Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

Bill Simpich thanks for commenting. As I understand it, in your reconstruction of Oswald and Mexico City the relic items from Mexico City in Oswald's things are not a problem requiring unusual scenarios invoking major criminal behavior on the part of Ruth to explain.

On the rifle, yes, Michael said in 1993 he knew of the rifle, and I believe he separately also later said he knew of Oswald's backyard photo with the guns all along, that Oswald had showed that to him early on. Each of these things go against what he said earlier. There are two possibilities here. One is that Michael had not told the truth earlier, years later has forgotten his earlier (false) story and in his older age does not realize and tells what really happened. The. other is he is mixed up in his memory with the passage of time. I can see this one both ways. I believe Ruth is truthful, did not know of the rifle (because she said she did not know, and because she was opposed to guns, had small children, and would be expected to have reacted differently if she had learned of it). If Michael did know he must have kept it to himself and not told Ruth, is my interpretation of this. However I do not regard Michael as a completely reliable witness to the degree of confidence I judge for Ruth, in my subjective judgment of witnesses. 1993 is thirty years later, and people get timelines garbled in memory and recounting.

On the cameras could you say what underlies your last sentence, "it does not appear Michael's claim of ownership"--of the Minox in the coffee can, the one he claimed was his--"is credible"? How so? It looks to me like the camera equipment is all Michael's--minox in the coffee can, light meter, all of it unless there was one more Minox that was Oswalds and disappeared in FBI custody but if so that would have nothing to do with Michael's camera equipment. The reason for linking the camera equipment in the garage whose existence is undisputed to Michael is because there were undeveloped photos among that equipment developed, which match taken by Michael but not by Oswald. So the pictures match Michael as the owner of the camera equipment. FBI said there never was an Oswald camera disappeared in their custody despite a DPD inventory list because that was a mistaken-labeling issue on DPD's part. That Michael believed that to be the explanation, which was FBI's explanation, is neither here nor there. On balance I think FBI's strenuous insistence on a mistaken-labeling could be so, but if that was not correct and FBI was lying and had received from DPD a Minox camera of Oswald and destroyed it, that has nothing to do with any of the items Michael Paine said were his. If there was a camera destroyed by FBI on its way to the FBI lab that was a different, additional item than the Minox of Michael found in the coffee can, right?--so is irrelevant to the issue of Michael's claim of ownership of the one in the coffee can, right? 

Bottom line for me on these cameras is Michael has a lot of camera equipment, also binoculars. The photos which include a scene in Rome match Michael as camera-owner. Whether the kind of camera equipment owned means Michael had spying background I would not know. My impression is Minoxes were used in spycraft but also had a commercial civilian market for non-spycraft uses, but I do not know the picture on that exactly, as to what conclusions can legitimately be drawn. I see no sign of Michael falsely claiming camera equipment as his that actually belonged to Oswald. Again, that Michael said DPD mislabeled one of his cameras as Oswald's--i.e. believed the FBI's explanation--is irrelevant. So that is why I am puzzled what underlies your last sentence with respect to Michael's claim of ownership of the minox in the coffee can not appearing credible; please say? 

Edited by Greg Doudna
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 76
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The Minox and equipment is all Mike's?  Greg, please.

 

Quoting Gus Rose:  He took the Minox out of Oswald's seabag with Ruth Paine looking at him! And she said that it had to have belonged to Oswald. (The Assassinations, p.246)

And the film you talk about, I mean do you know the FBI lost a roll of film apparently taken with Oswald's MInox. (ibid, p. 245)

The leftover film was never forensically tested.  If I am wrong about this, please show me where such a process took place with the WC?  It certainly did not happen with the HSCA or ARRB.

FInally, for 1993  Frontline Mike said the Minox camera had been returned to him.  Oh really?  Then what are the two Minoxes in the NARA about then? (ibid, 247)

The idea that the light meter was his seems to me to be risible.  How could it be his if Bardwell Odum had not contacted the Paines yet about Hoover's problem with getting rid of the camera.. The  light meter was already in evidence.  If one recalls, the FBI wanted to change the MInox in evidence on  the prop list to a light meter.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, There's at least  enough doubt in people's minds here that nobody can declare that the Paine's had to be privy to the assassination.

