Is there or is there not a Minox camera in this DPD evidence photo?

[Sandy Larsen]

5 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Everything you said here is very unfair Sandy. You have not read the WR and you are one of its biggest critics?

 

Tracy,

While it's true that I generally don't trust what is written in the WR, the only parts of it that I specifically criticize are the ones I've studied. I sometimes defer to researchers whose judgement I trust on topics I have little knowledge of.

 

5 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

That doesn't seem right. The junior lawyers that essentially created the report had no bias as many of them have explained (see Willens' book).

 

The FBI and some lawyers covered numerous things up. And made stuff up.

 

5 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Not logically thinking? two of the best books were by lawyers (Bugliosi and Posner) and they certainly think logically.

 

I think that Bugliosi was so intent on "winning" the case that he rationalized away things that contradicted his conclusions.

Posner reminds me of a used car salesman. I don't trust him.

 

5 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

As far as the article mentioned by Greg, it has hyperlink citations and anyone can check them out to see if they back up what the author is claiming.

 

I don't have time or energy to check everything out on every paper that forum members want me to read. I have to choose judiciously.

BTW, did you notice that I never said that the document was flawed?

 

5 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

I just wrote a book rebutting the Maurice Bishop matter and the book that was based on (Fonzi) has no citations whatsoever. I don't see anyone complaining about that.

 

Fonzi's book IS the source document for his Bishop allegation. He has no need to cite sources unless he reports on people who are on the record saying that David Phillips went by that name. I don't recall his doing that.

[Greg Doudna]

Dallas Police claimed a Minox camera exists in the center of the DPD evidence photograph where none exists. Dallas Police misidentified something not a Minox camera as a Minox camera. 

THANK YOU to David Butler! The link given by David Butler is here: https://emuseum.jfk.org/objects/22024/black-and-white-police-photograph-of-objects-belonging-to-os;jsessionid=A8F628FB2F1B217F1B464EB94872E27F?ctx=5cd98fcc-465a-499e-901b-c2ed38f9b74e&idx=0#.

I did not know of this when I opened this thread with its title. But what David Butler found independently confirms Dallas Police mistakenly identified a Minox camera not simply in the inventory lists, but in their own evidence photograph itself. This is the same police evidence photo of Rusty Livingston, the one which was published in 1993 in First Day Evidence. (Bold and underlining below is added by me.)

"Description. Black and white Dallas Police crime lab photograph of objects belonging to Lee Harvey Oswald. The image shows Oswald's possessions spread out over a tiled floor. Included are materals such as a 'Hands Off Cuba!' flyer, cameras, photographs, film, papers, binoculars and other unidentified objects. In the middle of the array is a sign on white paper with black writing: 'Voluntarly Given Dallas P.D. by Ruth Paine + Mrs. Oswald; Paine's Residence, Irving Texa 11/22/63.' R. W. 'Rusty' Livingston, an employee of the Dallas Police crime lab, developed many of the images taken by officers investigating the assassination. This print is from a first-generation set of copies he kept for himself. The photograph was stored in a clear plastic sleeve with a small, white label which read, 'Dallas Police Crime Lab photo showing some of the belongings of Oswald. Several photos were taken of many items laid out on the basement property-room floor before they were released to the FBI. In the center of the photo is the small Minox camera located on top of the open camera case. The chain on the side was used to judge the distance from the item to be photographed.' "

The object in the evidence photograph "on top of the open camera case" is not a Minox camera. It is a rectangular metal box in which the top half opens and closes fixed on hinges. It is a Minox film cassette holder, inside of which would likely have been two Minox film cassettes reported found. 

The odd thing is that in First Day Evidence the evidence photo is presented as if it is proof the DPD was right and the FBI had destroyed DPD's Minox. First Day Evidence also says look at the photo: just above the camera case, there is the Minox camera--proof the FBI destroyed it. That is First Day Evidence.

