More on the Paines

[Greg Doudna]

Bill Simpich, Part 11 comments continued--

-- I thoroughly agree with your comment concerning the tragedy of Oswald not having talked to an attorney before he was killed. On why LHO wanted Abt, and why he decided on Abt, the background you give of Abt is interesting and would fit why LHO would want Abt (since I do not regard LHO's left views ideologically--civil rights, anti-racism, pure democracy, and communist theory--as illusory, based on his writings found after his death and the rather extensive information on the library books he read). You suggest Michael Paine suggested Abt and while that is plausible, I see not reason why that is necessary. All else being equal, that is probably the best guess of any as to LHO's source. But it could have come from one or another of the publications Lee read. So it is a reasonable conjecture (Michael P as source of that) but I do not know how it could be pushed much beyond that. In any case LHO seems to have had Abt in mind already, prior to the events of Nov 22.

-- Fascinating on double agent Elizabeth Bentley in Abt's circle and Bentley's FBI interrogator being none other than William Harvey. 

-- on Michael Paine at Luby's liking to discuss provocative politics. Yes, your description seems accurate here. 

-- this is odd: "An avowed pacifist, Michael served in the 40th Division in Korea between 1952-54 as an artillery infantryman, even though he refused to take the oath of allegiance when inducted in 1952." Hard to figure out those three things in the same sentence. As you say, people are complicated.

-- On "...Michael landed his classified job at Bell Helicopter in Irving, Texas. Curiously, sources differ on whether it was during January or July 1959. This should have set off alarm bells throughout the intelligence agencies." Why? The July start-date of the FBI appears to be the hard information verified with Bell Helicopter. The source for the January claim is a credit report. I am just guessing here, but from my experience most credit information comes from forms filled out by credit applicants. I would assume either Michael Paine filled in a blank claiming he started his employment in January on some credit application, or else said "1959" and a credit issuer employee expanded that to "January 1959".

-- on conjecture of Cord Meyer of CIA enticing the Paines to move to Texas. Does not the plush job at Bell Helicopter in Irving due to his stepfather Arthur Young entirely explain the move and when it happened?

-- On "Hoover states near the close of the Warren Commission that extensive investigation was done of de Mohrenschildt and the Paines, and found that they were not communists, fascists, or subversives. Hoover did not address the evidence of their intelligence connections, which is extensive and wide-ranging." By "Paines" your context indicates Michael and Ruth Paine. What is this "extensive and wide-ranging" evidence of intelligence connections for these two persons, to which you refer? I am not aware of any that has yet come to light in any document. I do not regard Ruth's dealings with the State Department (read CIA in this case) re organizing logistics of the East-West exchanges as qualifying as evidence that Ruth had an intelligence connection, since that is not proven (Ruth may have been functioning as a civilian dealing with a bureaucracy to accomplish programs for better understanding between peoples, with the support of a mandate from Friends; Friends historically apply to governments to get good things done; doesn't mean Friends approve of govts' bad acts). For Michael I am unaware of anything that comes even that close.

-- On "Wittingly or unwittingly, Ruth knew enough Russian to provide protective cover for Marina, who needed to hide her knowledge of English. Robert Webster told writer Dick Russell that Marina only spoke English to him when he was in the USSR (John Armstrong, Harvey and Lee, p. 267)". That about Marina is startling if true. I would say Ruth is unwitting here (if this is true). I am unaware of anything from Ruth suspecting that Marina knew English significantly better than she let on. Nor am I aware that any other people in Dallas suspected Marina of knowing English a lot better than she let on. Either Marina was a flawless actor without a slip, or there is some error in this Robert Webster report, though it sounds credible. If the Webster report is true, and if Lee knew Marina's secret, this would shed new light on why Marina seemed to make little effort to learn English, citing what both Marina and Lee agreed was Lee not wanting Marina to learn English (one of the oddest behaviors of Lee in any other light, toward a new immigrant wife). 

Now I am at the end of Part 11.

