Ruth Paine

[Paul Trejo]

If you want to pick an argument over someone's work, you need to provide links to their material as well as links to the material you are relying on to debunk it. Otherwise you're saying, I'll give you both sides of the argument - you don't need no steenkin references, trust me, amigos! I'm not doing your work for you.

I sympathize with your request here, Greg, but I don't have control over that. CTKA (affiliated with James DiEugenio) is selling a CD of PROBE Magazine back-issues, and I bought that CD to review Carol Hewett's claims with a fine-toothed comb.

Now, I did supply the title, the date, the volume and the page number of the article that I'm criticizing. Also, I did quote directly from Carol Hewett to show the precise paragraph in which she made her clear blunder.

Yet, there's no on-line link for me to include for this purpose, Greg. Perhaps we should ask James DiEugenio to post Carol Hewett's articles on-line for this purpose.

There's a lot more errors in that article and in other articles Carol wrote. I propose to expose them all in this thread.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited December 27, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

If you want to pick an argument over someone's work, you need to provide links to their material as well as links to the material you are relying on to debunk it. Otherwise you're saying, I'll give you both sides of the argument - you don't need no steenkin references, trust me, amigos! I'm not doing your work for you.

I sympathize with your request here, Greg, but I don't have control over that. CTKA (affiliated with James DiEugenio) is selling a CD of PROBE Magazine back-issues, and I bought that CD to review Carol Hewett's claims with a fine-toothed comb.

Now, I did supply the title, the date, the volume and the page number of the article that I'm criticizing. Also, I did quote directly from Carol Hewett to show the precise paragraph in which she made her clear blunder.

Yet, there's no on-line link for me to include for this purpose, Greg. Perhaps we should ask James DiEugenio to post Carol Hewett's articles on-line for this purpose.

There's a lot more errors in that article and in other articles Carol wrote. I propose to expose them all in this thread.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Paul -- does this article have errors?

http://www.ctka.net/pr1196-minox.html

[Greg Parker]

If you want to pick an argument over someone's work, you need to provide links to their material as well as links to the material you are relying on to debunk it. Otherwise you're saying, I'll give you both sides of the argument - you don't need no steenkin references, trust me, amigos! I'm not doing your work for you.

I sympathize with your request here, Greg, but I don't have control over that. CTKA (affiliated with James DiEugenio) is selling a CD of PROBE Magazine back-issues, and I bought that CD to review Carol Hewett's claims with a fine-toothed comb.

Now, I did supply the title, the date, the volume and the page number of the article that I'm criticizing. Also, I did quote directly from Carol Hewett to show the precise paragraph in which she made her clear blunder.

Yet, there's no on-line link for me to include for this purpose, Greg. Perhaps we should ask James DiEugenio to post Carol Hewett's articles on-line for this purpose.

There's a lot more errors in that article and in other articles Carol wrote. I propose to expose them all in this thread.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

If you want to pick an argument over someone's work, you need to provide links to their material as well as links to the material you are relying on to debunk it. Otherwise you're saying, I'll give you both sides of the argument - you don't need no steenkin references, trust me, amigos! I'm not doing your work for you.

I sympathize with your request here, Greg, but I don't have control over that. CTKA (affiliated with James DiEugenio) is selling a CD of PROBE Magazine back-issues, and I bought that CD to review Carol Hewett's claims with a fine-toothed comb.

Now, I did supply the title, the date, the volume and the page number of the article that I'm criticizing. Also, I did quote directly from Carol Hewett to show the precise paragraph in which she made her clear blunder.

Yet, there's no on-line link for me to include for this purpose, Greg. Perhaps we should ask James DiEugenio to post Carol Hewett's articles on-line for this purpose.

There's a lot more errors in that article and in other articles Carol wrote. I propose to expose them all in this thread.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Well, at least a link to the letter in question?

[Paul Trejo]

Well, at least a link to the letter in question?

Sure, Greg. I can post that well-known letter. But I'll do more than that -- I'll go ahead and review the 1997 article by attorney Carol Hewett, namely, Ruth Paine Finds Evidence: Oswald’s Letter to the Soviet Embassy (Probe, Vol. 4, No. 3, March-April, 1997, p. 16).

This article is about LHO's famous "USSR Embassy Letter" dated November 9, 1963. It was reproduced twice as CE 15 and CE 986, and here is an online link to it: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo/jfk8/8p358ex48.gif .

The FBI intercepted this typed letter to the USSR in 1963, and Hoover talks about it with LBJ on November 23, 1963. Ruth Paine is involved because Ruth found a handwritten version of this letter at her home on Veterans Day, 1963, and after the JFK murder she gave her copy of this version to the FBI.

According to Carol Hewett, the "Embassy letter" is important for two reasons: (1) it is evidence that LHO appeared at both the Cuban and USSR Embassies in Mexico City to obtain visas to those nations; and (2) it suggests to Carol that LHO played games with the name of KGB agent Kostin in Mexico, because it sounds so much like KGB agent Kostikov, a known Communist assassin.

Yet Carol Hewett goes even further -- she believes it "reveals the sneakiness of Ruth Paine in developing testimony against LHO."