Let's take the Minox camera.
This is always portrayed as so critical,  (Jim (below)says,  Hoover is so  eager to "vanish the camera" he leaves a teletype or a written record of his intention  to destroy evidence? Obviously we liked to see that.
Maybe he is. As evidence, this is always portrayed like a tattoo on Oswald's forehead proclaiming "Spy". Is  this any more solid evidence of anything than a bunch of other leads that were overlooked? It doesn't conclusively prove Oswald is a spy, but possibly  a wanna  be spy. Is the fact that it's too expensive for Oswald any more suspicious than his overpriced hotel stay in Helsinki, which didn't seem to raise an eyebrow? Or any one of a million other leads. Jack Ruby's mob connections, no one cared about that.

 

Jim said: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) 
Why would Hoover leave any written trace that he asked anybody to vanish evidence.? Isn't  that your speculation? Cite source
On Hoover's list was Ruth Paine.(FBI teletype of 1/30/64)
  This is unclear, you're saying Ruth Paine was on a list of Hoover's to vanish the camera?
Please show me the teletype.1/30/64
 
Jim said:J. Edgar was very worried about this (the camera) and so he got in contact with local FBI agents Gordon Shanklin and Bardwell Odum in order to arrange a cover up around it.
Again, I understand his motive, but why would Hoover leave any written record of the intention to arrange a coverup, that's purely speculation. If not, Cite source.
*****
You'd think they'd have record where they found everything. Why would Michael's possessions become intermingled with Oswalds? They'd be in 2 specifically different places.
 
Edited by Kirk Gallaway
Link to post
Share on other sites

What's this about Jim ? Please produce the evidence of Hoover intention to vanish the evidence.

Jim said: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) 
Why would Hoover leave any written trace that he asked anybody to vanish evidence.? Isn't  that your speculation? Cite source
On Hoover's list was Ruth Paine.(FBI teletype of 1/30/64)
  This is unclear, you're saying Ruth Paine was on a list of Hoover's to vanish the camera?
Please show me the teletype.1/30/64
 
Jim said:J. Edgar was very worried about this (the camera) and so he got in contact with local FBI agents Gordon Shanklin and Bardwell Odum in order to arrange a cover up around it.
Again, I understand his motive, but why would Hoover leave any written record of the intention to arrange a coverup, that's purely speculation. If not, Cite source.

 

Edited by Kirk Gallaway
Link to post
Share on other sites

From Hill's affidavit above, one can see how intent Hoover was to get rid of the Minox, and how he intimidated the DPD into falsifying evidence..Which Hoover had much experience in doing.

But Gus Rose would not give in.

That is what precipitated the stage play with the  Paines. From his HSCA deposition, it is clear Ruth was a part of that playlet since she knew the first MInox was Oswald's.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to post
Share on other sites

Greg, I am an agnostic on Mexico City.  I am concerned about Ruth coming up with the "relics" such as the "Walker note" which she mailed to Marina that was inside a book that she said she didn't know was there; or the items from Mexico City that she didn't know were there for 10 months.  It is circumstantial - at some point, it adds up.

I feel like the Paines' defense attorney - I'm still researching them, see Parts 11 & 12 of my book on the Oswald legend, which I'm rewriting.  I think they got wrapped up in something they didn't fully understand.  Like you, I do not think that Ruth and Michael are bad people.   I think they're like most of us - complicated.

Kirk, the Minox has always been an enormous problem - whether it belonged to Lee (probable) or Michael (possible) - it is a spy camera.  Ruth Paine's brother-in-law John Hoke of AID wrote a whole book with a section featuring the Minox - I bought a used copy over the internet and can't find it - but it's $5 right now on Amazon!  Her sister Sylvia Hoke was naval intelligence/Air Force intelligence/CIA.  Her father William Hyde was vetted for the CIA to be used as an asset in Vietnam.  At some point, these things add up.

Here's something I wrote up about the Minox that I may publish soon - the Paines knew FBI agent Bardwell Odum well enough to call him "Bob" - not a good sign, as seen below - all the more reason to ask you all for feedback.

