Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

22 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

Questions regards photos.

Is this Thornley directly above? The carved pumpkin to the right of his knee tells you this was taken in late October. But what year? And where?

In the photos of Oswald's leaflet passing group above:

Some say the small dark haired fellow with the identical thin black tie and white shirt as Oswald was Raphael Cruz Sr. ( Senator Ted Cruz's father. ) 

And Cruz Sr. was living in New Orleans the entire time Oswald was there and passing out his leaflets.

Whether or not this man is Cruz Sr. he does look totally Cuban.

And what Cuban in his right mind is going to thrust himself into a broad daylight public spectacle of pro-Castro activity in one of the top two fanatical, hot headed anti-Castro communities in America ( New Orleans )  in the Summer of 1963?

The other being Miami.

The anti-Castro groups in these cities were so so extreme in their anger and hatred of Castro, they were constantly planning life and death risk taking measures to take back their homeland if the opportunity to do so could be realized.

Oswald was physically confronted and assaulted by members of this group at another leaflet passing. One would think these same angry Oswald attackers might be even more agitated at seeing an actual Cuban born person helping Oswald pass out his pro-Castro leaflets.

The other out-of-place character in the photos ( besides the big pompadour, blond, taller and super thin, sunken cheeks Shelley look-alike ) is the short, muscular, swarthy, hairy armed, sun glasses wearing character in the lower right.

Was this guy a leaflet passing helper too? Just needing a few dollars at the time?

Or was he just a passerby at the time of the photo?

The guy just radiates a sinister, covert, aggressive energy to me. Kind of a David Morales type presence? He looks Cuban as well.

 

Sorry Joe,

For answering this so late.  The photo of Kerry Thornley with a beard is from the an internet search on Kerry Thornley.  It was just to show that at one time Thornley was as thin as Oswald and the unknown figure in the pamphlet scene.  As the next photo shows Thornley was suspected to be the unknown figure in that scene.  That notion has been changed by Jim DiEugenio's reporting of Thornley's height at 5'10".

kerry-thornley-maybe.jpg

This particular film and scenes from it can not be trusted.  It has been edited.  Notice the unknown figure's head in the left scene is lacking the top of his skull.  I have seen this many times in other photos where the editor did a poor cut and paste operation.  Perhaps from lack of time or pressure to finish the work.  The figure in the right photo has an Oswald figure in it.  To me this figure has an Oswald face mask.  I don't argue this any more because others can't see it or won't see it.  The only true characters in the right frame scene is Bill Shelley and the pilot next to him. 

As you can in the left scene the same man is shown twice.  This is the man Oswald hired to help distribute pamphlets. 

As far as the Ted Cruz's dad's figure, it is can not be proved to be Ted's dad.  It may not be the person shown.  If you look close in the left scene you can see the Latin figure has a face mask.

Edited by John Butler
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 133
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

By the way, Cruz Sr, was the exact same age as Oswald being born in 1939.

I've tried to find any detailed information about Cruz Sr, especially after he graduated from The University Of Texas in 1961. Where he lived specifically.

There seems to be an information black hole in this period after his graduation as far as where he lived and where he worked. In his Wiki entry all it says about this is that he ( Cruz Sr. ) married and "moved to New Orleans in his twenties."

That's it. No mention of what year in his twenties he moved there.

Cruz was very politically active and involved when he lived in Texas and was in school there. He gave talks many times to church and political groups about his experiences in Cuba and fighting the Batista forces and then Castro forces, being taken prisoner and eventually making his way to the U.S. and pulling himself up from nothing to educating himself to achieving a college degree.

So, we know he moved to New Orleans. Probably within a year or so after graduating. He moves to one of the most extreme political activist cities in the country regards anti-Castro movements and organizations.

And he just instantly and completely stops any political activity and involvement among his own Castro hating people there?

Please.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I really wish I'd read this book 30 years ago.  I'm only 1/4 way through but feel it should be in the to 10 on the subject.  Really underappreciated.

https://www.amazon.com/Trail-Assassins-Murder-President-Kennedy/dp/1620872994/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3DKAB64I2H93V&dchild=1&keywords=on+the+trail+of+the+assassins+jim+garrison&qid=1593568048&s=books&sprefix=On+teh+trail+of+the+%2Camazon-devices%2C329&sr=1-1

E.G.  Banister's wife:  "Asked about what happened to Banister's office files, she recalled that the federal government had arrived within an hour or two of his death - long before she reached his office  - and carted off the locking file cabinets.  . . . told FBI or Secret Service."  They left behind files index cards, found by State Police, obtained by Garrison.

American Central intelligence Agency 20-10

Ammunition and Arms 32-1  . . .

Civil Rights Program of J.F.K. 8-41 . . . 

Fair Play For Cuba 23-7

International Trade Mart 23-14, would this part relate to Freeport Sulphur, Italy and more?  Paul, Rob, Jim?

Reminds me of Angleton looking quickly for Mary Meyer's diary and flying to Mexico City for Winston Scott's files the day he died.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ron, Better late than never. And even though I've read it twice, it's due for a third reading. I like the way you honed in on the index cards. The cards tell the tale in abbreviated form. They are like the Tarot cards of the JFK assassination. Condensed to bare-bones form, we know enough today that we can fill in many of the blanks ... and flesh out the bigger picture.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole thing about Banister's office is that it was a station for just about everything there was going on with the rightwing.

It was not just the CIA.  Banister communicated with the FBI, the OAS and he was even in communication with George Lincoln Rockwell.

Delphine Roberts was as conservative as Banister was.  And its not accurate, as many people think, that she first talked to Summers.

She first talked to Bob Buras of the HSCA.   She told him about Oswald being there and Banister giving him an office.  And how angry he was that Oswald printed 544 Camp Street on one of his flyers. And how Banister told this to Newman the building owner at the time, and James Arthus the custodian.  When Oswald came in, Banister met with him privately.

Roberts once said that Martin was looking for Oswald's file on the day of the assassination.  That is the real reasons Banister was so angry.  Martin later said that if Roberts had not intervened, he thought Banister was going to kill him, not just send him to the hospital. 