[David Andrews]

On 7/19/2020 at 12:09 PM, David G. Healy said:

and here are a few facts dealing with the actual camera itself (and various versions of same). This camera was NOT created for the casual photo buff. It appears the inventor had very specific purpose-use in mind.

https://www.cryptomuseum.com/covert/camera/minox/index.htm

 

A bit of a stretch to confuse the camera with a Minox light meter:

https://www.ebay.com/i/143583543236?chn=ps&norover=1&mkevt=1&mkrid=711-117182-37290-0&mkcid=2&itemid=143583543236&targetid=915850255573&device=c&mktype=pla&googleloc=1023197&poi=&campaignid=10454995856&mkgroupid=101996177925&rlsatarget=pla-915850255573&abcId=2145998&merchantid=101757835&gclid=CjwKCAjwgdX4BRB_EiwAg8O8HVVGFCvf-GUIobG1PbLl4EwKsWghuUZ-NWZOAZ7tf7SJYtHy6QQBRhoC8ggQAvD_BwE

Edited July 22, 2020 by David Andrews

[James DiEugenio]

LOL ROTF 😃

[Greg Doudna]

On 7/16/2020 at 9:48 PM, James DiEugenio said:

Greg when you say Oswald admitted to being in MC, you are I think referring to the Embassy letter.

Yet you never bring up the internal problems with that letter.  Are you unaware of them?

Do you think Oswald met with Hosty on November 1st?  That is what it says in the letter.

Did Oswald know his wife's maiden name? Because he got it wrong in the letter.

How on November 9th or 10th did Oswald know Azcue had been replaced at the embassy?  Because he refers to this in that letter.  This is about six weeks after he had been there.  What makes this even odder is that Azcue, at the time of the letter's alleged writing, still had not been transferred yet.

The FBI determined that this was the only letter they ever found typed on that typewriter.  And this includes Ruth.  She wrote her letters to Marina by hand. 

Ruth did not give this to the DPD.  Even though she allegedly had two written copies of it at hand.  She gave it to the FBI on the 23rd.

For its use in the WR, the Commission used Ruth's version, not the one sent to the  embassy and not the handwritten draft of Oswald's.  The Commission then returned Ruth's original  to Ruth.

On 11/22 Hosty asked Oswald about a letter to the Soviet embassy about him being in MC. LHO said he had not written such a letter.  Of course, if he had not been there, why would he write such a letter?  

James--the issue of authentication of Oswald's handwriting is distinct from any analysis of the content of the letter. The handwriting is authenticated as Oswald's, without to my knowledge any dissent from expert opinion. Therefore, that is a starting fact, prior to considering the letter's content. The issue now becomes, not whether the handwriting was written by Oswald, but rather questions of intention, did Oswald compose the letter alone or with help or fully by others, what was the letter's purpose. These questions have nothing to do with the prior issue of the handwriting being Oswald's, which in terms of expert opinion is settled fact.

Here is what I think concerning the points you raise. No, Oswald did not meet with Hosty Nov 1 (per testimony of Hosty, Ruth, and Marina). Oswald says that in his letter but it is not accurate. Oswald's point is FBI interference and he has slightly modified Hosty's visit to harass Marina (as Oswald views it) to as if Oswald was there when it happened. He is not making up the main point about the FBI visit to Marina, but put himself there in the telling of it although that was not accurate. Oswald has a history of low-level minor fibbing, e.g. in his employment applications, so this is not out of character.

Yes he knows Marina's maiden name but seems to be spelling it phonetically except for missing the final "n" which looks like a spelling error: Nikolayevna-->"Nichilayeva". Since Oswald is such a poor speller (despite being intelligent) whenever he writes, this is not out of character either. He knows her name to say it, he just has difficulty spelling it, along with many other words.

How did Oswald know Azcue had been replaced? I think I can suggest an answer to that. This is on the understanding that Oswald did go to Mexico City and that some of the differences in descriptions are witness errors. Contreras or Contreras's circle. First, Oswald spent a lot of time with Contreras and several students with Contreras: "Group allowed Oswald to accompany them the rest of that day, that night (of group safehouse) and part of the next day ... On dates and details of what was discussed with Oswald, Contreras refused to discusss ... Contreras said if he pressed on issue by Americans he would simply say entire story is fabrication and then they would have to leave him alone" (https://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=39226&search=contreras#relPageId=3&tab=page). (Incidentally I would not exclude Contreras purposely giving a wrong Oswald description if he wanted to have himself removed from scrutiny over his Oswald connection.)

