Jump to content
The Education Forum

A Paine on the "Right" Side


Recommended Posts

Thanks, Greg.

If I remember correctly, in early 1964, Greg Olds and the ACLU took some interest in Marina Oswald and her seclusion by the Secret Service stating that they wanted to make sure her rights were being observed.

Also, regarding Frank Krystinik, did you ever come across an associate by the name of Captain D.A. Sooy of the Dallas Naval Air Station? I'm curious as I have him listed in my notes but not why. Talk about frustrating.

James

James, Sooy was ONI.

Thanks, Greg. That is indeed interesting.

I dragged out some old boxes of clippings looking for Sooy and what his connection to Frank Krystinik may have been. I didn't find anything about that was but I did discover that in 1956, Sooy took up the post of Inspector General on the Staff of the Commandant, 15th Naval District, Balboa, Panama Canal Zone.

Do you have anything that connects him to Krystinik and or Michael Paine?

The image below shows D.A. Sooy third from the left. On the far left is Kelly Smith, chief of Chance Vought tool engineers. Acting State President of the Navy League W.H. Wright is on the far right.

FWIW.

James

Sorry James. If you twisted my arm for a guess, I'd say any connection was a wider family one through engineering or oil exploration.

If it helps, I believe the "DA" stood for David Aubrey...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 32
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Elsewhere on this forum, under the "Curtain Rods" thread, Mark Carter posited that Michael and Ruth Paine were "high ranking members of the Communist Party" and that Ruth "framed" Lee Oswald by concocting an elaborate ruse involving the supposed bundle of curtain rods:
... My opinion is that the curtain rod story was a "frame job" created by Ruth Paine her best friend Randle and her younger brother Frazier!!! The curtain rods were supposed to be the rifle that Oswald used to shoot the President with. Michael and Ruth Paine were high ranking members of the Communist Party. So what I am asking here is why are there no connections between the Communist Party and the assassination ever mentioned in any of the books and documentaries about the assassination. In my new book I have uncovered hundreds of links between the JFK assassination and the Communist Party.
Some members met this pronouncement with incredulity, myself included. Greg Parker went a step farther to note that not only were the Paines not "high ranking members of the Communist Party," but moreover Ruth's estranged husband Michael leaned to the opposite extreme:
Michael Paine gave the game away on his own politics when he spouted JBS propaganda as fact before the commission. Apart from that, there's nary a tittle of evidence to suggest either were pro-Communist -- let alone high ranking members of the CPUSA.
This intrigued me, and lacking specifics (or a response to my query as to what "propaganda," exactly, Paine had espoused), I decided to read the testimony in whole to see what this was referring to. While I haven't had time to read through all of Paine's 80 pages of testimony (in three appearances), this is from his first:

Mr. Liebeler
. Are you a member or have you ever attended any meetings of the John Birch Society?

Mr. Paine
. I am not a member. I have been to one or, I guess chiefly one meeting of theirs. ...

Mr. Liebeler
. Would you tell us the circumstances of your attendance at that meeting and what happened?

Mr. Paine
.
I had been seeking to go to a Birch meeting for some time
, and then I was invited on this night [the night Stevenson spoke in Dallas,
op cit
] so I went. It was an introductory meeting. ...

Mr. Liebeler
. For the record I think the record should indicate that Mr. Stevenson was in Dallas on or about October 24, 1963. Who invited you to this meeting?

Mr. Paine
. I had tried once before to go to a meeting which didn't occur. There happens to be a member of our choir, a paid soloist who is a John Birch advocate so
I have been applying — so I have been telling her, that I wanted to go
. I suppose, I don't remember for certain but I suppose she was the one who told me where and when. ...

Mr. Liebeler
. May I ask, did you go out of curiosity rather than sympathy or rather how did you happen to go?

Mr. Paine
. I am not in sympathy. —

Mr. Dulles
. So I gathered.

