The incredible allegation that Ruth Paine did surveillance on Castro sympathizers

[Kirk Gallaway]

14 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Of all the nonsensical posts on this forum, this doozy by Sandy Larsen takes the cake. Do you actually expect us to believe that "CIA asset" Ruth Paine was permitted to testify at length in front of the Warren Commission and then proceed to give interviews to journalists and researchers for the next 59 years? Is the CIA in the habit of exposing their valuable assets in public forums for decades on end? Regarding your preposterous "pure speculation" that Ruth Paine pretended to be a Quaker, the less said about that, the better.

 

You know I was just curious. Does anybody here think the Paine's husband and wife handling of the assassination and  executing their apparent job of incriminating Lee Harvey Oswald  immediately after and the year following the assassination with their testimony to the Warren Commission, was maybe the inspiration for male female counterpart relationship in the TV series "Get Smart?"

 

Hello Max, I see you're here. what do you think?

 

[Sandy Larsen]

15 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Of all the nonsensical posts on this forum, this doozy by Sandy Larsen takes the cake. Do you actually expect us to believe that "CIA asset" Ruth Paine was permitted to testify at length in front of the Warren Commission ...

 

The assassination plotters knew very well that some of their assets would be questioned by the FBI after the assassination. But why worry about that? The vast majority of their assets, including Ruth Paine, knew nothing about the assassination plot. They couldn't squeal about it even if they wanted to. (Remember, everything in the CIA is compartmentalized on a need-to-know basis.)

It was only after the assassination that the assassination plotter knew about the Warren Commission. Ruth was an important witness, and the CIA had no say in whether she could be questioned. But why would the CIA care? She had no knowledge of the plot.

 

15 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

....and then proceed to give interviews to journalists and researchers for the next 59 years? Is the CIA in the habit of exposing their valuable assets in public forums for decades on end?

 

The interviews were about Ruth's time with the Oswalds. She didn't know anything about the assassination plot.

 

[Greg Doudna]

20 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

The assassination plotters knew very well that some of their assets would be questioned by the FBI after the assassination. But why worry about that? The vast majority of their assets, including Ruth Paine, knew nothing about the assassination plot. They couldn't squeal about it even if they wanted to. (Remember, everything in the CIA is compartmentalized on a need-to-know basis.)

It was only after the assassination that the assassination plotter knew about the Warren Commission. Ruth was an important witness, and the CIA had no say in whether she could be questioned. But why would the CIA care? She had no knowledge of the plot.

But Sandy, didn't you say earlier that you believe Ruth Paine called the Texas School Book Depository's Truly at the behest of CIA handlers, to place Oswald there? Of course there is no evidence anyone put Ruth Paine up to that phone call other than Linnie Mae Randle and Marina. But assume for the moment your scenario: would not Ruth at the point of learning of the assassination realize that she had been "used" by the ones who assassinated President Kennedy? How would her handlers be assured that she would react well to that realization, go along with willingness to forge and fabricate evidence, commit flagrant massive perjury under oath etc and etc and etc and never "tell" or have qualms of conscience?

And when I asked how Linnie Mae Randle telling Ruth Paine of the TSBD job possibility prompting Ruth's call was accounted for, I understood you to say Linnie Mae must have been an asset too, she must have had a handler too. When I asked how could it be assured that Roy Truly at TSBD would hire Oswald simply because some woman in Irving he had never met cold-called and asked, I understood you to answer that Roy Truly also must have been an asset and have a handler too. So now it is up to three assets and three handlers.

Now you say in your scheme none of these assets knew they were part of the assassination before the assassination. But would it not stand to reason (internal to your scheme) that after the assassination they surely would know what had happened, would be able to figure it out? Then what would they do with that knowledge? How would it be ensured that none of those three would reveal the prior machinations of their handlers to have them manipulate Oswald into applying for the TSBD job? How would their willingness to perjure themselves--a crime risking stiff criminal penalties--concerning their knowledge of unusual circumstances of Lee's TSBD hiring--be ensured in advance? 

When difficulties escalate in trying to make sense of a reconstruction for which there is no evidence to begin with, at a certain point that calls the likelihood of the reconstruction into question. In this case the question is: did Ruth Paine have unseen secret handlers instruct her to make a phone call to try to help Lee get a job--or was it the much less exciting but much more humanly realistic version, the version Ruth has always said, in which Ruth learned of the possibility of TSBD employment from Wesley Frazier's sister Linnie Mae Randle, then picked up the telephone on her own (and with Marina's urging) to try to help Lee get a job? 