LHO had three days off beginning Sat09Nov1963, as Mon11Nov1963 was Veterans Day. LHO asked Ruth to use her typewriter on Saturday morning, and she agreed. He typed at the kitchen table Saturday morning, but he left a handwritten draft, folded, on top of her desk. It was still there early Sunday morning, and she decided to read it. What she read made her angry, because LHO was telling the USSR Embassy that, “the FBI is not now interested in me.”

Ruth knew that was a lie, because the FBI had come to Ruth's house twice in the past two weeks alone (when LHO was not there), and Ruth and Marina had told LHO the fact. The letter actually contained eight potential lies, most of which Ruth did not recognize as she read them. Here they are:

(1) That LHO had used an alias while at the Mexico City consulates.

(2) That the USSR Embassy in Washington DC knew of LHO plans regarding the Soviet Embassy in Havana.

(3) That the Mexico City Cuban Consul was guilty of a "gross breach of regulations."

(4) That the FBI was not at that time interested in LHO activities

(5) That LHO was Secretary of the FPCC in New Orleans (in reality that was a Fake FPCC)

(6) That FBI agent James P. Hosty warned LHO to refrain from FPCC activities in Texas (never mentioned by Hosty)

(7) That FBI agent James P. Hosty offered to help Marina Oswald defect from the USSR (never mentioned by Hosty)

(8) That LHO and Marina "strongly protested these tactics by the notorious FBI" (in reality, LHO would protest Hosty's visit three days later)

One phrase that caught Ruth's eye was the phrase, "the notorious FBI." Ruth is even today a member of the ACLU, so she isn't a right-winger, but Ruth is also a patriotic American and so she respects the FBI, and she did not appreciate LHO taking this tone about the FBI -- using her typewriter!

Early that morning Ruth decided to hand-copy LHO's handwritten draft, to show the FBI the next time they visited (presuming that LHO would later retrieve his handwritten draft). Ruth then left the original hand-written version folded on her desk, where she found it.

Carol Hewett adds an interesting notation here -- she suggests that LHO had left his handwritten draft on her desk *in order to tempt Ruth* into reading it. The reason for this temptation though, was left unclear by Carol Hewett.

Despite Ruth’s dismay at this letter, she kept her promise to give LHO a car-parking lesson on Sunday afternoon. Then LHO watched football on TV, and Ruth said nothing to Marina or Lee about it all day and night, even after Michael came over for dinner.

As events unfolded, on the night of Sun10Nov63 Ruth asked Michael and Lee to help move furniture. LHO still had his hand-written letter on her desk, “out in the open,” for two full days. Ruth didn't ask, “Lee, does this belong to you?” Instead, she swept it into an open drawer before the men came to do lift the desk. (Ruth debated with herself whether to show the original to the FBI the next time they visited. Also, Ruth didn't want to confront LHO with the letter which upset her so much.)

Later in the week, when Michael Pained visited his children, Ruth showed Michael the letter, but first of all, he wasn't interested. Secondly, Michael didn't care that LHO was "allergic" to the FBI, and thirdly, Michael didn't like the idea of reading LHO's personal mail. When he first glanced at the letter that Ruth showed him, he saw the words, "Dear Lisa" instead of "Dear Sirs" (because the writing was unclear), and he just chafed to read the personal mail of others. He glanced it over hastily and said to Ruth, "It's none of our business."

The typed version of this letter to the USSR Embassy was postmarked “Irving, Nov 12, 5pm,” so LHO could have mailed it anytime on Tue12Nov63, from anyplace in Irving. The next day it was intercepted by the FBI.

Carol Hewett finds two facts suspicious about Ruth's behavior here: (1) Ruth usually recorded events in her calendar, but not this letter; and (2) Ruth wrote to her mother on Mon14Oct1963 about Veterans Day’s weekend with Lee, and never mentioned this letter.

As I noted, this is a big blunder on Carol Hewett's part. Ruth's October letter to her mother was three weeks before Veterans Day in November. Yet Carol complains that Ruth never mentioned the "Embassy" letter to her mother, and that this makes Ruth's testimony "suspicious" -- so Carol Hewett really slipped there.

Then, Carol Hewett tried to guess what "really" happened, e.g. Ruth was "probably" working for the FBI, so Ruth copied LHO's letter in longhand so that the FBI could continue to maintain their secret that they were spying on the USSR Embassy -- even in open court. (Reaching.)

Carol Hewett finds LHO’s handwritten draft different from his typed letter in three ways: (1) one paragraph has a minor re-arrangement; (2) “Kostine” is re-spelled "Kostin;" and (3) the Cuban consular guilty of being "stupid" is changed to a “gross breach of regulations.”

Carol Hewett then guesses that Ruth herself helped LHO improve his grammar -- and if so, then perhaps she had a closer relationship with LHO than expected, like a true FBI informant. Carol offers no evidence for her guess, however.

Also -- since all CIA wiretap data shows that LHO used his real name in Mexico City, Carol Hewett wonders whether LHO's lie about it was really trying to manipulate Ruth or the FBI.

Or, since LHO was aware that the FBI would intercept his letter to the USSR Embassy, perhaps he was really mocking the FBI, wonders Carol; and also, since LHO was surely aware that Ruth had no clue what he really did in Mexico City, perhaps LHO was also mocking Ruth.

