Who Wrote the Walker Letter?

[Jon G. Tidd]

FWIW, I believe in an uninhibited marketplace of robust discussion, contrasting voices, all of which leads inexorably to consensus.

I partake of DSL, Greg Parker, DJ, et al.

I disagree with James Gordon. I don't want polite discussion. I want the truth. It doesn't come politely.

[Ron Ecker]

I disagree with James Gordon. I don't want polite discussion. I want the truth. It doesn't come politely.

Truth should always be broken gently.

[Jon G. Tidd]

Disagree, Ron.

Truth is always raw, always new, always foreign.

That's art, and that's science.

[Paul Brancato]

More or less agree.

I find the story of Marina burning the pic of Oswald compelling.

[Paul Brancato]

Meaning that it is evidence that she would have treated any such incriminating items in the same fashion.

Does anyone know if Marina herself would join us here?

Edited April 24, 2015 by Paul Brancato

[Greg Parker]

This link was sent to me by a lurker.

It is Curry on 11/22 or 11/23.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tjgH8o4Adw

Edited April 25, 2015 by Greg Parker

[Greg Parker]

This link was sent to me by a lurker.

It is Curry on 11/22 or 11/23.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tjgH8o4Adw

At about the 6:15 mark, Curry is asked if there is any connection to the Walker shooting...

[Robert Prudhomme]

Disagree, Ron.

Truth is always raw, always new, always foreign.

That's art, and that's science.

"You want the truth?? You can't handle the truth!!"

[David Lifton]

David

What time did you see the post last night? I am in British Columbia and I believe we are both in the Pacific Standard Time Zone. I was up quite late, too, and, from time to time, I was checking this forum for new posts, and there did not seem to be any by Greg Parker until I checked the forum again today. Are you sure he deleted the post? I tried that with a post here once (a real boner that was the result of assumption) and I could not remove it. All I could do was remove the text, but the post was still there.

Anyways, you don't seem to need the post, as you are doing quite well quoting him from memory.

Now, let's think about this note a little before we draw too many conclusions. I always believe in looking both ways down the road, as it is just as easy getting run down from the east as it is from the west.

"Marina said that she placed the note inside of a cookbook."

Just when, and to whom, did Marina say this? Was that part of the "acceptance" program she went through?

Here is what I think about this notion. Marina had just arrived in America from a totalitarian state in which innocent people regularly were "disappeared" to the gulags in the middle of the night, and often never seen again. Often, these people were denounced by some citizen with a grudge or some ambitious person wishing to curry favour with the state, and the charges brought were inevitably groundless and contrived. Innocent people lived in constant fear, so where would that leave someone with something to actually hide?

Needless to say, Marina would have learned, from a very early age, not to keep anything with any potential to incriminate herself or anyone around her. Something like the Walker note, if found by the authorities in Russia, would not only earn LHO a one way ticket to the camps, it would also guarantee Marina a long sentence in a camp as well, for not immediately denouncing her husband as an enemy of the state.

Do you really think any of us here with even ten working brain cells would consider for one second that Marina, a child of the Stalinist era, would put the Walker note away for safekeeping in a cookbook?? For what reason? As a keepsake to hand down to their children some day?

No, if LHO wrote the Walker letter, I can guarantee you it would have been burnt or shredded within hours (or minutes) of Marina reading it.

Robert:

Marina testified at length as to why she hid the note. She was alarmed at what Oswald had done--i.e., told her he had done, etc.--and said that if he ever did any such thing again, she was going to the authorities (and with the note). I don't find any of this unreasonable. Again, you must take into account her context--she arrived in America in June 1962, was somewhat homesick, but very much attracted to the country--and then had to deal with the fact that (a) her husband had ordered a rifle (which she found puzzling and really inexplicable) and then ( b ) came rushing into the apartment on the night of April 10th, saying he had shot at a public figure (because he thought him to be a fascist). So: she saved the note out of self-protection. She was both amazed and alarmed at what Oswald told her he had done. It was all very real and frightening, and without question marked a turning point in her assessment of her husband and in their marriage.