The Carol Hewett article in Probe in 1996 knew of the DPD evidence photo and, says of that photograph in First Day Evidence the same thing as the Dallas Police, that the Minox camera is in that photograph. Hewett:

"[T]here were the photos made by the Dallas Police Crime Lab before the evidence was turned over to the FBI which shows the evidence grouped together on the floor of the police station and which depicts the Minox camera" (3rd paragraph of article). 

Except the Dallas Police, and the Carol Hewett article, blundered. The Dallas Police misidentified something that was not a Minox camera as a Minox camera. Did Carol Hewett carelessly believe what First Day Evidence said about the Minox camera being in that photo without verifying for herself, even though First Day Evidence did publish the blowup too? 

Eddy Bainbridge above asked a good question: what is the mechanism for officers making that kind of mistake.

Good question. How did Dallas Police screw that up, and then First Day Evidence? How did Carol Hewett get that most fundamental basic point wrong which is the linchpin of a vicious attack on Ruth Paine in that article, and without which the basis for that attack collapses? And then when the Dallas Police were correctly told they had screwed up the identifications by the FBI, the DPD doubled down and insisted they were right, and Carol Hewett would base her attack on Ruth Paine on saying the evidence proves it, this photo below proves it, see the Minox camera right there? Except its like the emperor's new clothes--it isn't there. 

I understand Carol Hewett has passed away. But it is within the ability of Jim DiEugenio to get this clarified and corrected, and retract the vicious smear on Ruth Paine of that article founded upon that mistake.

 

[John Butler]

There is the Minox case and the pedometer.  Where is the Minox camera that is supposed to be on top of the Minox case?  It's not there.  But, we do have cards or items with Michael Paine's name on them in plain sight.  Imagine that.  Oswald's camera early on is tagged as the Paine camera even before Ruth turns it in.  

Which leads me to believe this may be a recreated photo to emphasize Michael Paine had a Minox camera and Lee Harvey did not.  Can this be proven as a recreated photo?  No, in all likelihood this cannot be proven to be a recreation.  But, it is very, very suspicious!

A question one might ask on the authenticity of this photo is the missing Minox's reality.  Was the film found in the camera turned into the FBI by Ruth Paine months later belong to Michael Paine or Lee Oswald?

Alan J. Weberman says the film developed shows Lee Oswald and Gerry Hemming in the Philippines.  Hence, the camera and film belongs to Oswald.  According to Weberman, it is also the source of this photo:

  

We can see exactly what the Minox camera looked like.  Paine's or Oswald's?  I go with Oswald due to the film that was exposed by FOIA request by Alan J. Weberman shows things like this:

Weberman says Hemming is up to no good here by strangling a prisoner or showing a corpse.  Not really.  What you see Hemming doing is psychological misperception.  It is like the next photo.  Is it a young lady or old lady?

In the Hemming photo one generally sees the head of a prisoner.  Not really.  If you look closely it is simply Hemming's hand.

 

 

  

[John Butler]

Weberman in the Oswald Code goes on to say:

 

This shot of a Chinese funeral is important in understanding the film in the camera belonging to Oswald.  Michael Paine was never in a Chinese country such as Taiwan, Quemoy, or Matsu.

Someone who can read Japanese and Chinese needs to look at the Oswald/Paine military photos and determine whether the scenes of Chinese/Japanese photos are either Chinese or Japanese.

Oswald was in Japan, the Philippines, and Taiwan (Quemoy and Matsu maybe).  I think I recall someone writing that Oswald may have been in Korea since his records were there.  Maybe?  

Michael Paine was in Korea and Japan, but not China.  Paine was in Korea and Japan during the Korean War about 1952-53.  Did Michael Paine have undeveloped film for 10 years?

The last part of Page 13 is interesting in light of the Backyard Photos.  It details Oswald's camera knowledge and profiency.

Edited April 15, 2022 by John Butler

[Pete Mellor]

Curiouser & curiouser to quote Lewis Carroll.

I have to say that Greg has posted many interesting and thought provoking threads over past months which I have found both original and logical in their analysis of evidence in this case.  I may not be convinced of some of the theories that he has put forward, on Crafard for instance, but I certainly think these posts benefit the 'JFK Assassination debate'.

