanation that could allow Oswald to have left New Orleans a day earlier than Wed. Sept. 25, but failed.

But the timeline objection--the argument from implausibility against both the Silvio Odio sighting and the same Oswald going to Mexico City--is a non-issue, i.e. no reason both cannot be correct, as follows. First, WC, drawing from the FBI investigation, established that Oswald must have left Houston for Laredo on a bus leaving Houston 2 am. Thu Sept 26. Oswald arrived Mexico City 10 am Fri Sept 27, checked into a motel, freshened up, and by 11:30 was at the Cuban consulate seeking a visa allowing him to go immediately to Cuba (which was denied him, citing in part lack of any referrals or letters of reference from the US Communist Party, the usual method of streamlining such approval). There was a phone call from Oswald to Mrs. Twilliger in Houston asking for Mr. Twillinger the evening of Wed Sept 25, according to Mrs. Twilliger. That Oswald said in that phone call that he was flying to Mexico City can be disregarded, but the existence of the phone call and its date is strong: the existence of the phone call from Mrs. Twilliger's credibility, also an address and phone listing for the Twilligers of Houston in LHO's address book. The date of the call is established because Mr. Twilliger had not returned from a work trip, which Twilliger said he returned Thu Sept 26; therefore, eve of Wed Sept 25 for the phone call. 

But here is a simple, elegant solution to the alleged timeline problem which does not involve disputing the evidence concerning the unemployment check establishing Oswald could not have left New Orleans before the morning of Wed Sept. 25, as I work it out. First, WC dated the visit to Silvia Odio as either Thursday or Friday, Sept. 26 or 27, citing Silvia's testimony. But Silvia Odio told Gaeton Fonzi later (this is in Fonzi's writeup of his HSCA interview of Odio) that she had repeatedly told WC that she was not sure of the exact day, but WC had fixed on the Thursday or Friday (as opposed to some day earlier that week), basically deciding the uncertainty of Silvia for her. Silvia was certain of the incident, and certain that Oswald was there, but uncertain as to the exact day though it was late September, and told the WC of her uncertainty. With that background:

Wed. Sept. 25, ca. 9 am: LHO picks up unemployment check from PO Box, cashes it, and departs New Orleans in an automobile driven by others headed to Dallas

New Orleans to Dallas driving time is 7.5 hours (per a current website giving driving times)

Wed. Sept. 25 early evening: Dallas, at door of Silvia Odio, two others and Oswald, one of the two others, "Leopoldo" with the odd forehead, doing the speaking for the group. Seeking written letters of recommendation from Silvia (if the visit had been successful; Silvia declined). Silvia observed Leopoldo's companion Angelo sit in the front passenger seat of the car as they left, meaning Leopoldo was the driver. 

Same Wed Sept 25 early evening: phone call from Oswald to Mrs. Twilliger in Houston seeking Mr. Twilliger. Why this phone call? If Mr. Twilliger had been there to come to the phone, what would Oswald have asked or wanted? Perhaps a letter of reference--similar to what was sought from Silvia Odio, similar to what Oswald could not produce at the Cuban consulate which was cited to deny him what he sought there. But if the purpose of Oswald's call was to ask for a letter of some kind, then that is not the kind of call he would make from a Houston bus station while waiting for a bus to Houston. It would be made with intent to set up an in-person quick visit to the Twilliger house to pick up the letter that evening. That attempt, like the one at Silvia Odio's door, was also unsuccessful. With no letter in hand, the Oswald trip to Mexico City proceeds anyway.

Dallas to Houston driving time is 3.5 hours (per current website giving driving times). They drive there direct. Oswald is dropped off at the bus station in Houston by his drivers, and from there takes the Sept 26, 2 am, bus to Laredo.

Silvia Odio said the three men including Oswald arrived to her apartment in a car. She said Leopoldo said they had come from New Orleans and were leaving on a trip. They left with Oswald being driven in a car. Being driven in this car--with Leopoldo and another--is Oswald's method of transportation, from New Orleans to Dallas, and from Dallas to Houston. Trying to reconstruct bus schedules etc. is entirely irrelevant here: Oswald got to Dallas, and then to Houston, by car (driven by others). And the visit to Silvia Odio was actually the first leg of the Mexico City trip. It is not as if these two were unrelated. If Oswald had been successful in reaching Mr. Twilliger and getting him to agree to giving Oswald a letter of some kind, the car carrying Oswald would have driven to Twilliger's home, obtained the letter, and then dropped Oswald off at the Houston bus station.