Carol Hewett then cites the contents of LHO's CIA 201 File -- including the bogus LHO photo -- but remember that Carol wrote this 20 years before Bill Simpich's free eBook, State Secret: Wiretapping in Mexico City (2014) which fully explained the bogus LHO photo.

Carol Hewett wishes to add her guess to a long-standing JFK researcher speculation. Was "comrade Kostin” really "Valery Kostikov," who was named by the LHO "Impersonator" after LHO left Mexico City in early October 1963?

Russian consular Oleg Nechiporenko from Mexico City wrote (1993) that LHO really did meet Kostikov briefly, without words. Carol claims instead that LHO really met "comrade Kostin" who was an actual KGB agent later named in 1974 by author John Baron. Yet, again, since no words were exchanged, the point remains weak and moot.

Carol Hewett notes that LHO had written to the USSR Embassy in DC before. She notes that since Sun17Feb1963 Marina and Lee wrote them regularly, seeking visas to return to Russia. But in this statement Carol deliberately neglects Marina's testimony that LHO had forced her to write to her letters, and that Marina said she never wanted to return to the USSR.

Carol Hewett cites Nechiporenko to the effect that Marina could be of value to the FBI as a “bird of attraction” to catch KGB agents in the USA. Carol ventures a guess that Ruth Paine was an FBI agent who tried to gain control of Marina in early April 1963, to serve the FBI. This guess, however, completely neglects Ruth's testimony that her motive was the fact that Marina had been complaining to her since March 1963 that LHO was threatening to send her and her children back to the USSR without him.

That was Ruth's stated motive -- and Carol Hewett even admits that Marina and Ruth both testified that LHO had been relentlessly harping and pushing Marina to move back to Russia without him, ever since March. But Carol simply dismisses their testimony.

To support her position, Carol Hewett cites LHO letters to the USSR Embassy dated May 5, 1963 and July 1, 1963, which say that LHO was also planning to return to Russia (though separately), and that LHO's visa application was included with Marina’s June 1963 letter to the USSR Embassy.

The flaw in Carol's logic here is again based on dates. Carol raises LHO's June 1963 letter to deny a complaint Marina made in March 1963.

Carol Hewett then notes that after Marina’s Sun17Feb1963 letter to the USSR Embassy, that James Hosty began to track Marina Oswald on Mon04Mar1963. Shortly afterwards, in early April 1963, double-agent Richard Case Nagell was sent by the USSR to track Marina Oswald.

Yet Carol Hewett fails to show how this is relevant to Marina's March 1963 complaints about LHO's threat to send her back to the USSR without him. Instead, Carol Hewett guesses that the FBI used Ruth Paine to keep Marina in the USA, or isolate her from LHO (for some unclear reason). Perhaps it was to see which KGB agent would visit either one. Nothing but guesswork is offered by Carol Hewett for her argument.

Carol Hewett claims that Ruth Paine "isolated" Marina from LHO in the final two weeks of April 1963 when LHO first moved to New Orleans, and also at the end of September 1963 when Ruth moved Marina back to Texas with her. This claim of a planned "isolation" merely extends Jim Garrison's 1967 guesswork.

Yet this claim again neglects both Marina's and Ruth's testimony that LHO was out of work in late September, and that Marina was waddling pregnant and desperately needed financial support.

Carol Hewett insists that Marina was really trying to stay with LHO and to return to the USSR with LHO, and that Ruth manipulated Marina to "isolate" her from LHO. Yet Marina herself testified repeatedly that LHO was a poor and immature provider, and she was in serious need of help when eight months pregnant and with LHO out of work yet again. Carol simply doesn't account for the material facts.

Carol Hewett concludes that the USSR Embassy letter requires much more investigation. Yet Carol's demand is based on naked guesswork, and neglecting the sworn testimony of the two women who were closest to these events of 1963.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited December 27, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Greg Parker]

It's like extracting teeth from jellyfish.

The letter in question is Ruth's letter to her mother.

[Paul Trejo]

It's like extracting teeth from jellyfish.

The letter in question is Ruth's letter to her mother.

No worries, Greg. Now that your request is clear, here's the URL:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pdf/WH17_CE_425.pdf

Also, just in case some readers here find Ruth Paine's hand-writing hard to read, here's my transcription:

---------------- BEGIN RUTH PAINE'S 14 OCTOBER 1963 LETTER TO HER MOTHER: CE 425 --------------------

2515 W. 5th Street

Irving, Texas

Oct 14, 1963

Dear Mom,

Lee Oswald is looking for work in Dallas. Did my last letter say so? Probably not. He arrived a week and a half ago and has been looking for work since. It's a very depressing business for him, I'm sure.

He spent last weekend & the one before with us here and was a happy addition to our expanded family. He played with Chris, watched football on TV, planed down the doors that wouldn't close, and generally added a needed masculine flavor.

From a poor first impression I have come to like him. We saw the doctor at Parkland (free care) hospital last Friday and all seem very healthy. The baby has lowered somewhat. I am so far impressed with the quality of the care Marina is getting there. And it appears that charges will be geared to their ability to pay.

