New Dallas Morning News Interview with Ruth Paine

[Pat Speer]

Greetings. I think that's a fair article. It presents her viewpoint. Granberry has written some articles on the case in the past, that were largely unbiased. I remember also that at one point, when I was optimistic about the press accurately presenting some JFKA evidence that had largely gone unreported, I sent out a group email to like 50 reporters. As I recall Granberry was one of maybe three to respond. He said something like "Keep me posted."

Reading articles like this can be of value for a number of reasons. One should never take them at face value, IMO. But one can notice things in articles like this that spur one on to further research. In this case, I notice that Ruth says she wasn't asked about the Walker note for months after the shooting. The WR says the FBI discovered this note in a book handed over by Ruth on December 2, but a week and a half after the assassination.  Is her memory faulty? Or did the FBI fail to ask her about the note for months after its discovery? Or was its "discovery" (and possible creation) actually months later than claimed in the WR? 

I sense an upcoming journey to the MFF website. But if someone else wants to beat me to it, that would be fab. 

Edited November 18, 2022 by Pat Speer

[Roger DeLaria]

16 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

This is an absurd statement. Do you suppose that if Oswald had succeeded in murdering General Walker that he would have loudly proclaimed his guilt all over the greater Dallas metropolitan area?

It's not absurd at all. I'm talking about shooting Kennedy, which Oswald denied on public TV and said he was a patsy. I don't for a second think Oswald shot at Walker either. That's another load of BS too. 

Edited November 18, 2022 by Roger DeLaria

[Guest]

On 11/18/2022 at 5:09 PM, Pat Speer said:

Greetings. I think that's a fair article. It presents her viewpoint. Granberry has written some articles on the case in the past, that were largely unbiased. I remember also that at one point, when I was optimistic about the press accurately presenting some JFKA evidence that had largely gone unreported, I sent out a group email to like 50 reporters. As I recall Granberry was one of maybe three to respond. He said something like "Keep me posted."

Reading articles like this can be of value for a number of reasons. One should never take them at face value, IMO. But one can notice things in articles like this that spur one on to further research. In this case, I notice that Ruth says she wasn't asked about the Walker note for months after the shooting. The WR says the FBI discovered this note in a book handed over by Ruth on December 2, but a week and a half after the assassination.  Is her memory faulty? Or did the FBI fail to ask her about the note for months after its discovery? Or was its "discovery" (and possible creation) actually months later than claimed in the WR? 

I sense an upcoming journey to the MFF website. But if someone else wants to beat me to it, that would be fab. 

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62437#relPageId=97&search="walker_note"

 

 

Edited November 21, 2022 by Jean Paul Ceulemans

[Guest]

The "or" is confusing.  Was the book found (handed over by Ruth) on 11/23, the note in it only found on 11/30 ?   

[Tom Gram]

16 hours ago, Jean Paul Ceulemans said:

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62437#relPageId=97&search="walker_note"

 

That list of FBI exhibits was prepared in 1968 to assist the government in a lawsuit filed by Marina Oswald to obtain some of Oswald’s property. It’s incomplete and inaccurate in a few spots, but it’s a very useful document. I’d check the reference to pg. 710-711 of the 12/23/63 Gemberling report - but that probably just has the Walker note itself. What we want to look for I think is the sources the author used to get the “11/23 or 30/63” info about Captain Paul Barger originally taking the note into custody. There’s either some contradictory info somewhere or the source referencing 11/30 was ambiguous and the author threw in 11/23 to cover the possibility the note was taken in one of the initial searches of Paine’s house.

I think the guy only had access to FBI and WC records, and probably not all of them. I also think a few large chunks of exhibits were left off the list intentionally, but I’m not sure why. For example, essentially all of the rifle purchase documents were omitted - which makes zero sense since D-175 is on there and all the other purchase records are listed in the exact same LHM the author used as a reference - but that’s a topic for another thread. 

[Guest]

Thank your for your reply, I have been looking for a report by Barger where he is taking into evidence this Russian cookbook(“Book of Useful Advice”).   I'll dig into it later this weekend (busy with my racing pigeons...), unless Pat finds something.  