Then second, combine that with Contreras was friends with the Cuban consulate and knew the personnel there. From Dan Hardway of HSCA: "Contreras did have contacts at the Consulate and spoke to the Consul and an intelligence officer. Both warned him to have nothing to do with Oswald as they suspected he was trying to infiltrate proCastro groups" (https://aarclibrary.org/a-cruel-and-shocking-misinterpretation/). Then third, combine that with this informant report from 1967, in which a Cuban consulate official, Ramiro Jesus Abreu Quintana, told the informant that "Oswald and persons from the Cuban Embassy had gone shooting on the outskirts of Mexico City and a sixteen year old Cuban outshot Oswald. MM-T1 said Abreu did not claim that he himself, Abreu, knew Oswald" ( https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=109784&relPageId=5&search=abreu).

I identify Contreras's group spending time with Oswald as Abreu's group spending time with Oswald, as two variant descriptions of the same group. The point is Oswald spent parts of two days with a person (Contreras) and associates which had "contacts at the Consulate" and knew the Cuban embassy well, including the inside information of Azcue's pending departure, perhaps informally known to most in the Cuban consulate at that point even though it was not yet public. At some point from Contreras's circle Oswald learned the gossip that Azcue was leaving. That is how I reconstruct Oswald learned that. The reason Oswald makes a point of it in his Embassy letter is because Oswald had had an argument and a scene with Azcue in which Azcue had ordered Oswald to leave the building (per testimony of Duran and Azcue), which Oswald might reasonably suppose could get back to the Soviets, so he disparages the source of that. 

You refer to Oswald's denial of Mexico City in Hosty's notes of his questioning of Oswald on Nov 22 at the Dallas police station. I rechecked those notes and indeed Hosty wrote "denies Mexico City". But the Hosty notes have Oswald confirming that he wrote the Embassy letter! "Said contacted Soviet Embassy re wife/ Hosty talking to wife was the reason".

That is exactly the content of the Embassy letter. Hosty knows of the Embassy letter and, perhaps without disclosing to Oswald that he knows of the Embassy letter, asks Oswald if Oswald had visited the Soviet embassy in Mexico City. Oswald's answer in support of his denial that he visited the Soviet embassy in Mexico City (or denied going to Mexico City altogether, whichever it was) confirms Oswald saying he wrote the letter to the Soviet embassy in Washington, D.C. Oswald's answer to Hosty's question regarding a Mexico City Soviet embassy contact might be some sense, paraphrased, as this: "No, I wrote the Soviet embassy in Washington, D.C. because you were harassing Marina."

Oswald's denial of going to Mexico City (if that is what "denies Mexico City" means) does not mean he actually did not go to Mexico City, or did not visit the Soviet embassy there, even if he told Hosty that after his arrest. It is in keeping with a series of easily-shown lies Oswald told in those early interrogations as Oswald scrambled, alone and without an attorney, to stonewall or stall until he could get legal counsel--or until some intelligence agency would intervene to extract him from his situation, if he had been promised that. If this last possibility was the case--and to me that is just about the only explanation that makes sense of Oswald's interrogation answers--then it would not matter that the police could find some of his statements untrue, only that they not find them untrue that moment.