Mr. Paine
. — I have
been to a number of rightist meetings and seminars in Texas
. I was interested in seeing more communication between the right and the left;
there isn't much liberal out there and so I wanted to be able to speak their language and know that their fears — and be familiar with their feelings and attitudes
. (
)

While there is a lot more to Paine's testimony than the handful of pages I've read so far, the picture that emerges thus far is that Michael was - or wished to portray himself as - a "student of political philosophies" who was "interested in seeing more communication between the right and the left," and who absorbed himself with the more "radical" elements of either side as if to be able to somehow facilitate that dialog.

His father, George Lyman Paine, according to the son, was himself apparently really a "high level" left-winger who took young Michael - at Michael's "considerable insistence" - to meetings of the various CPUSA factions in New York. Nobody, he said, attempted to recruit him to the cause, but they "were glad to meet Lyman's son." One might conjecture that nobody would have felt the need to "recruit" an "heir apparent" ... and if anyone was to have to "recruit" young Paine, it would be the elder who would do so.

According to some sources from the above Google link, the senior Paine was "was a founding member of the Johnson-Forest Tendency of the Socialist Workers Party" on the one hand, while on the other reportedly "went undercover as [a] communist" in partnership with one James Burnham (who himself reputedly "went on to teach the newly formed CIA about covert operations [and] to teach philosophy at Yale and recruit CIA agents from among his students") and "infiltrated the leadership of the American Trotskyist movement -- the world's largest Trotskyist organization — and helped tear it apart."

Michael, at age 34 in front of the Warren Commission, said that he had "very little specific knowledge about what [his father] does." Even as a youngster, he "had [his] own dreams of how [he] would like to see society at the time and it wasn't along-the same line" as the Trotskyists he was introduced to by his well-thought-of father. He did, however, at one point became a "member" of the ACLU - an organization decidedly not right-wing - but his support of the organization and its ideals were tepid at best: he supposed "you become a member as soon as you contribute money, and I may have contributed money a good many years back," but "I didn't start going to a meeting of the organization until I was — I have only been to about four perhaps, in Dallas, four meetings" (2H387).

Not exactly what you'd call an "activist" by any stretch of the imagination, hardly a devout follower, and really not much of a "member" at all when you get right down to it.

ACLU ... JBS ... CPUSA ... what exactly was Michael anyway, if he could be classified at all? Despite the appearance of frugalilty - not to necessarily say "poverty" - while his wife lived in a tiny Irving bungalow, and which he himself claimed as home in March 1964 (he lived in an apartment in Dallas during the year prior that he and Ruth were separated), Michael was a design engineer at Bell Helicopter in nearby Fort Worth (he said it was "difficult to say" if he had a security clearance for his job), not generally a meager profession, and especially in the times of and leading to Vietnam.

His profession aside, Michael Paine did not come from poor stock. According to a page on which Michael and Ruth are referred to as "a tiny footnote in history," Michael Paine was of a lineage that has more recently culminated with former Democratic Presidential candidate and Senator from Massachusetts John Forbes Kerry (another "JFK" from Massachusetts - how ironic!), but which also included the former president of Alexander Graham Bell's telephone company, the CEO of the shipping empire of William Russell (founder of Yale's Skull and Bones Society), a shipping captain who "played a prominent role in the outbreak of the Chinese Opium War," a railroad tycoon, and a wealthy US Governor General of the Phillipines (ref: Wikipedia, "The Forbes Family of China and Boston").

Michael's mother, the former Ruth Forbes, was the Governor General's niece. The elder Ruth was an artist and a great-grandaughter of the man who owned Walden Pond and who employed the writer Henry David Thoreau who made it famous, Ralph Waldo Emerson. She was also reputed to be a long-time friend of Mary Bancroft, Allen Dulles' wartime lover and his chief contact with one of the leaders of the plot to assassinate Adolf Hitler, according to JFK researcher Richard Bartholomew.