 

Oswald’s Minox III camera:  If it belonged to Michael Paine - and was given back to Michael Paine – Why is it still in the National Archives?

The night of the assassination, Dallas detectives Guy Rose and Richard Stovall found a Minox III camera among the three cameras at Oswald’s possessions at the Paine residence.  The camera is listed in the Dallas police inventory as a “small German camera and black case on chain and film”, and was also photographed.   The other two cameras listed are a “Stereo Realist” that took 3-D photos and a Russian 35 mm camera with a brown case known as a Cuera-2.   A subsequent inventory properly described as a “Minox camera”, generally used by spies.[1]                                                              

Ruth Paine’s brother-in-law John Hoke was an accomplished photographer and wrote a book that included a section on the importance of the Minox camera for spying purposes.[2] A great deal of evidence was carted off to Washington DC on the night of the assassination, brought back to Dallas a few days later, and then brought to Washington again on the 27th.  By the time all this shuffling was over, much of the evidence was missing and the chain of custody for many of these items was destroyed.             

Who owned this spy camera - Oswald or Michael Paine?  It rapidly became a public relations battle among the agencies.  Some wanted to make Oswald look like a Soviet spy.  The FBI did not.  When the inventory got into the FBI’s hands, the Minox camera was transformed into a light meter.[3]                                            

The agent that prepared the critical inventory sheet of evidence in Washington DC that performed this feat of legerdemain identified himself as “WRH”.[4]  WRH was Wallace R. Heitman of the Dallas FBI field office, and the partner of Paine’s friend Bard Odum.[5]    Participants in this inventory were New Orleans SAC Warren de Brueys and SA Vince Drain, who hand-carried the evidence to Washington, DC.[6]   This was just the beginning of the manipulation of the first-day evidence – of the 451 items placed in Heitman’s custody by the Dallas police in the days following the assassination, only 251 items were returned by the FBI to the DPD.[7]

Dallas detective Guy Rose told the Dallas Morning News:

        (The FBI) were calling it a light meter, I know that.  But I know a camera when I see it…The thing we got at Irving out of Oswald’s seabag was a Minox camera.  No question about it.  They tried to get me to change the records because it wasn’t a light meter.  I don’t know why they wanted it changed, but they must have had some motive for it.[8]

        FBI agent Thomas Lenihan in Washington told Dallas SAC Gordon Shanklin that De Brueys’ first inventory in Dallas showed a Minox camera on 11/26, but that it changed to a light meter in the inventory in Washington.[9] Even when FBI espionage chief William Branigan demanded that Dallas SAC Gordon Shanklin clear up this confusion, Shanklin simply reiterated that it was a light meter on 1/28/64.[10]  On January 30, Hoover sent out a memo telling his subordinates to end this confusion now.[11]

           One of the key agents on the Paine case was Bardwell Odum, described by Hosty as one of the “closest friends” of the chief of the Dallas FBI office.[12]  Michael Paine admitted being introduced to Bardwell Odum before November 22 – referring to him in a familiar manner as “Bob” - though he doesn’t say how.[13]  With immaculate timing, Odum called up the Paines on Jan. 30, 1964, two days after Shanklin’s claim that the Minox was a light meter and not a camera. Odum asked Ruth Paine if they ever owned a Minox camera. 

               It turns out that Michael did have a Minox camera, sitting in a can in the garage.  This camera was somehow missed in all of the garage searches conducted by the Dallas police in what may have been the most important property searches ever conducted in the history of Texas.  Michael Paine provided a Minox camera, serial number 27259, entered into evidence on 1/31/64.  The FBI finally had a Minox camera that matched the evidentiary record and that didn’t belong to Oswald.[14] Michael Paine had now admitted to owning what is known as a spy camera.

              Odum logged Michael’s 27259 camera in as a Minox III.[15]  By definition, a serial number 27259 is a Minox II, as Minox II cameras have serial numbers that go up to 31500.[16]  Michael Paine has said that his Minox was returned to him later that year.[17]  But a Minox III remains in the National Archives, with the date that Paine turned in a camera -1/31/64 – and FBI agent Bardwell Odum’s initials scratched on the side.[18]  If Paine got his camera back, why is that one sitting in the Archives?