But back to the Embassy letter, it is possible to see in that letter an attempt to implicate the Soviets in an upcoming assassination with "finish our business" (instead of referring only to Oswald's visa travails). Obviously after the assassination every word retroactively is restudied anew looking for any double meaning or signal or code or whatever. All I can say is I see nothing in Oswald's Embassy letter which requires such an interpretation. If something like that was going on and it had been composed by others, then Oswald was witting. But to me, my "best reconstruction" is that: the letter is not more complicated than Oswald's visa issue; totally composed and written by Oswald; no double meanings intended; and the name "Kostin" perhaps mistake for Kostikov and a random name (from Oswald's point of view) he was name-dropping from the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City without further significance on Oswald's part. And finally, despite the conjecture of Nechiporenko in his book, and raised in the article on the Soviet embassy letter in the article in your own publication, Kennedys and King, that Oswald intentionally left the letter out where a curious Ruth would see it and report it, as some intended disinformation spycraft on Oswald's part ... I do not think so. I think that particular letter was Oswald dealing with his visa issue, not more complicated than that, and no deliberate attempt to plant it where Ruth would see it. There were spooky things about Oswald, but I do not myself after looking at this see cause to read more into that Soviet embassy letter than appears at face value. That is my take on this. 

Edited July 20, 2020 by Greg Doudna

[James DiEugenio]

When you say that Oswald wrote the embassy letter, I think you are confusing the embassy letters. 

Because the last letters is so different that the previous ones. 

 

Also, as you can see the order to withdraw Azcue was secret and not relayed until after "Oswald" left:

 

https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP75-00149R000600150004-9.pdf

Edited July 20, 2020 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

     1-30-64

Plain Text

Teletype.    Urgent

From Director FBI 104-82555

Lee Harvey Oswald IS R-CUBA

Property clerk's invoice or receipt, police department, Dallas,  November 26, one nine sixty three, Number one one nine two g

Shows Homicide Bureau turned in to property clerk one Minox camera voluntarily given by Ruth Paine and Mrs. Oswald at Paine's residence November twenty two, on nine six three.  Bureau Laboratory did not receive Minox camera.  Laboratory presently maintains a MInox light meter, two Minox cassettes parenthesis one containing film end parenthesis, two containers with exposed film and Minox camera case. Question where is Minox camera.

Dallas requested conduct immediate investigation to resolve same.  If necessary interview Dallas Police representatives, Mrs Paine and Mrs Oswald.

 

Copies Destroyed

 

 

[James DiEugenio]

The above is the contents of the infamous Hoover teletype of late January 1964.  All that is missing is some hard to decipher marginalia.

I think Carol Hewett first used it in her excellent article for Probe Magazine excerpted in the book The Assassinations.

Please note the following:

1.  It is from Hoover himself not Belmont who is supposed to be running the inquiry.

2.  He admits that the DPD prop clerk handed in an invoice or receipt for a  Minox which the FBI got on 11/26.  And this means the Homicide Bureau had given it to him.

3.  Hoover says that both Ruth Paine and Marina willingly gave the police the camera!  

4. This is at the same time that DeBrueys is trying to get the DPD property master to say the opposite.

5.  Note who he advises Shanklin to talk to, first the police, since he wants the cops talked out of their story.  But after that its Ruth Paine, and then Marina.

Edited July 20, 2020 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

To me its startling that Hoover put the above in writing.  Because, with the other exhibits I have posted, it builds a paper trail in black and white.

When you supplement that with pictures I mentioned, the affidavit of the property master, and the deposition of Gus Rose, you have what lawyers call a motion picture case.

 

Edited July 20, 2020 by James DiEugenio

[Greg Doudna]

3 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

When you say that Oswald wrote the embassy letter, I think you are confusing the embassy letters. 

Because the last letters is so different that the previous ones. 

Also, as you can see the order to withdraw Azcue were secret and not relayed until after "Oswald" left:

https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP75-00149R000600150004-9.pdf

James your article link sent me back to check some things. First, on the two versions of the letter, there was the handwritten draft with corrections, both in Oswald's handwriting, then the typed version of the same letter dated Nov. 9, 1963, and typed by Lee on Ruth Paine's typewriter that weekend according to Ruth's testimony and Marina. Oswald probably arrived to Ruth's house with handwritten draft already in hand, needing a typewriter to type it.

