Did the Dallas Radical Right kill JFK?

[Paul Brancato]

11 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

I don't think Buddy Walthers in particular was a avid supporter of the radical right in Dallas 1963.  He was a redneck cop who didn't really give a crap about politics that brown nosed his boss Sherriff Decker by snitching on his co workers to him to ingratiate himself with him (see Roger Craig).   He likely hated Blacks, Mexicans and anything communist, good chance he was KKK.  Maybe he attended one of Walker's 2 or 3 "rallies".  Heck, he could have been paid as security at one of them.  But he was just doing his job for Decker after the assassination, what he was told.  He went to the Paine house in Irving and brought back 7 small metal file cabinets, at least one opened with information about Cuba in it. According to Him.  Then the loyal sheriff's deputy turned them over to Dallas Police Chief Curry (or someone in the department?) per Him .  Deep Sixed.  Never seen again.

Why not?  They could have been useful in framing Oswald.  LBJ's call's (by Cliff Carter) to his close friend  and idolater Henry Wade to drop the communist / Cuba  aspect assistant district attorney Bill Alexandar was pursuing, in the press?

Then again, Walthers reportedly grew marijuana in his back yard, yes, really, in 63 (case was smoothed over by superiors/FBI or fed's).  That would have been pretty liberal for a radical in 63, eh?

Ron - bumping this because I think the filing cabinets very important evidence that was deep sixed, not Walthers attempt to frame Ruth Paine. The possible implications of those files is just too much for Paul T to embrace into his theory. If he could he would. So instead he imagines that Walthers lied, and invents a theory out of whole cloth to explain that. I think speculation on what might have been in those files is a far more interesting approach. 

[Paul Trejo]

10 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

Ron - bumping this because I think the filing cabinets very important evidence that was deep sixed, not Walthers attempt to frame Ruth Paine. The possible implications of those files is just too much for Paul T to embrace into his theory. If he could he would. So instead he imagines that Walthers lied, and invents a theory out of whole cloth to explain that. I think speculation on what might have been in those files is a far more interesting approach. 

Paul B.,

The following is my opinion.

You are implying that the Dallas Police lied about the photographs they took at the Paine residence.

And yet you doubt that the Dallas Police were part of the JFK plot?    Where's the logic in that?

You have no single SHRED of evidence that there EVER WERE "six or seven metal filing cabinets in Ruth Paine's garage, containing the names of Cuban Communists."  

NOT ONE SHRED!

When you look at the SEVERAL Dallas Police records of what they took from Ruth Paine's garage -- including photographs of the haul -- it is obvious that SOMEBODY in Dallas was lying.

And when you realize that to pick up "six or seven metal filing cabinets" they would have needed a TRUCK -- and yet they used NO TRUCK -- you must admit that Dallas Deputy Buddy Walthers cared NOTHING for the truth of the matter.

To be the most generous possible to Buddy Walthers, we could say that the Dallas Police found five or six TINY metal containers, that one could hold in one hand, containing Ruth Paine's high school pen pal letters written in Russian, Ruth Paine's college homework in Russian language, and some Russian phonograph records of Folk Music.   Yes -- they did find that.  That was cataloged and photographed by the Dallas Police.

To be the most generous possible to Buddy Walthers, let us say simply that he was EXAGGERATING the facts about these metal filing FOLDERS, and that he was trying to impress his buddies that he was some big, bad Anticommunist ghost-buster. 

But even if that is the case, it is impossible to let that go -- because Buddy Walthers was very much aware of the seriousness of his charge, and of the seriousness of the crime being investigated, and of the way that people in the US Press would write it up -- and so on.  Buddy Walthers knew exactly what he was saying, and the situation at hand.

I refuse to be that generous to him.  It was beyond EXAGGERATING.  It was a deliberate fabrication intended to incite a backlash against Communists in general, and against Ruth and Michael Paine in particular, and a prejudice against this specific Patsy, whom Guy Banister had sheep-dipped in New Orleans that summer.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

 

Edited November 9, 2017 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Brancato]

22 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

Given Paul's long post.  Bump.

