Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 76
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

James D., in your reconstruction the starting premise is that Oswald never went to Mexico City, in agreement with a few (my impression is not most) researchers. Then that conclusion requires supposing:

  • Oswald's travel visa to Mexico obtained in person with a photo was forged/imposter
  • Oswald's address book was doctored up with address information of the Cuban consulate, and Silvia Duran, forged
  • Oswald's draft of the Soviet embassy letter in his handwriting saying he had gone to Mexico City was forged
  • All of the miscellaneous relics of his trip to Mexico City were planted, fabrications of evidence
  • Marina, who initially claimed she didn't know where Lee had gone the week he disappeared, soon said she knew he went to Mexico City; of these two the second, said within days, testified under oath, and not repudiated by Marina in the sixty years since, was an elaborate and intentional perjury forced on her by threat of deportation or worse.

A problem is that one of these items, the handwritten Soviet embassy letter draft, was authenticated as Oswald's handwriting. While it is true the very best forgers can sometimes beat experts, does that authentication of handwriting not give you pause?

I think it is certain that Oswald went to Mexico City and that that trip was exploited. I think all of the several claims that Oswald threatened to kill Kennedy were fabrications, in each case pointing back to a US spy agency or those working for them as the fabricators, including the earliest known in date to my knowledge, the one of "Leopoldo" in the telephone call claiming that to Silvia Odio in Dallas--a couple of days after Oswald with Leopoldo and one other had been at Silvia Odio's door, which I am certain was actually the first leg of Oswald's trip to Mexico City (then driven to Houston). So you lose me at the outset with the starting premise that no Oswald Mexico City trip ever happened. For if Oswald went to Mexico City, then it would be unsurprising that relics of that trip would be in his things.

At a second step, if there had been such programmatic wholesale forgeries/fabrications, since the other items listed above certainly would have been done (if so) by professionals other than Ruth, why necessarily assume it was Ruth who would herself plant the false items from Mexico City in Ruth's garage (then perjure herself describing it and continue the elaborate false story for sixty years...)? It seems like a lot of leaping to conclusions. But I do not accept the premise at the outset of the non-existent trip of Oswald to Mexico City.

I was reading Nechiporenko some more yesterday and he has a discussion on this very issue, and names the specific reasons why he and all of his colleagues on the Soviet end of Oswald's visits to the Soviet embassy in Mexico City did not consider it an imposter but Oswald who had visited them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

James D., in your reconstruction the starting premise is that Oswald never went to Mexico City, in agreement with a few (my impression is not most) researchers. Then that conclusion requires supposing:

  • Oswald's travel visa to Mexico obtained in person with a photo was forged/imposter
  • Oswald's address book was doctored up with address information of the Cuban consulate, and Silvia Duran, forged
  • Oswald's draft of the Soviet embassy letter in his handwriting saying he had gone to Mexico City was forged
  • All of the miscellaneous relics of his trip to Mexico City were planted, fabrications of evidence
  • Marina, who initially claimed she didn't know where Lee had gone the week he disappeared, soon said she knew he went to Mexico City; of these two the second, said within days, testified under oath, and not repudiated by Marina in the sixty years since, was an elaborate and intentional perjury forced on her by threat of deportation or worse.

A problem is that one of these items, the handwritten Soviet embassy letter draft, was authenticated as Oswald's handwriting. While it is true the very best forgers can sometimes beat experts, does that authentication of handwriting not give you pause?

I think it is certain that Oswald went to Mexico City and that that trip was exploited. I think all of the several claims that Oswald threatened to kill Kennedy were fabrications, in each case pointing back to a US spy agency or those working for them as the fabricators, including the earliest known in date to my knowledge, the one of "Leopoldo" in the telephone call claiming that to Silvia Odio in Dallas--a couple of days after Oswald with Leopoldo and one other had been at Silvia Odio's door, which I am certain was actually the first leg of Oswald's trip to Mexico City (then driven to Houston). So you lose me at the outset with the starting premise that no Oswald Mexico City trip ever happened. For if Oswald went to Mexico City, then it would be unsurprising that relics of that trip would be in his things.