Your comment led me to study the differences between the two (handwritten vs. typed) and I list the differences here. In short, all of these read as ordinary minor improvements of the typed letter working from the handwritten draft as its source, though in the typing several new typos were introduced. The handwritten is on the left below, the typed version is to the right of the arrow.

events since --> recent events since

my interviews with --> my meetings with

to remain in Mexico City --> to remain in Mexico

on applying for an extension --> on reqesting a new visa

U.S. --> United States

the Mexican City embassy at all so of course they --> the Soviet embassy in Mexico, so they

reach Havana --> reach the Soviet Embassy in Havana

to assist me --> to complete our business

But of course the acting Cuban Consul was at fault here

--> Of course the Soviet embassy was not at fault, they were, as I say unprepared. the Cuban consulate was guilty of a gross breach of regulations

has since been replaced by another --> has since been replced

FPCC --> "Fair Play for Cuba Committee"

in New Orleans Louisiana --> in New Orleans(state Louisiana)

I no longer live in --> I no longer reside in

us here in Texas --> us here in Dallas, Texas

Nov. --> November

Agent of the FBI James P. Hasty --> Agent James P. Hasty

warned me that if I attempted to engage in --> warned me that if I engaged in

"suggested" that my wife could --> "suggested" to Marina Nichilayeva that she could

U.S. --> United States

There was a movement in the order of paragraphs and an added sentence at the end informing of the birth of their daughter. None of these edits are substantive changes in meaning, simply clearer wording, consistent with Oswald making minor editing improvements in real time as he typed from his draft. These edits also indicate the direction in relative sequence of the two versions was handwritten to typed, as would be expected, not vice versa (abbreviations become spelled in full; changes in wording for clarity).

On Oswald's knowledge of Azcue's departure, Oswald's wording is Azcue "has since been replaced" but as the article of your link shows Azcue had not actually left the consulate at the time of writing of the letter the weekend of Nov. 9 since Azcue actually departed Mexico City on Nov. 18. Therefore this must be--as I read it--Oswald knew that Azcue was going to be replaced, originally scheduled for Oct. 4. 

According to documents in a CIA file on Azcue on the Mary Ferrell site, the exact date of Azcue's planned departure (Oct 4) was known in the consulate by at least Aug. 13. Azcue told a few people that he was leaving; it did not seem to be a strict secret any more than any other planned personnel change inside a bureaucracy. Oswald's letter appears to reflect this information, in which Oswald thought that, at the time of his writing, Azcue was already gone. (Mary Ferrell numbering 82 and 86 of here: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=51603&search=azcue#relPageId=86&tab=page). 

Since the information to which Oswald alluded in his letter was known within the Cuban consulate at the time Oswald was in Mexico City, I see no need for any of the possible explanations offered by CIA and FBI to explain this (neither of these agencies suggested the Contreras circle as a possible mechanism). Since there is no sign that Azcue's planned departure was or why it would have been a classified secret internal to the consulate, a reconstruction of informal knowledge within the consulate --> informal knowledge Contreras circle --> Oswald, is the simplest explanation removing the need for all the more complicated explanations that have been suggested and proposed. This article http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg Subject Index Files/A Disk/Allen-Scott Columns/Item 03.pdf tells how CIA's possible explanations (Silvia Duran; a Soviet official) were rejected by the FBI who proposed their own possible explanations (an informant in the Cuban embassy in Mexico City who contacted Oswald after he returned to the U.S.; CIA; KGB in Mexico City). Neither of these intelligence agencies thought of the group with which Oswald spent most of his time in Mexico City, the Contreras circle! Who had means and opportunity to be the mechanism of how Oswald knew, learned it in Mexico City, then mentioned in the letter he typed at Ruth Paine's house the weekend of Nov. 9.  

[Greg Doudna]

3 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

The above is the contents of the infamous Hoover teletype of late January 1964.  All that is missing is some hard to decipher marginalia.

I think Carol Hewett first used it in her excellent article for Probe Magazine excerpted in the book The Assassinations.

Please note the following:

1.  It is from Hoover himself not Belmont who is supposed to be running the inquiry.

2.  He admits that the DPD prop clerk handed in an invoice or receipt for a  Minox which the FBI got on 11/26.  And this means the Homicide Bureau had given it to him.