There was some confusion in the WC reconstruction by testimony that Oswald was in Austin. That cannot have happened on this trip because of the timeline, but also because of plausibility: the purpose of Oswald's visit in Austin was to attempt to get his draft discharge issue fixed. But on this Mexico City trip from all appearances Oswald is attempting to get into Cuba immediately, leaving the US behind. If that was his objective on this trip, who cares what his draft discharge was at that point. But the Austin trip dealing with the draft discharge need not be identified with the time of the Mexico City trip. The date the Austin visit happened, apart from being remembered as a Wednesday, was not certain, and could have been a month or so earlier, per the testimony. Therefore assuming the Austin trip happened, that would have been some earlier round-trip from New Orleans not heretofore identified. But not at the time of the Mexico City trip.

With this timeline there are no more serious problems, removing the principal reason for the WC's rejection of Silvia Odio's testimony. And the Silvia Odio Oswald sighting, rather than being some freak anomaly unrelated to the Mexico City trip, becomes an integral first stop of that trip. Oswald was going to Mexico City, and he had assistance in the form of driving transportation as far as Houston, of that trip. It all works in the timeline, and it begins to make better sense as a coherent narrative.

In other words, this is no longer a "he says/she says" "DPD says/FBI says" issue over whether DPD turned over to FBI a Minox camera. The photograph ends the dispute in favor of "FBI says", in this case.

And in shades of witchcraft trials, anyone who speaks to defend the accused witch is themselves suspected or accused of being in the service of dark forces. James in your world because I defend the accused witch, Ruth Paine, you start to point the dreaded accusing finger at me now, with all of the terrible weight that your reputation and voice gives to it ("for what reason, I don't really know"). You know the reason: it is what I see of the facts, it is what I think. I do my own research, my own thinking, write my own posts, earn my living cleaning windows, answer to no one, there is no hidden hand or funding, before your insinuation starts a dark narrative. I never accused you of bad faith, of "for whatever reason". The parallel to when I said you were prosecuting someone innocent, which I have never doubted is honest on your part in the sense of how you see it, would be to say I am defending someone guilty, not to introduce suspicion of malevolence, that there is a "for whatever reason". I did not see it coming and have no stomach for it. I offered what I thought was a possibly productive contribution to the shots and bullets issue in another topic heading which got a little discussion along with a couple of insults which were discouraging, and I offered a few things here in this topic. 

There is no Minox camera inside the Minox camera case, or anywhere else in the photo.

No I do not know what picture you are talking about from the DPD that shows a Minox camera, and I am being 100% straight with you here. You never gave a link, never showed a photo, never told me a search term or how to find it, I am aware of no other photo in a Kennedys and King article, and this is the only photo I know of the DPD evidence relative to this. I post the only photo I know of of the evidence that DPD itemized as including a Minox camera, but the photo does not show a Minox camera, and no other photo of DPD evidence exists that does. You think I must know what you are talking about but I do not. 

On moving goalposts, maybe you think the depositions and Hoover teletype establish the correctness of the DPD inventory list without need to identify a Minox camera in a photo of the DPD evidence. The problem is that the DPD evidence photo that does exist contradicts the DPD inventory list, indicating the written inventory list had an error, listing a Minox camera that was not there (not in the photo, not in what arrived to the FBI lab). The DPD evidence photo is exculpatory of the charges you level against the Paines in this case. 

4 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

As per your explanation about the Embassy letter, if October 4th was the earliest intimation of Azcue leaving, then  I am sure you know when the WC says Oswald left MC?

And you ignore that?

Secondly this information you rely upon appears to be coming from the CIA plants inside the consulate.  Who told the CIA that Oswald had never been there--and they said this twice.

And you ignore that also?

Finally,   in your post above you write this:

"there was the handwritten draft with corrections, both in Oswald's handwriting,"

What does this mean?  From my information, there were two handwritten copies of the finally typed and sent letter, but one of those was hand copied by Ruth.  Why are you leaving this out?  That particular version of the Embassy letter is now gone from NARA. (Carol H. wrote about this for Probe back in 1997 and you said you read this article.)

The best  discussion I have ever read of the differences between the typed version and the one Ruth said she pilfered  from Oswald is by Jim Douglass. As Jim notes, the hand written version is not as  provocative as the typed version is.  He continues, "...the paragraphs in the draft are rearranged so as to deemphasize Oswald's contacts with the Soviet and Cuban embassies, emphasizing instead his differences with the FBI."  Jim also notes that certain phrases in the rough draft also soften the idea of a Soviet conspiracy e.g references to Kostikov and his business, is in the handwritten draft version related to the documents he needed to get. (Douglass, JFK and the Unspeakable, pp. 232-34)

As Jim further notes, this is important because the WR explained the letter more in terms of the written draft, not the final typed and sent letter. By doing this, "the Warren Commission tried to reduce the explosive meaning of the letter sent to the Soviet Embassy". (ibid, p. 234)

Incredibly, that hand written draft letter was returned to Ruth Paine.  And, as noted, her version is not at NARA. Therefore, it is logical to assume that the two handwritten original drafts of the letter  were or are in her possession. And you see nothing odd or off kilter about this.   

