Ruth - a typewriter - 15 days

[Mark Knight]

One more thing that EVERYONE is missing. Oswald had no need to take any letter to a postal drop box. The same mailman that delivers the mail also picks up outgoing mail from homes like Ruth Paine's. 

Just thought I'd point that out. So if the letter was left in Ruth's mailbox as outgoing mail, it would be logical that the mailman would have picked it up at Ruth's house, and the letter wouldn't have been postmarked anywhere BUT Irving, Texas...after the mailman completed his route.

[David Josephs]

5 hours ago, Mark Knight said:

One more thing that EVERYONE is missing. Oswald had no need to take any letter to a postal drop box. The same mailman that delivers the mail also picks up outgoing mail from homes like Ruth Paine's. 

Just thought I'd point that out. So if the letter was left in Ruth's mailbox as outgoing mail, it would be logical that the mailman would have picked it up at Ruth's house, and the letter wouldn't have been postmarked anywhere BUT Irving, Texas...after the mailman completed his route.

Makes sense if Oswald wrote the note and also typed it...  yet a Nov 9th date with a Nov 2nd postmark (anyone know if they picked-up mail and processed it on Saturdays back then?)

If we assume that Oswald wrote it... why doesn't he know the Visa duration for which he applied ?  He supposedly signs the thing right there, no reason for the Mexican Embassy to issue a 15-day visa in this case...  unless it was something Gaudet said....  

 

Those 15 days are very important to understanding the CIA's "plot to push Hoover into a corner" with Lee Henry Oswald's fake Mexican excursion.
Sept 17 + 15 days is Oct 2nd.  (despite having the same man from Oct 2 photographed on Oct 4th and 15th... it's still Oswald)

Only someone operating within the confines of the 15 day period - ASSUMED to start Sept 17 and end Oct 2nd - would write a letter including this pseudo-timeframe.
If H.O. LEE leaves Mexico on Oct 3 and gets on a Greyhound to San Antonio....  why are his FM-11/FM-8/FM-5 documents filed under "O" for "Oswald" leaving by automobile?

... cause all this evidence is pure BS create by those not knowing these little details and how they would conflict

 

[Chris Newton]

6 hours ago, Mark Knight said:

One more thing that EVERYONE is missing. Oswald had no need to take any letter to a postal drop box. The same mailman that delivers the mail also picks up outgoing mail from homes like Ruth Paine's. 

The mailbox is on the Paine home right next to the front door. Anyone, (Ruth P), could have plucked it right out as soon as Oswald left on Tuesday morning if that's where he left it.

the mailbox is visible just below the "V I" in "LIVING" this image:

 

[Paul Trejo]

7 hours ago, Mark Knight said:

One more thing that EVERYONE is missing. Oswald had no need to take any letter to a postal drop box. The same mailman that delivers the mail also picks up outgoing mail from homes like Ruth Paine's. 

Just thought I'd point that out. So if the letter was left in Ruth's mailbox as outgoing mail, it would be logical that the mailman would have picked it up at Ruth's house, and the letter wouldn't have been postmarked anywhere BUT Irving, Texas...after the mailman completed his route.

Mark,

This is an EXCELLENT point.    Thanks for pointing it out.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

[David Josephs]

And it would make sense.... if there was a "1" there...  funny thing too,

the actual "1"'s on that stamp are sans serif while the "1" you claim to see looks like a carrot with and asterisk...  
wouldn't it be a faint straight line?

   *
   ^   

[Chris Newton]

…continued (top of page 16, WC Vol. III, testimony of RHP)…

Mr. Jenner. And did you see or observe anything during all of that period of your acquaintance, which stimulated you to think that any agency of the Government of the United States was seeking to induce her to defect?

Mrs Paine. To the United States?

Mr. Jenner. To the United States.

Mrs. Paine. No, and her terminology in view of it was so completely different from such stereotyped and loaded words that I was seeing as I read this. What I was struck with was what kind of man is this. [?]

Mr. Jenner. Is who?

[Note here that Jenner is confused because they were examining what Hosty was alleged to have said to Marina on Nov. 1st but Ruth has now interjected and conflated the reading of Oswald’s draft which occurs 9 days hence.]

Mrs. Paine. Why is Oswald writing this? What kind of man? Here is a false statement that she was invited to defect, false statement that the FBI is no longer interested, false statement that he was present, “they visited I and my wife”.