3.  Hoover says that both Ruth Paine and Marina willingly gave the police the camera!  

4. This is at the same time that DeBrueys is trying to get the DPD property master to say the opposite.

5.  Note who he advises Shanklin to talk to, first the police, since he wants the cops talked out of their story.  But after that its Ruth Paine, and then Marina.

#2, yes the DPD prop clerk handed in an invoice or receipt for a Minox camera. That is undisputed, a document. The FBI lab said what they received however was other than the property list.

#3, this is what DPD reported on that document! This was on Friday without a search warrant with Ruth and Marina willingly cooperating with the police who asked if Ruth would voluntarily let them look for and take Oswald's things. Ruth would have been within legal rights to say no. Her consent was required, and she did consent, cooperated fully with the police in this search which upended her life and privacy not any of her doing. The DPD reported Ruth's, also Marina's, willing consent. That does not mean Ruth can be held responsible for some mislabeling error (if that is what it was) in the inventory list! Be reasonable! 

#4, yes, DeBrueys attempting to get DPD to admit they made a labeling error. The problem was there were Minox pictures and Minox paraphernalia but no Minox camera that would be expected to be associated with Minox pictures and Minox paraphernalia. The Minox pictures were developed, and showed photos matching Michael Paine's 1950s army and Europe-travel days, and not matching Oswald as the photo-taker. Who does that suggest in that house who might be the most likely owner of a camera that took those photos?

#5, absolutely logical, given that the intention was to find an explanation for, from FBI's point of view, a missing Minox camera. When Ruth and Michael were asked, they produced Michael's Minox camera. They had not previously been asked. Now they were, and they produced Michael's non-working Minox camera. They also were able to get all of the things of Michael Paine, including his Minox light meter and Minox camera case, mistakenly taken by DPD in their collection of Oswald's things, belatedly returned (except for the non-working camera since it remains in the National Archives). Unbelievable that you find anything whatsoever in this process objectionable on the part of Ruth or Michael Paine. 

If you were to go into court to charge Michael Paine, or Ruth, over this, it would be a legal travesty, a conviction of two absolutely innocent people, guilty of the horrible crime of Michael Paine owning his own camera, and Ruth and Michael both telling truthfully that Michael owned it. 

James, did you look at the DPD evidence photos and inset blowups in the article link I gave before, http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/minox.htm? It is just plain right before your eyes at that link if you will look at it. It is absolutely convincing that the DPD took an empty Minox camera case, and a Minox light meter ... along with other things of Michael Paine's collected by mistake, and wrote it in their inventory list, mistakenly, as a Minox camera and no Minox light meter. That DPD made a misidentification in their list is not only the FBI's conclusion that that is what happened. It is also the evidence of DPD's own photos, and it is the evidence of the Minox photos found in the garage which Michael took in the 1950s.

Edited July 21, 2020 by Greg Doudna

[James DiEugenio]

Greg:

Please,. please do not tell me to go to McAdams' web site. 🤮  (https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/john-mcadams-and-the-siege-of-chicago-part-1)

Perhaps you missed my previous point.  And all the others I listed here.  John Armstrong had the photo the FBI tampered with to show only the light meter, blurring out the edges so as not to show the camera or to make it difficult to recognize.  I have seen it.  

You refuse to accept the fact that the FBI made Oswald's camera disappear for clear reasons of evidence destruction.  Any rational person would accept that fact with the multiplicity of evidence we have.  Ruth Paine knew Oswald had such a camera, because both Hoover and Gus Rose implicate her in giving it to the cops. The prop manager had it, as Hoover admits above. He was later made to lie about it.  And Hoover now wants Bardwell Odum, MIke's buddy, to talk to Ruth about solving their problem of the "missing" camera. If you believe that camera actually went "missing", then  there can be no rational discussion of this issue.  I mean, why are there are two Minxoes at NARA?  

With the problem laid out before Shanklin, what happens next? He assigns the solution to Bardwell  Odum who was instructed by Hoover to talk to Ruth Paine. Now  MIke and Ruth enact a little playlet for their buddy Odum, and Oswald's camera, that  was originally found and listed on the DPD evidence sheet, become's Michael's camera that the DPD "found".  Except the DPD did not find it. Bardwell Odum did with the help of the Paines.