If Lee can just find work that will help so much. Meantime, I started giving him driving lessons last Sunday (yesterday). If he can drive this will open up more job possibilities & more locations. I just committed to seeing Marina and Lee through this difficult period in their lives. This may mean (though I think it somewhat unlikely) having her and the babies here until Spring if Lee has to go East or somewhere looking for work.

What I would most like is for Marina to stay through Christmas (which she has never celebrated -- at least American style) then have you in February.

You rightly took me to task for being too full of alternate plans & ifs & ands, and here I am in such a condition again. I find it very embarrassing. I hope you can forgive, and that time will clarify things happily.

Yes, I've heard from Dad, who says he is to go on a 2-week trip to Britain to give his final report on the crop insurance business he was doing the past year.

No, I've given up the idea of a trailer. It just doesn't make sense for me to put money in that direction. If you come, it will have to be to the SE bedroom.

I feel I need "mad-money". In this case I mean money to move east on if I decide to give up all hope for the marriage. I am presently very discouraged. I came back so hopeful & feel so dashed. Michael doesn't seem to want to include me in his future.

For whatever reasons, he hasn't taken me to see the land he bought. Last night by phone I got directions from him and went today to see it without him. It's nice, wooded and cozy. It does need everything -- clearing up, water, lights, sewage, building -- and Michael seems to slow to achieve his own aims. He seems to think he can do it all himself, and really he has not the energy or the time. He has the money, but seems unwilling to delegate the work.

I wish Michael would consider seeking psychological help. But he is very wary. And of course good help is jolly hard to find. Please let me know how things are with you, and I'll keep you informed on our doings here.

Much love,

Ruth

---------------- END RUTH PAINE'S 14 OCTOBER 1963 LETTER TO HER MOTHER: CE 425 ----------------------

Here we can see Ruth Paine's hopes that her commitment to Marina Oswald will be completed by January 1964, so that she could accommodate her mother in her home in the SE bedroom -- the bedroom that Marina, June and Rachel occupied in 1963, inside Ruth Paine's two-bedroom home in Irving, Texas.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited December 27, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Greg Parker]

Paul, it would appear that you are correct. Hewett was confused as to when the Veterans weekend was and somehow also got muddled with other timings.

The real problem with the letter to the embassy is that Ruth wrote it herself.

[Paul Trejo]

Paul, it would appear that you are correct. Hewett was confused as to when the Veterans weekend was and somehow also got muddled with other timings.

The real problem with the letter to the embassy is that Ruth wrote it herself.

Greg, your theory is intriguing, and original. Carol Hewett doesn't claim that LHO's Embassy letter was written by Ruth Paine, but only wonders whether Ruth Paine helped LHO complete the final draft.

Carol Hewett wonders, only because the final draft seems more "educated," and Ruth Paine was college educated, while LHO dropped out of high-school and got his GED from the Marines.

Further, Carol Hewett believed -- in her error -- that Ruth Paine was secretly helping LHO in his political cause because Ruth failed to complain about her Veterans Day clash with LHO to her mother. Yet as you admitted, Greg, Carol Hewett based her belief on a letter written in October -- before Veterans Day.

Without that argument, Carol Hewett's guesswork loses its foundation.

Carol Hewett further admits that LHO had been writing to the USSR Embassy since February 1963. She says that Marina Oswald did likewise, but Carol failed to admit Marina's testimony that LHO forced her to do that. This additional letter to the USSR Embassy from LHO was, even according to Carol Hewett, only the latest in a long series.

The FBI intercepted LHO's letter to the USSR Embassy, and made this typewritten letter an Exhibit for the Warren Commission, as given in this link: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo/jfk8/8p358ex48.gif

So, what is your rationale, Greg, for your original claim that Ruth Paine wrote the USSR Embassy letter?

I ask, because Ruth Paine said LHO told her in September that he was going to Houston to look for work -- not to Mexico City. Marina also confirmed this -- saying that LHO warned her sternly never to mention to anybody that he was going to Mexico City.

So, Marina confirmed that she never told Ruth Paine that LHO went to Mexico City, and that Ruth was completely ignorant of the fact until after the JFK assassination. This matches Ruth Paine's testimony.

Yet this USSR Embassy letter makes the Mexico City trip into its central theme.

So, what's your rationale?

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited December 27, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Greg Parker]

Paul, it would appear that you are correct. Hewett was confused as to when the Veterans weekend was and somehow also got muddled with other timings.

The real problem with the letter to the embassy is that Ruth wrote it herself.

Greg, your theory is intriguing, and original. Carol Hewett doesn't claim that LHO's Embassy letter was written by Ruth Paine, but only wonders whether Ruth Paine helped LHO complete the final draft.

Carol Hewett wonders, only because the final draft seems more "educated," and Ruth Paine was college educated, while LHO dropped out of high-school and got his GED from the Marines.

Further, Carol Hewett believed -- in her error -- that Ruth Paine was secretly helping LHO in his political cause because Ruth failed to complain about her Veterans Day clash with LHO to her mother. Yet as you admitted, Greg, Carol Hewett based her belief on a letter written in October -- before Veterans Day.