James--October 4 was not the earliest intimation of Azcue leaving. That was the originally scheduled date for when he would leave. Azcue, and those Azcue told (and there is no sign this was a particular secret inside the consulate) knew the October 4 date well before that. As I cited documentation showing, the Oct. 4 planned date of Azcue's departure was known as early as Aug. 13, because Azcue told someone of his planned Oct. 4 departure on that date, Aug. 13.

On your second point, of CIA informants inside the embassy saying twice that Oswald was never there, I do not think that is accurate. As I recall they said they personally had not seen Oswald there. They did not deny that Oswald was there, only that they were not in Silvia Duran's work area when that happened. Whoever it was came in to see Silvia Duran, they did not get a look at him. 

On "both in Oswald's handwriting", I meant the handwritten draft of Oswald, and then the corrections written interlinearly on that handwritten draft of Oswald. I was not referring to Ruth's copy.

I am not sure what you mean by leaving out Ruth's copy. I cannot find a photo of it on the Mary Ferrell site. Ruth testified she copied it from Oswald's handwritten draft. I do not know what it would add in terms of information of what Oswald wrote, which was my topic under discussion. If I could see Ruth's copy I would check for variants with the handwritten draft of Oswald, to check for the hypothetical possibility that Ruth copied some handwritten draft of Oswald other than the one known to us. But if she copied from the same handwritten draft of Oswald that we already see in photographs, as Ruth said and thought was the case, then it would not add information that I can see.  

 On Jim Douglass on the differences between the two versions, handwritten draft and typed. I have much respect for Jim Douglass, a true voice of conscience in this world. However I must say I disagree with his assessment of significance of the differences in the two versions of Oswald's embassy letter, after having just studied the two versions myself and thought through this. In my opinion the changes, all of which I listed in a preceding post above, do not intensify any conspiracy meaning because, in my opinion, Oswald is not writing about any conspiracy. It is an accident that "finish our business" sounds sinister in retrospect in light of the assassination. I did wonder for a moment if Oswald possibly could be intentionally implying some unstated double meaning, nothing to do with an assassination but some unspecified spy relationship, in "finish our business"--but there is just nothing substantial to that. There is a term "eisegesis", reading meaning into texts that just aren't there. In my opinion everything in Oswald's embassy letter is about trying to get his visa and explain what went badly in Mexico City that affects his visa application, and the differences between the two versions are simply attempts to write a clearer business letter, and not more complicated than that. The Kostin (Kostikov) reference and FBI freakout over Kostikov I believe was likely simple accident; to Oswald just a name of an official in the embassy. I have no idea why Oswald's handwritten letter would be in Ruth's possession and not in the National Archives.

James, here is the photo. It is not cropped and it is a sharp photo. There is an empty Minox camera case (directly above the "VO" of "Voluntarily" and to the right of the pocket watch), and there is a Minox light meter (below bottom right corner of the "Voluntarily" placard). But there is no Minox camera. Kindly identify where you think the Minox camera is.

Here is a blowup of the Minox camera case. The photo is sharp, not blurred. There is no Minox camera inside the case.

This is a Dallas Police photo prior to conveyance of the items to FBI. No Minox camera. 

On 7/20/2020 at 4:18 PM, Aldin Lee said:

Greg, I added what is essentially an "I don't know" option.

Thanks.

3 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

The above is the contents of the infamous Hoover teletype of late January 1964.  All that is missing is some hard to decipher marginalia.

I think Carol Hewett first used it in her excellent article for Probe Magazine excerpted in the book The Assassinations.

Please note the following:

1.  It is from Hoover himself not Belmont who is supposed to be running the inquiry.

2.  He admits that the DPD prop clerk handed in an invoice or receipt for a  Minox which the FBI got on 11/26.  And this means the Homicide Bureau had given it to him.

3.  Hoover says that both Ruth Paine and Marina willingly gave the police the camera!  

4. This is at the same time that DeBrueys is trying to get the DPD property master to say the opposite.

5.  Note who he advises Shanklin to talk to, first the police, since he wants the cops talked out of their story.  But after that its Ruth Paine, and then Marina.

#2, yes the DPD prop clerk handed in an invoice or receipt for a Minox camera. That is undisputed, a document. The FBI lab said what they received however was other than the property list.

#3, this is what DPD reported on that document! This was on Friday without a search warrant with Ruth and Marina willingly cooperating with the police who asked if Ruth would voluntarily let them look for and take Oswald's things. Ruth would have been within legal rights to say no. Her consent was required, and she did consent, cooperated fully with the police in this search which upended her life and privacy not any of her doing. The DPD reported Ruth's, also Marina's, willing consent. That does not mean Ruth can be held responsible for some mislabeling error (if that is what it was) in the inventory list! Be reasonable! 