At a second step, if there had been such programmatic wholesale forgeries/fabrications, since the other items listed above certainly would have been done (if so) by professionals other than Ruth, why necessarily assume it was Ruth who would herself plant the false items from Mexico City in Ruth's garage (then perjure herself describing it and continue the elaborate false story for sixty years...)? It seems like a lot of leaping to conclusions. But I do not accept the premise at the outset of the non-existent trip of Oswald to Mexico City.

I was reading Nechiporenko some more yesterday and he has a discussion on this very issue, and names the specific reasons why he and all of his colleagues on the Soviet end of Oswald's visits to the Soviet embassy in Mexico City did not consider it an imposter but Oswald who had visited them.

One problem which would need to be addressed, a first step, is how exactly did Oswald get to MC? David Josephs has demolished the WC proofs in this regard. Peter Dale Scott and Bill Simpich and others have proven, at least to me, that at the very least Oswald was impersonated there. And then there is the lingering question of the lack of photographic or audible record of Oswald in MC. So I start at the opposite end from you. The Warren Commission attempted to prove his travel to MC, even to the point of dismissing the Odio incident because he couldn’t be in two places at once. Yet they were unable to prove he was there, and it seems that they tried awfully hard to do so. Would you agree? Would the WC have loved to have recording or video proof? They failed. So I would rather try to explain your stated anomalies.

Nechiporenko and the gang seem convincing, but it’s hearsay. 

Sylvia Odio was asked repeatedly if she might have been mistaken about the date of the visit. She was certain she had it right.

If Oswald’s handwriting on the note to the Soviet Embassy was indeed proven to be his, that doesn’t place him in MC. Handwriting analysis isn’t a science, and forgers can be very good.

Applying for a travel visa doesn’t prove Oswald went to MC

Notes in Oswald’s address book likewise doesn’t place him in MC.

Marina - even the WC notes that she was an unreliable witness. Who knows what pressure she was under. Even so, it’s hearsay, not evidence.

the only hard evidence would be undeniable proof of travel there, or pics and audio recordings of Oswald in MC. That hard evidence doesn’t exist. Don’t you think if there was a pic it would have been shown in evidence? Or a recording? The only pics and recordings we have are of someone other than Oswald.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Greg, You  obviously have missed the work of David Josephs', especially on the visa.  Which he just posted.

And also the preliminary work of Chris Newton on the embassy letter, which the Russians thought was a forgery.  Because as against the previous letters it was typed, not written. And now he was insinuating he worked with them.  Nice way to dodge that issue by going with the rough drafts that have such a circumspect origin.

The end result of what Marina said was through harassment, confinement and threat of deportation. For example, after denying the rifle, she ended up calling it "the fateful rifle of Lee Harvey Oswald."  The HSCA staff wrote a report as to why they should not believe her because of all her previously contradictory statements.

Now, if you want do a balance sheet on whether or not Oswald was in MC,  why not put up the other end of the scale?

1. Sylvia Duran says it was not him--and it appears she was detained and punished for this.

2. Azcue says it was not him.

3. Contreras says it was not him.  Danny and Eddy could have gotten more witnesses from this group but the CIA kept them away. 

4.  There are no pictures of LHO entering either embassy--there should be ten of them.  The CIA, Phillips especially, made up every silly ass excuse you could think of to explain this away. Danny and Eddy take those apart in their report. Danny and Eddy wanted to indict Phillips and Goodpasture over this issue.

5.  Phillips said the tapes of LHO were gone by the 22nd. They were not.  People heard them either on or after that date.  The problem was the voice on the tapes was not that of Oswald. So they had to be made to disappear.

6.  The two plants inside the Cuban embassy were asked by the CIA if they saw Oswald there and they said no. The CIA understood just what that meant.  So they went back and just about begged them to change their reply, but they did not.