Without that argument, Carol Hewett's guesswork loses its foundation.

Carol Hewett further admits that LHO had been writing to the USSR Embassy since February 1963. She says that Marina Oswald did likewise, but Carol failed to admit Marina's testimony that LHO forced her to do that. This additional letter to the USSR Embassy from LHO was, even according to Carol Hewett, only the latest in a long series.

The FBI intercepted LHO's letter to the USSR Embassy, and made this typewritten letter an Exhibit for the Warren Commission, as given in this link: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo/jfk8/8p358ex48.gif

So, what is your rationale, Greg, for your original claim that Ruth Paine wrote the USSR Embassy letter?

I ask, because Ruth Paine said LHO told her in September that he was going to Houston to look for work -- not to Mexico City. Marina also confirmed this -- saying that LHO warned her sternly never to mention to anybody that he was going to Mexico City. So, Marina confirmed that she never told Ruth Paine that LHO went to Mexico City.

Yet this USSR Embassy letter makes the Mexico City trip into its central theme.

So, what's your rationale?

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Paul, not having read Ms Hewett's article, I took you at pour word on the Veteran's Day mix-up. I'm not debating it any further without reading it. I have given you my opinion on the letter to the Embassy, It was the only letter Oswald ever allegedly typed (If I am recalling correctly) and is full of false information that helps hang him post-assassination.

[Paul Trejo]

Paul, not having read Ms Hewett's article, I took you at pour word on the Veteran's Day mix-up. I'm not debating it any further without reading it. I have given you my opinion on the letter to the Embassy, It was the only letter Oswald ever allegedly typed (If I am recalling correctly) and is full of false information that helps hang him post-assassination.

Thanks Greg, for your semantic pause on this interesting topic in the history of Lee Harvey Oswald.

It might be worthwhile to also review CE 15, the actual letter intercepted by the FBI on November 10th 1963, which had been sent from Irving, Texas on November 9th. This type-written letter is full of mysteries -- but also full of clues -- related to the JFK assassination.

I agree it's full of false information. I don't see how it helps to hang LHO post-assassination, however -- since the letter seeks to involve the USSR in LHO's plots and plans, while the Warren Commission *insisted strenuously* that LHO was a "Lone Nut" who had "no accomplices who are still at large."

Instead, one may argue along with Jeff Caufield (2015) that a Right-wing conspiracy engaged LHO to work with them to blame the JFK assassination on the USSR and Cuba. That alone, IMHO, is the purpose of the USSR Embassy letter.

Here's my transcript of this interesting letter:

------------------------ BEGIN LETTER FROM LHO TO USSR EMBASSY, NOV 9. 1963 -- CE 15 ------------------

TO: OVERSEAS DIVISION

. EMBASSY U.S.S.R.

. WASHINGTON, D.C.

. NOV. 9, 1963

FROM: LEE H. OSWALD, P.O. BOX 6625, DALLAS, TEXAS

. MARINA NICHOLAYEVNA OSWALD, SOVIET CITIZEN

Dear Sirs,

This is to inform you of recent events since my meetings with comrade Kostin in the Embassy of the Soviet Union, Mexico City, Mexico.

I was unable to remain in Mexico indefinitely because of my Mexican visa restrictions which was for 15 days only. I could not take a chance on requesting a new visa unless I used my real name, so I returned to the United States.

I had not planned to contact the Soviet Embassy in Mexico, so they were unprepared, had I been able to reach the Soviet Embassy in Havana as planned, the embassy there would have had time to complete our business.

Of course the Soviet embassy was not at fault; they were, as I say, unprepared. The Cuban consulate was guilty of a grave breach of regulations. I am glad he has since been replaced.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation is not now interested in my activities in the progressive organization, "Fair Play for Cuba Committee," of which I was secretary in New Orleans (state Louisiana) since I no longer reside in that state. However, the F.B.I. has visited us here in Dallas, Texas, on November 1st. Agent James P. Hasty warned me that if I engaged in F.P.C.C. activities in Texas the F.B.I. will again take an "interest" in me.

This agent also "suggested" to Marina Nicholayevna that she could remain in the United States under F.B.I. "protection", that is, she could defect from the Soviet Union. Of course, I and my wife strongly protested these tactics by the notorious F.B.I.

Please inform us of the arrival of our Soviet entrance visas as soon as they come.

Also, this is to inform you of the birth on October 20, 1963 of a DAUGHTER, AUDREY MARINA OSWALD in DALLAS, TEXAS to my wife.

Respectfully,

<signature>

------------------------ END LETTER FROM LHO TO USSR EMBASSY, NOV 9. 1963 -- CE 15 ------------------

We should first notice that the USSR commented on this letter when confronted with it by the FBI after the JFK assassination. The USSR at first believed that the letter was forged, in order to lay a phony paper trail to link LHO with the USSR.

According to a classified USSR document released by NARA in August, 1999, "This letter was clearly a provocation: It gives the impression we had close ties with Oswald and were using him for some purposes of our own." This document was signed by USSR Ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin.

Looking at LHO's letter, the theory that makes the most sense to me is that LHO was tricked into working with the Radical Right in the USA, in order to frame Fidel Castro and the USSR for the (attempted or actual) assassination of JFK.