#4, yes, DeBrueys attempting to get DPD to admit they made a labeling error. The problem was there were Minox pictures and Minox paraphernalia but no Minox camera that would be expected to be associated with Minox pictures and Minox paraphernalia. The Minox pictures were developed, and showed photos matching Michael Paine's 1950s army and Europe-travel days, and not matching Oswald as the photo-taker. Who does that suggest in that house who might be the most likely owner of a camera that took those photos?

#5, absolutely logical, given that the intention was to find an explanation for, from FBI's point of view, a missing Minox camera. When Ruth and Michael were asked, they produced Michael's Minox camera. They had not previously been asked. Now they were, and they produced Michael's non-working Minox camera. They also were able to get all of the things of Michael Paine, including his Minox light meter and Minox camera case, mistakenly taken by DPD in their collection of Oswald's things, belatedly returned (except for the non-working camera since it remains in the National Archives). Unbelievable that you find anything whatsoever in this process objectionable on the part of Ruth or Michael Paine. 

If you were to go into court to charge Michael Paine, or Ruth, over this, it would be a legal travesty, a conviction of two absolutely innocent people, guilty of the horrible crime of Michael Paine owning his own camera, and Ruth and Michael both telling truthfully that Michael owned it. 

James, did you look at the DPD evidence photos and inset blowups in the article link I gave before, http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/minox.htm? It is just plain right before your eyes at that link if you will look at it. It is absolutely convincing that the DPD took an empty Minox camera case, and a Minox light meter ... along with other things of Michael Paine's collected by mistake, and wrote it in their inventory list, mistakenly, as a Minox camera and no Minox light meter. That DPD made a misidentification in their list is not only the FBI's conclusion that that is what happened. It is also the evidence of DPD's own photos, and it is the evidence of the Minox photos found in the garage which Michael took in the 1950s.

3 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

When you say that Oswald wrote the embassy letter, I think you are confusing the embassy letters. 

Because the last letters is so different that the previous ones. 

Also, as you can see the order to withdraw Azcue were secret and not relayed until after "Oswald" left:

https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP75-00149R000600150004-9.pdf

James your article link sent me back to check some things. First, on the two versions of the letter, there was the handwritten draft with corrections, both in Oswald's handwriting, then the typed version of the same letter dated Nov. 9, 1963, and typed by Lee on Ruth Paine's typewriter that weekend according to Ruth's testimony and Marina. Oswald probably arrived to Ruth's house with handwritten draft already in hand, needing a typewriter to type it.

Your comment led me to study the differences between the two (handwritten vs. typed) and I list the differences here. In short, all of these read as ordinary minor improvements of the typed letter working from the handwritten draft as its source, though in the typing several new typos were introduced. The handwritten is on the left below, the typed version is to the right of the arrow.

events since --> recent events since

my interviews with --> my meetings with

to remain in Mexico City --> to remain in Mexico

on applying for an extension --> on reqesting a new visa

U.S. --> United States

the Mexican City embassy at all so of course they --> the Soviet embassy in Mexico, so they

reach Havana --> reach the Soviet Embassy in Havana

to assist me --> to complete our business

But of course the acting Cuban Consul was at fault here

--> Of course the Soviet embassy was not at fault, they were, as I say unprepared. the Cuban consulate was guilty of a gross breach of regulations

has since been replaced by another --> has since been replced

FPCC --> "Fair Play for Cuba Committee"

in New Orleans Louisiana --> in New Orleans(state Louisiana)

I no longer live in --> I no longer reside in

us here in Texas --> us here in Dallas, Texas

Nov. --> November

Agent of the FBI James P. Hasty --> Agent James P. Hasty

warned me that if I attempted to engage in --> warned me that if I engaged in

"suggested" that my wife could --> "suggested" to Marina Nichilayeva that she could

U.S. --> United States

There was a movement in the order of paragraphs and an added sentence at the end informing of the birth of their daughter. None of these edits are substantive changes in meaning, simply clearer wording, consistent with Oswald making minor editing improvements in real time as he typed from his draft. These edits also indicate the direction in relative sequence of the two versions was handwritten to typed, as would be expected, not vice versa (abbreviations become spelled in full; changes in wording for clarity).

On Oswald's knowledge of Azcue's departure, Oswald's wording is Azcue "has since been replaced" but as the article of your link shows Azcue had not actually left the consulate at the time of writing of the letter the weekend of Nov. 9 since Azcue actually departed Mexico City on Nov. 18. Therefore this must be--as I read it--Oswald knew that Azcue was going to be replaced, originally scheduled for Oct. 4. 

