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

[John Butler]

4 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

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.

A fair summary.  I read that only Minox film can be used in a Minox camera.  Alan Weberman had the Minox camera film developed by the National Archives.  Oswald had a Minox camera.  The barracks film and others in the Philippines prove that.  And, he had one long before he met the Paines.  There should be no doubt that he had one.

I asked the question would the DPD officers know what a Minox camera was?  Maybe or maybe not.  The FBI would certainly know since they were also in the spy business.  The photo in question may be one that the FBI requested and one that is missing the camera due to FBI interference.  The fingerprints corruption and conclusion between the DPD and the FBI is all over the Kennedy assassination.

[Ron Bulman]

If O had a Minox light box, what good would it do him without the same brand specific camera, way out of his price range?

[Ron Bulman]

5 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

GD wants to press this on just that ground so it acquits the Paines.  Which Carol's article makes just about impossible.

The Paines are not acquit able.  They both committed perjury before the Warren Commission Jmo  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

t

[Greg Doudna]

38 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

If O had a Minox light box, what good would it do him without the same brand specific camera, way out of his price range?

Oswald never had any Minox light meter, so the question does not arise. That was all Michael Paine's Minox equipment in that evidence photo.

[Greg Doudna]

3 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

The Paines are not acquit able.  They both committed perjury before the Warren Commission Jmo  

They are acquittable of conspiring with the FBI to fabricate a claim that Michael Paine owned the Minox camera which he owned, if they didn't do it, which is the charge under discussion.

[James DiEugenio]

I think there will be something upcoming soon at K and K further on Ruth.

Wait until GD sees that one.

He will need anti -nausea medication.

[Denny Zartman]

26 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

I think there will be something upcoming soon at K and K further on Ruth.

Wait until GD sees that one.

He will need anti -nausea medication.

I look forward to reading it.

[John Butler]

9 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

They are acquittable of conspiring with the FBI to fabricate a claim that Michael Paine owned the Minox camera which he owned, if they didn't do it, which is the charge under discussion.

Michael Paine may have owned a Minox camera.  But, Oswald did also.  There is valid proof that this is so developed by Alan J. Weberman at the National Archives upon a FOIA request.  One thing Ron Bulman didn't say.  Is why was there a Minox camera case in the photo with no Minox camera on display?  It was said to be on top of the camera case.  This indicates that more than one photo was taken.

If it was in a coffee can then why didn't Ruth give it to the DPD officers when they were there on the 22nd.  If that was Michael Paine's camera, it had film that could be 10 years old in it.  How so?  Well the rest of his photos mixed in with Oswald's were from 10 years in the past.  There were fairly recent European vacation photos that one would have to determine were they Paine's or Oswalds.    

There is one question one might ask.  Why were the officers from the DPD confiscating Michael Paine's possessions?  He didn't commit a crime, nor was he a suspect in the Kennedy assassination.  Was Ruth just a good old girl taking revenge on her estranged husband?  Why would she mix her husband's possessions with those of Oswald and give them to the police?  And, why did it take so long for Ruth to find and turn in to the FBI the camera?  

Direct evidence in court is witness testimony or any report they made concerning an incident.  DPD officers saw a Minox camera and took it from Oswald's seabag.  They reported that is what happened.  They didn't change their testimony when pressured to do so by the FBI.  

[Greg Doudna]

9 hours ago, John Butler said:

If it was in a coffee can then why didn't Ruth give it to the DPD officers when they were there on the 22nd. 

Yes--why would Ruth not give her husband Michael's Minox camera to Dallas police officers who were scooping up belongings of Oswald out of her house? Why indeed? She also did not give Dallas police officers Michael's car, Michael's clothes, Michael's band saw in the garage, Michael's toothbrush, or any other of her husband's property to officers. Why not?

The reason is that the police were not seeking, and had no right to take, property belonging to Michael or Ruth Paine. And a second reason, in addition, would be that Ruth Paine had not been asked.  