The USSR claims that they had no solid relationship with LHO -- LHO was never a Communist Party member, paid no dues to them, and yet regularly wrote to the USSR, knowing full well that the FBI would intercept any mail from LHO to the USSR.

From this vantage, since Marina wanted urgently to remain in the USA, and Ruth Paine wanted urgently to keep Marina Oswald inside the USA as a friend of freedom -- any connection between Ruth Paine and this USSR Embassy letter would be sheer guesswork.

Let's look at the falsehoods as I read them:

(1) LHO said that he entered Mexico City using an alias. Mexico City immigration records reveal his real name.

(2) LHO said correctly that he never planned to contact the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City. Actually, he did so only because the Cuban Consulate boldly refused to honor his bogus "credentials." However, LHO then lied when he said that if had been able to enter Havana Cuba, he would have "had time to complete our business," whatever that might be. This implies that the USSR and LHO had a mutual plan together (which the USSR flatly denied).

(3) LHO tried to drive a wedge between the Soviet Embassy and the Cuban Consulate in Mexico City by blaming his failure to obtain instant passage to Cuba wholly on the Cuban Consulate (instead of his bogus resume of "credentials").

(4) LHO boasts that he knows that the Cuban Consulate was replaced. This was probably a wild guess of bluster, though some have said that the Consulate was already marked for transfer earlier in the year.

(5) LHO boasts that he was "Secretary" of the FPCC in NOLA (which was a lie, since that 544 Camp Street FPCC "branch" was phony from the start.

(6) LHO boasts that the FBI was tracking him in NOLA because of the FPCC branch, when actually LHO himself asked for the FBI to interview him in NOLA after his fake fight with Carlos Bringuier in NOLA. So, LHO evidently forged this "interest" so he could boast of it to the USSR. LHO was clearly creating a paper trail of his bogus FPCC affiliation.

(7) While it is true that the FBI visited Ruth and Marina in Irving Texas, twice, the FBI never asked about the FPCC, nor did they even meet LHO himself during those two visits. LHO lied by putting a warning about the FPCC into Hosty's mouth.

(8) LHO lied by claiming that Hosty tried to get Marina to "defect" from the USSR. Hosty said no such thing.

(9) LHO asks about two Soviet visas, one for himself and one for Marina -- but he neglected to admit that he forced Marina to apply for her Soviet visa starting in February 1963, when she urgently wanted to stay in the USA.

So, Greg, I count nine lies in LHO's Embassy letter, and they don't tend to blame LHO of the JFK murder, but tend to link LHO with the USSR -- a linkage which the USSR emphatically denied.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited December 27, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Greg Parker]

Paul, not having read Ms Hewett's article, I took you at pour word on the Veteran's Day mix-up. I'm not debating it any further without reading it. I have given you my opinion on the letter to the Embassy, It was the only letter Oswald ever allegedly typed (If I am recalling correctly) and is full of false information that helps hang him post-assassination.

Thanks Greg, for your semantic pause on this interesting topic in the history of Lee Harvey Oswald.

It might be worthwhile to also review CE 15, the actual letter intercepted by the FBI on November 10th 1963, which had been sent from Irving, Texas on November 9th. This type-written letter is full of mysteries -- but also full of clues -- related to the JFK assassination.

I agree it's full of false information. I don't see how it helps to hang LHO post-assassination, however -- since the letter seeks to involve the USSR in LHO's plots and plans, while the Warren Commission *insisted strenuously* that LHO was a "Lone Nut" who had "no accomplices who are still at large."

Instead, one may argue along with Jeff Caufield (2015) that a Right-wing conspiracy engaged LHO to work with them to blame the JFK assassination on the USSR and Cuba. That alone, IMHO, is the purpose of the USSR Embassy letter.

Here's my transcript of this interesting letter:

------------------------ BEGIN LETTER FROM LHO TO USSR EMBASSY, NOV 9. 1963 -- CE 15 ------------------

TO: OVERSEAS DIVISION

. EMBASSY U.S.S.R.

. WASHINGTON, D.C.

. NOV. 9, 1963

FROM: LEE H. OSWALD, P.O. BOX 6625, DALLAS, TEXAS

. MARINA NICHOLAYEVNA OSWALD, SOVIET CITIZEN

Dear Sirs,

This is to inform you of recent events since my meetings with comrade Kostin in the Embassy of the Soviet Union, Mexico City, Mexico.

I was unable to remain in Mexico indefinitely because of my Mexican visa restrictions which was for 15 days only. I could not take a chance on requesting a new visa unless I used my real name, so I returned to the United States.

I had not planned to contact the Soviet Embassy in Mexico, so they were unprepared, had I been able to reach the Soviet Embassy in Havana as planned, the embassy there would have had time to complete our business.

Of course the Soviet embassy was not at fault; they were, as I say, unprepared. The Cuban consulate was guilty of a grave breach of regulations. I am glad he has since been replaced.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation is not now interested in my activities in the progressive organization, "Fair Play for Cuba Committee," of which I was secretary in New Orleans (state Louisiana) since I no longer reside in that state. However, the F.B.I. has visited us here in Dallas, Texas, on November 1st. Agent James P. Hasty warned me that if I engaged in F.P.C.C. activities in Texas the F.B.I. will again take an "interest" in me.