Pro or anti conspiracy has no bearing for me, it is his logical analysis of evidence that is important.

So, IS THERE, OR, IS THERE NOT, A MINOX CAMERA IN THE DPD EVIDENCE PHOTO?

A question that would be put to a jury in any Anglo-Saxon jurisdical proceeding.  Why the DPD could not photograph these items of evidence (in a case of such monumental importance) in a clear format with i.d. tags on each item, or even better, with each item photographed individually, instead of this hotch-potch ambiguous mess.  Did the DPD have no film for their cameras, like they had no voice recorders for their interviews?  I find it all very sus.

So, NO, there is not a Minox camera in the DPD evidence photo.......or your eyesight is better than mine Gunga Din!

[Michael Crane]

I have personally changed my opinion after seeing the picture blown up.The other picture that contains the long chain connected to the Minox camera convinces me that it is underneath the case.

[Michael Crane]

Hold that statement for just a second....

I'm going to give the height of those Michael Paine's cards a thickness of a 1/8 of a inch each at max.This puts the top of those cards at around 3/8 of an inch maximum sitting next to case which now appears to be on the ground & not an inch in the air.The linoleum made it look like the end of the camera.

Those Michael Paine cards are probably an 1/16 of an inch.

Edited April 15, 2022 by Michael Crane

[Paul Brancato]

On 4/11/2022 at 6:06 PM, Greg Doudna said:

There is a Minox camera case in the evidence photo taken by the Dallas Police Crime Lab, in the possession of Dallas Police Crime Lab officer Rusty Livingstone, unknown until published by his nephew Gary Savage in First Day Evidence in 1993. It is not a photograph taken by or ever belonged to Michael Paine. There are items of property of Michael Paine in that evidence photo--wrongly taken by police whose search warrant was for Oswald things not Michael's or Ruth's--but Michael Paine had nothing to do with that photograph.

But yes there is an empty Minox camera case but no Minox camera, in that DPD evidence photo, before those items were sent en masse to the FBI lab in Washington, D.C. 

this post has led to a discussion of whether or not there is a Minox in the photo, not whether or not Oswald had a Minox that the DPD recovered from his belongings. That is the way the thread was designed, but maybe it’s not the right question. Lack of photographic proof would weigh in on side of Oswald not having one, but cannot prove it, since it is only a moment in time. I don’t think we have enough information to prove that if the Minox is not in this particular photo then the DPD never took one into evidence, nor that Oswald didn’t own one.

[David G. Healy]

33 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

this post has led to a discussion of whether or not there is a Minox in the photo, not whether or not Oswald had a Minox that the DPD recovered from his belongings. That is the way the thread was designed, but maybe it’s not the right question. Lack of photographic proof would weigh in on side of Oswald not having one, but cannot prove it, since it is only a moment in time. I don’t think we have enough information to prove that if the Minox is not in this particular photo then the DPD never took one into evidence, nor that Oswald didn’t own one.

amen, Paul...

[Pete Mellor]

59 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

this post has led to a discussion of whether or not there is a Minox in the photo, not whether or not Oswald had a Minox that the DPD recovered from his belongings. That is the way the thread was designed, but maybe it’s not the right question. Lack of photographic proof would weigh in on side of Oswald not having one, but cannot prove it, since it is only a moment in time. I don’t think we have enough information to prove that if the Minox is not in this particular photo then the DPD never took one into evidence, nor that Oswald didn’t own one.

Paul, David, Greg's post is purely concerned with the DPD evidence photo to decide if a Minox can be seen.  Even with David Butler's quality pic, I for one cannot identify a Minox.

Questions of whether Oswald had a Minox in his seabag, or what film(s) were taken with the Minox, and by whom, or what belonged to Michael Paine, or what happened to the evidence at FBI HQ are Q's for further topics.

I completely agree with Paul:-"I don’t think we have enough information to prove that if the Minox is not in this particular photo then the DPD never took one into evidence, nor that Oswald didn’t own one."  but I have a feeling that question will be debated further.