Filing cabinets come in all sizes Paul. Face it - they found files, as per the first report, and they were never referenced again.

[Paul Trejo]

6 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

Filing cabinets come in all sizes Paul. Face it - they found files, as per the first report, and they were never referenced again.

First REPORT?    Do you mean an official EVIDENCE INVENTORY?

Show it to me!!

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited November 9, 2017 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Brancato]

Can't do that Paul. Did they disappear before the first written report? Are you really going to deny that they were clearly mentioned in the first report? Your the expert. I'm no researcher. Don't bother pulling rank on me.

btw I don't recall the contents of the supposed files, which could have been small boxes, other than that they were of Cubans. Don't remember Walther saying they were Communist Cubans.

 

Edited November 9, 2017 by Paul Brancato

[Paul Brancato]

I think your just frustrated because your date with history never happened. Oh there are are hundreds of whited out pages in the latest document release. I haven't seen any such on Walker though. Have you? I can tell your frustrated because your posts are getting wordier again, constant detailed descriptions of your theory, replete with your own elaborations. You've got Buddy Walther all figured out. You think the WC questioners of Marina got red in the face trying to get her to admit that she took more than one photo. Didn't she first deny she had taken any? If you need to postulate the circumstances of her questioning you might as well do that with all witnesses. Instead you cherry pick what you need to flesh out your theory, and deny anything that doesn't fit. Marina was honest under oath, Walker lied under oath. How do you know? Yes, people lie, sometimes under oath. Perhaps including Marina. Some of the WC lawyers thought she wasn't always truthful. 

What I keep wondering is why you are so inflexible? Why do you have to be right? Why do you feel it necessary to share your surmises over and over? Who are you talking to? 

[Ron Bulman]

1 hour ago, Paul Trejo said:

First REPORT?    Do you mean an official EVIDENCE INVENTORY?

Show it to me!!

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Read here Paul.

 

[Paul Trejo]

1 hour ago, Paul Brancato said:

I think you're just frustrated because your date with history never happened. Oh there are are hundreds of whited out pages in the latest document release.

I haven't seen any such on Walker though. Have you? I can tell your frustrated because your posts are getting wordier again, constant detailed descriptions of your theory, replete with your own elaborations.

You've got Buddy Walthers all figured out. You think the WC questioners of Marina got red in the face trying to get her to admit that she took more than one photo.

Didn't she first deny she had taken any? If you need to postulate the circumstances of her questioning you might as well do that with all witnesses. Instead you cherry pick what you need to flesh out your theory, and deny anything that doesn't fit.

Marina was honest under oath, Walker lied under oath. How do you know? Yes, people lie, sometimes under oath. Perhaps including Marina. Some of the WC lawyers thought she wasn't always truthful. 

What I keep wondering is why you are so inflexible? Why do you have to be right? Why do you feel it necessary to share your surmises over and over? Who are you talking to? 

Paul B., 

The following is my opinion.   By the numbers:

1.  The jury is still deliberating on my "date with history."   Only two weeks ago 38,000 pages of the JFK Records Act were released -- and only a innocent believes that ANYBODY has read 38,000 pages by now.

2.  Jason Ward says that, by using computerized methods, he has identified THOUSANDS of FBI pages on General Walker.   As I say, it will take TIME to read 38,000 pages of material.

3.  All my elaborations of my CT continually refer to DOCUMENTS by OTHERS that I cite.   That's what galls my detractors, who back away when asked to show a SINGLE DOCUMENT.

4.   As for the WC questioners of Marina Oswald -- I have read ALL of her WC testimony -- HAVE YOU?   It doesn't sound like it.