7.  At this point, after checking airports and the auto entry records, desperation set in. CIA HQ says he was there.  But there is no proof he was there.  So what do JIm A and Helms do? They decide to go with the Minister of the Interior Echeverria and his assistant Ochoa. And when the Warren Commission goes down there, they are made aware that it was not the FBI doing the early inquiry, it was these two guys and they got the cold shoulder from them.  And there is no other  way to say this: they created Oswald's way down and his return trip.  Armstrong's book on pp.677-88  for the return trip,  is simply devastating on this. Ochoa and Echeverria simply manufactured a trail.  In David's essay, he did a fine job for the way down, especailly singling out the two Australian girls. Obviously, if Oswald had gone to Mexico, this would not have been necessary.

8. When the FBI finally did investigate they came up against the Echeverria/Ochoa fabrications of evidence. At every turn.  This is why Hoover wrote the marginalia six weeks after that the CIA had sold him a snow job on LHO in MC. So even the FBI knew that this trip had been manufactured and they knew it early.

Needless to say, with a trail such as the above, what Ruth Paine did becomes rather suspicious. Just as she did with the Minox.  Just like Mike reversing field on seeing Oswald with a weapon. Just like Mike saying the Minox found was his.

This is not creating a narrative.  It is presenting adduced facts from the record.  Which had been hidden for decades.

 

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to post
Share on other sites

Forgive my memory, I cannot recall the exact specifics, but didn't Oswald state he that he did travel to Mexico? 

I'm hesitant to post without being able to refresh my memory, these weren't diary, Marina, or Paine based statements though. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mark:

During the first interrogation session, that is on November 22, 1963, Oswald said he had not visited Mexico City, (Meagher, p. 224)

So, this is why the SS was so desperate to suborn Marina.

But Marina's refusal to do so is logical in this light.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jim - thanks for the far more complete response. I tried to cover those points, but I don’t have the details at hand like you do. 
I’m curious - not to change the subject - whether you think Oswald visited the Odios, and if so why? I have never found that story particularly convincing, though Silvia was quite certain it was he. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

Jim - thanks for the far more complete response. I tried to cover those points, but I don’t have the details at hand like you do. 
I’m curious - not to change the subject - whether you think Oswald visited the Odios, and if so why? I have never found that story particularly convincing, though Silvia was quite certain it was he. 

To me, Sylvia Odio was quite convincing, especially in her Warren Commission testimony.

And her younger sister Annie who was there when the three men visited Sylvia's apartment backed her up.

Annie couldn't remember the names of the three visitors as Sylvia had two of them, but when this sister saw a picture of Oswald in the papers after the assassination Sylivia testified her sister almost fainted out of fear because the picture she was seeing looked exactly like the "American" who was one of the three men who came to Sylvia Odio's apartment on 9,25,1963.

Sylivia Odio testified to the Warren Commission on July 22nd, 1964.

She was confident, well spoken and seemingly sure and clear about what she had witnessed regards the three men visiting her apartment on 9,25,1963.

When asked, Odio turned down an offer to be represented by an attorney during her WC testimony.

Put yourself in Sylvia Odio's place that day.

To be questioned by high authority figures about such an important historical matter ( with her own personal safety still an issue)  anyone would be highly nervous, especially if they knew their testimony story was weak or inconsistent or even false.

The odds were good that if this were the case Ms. Odio would have very probably seemed much more hesitant, unsure and reticent in what she was asked to share.

She was neither.

"I remember the name perfectly" Ms Odio answered firmly when asked if she was sure the main speaking visitor to her apartment gave his name as Leopoldo.

There were many aspects to Ms. Odio's story and the questions presented to her regards it. Too many unexpected questions for a person making up this story to wing it with ad lib answers.