If I recall correctly, much of this was left out of the HSCA report.  It should not have been.  Scott Malone later talked to Mary Brengel who said that Roberts told her that Oswald was at 544 Camp Street.

So for Thornley to be there would fit right in with who he was.  And for him to deny it, that would also suit his whole "I was the guy playing the piano downstairs, did not know what was going on upstairs" mask.  And which the WC cooperated with him to maintain.

It almost makes you wonder about that move from Whittier to New Orleans in early 1961. And somehow, like magic, Thornley ends up in the middle of the only other group of people in the USA who are using Oswald's name at the time. That is way too early for the assassination being planned, but still. 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Take. a look:  on the eve of the HSCA, Thornley was doing what Ruth Paine was doing, he was trying to find out what the FBI had on him.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=134623#relPageId=2&tab=page

I mean, when you combine this with his tracking down Garrison and sending him that pulp fiction novella at around the same time?

I mean really?  How bad can something look?

Link to post
Share on other sites

James D, are you sure Ruth Paine is a bad one? I knew Ruth Paine in the St. Petersburg, Florida Friends Meeting 2000-2002 (I am Quaker). I knew Ruth as a completely decent person. I do not fault researchers for suspicion, for as in any unsolved murder everyone, including the innocent butler, cook, gardener, etc. at the scene unavoidably are persons of interest until the crime is solved or they are exculpated. It is the basis for conclusions that Ruth Paine is to be condemned that I do not see. I do not believe she fabricated any items of evidence or that she was knowingly part of any plot to assassinate or harm anyone. I have read articles accusing Ruth Paine of all sorts of allegations and charges related to the JFK assassination, but have seen nothing substantial. Was there suspicion in central America over her when she was there doing volunteer work because some people thought she was a spy? I have seen innocent people in peace and antiwar groups accused and damaged on the basis of suspicion without evidence. That Ruth believes in the lone-gunman WC interpretation is irrelevant; many people do. That she had file cabinets with names in them in her garage could be sinister but need not be (she was an organizer for exchange trips with the Soviet Union as I recall). I do not see that Ruth knowingly lied in her WC testimony. Did Ruth act in a sinister way by passing on the TSBD job idea to Lee? No, who could have foreseen. Did Ruth act in a sinister way by failing to pass on an unemployment counselor's phone call about a better-paying job to LHO, after LHO had started work at TSBD? That is based on the counselor's recounting that he called, was told LHO had a job, and so he closed out his LHO case; I see nothing sinister there. Marina cited spider-sense that Ruth was CIA, and claimed that Secret Service or FBI protecting her had told her that. Who knows why Marina permanently severed relations with Ruth after the assassination, which from all accounts was hurtful to Ruth. But I have never heard any Secret Service or FBI person confirm saying that allegation about Ruth to Marina or otherwise, and the otherwise mercurial Marina's citation of hearsay on that point is just insubstantial. 

The one unknown I can see is the question of intelligence-informant role. I understand why all key persons in the Oswalds' lives in the US unavoidably are scrutinized, and de Mohrenschildt's informant role combined with his befriending of LHO is well known. But with de Mohrenschildt there is evidence, whereas with Ruth no evidence to my knowledge has ever come forth showing she was an informant for an intelligence agency. I know that Ruth's sister and father had CIA relationships, and understandably that heightens the question of whether Ruth did too. But no evidence has come forth re that for Ruth in all this time. I agree that if some covert-informant role on the part of Ruth ever were to become known, that would alter my opinion (because it should have been disclosed, if that were so, even if the informant relationship itself was argued to be benign for good motives). A covert-informant role would not be in keeping with Quaker testimonies. One longstanding Friends' testimony from the beginning is against secret societies (masons and so forth), which I believe a majority of Quakers would extend to include spying or covert activity of all kinds even for so-called good causes. (The Underground Railroad would probably be considered an exception by most Quakers, but I cannot think of many other exceptions than that.) Civil disobedience, speaking truth to power, antiwar resistance et al, are open not covert, in Quaker tradition. I am also aware of the work of Evica on intelligence agencies (reprehensibly) working among religious groups such as Quakers. The point here is: is it just, is it fair, to condemn Ruth Paine as a perceived government-agency informant on the basis of suspicion or spider-sense alone, when after all this time, and with all the documents that have come out, there is literally zero evidence to establish that about Ruth. If Ruth had been party to or knowledgeable of anything sinister relating to the assassination of JFK I do not think she would be alive. 

One article I saw cited a fellow peace movement activist who was suspicious of Ruth, again citing nothing substantial, just spider sense. She cited an incident in which Ruth Paine said sorrowfully to her something about an estrangement of a daughter from Ruth over "the evil you have done". Ruth's friend concluded that that was a reference to a malevolent role of Ruth in the JFK assassination. I know nothing about Ruth's relationship with her daughter but I can certainly say that is not a conclusion I would regard as obvious or justified based on what is stated. It could be something else entirely, such as (this is hypothetical for illustrative purposes only) an evangelical Christian family member objecting to another family member's being gay. It could refer to a dispute over an inheritance settlement. It could be objection to a family member supporting women's right to abortion. It could mean anything. I have no idea if the daughter ever said, nor do I regard it as my or anyone's business. I think it is wrong when I see Ruth condemned and pilloried on grounds of suspicion alone, without evidence, when I knew Ruth as a good and decent woman who, so far as I could tell, tried to do the right thing for Marina then, and has tried to do the right thing in all of her life. The Ruth I knew walked the walk of an honest Quaker woman, was unassuming, contributed out of modest means to worthy causes, was a war tax resistor, and had a good reputation in the St. Petersburg Friends Meeting among those who knew her.

I recognize I have a bias based on this personal knowledge of Ruth some time ago. But I think she has been mistreated and abused in the JFK assassination research community. I don't know if anyone's mind is changed by a personal testimonial such as this, but its what I think.    