After being divorced from Lyman, Michael's mother married her third husband in 1948, philosopher and inventor Arthur Middleton Young, who has been called "the greatest theoretical genius since Einstein," and whose most prominent and lasting invention was the Bell helicopter. I think it's fair to say that it wasn't at any country "folk dance" that Michael's mother met "A.Y."

Thus, even while Young was no longer directly associated with Bell after 1953, it would nevertheless seem that Michael may not have been such an "ordinary" engineer after all, and that the good folks at Bell Textron were as happy to meet "the stepson of A.Y." as the Trotskyists were to meet "the son of Lyman." It is difficult to imagine that he was paid at a level to only be able to afford for his wife, a kindergarten teacher from whom he was estranged since September 1963, a mere thousand-square-foot tract home.

That home is valued at under $100,000 today, meaning that in the early '60s, the Paines probably bought it for well under $5000. Surely an engineer with a pedigree such as Michael's, working as a "favored" employee (as a step-son to the inventor of Bell's raison d'etre) and - supposedly, but also likely - with trust funds of his own supporting him probably could have much done better if he'd wanted to.

(For those ultra-conspiracists among us, it should be noted that an anagram of "Arthur M. Young" is "naughty rumor" ... which we all recognize as being those things that the Warren Commission sought hardest to quash, even while the rest of official Washington sought only to edify the man's creation!)

What is interesting to me is that Michael Paine's testimony seemed to hold its share of self-corrections, which one might almost preface with an "oops!" For example:

There happens to be a member of our choir, a paid soloist who is a John Birch advocate so I have been applying — [
oops!
] so I have been telling her,
that I wanted to go
.

... and later:

[T]here isn't much liberal out there [around Dallas] and so I wanted to be able to speak their language and know that their fears — [
oops!
] and
be familiar with their feelings and attitudes

"Oops," he didn't mean to say he'd been applying to become a Bircher, he merely "wanted to go" to a meeting out of mere curiosity, and "Oops," he wasn't trying to assimilate/ingratiate himself into the ACLU by learning to "speak their language," but merely wanted to "be familiar with their feelings and attitudes." One can only wonder where the comment about their "fears" was headed before he'd caught himself!

If I'm remembering correctly - I haven't finished reading his testimony yet - one of the four ACLU meetings he'd attended in Dallas is one that he went to in the company of Lee Oswald and (again, if memory serves) at his behest, not Oswald's.

While dad Lyman appeared to be one of the "higher-ups" in a Trotskyite movement, the claims of his having "infiltrated" and "tore apart" that would suggest that he was not necessarily what he appeared to be. As I recall from one of more of the "Lyman" Google links, he was also considered in the '50s to assist the CIA in some fashion, but the idea was rejected for unspecified reasons. He did, however, do something for the Company in the '60s. If that and his association with a man reputed to have trained CIA operatives are true, it would stand to reason that his "Communist" leanings were a mere facade.

Thus, even if Communism was, in fact, "a generational trend passed on to their children," it doesn't appear to be one that was necessarily "passed on" to young Michael ... if indeed such a "trend" existed in the first place (like bleached blond hair being a "dominant gene," eh?). Indeed, based on their lineage, it would seem that Messers Paine would more likely gravitate toward the conservative - that is "right" - spectrum than the liberal. Even if Lyman were a dyed-in-the-wool Trotskyite (a far cry from Marxist-Leninism), young Michael wouldn't be the first progeny to reject, even rebel against the politics of his forebear.

Bell Helicopter also doesn't seem like the kind of place to harbor Commies either, especially in its design engineering departments, security clearance or not. ("Now, Michael, remember to promise that you won't give these plans to anyone with a funny accent, okay?")

Even if Michael and Ruth were "card-carrying" Commies, about all that that might prove is that they were FBI informants since without FBI "infiltrators'" dues, chances are that there'd be no "Communist Party" in the USA! I don't have the reference at hand, but it strikes me that there were literally hundreds around the country who were true "threats" compared with many hundreds more who wore a badge when they weren't at a "party" meeting!