In the response to a previous post--a response which Parker somehow managed to get deleted--he made a bunch of sarcastic remarks ridiculing Marina's credibility. All I can say is that, first of all, Parker doesn't know Marina and secondly, his analysis of Marina is not very good, at all. Again, I go back to my personal experience with the man. In 1995 (approx), and working with Debra Conway (who spent hours at the Fort Worth Library examining microfilms of the Ft Worth Stat Telegram), I obtained printouts from early September, 1956 reporting racial incidents in Fort Worth. These incidents correlated (time-wise) with what Lee wrote in a letter to Palmer McBride or someone else at Pfisterer Dental Labs). Greg Parker--who hadn't even gotten involved in the Kennedy case at that point (and who years later obtained Canadian wire service reports of the same incident )--could not accept the fact that I had unearthed FW Star Telegram reports of the same incident (!). So, he loudly and vehemently accused me of lying and went on to say that if I ever published any such thing, as a discovery that I had made, he would denounce me as a xxxx.

So what does that say about Greg Parker and his judgement, when analyzing evidence?

ONE OF THE REVIEWS AT AMAZON. . .

Last evening, I went up to the Amazon listing for his book, and found reviews from an apparently intelligent reader who complained that the author (Parker) seemed to select evidence to support a predetermined conclusion, and went on to provide 3 examples of this kind of behavior. Asking, at the end of his recitation: "Where's the beef?" Rest assured: that was not news to me. That's par for the course with Parker. He cherry picks data and will even reverse cause and effect to attempt to create the appearance that he has found something which "supports" a pet hypothesis.

This is exactly what he has done with the proposition that Ruth Paine authored the Walker note--which (imho) was clearly written by Oswald. In that case, he has invoked the fact that someone in the Dallas Police Department was clearly itching to make the "Walker connection" (based on a question thrown at Curry during an 11/22 or 11/23 press conference, and a subsequent little story in the DMN) and then tried to infer --from the date Ruth Paine turned in the cookbook (!) --that she was the author of the letter found in the cookbook.

Again, let me make this clear: someone (at the DPD) was trying to "make the connection" between LHO and the Walker shooting, starting within 24 hours of JFK's assassination. But "they" had nothing concrete. "Walker" was like a bombshell, but without the letter, there was no fuse. Without the note, there was no "trigger." And the DPD search hadn't turned up any note--which (apparently) was the object (or at least one object) of the search.

The note was in the cookbook; and the cookbook wasn't turned over to the Irving Police Department until the following weekend.

No matter. Parker then infers (falsely, in my opinion) that Ruth Paine was involved, and was doing this "on cue". (That's what he wrote in the post he managed to get deleted). It was the sequence of dates that persuaded Parker of Ruth Paine's guilt (!).

This, imho,is flimsy and silly reasoning. He doesn't understand Ruth Paine, or her politics; and when he "discovered" that Sylvia Meagher focused on the fact that a DPD detective was "shaking" one or more books and apparently was "looking for something," instead of drawing the proper inference--that someone had been tipped off as to where to find this "clew" --Parker went off half cocked and improperly concluded that the DPD search was so competent and thorough that it was evidence that the letter (which he had concluded was a forgery created by Ruth Paine) was not then "inside" the cookbook!

Just consider the chain of false inferences involved in this "line of reasoning"!

RE OSWALD'S LETTER OF 10/22/61 (CE 55)

As to the one letter that Oswald wrote in Russian--CE 55 ,dated 10/22/61 (16 WCH 193) . . . : This was an affectionate letter from Lee to Marina written when she was away from Minsk, on vacation. Its the only letter that I'm aware of that he wrote in Russian, and yes, I had forgotten about it in writing prior drafts on this thread. But I just don't see that letter --written some 18 months earlier, and under entirely different conditions--as a valid basis of comparison, or offering a "test "of the authorship of the Walker note.