             The Minox III in the Archives is inoperable, and the Archives has thus far refused to give anyone permission to attempt to open the camera and document the serial number inside.[19]  Since Paine says that the FBI gave him his camera back, it certainly looks like Oswald’s camera is sitting in the Archives with Odum’s initials and a phony date on it.  When analyzing Hoover’s willingness to falsify evidence to support the campaign to characterize Oswald as a lone nut and not a spy, the Minox III sitting in the Archives should be considered Exhibit A.

 

 

[1]      The night of the assassination, Dallas detectives found a Minox spy camera at the Paine residence:  Inventory can be seen at…Stovall Exhibit A, Warren Commission Hearings. Volume 21, pages 596-597.

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=143020

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=1138&relPageId=621

 

Photograph:  Gary Savage, First Day Evidence, (Monroe, Louisana:  1993) p. 209.

 

A subsequent inventory properly describes it as a “Minox camera”.  Warren Commission Exhibit 2003, 11/26/63, Volume 24, p. 358.

 

[2]         John Hoke, The First Book of Photography (1965).

 

[3]       When the inventory got into the FBI’s hands, they changed the Minox camera to a light meter:  11/27/63 FBI inventory, Warren Commission Document 735, p. 27. 

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=353283

 

[4]            The agent that prepared the critical inventory sheet of evidence in Washington DC that performed this feat of legerdemain identified himself as “WRH”:  11/27/63 FBI inventory, Warren Commission Doc

ument 735, p. 1.  http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=353257

 

[5]         A revised inventory list was prepared by Wallace R. Heitman, 8/7/64.

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=9942&relPageId=48   

 

[6]      Participants  in this inventory were New Orleans SAC Warren de Brueys and SA Vince Drain:   Gary Savage, First Day Evidence, p. 214.   Also see Earl Golz, Dallas Morning News, 8/7/78.

  http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=9947&relPageId=204

 

[7]        This was just the beginning of the manipulation of the first-day evidence – of the 451 items placed in Heitman’s custody by the Dallas police in the days following the assassination, only 251 items were

 returned by the FBI to the DPD:  Larry Hancock, p. 224; the best in-depth analysis is provided by John Armstrong in Harvey and Lee (2003) and in Probe, Vol. 4, Issue 3 (March-April 1997).

 

[8]        I know a camera when I see it:  See a second article by Earl Golz for the Dallas Morning News, reprinted at http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/golz.htm.  Also see Jim Marrs’ Crossfire (Carroll & Graf, New York, 1989) pp. 190-191.  Also see National Archives, HSCA 180-10013-10251, Numbered Files 014341, p. 11, 22:  HSCA interview with Gus Rose.

 

[9]      FBI agent Thomas Lenihan in Washington told Dallas SAC Gordon Shanklin that De Brueys’ first inventory in Dallas showed a Minox camera on 11/26, but that it changed to a light meter in the inventory in Washington:   Earl Golz, Dallas Morning News, 8/7/78.

  http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=9947&relPageId=204

 

[10]      Even when FBI espionage chief William Branigan  demanded that Dallas SAC Gordon Shanklin clear up this confusion,  Shanklin simply reiterated that it was a light meter on 1/28/64: FBI memo from Branigan to Thomas Lenihan, 1/28/64, FBI - HSCA Administrative Folders/ADMIN FOLDER-P8: HSCA ADMINISTRATIVE FOLDER, LEE HARVEY OSWALD VOLUME III, p. 58, NARA Record Number: 124-10369-10003.

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=293098

 

[11]        On January 30, Hoover sent out a memo telling  his subordinates to end this confusion now:   http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/hooverminox.jpg

 

[12]       James P. Hosty, Assignment Oswald, p. 86.

 

[13]        9 H 444.