Without delving too far into how "convenient" it would be to have the "patsy" and his Soviet wife in the care and custody of a pair of right-wingers cum "liberals," it makes entirely much more sense - as perhaps betrayed by Michael Paine's words about "applying" to the JBS and his purported espousal of their "propaganda" as "fact before the Commission" - that the Paines were much more comfortable than they portrayed during that time period, and that they were much more likely conservatives than "high-ranking members" of the left-wing Communist Party.

Sorry Duke, didn't see your request.

What I was referring to was this part of his testimony:

Mr. LIEBELER - Did you ever join any of these organizations?

Mr. PAINE - Well, I didn't know of any organization as such.

I went to this meeting in downtown New York. I didn't know--so therefore I knew three groups. Maybe it was the Socialist group and the Stalinist group and I think the group that Lyman was in, I don't know, maybe he was a Socialist.

Mr. LIEBELER - Which was the second group, was it the Stalinist?

Mr. PAINE -
I mentioned the Stalinist, Dubinsky, David Dubinsky
, was the only name I remember aside from Stalin, was a name I remember there, and I can't now remember whose side who was on.

The only way anyone could call Dubinsky a Stalinist would be by believing Bircher propaganda. Dubinsky was in the CIA's pocket as part of the use of labor in anti-Communist projects. Bircher's were the only ones to ever call him a "Stalinist".

With regard to MP attending meetings of right wing groups... this activity started just after his split with Ruth in '62 when he attended a NIC meeting. This was also about the time Larrie Schmidt was trying to infiltrate that particular group (see CE 1036 letter from Schmidt to Jones dated Nov 2, 1962).

Mr. PAINE - No; I have never seen General Walker that I can recall.

Mr. LIEBELER - You have never seen Walker?

Mr. PAINE - Unless he was--in a year previous to that I had been to the Indignation Committee meeting--no-- that is the answer to your previous question.

Thanks, Greg. This, in and of itself, isn't probative as to MP's leanings when one considers that he was at a JBS meeting at about the time Adlai Stevenson was in Dallas (not for a JBS meeting ... tho' it seems that he happened into one, eh?;)). Since this was a purportedly a "recruitment" meeting and they did show a film or films, it is possible that this was part of that. (More on that meeting below, too.)

That said, MP was deposed in March 1964 or thereabouts. It does seem to be an odd detail to remember if that was the source. If you pick apart what he was saying in context - and without taking the time to read the rest of his testimony right now surrounding it - he "knew of three groups" apparently in New York. They were all Communist groups of one ilk or another. He remembers one "benefactor" as being Stalin, and may seem to recall Dubinsky being a benefactor of another?

Or perhaps it's just a case of bad punctuation? Remember: this "written record" is not a record of what people wrote, but of what they said as taken down by a court reporter. We don't add punctuation to our spoken words, and even people who write often, even professionally (like court reporters), don't always use it correctly. A comma, a period, an em dash, ellipses ... they all denote pauses of (perhaps) different lengths, so who's to say what should have been in the sentence above if the reporter used incorrect punctuation. A comma, as used in the written record, would indicate only a brief pause ... but was it?

So another interpretation might be that since he did not ever "mention" Dubinsky elsewhere in his testimony (tho' he could have been referring to preliminary discussions off the record), he could have been speaking more like this:

"I mentioned the Stalinist- [catches himself up short] - Dubinsky, David Dubinsky was the only name I remember aside from Stalin."

You've done it yourself sometime in your life: talking about one thing when something else you'd couldn't remember popped into your head. "I mentioned the Dallas cops - Lane. Duke Lane, the guy I remember besides Tippit...." Did you just say that I was a Dallas cop? It could be read that way.