This was obviously a love letter of sorts, and of course Lee would take the time to write it carefully. (He might even have expected that Marina would show the letter to her relatives, with whom she was staying). When Lee wrote longer letters, Marina said that he would take time and use a dictionary, to make sure he "got it right" (my quotes). This is described in Marina and Lee, and Priscilla McMillan spent many hours with Marina, attempting to pick up any details she could. Anyway, it doesn't surprise me in the least that this affectionate very carefully written (and very sweet) letter of 10/22/61 would exhibit superior craftsmanship to the hurriedly written Walker note of April 10, 1963. On the other hand, if someone were to present evidence that an unknown associate of Lee said to him, "Here's what I want you to say - -write this down, and place it somewhere where she will see it," then so be it. But I don't see that as plausible. In any event, I certainly do not believe that the note was placed where it was --in the Oswald's apartment--by someone unknown to Lee, and in an effort to frame him. Remember: he returned to an agitated Marina and said that he had shot at Walker. IMHO: Lee wrote it himself; and what it said (grammatically correct or not) is completely consistent with his bizarre behavior when he came rushing into the apartment later that evening.

In other words, the letter served to "set the stage". It was prelude to the performance that Lee staged later.

Keep in mind: this is the same fellow who (credibly) faked a suicide attempt on October 21, 1959--an attempt that appeared sufficiently real that it was taken seriously by those "on site" at the time, and went all the way up the chain of command to top Soviet officials (Mikoyan and Gromyko). Lee was quite an actor and producer of real life dramas--in which he "played himself." (Something akin to "reality TV," only decades earlier).

I hope this answers your question.

DSL

4/24/15 - 6:40 p.m. PDT

Los Angeles, California

Edited April 25, 2015 by David Lifton

[Robert Prudhomme]

Dave

Earlier, you wrote this:

"Most important (to me): I assisted Steve Bello in developing the basic view of the Walker shooting as a staged affair. Steve wrote dialogue that captured that idea, if only briefly, and it was the first time that, to my knowledge, the Walker affair was publicly explained in that fashion. As contrived."

Do you personally believe the Walker shooting was a staged and contrived affair? If so, could you elaborate on this, and possibly list the player(s) you felt was (were) involved?

[Greg Parker]

Dave

Earlier, you wrote this:

"Most important (to me): I assisted Steve Bello in developing the basic view of the Walker shooting as a staged affair. Steve wrote dialogue that captured that idea, if only briefly, and it was the first time that, to my knowledge, the Walker affair was publicly explained in that fashion. As contrived."

Do you personally believe the Walker shooting was a staged and contrived affair? If so, could you elaborate on this, and possibly list the player(s) you felt was (were) involved?

David previous accused me of claiming Marina must be a great actress. Now we see it is Oswald who must be the great actor. Rushing in breathlessly and apparently easily fooling Marina into believing he had done the deed. Oh! That's right! He was "gaslighting".

So I guess Walker was just helping him out, playing along.

If you watch the movie, don't blink or you'll miss the part where the Walker shooting is portrayed as a staged affair. Note also that tho he really has no idea, he is taking credit for being the first to come up with that theory. It may be so... but i wouldn't count on it.

In any case, he gets a tick for being right with this. Even if it may be for the wrong reasons.

Walker was simply playing to his support base, drumming up publicity and sympathy for upcoming lectures and political campaigns, If anyone was a ham actor, it Walker.

To make sure the media really GOT it... he waited until they arrived and THEN dramatically brushed the debris from his hair.

Sorry, but this was one caper Oswald wasn't involved in. Marina's lack of concern about the letter and Walker photos, but zeroing in on a photo inscribed to his daughter, says it all.

[Greg Parker]

David

What time did you see the post last night? I am in British Columbia and I believe we are both in the Pacific Standard Time Zone. I was up quite late, too, and, from time to time, I was checking this forum for new posts, and there did not seem to be any by Greg Parker until I checked the forum again today. Are you sure he deleted the post? I tried that with a post here once (a real boner that was the result of assumption) and I could not remove it. All I could do was remove the text, but the post was still there.

Anyways, you don't seem to need the post, as you are doing quite well quoting him from memory.

Now, let's think about this note a little before we draw too many conclusions. I always believe in looking both ways down the road, as it is just as easy getting run down from the east as it is from the west.

"Marina said that she placed the note inside of a cookbook."

Just when, and to whom, did Marina say this? Was that part of the "acceptance" program she went through?