According to documents in a CIA file on Azcue on the Mary Ferrell site, the exact date of Azcue's planned departure (Oct 4) was known in the consulate by at least Aug. 13. Azcue told a few people that he was leaving; it did not seem to be a strict secret any more than any other planned personnel change inside a bureaucracy. Oswald's letter appears to reflect this information, in which Oswald thought that, at the time of his writing, Azcue was already gone. (Mary Ferrell numbering 82 and 86 of here: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=51603&search=azcue#relPageId=86&tab=page). 

Since the information to which Oswald alluded in his letter was known within the Cuban consulate at the time Oswald was in Mexico City, I see no need for any of the possible explanations offered by CIA and FBI to explain this (neither of these agencies suggested the Contreras circle as a possible mechanism). Since there is no sign that Azcue's planned departure was or why it would have been a classified secret internal to the consulate, a reconstruction of informal knowledge within the consulate --> informal knowledge Contreras circle --> Oswald, is the simplest explanation removing the need for all the more complicated explanations that have been suggested and proposed. This article http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg Subject Index Files/A Disk/Allen-Scott Columns/Item 03.pdf tells how CIA's possible explanations (Silvia Duran; a Soviet official) were rejected by the FBI who proposed their own possible explanations (an informant in the Cuban embassy in Mexico City who contacted Oswald after he returned to the U.S.; CIA; KGB in Mexico City). Neither of these intelligence agencies thought of the group with which Oswald spent most of his time in Mexico City, the Contreras circle! Who had means and opportunity to be the mechanism of how Oswald knew, learned it in Mexico City, then mentioned in the letter he typed at Ruth Paine's house the weekend of Nov. 9.  

1 hour ago, David Boylan said:

Greg,

I cannot confirm that that was the photo shown to Odio. Fonzi said that he had shown her quite a few though.

Did Fonzi's smoking-hot lead and interest with respect to Bernardo de Torres come before or after his interviews with Silvia Odio? It does seem certain he would have shown photos of de Torres if the former, and unknown if if the latter but then he would have gone back to Silvia Odio at that point and shown her photos at that time. It is also known that Silvia failed to identify either Leopoldo or Angel from any photos she was shown, despite telling of seeking to identify who those two men were. That was James DiEugenio's point and it is a strong one. Yet again, in light of the utter and pivotal importance of this point, and because of the striking specificity of Silvia Odio's description of Leopoldo's distinctive forehead, it should be verified airtight up or down one way or the other, not assumed, in my opinion. I understand Silvio Odio is somewhere still alive? She could be shown the range of photos of Bernardo de Torres and could say directly. If it is a false positive, so to speak (between match of witness description and photo on a distinctive physical feature), so be it. But I would like to know Silvia Odio's direct and specific response to photographs of de Torres which did show the distinctive feature, and in response to which photographs. If Silvia, for example, said she was "uncertain" (neither certain for nor certain not) when shown a photograph of de Torres which did not show the unusual hairline, I would not call that a disconfirmation. 

There is one option missing: "I don't know", which is what I would vote if it were listed (that is, among the options named except for the last one). Therefore, I am unable to answer this poll, even though I believe there was a conspiracy.

On 7/16/2020 at 9:48 PM, James DiEugenio said:

Greg when you say Oswald admitted to being in MC, you are I think referring to the Embassy letter.

Yet you never bring up the internal problems with that letter.  Are you unaware of them?

Do you think Oswald met with Hosty on November 1st?  That is what it says in the letter.

Did Oswald know his wife's maiden name? Because he got it wrong in the letter.

How on November 9th or 10th did Oswald know Azcue had been replaced at the embassy?  Because he refers to this in that letter.  This is about six weeks after he had been there.  What makes this even odder is that Azcue, at the time of the letter's alleged writing, still had not been transferred yet.

The FBI determined that this was the only letter they ever found typed on that typewriter.  And this includes Ruth.  She wrote her letters to Marina by hand. 

Ruth did not give this to the DPD.  Even though she allegedly had two written copies of it at hand.  She gave it to the FBI on the 23rd.

For its use in the WR, the Commission used Ruth's version, not the one sent to the  embassy and not the handwritten draft of Oswald's.  The Commission then returned Ruth's original  to Ruth.

On 11/22 Hosty asked Oswald about a letter to the Soviet embassy about him being in MC. LHO said he had not written such a letter.  Of course, if he had not been there, why would he write such a letter?  

James--the issue of authentication of Oswald's handwriting is distinct from any analysis of the content of the letter. The handwriting is authenticated as Oswald's, without to my knowledge any dissent from expert opinion. Therefore, that is a starting fact, prior to considering the letter's content. The issue now becomes, not whether the handwriting was written by Oswald, but rather questions of intention, did Oswald compose the letter alone or with help or fully by others, what was the letter's purpose. These questions have nothing to do with the prior issue of the handwriting being Oswald's, which in terms of expert opinion is settled fact.