Edited by Greg Doudna
Link to post
Share on other sites

Greg, do you have any thoughts regards the reported phone conversation between Ruth Paine and her separated husband Michael Paine the day of or next day after the assassination where Michael reportedly said to Ruth "We both know who's responsible" in their back and forth about the assassination?

It has been suggested that Ruth's phone line was tapped by some agency due to her harboring Marina Oswald.

Not researched at all regards Ruth Paine to any degree of valid debate. Just throwing some well known conspiracy claims involving her out there.

Michael Paine seems less humanitarian and more suspicious than Ruth is some ways.

He cultivated a brief conversation sharing relationship with Oswald. A very disingenuous one considering his elitist and condescending dismissal of Oswald as just a stupid uneducated fool in regards to Oswald's understanding of true Marxist philosophy history and meaning in the real world.

His derisive depiction of Oswald as this low class, delusional intelligent self-view person just smacked of spoiled privilege arrogance imo.

Paine liked to randomly engage other young people in political philosophy conversation ( versus religious? )  in his spare time it was reported.

Not the kind of thing most Quakers would spend their time doing, don't you think?

Ruth did a lot to help Marina. No debate there. With young children of her own, she drove all the way to New Orleans  ( 500 miles each way!) to pack her Rambler station wagon to the max to bring Marina and what belongings she had back to her home where she took care of her and her child June including paying for food for several months. That's a HUGE helping hand for sure.

 Marina didn't have to pay for anything to help with the house expenses from what I have read. Can't fault Ruth there.

Not sure about the reported "evil you have done" statement attributed to Ruth's daughter. Wish there was some or any corroborating info in that regard's. Ruth's CIA connected relatives does add some weight to the theory of her not being totally innocent and naive in that realm imo.

It's probably not relevant at all, but do you think Ruth Paine may haven been bisexual to any degree? Asexual? Did she ever remarry after her separation from Michael?

That's what... a 57 year long period of singleness?

Edited by Joe Bauer
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/1/2020 at 10:54 PM, James DiEugenio said:

The whole thing about Banister's office is that it was a station for just about everything there was going on with the rightwing.

It was not just the CIA.  Banister communicated with the FBI, the OAS and he was even in communication with George Lincoln Rockwell.

Delphine Roberts was as conservative as Banister was.  And its not accurate, as many people think, that she first talked to Summers.

She first talked to Bob Buras of the HSCA.   She told him about Oswald being there and Banister giving him an office.  And how angry he was that Oswald printed 544 Camp Street on one of his flyers. And how Banister told this to Newman the building owner at the time, and James Arthus the custodian.  When Oswald came in, Banister met with him privately.

Roberts once said that Martin was looking for Oswald's file on the day of the assassination.  That is the real reasons Banister was so angry.  Martin later said that if Roberts had not intervened, he thought Banister was going to kill him, not just send him to the hospital. 

If I recall correctly, much of this was left out of the HSCA report.  It should not have been.  Scott Malone later talked to Mary Brengel who said that Roberts told her that Oswald was at 544 Camp Street.

So for Thornley to be there would fit right in with who he was.  And for him to deny it, that would also suit his whole "I was the guy playing the piano downstairs, did not know what was going on upstairs" mask.  And which the WC cooperated with him to maintain.

It almost makes you wonder about that move from Whittier to New Orleans in early 1961. And somehow, like magic, Thornley ends up in the middle of the only other group of people in the USA who are using Oswald's name at the time. That is way too early for the assassination being planned, but still. 

 

 

 

Jim, do you think Guy Bannister had any relationship with Joseph Milteer?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not sure about a Milteer/Banister relationship.  If I recall correctly, there was some evidence of this in the Caufield book. But it was really weak.  Here is my quote in my review.

"How does Caufield fit Milteer into his Pere Marquette circle of conspiracy? He says that the business card of G. Wray Gill’s son was in Milteer’s belongings when he died. I’m not kidding; this is what he says constitutes “evidence of conspiracy”. (Caufield, pp. 302-04)"

 

Gill was one of Marcello's lawyers.  Allegedly, Banister did some work for Gill on Marcello's case.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/6/2020 at 6:11 AM, Greg Doudna said:

James D, are you sure Ruth Paine is a bad one? I knew Ruth Paine in the St. Petersburg, Florida Friends Meeting 2000-2002 (I am Quaker). I knew Ruth as a completely decent person. I do not fault researchers for suspicion, for as in any unsolved murder everyone, including the innocent butler, cook, gardener, etc. at the scene unavoidably are persons of interest until the crime is solved or they are exculpated. It is the basis for conclusions that Ruth Paine is to be condemned that I do not see. I do not believe she fabricated any items of evidence or that she was knowingly part of any plot to assassinate or harm anyone. I have read articles accusing Ruth Paine of all sorts of allegations and charges related to the JFK assassination, but have seen nothing substantial. Was there suspicion in central America over her when she was there doing volunteer work because some people thought she was a spy? I have seen innocent people in peace and antiwar groups accused and damaged on the basis of suspicion without evidence. That Ruth believes in the lone-gunman WC interpretation is irrelevant; many people do. That she had file cabinets with names in them in her garage could be sinister but need not be (she was an organizer for exchange trips with the Soviet Union as I recall). I do not see that Ruth knowingly lied in her WC testimony. Did Ruth act in a sinister way by passing on the TSBD job idea to Lee? No, who could have foreseen. Did Ruth act in a sinister way by failing to pass on an unemployment counselor's phone call about a better-paying job to LHO, after LHO had started work at TSBD? That is based on the counselor's recounting that he called, was told LHO had a job, and so he closed out his LHO case; I see nothing sinister there. Marina cited spider-sense that Ruth was CIA, and claimed that Secret Service or FBI protecting her had told her that. Who knows why Marina permanently severed relations with Ruth after the assassination, which from all accounts was hurtful to Ruth. But I have never heard any Secret Service or FBI person confirm saying that allegation about Ruth to Marina or otherwise, and the otherwise mercurial Marina's citation of hearsay on that point is just insubstantial. 