The question is like the central argument of the 1996 Carol Hewett article alleging that Ruth Paine engaged in a sophisticated criminal conspiracy in which she wilfully fabricated a false claim that her husband owned a Minox camera in his own house. Some on this forum have urged that Ruth Paine merits prosecution and being put behind bars for doing such a thing--for falsely claiming her husband owned the inoperable Minox camera in the coffee can Ruth gave to the FBI at their request in Jan 1964.

Someone else here chimes in that Ruth Paine CANNOT--CANNOT--be acquitted of the charge of falsely claiming her husband owned a Minox camera, because (it is asserted) Ruth Paine is supposed to have perjured herself on some unrelated matter somewhere else. Makes perfect sense! 

Carol Hewett wrote that it can be known that Ruth Paine's claim cannot be true that her husband owned the Minox camera in the coffee can that she gave to the FBI when asked, and here is the reasoning:

"Dallas FBI Agent Bardwell Odum on January 30, 1964, contacted Ruth Paine to inquire into whether the Paines owned a Minox camera. Ruth recollected that her husband had a Minox which he had dropped into salt water several years ago; she was sure that he had thrown it away but she would ask him about it and get back to him.
She also stated that the police took a Minox camera case along with a light meter belonging to Michael which may or may not have been a Minox light meter. The next day on January 31, 1964, Ruth Paine called Odum to tell him that her husband still had the camera and that it was in a coffee can in the garage. If this was true, one would have to conclude that the local police not only did a poor job of searching the garage the weekend of the assassination but also fabricated the Minox camera on both its inventory list and joint DPD/FBI list. Since this was not the case, the collusion of the Paines is readily apparent." (Hewett, "The Paine's Participation in the Minox Camera Charade")

Carol Hewett was an attorney. How could she have made this scale of blunder, to think that it is proof of a police failure in search for person Y's property that they failed to confiscate some property of person Z without a search warrant and whose property was not of interest to the police to collect in the first place? And to cite "since that was not the case" (that police could not possibly have neglected to take some private citizen's property other than Oswald's of police interest and within scope of search warrant) as proof that Ruth Paine is guilty?

The reason Ruth Paine told the FBI of her husband's inoperable Minox camera in Jan 1964, and then gave it to the FBI, is because it was her husband's camera and they asked. What a CRIME that was on Ruth Paine's part, according to the Carol Hewett article and the uncritical repeaters of that article today!

To echo Jonathan Cohen's worthy words, if newcomers come to this forum looking for serious discussion and inquiry concerning the JFK assassination criminal conspiracy, and see this kind of reasoning, what will they think? 

Jim DiEugenio, are you in your heart of hearts certain Michael Paine never owned the Minox camera in that coffee can that Ruth and Michael both said Michael owned? Do you know that? Do you truly have no internal uncertainty in your condemnations of Ruth Paine based on that premise?

 

22 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

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. 

 

[David G. Healy]

2 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

[...]

To echo Jonathan Cohen's worthy words, if newcomers come to this forum looking for serious discussion and inquiry concerning the JFK assassination criminal conspiracy, and see this kind of reasoning, what will they think?

[...]

ahhh, wonder why you have to seek solace and hide behind another lone nut, 1964 WCR conclusion excuse maker/cartel, maybe?

When is your book coming out?

[Greg Doudna]

13 hours ago, David G. Healy said:

ahhh, wonder why you have to seek solace and hide behind another lone nut, 1964 WCR conclusion excuse maker/cartel, maybe?

When is your book coming out?

In all seriousness, I did not know he was LN. Comment still stands though.

Update: Jonathan Cohen has denied that Healy's characterization of him as LN is truthful.

Edited April 18, 2022 by Greg Doudna

[John Butler]

13 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Yes--why would Ruth not give her husband Michael's Minox camera to Dallas police officers who were scooping up belongings of Oswald out of her house? Why indeed? She also did not give Dallas police officers Michael's car, Michael's clothes, Michael's band saw in the garage, Michael's toothbrush, or any other of her husband's property to officers. Why not?