Here is what I think concerning the points you raise. No, Oswald did not meet with Hosty Nov 1 (per testimony of Hosty, Ruth, and Marina). Oswald says that in his letter but it is not accurate. Oswald's point is FBI interference and he has slightly modified Hosty's visit to harass Marina (as Oswald views it) to as if Oswald was there when it happened. He is not making up the main point about the FBI visit to Marina, but put himself there in the telling of it although that was not accurate. Oswald has a history of low-level minor fibbing, e.g. in his employment applications, so this is not out of character.

Yes he knows Marina's maiden name but seems to be spelling it phonetically except for missing the final "n" which looks like a spelling error: Nikolayevna-->"Nichilayeva". Since Oswald is such a poor speller (despite being intelligent) whenever he writes, this is not out of character either. He knows her name to say it, he just has difficulty spelling it, along with many other words.

How did Oswald know Azcue had been replaced? I think I can suggest an answer to that. This is on the understanding that Oswald did go to Mexico City and that some of the differences in descriptions are witness errors. Contreras or Contreras's circle. First, Oswald spent a lot of time with Contreras and several students with Contreras: "Group allowed Oswald to accompany them the rest of that day, that night (of group safehouse) and part of the next day ... On dates and details of what was discussed with Oswald, Contreras refused to discusss ... Contreras said if he pressed on issue by Americans he would simply say entire story is fabrication and then they would have to leave him alone" (https://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=39226&search=contreras#relPageId=3&tab=page). (Incidentally I would not exclude Contreras purposely giving a wrong Oswald description if he wanted to have himself removed from scrutiny over his Oswald connection.)

Then second, combine that with Contreras was friends with the Cuban consulate and knew the personnel there. From Dan Hardway of HSCA: "Contreras did have contacts at the Consulate and spoke to the Consul and an intelligence officer. Both warned him to have nothing to do with Oswald as they suspected he was trying to infiltrate proCastro groups" (https://aarclibrary.org/a-cruel-and-shocking-misinterpretation/). Then third, combine that with this informant report from 1967, in which a Cuban consulate official, Ramiro Jesus Abreu Quintana, told the informant that "Oswald and persons from the Cuban Embassy had gone shooting on the outskirts of Mexico City and a sixteen year old Cuban outshot Oswald. MM-T1 said Abreu did not claim that he himself, Abreu, knew Oswald" ( https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=109784&relPageId=5&search=abreu).

I identify Contreras's group spending time with Oswald as Abreu's group spending time with Oswald, as two variant descriptions of the same group. The point is Oswald spent parts of two days with a person (Contreras) and associates which had "contacts at the Consulate" and knew the Cuban embassy well, including the inside information of Azcue's pending departure, perhaps informally known to most in the Cuban consulate at that point even though it was not yet public. At some point from Contreras's circle Oswald learned the gossip that Azcue was leaving. That is how I reconstruct Oswald learned that. The reason Oswald makes a point of it in his Embassy letter is because Oswald had had an argument and a scene with Azcue in which Azcue had ordered Oswald to leave the building (per testimony of Duran and Azcue), which Oswald might reasonably suppose could get back to the Soviets, so he disparages the source of that. 

You refer to Oswald's denial of Mexico City in Hosty's notes of his questioning of Oswald on Nov 22 at the Dallas police station. I rechecked those notes and indeed Hosty wrote "denies Mexico City". But the Hosty notes have Oswald confirming that he wrote the Embassy letter! "Said contacted Soviet Embassy re wife/ Hosty talking to wife was the reason".

That is exactly the content of the Embassy letter. Hosty knows of the Embassy letter and, perhaps without disclosing to Oswald that he knows of the Embassy letter, asks Oswald if Oswald had visited the Soviet embassy in Mexico City. Oswald's answer in support of his denial that he visited the Soviet embassy in Mexico City (or denied going to Mexico City altogether, whichever it was) confirms Oswald saying he wrote the letter to the Soviet embassy in Washington, D.C. Oswald's answer to Hosty's question regarding a Mexico City Soviet embassy contact might be some sense, paraphrased, as this: "No, I wrote the Soviet embassy in Washington, D.C. because you were harassing Marina."

Oswald's denial of going to Mexico City (if that is what "denies Mexico City" means) does not mean he actually did not go to Mexico City, or did not visit the Soviet embassy there, even if he told Hosty that after his arrest. It is in keeping with a series of easily-shown lies Oswald told in those early interrogations as Oswald scrambled, alone and without an attorney, to stonewall or stall until he could get legal counsel--or until some intelligence agency would intervene to extract him from his situation, if he had been promised that. If this last possibility was the case--and to me that is just about the only explanation that makes sense of Oswald's interrogation answers--then it would not matter that the police could find some of his statements untrue, only that they not find them untrue that moment.