Mr. Jenner. Was he present?

Mrs. Paine. He was not present. False statement that “I and my wife protested vigorously”. Having not been present he could not protest.

[The passages above shows Ruth jumping to conclusions based on limited knowledge. She has no idea what the FBI said or didn’t say to Oswald when they grabbed him off the street and “interviewed” him for two hours when he and Marina lived in Oak Cliff. She also has no knowledge of, or what was written on the “Hosty note”. In fact, she insists that Oswald never visited the FBI offices himself]

[The other issue is that Ruth was not party to all the conversations between Marina and Lee so she doesn't "know". Ruth translated Hosty's statements to Marina. What was lost or conveyed erroneously "in translation" is unknowable but maybe Ruth, herself unwittingly gave Marina the impression she was being asked to defect?]

Mr. Jenner. He was not present when the FBI interviewed you on November 1[st][?] Was Marina present then?

Mrs. Paine. She was present.

[this makes it sound like she was there the entire “interview” on the 1st which I’ll demonstrate later is misleading]

Mr. Jenner. And was Marina present when the FBI came later on November 5[th]?

Mrs. Paine. She came into the room just after basically the very short visit was concluded.

[Hosty testified he gave her a “nod” before he left. So when exactly did she copy that license plate number?]

Mr. Jenner. The second interview was a rather short one?

[Hosty testified that it was 3-4 minutes at the front door]

Mrs. Paine. The second interview was conducted standing up. He simply asked me did I know the address. My memory has been refreshed by him since.

[This is rather extraordinary. If this statement had been given at a real trial many defense lawyers would have moved to strike her entire testimony. Jenner ignores it, of course, because most likely he was a party to the pre-trial pre-hearing “refresher”.]

[This event, the November 5th “interview”, confounded even J. Edgar Hoover. It’s a real head scratcher. Why only ask the same question as before (on November 1st)? FBI Agent Hosty was an experienced investigator so why did he fail to apply real investigative techniques? IMHO, this was not the purpose of this visit and the explanation was selected hastily for it’s simplicity.]

Mr. Jenner. The first interview, however, was a rather lengthy one?

Mrs. Paine. But it was not strictly speaking an interview.

to be continued...

 

Edited August 9, 2017 by Chris Newton
correction

[Ron Bulman]

On ‎8‎/‎5‎/‎2017 at 3:46 AM, Chris Newton said:

Thanks Ron. I've got more of her testimony coming up.

There was part of her testimony that confused me for years. In that portion,  Mr. Jenner mentions there is no sidewalk in front of the Paine home and Ruth corrects him and said yes there is a sidewalk. A Secret Service Agent, John Joe Howlett,  then measures off the distance from the front door to the street. Even WC Exhibit #430 has a sidewalk (despite it's other flaws), as do any photos taken of the house, ever.

How then does Mr. Jenner not see the sidewalk?

The deposition started at 7 p.m. it was getting dark, and then it got dark.

And then I realized that there is, you know.... a bunch of other testimony, ...afterward in this same deposition about what could be seen outside from different places inside and visa versa...

Most of the deposition at the Paine residence could be read in the style of a farce, acted out by SNL. It's hilarious.

 

My favorite quote from that session:

Mr Jenner.        That light switch then John Joe! Let us locate it!

Agent Howlett.  It is 4 feet 6 inches from the floor.

 

Her questioning and testimony did get quite mundane.  On the one thread I've started since joining the forum I alluded to this regarding testimony about curtain rod's being curved on the ends and attaching to wall mounted brackets.  In searching for information regarding that thread, about the Paine's Files,  I was frustrated by the internet.  Google Warren Commission Paine testimony and you can get lost/distracted (intentionally?) in a hurry.  Refine it many times and you do find more information.  I was kind of shocked that such a search in this day and age did not take me to a site that listed Day 1, Day 2,  Day 3...  National Archives, Mary Ferrell, JFK Library, Lancer, Here, ROKC, Harvard, Princeton, Stanford?  No.  It's been near a month since I last looked for what I think might be day "One".   

[Chris Newton]

1 hour ago, Ron Bulman said:

On the one thread I've started since joining the forum I alluded to this regarding testimony about curtain rod's being curved on the ends and attaching to wall mounted brackets.