Anyone who thinks that the Paines did not know about the mini civil war going on in Dallas between the FBI and DPD on this issue, that person may also think that the Easter Bunny delivers eggs.

Anyone who doesn't think that Michael Paine did not lie his head off to Gus Russo about this in 1993?  He did so and it can be proven.

 

Edited July 21, 2020 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

As per your explanation about the Embassy letter, if October 4th was the earliest intimation of Azcue leaving, then  I am sure you know when the WC says Oswald left MC?

And you ignore that?

Secondly this information you rely upon appears to be coming from the CIA plants inside the consulate.  Who told the CIA that Oswald had never been there--and they said this twice.

And you ignore that also?

Finally,   in your post above you write this:

"there was the handwritten draft with corrections, both in Oswald's handwriting,"

What does this mean?  From my information, there were two handwritten copies of the finally typed and sent letter, but one of those was hand copied by Ruth.  Why are you leaving this out?  That particular version of the Embassy letter is now gone from NARA. (Carol H. wrote about this for Probe back in 1997 and you said you read this article.)

The best  discussion I have ever read of the differences between the typed version and the one Ruth said she pilfered  from Oswald is by Jim Douglass. As Jim notes, the hand written version is not as  provocative as the typed version is.  He continues, "...the paragraphs in the draft are rearranged so as to deemphasize Oswald's contacts with the Soviet and Cuban embassies, emphasizing instead his differences with the FBI."  Jim also notes that certain phrases in the rough draft also soften the idea of a Soviet conspiracy e.g references to Kostikov and his business, is in the handwritten draft version related to the documents he needed to get. (Douglass, JFK and the Unspeakable, pp. 232-34)

As Jim further notes, this is important because the WR explained the letter more in terms of the written draft, not the final typed and sent letter. By doing this, "the Warren Commission tried to reduce the explosive meaning of the letter sent to the Soviet Embassy". (ibid, p. 234)

Incredibly, that hand written draft letter was returned to Ruth Paine.  And, as noted, her version is not at NARA. Therefore, it is logical to assume that the two handwritten original drafts of the letter  were or are in her possession. And you see nothing odd or off kilter about this.   

Edited July 21, 2020 by James DiEugenio

[Greg Doudna]

James, here is the photo. It is not cropped and it is a sharp photo. There is an empty Minox camera case (directly above the "VO" of "Voluntarily" and to the right of the pocket watch), and there is a Minox light meter (below bottom right corner of the "Voluntarily" placard). But there is no Minox camera. Kindly identify where you think the Minox camera is.

 

Here is a blowup of the Minox camera case. The photo is sharp, not blurred. There is no Minox camera inside the case.

This is a Dallas Police photo prior to conveyance of the items to FBI. No Minox camera. 

 

[Greg Doudna]

4 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

As per your explanation about the Embassy letter, if October 4th was the earliest intimation of Azcue leaving, then  I am sure you know when the WC says Oswald left MC?

And you ignore that?

Secondly this information you rely upon appears to be coming from the CIA plants inside the consulate.  Who told the CIA that Oswald had never been there--and they said this twice.

And you ignore that also?

Finally,   in your post above you write this:

"there was the handwritten draft with corrections, both in Oswald's handwriting,"

What does this mean?  From my information, there were two handwritten copies of the finally typed and sent letter, but one of those was hand copied by Ruth.  Why are you leaving this out?  That particular version of the Embassy letter is now gone from NARA. (Carol H. wrote about this for Probe back in 1997 and you said you read this article.)

The best  discussion I have ever read of the differences between the typed version and the one Ruth said she pilfered  from Oswald is by Jim Douglass. As Jim notes, the hand written version is not as  provocative as the typed version is.  He continues, "...the paragraphs in the draft are rearranged so as to deemphasize Oswald's contacts with the Soviet and Cuban embassies, emphasizing instead his differences with the FBI."  Jim also notes that certain phrases in the rough draft also soften the idea of a Soviet conspiracy e.g references to Kostikov and his business, is in the handwritten draft version related to the documents he needed to get. (Douglass, JFK and the Unspeakable, pp. 232-34)

As Jim further notes, this is important because the WR explained the letter more in terms of the written draft, not the final typed and sent letter. By doing this, "the Warren Commission tried to reduce the explosive meaning of the letter sent to the Soviet Embassy". (ibid, p. 234)

Incredibly, that hand written draft letter was returned to Ruth Paine.  And, as noted, her version is not at NARA. Therefore, it is logical to assume that the two handwritten original drafts of the letter  were or are in her possession. And you see nothing odd or off kilter about this.   