But back to the Embassy letter, it is possible to see in that letter an attempt to implicate the Soviets in an upcoming assassination with "finish our business" (instead of referring only to Oswald's visa travails). Obviously after the assassination every word retroactively is restudied anew looking for any double meaning or signal or code or whatever. All I can say is I see nothing in Oswald's Embassy letter which requires such an interpretation. If something like that was going on and it had been composed by others, then Oswald was witting. But to me, my "best reconstruction" is that: the letter is not more complicated than Oswald's visa issue; totally composed and written by Oswald; no double meanings intended; and the name "Kostin" perhaps mistake for Kostikov and a random name (from Oswald's point of view) he was name-dropping from the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City without further significance on Oswald's part. And finally, despite the conjecture of Nechiporenko in his book, and raised in the article on the Soviet embassy letter in the article in your own publication, Kennedys and King, that Oswald intentionally left the letter out where a curious Ruth would see it and report it, as some intended disinformation spycraft on Oswald's part ... I do not think so. I think that particular letter was Oswald dealing with his visa issue, not more complicated than that, and no deliberate attempt to plant it where Ruth would see it. There were spooky things about Oswald, but I do not myself after looking at this see cause to read more into that Soviet embassy letter than appears at face value. That is my take on this. 

Bill Simpich, Part 11 comments continued--

-- I thoroughly agree with your comment concerning the tragedy of Oswald not having talked to an attorney before he was killed. On why LHO wanted Abt, and why he decided on Abt, the background you give of Abt is interesting and would fit why LHO would want Abt (since I do not regard LHO's left views ideologically--civil rights, anti-racism, pure democracy, and communist theory--as illusory, based on his writings found after his death and the rather extensive information on the library books he read). You suggest Michael Paine suggested Abt and while that is plausible, I see not reason why that is necessary. All else being equal, that is probably the best guess of any as to LHO's source. But it could have come from one or another of the publications Lee read. So it is a reasonable conjecture (Michael P as source of that) but I do not know how it could be pushed much beyond that. In any case LHO seems to have had Abt in mind already, prior to the events of Nov 22.

-- Fascinating on double agent Elizabeth Bentley in Abt's circle and Bentley's FBI interrogator being none other than William Harvey. 

-- on Michael Paine at Luby's liking to discuss provocative politics. Yes, your description seems accurate here. 

-- this is odd: "An avowed pacifist, Michael served in the 40th Division in Korea between 1952-54 as an artillery infantryman, even though he refused to take the oath of allegiance when inducted in 1952." Hard to figure out those three things in the same sentence. As you say, people are complicated.

-- On "...Michael landed his classified job at Bell Helicopter in Irving, Texas. Curiously, sources differ on whether it was during January or July 1959. This should have set off alarm bells throughout the intelligence agencies." Why? The July start-date of the FBI appears to be the hard information verified with Bell Helicopter. The source for the January claim is a credit report. I am just guessing here, but from my experience most credit information comes from forms filled out by credit applicants. I would assume either Michael Paine filled in a blank claiming he started his employment in January on some credit application, or else said "1959" and a credit issuer employee expanded that to "January 1959".

-- on conjecture of Cord Meyer of CIA enticing the Paines to move to Texas. Does not the plush job at Bell Helicopter in Irving due to his stepfather Arthur Young entirely explain the move and when it happened?

-- On "Hoover states near the close of the Warren Commission that extensive investigation was done of de Mohrenschildt and the Paines, and found that they were not communists, fascists, or subversives. Hoover did not address the evidence of their intelligence connections, which is extensive and wide-ranging." By "Paines" your context indicates Michael and Ruth Paine. What is this "extensive and wide-ranging" evidence of intelligence connections for these two persons, to which you refer? I am not aware of any that has yet come to light in any document. I do not regard Ruth's dealings with the State Department (read CIA in this case) re organizing logistics of the East-West exchanges as qualifying as evidence that Ruth had an intelligence connection, since that is not proven (Ruth may have been functioning as a civilian dealing with a bureaucracy to accomplish programs for better understanding between peoples, with the support of a mandate from Friends; Friends historically apply to governments to get good things done; doesn't mean Friends approve of govts' bad acts). For Michael I am unaware of anything that comes even that close.

-- On "Wittingly or unwittingly, Ruth knew enough Russian to provide protective cover for Marina, who needed to hide her knowledge of English. Robert Webster told writer Dick Russell that Marina only spoke English to him when he was in the USSR (John Armstrong, Harvey and Lee, p. 267)". That about Marina is startling if true. I would say Ruth is unwitting here (if this is true). I am unaware of anything from Ruth suspecting that Marina knew English significantly better than she let on. Nor am I aware that any other people in Dallas suspected Marina of knowing English a lot better than she let on. Either Marina was a flawless actor without a slip, or there is some error in this Robert Webster report, though it sounds credible. If the Webster report is true, and if Lee knew Marina's secret, this would shed new light on why Marina seemed to make little effort to learn English, citing what both Marina and Lee agreed was Lee not wanting Marina to learn English (one of the oddest behaviors of Lee in any other light, toward a new immigrant wife). 