5.   Under oath, Marina Oswald never denied taking a Backyard Photograph.

6.  When Marina was first arrested by the FBI, she denied EVERYTHING -- like any normal American wife would do.

7.   You make me laugh, Paul B., accusing ANYBODY else of "cherry-picking." 

8.   We KNOW that General Walker lied under oath, because we have DOCUMENTS from the Mary Ferrell Web Site -- e.g. from the German BND, showing that Helmut Muench got his Oswald/Walker connection directly from General Walker himself, less than 18 hours after the JFK assassination.   THIS IS DOCUMENTED HISTORY!!

8.1.  Also, we KNOW General Walker was directly connected with the JBS Black-bordered Ad in the DMN, as well as Robert Alan Surrey's handbill, WANTED FOR TREASON: JFK.   (Have you read all of Robert Alan Surrey's WC testimony?   It doesn't sound like it.)   Yet Walker denied this under OATH.

9.   I believe I'm right, Paul B., simply because my methods are OBJECTIVE and all I do is CONNECT DOTS that OTHER WRITERS have been putting together for the past half-century.

10.   Also, the CIA-did-it CT has collapsed into smithereens.  It's just dumb.  Its main followers today are the Harvey & Lee true believers.

11.   I don't repeat myself, Paul B. -- I present NEW INSIGHTS on this Forum WEEK after WEEK.   It's what I do.

12.  The CIA-did-it CTers are just jealous.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited November 9, 2017 by Paul Trejo
8.1

[Ron Bulman]

8 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

Read here Paul.

 

Six or seven of these are not in evidence in the picture taken by the FBI the next day.

https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=86VvULs2&id=5709D30A6261D7A98BD14D988AD06EDA2D2801FA&thid=OIP.86VvULs2XrsXdAjr0ipd2gEsDH&q=retro+portable+file+cabinet&simid=608011824182593945&selectedIndex=13&qpvt=retro+portable+file+cabinet&ajaxhist=0

Buddy Walthers stated he took them and gave them to the Dallas Police Department.  They disappeared.

 

[Paul Trejo]

6 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

Six or seven of these are not in evidence in the picture taken by the FBI the next day.

https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=86VvULs2&id=5709D30A6261D7A98BD14D988AD06EDA2D2801FA&thid=OIP.86VvULs2XrsXdAjr0ipd2gEsDH&q=retro+portable+file+cabinet&simid=608011824182593945&selectedIndex=13&qpvt=retro+portable+file+cabinet&ajaxhist=0

Buddy Walthers stated he took them and gave them to the Dallas Police Department.  They disappeared.

 

Ron,

Where is the DOCUMENT in which Buddy Walther's "stated he took them"??"   SHOW US HERE.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

[Ron Bulman]

Here ya go Paul.

https://www.jfk-assassination.com/warren/wch/vol7/page548.php

[Paul Brancato]

9 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

Here ya go Paul.

https://www.jfk-assassination.com/warren/wch/vol7/page548.php

Thanks Ron - I'll bookmark the location so I can pull up testimony instead of relying on memory. It is as I recalled it - small file boxes and no mention of what was in them, not as Trejo described files of Communists. In fact when I first saw this story I wondered if they were files of anti Castro Cubans. That would make more sense in my reading of what Oswald was up to, and also in accounting for their disappearance. 

[Cory Santos]

Well, and there is the missing spy camera.

Paul, if you think the radical right did it, and police were involved, you must admit it is possible that an honest officer documented the filing cabinets and then, due to a cop "in on the conspiracy", most likely a radical right type of guy, took the filing cabinets to support the conspiracy. 

Do you admit that is a possibility?

[Ernie Lazar]

Latest Group of JFK Assassination Records Available to the Public
Press Release ·Thursday, November 9, 2017

Washington, DC

In the fourth public release this year, the National Archives today posted 13,213  records subject to the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992 (JFK Act).   