[Gene Kelly]

Jeff Carter

Your summary of how the Warren Commission and Wesley Liebeler handled the subject of file cabinets found in Paine's home is well stated.  The downplay or avoidance of the entire topic is quite revealing in itself.  Not only of what the discovery implies (which will be eternally debated), but the suppression of certain inconvenient facts (my emphasis) by the WC. And as you so succinctly state, all of this other noise is simply spin doctoring.

The only “report” is the Supplementary Investigation Report, written by Walthers and dated November 22, 1963. The other so-called “evidence”, in context of Walthers’ description of “names and activities of Cuban sympathizers”, is, at best, an inference made by Warren Commission attorney Liebeler. The Commission had clearly noted Walthers’ description, as seen in the Rumors and Speculation section of the WR, but Liebeler notably failed to directly address this issue when he had Walthers before him.

In fact, neither Liebeler or the Rumors and Speculation segment of the WR identify or refer to Walthers’ Report, despite it being the primary document on this matter. This failure, combined with the Commission’s careful language identifying “seven” boxes, indicates a deliberate process of making an inconvenient data point disappear.  Pleadings that Walthers’ original Report had been superseded by other “evidence” appears as little more than partisan spin. 

It is also interesting that the metal file cabinets did not make it onto the Dallas Police inventory sheets, nor was it entered into evidence alongside Lee Harvey Oswald's belongings.  Simple logic would conclude that the files belonged to the Paines. We have written statements - in the form of Dallas County Sheriff's Department, Supplementary Investigation Reports (more facts) - from three different sheriff's deputies (Walters, J. L. Oxford, and Harry Weatherford). Reading the literal WC testimony, it certainly appears that Liebeler prompted Walthers to backtrack on specifically what he had found in Paine's home, and then made it disappear in the "Speculation and Rumors" section of the WC report. I don't see how these intriguing facts would be considered as "speculation". Walthers later told author Eric Tagg that they "found six or seven metal filing cabinets full of letters, maps, records and index cards with names of pro-Castro sympathizers.”

It is also of interest that Jim Garrison unsuccessfully tried to persuade Walthers to testify at the Clay Shaw trial in February 1969; but in June 1968, Walthers reported a bombing outside his home in Oak Cliff (perhaps an attempt to warn him off).  And on January 10, 1969, Eddy Raymond (Buddy) Walthers was sent to a motel to question an escaped convict suspected of a double murder, where he was shot dead at age 40.  

There are several useful references about Buddy Walthers: “Brush with History: A Day in the Life of Deputy E.R. Walthers” (1998) by Eric Tagg; “E.R. Walthers: Searching for the Evidence: The Witnesses" (a website created by George Washington University's Digital History course, taught by Dr. Diane Cline); and "When They Kill a President (1971) by Roger Craig. Craig claimed that Walthers success was a result of the close relationship he enjoyed with Bill Decker, the sheriff of Dallas. Craig's account of Walthers is not very complimentary:

Buddy soon was promoted to detective. He had absolutely no ability as a law enforcement officer. However, he was fast climbing the ladder of success by lying to Decker and squealing on his fellow officers. Walthers' ambition was to become Sheriff of Dallas County, and he would do anything or anybody to reach that goal. It was very clear Buddy enjoyed more job security with Decker than anyone else did. Decker carried him for years by breaking a case for him or taking a case which had been broken by another officer and putting Walthers' name on the arrest sheet.

Gene

 

[Joe Bauer]

1 hour ago, Gene Kelly said:

Jeff Carter

Your summary of how the Warren Commission and Wesley Liebeler handled the subject of file cabinets found in Paine's home is well stated.  The downplay or avoidance of the entire topic is quite revealing in itself.  Not only of what the discovery implies (which will be eternally debated), but the suppression of certain inconvenient facts (my emphasis) by the WC. And as you so succinctly state, all of this other noise is simply spin doctoring.

The only “report” is the Supplementary Investigation Report, written by Walthers and dated November 22, 1963. The other so-called “evidence”, in context of Walthers’ description of “names and activities of Cuban sympathizers”, is, at best, an inference made by Warren Commission attorney Liebeler. The Commission had clearly noted Walthers’ description, as seen in the Rumors and Speculation section of the WR, but Liebeler notably failed to directly address this issue when he had Walthers before him.