Edited November 19, 2022 by Jean Paul Ceulemans

[Guest]

Removed to save on attachments space

Edited November 21, 2022 by Jean Paul Ceulemans

[Guest]

Removed to save on attachments space

Edited November 21, 2022 by Jean Paul Ceulemans

[Joe Bauer]

Who were the two letters to Marina from?

Wouldn't all mail coming into the U.S. from Russia in 1962 and 1963 have been flagged, opened and examined by agencies and the postal service? And perhaps photo copied before it reached it's addressee?

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Joe Bauer said:

Who were the two letters to Marina from?

Wouldn't all mail coming into the U.S. from Russia in 1962 and 1963 have been flagged, opened and examined by agencies and the postal service? And perhaps photo copied before it reached it's addressee?

Don't know yet... it's a mess for all I can tell at this moment.

The book (probably including the note, it is not mentioned until later)

1) Unknown date : Ruth Paine (?) to Paul Barger (Irving Police Captain )

2) 11/30 (?) Paul Barger (Irving Police Captain) to Leon Power (Irving Assistant Chief of Police)

3) 12/2 Leon Power (Irving Assistant Chief of Police) to John Looper(Irving Police Detective)

4) 12/2 John Looper (Irving Police Detective) a Special Agent/Secret Service (?)

5) 12/4 Dallas FBI notes on the above by Special Agent James P.Hosty Jr. and James J. Ward....

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 19, 2022 by Jean Paul Ceulemans

[Greg Doudna]

I believe I may be able to clear up two points. First, on the double dates of the find of the Walker Note in the book, the correct one would be the weekend of 11/30-12/1/63. There was some (German?) publication which alleged shortly after the assassination that the Note had been found by police in the original search of Ruth Paine's garage, and the allegation was that the Dallas Police had sat on it and kept quiet about it for a week and covered it up when they found it, but no source or credibility to the allegation.

On the newspaper quoting Ruth Paine as saying she had not been questioned about the Walker Note until much later, I believe that is a misunderstanding on the part of the newspaper but I think I have an idea how that occurred: from what I have picked up from Joe Alesi and Ruth via Joe Alesi (prior to this news article) there is this detail: Ruth says although she was questioned about the note immediately after the Secret Service found it (ca. Dec 1 or 2 or whenever they came to her about it)--and the Russian-speaking Secret Service man accused Ruth then of having written it to send a message to Marina, which Ruth explained she had not seen the note before--Ruth says she did not learn until much later that that note played a role in Oswald and the Walker shot coming to light--Ruth did not learn that relationship to the note until belatedly later. I assume that is the reference underlying the newspaper quotation--not that Ruth is beginning at age 91 to confuse dates and timeline, etc. (no sign that is happening). As I understand Ruth tells it, the Secret Service did not show her any more of that note than the top line only when she was questioned originally (nothing to do with Walker or a shooting). Only later did she learn how the Secret Service had confronted Marina with that note whereupon Marina had told the Secret Service that which Marina had never told Ruth and up to that point had denied to the FBI--that Oswald had told her he had taken the shot at Walker, Oswald had left the note for Marina, Marina had hidden the note in the book, etc. 

[Guest]

Removed to save on attachments space

 

Edited November 21, 2022 by Jean Paul Ceulemans

[Joe Bauer]

My Gad!

Think how traumatizing the situation was for Marina starting on 11,22,1963.

This 22 year young, non-english speaking foreign born woman with infant child and after just giving birth to another and totally depended on others for everything and no normal protective mother or father or other relative figure to lean on yet having an oppressively controlling and nutty mother-in-law telling her what to do ... 

then has to face the full scary force of frantic and suspicious police and federal agency people and flash bulb blinding and yelling world press, all confronting her at once with the gut wrenching charge of her husband committing not just one but two brutally horrific world changing murders!

And with the fear that her and her own children's lives and security were seriously at stake at the same time!

Marina didn't know what would happen to her and her children. Would they be attacked by angry citizens? Would the police arrest her and suspect her of some spy or collusion activity?

She had to frantically worry about everything she said at every second to everyone.