[Greg Doudna]

What did the Dallas Police do with the MINOX LIGHT METER they collected as evidence on Fri Nov 22?

Some thoughtful comments, to which can be added this. A Minox light meter was found by Dallas police on Fri Nov 22. It is in the evidence photo below, lower right, in its open carrying case. Yet none of the original Dallas Police evidence lists--the handwritten inventory, the typed inventory, or the Dallas Police/FBI inventory--have a Minox light meter listed.

The Dallas Police definitely did take a Minox light meter from the Paine garage. (See evidence photo below.) What happened to it? Where did it go? Why is there no record of it in the Dallas Police lists?

Of course the FBI said they received a Minox light meter in the evidence the DPD sent, even though the Dallas Police Department insisted they never sent one. But set that aside, and focus on the Minox light meter in the evidence photo below.

What happened to it? Can anyone who does not think DPD sent a light meter to the FBI wrongly identified as a camera, explain where else it went? Because it did not end up on any DPD inventory list. 

And physical evidence, such as the light meter below, is not supposed to just vanish into thin air while in police custody, right? Where did that light meter go? 

FBI Special Agent Vincent Drain, FBI liaison with the Dallas Police Department:

"There was also a story about an alleged Minox camera. I'm well aware of what a Minox camera is because we used them. When we itemized all that material, I don't recall any Minox camera; however, the light meter would be easily mistaken for one by somebody that really didn't know and, at that point in time, I never knew the Dallas Police Department to use them. In fact, I would seriously doubt that the average officer would have known what one would have looked like. I'm not casting any reflection on them but, one must remember that, back then, those cameras were very expensive. A good one might cost between $500 and $700 something like that." (Vincent Drain, in Sneed, No More Silence [1998])

But for those here who do not think the Dallas Police Department (and an FBI man checking off on a list) could have mistaken a light meter for a camera, what did become of the light meter in the evidence photo below? What happened to it?

 

[Pete Mellor]

It was President Johnson's aide, Cliff Carter, who ordered DPD to
turn over all evidence to the FBI on Friday evening and there is
little doubt that it was LBJ who instructed Carter to phone DPD.

Chief Curry told the Commission, "Around midnight of Friday night we
agreed to let the FBI have all the evidence and they say they would
bring it to their laboratory and they would have an agent stand by and
when they were finished with it to return it to us." The Dallas
Police then gave all of the physical evidence, *without a written
inventory*, to FBI agent Vince Drain who departed from Carswell Air
Force Base aboard a C-130 tanker at 3:10 A.M. for Washington, D.C.
(SA Drain DID NOT testify before the Warren Commission.)

From the testimony of Jesse Curry the WC learned that the FBI had
taken Oswald's possessions to Washington D.C., during the early
morning hours of November 23rd. As seasoned lawyers, the Commission
members and their staff understood the "custodial chain of evidence"
from the DPD to the FBI had been broken. There was no written record
of the items taken by the FBI to Washington on November 23rd, nor was
there a written record of the items returned to the Dallas Police
three days later (November 26th).

James Cadigan, and FBI document specialist, received the confiscated
items (Oswald's possessions) at FBI headquarters in Washington. When
Cadigan first testified before the Warren Commission, the only
Commission member present was former CIA director Allen Dulles.
Cadigan said, "Initially, the first big batch of evidence was brought
into the laboratory on November 23 and this consisted of many, many
items......It was a very large quantity of evidence that was brought
in."

Commission attorney Melvin Eisenberg learned just how many items that
the FBI received when he asked Cadigan if he remembered one particular
item. Cadigan said, "On November 23, when the vast bulk of this
material came in it was photographed....to select one item out of
four or five hundred, I cannot, in all honesty say I definitely
recalled seeing this...." Eisenberg now knew that "four or five
hundred" items of evidence, which belonged to Oswald were brought
into the FBI laboratory on November 23rd. He also knew that no
inventory list accompanied these items from Dallas to FBI Headquarters
(Nov. 23) or from FBI Headquarters to Dallas (Nov. 26).

More Alice in Blunderland.

[James DiEugenio]

I just noted something that I had not before. 