Now I am at the end of Part 11.

On 7/17/2020 at 11:57 AM, Bill Simpich said:

I feel like the Paines' defense attorney - I'm still researching them, see Parts 11 & 12 of my book on the Oswald legend, which I'm rewriting.  I think they got wrapped up in something they didn't fully understand.  Like you, I do not think that Ruth and Michael are bad people.   I think they're like most of us - complicated.

I have been reading your Parts 11 and 12 (I like your method of footnoting). Here I will offer some comments on Part 11.

-- on the move of Michael and Ruth to Irving in 1959 during the same week that Oswald came to visit his mother in Irving before he left for the USSR. The idea is that Oswald could be expected to return from the Soviet Union to the Dallas-Fort Worth area at some point, and Ruth and Michael would be in place for some keeping an eye on them. In thinking about this, I think this is coincidence, a "false positive". First, they moved there because that is where Bell Helicopter was where his stepfather, Arthur Young inventor of the Bell Helicopter, got him the job. Therefore Michael and Ruth's arrival there is fully explained without recourse to influence of Oswald's movements. And second, plausibility--did the US government fund major moves of assets or operatives years in advance in anticipation of a defector's return? It seems a little far-fetched.

-- on witnesses seeing a man looking like Oswald escaping from the TSBD in a vehicle looking like Ruth Paine's as a warning to the Paines to shut up and let the Oswald-lone-gunman story go forward. Can't see this one. The car was not Ruth's (Ruth was at home and would have noticed if her car was gone that morning), and it is not clear the Paines even heard the witness reports to which you refer. This wasn't planned as a warning to anyone of anything. The witness reports suggest an escaping assassin (in a car that was not Ruth's--the mistaken ID was Oswald's own as I recall, and was not larger than Oswald's momentary remark), but no need to see planned choreography for messaging purposes. Plausibility--who hires the driver, who hires the fleeing person from the TSBD, who provides the auto, solely for a choreography/messaging purpose. 

-- on the Paines as baby-sitters (so to speak) for Lee and Marina after George de Mohrenschildt left for Haiti in April. While I can understand that is an intriguing theory or reconstruction, it lacks positive confirmation and, in my opinion, suffers from an objection: Ruth has denied that. (I thought I heard that toward the end of the Sixth Floor Museum interview but cannot seem to locate it quickly; I can keep looking if you would like the reference). Ruth's denial has weight with me, since she has high credibility for truthfulness with me.

-- on MIchael Paine's responsibility in getting Lee to join the ACLU which weakened his most powerful advocate. This seems to misunderstand certain things. First, it is unknown that Michael urged that as opposed to Lee deciding that on his own. Michael took Lee to an ACLU meeting but I think the purpose, from Michael's point of view, was for the fun of it (I am being serious on that--he got his kicks out of attending controversial political events--I am tempted to make a quip: "its a Unitarian thing"). Of course Michael believed in the ACLU himself, but so would Lee. There is no necessity to invoke Michael either proactively suggesting to Lee, or taking Lee to the ACLU meeting with that purpose in mind, to explain Lee's seeking membership. Second, Lee's joining ACLU may have done slight damage to ACLU's reputation after the assassination but I don't think much--most people in America understand that large membership organizations are not responsible for crazy acts (as Oswald was regarded) by someone who just joined. I just don't think apart from an initial awkward moment or two in addressing the point, that it was much of a big deal. On conflict of interest, I do not see how Lee's membership in ACLU would introduce an obstacle to his getting legal services from ACLU attorneys. Since I cannot see any downside in terms of legal representation for Lee in joining ACLU, and since I see no real reason to suppose Michael had intention for Lee to join ACLU in the first place, I do not see a point here. On the ACLU quote about LHO being denied a fair trial because of media pressure, I do not see LHO being a member would make much of a difference if LHO had lived and ACLU had vigorously defended his legal rights. If ACLU had done that it would have been controversial enough in any case--whether LHO was a member seems to me not a major factor or variable. So I cannot see "Oswald's ties to the ACLU smeared the organization and injured its credibility in its attempts to defend Oswald after his death". (Also on this last sentence, did ACLU attempt to defend Oswald after his death? After the first few days it does not seem like anyone was apart from his mother--though questions did start arising before long, but I am not aware of a particular leading role of ACLU in defending Oswald after his death.)

I hope some of this may be worthwhile and I will continue in further posts.