In fact, neither Liebeler or the Rumors and Speculation segment of the WR identify or refer to Walthers’ Report, despite it being the primary document on this matter. This failure, combined with the Commission’s careful language identifying “seven” boxes, indicates a deliberate process of making an inconvenient data point disappear.  Pleadings that Walthers’ original Report had been superseded by other “evidence” appears as little more than partisan spin. 

It is also interesting that the metal file cabinets did not make it onto the Dallas Police inventory sheets, nor was it entered into evidence alongside Lee Harvey Oswald's belongings.  Simple logic would conclude that the files belonged to the Paines. We have written statements - in the form of Dallas County Sheriff's Department, Supplementary Investigation Reports (more facts) - from three different sheriff's deputies (Walters, J. L. Oxford, and Harry Weatherford). Reading the literal WC testimony, it certainly appears that Liebeler prompted Walthers to backtrack on specifically what he had found in Paine's home, and then made it disappear in the "Speculation and Rumors" section of the WC report. I don't see how these intriguing facts would be considered as "speculation". Walthers later told author Eric Tagg that they "found six or seven metal filing cabinets full of letters, maps, records and index cards with names of pro-Castro sympathizers.”

It is also of interest that Jim Garrison unsuccessfully tried to persuade Walthers to testify at the Clay Shaw trial in February 1969; but in June 1968, Walthers reported a bombing outside his home in Oak Cliff (perhaps an attempt to warn him off).  And on January 10, 1969, Eddy Raymond (Buddy) Walthers was sent to a motel to question an escaped convict suspected of a double murder, where he was shot dead at age 40.  

There are several useful references about Buddy Walthers: “Brush with History: A Day in the Life of Deputy E.R. Walthers” (1998) by Eric Tagg; “E.R. Walthers: Searching for the Evidence: The Witnesses" (a website created by George Washington University's Digital History course, taught by Dr. Diane Cline); and "When They Kill a President (1971) by Roger Craig. Craig claimed that Walthers success was a result of the close relationship he enjoyed with Bill Decker, the sheriff of Dallas. Craig's account of Walthers is not very complimentary:

Buddy soon was promoted to detective. He had absolutely no ability as a law enforcement officer. However, he was fast climbing the ladder of success by lying to Decker and squealing on his fellow officers. Walthers' ambition was to become Sheriff of Dallas County, and he would do anything or anybody to reach that goal. It was very clear Buddy enjoyed more job security with Decker than anyone else did. Decker carried him for years by breaking a case for him or taking a case which had been broken by another officer and putting Walthers' name on the arrest sheet.

Gene

 

Very interesting. 

[Greg Doudna]

Gene, Jeff Carter's narrative which you have bought is seriously misleading. This is not a case of the Walthers' first-day report sentence being the primary document which stands until Liebeler of the WC in 1964 incompletely helps it disappear. Not at all. The evidence concerning the metal file boxes taken from Ruth's bedroom and the contents therein is in Dallas police and FBI documents and has nothing to do with Liebeler or the "Rumors and Speculation" thing. That is simply misleading.

1 hour ago, Gene Kelly said:

It is also interesting that the metal file cabinets did not make it onto the Dallas Police inventory sheets, nor was it entered into evidence alongside Lee Harvey Oswald's belongings.  Simple logic would conclude that the files belonged to the Paines.

Absolutely the opposite of the facts Gene.

From DPD's Rose-Stovall-Adamcik list of property they took from the Ruth Paine house on Fri Nov 22: https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/DPDlist22.htm. 

• 1 Electric bill from New Orleans
• 1 Uneployment insurance stub
• 1 Russian mag. 
• 1 Book from Sears Tower slide projector
• 1 Russian .35 mm camera and brown case
• 1 Plastic bag Russian papers and New Orleans Paper
• 1 Blue notebook with Cuba papers and other papers of Communistic nature 
• 1 Grey metal file box 12" x 6" youth pictures and literature 
• 1 Black and grey metal box 10" x 4" letters, etc. 
• 1 Box brown Keystone projector 
• 3 Brown metal boxes 12" x 4" containing phonograph records 
• 1 Blue check telephone index book (addresses) 
• 1 Bracket (Instruction for mounting)
• 1 Book white paper back (Russian)
• 1 Roll Kodak film

And for you to cite "simple logic" concerning their ownership sounds as if you are unaware that officer Gus Rose testified he found them in Ruth Paine's bedroom, Ruth Paine testified they were entirely hers, FBI documents tells of Ruth Paine's contents found in those file boxes. There is no need to invoke inductive "logic" when there is an abundant documentary record. I believe the reason you are unaware of this is because of uncritically buying Jeff Carter's narrative which skips right over all of the above.