 

[14]     The FBI finally had a Minox camera that matched the evidentiary record and that didn’t belong to Oswald:   FBI - HSCA Administrative Folders/ ADMIN FOLDER-G8B: HSCA ADMINISTRATIVE FOLDER, INVENTORY LISTING BY DL ANL LAB, p. 211, RIF#: 124-10371-10089   (01/07/65)   

 

[15]      The FBI logged Michael’s 27259 camera in as a Minox III:    http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/odumminox.jpg

 

[16]        See John Armstrong, Harvey and Lee, p. 910. 

 

[17]         Gary Savage, First Day Evidence, pp.  214-215.  

 

[18]            John Armstrong, Harvey and Lee, pp. 910-911.

 

[19]         Photo in possession of Carol Hewett.  See her Minox articles, among the best on the subject that I know of:  “The Paines’ Participation in the Minox Camera Charade”, Part 1, http://www.ctka.net/pr1196-minox.html; both Part 1 and Part 2 are contained in The Assassinations, pp. 238-249.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jim said: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) 

Jim said: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) 

Again Jim,  you've produced no evidence to any conversation, memo, or teletype between Hoover, Shanklin and Odum. All you've produced is that the FBI has claimed not to have the camera. We already knew that.

Edited by Kirk Gallaway
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Bill Simpich said:

I think they got wrapped up in something they didn't fully understand.  Like you, I do not think that Ruth and Michael are bad people.   I think they're like most of us - complicated.

I agree with this assessment, for the most part. Based on everything Ruth has done I'm more inclined to hold her with suspicion than Michael. 

This is largely based on Michael's public statements, those didn't come across to me as someone trying to frame or create a narrative around him, notwithstanding specific comments. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

From Probe Magazine, March/April 1997, by John Armstrong-: further evidence of  how obsessed Hoover was in getting rid of Oswald's Minox, I suspect it was due to his experience with Soviet spies using them. We saw what he did with Hill, now this:

The Dallas Police photographed item #375, which included the Minox camera on November 25th, then gave the undeveloped film to the FBI. When the photograph was returned to Dallas a week later everything but the pedometer had disappeared. There were eight items in the original photo. The FBI tampered with the photo to make seven of the items unrecognizable. One of the items was the Minox camera. They made a new inventory list. The camera was now changed to a light meter. The FBI even took a photograph of a light meter and case and gave it the same identification number as the Minox Camera item #375. (Jim's note: I have seen this first picture and John describes it accurately.)

Here is my question:  How much evidence do rational people need to prove a key evidentiary point? Affidavits, sworn interviews, pictures?  What else is there?

Oswald had a Minox camera and camera equipment. There can be no real question about that with the evidence above, plus his statements to others about his knowledge of photography and his work at JCS. There can also be no real question that Hoover tried to alter the evidence to show that such evidence did not exist. Warren DeBrueys was aware of all this and participated in it.  The FBI got Hill to go along with them, but he wrote out an affidavit to protect himself.  Gus Rose would not go along and this got in the local papers.  So Hoover now wrote the memo to Shanklin and Odum.  And Hoover named Ruth Paine as a person to go along with his little charade. 

And MIke Paine was still pushing it in 1993 for Gus Russo.

Personally, I would have no problem presenting this in a court room.

 

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to post
Share on other sites

On the Minox issue, having restudied this, I am now certain: on this one, the FBI did not fabricate or destroy evidence. Gus Rose of the Dallas Police department, along with assistant district attorney Bill Alexander, were just wrong. The evidence picture from the DPD tells the story, and the evidence photo shows an empty Minox camera case, plus a light meter. The written evidence list has a Minox camera and no light meter. DPD mislabeled it, and no wonder the FBI lab said they had a light meter but no camera. However, Gus Rose stuck to his story, however his story was wrong. The later HSCA testimony that he found it in Oswald's seabag is mistaken memory because he is testifying 15 years later and the alleged Minox find is written on Friday documents whereas the seabag was searched on Saturday; Gus Rose just was confused. So--there was no Minox camera taken into police custody that first weekend, despite DPD listing one. That is my first finding of fact.