Then my sister Annie by that time was standing near the door. She had come to see what was going on. And they introduced him as an American who was very much interested in the Cuban cause. And let me see, if I recall exactly what they said about him. I don't recall at the time I was at the door things about him.
I recall a telephone call that I had the next day from the so-called Leopoldo, so I cannot remember the conversation at the door about this American.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did your sister hear this man introduced as Leon Oswald?
Mrs. ODIO. She says she doesn't recall. She could not say that it is true. I mean, even though she said she thought I had mentioned the name very clearly, and I had mentioned the names of the three men.
Mr. LIEBELER. But she didn't remember it?
Mrs. ODIO. No; she said I mentioned it, because I made a comment. This I don't recall. I said, "I am going to see Antonio Alentado," which is one of the leaders of the JURE here in Dallas. And I think I just casually said, "I am going to mention these names to him to see if he knows any of them." But I forgot about them.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did your sister see the men?
Mrs. ODIO. She saw the three of them.
Mr. LIEBELER. Have you discussed this with her since that time?
Mrs. ODIO. I just had to discuss it because it was bothering me. I just had to know.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did she think it was Oswald?
Mrs. ODIO. Well, her reaction to it when Oswald came on television, she almost passed out on me, just like I did the day at work when I learned about the assassination of the President. Her reaction was so obvious that it was him, I mean. And my reaction, we remember Oswald the day he came to my house because he had not shaved and he had a kind of a very, I don't know how to express it, but some little hairs like if you haven't shaved, but it is not a thick moustache, but some kind of shadow. That is something I noticed. And he was wearing--the other ones were wearing white dirty shirts, but he was wearing a long sleeved shirt.

I've never seen any picture of Oswald where he wasn't clean shaven. Either he was Marine trained to keep his appearance boot camp sharp and clean shaven, or he simply didn't have an ability to grow facial hair beyond a few stragglers.

Edited by Joe Bauer
Link to post
Share on other sites

James, I realize there are many disputed points about the Mexico City trip. Some say Oswald was there and there was impersonation on top of Oswald being there. You and others make the case that Oswald never was there and it was all impersonators. I have not read all the studies you mention and am therefore unable to comment productively on them at this time.

But there is this fact: the real Oswald stated he had been in Mexico City. That does not mean he was, only that he said he was. His statement is in handwriting authenticated as genuine. What is to be made of this is another matter. But that is one fact. 

If the entire Mexico City trip was a pretense or charade with Oswald's witting participation in the pretense, then you are right, that would call for explanation of such things as items in the real Oswald's address book reflective of the impersonator's trip to Mexico City, and items from Mexico City among the real Oswald's things back in the U.S. If you know those things are all fabrications, then I agree, it is logical to ask: who was doing the fabricating? Was Oswald fabricating evidence of the impersonator's trip as if it was his own trip? Or was someone else?

There seems a disconnect. I keep talking about no evidence Ruth Paine fabricated anything. You keep talking about a narrative in which you have a story in which Ruth Paine fabricates, and seem to think that is the evidence. If there were fabricated evidence planted in Ruth Paine's garage, what is the evidence that Ruth Paine did the planting? There is no way to know that stronger than some form of well she was there. Not good enough.  

Some of this argument concerning narratives and conclusions of guilt of persons based on narratives (but no hard evidence establishing guilt at any specific point) just seems a recipe for falsely accusing innocent people. 

Here is something else. In all of Ruth Paine's testimony, she never once said Oswald had said anything negative about President Kennedy. It would have been the easiest thing in the world, if she were being scripted or did not care about telling the truth, to just slip in something like that. The world would have believed her. The Warren Commission was badly missing establishment of motive. Ruth Paine offered zero in assisting with establishment of motive, despite plenty of opportunity. Why do you suppose that might be? 

The simplest answer is the correct one here: because it wasn't true. That is why she did not say that. 

 

Edited by Greg Doudna
Link to post
Share on other sites

Two things

1) the Imperial Reflex camera, which was linked to the backyard photos and a “Walker surveillance photo”, entered the record via Ruth Paine - who passed a box containing the camera on to Robert Oswald. While officially, everyone downplayed the camera as an afterthought, I strongly suspect Ruth Paine handled the camera while in New Orleans, and took a series of eleven photos of Marina Oswald and young June with it. This would be just about the only piece of evidence identified as Oswald possessions which she did not alert the authorities to. The story that she passed it to Robert Oswald as an insignificance may have been made up after the fact to obscure the camera’s true trail of possession.