Here is what I think about this notion. Marina had just arrived in America from a totalitarian state in which innocent people regularly were "disappeared" to the gulags in the middle of the night, and often never seen again. Often, these people were denounced by some citizen with a grudge or some ambitious person wishing to curry favour with the state, and the charges brought were inevitably groundless and contrived. Innocent people lived in constant fear, so where would that leave someone with something to actually hide?

Needless to say, Marina would have learned, from a very early age, not to keep anything with any potential to incriminate herself or anyone around her. Something like the Walker note, if found by the authorities in Russia, would not only earn LHO a one way ticket to the camps, it would also guarantee Marina a long sentence in a camp as well, for not immediately denouncing her husband as an enemy of the state.

Do you really think any of us here with even ten working brain cells would consider for one second that Marina, a child of the Stalinist era, would put the Walker note away for safekeeping in a cookbook?? For what reason? As a keepsake to hand down to their children some day?

No, if LHO wrote the Walker letter, I can guarantee you it would have been burnt or shredded within hours (or minutes) of Marina reading it.

Robert:

Marina testified at length as to why she hid the note. She was alarmed at what Oswald had done--i.e., told her he had done, etc.--and said that if he ever did any such thing again, she was going to the authorities (and with the note). I don't find any of this unreasonable. Again, you must take into account her context--she arrived in America in June 1962, was somewhat homesick, but very much attracted to the country--and then had to deal with the fact that (a) her husband had ordered a rifle (which she found puzzling and really inexplicable) and then ( b ) came rushing into the apartment on the night of April 10th, saying he had shot at a public figure (because he thought him to be a fascist). So: she saved the note out of self-protection. She was both amazed and alarmed at what Oswald told her he had done. It was all very real and frightening, and without question marked a turning point in her assessment of her husband and in their marriage.

In the response to a previous post--a response which Parker somehow managed to get deleted

Is that an accusation? I have begged for your wish to be granted and have it returned, You, my friend, are a protected species. I am not.

--he made a bunch of sarcastic remarks ridiculing Marina's credibility. All I can say is that, first of all, Parker doesn't know Marina and secondly, his analysis of Marina is not very good, at all. Again, I go back to my personal experience with the man. In 1995 (approx), and working with Debra Conway (who spent hours at the Fort Worth Library examining microfilms of the Ft Worth Stat Telegram), I obtained printouts from early September, 1956 reporting racial incidents in Fort Worth. These incidents correlated (time-wise) with what Lee wrote in a letter to Palmer McBride or someone else at Pfisterer Dental Labs). Greg Parker--who hadn't even gotten involved in the Kennedy case at that point (and who years later obtained Canadian wire service reports of the same incident )--could not accept the fact that I had unearthed FW Star Telegram reports of the same incident (!). So, he loudly and vehemently accused me of lying and went on to say that if I ever published any such thing, as a discovery that I had made, he would denounce me as a xxxx.

Version One Of The Lifton Tall Tale & True of His Legendary Past:

"As Greg Parker has noted, Fort Worth news stories, published in 1956, support the fact that when Oswald wrote a letter to Pfisterer (mentioning civil disorders in Fort Worth), the year being referred to was 1956, and not one or two years later. (FYI: Pre -internet, I found those same stories the "old fashioned" way, via microfilm at the Ft Worth library). Its interesting that, in the world of the Internet, they are now a mouse-click away."

So version one was that David S Lifton personally went to library and found those stories all by his widdle wonsome self - which he called the "old-fashioned way".

Asked to produce those stories, there was a delay of several days before we got this:

"The stories were in the Fort Worth Star Telegram. I cannot locate them at this time. Just pay someone (as I recall I did) to go to the FWST in the vicinity of those dates, and I'm sure you'll find them. ](FYI: I never published anything about them. Once I spoke to McBride, and filmed him, I had no doubt that his original statement, as to the date, was simply an error. Of course, there's lots of people who just can't give up on the Amrstrong interpretation of all this, just like there are people who can't let go of the idea that Steve Witt and his umbrella are innocent. Since you found similar stories through your own Internet search, I've been assuming you realize McBride simply had the date wrong."