But then there is all this Minox equipment and photos but no camera, and that makes no sense, and there are now press reports over this dispute. Hoover basically sends a stern note saying all this Minox stuff was found, but no camera with it; this calls for explanation. Go ask the Paines if there is a Minox camera. The Paines are asked, and Michael Paine tells of his Minox camera, the one in the coffee can. And all the Minox paraphernalia was identified by the Paines as belonging to Michael Paine as part of his Minox camera. The reason Michael Paine's Minox camera had not been picked up in the original search was because it was in a different location and police were not after Michael Paine's things. It was not that they missed what they should have found; rather, they by mistake picked up Michael Paine's Minox paraphernalia (but not the Minox camera) among the items they were trying to collect of Oswald. They scooped up things and sorted out later and returned to the Paines what was theirs. And the Minox camera was found on Friday not in the seabag, not in the seabag on Saturday as Gus Rose 15 years later testified.

There is only one Minox in the archives, not two, and it is that coffee-can non-working Minox of Michael Paine. Michael Paine said it had been returned to him, then lost as part of a robbery, i.e. he didn't have it but thought he had had it before the robbery. But Michael Paine was simply wrong, it had never been returned to him. This mistake of Michael Paine incidentally supports the larger point that Michael Paine telling what happened many years later gets things wrong.

For anyone reading this, the following link goes to a clear explication of the evidence, including the DPD photos--study it for yourself. I will not quote it here but for anyone favoring the DPD side of that original DPD/FBI dispute, this is must-read, the stand-alone article to read on this, and it has the original DPD evidence photos which tell the story (that DPD erred): http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/minox.htm

The Carol Hewett article on James D's site (and I would like to preface my comment by saying how valuable the Kennedys and King site is), "The Paines' Participation in the Minox Camera Charade" (https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-paine-s-participation-in-the-minox-camera-charade), contains an egregious non sequitur in logic in its final two sentences. The body of the article makes the case for, argument intended to establish (a) that the DPD report of an Oswald Minox was true and the FBI lied and made it disappear (instead of DPD error and FBI being truthful that no Minox camera had been sent to them). Then the final two sentences comes the punch line and the non sequitur: (b) the Paines are therefore guilty!

Again, after working through this issue it is just clear to me that on this one (the original dispute over the inventory list), FBI was right, DPD was wrong: DPD never turned over a Minox camera despite the list saying they did, and FBI hq/lab was not lying but truthful in saying they never got a Minox camera originally. BUT that is not my point here. SUPPOSE, as Carol Hewett and you are certain (and I understand the argument on that, so just suppose), that FBI HAD received a Minox camera from DPD--a Minox camera of Oswald--and for whatever reason decided it was essential that, just like the Hosty note, that that Oswald Minox must never see the light of day, and they destroyed it, or otherwise disappeared it. SUPPOSE that, and follow me carefully here. James D, you and Carol Hewett argue this up to this point, and then conclude "convict the Paines!" As if the Paines are responsible for an FBI nefarious act in Washington D.C.! That is not logical, because if the FBI did a destruction of evidence, then it is the FBI who should answer for it. How does it follow that the Paines are responsible for what the FBI did?

Well, Carol Hewett explains, answers that question. Here are the closing words of that article making that argument, setting forth the reasoning for blaming the Paines for the (argued) FBI destruction of an Oswald Minox camera. It is because the Paines said the Minox paraphernalia along with other items among the original DPD belonged to them, and then, when asked by the FBI, Ruth Paine answered that Michael Paine had a Minox camera, which Michael Paine confirmed and handed it over to them (the one in the coffee can that had not been working since 1959). Their ownership of a Minox camera had not been asked of the Paines before (the DPD and FBI were not interested in collecting the Paines' belongings, only Oswalds). The FBI asks, do you have a Minox camera, and Ruth and Michael Paine say, yes we do, let me get it for you. 

PROOF that Ruth and Michael Paine are sinister! Because when asked if they own a Minox camera associated with all of the Minox paraphernalia (but no camera) which had been mistakenly collected in the collection of Oswald's belongings, the Paines answer that they do own such a Minox camera!!!!!!! How sinister can this get--that they answer truthfully when asked that they possess something, and cooperate, turn it over, tell what they know of its history, answer questions, do everything a good citizen would do. Here is Hewett explaining why this cannot be the actions of honest citizens. (Article tells of FBI inquiries to Paines and Paines explaining that the Minox light meter collected by DPD belongs to Michael Paine, and that Michael Paine still has the Minox camera itself associated with it, not working and in a coffee can . . .) 