This agent also "suggested" to Marina Nicholayevna that she could remain in the United States under F.B.I. "protection", that is, she could defect from the Soviet Union. Of course, I and my wife strongly protested these tactics by the notorious F.B.I.

Please inform us of the arrival of our Soviet entrance visas as soon as they come.

Also, this is to inform you of the birth on October 20, 1963 of a DAUGHTER, AUDREY MARINA OSWALD in DALLAS, TEXAS to my wife.

Respectfully,

<signature>

------------------------ END LETTER FROM LHO TO USSR EMBASSY, NOV 9. 1963 -- CE 15 ------------------

We should first notice that the USSR commented on this letter when confronted with it by the FBI after the JFK assassination. The USSR at first believed that the letter was forged, in order to lay a phony paper trail to link LHO with the USSR.

According to classified USSR documents recently by the National Archives in August, 1999, ."This letter was clearly a provocation: It gives the impression we had close ties with Oswald and were using him for some purposes of our own." This document was signed by USSR Ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin.

Looking at this letter, the theory that makes the most sense to me is that LHO was tricked into working with the Radical Right in the USA, in order to frame Fidel Castro and the USSR for the (attempted or actual) assassination of JFK.

The USSR claims that they had no solid relationship with LHO -- LHO was never a Communist Party member, paid no dues to them, and regularly wrote to them, knowing full well that the FBI would intercept the full paper trail from LHO to the USSR.

From this vantage, since Marina wanted urgently to remain in the USA, and Ruth Paine wanted urgently to keep Marina Oswald inside the USA as a friend of freedom -- any connection between Ruth Paine and this USSR Embassy letter would be sheer guesswork.

Let's look at the falsehoods:

(1) LHO said that he entered Mexico City using an alias. Mexico City immigration records record his real name.

(2) LHO said correctly that he never planned to contact the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City -- but he did so only because the Cuban Consulate boldly refused to honor his "credentials." However, LHO then adds that if had been able to enter Havana Cuba, he would have "had time to complete our business," which he neglects to itemize. This implies that the USSR and LHO had a mutual plan together (which the USSR flatly denied).

(3) LHO tried to drive a wedge between the Soviet Embassy and the Cuban Consulate in Mexico City by blaming his failure to obtain instant passage to Cuba wholly on the Cuban Consulate (and not on his bogus resume of "credentials."

(4) LHO boasts that he knows that the Cuban Consulate was replaced. This was a wild guess of bluster, though some have said that the Consulate was already marked for transfer earlier in the year.

(5) LHO boasts that he was "Secretary" of the FPCC in NOLA (which was a lie, since that 544 Camp Street FPCC "branch" was phony from the start.

(6) LHO boasts that the FBI was tracking him in NOLA because of the FPCC branch, when actually LHO himself asked for the FBI to interview him in NOLA after his fake fight with Carlos Bringuier in NOLA. So, LHO forged this "interest" so he could boast of it to the USSR. LHO was creating a paper trail of his bogus FPCC affiliation.

(7) While it is true that the FBI visited Ruth and Marina in Irving Texas, they never asked about the FPCC, nor did they even meet LHO himself during those two visits. LHO lied by putting a warning about the FPCC into Hosty's mouth.

(8) LHO lied by claiming that Hosty tried to get Marina to "defect" from the USSR. Hosty said no such thing.

(9) LHO asks about two Soviet visas, one for himself and one for Marina -- but he neglected to admit that he forced Marina to apply for her Soviet visa starting in February 1963, when she urgently wanted to stay in the USA.

So, Greg, I count nine lies in LHO's Embassy letter, and they don't tend to blame LHO of the JFK murder, but tend to link LHO with the USSR -- a linkage which the USSR emphatically denied.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Oswald never went to MC.

It contained information that he therefore could not have known,

Ruth Paine knew he never went to MC.

Oswald was never known to type a letter previously.

Ruth Paine could have obtained the information contained in the letter.

Ruth Paine later forged the Walker letter but could not type it since it would be alleged Oswald wrote in from the Neely St. address at which he never resided, but which was given to the DPD by Ruth's husband.

Your take is ludicrous because you have Oswald hanging himself, along with the Soviets and Cubans.

[Jon G. Tidd]

Paul,

There are two types of historians: The first starts with a concept and then focuses on whatever supports the concept. The second starts with an organizing principle and then looks at whatever aligns with or doesn't align with the principle.

By definition, historians employ filters.

Dallek and James Reston have narrow filters. They are concept historians. Joan Mellen works with an organizing principle. Which is, Garrison was honest and persevering.

You, in my opinion, are a good concept historian.

I wish you would stop being a historian. Historians employ filters.

Everyone, physicians included, employs filters.

The JFK assassination defies filters.

In the JFK assassination, stuff leaks out.

In my opinion, it's best to look at what leaks out. And then try to form some judgment.

[Paul Trejo]

Paul,

There are two types of historians: The first starts with a concept and then focuses on whatever supports the concept. The second starts with an organizing principle and then looks at whatever aligns with or doesn't align with the principle.