So... version 2 was that he couldn't find them, he thinks he paid someone to do his "old fashioned" work for him and anyway, they didn't matter because he was already convinced that McBride was in error. In short, having PROOF doesn't matter to David

Months later, we finally get version 3, which went like this:

"As has been pointed out (and according to McBride, himself) Oswald –who, with his mother, moved to Fort Worth on July 1, 1956—subsequently wrote a letter to a supervisor at Pfisterer. In that letter, he talks of racial tensions and demonstrations in Fort Worth. Back around 1995, I had someone go to the Fort Worth library, pull microfilms of the Fort Worth Star Telegram, and actually locate news stories mentioning that."

So version 3 is that he paid someone specifically to locate those stories that he previously indicated didn't matter and that he initially thought he himself had found.

Then came the final version (unless he has more up his sleeve!)

"The person who was working with me at the time, and who kindly did this research was Debra Conway (who founded JFK Lancer). Debra spent hours at the Fort Worth Public Library, back in 1995, going through microfilms of the Fort Worth Star Telegram, and looking up other relevant records as well. We talked on the phone quite a bit, as to what she found, and then she mailed me one or more packets of news clippings, that she printed out. At the time, she was also pursing the matter of obtaining real-estate records as to where Oswald lived, what houses Marguerite Oswald bought, and when, etc. (Furthermore, I gave four talks at JFK Lancer in their November, 1996 conference). So it was Debra Conway who--back in 1995 (yes, 1995, that's seventeen years ago)-- was at the Fort Worth Library going through various records; and it was she who found the news stories, and it was she who made the link between those news stories and the McBride statement."

So in version 4, he finally remembers it was Debra Conway who he paid to do this work for him. It was even Debra who made the connections between the stories and Oswald letter, not Lifton himself.

Really? Does anyone else here think it would take them over 9 months to recall that they had once paid the exceeding well-known founder of Lancer to do some "old-fashioned way" work them?

Four very different versions over many many months. Does anyone really buy that as credible? Is it credible that he had proof via those stories that Oswald was indeed in Fort Worth in 1956 and despite being in a Battle Royale with Armstrong over McBride, he ignored those stories and relied on government tax forms (which could be dismissed as forgeries)?

If anyone is buying that, I have a bridge in Sydney Harbor to sell.

So what does that say about Greg Parker and his judgement, when analyzing evidence?

ONE OF THE REVIEWS AT AMAZON. . .

Last evening, I went up to the Amazon listing for his book, and found reviews from an apparently intelligent reader who complained that the author (Parker) seemed to select evidence to support a predetermined conclusion, and went on to provide 3 examples of this kind of behavior. Asking, at the end of his recitation: "Where's the beef?" Rest assured: that was not news to me. That's par for the course with Parker. He cherry picks data and will even reverse cause and effect to attempt to create the appearance that he has found something which "supports" a pet hypothesis.

That review was by a person using a false name when he first put it up. It was later pointed out to me what the person's real name was - a person who had been arguing with me on FB over Ruth Paine. Like Lifton, he is a Ruth Paine apologist. As soon as he was outed, he updated the amazon page to his real name. In short, the review is about as balanced as a one-legged drunk on high wire.

This is exactly what he has done with the proposition that Ruth Paine authored the Walker note--which (imho) was clearly written by Oswald. In that case, he has invoked the fact that someone in the Dallas Police Department was clearly itching to make the "Walker connection" (based on a question thrown at Curry during an 11/22 or 11/23 press conference, and a subsequent little story in the DMN) and then tried to infer --from the date Ruth Paine turned in the cookbook (!) --that she was the author of the letter found in the cookbook.

All of which you were either ignorant of - or more ominously - tried to pretend never happened. According to you, no connection was not publicly known or discussed!

Again, let me make this clear: someone (at the DPD) was trying to "make the connection" between LHO and the Walker shooting, starting within 24 hours of JFK's assassination. But "they" had nothing concrete. "Walker" was like a bombshell, but without the letter, there was no fuse. Without the note, there was no "trigger." And the DPD search hadn't turned up any note--which (apparently) was the object (or at least one object) of the search.