1 hour ago, Gene Kelly said:

Walthers later told author Eric Tagg that they "found six or seven metal filing cabinets full of letters, maps, records and index cards with names of pro-Castro sympathizers.”

I think its pretty clear from reading Tagg that he was not citing later information obtained from Walthers, but was reciting what was previously published without adding new Walthers' statements to it. So there is nothing new added from Walthers, and it does not function as adding independent weight or corroboration to the written sources from which it draws. In fact I am not aware of a single documented Walthers' comment or statement about the matter later than the sentence in his first-day report. Bear in mind that the other sheriff's deputies that day, plus Gus Rose of DPD, all wrote and spoke of finding the same metal file boxes and none of them, either then or later, claimed what Walthers did concerning the contents of what they found. It is not as if that Walthers' sentence ever had legs or traction to begin with, including from Walthers subsequently.

That is where the focus of critical reasoning attention should be, not on Liebeler who is not relevant to this evidentiary record which precedes Liebeler and has nothing to do with Liebeler.

I know you are personally decent and sincere but honestly, the misinformation is coming from the side defending this mountain out of a molehill built out of Walthers' first-day sentence which for whatever reason was simply a first-day error, on a continuum with other law enforcement sloppiness and errors that first weekend that turned out not to be accurate. Again, Liebeler is irrelevant. Walthers' statement under oath that he never even saw what it was he said in that first-day sentence and had no personal knowledge of those metal boxes' contents is, however, relevant--and even if one chooses completely arbitrarily to reject and dismiss and refuse to believe Walthers' sworn testimony under oath there, simple basic ethics calls to at least disclose to listening or reading audiences that Walthers said that, if one is going to cite that Walthers' first-day sentence as incrimination of Ruth Paine. But that is not done.

It would be as if documentaries on the JFK assassination would present as fact today that Oswald's paraffin test proved Oswald fired a rifle on Nov 22, 1963--citing original first- or second-day statement of Dallas police--without disclosure that that was later openly retracted and acknowledged to be in error. What kind of words would any reasonable person have for that kind of tactic if a documentary did that in 2022? It is the same in this case.

[James DiEugenio]

I would have to agree, nice work Jeff.

I think its pretty clear that Liebeler was, at the very least, obfuscating.

[Sandy Larsen]

On 6/19/2022 at 12:17 AM, Greg Doudna said:

But Sandy, didn't you say earlier that you believe Ruth Paine called the Texas School Book Depository's Truly at the behest of CIA handlers, to place Oswald there? Of course there is no evidence anyone put Ruth Paine up to that phone call other than Linnie Mae Randle and Marina. But assume for the moment your scenario: would not Ruth at the point of learning of the assassination realize that she had been "used" by the ones who assassinated President Kennedy? How would her handlers be assured that she would react well to that realization, go along with willingness to forge and fabricate evidence, commit flagrant massive perjury under oath etc and etc and etc and never "tell" or have qualms of conscience?

And when I asked how Linnie Mae Randle telling Ruth Paine of the TSBD job possibility prompting Ruth's call was accounted for, I understood you to say Linnie Mae must have been an asset too, she must have had a handler too. When I asked how could it be assured that Roy Truly at TSBD would hire Oswald simply because some woman in Irving he had never met cold-called and asked, I understood you to answer that Roy Truly also must have been an asset and have a handler too. So now it is up to three assets and three handlers.

Now you say in your scheme none of these assets knew they were part of the assassination before the assassination. But would it not stand to reason (internal to your scheme) that after the assassination they surely would know what had happened, would be able to figure it out? Then what would they do with that knowledge? How would it be ensured that none of those three would reveal the prior machinations of their handlers to have them manipulate Oswald into applying for the TSBD job? How would their willingness to perjure themselves--a crime risking stiff criminal penalties--concerning their knowledge of unusual circumstances of Lee's TSBD hiring--be ensured in advance? 