That's Jenner and John Joe Howlett in the Paine garage. I still think that whole section of testimony was a theater of the absurd. You wouldn't have to try to hard to convince me they were drunk. Maybe Jenner and Howlett detoured to the Carousel to "measure things" before heading out to Irving and that's why it started after 7 p.m.

[Chris Newton]

On 8/7/2017 at 9:13 AM, David Josephs said:

(anyone know if they picked-up mail and processed it on Saturdays back then?)

David,

It seems that an affirmative. This CATO Institute paper from the '80's suggests that "Congress is considering ending Saturday mail delivery." (end of third paragraph).

https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa047.pdf

If they were delivering then they were picking up and processing outgoing mail.

 

[Paul Trejo]

On ‎8‎/‎7‎/‎2017 at 3:54 PM, Chris Newton said:

…continued (top of page 16, WC Vol. III, testimony of RHP)…

Mr. Jenner. And did you see or observe anything during all of that period of your acquaintance, which stimulated you to think that any agency of the Government of the United States was seeking to induce her to defect?

Mrs Paine. To the United States?

Mr. Jenner. To the United States.

Mrs. Paine. No, and her terminology in view of it was so completely different from such stereotyped and loaded words that I was seeing as I read this. What I was struck with was what kind of man is this. [?]

Mr. Jenner. Is who?

[Note here that Jenner is confused because they were examining what Hosty was alleged to have said to Marina on Nov. 1st but Ruth has now interjected and conflated the reading of Oswald’s draft which occurs 9 days hence.]

Mrs. Paine. Why is Oswald writing this? What kind of man? Here is a false statement that she was invited to defect, false statement that the FBI is no longer interested, false statement that he was present, “they visited I and my wife”.

Mr. Jenner. Was he present?

Mrs. Paine. He was not present. False statement that “I and my wife protested vigorously”. Having not been present he could not protest.

[The passages above shows Ruth jumping to conclusions based on limited knowledge. She has no idea what the FBI said or didn’t say to Oswald when they grabbed him off the street and “interviewed” him for two hours when he and Marina lived in Oak Cliff. She also has no knowledge of, or what was written on the “Hosty note”. In fact, she insists that Oswald never visited the FBI offices himself]

[The other issue is that Ruth was not party to all the conversations between Marina and Lee so she doesn't "know". Ruth translated Hosty's statements to Marina. What was lost or conveyed erroneously "in translation" is unknowable but maybe Ruth, herself unwittingly gave Marina the impression she was being asked to defect?]

Mr. Jenner. He was not present when the FBI interviewed you on November 1[st][?] Was Marina present then?

Mrs. Paine. She was present.

[this makes it sound like she was there the entire “interview” on the 1st which I’ll demonstrate later is misleading]

Mr. Jenner. And was Marina present when the FBI came later on November 5[th]?

Mrs. Paine. She came into the room just after basically the very short visit was concluded.

[Hosty testified he gave her a “nod” before he left. So when exactly did she copy that license plate number?]

Mr. Jenner. The second interview was a rather short one?

[Hosty testified that it was 3-4 minutes at the front door]

Mrs. Paine. The second interview was conducted standing up. He simply asked me did I know the address. My memory has been refreshed by him since.

[This is rather extraordinary. If this statement had been given at a real trial many defense lawyers would have moved to strike her entire testimony. Jenner ignores it, of course, because most likely he was a party to the pre-trial pre-hearing “refresher”.]

[This event, the November 5th “interview”, confounded even J. Edgar Hoover. It’s a real head scratcher. Why only ask the same question as before (on November 1st)? FBI Agent Hosty was an experienced investigator so why did he fail to apply real investigative techniques? IMHO, this was not the purpose of this visit and the explanation was selected hastily for it’s simplicity.]

Mr. Jenner. The first interview, however, was a rather lengthy one?

Mrs. Paine. But it was not strictly speaking an interview.

to be continued...

Chris,

Here are my responses to you comments; you wrote:

[Note here that Jenner is confused because they were examining what Hosty was alleged to have said to Marina on Nov. 1st, but Ruth has now interjected and conflated the reading of Oswald’s draft which occurs 9 days hence.]

The reason is simple -- Jenner is asking about whether James Hosty invited Marina Oswald to defect, and Ruth Paine is immediately reminded that Lee Harvey Oswald's "Soviet Embassy Letter" of 11/9/1963 accused James Hosty of inviting Marina Oswald to defect.