That picture was posed by the DPD's Rusty Livingstone?

OMG.  This is the guy who in 1993 said he had discovered a set of trigger guard  fingerprints--never before seen-- which  PBS then used to convict Oswald, in a show produced by the late Mike Sullivan.

The problem was simple: they were not another set of fingerprints.  They were blow ups of a previous set.

Coincidence?  I doubt it.

 

Two other points, that article that Sandy found about this subject, it discounts to an alarming degree the role of the Paines in the Minox charade.  And to add to what Sandy was saying the issue is important in not just discerning who Oswald was.  But also in showing just how corrupt the FBI was on this case and how eagerly the Paines were to help them e.g. the letter to the Russian embassy which helped make the case that Oswald was in Mexico City and at the Cuban embassy.

Second, i have seen a photo where the Minox is visible.  That is not necessary to prove it was there on the 23rd, since we have documents and eyewitness testimony, but GD wants to press this on just that ground so it acquits the Paines.  Which Carol's article makes just about impossible.  I mean when you have Hoover calling Dallas and saying see this lady to help fix the problem, that is pretty incriminating.  And its too bad Spence did not use it at the Showtime trial of Oswald.

FInally, the last time he brought this up I did not get abusive with him.  I told him quite plainly that every time I brought up a piece of evidence to show it was Oswald's camera, he said something like "OK, but what about this?"  I complained that this was like moving the goalposts back for a field goal attempt after I made the kick.  

 

PS to see what GD is up to note the other thread he just started.  We had been through that issue also.

 

Edited April 16, 2022 by James DiEugenio

[Greg Doudna]

Jim DiEugenio, in the past you have said you would criminally charge Ruth Paine for what you believe was her being part of a criminal conspiracy with the FBI to fabricate a false claim that her husband Michael owned the Minox camera she and he said he did, the one in the coffee can. Do you still hold to that?

Does it ever occur to you that you may have accused an innocent person? Does that thought never cross your mind, in your quiet moments?

You see a Dallas Police Department evidence photo in front of your eyes, unquestionably authentic. The photo was not taken by Rusty Livingston but by the crime lab, Day and Stringer, and Livingston made a first-generation copy for himself. Its chain of custody is as clean as it gets at the time of publication of First Day Evidence. The Minox camera is not there. 

To that, and I commend you for giving a response to the question, you say you have seen a photo of the Minox. No you haven't.

And you say it doesn't matter whether it is in the photo, because it may have existed but not be in the photo, Paul Brancato's point. While remotely possible, how likely is that? I mean, the crime lab wants to photograph all the evidence, lays the evidence out on that floor, why would they purposely leave the camera out of the picture? Does that make sense?

But then there is the light meter which is in the DPD photo before sending evidence to FBI in Washington, and which FBI says it received from Dallas DPD after getting the evidence sent to them, but which is nowhere on the evidence lists and which DPD denies it sent. And yet the light meter FBI says it received from DPD's shipment is identified by Michael Paine as his light meter, the same light meter that is in the DPD evidence photo before DPD shipped.

Can you consider the possibility that DPD's paperwork might have some minor mistakes, rather than that Ruth Paine and the entire agency of the FBI was part of an extraordinarily serious criminal conspiracy to literally fabricate a claim that her husband Michael owned a Minox camera (and the rest of that Minox camera equipment)? 

And finally, on tone. I have noticed you don't take difference of views well, but seem to think it necessary to bludgeon opposing views from being listened to by attempting to discredit the speaker. Please stop it. You have sought to implant into the air claims that I am about to out myself as a lone-nutter, which is not true. People echo and channel what you put into the air like that. Please stop it.

I would not be talking about Ruth Paine issues if I had not seen horrible things said of her which do not match the Ruth Paine I knew, a decent and honorable woman. 

Edited April 17, 2022 by Greg Doudna

[John Butler]

On 4/11/2022 at 2:35 PM, Jonathan Cohen said:

But which Oswald is it, I ask "Harvey and Lee" theorists?

Lee in Japan.  That's not a problem for either side of the debate.