I think it's fair to say that he qualifies the fact that he's not calling Dubinsky a Stalinist, per se, since he does remark that "I can't now remember whose side who was on."

interesting and detailed. Can't add much of substance except to the speculative portion. While things do pass on in generations, often it is the opposites to some extent that is passed on, i.e., a conservative father may in a questioning son produce a mind open to the more radical and vice versa. ... [He was at an] age and responsibility level he is at he is probably already set in his basic ideas, and wanted ... to compare and orient himself in relation to other views.
I'm sure there's some empirical data out there somewhere that supports that theory ... after all, how many career Marines' and other military officers' sons and daughters wore sandals and put daisies in gun barrels in the late '60s and early '70s?

Further curiousity/speculation: if kids often feel compelled to veer to the opposite direction of Mom and Pop, what of when Pop ain't what he seems to be? While Lyman was "big" in Trotskyite circles - but not a Marxist-Leninist (sound familiar?) - and his public persona fit that, would he have been the same in private, "compelling" his son to veer to the right ... in the same "direction" as dear old dad, but unbeknownst to the kid?

... Ronald Reagan was [an FBI informant] for example, and a supporter of JBS ....
If one is to believe some JBS literature I've seen - which is reminiscent of the old adage about "smoking your own dope" - so was President Eisenhower ... "even though I disagree with some of the things they've said about me [being a witting and willing tool of the international Communist conspiracy]."

I thought it was interesting in reading the testimony of Mike's pal Frank Krystinik that the two overlapped somewhat in that Paine had mentioned that he had been to just one JBS meeting, which happened to be the night of the "Stevenson incident" (which, incidentally, Larrie Schmidt of Conservatism USA - Bernie Weissman's group, as it were - was quite proud of: see CE1032 et seq.), thus "distancing" Paine from that little demonstration ... while Krystinik mentioned that he'd spoken with Oswald after the ACLU meeting (he was predisposed from talking with MP toward not liking LHO) and that Oswald had mentioned having been at a JBS meeting "the night before" the Stevenson incident.

Thus it would appear that, in addition to bringing LHO to an ACLU meeting, MP also brought him to a meeting of the JBS, something he doesn't mention in his own testimony. Paine's stated rationale for getting involved with LHO in this arena (bringing him to meetings) was to broaden Oswald's horizons, expose him to additional political thought ... but it nevertheless seems odd that he would go to a JBS "recruiting" meeting (that he told the WC about) on the very night of a JBS "party," but not mention his bringing LHO along for the ride.

Krystinik said that the meeting was "the night before" the Stevenson deal, which actually makes better sense when you consider that it is usually the dyed-in-the-wool types of any organization - Moose, Masons, Elks, VFW, etc. - who conduct "recruitment" or "indoctrination" meetings. It would thus seem that they, perhaps more than any other Birchers, would want to be at the Stevenson protest rather than away from it ... unless it came up suddenly and they couldn't rearrange already-laid plans. There would also be the advantage of being able to add new recruits to the demonstration the next night, which they clearly couldn't do if both events were on the same night.

That MP shied away from admitting that LHO had gone with him to the (only?) JBS meeting that he went to also suggests that MP would want to distance himself from the spitting by saying he "couldn't possibly have been there" because he was at another meeting across town. His skirting the one issue puts the other under suspicion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oops.

Edited by Duke Lane
Link to comment
Share on other sites

After wading through piles of clippings, I found this image of Frank Krystinik on the left and D.A. Sooy on the right. Unfortunately I couldn't find the text that went with it. Talk about frustrating.
JR

Too bad about the text. Krystinik was in the navy between 1952 and 1954 according to his testimony. Looks like that was the connection, though both families were (I think) involved in similar work to George DeM.

Thanks, Greg. This, in and of itself, isn't probative as to MP's leanings when one considers that he was at a JBS meeting at about the time Adlai Stevenson was in Dallas (not for a JBS meeting ... tho' it seems that he happened into one, eh?wink.gif). Since this was a purportedly a "recruitment" meeting and they did show a film or films, it is possible that this was part of that. (More on that meeting below, too.)

