Jump to content
The Education Forum

Ruth - a typewriter - 15 days


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 265
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

22 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

 

Ok, I kind of thought there might be a connection between the two.

You seem to imply that you think the moving of the furniture may not have even happened at the time she says it did.  Is that what you think?

 

Yes.   Alan Grants photo, taken the evening of 11/22/63, depicts the furniture arranged just as Ruth's describes it before she asked Michael and Lee to move it on the evening of 11/10/63. She also stated during her testimony that all the furniture remained in that arrangement (post- move) through the date of her testimony. Another words, the two pieces of furniture, the desk secretary and the sofa/couch swapped places on 11/10 and remained that way through the early part of 1964.

I think the furniture was moved into that configuration to support her story sometime after 11/23/63.

The furniture "moving" incident with Michael and Lee didn't happen, it's fiction.

Edited by Chris Newton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems to me that what happened is this (and maybe Chris has already alluded to this): Ruth's story is that she hand copied the original draft Sunday morning and then put the original draft back where she'd found it, on the top of the desk secretary. (She returned it because it didn't belong to her, and Lee might try to take possession of it at any moment.) Then later that day she decided to move furniture, which Michael and Lee helped her with. Before they moved the desk secretary, she INNOCENTLY (in appearances only) slipped the original draft inside a compartment or drawer of the desk secretary, so that it wouldn't fall off the desk during the move. In effect, she has stolen the draft. But nobody will accuse her of doing that because she was just "protecting" it.

Isn't that the whole point of this fabricated furniture-rearrangement story? A way for Ruth to explain how she got possession of the original draft without having to steal it?

 

Edited by Sandy Larsen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Isn't that the whole point of this fabricated furniture-rearrangement story? A way for Ruth to explain how she got possession of the original draft without having to steal it?

Yes. I think the story was necessary to cover up how the draft came to be in her possession. The story was "good enough" for the commission despite  sounding a little "fishy". The commission may not have even been aware that the furniture had not been moved or that Alan Grant had captured it in a different contradictory configuration.  I think that  if they had been aware of what the Alan Grant photo showed, the story would have changed.

Scroll down to the highlighted parts for Ruth's explanation:

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=43&relPageId=420&search=paine_and made and copy

Edited by Chris Newton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the most extraordinary things to me about the Alan Grant photo is this:

It was taken after everyone returned to the Paine residence after being taken downtown and making written statements to the DPD. Everyone in this photo, except the baby, knew that Lee was being accused of killing a policeman and the President of the United States. Despite this knowledge, Ruth by her own account, still has the letter secretly squirreled away and she's told no one about it. Not the Detectives searching her house, not downtown at the station, not even to her friend and "confidant" Marina.  She says she told Michael but Michael doesn't ever mention it until he's asked on the stand, and even then he claims to not remember much about it.

Alternatively, there might be another explanation, maybe she didn't actually have it, and therefore it's "the story" that makes it seem she is withholding key evidence.

Pain_grant1.jpg

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, that is extraordinary.

I believe that either 1) Oswald never had anything to do with the letter, or 2) someone else wrote the letter and Oswald merely copied it as per his handler's instructions. After which he probably gave his copy to his handler (rather than directly to Ruth). Then Ruth got it from her handler to copy.

I don't believe Oswald would have been instructed to give it directly to Ruth. Because I believe that it's likely that they were operating under different operations and covers, and so in theory would not have known that each other was a CIA agent. (Though in practice they may have suspected it.)

(Of course, I could be wrong about this... they could have been working under the same operation.)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course, the letter/draft/copy didn't surface until after Lee Oswald was DEAD.

Dead men refute no "evidence."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

As per the official story, when does she first admit to having it and to who?  Hosty?

 

Per Ruth's story, she gives the Oswald draft to Hosty on 11/23/63 and her copy of the Oswald draft to Odum on a subsequent interview the same day.

 

My theory is that Hosty already had the Oswald draft before 11/22/63.  The first time she tells the story to an FBI Agent, Odum, who has been sent to double check on Hosty's interviews, he (Odum) asks for and receives the Paine copy of the Oswald draft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me throw another wrench in here. There was a dictionary found at the same time as the Oswald draft according to Ruth. The dictionary raises a couple of questions.

 

Was the Oswald draft actually folded in half and inserted in the dictionary?

Was the dictionary with the draft because Oswald was not finished writing the draft and he was still checking his spelling?

Where is the dictionary now?

Why is the dictionary only mentioned once in the all of the WC testimony?

FBI Agent Odum sends the Dictionary to the FBI lab based on a 12/4/63 interview of Ruth Paine. If he interviewed her on 11/23/63 and gotten her copy of the draft how did the dictionary elude him at that time?

see highlighted testimony here:

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=43&relPageId=399&search=paine_and pocket and dictionary

and FBI Inventory form  FD-192 :

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=59641&relPageId=125

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Posting this here for reference.

 

In defense of an earlier postage mark, " 2" , instead of the assumed "12" we have this juicy little tidbit that was volunteered by Ruth Paine and never, (as far as I can tell), referenced again.

another_note.jpg

 

It's interesting that she now calls the Mexico Embassy letter a "note" but the previous, and never discussed again, document is a "letter"?

Could this "previous letter" have been typed on Nov. 2nd?

"This is probably no use to you" is also quite prophetic since they made sure not to go down "this road" in subsequent testimony.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...