2) the box of phonograph records in which the so-called deMohrenschildt backyard photo was discovered in 1967 was under the control of Ruth Paine since September 1963 - either at her home or in a storage locker for which she held the key. This box of records seems to appear in the DPD inventory list and presumably was searched by them - but the photo was not found at the time. The inscription on the back of the photo “hunter of fascists ha! ha! ha!” written in Russian Cyrillic was not in Marina Oswald’s handwriting, but used a colloquial phrase that Marina often expressed (ha-ha-ha).

Personally, I don’t believe the Paine’s were privy to an assassination conspiracy, but intuited which way the wind was blowing almost immediately and cooperated with the cover-up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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?  

 

 

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Jeff Carter said:

Personally, I don’t believe the Paine’s were privy to an assassination conspiracy, but intuited which way the wind was blowing almost immediately and cooperated with the cover-up.

Thanks Jeff, for being one of the few to weigh in on what I see as a critical question.

Jim, do you believe the Paine's were privy to the assassination?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Incriminating Oswald photo hidden in record albums, incriminating Oswald/General Walker/ advice to Marina letter hidden in a childcare book mixed with cookbooks coincidentally sent to Marina where Secret Service men search every incoming item sent to Marina, incriminating rough draft letter to Soviet Embassy by Oswald left in plain sight for suspicion shocked and anger fuming RP ( that thankless s.o.b has the GALL to write this crap on "my" typewriter?) to see right in front of her and to frantically copy down word for word?

She does this simply for her own curious interest or to use later in exposing Oswald to the authorities if somehow things blow up between Lee and Marina and she can get this crazy creep out of Marina's life for good?

Empty, limp Oswald rifle blanket carelessly dropped on open floor easily seen by anyone entering the Paine garage, garage light left on by Oswald after he came in the early morning darkness to retrieve his rifle, Oswald wedding ring appears in cup on Marina's bedroom dresser, cameras and files found with several different provenance claims by who knows who ... sounds like a laughable amateurish game of sleuth or hide and seek!

Hercule Poirot himself would be wondering... Sacrebleu! What kind of a fou affair ees going on in dees place?

And don't forget Marina hiding an Oswald photo in her shoe Friday afternoon before she was taken to the DPD, or did she actually burn one earlier?

And did Beull Wesley Frazier see Oswald carrying wrapping paper when he took Oswald to the Paine house Thursday after work?

If not, did Ruth Paine say she had similar wrapping paper anywhere in her home or garage along with Scotch tape of the kind Oswald supposedly used to wrap his shower curtains?

The house was small. If Oswald got up before anyone else and went through the in-house door to the garage and began wrapping up his rifle with crumpling wrapping paper and then returned back through this door - nobody heard him at all?

And did Oswald casually leave his wrapped "whatever" somewhere near the front door to pick up as he then made himself some coffee and left the Paine house to catch his ride at Frazier's house?

And Ruth's home phone was probably bugged during all this time.

And Michael Paine is hanging out at the local hip coffee house

trying to engage young students in political conversation?

"We both know who's responsible." ???

I think Buell Wesley Frazier was the ring leader of this band of eccentric secret activity characters.

 

 

 

Edited by Joe Bauer
Link to post
Share on other sites

Greg, 

Jim's position is not my position - I think the Paines were manipulated into being Oswald's babysitters, wittingly or unwittingly - he thinks they took a more active role.  But Jim's question is an important one:   "Just like Mike reversing field on seeing Oswald with a weapon. Just like Mike saying the Minox found was his."

The backstory is that after 30 years of Ruth saying we would have never let Oswald keep a rifle under our roof - in 1993 Michael said that he knew about the presence of the rifle the entire time.   Similarly, after many years of speculation of why Oswald owned a spy camera like the Minox - Michael turned around after the assassination and said that he owned the Minox, not Oswald.   Either man owning a Minox is a significant development in this case, but to top it off it does not appear Michael's claim of ownership is credible.

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...