That said, MP was deposed in March 1964 or thereabouts. It does seem to be an odd detail to remember if that was the source. If you pick apart what he was saying in context - and without taking the time to read the rest of his testimony right now surrounding it - he "knew of three groups" apparently in New York. They were all Communist groups of one ilk or another. He remembers one "benefactor" as being Stalin, and may seem to recall Dubinsky being a benefactor of another?

Or perhaps it's just a case of bad punctuation? Remember: this "written record" is not a record of what people wrote, but of what they said as taken down by a court reporter. We don't add punctuation to our spoken words, and even people who write often, even professionally (like court reporters), don't always use it correctly. A comma, a period, an em dash, ellipses ... they all denote pauses of (perhaps) different lengths, so who's to say what should have been in the sentence above if the reporter used incorrect punctuation. A comma, as used in the written record, would indicate only a brief pause ... but was it?

So another interpretation might be that since he did not ever "mention" Dubinsky elsewhere in his testimony (tho' he could have been referring to preliminary discussions off the record), he could have been speaking more like this:

"I mentioned the Stalinist- [catches himself up short] - Dubinsky, David Dubinsky was the only name I remember aside from Stalin."

DL

You may be right, Duke, but the record is as it is. On the face of it, he believed Dubinsky was a Stalinist. He either heard this at a Bircher meeting, or by reading Bircher literature. Either way, the point is (and I stress, on the face of it, dealing with the record as it is), he believed this was a fact - not the propaganda it actually was. To believe it, necessitates a Bircher mentality.

It was actually Peter Dale Scott who first caught the reference:

From p277 of paperback edition:

"The possibility that Oswald was an informant for the centralized security team would explain his visit to the Dallas American Civil Liberties Union, a liberal group being investigated by Revill's intelligence section, in the company of an extreme right-winger (Michael Paine)."

His end-notes explain the "extreme right-winger" reference:

"Michael Paine revealed his right-wing politics in his Warren Commission testimony, by a passing reference to 'the Stalinist, Dubinsky, David Dubinsky'. Dubinsky, one of the CIA's and Angleton's top agents of influence in the world anti-Communist labor movement, was a recurring target of those in the Willoughby and John Birch circles who felt the CIA was tainted by Communist connections."

I do disagree with Scott (and it seems, everyone else) about Paine ever being at that ACLU meeting with Oswald - but that has no bearing on the Dubinsky reference.

Edited by Greg Parker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, Greg. This, in and of itself, isn't probative as to MP's leanings when one considers that he was at a JBS meeting at about the time Adlai Stevenson was in Dallas (not for a JBS meeting ... tho' it seems that he happened into one, eh?wink.gif). Since this was a purportedly a "recruitment" meeting and they did show a film or films, it is possible that this was part of that. (More on that meeting below, too.)

That said, MP was deposed in March 1964 or thereabouts. It does seem to be an odd detail to remember if that was the source. If you pick apart what he was saying in context - and without taking the time to read the rest of his testimony right now surrounding it - he "knew of three groups" apparently in New York. They were all Communist groups of one ilk or another. He remembers one "benefactor" as being Stalin, and may seem to recall Dubinsky being a benefactor of another?

Or perhaps it's just a case of bad punctuation? Remember: this "written record" is not a record of what people wrote, but of what they said as taken down by a court reporter. We don't add punctuation to our spoken words, and even people who write often, even professionally (like court reporters), don't always use it correctly. A comma, a period, an em dash, ellipses ... they all denote pauses of (perhaps) different lengths, so who's to say what should have been in the sentence above if the reporter used incorrect punctuation. A comma, as used in the written record, would indicate only a brief pause ... but was it?

So another interpretation might be that since he did not ever "mention" Dubinsky elsewhere in his testimony (tho' he could have been referring to preliminary discussions off the record), he could have been speaking more like this:

"I mentioned the Stalinist- [catches himself up short] - Dubinsky, David Dubinsky was the only name I remember aside from Stalin."