". . . If this was true [i.e. the Minox paraphernalia and coffee-can Minox belonged to Michael Paine], 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 of its original inventory list and joint DPD/FBI list. Since this was not the case, the collusion of the Paines is readily apparent."

This is a non sequitur. The conclusion does not follow from the points cited. Just because camera equipment actually were to belong to Michael Paine as he said it did, it does not follow that the Dallas police "did a poor job of searching the garage the weekend of the assassination"--because the Dallas police were not searching for Michael Paine's things, or any camera belonging to Michael Paine. That was not their intent, their mandate, or (on Saturday) in the search warrant. Michael Paine's camera equipment was Michael Paine's business at that point (even if some non-camera Minox paraphernalia belonging to Michael were taken by DPD by mistake in the sweep of Oswald's belongings, which the police later returned to the Paines upon sorting things out).

And no, the fact that Michael Paine owns a Minox camera and some equipment that goes along with it does not mean, as if there is any logical corollary, that therefore the DPD must have lied or otherwise been incorrect in their inventory list. Michael Paine could own his Minox, and the DPD could have found an Oswald Minox. Whether the DPD did find an Oswald Minox which the FBI then disappeared is a distinct issue. But it has no causal connection whatsoever to whether Michael Paine owns his own Minox camera.

"Since this was not the case"--the two things that have nothing to do with whether Michael Paine owns his own camera equipment--"the collusion of the Paines is readily apparent".

This is not logical. This is no basis upon which to convict anyone. Bill Simpich, you are an attorney I believe. Is this kind of argument a basis upon which citizens should be considered criminals? 

This whole discourse in which the Paines are assumed to be lying about Michael Paine's ownership of his own camera equipment, without the slightest evidence whatsoever that Michael Paine or Ruth Paine lied about anything in their identification of camera equipment they owned--is a miscarriage of justice. 

There was an issue over whether there was an Oswald Minox found by DPD originally. DPD and FBI have different accounts on that, and either one or the other is correct and the other incorrect. But whichever way one assesses that issue, it has nothing whatsoever to do with whether Michael Paine's identification of ownership of his own camera equipment was truthful or untruthful. There is nothing in this whole Minox saga that justifies the terrible accusations of dishonesty leveled against the Paines in this issue of alleged FBI malfeasance, or Dallas Police Department inventory-list error, whichever it was.

James D, you say you would "have no problem pushing this in a courtroom", which I take to mean criminally charging the Paines with lying about Michael Paine's claim that he owned some Minox camera equipment in his own house. If your objection is that helped the FBI clear themselves from the destruction of evidence charge in the press, would it be any defense in your view if what Michael Paine said about owning his own camera equipment was true? Would you still condemn him?

Edited by Greg Doudna
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well David Andrews, on why Michael Paine had a high-end Minox spy camera with accessories, I would not know. But there is one thing that can also be established, the time in his life when he had it and used it: early 1950s, when he was in the army in South Korea. As I understand it, his was a Minox II, misidentified in the National Archives as a Minox III but the serial number proves it is a Minox II, and Minox IIs had a problem something about five lenses and shutter jamming, which was why Minox IIs were replaced by Minox III with four lenses and no more shutter jamming. According to a site called Cryptomuseum, the Minox A-II was produced from 1948 to 1950, succeeded by the A-III in production from 1951 to 1954. The point is that A-II was obsolete and presumably would not be bought new after 1951 since the non-jamming A-III would be bought instead. This is assuming Michael Paine got his new. That he got it new somewhere 1948-1951, instead of later used, fits for Michael Paine because the photos are from Michael Paine's army service days in the early 1950s. Michael Paine said the camera was inoperable after 1959 due to having been dropped in seawater by accident. Unless he was making up that, for which there is no known reason to assume that he was, whatever he was using that camera for was long over, not happening in 1963. Whether he was using that camera for spy purposes when he was in the army or post-army, I have no idea. But he evidently was not using his Minox for spy purposes in 1963. 

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...