She had to hide the backyard photo. Putting it in her shoe? She had to keep her husband's General Walker shooting secret.

34 year old Jackie Kennedy with massive personal sympathy support had to be under a doctor's care and taking lots of sedatives to get through her trauma.

22 year old Marina, poorer than poor, alone, scared out of her mind and with NO emotional support at all got through her equally horrific trauma on her own?  With no medical sedative help?

That was an astoundingly amazing personal strength Marina Oswald story imo.

 

 

Edited November 21, 2022 by Joe Bauer

[Guest]

From the first F.B.I. docs :

1) Unknown date : Ruth Paine (?) to Paul Barger (Irving, Police Captain )

2) 11/30 (?) Paul Barger (Irving Police Captain) to Leon Power (Irving, Assistant Chief of Police)

3) 12/2 Leon Power (Irving Assistant Chief of Police) to John Looper(Irving, Police Detective)

4) 12/2 John Looper (Irving, Police Detective) a Special Agent, Secret Service (?)

5) 12/4 Dallas FBI notes on the above by Special Agent James P.Hosty Jr. and James J. Ward....

Next, Ruth Paine stating in the Bardwell D. Odum (Special Agent / FBI) - report (rep.dd. 12/4, dict. 12/5, dd. upper right corner 12/6) 

1) 11/30 she took the items to the Irving Police Station (and handed hem to - she assumed - a Captain)

2) 12/2  visited by 2 Secret Service Agents and asked about the books and the note (Ruth states she had not seen the note before),

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 21, 2022 by Jean Paul Ceulemans

[Guest]

5 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

I believe I may be able to clear up two points. First, on the double dates of the find of the Walker Note in the book, the correct one would be the weekend of 11/30-12/1/63. There was some (German?) publication which alleged shortly after the assassination that the Note had been found by police in the original search of Ruth Paine's garage, and the allegation was that the Dallas Police had sat on it and kept quiet about it for a week and covered it up when they found it, but no source or credibility to the allegation.

On the newspaper quoting Ruth Paine as saying she had not been questioned about the Walker Note until much later, I believe that is a misunderstanding on the part of the newspaper but I think I have an idea how that occurred: from what I have picked up from Joe Alesi and Ruth via Joe Alesi (prior to this news article) there is this detail: Ruth says although she was questioned about the note immediately after the Secret Service found it (ca. Dec 1 or 2 or whenever they came to her about it)--and the Russian-speaking Secret Service man accused Ruth then of having written it to send a message to Marina, which Ruth explained she had not seen the note before--Ruth says she did not learn until much later that that note played a role in Oswald and the Walker shot coming to light--Ruth did not learn that relationship to the note until belatedly later. I assume that is the reference underlying the newspaper quotation--not that Ruth is beginning at age 91 to confuse dates and timeline, etc. (no sign that is happening). As I understand Ruth tells it, the Secret Service did not show her any more of that note than the top line only when she was questioned originally (nothing to do with Walker or a shooting). Only later did she learn how the Secret Service had confronted Marina with that note whereupon Marina had told the Secret Service that which Marina had never told Ruth and up to that point had denied to the FBI--that Oswald had told her he had taken the shot at Walker, Oswald had left the note for Marina, Marina had hidden the note in the book, etc. 

Hi Greg, the first has to do with a German newspaper (dated Nov. 29) - article by reporter Helmet Muench (he used another name in the article).  The newspaper was right-wing.  Walker called the editor (within days of 22/11 I believe) saying LHO was involved in the 4/10 attempt to murder him.   The matter was investigated and turned out bogus (Walker denied the obvious....): 

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5e/Docid-32140807_(November_17%2C_2017_Release).pdf 

But the story was out there, and repeated in newspapers all over the world (France, Le Monde 12/9/1963, etc).    The German story was just before they found the Walker note.... and there we go.... 

And indeed, as the note had no date, did not mention Walker, only Marina could link it to Walker.  

But - as I like original sources - shouldn't there be an Irving PD inventory or report on them receiving the stuff from Ruth ? 

Or is that treated "as being included" in the FBI report ?

 

Edited November 19, 2022 by Jean Paul Ceulemans