When difficulties escalate in trying to make sense of a reconstruction for which there is no evidence to begin with, at a certain point that calls the likelihood of the reconstruction into question. In this case the question is: did Ruth Paine have unseen secret handlers instruct her to make a phone call to try to help Lee get a job--or was it the much less exciting but much more humanly realistic version, the version Ruth has always said, in which Ruth learned of the possibility of TSBD employment from Wesley Frazier's sister Linnie Mae Randle, then picked up the telephone on her own (and with Marina's urging) to try to help Lee get a job? 

 

Greg,

As I said earlier, there is very strong circumstantial evidence that the CIA directed Ruth Paine to suggest to Oswald to apply for the job at the TSBD. I believe that the CIA directed Oswald to follow Ruth's advice. (They would do it that way in order to maintain Ruth's and Oswald's fronts, and to keep their respective CIA jobs compartmented.)

Given that, let's suppose for a moment that we can read Ruth's mind after the assassination. What would she think? Following is how I think her thinking would progress.

Ruth and Michael hear news reports of the assassination, and that it is suspected that the shots came the TSBD.

Ruth had already suspected that Oswald was, or might be, a CIA asset... a natural assumption given that the CIA was directing her to interface with him. She had just gotten him a job at the TSBD for the CIA and now the president was killed by somebody there.

Naturally she was concerned that somehow Oswald was involved in the assassination. Maybe he even shot the president himself! If so, the CIA was probably behind the assassination plot. Or, upon thinking more positively, maybe Oswald was there to thwart the assassination attempt, but failed. Or, hopefully it's just a big coincidence.

Then they hear Oswald was arrested. Well, there goes the hopeful thinking.

Now, the assassination plot was designed to have the U.S. government believe that Cuba and Russia were the perpetrators. But instead the government decides to cover that plot up (which they may not have believed anyway) and nip the conspiracy rumors in the bud by making Oswald the lone gunman.

The Feds gather evidence from the Paines and get their statements.

Then, some time before the Warren Commission hearing, the Feds hold a secret meeting with the Paines and confides with them that the evidence indicates that the assassination was the result of a communist conspiracy. They fear that if this information is revealed, it will likely lead to a nuclear showdown and WW3. The Feds ask the Paines to cooperate with them in placing the full blame behind the alleged and now-dead shooter, Lee Harvey Oswald. It was there patriotic duty to cooperate.

Well of course the Paines would go along with that. Who wants WW3?

But the question for us is this: What would Ruth Paine be thinking about Oswald after that? And about the CIA? And the U.S. government?

I think that Ruth would be very confused at this point. The U.S. government -- who she'd probably believe above all -- say it was a communist plot. Oswald had shown some interest in communism, having once defected to Russia. So yes, he could have shot the president for the communists. (Whoever exactly they are.) But then, why did the CIA direct her to get Oswald the job at the TSBD? She thought Oswald was a CIA asset, not a communist. And that he was not a Kennedy hater.

Ruth probably had no idea what to make of all this. I think she was confused and believed only what the government told her. And that the lying she did for the WC helped the U.S. government in their fight against communism. Which is what she had always done for the government.

Ruth would have had no reason to quit working for the CIA.

 

[Jonathan Cohen]

3 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Greg,

As I said earlier, there is very strong circumstantial evidence that the CIA directed Ruth Paine to suggest to Oswald to apply for the job at the TSBD. I believe that the CIA directed Oswald to follow Ruth's advice. (They would do it that way in order to maintain Ruth's and Oswald's fronts, and to keep their respective CIA jobs compartmented.)

Given that, let's suppose for a moment that we can read Ruth's mind after the assassination. What would she think? Following is how I think her thinking would progress.

Ruth and Michael hear news reports of the assassination, and that it is suspected that the shots came the TSBD.

Ruth had already suspected that Oswald was, or might be, a CIA asset... a natural assumption given that the CIA was directing her to interface with him. She had just gotten him a job at the TSBD for the CIA and now the president was killed by somebody there.

Naturally she was concerned that somehow Oswald was involved in the assassination. Maybe he even shot the president himself! If so, the CIA was probably behind the assassination plot. Or, upon thinking more positively, maybe Oswald was there to thwart the assassination attempt, but failed. Or, hopefully it's just a big coincidence.

Then they hear Oswald was arrested. Well, there goes the hopeful thinking.