By definition, historians employ filters.

Dallek and James Reston have narrow filters. They are concept historians. Joan Mellen works with an organizing principle. Which is, Garrison was honest and persevering.

You, in my opinion, are a good concept historian.

I wish you would stop being a historian. Historians employ filters.

Everyone, physicians included, employs filters.

The JFK assassination defies filters.

In the JFK assassination, stuff leaks out.

In my opinion, it's best to look at what leaks out.

And then try to form some judgment.

Jon, I'm sorry but I have no idea what you're talking about here.

Please be more blunt in your advice to me.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

Paul,

There are two types of historians: The first starts with a concept and then focuses on whatever supports the concept. The second starts with an organizing principle and then looks at whatever aligns with or doesn't align with the principle.

By definition, historians employ filters.

Dallek and James Reston have narrow filters. They are concept historians. Joan Mellen works with an organizing principle. Which is, Garrison was honest and persevering.

You, in my opinion, are a good concept historian.

I wish you would stop being a historian. Historians employ filters.

Everyone, physicians included, employs filters.

The JFK assassination defies filters.

In the JFK assassination, stuff leaks out.

In my opinion, it's best to look at what leaks out. And then try to form some judgment.

Actually, Joe, your formula is not accurate.

Genuine historians and researchers start with a neutral question and then search for all relevant primary and secondary source material to study, analyze, and develop into a narrative --- particularly if they discover new and previously unknown data.

Genuine historians and researchers do not care if interested parties approve or disapprove of what is discovered. Instead, the purpose of historical research and writing is to find something new which adds significantly to our knowledge and to the public debate about some subject matter.

Although I am certainly not an historian, nevertheless, when my FOIA research started 34+ years ago, my original question was:

"What did J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI think about Robert Welch, the Birch Society, and the ideas they circulated?"

This was a particularly compelling question in 1981 because nobody had ever requested FBI files on Welch, the JBS, or related individuals, groups and publications. So everything released by the FBI would automatically be brand new information available for the first time---a researcher's dream!!

It is true that I made an assumption about what I thought I was likely to discover in FBI files----BUT it turns out that my initial assumption was totally mistaken. That is why genuine independent research always starts with a neutral question. Otherwise whatever is written is nothing more than a exercise in polemics ---- without regard to whatever factual evidence exists.

Edited December 27, 2015 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Trejo]

Oswald never went to MC.

It contained information that he therefore could not have known,

Ruth Paine knew he never went to MC.

Oswald was never known to type a letter previously.

Ruth Paine could have obtained the information contained in the letter.

Ruth Paine later forged the Walker letter but could not type it since it would be alleged Oswald wrote in from the Neely St. address at which he never resided, but which was given to the DPD by Ruth's husband.

Your take is ludicrous because you have Oswald hanging himself, along with the Soviets and Cubans.

Well, Greg, your opinion that LHO never went to Mexico City clashes head-on with Lopez-Hardway Report (2003) one of the most important releases of CIA documents of the 21st century.

The evidence is ample that LHO went to Mexico City as a passenger in an automobile, using his real name, and made a damn fool of himself at both the Cuban Consulate and the USSR Embassy there. We have his visa photographs there, as well as eye-witnesses placing him there.

Bill Simpich's 2014 eBook, however (State Secret: Wiretapping in Mexico City) demonstrates that an Impersonation of LHO after he left Mexico City in early October, 1963, resulted in a CIA Mole Hunt, to discover who the Impersonators were.

These Impersonators attempted to link LHO's name with wanted KGB agent Valerie Kostikov. As a result, the CIA high-command secretly removed LHO's picture from his CIA 201 file, and used a photo of some large Russian dude instead. The CIA high-command also secretly changed LHO's middle name to "Henry", and made other minor changes. This was part of the Mole Hunt.

So -- your theory that LHO never went to Mexico City has an uphill battle. You contradict Simpich, Lopez-Hardway and many other *great* JFK researchers.

Therefore -- the USSR Embassy letter is LHO's riff on the themes of the Mexico City farce.

Ruth Paine never knew anything about the Mexico City trip -- she thought LHO was in Houston, like he told her.

Anybody can type -- if they have enough time. Oswald took a full day to type one page. It's no big deal. You shouldn't try to make a big deal out of one page of typing. (Besides, that page also had misspelled words, which was LHO's trademark.)

You also added a new topic, Greg, namely, the WALKER LETTER. You claim that Ruth Paine forged it. Yet:

(1) Ruth Paine says she never saw it before in her life before the Secret Service accused her of forging it.

(2) FBI handwriting experts concluded that the WALKER LETTER was handwritten by LHO himself.

(3) Then the Secret Service apologized to Ruth Paine as they admitted that they were mistaken.

My take isn't ludicrous -- it's a viable theory along with any number of viable theories today. LHO himself hanged himself when he shouted out to the world press, "I'm just a Patsy!"

It's very sad, and typical of the case, that nobody asked LHO, "Whose Patsy?"

LHO knew who killed JFK. LHO didn't expect to be the Patsy, of course, but he knew very well the people he hung out with in NOLA and in Dallas in 1963. LHO knew who killed JFK.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited December 27, 2015 by Paul Trejo