The one unknown I can see is the question of intelligence-informant role. I understand why all key persons in the Oswalds' lives in the US unavoidably are scrutinized, and de Mohrenschildt's informant role combined with his befriending of LHO is well known. But with de Mohrenschildt there is evidence, whereas with Ruth no evidence to my knowledge has ever come forth showing she was an informant for an intelligence agency. I know that Ruth's sister and father had CIA relationships, and understandably that heightens the question of whether Ruth did too. But no evidence has come forth re that for Ruth in all this time. I agree that if some covert-informant role on the part of Ruth ever were to become known, that would alter my opinion (because it should have been disclosed, if that were so, even if the informant relationship itself was argued to be benign for good motives). A covert-informant role would not be in keeping with Quaker testimonies. One longstanding Friends' testimony from the beginning is against secret societies (masons and so forth), which I believe a majority of Quakers would extend to include spying or covert activity of all kinds even for so-called good causes. (The Underground Railroad would probably be considered an exception by most Quakers, but I cannot think of many other exceptions than that.) Civil disobedience, speaking truth to power, antiwar resistance et al, are open not covert, in Quaker tradition. I am also aware of the work of Evica on intelligence agencies (reprehensibly) working among religious groups such as Quakers. The point here is: is it just, is it fair, to condemn Ruth Paine as a perceived government-agency informant on the basis of suspicion or spider-sense alone, when after all this time, and with all the documents that have come out, there is literally zero evidence to establish that about Ruth. If Ruth had been party to or knowledgeable of anything sinister relating to the assassination of JFK I do not think she would be alive. 

One article I saw cited a fellow peace movement activist who was suspicious of Ruth, again citing nothing substantial, just spider sense. She cited an incident in which Ruth Paine said sorrowfully to her something about an estrangement of a daughter from Ruth over "the evil you have done". Ruth's friend concluded that that was a reference to a malevolent role of Ruth in the JFK assassination. I know nothing about Ruth's relationship with her daughter but I can certainly say that is not a conclusion I would regard as obvious or justified based on what is stated. It could be something else entirely, such as (this is hypothetical for illustrative purposes only) an evangelical Christian family member objecting to another family member's being gay. It could refer to a dispute over an inheritance settlement. It could be objection to a family member supporting women's right to abortion. It could mean anything. I have no idea if the daughter ever said, nor do I regard it as my or anyone's business. I think it is wrong when I see Ruth condemned and pilloried on grounds of suspicion alone, without evidence, when I knew Ruth as a good and decent woman who, so far as I could tell, tried to do the right thing for Marina then, and has tried to do the right thing in all of her life. The Ruth I knew walked the walk of an honest Quaker woman, was unassuming, contributed out of modest means to worthy causes, was a war tax resistor, and had a good reputation in the St. Petersburg Friends Meeting among those who knew her.

I recognize I have a bias based on this personal knowledge of Ruth some time ago. But I think she has been mistreated and abused in the JFK assassination research community. I don't know if anyone's mind is changed by a personal testimonial such as this, but its what I think.    

 Joe, as you read, Greg in his sincere well worded question, has said he's had a personal relationship with Ruth Paine. Greg's question about Ruth Paine was not directed at you.  Maybe you obscured Jim's view of the question asked of him.  I think I may have a little more  knowledge about the forum  case against RP,  but I want to see what Jim's got.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Greg:

If the Paines ever need an advocate for a mock trial, they should call you.

Unfortunately, you would be up against attorney Carol Hewitt.  First, you know that the Imperial Reflex camera which took the  infamous backyard photos was not on the original Dallas Police inventory?  It surfaced 2 weeks later via Ruth Paine who gave it to Oswald's brother, who with Marina was staying at the time. We are to think that something like five cops over two days missed that rather large and unusual camera.  I won't even go through what the FBI did to Marina to get her to identify this camera.

Also, please read this article and then the link to Carol's essay at the end:  https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/oswald-s-last-letter-the-scorching-hot-potato

I am hoping that soon at K and K, via Chris Newton, we will have a third and clinching article up on this letter.  And then you will see why the Secret Service returned the alleged Walker shooting note to Ruth because they thought she wrote it.  Neither Lee nor Marina's latent fingerprints were on it.  Ruth took that opportunity to give the Secret Service new evidence about LHO being in Mexico City. That again, the police somehow missed during their two visits.  Now Greg, I do not know how you think on this issue, but as for me, and several other researchers, the evidence is flashing red today--via David Josephs' state of the art work--that Oswald was not in Mexico City.  Which makes this and the above letter even more relevant to the case.

I also find it curious that somehow you dismiss Michael Paine impersonating communists at Luby's cafeteria--to the point that students from SMU called  the FBI. Would that not be one reason for the Paines to have those files?  Why would a guy (partially)  living off of trust funds from the Forbes and Cabot families be doing such a thing at Luby's anyway?  And you see no parallel between that and Ruth's activities during the Contra War?  And you cut out the fact that when Ruth talked about the "evil in her life", the previous context of the conversation had been the JFK case. (James DiEugenio, Destiny Betrayed, second edition, p. 200)

Now, are you familiar with the whole Minox camera charade?  That stage play pulled off by the Paines to disguise the fact that one of Oswald's cameras in her garage was a Minox?  And the Dallas Police knew this, although Hoover was trying to deny such was the case. J. Edgar was very worried about this and so he got in contact with local FBI agents Gordon Shanklin and Bardwell Odum in order to arrange a cover up around it. There were three pocket cameras found at the Paine garage, a Minox, a Cuera and a Stereo Realist.  The police insisted the Minox was in Oswald's belongings, and it is on their list, although the FBI was trying to literally make it disappear--it is not on their list.  Hoover apparently  thought that for Oswald to have such a relatively expensive and sophisticated camera would suggest he did surveillance work. So Hoover sent a message to Shanklin and Odum: enlist someone to help vanish the camera.  On Hoover's list was Ruth Paine.(FBI teletype of 1/30/64)