James--October 4 was not the earliest intimation of Azcue leaving. That was the originally scheduled date for when he would leave. Azcue, and those Azcue told (and there is no sign this was a particular secret inside the consulate) knew the October 4 date well before that. As I cited documentation showing, the Oct. 4 planned date of Azcue's departure was known as early as Aug. 13, because Azcue told someone of his planned Oct. 4 departure on that date, Aug. 13.

On your second point, of CIA informants inside the embassy saying twice that Oswald was never there, I do not think that is accurate. As I recall they said they personally had not seen Oswald there. They did not deny that Oswald was there, only that they were not in Silvia Duran's work area when that happened. Whoever it was came in to see Silvia Duran, they did not get a look at him. 

On "both in Oswald's handwriting", I meant the handwritten draft of Oswald, and then the corrections written interlinearly on that handwritten draft of Oswald. I was not referring to Ruth's copy.

I am not sure what you mean by leaving out Ruth's copy. I cannot find a photo of it on the Mary Ferrell site. Ruth testified she copied it from Oswald's handwritten draft. I do not know what it would add in terms of information of what Oswald wrote, which was my topic under discussion. If I could see Ruth's copy I would check for variants with the handwritten draft of Oswald, to check for the hypothetical possibility that Ruth copied some handwritten draft of Oswald other than the one known to us. But if she copied from the same handwritten draft of Oswald that we already see in photographs, as Ruth said and thought was the case, then it would not add information that I can see.  

 On Jim Douglass on the differences between the two versions, handwritten draft and typed. I have much respect for Jim Douglass, a true voice of conscience in this world. However I must say I disagree with his assessment of significance of the differences in the two versions of Oswald's embassy letter, after having just studied the two versions myself and thought through this. In my opinion the changes, all of which I listed in a preceding post above, do not intensify any conspiracy meaning because, in my opinion, Oswald is not writing about any conspiracy. It is an accident that "finish our business" sounds sinister in retrospect in light of the assassination. I did wonder for a moment if Oswald possibly could be intentionally implying some unstated double meaning, nothing to do with an assassination but some unspecified spy relationship, in "finish our business"--but there is just nothing substantial to that. There is a term "eisegesis", reading meaning into texts that just aren't there. In my opinion everything in Oswald's embassy letter is about trying to get his visa and explain what went badly in Mexico City that affects his visa application, and the differences between the two versions are simply attempts to write a clearer business letter, and not more complicated than that. The Kostin (Kostikov) reference and FBI freakout over Kostikov I believe was likely simple accident; to Oswald just a name of an official in the embassy. I have no idea why Oswald's handwritten letter would be in Ruth's possession and not in the National Archives.

Edited July 21, 2020 by Greg Doudna

[James DiEugenio]

Greg:

That is not the picture I am talking about and I have a hard time thinking you do not know this, as I described it.

With a gap like that, I would think it best to end this discussion here.

You began by accusing me of unfairly maligning that fine upstanding citizen Ruth Paine.  That somehow I was  defaming her with no real basis in fact.

I have since produced  several pieces of evidence for what I said--depositions, affidavits, teletypes etc--but still none of this has any impact on you.  It would on an objective jury. Yet, you keep on moving the goalposts further back.  IMO, if you can say what you originally did about me, I can say the following about you: you are protecting the Paines.  For what reason, I don't really know.

There is no point in continuing this if that is your attitude.  I sort of feel like I did with DVP.  Like I am putting on a show for the audience, both on site and lurking. I did not like doing that then and I don't like doing it now.

So good bye.  At least on this.