But, the Minox camera, camera case, pedometer, compass, photos, and film were alleged to be Michael Paine's.  Those items were mixed in with Oswald's possessions.  Ruth gave them up.  There were cards/items in that photo that had Michael Paine's name on them suggesting by association that the items nearby were Michael Paine's.  Was Ruth or Michael saying that Michael was a spy?  Were they saying he was an intelligence agent? 

13 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

"Dallas FBI Agent Bardwell Odum on January 30, 1964, contacted Ruth Paine to inquire into whether the Paines owned a Minox camera. Ruth recollected that her husband had a Minox which he had dropped into salt water several years ago; she was sure that he had thrown it away but she would ask him about it and get back to him.
She also stated that the police took a Minox camera case along with a light meter belonging to Michael which may or may not have been a Minox light meter. The next day on January 31, 1964, Ruth Paine called Odum to tell him that her husband still had the camera and that it was in a coffee can in the garage. If this was true, one would have to conclude that the local police not only did a poor job of searching the garage the weekend of the assassination but also fabricated the Minox camera on both its inventory list and joint DPD/FBI list. Since this was not the case, the collusion of the Paines is readily apparent." (Hewett, "The Paine's Participation in the Minox Camera Charade")

I do believe this states the problem very well.  Ruth was there while the police were searching on the day of the assassination.  She pointed out the blanket that Oswald wrapped his alleged rifle and other things.  All of Michael's alleged camera material, etc was given by Ruth to the DPD officials.   Michael Paine was not a suspect.  Why did Ruth give his possessions to the police?  Surely, she could have said "Oh, these photos are ones Micheal and I took in Europe on vacation".  Or, maybe these are Michael's possessions and you can't take these.

Correct me if I am wrong, it is my belief that the Minox cameras, spy cameras, were not available to the general public.  They were only for the intelligence community.  Minox cameras could only use Minox film.  If these were spy cameras only, where would one get the film for their use?  Again, Michael Paine the spy in the house?  Or, Oswald?

Minox cameras were made to photograph up close objects such as documents or photos.  This was generally done on the sly and in low illumination, hence, the light meter.  They were small cameras easily hidden in one's clothes.  They could be used to film something at a distance as a regular 35 mm camera could.  But, I don't believe as well. 

It was suggested by someone that Oswald used his Minox to film U2 photos of Cuba at Jaggers, Chile, Stovall.   Actually, they were satellite photos.  This fact was routinely hidden in history books and from the public until the 1990s.  What did Michael Paine use his Minox spy camera for?  Vacation photos in Europe?  Home photos near the ocean? 

   

 

Edited April 18, 2022 by John Butler

[John Butler]

13 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

To echo Jonathan Cohen's worthy words, if newcomers come to this forum looking for serious discussion and inquiry concerning the JFK assassination criminal conspiracy, and see this kind of reasoning, what will they think? 

Indeed.  What will they think?  What will they think reading Jonathan, Greg's, and others similar work?  Would they think what I am thinking?  I can't say what I am really thinking for fear of running afoul of the Forum's rules.  

[Jonathan Cohen]

11 hours ago, David G. Healy said:

ahhh, wonder why you have to seek solace and hide behind another lone nut, 1964 WCR conclusion excuse maker/cartel, maybe?

More evidence that David Healy has no clue what he's talking about. I do not believe in the "lone nut, 1964 WCR conclusion," and have said so here on this forum multiple times.

[Jonathan Cohen]

30 minutes ago, John Butler said:

Indeed.  What will they think?  What will they think reading Jonathan, Greg's, and others similar work?  Would they think what I am thinking?  I can't say what I am really thinking for fear of running afoul of the Forum's rules.  

They'll think what an overwhelming majority of forum members and the worldwide community of assassination researchers think: that your theories about cars with their roofs going in the wrong direction, multiple Marguerite Oswalds prancing around the United States and "Harvey face masks" added to the Dealey Plaza photo record are an embarrassment to serious study of the Kennedy assassination.