And boy did Ruth ever come through for Hoover.  Let us recall, the Dallas Police had recovered a Minox. That is an established fact. Hoover needed someone to camouflage that record since he had deep sixed that piece of evidence.  So what does Ruth do?  She talks to Mike and they come up with the story that, "Hey, Mike had a Minox camera" also.  But further, Mike had told the police officers that he had a MInox but they did not seem interested in it.  Does it get any worse than this?  The police already found Oswald's Minox.  The Paines are  now trying to say they missed it, and by saying it was really Mike's they are separating the camera from Oswald.  But now, Mike says this: the light meter found by the cops was really his also, not Oswald's.  So now, DPD officer  Gus Rose can stop his complaining: the FBI does have a Minox, but they maintain its Mike's, and was never Oswald's.  In fact, in declassified records, the FBI says it was examining the Minox on November 25th, almost two months before Mike did his act.  The WC, needless to say, never questioned the Paines about this piece of subterfuge.  The HSCA never called the Paines as witnesses.  But in 1993, Gus Russo used Mike Paine to parrot his sorry story about the camera the FBI  found being his for PBS.   And today there are two Minoxes at NARA. (See The Assassinations, edited by Jim DiEugenio and Lisa Pease, pp. 238-44)

I could go on much further, but just based on the above, I think there is and was a case against the devout Quakers.  Or do you also think that Ruth did not know where her sister worked, even though she visited her in the summer of 1963, and she did not even know  where she lived? Because that is what she said during her sworn grand jury testimony to Jim Garrison

 

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to post
Share on other sites

James D., on Michael Paine at the Luby cafeteria, that is only sinister if one reads the worst interpretation into it. I do not see any basis for concluding Michael Paine was sinister either re the JFK assassination or Oswald. This is not the most important point you raise re the Paines but let's stay with this one a moment. Is there anything here? From the FBI interview report with Ed Buck, https://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11603&search=Luby's#relPageId=2&tab=page.

"He stated that he met the individual [Michael Paine] at Luby's on a Sunday about 12:00 noon and that this man struck up a conversation while they were standing in line. 

(Sounds sinister already.)

"He stated they sat together and continued their conversation during lunch for about one hour. He was unable to recall the opening text of their conversation, but after they had been talking for a few minutes, this man commented that he thought the United States was being too tough on Cuba and expressed a favorable attitude toward the Castro regime in Cuba.

(Uh-oh.)

"He believed this individual also made some comments about the Prisoners of War (POW) in the Korean conflict but could not recall what he said in this regard. He could not recall that this man made any reference to John F. Kennedy, but believed that some mention was made by him of the Bricker Amendment [a conservative legislative proposal to limit presidential engagement in wars unapproved by Congress--gd], but could not recall what was said in this regard.

[...<describes Michael Paine telling of Oswald and Marina, which was the information of interest to FBI>...]

"Buck stated that this man told him he resided in Ft. Worth and came to Luby's Cafeteria in Dallas because of the interesting conversations he engaged in with students of SMU and residents of Highland Park area.

(Obviously a spy. Probably in answer to a friendly "do you come here often?" question.)

"He stated he could not recall having seen this man prior to the Sunday they had their conversation, but recalls seeing him on two or three other occasions on Sundays after the date of their conversation.

(He comes back to eat at the same place. What is he up to?)

"He stated he always saw him at Luby's and related that they had not conversed but the one time. He stated this man was always alone when he saw him and could not recall having seen him conversing with any of the other patrons.

(Is it possible Michael Paine went to Luby's on Sundays not to collect names for spywork, but because he liked the food and to enjoy the outing?)

Michael Paine seems to come across as a sort of quiet, maybe slightly quirky man who read a lot and thought and perhaps was not too social but liked to open up and talk one on one about ideas and politics. All over America there are people like this in coffee shops. From Ed Buck's last line above one almost wonders if Michael Paine was maybe a lonely man. To see the above cited as evidence or indication that Michael Paine was sinister or to characterize him as impersonating communists is surprising to me. All I can say is I do not see that.

On the Carol Hewitt article linked at the end of the article you cited, on the Oswald Soviet Embassy letter, nothing factually negative is even claimed to be established about Ruth Paine, apart from a moral criticism that Ruth Paine violated Oswald's privacy in reading his letter left folded next to Ruth Paine's typewriter and Ruth, noticing it and looking at it, was taken aback and disturbed by its odd contents, and thought it best to take the precaution of making a handwritten copy, which she turned over to the FBI after the assassination. But after leveling the moral privacy-violation criticism against Ruth, Hewitt is not quite sure that is what happened either, alternatively suggesting LHO may have been purposely baiting Ruth to see the letter by leaving it folded loosely out in the open, or that Ruth Paine helped Oswald compose it. (The first of those two alternative suggestions of Hewitt strikes me as possible.) 

But although nothing sinister is claimed to be established, the article is suspicion of Ruth from start to finish. The article's conclusion: further study might confirm the suspicions. That is like urging a jury to hang someone today on the grounds that evidence might come forth in the future which would show guilt. Hewitt erred on a factual matter in the article--and this is a linchpin in the article--in claiming that there is no information on when Ruth Paine turned in her handwritten copy of the letter to the FBI. But there is, evidently missed by Hewitt: in her WC testimony Ruth Paine said she turned in the Oswald handwritten copy to the FBI on Nov. 23 (Saturday) and then turned over her own handwritten copy of the letter to FBI after that, probably the next day (Nov. 24) (https://www.jfk-assassination.eu/warren/wch/vol3/page17.php). Of course the article assumes suspicion throughout that Ruth Paine is not truthful, or that her and Marina's testimony were being orchestrated by unseen hidden hands like marionettes (with Ruth and Marina still holding reliably to their assigned fabricated stories as if they were their own stories 55 years later). All of this is just argument from imagination. The core of the argument in this article is a what-if: what if Ruth Paine had turned in her copy of Oswald's letter before the assassination (for which there is no evidence)? If so, then Ruth Paine was an FBI informant. The article closes with questions (this is the conclusion): "we have to wonder ... is she fabricating a scenario? ... have both women been compelled to tell a story that would cover up...?" This is just argument based on suspicion without substantiation.