Exactly! They had ZILCH! Until Ruth Paine rode to the rescue yet again. You claim that they searched specifically for that note is without a scintilla of evidence. You posit it out of NEED and NEED only. Shaking books in house searches is just standard police procedure.

The note was in the cookbook; and the cookbook wasn't turned over to the Irving Police Department until the following weekend.

No matter. Parker then infers (falsely, in my opinion) that Ruth Paine was involved, and was doing this "on cue". (That's what he wrote in the post he managed to get deleted). It was the sequence of dates that persuaded Parker of Ruth Paine's guilt (!).

One day AFTER the story broke in the German paper and a week BEFORE you claim it became public!

This, imho,is flimsy and silly reasoning. He doesn't understand Ruth Paine, or her politics;

Better than you. I'm not taken in by glib references to her "religion", and alleged do-gooding ways. You don't know a thing about about the woman. If you did, you'd know what contemptible human beings she and her husband really are - you would know about the tax dodges and the class snobbery as two examples. The very fact that she and Mikey even associated with Oswald is prima facie evidence they were baby-sitting him -- because under no other circumstances would they associate with such low class riff raff.

and when he "discovered" that Sylvia Meagher focused on the fact that a DPD detective was "shaking" one or more books and apparently was "looking for something," instead of drawing the proper inference--that someone had been tipped off as to where to find this "clew" --Parker went off half cocked and improperly concluded that the DPD search was so competent and thorough that it was evidence that the letter (which he had concluded was a forgery created by Ruth Paine) was not then "inside" the cookbook!

I drew the proper inference. ( 1) Your "one or more" is a ludicrous phrase to use and ( 2 ) that searching book cases and shaking books is standard police practice in searches.

Just consider the chain of false inferences involved in this "line of reasoning"!

RE OSWALD'S LETTER OF 10/22/61 (CE 55)

As to the one letter that Oswald wrote in Russian--CE 55 ,dated 10/22/61 (16 WCH 193) . . . : This was an affectionate letter from Lee to Marina written when she was away from Minsk, on vacation. Its the only letter that I'm aware of that he wrote in Russian, and yes, I had forgotten about it in writing prior drafts on this thread. But I just don't see that letter --written some 18 months earlier, and under entirely different conditions--as a valid basis of comparison, or offering a "test "of the authorship of the Walker note.

This was obviously a love letter of sorts, and of course Lee would take the time to write it carefully. (He might even have expected that Marina would show the letter to her relatives, with whom she was staying). When Lee wrote longer letters, Marina said that he would take time and use a dictionary, to make sure he "got it right" (my quotes). This is described in Marina and Lee, and Priscilla McMillan spent many hours with Marina, attempting to pick up any details she could. Anyway, it doesn't surprise me in the least that this affectionate very carefully written (and very sweet) letter of 10/22/61 would exhibit superior craftsmanship to the hurriedly written Walker note of April 10, 1963. On the other hand, if someone were to present evidence that an unknown associate of Lee said to him, "Here's what I want you to say - -write this down, and place it somewhere where she will see it," then so be it. But I don't see that as plausible. In any event, I certainly do not believe that the note was placed where it was --in the Oswald's apartment--by someone unknown to Lee, and in an effort to frame him. Remember: he returned to an agitated Marina and said that he had shot at Walker. IMHO: Lee wrote it himself; and what it said (grammatically correct or not) is completely consistent with his bizarre behavior when he came rushing into the apartment later that evening.

In other words, the letter served to "set the stage". It was prelude to the performance that Lee staged later.

Keep in mind: this is the same fellow who (credibly) faked a suicide attempt on October 21, 1959--an attempt that appeared sufficiently real that it was taken seriously by those "on site" at the time, and went all the way up the chain of command to top Soviet officials (Mikoyan and Gromyko). Lee was quite an actor and producer of real life dramas--in which he "played himself." (Something akin to "reality TV," only decades earlier).

I hope this answers your question.

You know the Walker letter was "rushed" how? I thought this was a planned attempt as "gaslighting". If so, he would give himself plenty of time to think about how and what to write. As a researcher, you have two left feet. You are constantly tripping yourself on your own contradictions. Simply put, you make this stuff up on the run trying to keep it from falling apart. Not working, though, is it David?