Now, the assassination plot was designed to have the U.S. government believe that Cuba and Russia were the perpetrators. But instead the government decides to cover that plot up (which they may not have believed anyway) and nip the conspiracy rumors in the bud by making Oswald the lone gunman.

The Feds gather evidence from the Paines and get their statements.

Then, some time before the Warren Commission hearing, the Feds hold a secret meeting with the Paines and confides with them that the evidence indicates that the assassination was the result of a communist conspiracy. They fear that if this information is revealed, it will likely lead to a nuclear showdown and WW3. The Feds ask the Paines to cooperate with them in placing the full blame behind the alleged and now-dead shooter, Lee Harvey Oswald. It was there patriotic duty to cooperate.

Well of course the Paines would go along with that. Who wants WW3?

But the question for us is this: What would Ruth Paine be thinking about Oswald after that? And about the CIA? And the U.S. government?

I think that Ruth would be very confused at this point. The U.S. government -- who she'd probably believe above all -- say it was a communist plot. Oswald had shown some interest in communism, having once defected to Russia. So yes, he could have shot the president for the communists. (Whoever exactly they are.) But then, why did the CIA direct her to get Oswald the job at the TSBD? She thought Oswald was a CIA asset, not a communist. And that he was not a Kennedy hater.

Ruth probably had no idea what to make of all this. I think she was confused and believed only what the government told her. And that the lying she did for the WC helped the U.S. government in their fight against communism. Which is what she had always done for the government.

Ruth would have had no reason to quit working for the CIA.

 

More absolutely preposterous, fact-free speculation from Sandy Larsen, who apparently expects us to believe that two CIA operatives were working out of the same suburban Dallas-area house without ever knowing that they were employed by the same nefarious government agency.

Then, you claim "The Feds" had a secret meeting with the Paines during which they revealed that the assassination was a "communist conspiracy." And you expect us to then believe that Ruth Paine has been lying on behalf of the government while testifying to official, government inquiries and giving interviews to journalists for the next six decades??

 

[Sandy Larsen]

2 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

More absolutely preposterous, fact-free speculation from Sandy Larsen, who apparently expects us to believe that two CIA operatives were working out of the same suburban Dallas-area house without ever knowing that they were employed by the same nefarious government agency.

 

Jonathan,

You might want to consider thinking twice before trying to ridicule someone with your useless comments.

Please explain to all of us how it would be possible for CIA-asset Ruth Paine to know that Oswald was a CIA agent. Even when "working out of the same suburban Dallas-area house."

🙄

[Sandy Larsen]

2 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

And you expect us to then believe that Ruth Paine has been lying on behalf of the government while testifying to official, government inquiries and giving interviews to journalists for the next six decades??

 

Why not? She only had to tell a few fibs.

 

[Gene Kelly]

Greg

Regarding Eric Tagg, his Dallas roots should be quite interesting for you, and which might explain why he wrote his 1998 book about Buddy Walthers. First off, Tagg is a musician who has worked as a session singer in Dallas, and one biography states the following:

" ... then turned to leading worship in various churches around Dallas, where he serves today, a devoted follower of Jesus Christ. Not content with being merely a musician, Eric has worked on three books with Bible scholar David Eells, and, after reading nearly every book on the JFK assassination even wrote his own version of the events in his 1998 book "Brush with History".

Tagg never talked to Buddy Walthers, who had been murdered almost 30 years previously, but did talk to members of Buddy Walthers family, and certain retired Dallas law enforcement individuals. He talked to Charles Klihr, an associate of General Walker and ostensibly the owner of the mysterious 1957 Chevy parked in Walker's Turtle Creek home at the time of the questionable attempt on Walker's life, as well as Edna Hartman, a witness to the bullet gouge in the grass in Dealey plaza.  Eric Tagg spoke with Walthers’ wife Dorothy and daughter Cheryl, who refuted Roger Craig's unflattering comments and allegations. He also interviewed Walther’s partner, Al Maddox, in August 1998, who painted the following picture of Buddy and the collegial jealousy that existed in the Dallas Sherrif's Office:

Listen, Craig was always... It’s just real difficult... The law enforcement profession itself is a very jealous bunch of people. Jealous of each other; jealous of somethin’ that someone has done, and Buddy did it all. And as I say, a lot of ‘em’s jealous of him.