On the Mexico City evidence and Oswald not being there as you suggest--I realize this is a wider issue and I am scrambling to get up to speed on the relevant material, such as the work of David Josephs as you mention--but if I may ask you a question there: the FBI had a mail-intercept program of all letters going into the Soviet Embassy. Hoover told of it. Every letter going to that Embassy would be opened, its contents examined, then resealed and delivered. In this way the Oswald Embassy letter, which was real because the Soviets confirmed its receipt, was known to FBI and through FBI presumably other agencies. So both the draft of the letter in Oswald's handwriting, as well as Ruth's handwritten copy, were not forgeries. In that letter Oswald refers to his Mexico City trip. Now if Oswald never went to Mexico City, why is he saying he did? Was Oswald part of the secret program to have an imposter pretend to be Oswald? The address and phone information of the Cuban consulate in Mexico, and of Silvia Duran, was found in Oswald's address book--Silvia Duran's information entered by Oswald after arrival in Mexico City, because confirmed by Silvia Duran who says she wrote out a slip of paper with her name and consulate phone number and gave it to him. The Oswald address book entries cannot easily be argued to be forged because the handwritten copying of those entries from that notebook done by James Hosty at the Dallas police station Friday evening Nov 22 are online and I have checked them and they match the Oswald address book now in the national archives (I noticed 2-4 pages [maybe 30%] of Hosty's notes are missing for unknown reason, but no evidence of differences between Hosty's notes and the address book entries for the pages of Hosty's notes that I could check). In any case since Ruth did not forge the Oswald Embassy letter nor responsible for US intelligence agencies learning of its existence, and since the Oswald draft of that letter is certainly in Oswald's handwriting, what is the basis for accusing Ruth here? What did she do, exactly, that changed anything with this? What exactly is her crime?

On the question of whether Ruth Paine knew her sister was career covert CIA when she told the Warren Commission in testimony that she did not: of course I do not know for sure what Ruth knew or did not know on that question, but I asked a retired US federal marshal if he knew how CIA career covert status worked--does CIA expect such career covert status to be truly secret and not disclosed to one's grown siblings? He answered so far as he knew, yes. Telling a sibling or two, or only a couple of close friends confidentially, creates increased risk of them inadvertently leaking and blowing the cover altogether, so he understood the policy is tell no one (apart from need to know); family members might not know over major parts of lifetimes. I believe Ruth separately has said she did not know and was surprised to learn in her adult life of her father's CIA contacts as part of his work with USAID (different from the sister's professional-career covert CIA job). I might note in passing that Ruth and her physician brother are the only two Quakers in her natural family; her sister and father were not. I am inclined to believe Ruth has been truthful in the absence of evidence otherwise, which has not to my knowledge been shown at any point in her voluminous Warren Commission testimony. 

On the Minox camera issue, I will get back to you on that in a day or so; I am still studying that one. 

Edited by Greg Doudna
Link to post
Share on other sites

Greg,

To be jocular, if I ever need my dryer fixed because of low spin speed, I will call you.  It will then go into overdrive.

The way you depict Mike Paine in the FBI interview could not have been topped, even by his mother.  You never answered my question:  what would an heir to the Cabot and Forbes trust funds be doing at a college hangout like that in the first place? What makes this even more odd is that the Paines were unofficial members of the White Russian community. Remember what Ruth said: it was through George DeM that she met Oswald.  Ruth Paine then wrote a letter to separate Marina from Lee THREE WEEKS AFTER SHE MET THE WOMAN!   She eventually succeeded in that objective.  And both of them spared no opportunity to condemn Oswald in public thereafter. In fact, Mike Paine was probably the first person to finger Oswald in the Walker shooting.  Which is really something, because Oswald did not shoot at Walker.  Mike Paine also switched his story about seeing Oswald at the police station the night of the assassination and also about seeing the BYP.  So excuse me if I do not agree with you about Mike Paine, who said that shooting Kennedy was now Oswald's way to go down in history.  Just like Kerry Thornley.  You wish to dismiss all this and separate it from Luby's.  Maybe you also want to separate what Allen Dulles did also, like finding wealthy old friends of his in Philly to endorse the Paines within two weeks of his appointment to the Commission.  Or Ruth's visit to the Naushon Island retreat that summer to visit Mike's Boston Brahmin family.  Excuse  me if I do not agree in cutting all this out and casting Mike as some kind of disinterested social scientist testing the contemporary foreign policy attitudes at Luby's:  just causally determining who was pro Castro and who was not.

How carefully did you read the two articles on the Soviet Embassy letter?  Paul Bleau notes that Escalante thinks that Phillips had 5 letters sent to Oswald from Cuba, one of them mentioning that Mexico City trip which likely did not occur, in order to link LHO to Castro. At least two of them were dated before the assassination. Further, you leave out the fact that this particular letter to the Soviet Embassy differed from all the previous ones by Oswald: it was typed. The Soviets  turned it over since they thought it was not from Oswald, but by those involved in actually murdering JFK. They considered it as a deliberate provocation to implicate them. It also differed in the sense that it clearly implied that there was a pre existing association between Oswald and the Russian government. The others were not like this, only asking about technical matters like visas.  Hoover insisted that the original draft of the letter allegedly found by Ruth Paine be sent back to her. Further, as Carol notes, Ruth's written copy of this letter is now gone from the Gemberling Report and NARA. It was this letter which established a relationship between Kostikov and Oswald, by its own contents. As Bleau notes, the man who Oswald wrote to in the Washington embassy was also suspected of being an assassination coordinator by the FBI. All this in the face of what now appears to be false evidence by the CIA about the Kostikov relationship, and further, whether or not Kostikov really was part of Dept 13. The letter  alluded to matters that Oswald likely could not have known about inside the Cuban embassy.  They even got Marina to go along with LHO being in Mexico for purposes of this letter when, in fact, she had originally insisted to the Secret Service that Lee never said a thing about going to Mexico City to her.