So Ruth Paine immediately exclaims: "What kind of a man is this?"  She was still shocked by Lee Harvey Oswald's lie.  Of course this reaction implied the correct answer to Jenner's question -- "James Hosty never invited Marina Oswald to defect."

Then Jenner asks about Lee Harvey Oswald:

Mr. Jenner. Was he present?

Mrs. Paine. He was not present. False statement that “I and my wife protested vigorously”. Having not been present he could not protest.

Then you wrote:

[The passages above shows Ruth jumping to conclusions based on limited knowledge. She has no idea what the FBI said or didn’t say to Oswald when they grabbed him off the street and “interviewed” him for two hours when he and Marina lived in Oak Cliff. She also has no knowledge of, or what was written on the “Hosty note”. In fact, she insists that Oswald never visited the FBI offices himself]

Your error, Chris, is your assumption that Jenner is asking Ruth Paine about an episode between Lee Harvey Oswald and the FBI in Oak Cliff.  This is in your mind -- Jenner never suggested this.

Instead, Jenner is asking Ruth Paine if Lee Harvey Oswald was present at her house when James Hosty was allegedly inviting Marina Oswald to defect, since Oswald said in his "Soviet Embassy Letter," that he and Marina "protested vigorously."  That was another lie that infuriated Ruth Paine.

Then you wrote:

[The other issue is that Ruth was not party to all the conversations between Marina and Lee so she doesn't "know". Ruth translated Hosty's statements to Marina. What was lost or conveyed erroneously "in translation" is unknowable but maybe Ruth, herself unwittingly gave Marina the impression she was being asked to defect?]

This is a simple story -- Ruth Paine honestly translated the questions of James Hosty verbatim to Marina Oswald.  Ruth Paine remembered what James Hosty asked her to translate for Marina Oswald.  It's really very simple.

If you have any evidence to the contrary, then by all means, :Chris, present it.
 
Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited August 10, 2017 by Paul Trejo

[Chris Newton]

FYI for anyone following along on this thread:

The opinions I express here are based on my own experience, having read thousands of depositions and having participated in over a hundred trials as a trial technologist supporting the legal profession for over 10 years. This transcript represents a hearing not a trial, there is no adversarial counsel to provide balance or voice objections.

Furthermore, I have "turned off" all posts on the Educational Forum by Paul Trejo. I refuse to read any posts made by this individual or participate in any form of discussion with him. My reason is that Zealots have no desire to participate in real debate or discussion. I do not believe that his presence on this forum is to participate, in any shape or form, in the discourse envisaged by John Simpkin when he established this forum.

I invite readers to make up there own minds about the testimony I am commenting on. The next (and last)  installment coming soon

Edited August 11, 2017 by Chris Newton
removed inappropriate analogy

[James DiEugenio]

"I refuse to read any posts made by this individual or participate in any form of discussion with him. My reason is that Zealots have no desire to participate in real debate or discussion."

Well stated.

[Chris Newton]

2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Well stated.

Thanks. I shouldn't have picked on the Mormons and I apologize for that and I'm going to edit it out. I'm very suspicious that the memo we've been getting for 3-4(?) years ...the byline about Caulfield's "new book", is a marketing ploy to push his "conversations" up in the search engines.

Edited August 11, 2017 by Chris Newton

[Ron Bulman]

I try to make up my own mind no matter who is commenting.  I've learned to ignore some though I responded to Paul once since joining the forum.  I read it for several years before doing so.  I tried to present what I thought was logic to Mc Adams on jfkfacts years back, as Jim did here and elsewhere, it was rather useless other than it was necessary to counter the BS for anyone new to the subject, which is important in and of itself.

[Michael Clark]

32 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

.....

it was rather useless other than it was necessary to counter the BS for anyone new to the subject, which is important in and of itself.

There is the rub . When I joined, I was pleased that Paul was so ready to answer questions. Then the  "witnesses to beating Marina" thread came around and I saw that Trejo has no interest in being truthful or factual. Honestly, it made me angry, and it still bothers me that others are misled by him, like I was. I've been on a campaign to challenge him as often as I could, so ignoring him has not been an option. I have to assume that others are growing tired of my challenges towards him, so I will be shifting gears.