DSL

4/24/15 - 6:40 p.m. PDT

Los Angeles, California

[David Lifton]

Sylvia Meagher hypothesized that this photo was of Lee holding his shotgun in Minsk. I concur. It was inscribed to June - I believe to celebrate her birth. Marina got into a huge panic about it - being the ONLY thing that was possibly incriminating she could think of.

When she testified she only took one such photo, she was being honest. This was it.I also believe when she spoke to Ruth Paine about it, it gave Ruth the idea to organize the faking of the BYP. Recall it was Mike Paine who first informed the DPD about the Neely St residence. Oswald never lived there and he told them that.

Lee created a number of prints and inscribed one to "my friend George" (referring to DeMohrenschieldt) and another to "my daughter June." The GDM photo was dated April 5, 1963; and I would assume that was the same date he inscribed the one for June. The notion that Lee inscribed an entirely different picture to June in Russia, is very imaginative and without any evidentiary foundation. Of course you are free to believe whatever you wish--and if you really believe the photo was taken in Minsk (and inscribed to June)"to celebrate her birth," then go right ahead.)

The pictures that Lee inscribed (on 4/5) were disseminated as follows: the one to GDM was given to him, on or around April 5; and was found in GDM's belongings years later; and turned over to the HSCA. The one inscribed to June went into a scrapbook (according to testimony). As soon as news of the assassination occurred (and Lee's arrest), the pictures were removed from the scrapbook; and --according to Marguerite's testimony--Marina burned one (or more) of them. But negatives existed, and that probably accounted for the existing prints.

When I interviewed Michael Paine (in person and at length) --circa 1995, at his home in Boxboro, Mass.--he described seeing an 8.5 x 11 copy of the backyard photo either hanging up or on a book shelf. Michael told me that he made this observation when he went by Neely Street to pick up the Oswalds to take them to dinner at Ruth Paine's house--in earliy April 1963 (from memory)..

Greg Parker, please note: Michael Paine picked them up at Neely Street, the place where the Oswalds lived, and about which you state: "He never lived there." (See my reaction to that blooper below).

The notion that Ruth Paine "organize[d] the faking of the backyard photograph" is an assertion that lacks any evidentiary support. Believe it if you wish--but then, why bother with serious historical analysis. Why not just write a novel?

But I'm starting to understand how you "analyze" this "plot" --Ruth Paine (in your view) was obviously a key plotter. She organized the faking of the backyard photos; she framed Oswald in the Walker shooting.

In the same vein, you write that, with regard to Neely Street, "Oswald never lived there". Oh really? Is this another of your imaginative assertions? Yes, Oswald lived there. The postal evidence indicates he did, and of course Marina testified about living there--and gave a description of how they moved there from the previous residence, bringing their belongings over in pone or more trips in a baby carriage. And what about the landlord? Do you think the landlord just imagined that he and Marina were tenants?

DSL

4/24/15 - 10:50 pm. PDT

Los Angeles, California

Edited April 25, 2015 by David Lifton

[David Lifton]

Dave

Earlier, you wrote this:

"Most important (to me): I assisted Steve Bello in developing the basic view of the Walker shooting as a staged affair. Steve wrote dialogue that captured that idea, if only briefly, and it was the first time that, to my knowledge, the Walker affair was publicly explained in that fashion. As contrived."

Do you personally believe the Walker shooting was a staged and contrived affair? If so, could you elaborate on this, and possibly list the player(s) you felt was (were) involved?

Robert:

Yes, I believe the Walker shooting was contrived.

The rest of my analysis will be set forth in Final Charade.

DSL

[Greg Parker]

Sylvia Meagher hypothesized that this photo was of Lee holding his shotgun in Minsk. I concur. It was inscribed to June - I believe to celebrate her birth. Marina got into a huge panic about it - being the ONLY thing that was possibly incriminating she could think of.

When she testified she only took one such photo, she was being honest. This was it.I also believe when she spoke to Ruth Paine about it, it gave Ruth the idea to organize the faking of the BYP. Recall it was Mike Paine who first informed the DPD about the Neely St residence. Oswald never lived there and he told them that.