How could you have missed Carol's point that what Ruth said was the first sentence in the letter was not the first sentence? Realizing how this was a faux pas for someone, who like Thornley, Jenner had thoroughly rehearsed, Jenner and her go off the record.  Why? Because this was supposed to be the reason she read the letter. Ruth forgot a key in the script. Also, by changing her story on how and why she opened the letter she switches the blame to Oswald--somehow he actually wanted her to read it! Oh really? And if one believes Ruth, why did Oswald not confront her about his missing handwritten copy? Carol writes that Mike Paine somehow knew about the Mystery Man photo in Mexico City and volunteered that this guy may have been someone he knew from Bell Helicopter!! And Jenner does not follow that up. I won't even go into the significant differences between the handwritten and typed versions of the letter. See Jim Douglass for that. (pgs 227-34). You dismiss all of this, including Chris Newton's crucial work, by saying that the letter was intercepted before the assassination. Therefore it must have been written by Oswald. I don't understand this logic.  Since IMO, the plot was begun at least weeks, and perhaps months before the assassination.  And if Oswald was not in Mexico City, or if he was there, but did not do the things the CIA said he did, then the letter almost has to be faked. The only other option is that someone worked on the letter with Oswald. Which I do not think is very likely, but Dobrynin thought could have happened, and the real perps bumped off Oswald anyway.

Do you really dismiss the distinct possibility that part of the letter's significance it to bolster the idea that Oswald was in MC, when he was not? I mean that is obvious because Ruth also produced "other evidence'" to bolster the idea that he was in Mexico. That  effort was completed by the person who replaced Ruth in Marina's life, Priscilla Johnson--in August!  Even Wesley Liebeler was stunned by how suspicious that one looked. He wrote something like, OMG, this is nine months later and we are still admitting we missed evidence about Oswald in MC?  The Duran name was printed not written. And she always said that Oswald was not the guy she encountered. As did virtually everyone inside the Cuban embassy, including the CIA plants. The CIA wanted them to change their stories but they did not.

Finally, Ruth Paine's testimony denying her knowledge about her sister was not in the WC.  It was before the grand jury in New Orleans and Jim Garrison. The WC would never get that far. You say that somehow this would be acceptable even under oath. But you leave out the part where she actually insinuated that she did not even know where her sister lived--not even the state she was in!  Garrison had to supply her with a possibility that she said might be the place.  But it later turns out this was not correct.

Something like that is simply not credible.  To any objective observer.

 

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to post
Share on other sites

James D., on the Minox camera issue, I read the Carol Hewitt article "The Paines' Participation in the Minox Camera Charade" which you published and looked up what I could find on the Mary Ferrell site, and I think I have a theory of the case on what was going on there. There was a Minox camera found by Dallas police in their search of the Paine garage, and separately undeveloped film both inside and outside the camera. It was turned over to the FBI where as part of all of the items was confirmed part of an inventory list Nov 28-29 and photographed, and sent to D.C. But the FBI lab never received it, and tried later to go back to the DPD and get the record retroactively altered to deny that that Minox camera was found, which the DPD officer to his credit refused to do. That it was a mistake for a light meter as claimed is unconvincing, as is that some but not all of the original photos taken of the Oswald evidence at the time of DPD conveyance of the evidence to FBI had not developed properly and a new set of photographs needed to be taken by FBI in D.C. to replace, which by coincidence corresponded to some changes in written inventories noticed by alert eyes, the key one being the Minox. That original Minox was disappeared, along with the undeveloped film in it, analogous to the destruction of the Oswald note to Hosty done by Hosty but directed from above, which would not come to light until the mid-1970s. However the undeveloped rolls of Minox film separately found in the same original DPD search of the Paine garage for Oswald's belongings were not destroyed. That film was developed and through a FOIA request those pictures are now known.

Yes, after the discrepancy in written inventory lists relative to the original Minox were noticed and it became an issue and Hoover demanded an explanation, FBI Dallas went back to the Paines, and Ruth and Michael gave them an old Minox camera not in working order which was their own. This second camera has nothing whatever to do with Oswald and is entirely irrelevant. You say this second Minox was really Oswald's camera and that the Paines were lying when they said it was theirs. Then you say that second Minox was not Oswald's (i.e. that the Paines were truthful) when you argue correctly that the DPD had already found Oswald's and FBI had disappeared it. That is not logical; both cannot be correct.

It seems clear enough that there was a coverup by FBI involving destruction or removal of the original Minox and the film within it. But there is absolutely nothing logically calling for supposing Ruth or Michael Paine had anything to do with that. This is just more guilt by association in which people leap to the conclusion that they are somehow in collusion with an FBI coverup of the original Minox. You see it as sinister that the DPD would have neglected to find and collect this second Minox in their original search Nov 22. But DPD was not looking for or wanting the Paines' belongings! The DPD were not asking the Paines to help them hand over things belonging to the Paines! It was Oswald's things they were after. Since the second Minox that belonged to the Paines never was Oswald's, and the Paines were not asked for it in the original search because the Paines' belongings were not at issue, and the only reason the second Minox belonging to the Paines even came up at all is because they were asked later by FBI about any cameras they owned (and the Paines are not responsible for any flaws in DPD search protocol on Nov 22 if there were any, in any case) . . . talk about seeing malevolence where none exists! What was the Paines' crime in this Minox episode? Where were they untruthful? They are guilty only in a totally imagined, and internally contradictory, scenario created in imagination. You have an FBI coverup, you have the FBI grasping at straws to come up with some kind of story or explanation and finding a straw from the Paines, and you blame the Paines for it! Just because FBI did something nefarious with the original Minox found by DPD among Oswald's belongings, does not logically mean the Paines were wittingly and maliciously part of that FBI malfeasance simply because their garage is where the item was found. Therefore I reject the conclusion of the "Paines' Participation in the Minox Charade" article:

"In an effort to 'locate' the camera, Dallas FBI Agent Bardwell Odum on January 30, 1964, contacted Ruth Paine to inquire into whether the Paines owned a Minox camera. Ruth recollected ... she would ask [her husband Michael] about it and get back to him ... The next day on January 31, 1964, Ruth Paine called Odum to tell him that her husband still had the camera and that it was in a coffee can in the garage. If this was true, 

(i.e. if it was true that the Paines had an old camera of their own property in their own garage)

one would have to conclude that the local police not only did a poor job of searching the garage the weekend of the assassination but also fabricated the Minox camera on both its original inventory list and joint DPD/FBI list.