The majority of the documents released today were released previously in redacted form.  The versions released today were prepared by agencies prior to October 26, 2017, and were posted to make the latest versions of the documents available as expeditiously as possible.  Released records are available for download.

On October 26, 2017, President Donald J. Trump directed agencies to re-review each and every one of their redactions over the next 180 days.  As part of that review process, agency heads were directed to be extremely circumspect in recommending any further postponement of information in the records.  Agency heads must report to the Archivist of the United States by March 12, 2018, any specific information within particular records that meets the standard for continued postponement under section 5(g)(2)(D) of the JFK Act.  The Archivist must then recommend to the President by March 26, 2018, whether this information warrants continued withholding after April 26, 2018.  The records included in this public release have not yet been re-reviewed by the agencies as part of that process and have not been reviewed by the National Archives.

The National Archives released 676 documents on Nov. 3, 2,891 documents on Oct. 26, and 3,810 records on July 24. 

The National Archives established the John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection in November 1992, and it consists of approximately five million pages of records. The vast majority of the collection has been publicly available without any restrictions since the late 1990s. 

Online Resources:
The President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection
Documenting the Death of a President
JFK Assassination Records Review Board
The work of the Kennedy Assassination Records Collection
JFK Assassination Records FAQs
Warren Commission Report

[Paul Trejo]

20 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

Here ya go Paul.

https://www.jfk-assassination.com/warren/wch/vol7/page548.php

Ron,

That's not a Dallas Police Inventory.  It's not a Dallas Police Report.  It's not a Dallas Police ANYTHING.

All you've done is to give us Buddy Walther's WC testimony from 7/23/1964.  

I thought you were going to produce a Dallas Police Report from 11/22/1963, telling of "six or seven metal filing cabinets full of the names of Cuban Communists!"

OK, OK, well, let's look at this 1964 WC testimony then.   Here is Walthers telling WC attorney Liebeler about the Dallas Police search of Ruth Paine's garage:

Mr. WALTHERS:  ...Then we found some little metal file cabinets---I don't know what kind you would call them---they would carry an 8 by 10 folder, all right, but with a single handle on top of it and the handle moves.

MR. LIEBELER:  About how many of them would you think there were?

MR., WALTHERS:  There were six or seven, I believe...

So, OK, how did we get from "little metal file cabinets" in his actual WC testimony, to "metal file cabinets" in the 50-year RUMOR that y'all keep spreading?

You showed pictures of metal filing cabinets from eBay or some such up above -- and we all know what a metal file cabinet looks like.  You need a TRUCK to move it.

But what is a ""little metal file cabinet"??   Doesn't this simply show that Buddy Walthers was playing fast and loose with the English language?  He used the word "CABINET" when he should have used the word "FOLDER".   You can still buy metal folders today, by the way.   Some have a movable single handle on the top, too.  They can hold 100 pages or so.  

In fact, Buddy Walthers was shuffling his linguistic feet here.  He admits they were "little" but he insists on calling them "cabinets".  He knew damn well that "CABINET" was a weasel word.  He thought he got away with it.

But I had to go back to Webster's Dictionary (1828) to justify Buddy Walther's usage of the phrase, "little metal filing cabinets".   Here it is:

CABINET, n.
1. A closet; a small room, or retired apartment.
2. A private room, in which consultations are held.
3. The select or secret council of a prince or executive government; so called from the apartment in which it was originally held.
4. A piece of furniture, consisting of a chest or box, with drawers and doors. A private box.
5. Any close place where things of value are deposited for safe keeping.
6. A hut; a cottage; a small house.
CABINET, v.t. To enclose.

So, there we are -- if we use Webster's Dictionary (1828) and use definition #5, we can justify Buddy Walthers so that he can't be convicted of perjury.

But get with the program, Ron!   Where is the Dallas Police REPORT by Buddy Walthers from 11/22/1963 that you promised to show us?

 Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited November 10, 2017 by Paul Trejo
typos