Lee created a number of prints and inscribed one to "my friend George" (referring to DeMohrenschieldt) and another to "my daughter June." The GDM photo was dated April 5, 1963; and I would assume that was the same date he inscribed the one for June. The notion that Lee inscribed an entirely different picture to June in Russia, is very imaginative and without any evidentiary foundation. Of course you are free to believe whatever you wish--and if you really believe the photo was taken in Minsk (and inscribed to June)"to celebrate her birth," then go right ahead.)

You can assume whatever you want. Just stop mistaking it as the final word. Sylvia Meagher thought the photo seen by Marguerite was taken in Minsk with Lee holding the shotgun aloft. That to me, is a victory or celebratory pose and given the inscription, it is a reasonable hypothesis that it was taken to celebrate the birth of his first born. June just happened to be born in March... the same month that the BYP were allegedly taken two years later. You have no evidence that the DeM photo was the same one or that the one destroyed by Marina was dated June '63.

The pictures that Lee inscribed (on 4/5) were disseminated as follows: the one to GDM was given to him, on or around April 5; and was found in GDM's belongings years later; and turned over to the HSCA. The one inscribed to June went into a scrapbook (according to testimony). As soon as news of the assassination occurred (and Lee's arrest), the pictures were removed from the scrapbook; and --according to Marguerite's testimony--Marina burned one (or more) of them. But negatives existed, and that probably accounted for the existing prints.

What prints of the photo showing him holding a shotgun or rifle over his head exist? ONE picture was removed - by Marina and it was destroyed. What don't you get about that? There were NO photos plural.

When I interviewed Michael Paine (in person and at length) --circa 1995, at his home in Boxboro, Mass.--he described seeing an 8.5 x 11 copy of the backyard photo either hanging up or on a book shelf. Michael told me that he made this observation when he went by Neely Street to pick up the Oswalds to take them to dinner at Ruth Paine's house--in earliy April 1963 (from memory)..

That may be so. But that's not what he told the WC

Mr. PAINE - I asked him what he was doing, his job, and he showed me a picture on the wall, which was a piece of newspaper, I think--that is beside the point. I asked him about Russia, what he liked about.

Mr. DULLES - Could we get that picture?

Mr. PAINE - I think it was beside the point. It was a piece of newspaper showing a fashion ad, I think. I think his job was--

Mr. DULLES - Nothing to do with politics at all, to do with his job. I see.

So was he lying to you or to the commission? It was okay to lie to you. Not okay to lie to the commission. Trick question really. Both statements were lies. Oswald never lived at Neely st.

Greg Parker, please note: Michael Paine picked them up at Neely Street, the place where the Oswalds lived, and about which you state: "He never lived there." (See my reaction to that blooper below).

Never lived there. The utility records, lack of anyone recalling him, and (once again) no rental records all point aw ay from him ever having lived there.

The notion that Ruth Paine "organize[d] the faking of the backyard photograph" is an assertion that lacks any evidentiary support. Believe it if you wish--but then, why bother with serious historical analysis. Why not just write a novel?

But I'm starting to understand how you "analyze" this "plot" --Ruth Paine (in your view) was obviously a key plotter. She organized the faking of the backyard photos; she framed Oswald in the Walker shooting.

Sure it has evidenciary support. It's called circumstantial evidence. Additionally, she and Michael had the means, motive and opportunity to do it.

In the same vein, you write that, with regard to Neely Street, "Oswald never lived there". Oh really? Is this another of your imaginative assertions? Yes, Oswald lived there. The postal evidence indicates he did, and of course Marina testified about living there--and gave a description of how they moved there from the previous residence, bringing their belongings over in pone or more trips in a baby carriage. And what about the landlord? Do you think the landlord just imagined that he and Marina were tenants?

Nope. No imagination necessary. A lot of those boarding and apartment houses had close associations with police. He provided nothing by way of hard evidence and the utility bills show that no one lived there during the time the Oswald's supposedly did.

DSL

4/24/15 - 10:50 pm. PDT

Los Angeles, California

Edited April 25, 2015 by Greg Parker