(No--the DPD fabricated nothing. They found a Minox, took it, inventoried it, FBI disappeared it. Conclusion does not follow from fact cited.] 

Since this was not the case, the collusion of the Paines is readily apparent.

No--there is no "therefore collusion apparent" from this sequence of evidence. Conclusion does not follow from facts cited. And so innocent people are railroaded.

As for the original Minox in Oswald's belongings found by DPD--the original Minox with undeveloped film in it which had nothing to do with being owned by the Paines--I do not know why FBI disappeared it and its film inside, only that it has the appearance of being something FBI did not want made public. It is known and undisputed that the DPD quickly took everything that looked like it was Oswald's in that first sweep, collecting (unintentionally) quite a quantity of things actually belongings to the Paines that first day, which upon identification were later sorted out and returned to them. However the Paines never complained that the original Minox collected by DPD among Oswald's belongings was really a camera belonging to them (the Paines), therefore the original Minox would have been Oswald's. But other items such as a Minox light meter collected by DPD among Oswald's things Nov 22 did become identified later as belonging to Michael Paine, who also at one time had had a working Minox. I believe the find of undeveloped Minox photos, separate from the Minox camera with its film inside it, by DPD in the original sweep of the Paine garage looking for Oswald's things, is best understood as, like the Minox light meter, actually belonging to Michael Paine as the taker of those photos. From Earl Golz, "Oswald Pictures Released by FBI", Dallas Morning News, Aug 7, 1978 (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=9947&search=minox_michael+paine#relPageId=203&tab=page).

"Photographs developed from Minox spy camera film found among Lee Harvey Oswald's personal possessions have been released by the FBI after being suppressed for almost 15 years. About 25 images shot in foreign countries on two rolls from the miniature German-made camera were made available by the FBI under a Freedom of Information Act request by Alan Weberman, an independent assassination researcher in New York City.

"More than 20 prints developed from one roll show civilian scenes apparently in Europe. Five shots from the other roll were military scenes either in the Far East or Central America.

"A Minox camera with a cassette film roll inside disappeared from Oswald's possessions after the FBI took custody of the property in 1963 from Dallas police, The News earlier had disclosed. The bureau later tried unsuccessfully to pressure police into changing their inventory list to read a Minox light meter, not a camera, according to detective Gus Rose who said he found the camera in Oswald's seabag at the home of Mr. and Mrs. Michael Paine in Irving.

"The FBI had indicated the two rolls it developed were found separately in tin containers with ribbon tied around them. 

"House Assassinations Committee investigators recently interviewed a former FBI agent who had custody of the Oswald property when the camera with film inside disappeared, The News has learned. The former agent, Warren de Brueys [...] 

"A second inventory of Oswald's property was taken Nov. 27 after de Brueys and another FBI agent, Vincent Drain, personally delivered the two boxes of items to the FBI laboratory in Washington. No camera was listed under item 375 but the words 'Minox light meter' appeared in its place. Item 377 in the Nov. 26 inventory listed two rolls of undeveloped Minox film and two rolls of 'apparently unexposed' Minox film. Under the same item on Nov. 27, the FBI inventory read two Minox casettes or rolls '(one containing film)' and two containers with 'unexposed' Minox film. The photos made available to Weberman were identified by the FBI as coming from item 377 [...] 

"Three of the photos taken in a military environment in either the Far East or Central America were made from inside a barbed wire encampment showing civilians walking on the other side. Another shot was taken from a boat showing a tanker anchored offshore mountainous terrain. [...]

"Michael Paine told The News he recalled taking photos in Korea while he was in the army in the early 1950s and later on a trip to Europe, but not with a Minox camera. He couldn't remember taking a photo of a tanker anchored offshore mountainous terrain, he said."

Although Michael Paine as the taker of these Minox photos (with Michael's witness memory being amiss on a couple of details) seems most likely, the other possibility might be the following suggestion published in a brief notice titled "New Developments in the Minox Camera Story", March-April 1997 issue of Probe, vol. 4, no. 3, page 27.

"Researcher John Armstrong, who has been helping Carol Hewitt on this matter, recently ordered first generation prints from the developed Minox photographs which now enable a more precise identification of the locales. In addition to the Roman Coliseum and the Piazza of St. Peters, we see the changing of the guard at Buckingham Palace. The primitive military encampment photos include a funeral procession. The facial features of the natives are very obviously Oriental and what first appeared to be low rounded mountains are in fact terraced hillsides. Researcher Larry Haapanen called Carol Hewitt to report that George DeMohrenschildt had been in Rome in 1960 and suggested that maybe the first Minox camera discovered by the Dallas Police might have belonged to him."

If those Minox photos were taken by de Mohrenschildt (instead of Michael Paine and associated with Michael Paine's old Minox), then those photos could be linked to the original Oswald Minox after all, which by this interpretation would become a Minox lent to Oswald by de Mohrenschildt. However that seems a little far-fetched, especially in the supposition that de Mohrenschildt would also lend separate undeveloped rolls of film of scenes in Europe and Asia. The pictures therefore seem best explained as having been taken by Michael Paine in his army days, and although collected by DPD among Oswald's belongings, not really having anything to do with Oswald at all. But the original Minox camera and whatever was on the undeveloped film inside it, since it was not claimed as a missing camera by the Paines and since it was found among other Oswald belongings, therefore was Oswald's and it was destroyed by FBI for unknown reasons. But the Paines had nothing to do with that destruction of evidence. My take on this anyway.  

Edited by Greg Doudna
Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...