Walthers was part of several major evidentiary finds associated with the assassination. When Jim Garrison had Sergio Arcacha Smith subpoenaed in Dallas in April 1967, it was none other than Buddy Walthers who made the arrest, although the extradition request was turned down by then Governor John Connally.  Author Tagg also explored the topic of the controversial extra bullet supposedly found in Dealey Plaza. When asked if Walthers actually found a bullet by the manhole cover (which Walthers later denied in his Warren Commission testimony), Al Maddox thought that he did:

"I think he did. I heard him say, when they's coming down on him pretty hard — uh, what was the name of that attorney in New Orleans that was bringin’ all this stuff up, Garrison? Yeah, they was always wantin' that bullet. And Buddy went on television one time, with a fellow by the name of Murphy Martin... and Buddy told them there was no bullet. (Laughs)

Tagg infers that Sherrif Bill Decker may have coached Buddy into denying finding the bullet (to not "rock the boat"). Tagg goes on to state that Walthers told his partner Al Maddox, Deputy Craig, his wife Dorothy, Inspector Sawyer, friends/family, and certain reporters that a .45 caliber slug was found and given to the FBI (but never provided as evidence).  The Maddox interview also clarifies that Buddy Walthers and Sherrif Decker were close, and even resembled each other (i.e., like twins), especially since Walthers dressed almost identical to Decker (see attached photo).  So, it's not hard to believe that Buddy would not do anything to upset his mentor.  

Most interesting, Eric Tagg is connected to Rev. William Holmes, a Methodist pastor, who gave a controversial sermon just after the assassination. While he didn't blame Dallas for the crime itself, Holmes described the city as "an incubator for political extremism and incivility, the kind of place where many worried an assassination might occur". The sermon made the CBS News, in which he described how children in a fourth-grade classroom in North Dallas had cheered the news of Kennedy's assassination.  The local school superintendent demanded to know his source for the account of the cheering schoolchildren, but Holmes refused to share the name of the teacher in his congregation who had told him, citing concerns for her safety and pastoral confidentiality. Holmes subsequently received death threats, forcing his family to go into hiding (Reference: November 2013 article “Pastor paid price for JFK sermon” by Sam Hodges, United Methodist News Service).

In 2008, Rev. Holmes spoke at the Dallas Sixth Floor Museum, where he finally disclosed who told him about the cheering schoolchildren ... Carol Tagg, a member of his Northaven congregation who taught music and heard the cheering children. The UMNS article goes on to state that, in a phone interview, Eric Tagg, her son, declared Holmes' account to be "all true" and added that while he wasn't in his mother's classroom, he was friends with children who were, and they verified the cheering.

Small world ... 

Gene

[James DiEugenio]

But I don't think it was over Kennedy's death it was the fact they were getting out early.

 

Nice job Gene.  I especially like the stuff on the extra bullet.  Al M knew a lot.

Edited June 23, 2022 by James DiEugenio

[Gene Kelly]

Jim

I don't follow your comment about "getting our early"? 

It is simply fascinating that Buddy Walthers looked/dressed so much like Decker ... Al Maddox opined that they may have been related, and obviously were close.  Maddox didn't seem to know too much about the Warren Commission or any related stories, but he told an interesting tale about a government agent that he saw the night before the assassination in a "007" tailored suit jacket ... the type worn by FBI men, that deputies couldn't afford.  

There was also controversy about the bullet that killed Buddy ... some (including the accused convict) thought that it came from Maddox's gun who had struggled with the convict and actually shot himself.  Eric Tagg lays out in detail the struggle that occurred in that motel room, and how Walthers died, in essence exonerating Maddox. 

It sounds to me as though Buddy was extremely loyal to Decker, and therefore later backed off about finding a bullet, and the specific details (i.e., file cards of Cuban sympathizers) regarding what specifically was in those 6-7 filing cabinets found at Ruth Paine's residence.  Plus, there's the suspicious House on Harlandale that Buddy reported, as well as the James Tague wound.  Buddy Walthers sure was in the thick of it. Roger Craig later painted a very unflattering picture of Buddy Walthers ... frankly, it's difficult to believe many of his very vituperative allegations.  Perhaps this was Craig's way of getting back at Decker for firing him, by defaming Buddy. 

Gene

[James DiEugenio]

Gene:

I clarified it, I meant "getting out early".  That is why the students were applauding.

I agree about Walthers being in the middle of a lot of interesting things.  And clearly, Decker decided to put the brakes on.