You may be right, Duke, but the record is as it is. On the face of it, he believed Dubinsky was a Stalinist. He either heard this at a Bircher meeting, or by reading Bircher literature. Either way, the point is (and I stress, on the face of it, dealing with the record as it is), he believed this was a fact - not the propaganda it actually was. To believe it, necessitates a Bircher mentality.

It was actually Peter Dale Scott who first caught the reference:

From p277 of paperback edition:

"The possibility that Oswald was an informant for the centralized security team would explain his visit to the Dallas American Civil Liberties Union, a liberal group being investigated by Revill's intelligence section, in the company of an extreme right-winger (Michael Paine)."

His end-notes explain the "extreme right-winger" reference:

"Michael Paine revealed his right-wing politics in his Warren Commission testimony, by a passing reference to 'the Stalinist, Dubinsky, David Dubinsky'. Dubinsky, one of the CIA's and Angleton's top agents of influence in the world anti-Communist labor movement, was a recurring target of those in the Willoughby and John Birch circles who felt the CIA was tainted by Communist connections."

I do disagree with Scott (and it seems, everyone else) about Paine ever being at that ACLU meeting with Oswald - but that has no bearing on the Dubinsky reference.

Well, as to your last point, as you said: the record is as it is. More than just "on the face of it," but as corroborated by an associate of his with whom he worked. Of course, you have to allow for the possibility that Krystinik wasn't part of the plot, and that Oswald was actually at the ACLU meeting, a point made with certainly only by Paine and pal.

If Oswald was there, then either someone got him there (Paine, most likely), or Oswald simply told Paine that he'd been there, and MP decided to project himself into the circumstance for some reason, as if he were there when he really wasn't. He'd also have had to convince his pal Krystinik of the fact, or to perjure himself before the Commission with impunity.

The simplest solution is, of course, that Paine took Oswald to the ACLU meeting where they met Krystinik. Accepting that as a given, the question is why Paine also took LHO to a Bircher meeting - as testified to by pal Krystinik in reference to Oswald alone - and didn't say so. He did testify that he, himself, was there "the night of the Stevenson incident," while Krystinik put Oswald there "the night before the Stevenson incident."

Two JBS meetings on back-to-back nights that Oswald went to one alone (how did he get there?), and Paine went to the other separately the next night? I'm not buying into this cheaply....

As to the Dubinsky characterization (what prompted this whole discussion in the first place!), you note:

On the face of it, he believed Dubinsky was a Stalinist. He either heard this at a Bircher meeting, or by reading Bircher literature. Either way, the point is (and I stress, on the face of it, dealing with the record as it is), he believed this was a fact - not the propaganda it actually was. To believe it, necessitates a Bircher mentality.
Actually, I don't think that anyone's statement of belief - or perhaps more correctly, their repetition of something that they'd heard - "necessitates" any kind of "mentality." To bring that close to home, does someone's stated belief that the WC didn't truly investigate, discern or report "the truth" about the Kennedy assassination - or their repetition of an understanding that Johnson, the CIA and/or the FBI were somehow involved in it - "necessitate" an "anti-governmental mindset?" If so, does that make the vast majority of us here "traitors?"

MP actually said ""I mentioned the Stalinist, Dubinsky, David Dubinsky was the only name I remember aside from Stalin." He had NOT previously mentioned "the Stalinist Dubinsky" as this interpretation of his words might suggest. If his testimony is to be taken literally, word-for-word, then he did not "mention" the Stalinist Dubinsky, but in actual fact, there is a pause (comma) following the word "Stalinist," so the reading might just as possibly be:

I mentioned the Stalinist [pause] Dubinski [pause] David Dubinsky is the only name I remember aside from Stalin ....

The fact that he followed that up immediately with the qualification that "[it] was a name I remember there, and I can't now remember whose side who was on" shows that he could not - or at least might not or probably didn't - know enough about Dubinsky to call him "the Stalinist Dubinsky" since he couldn't, after all, remember "whose side who was on." Painting Dubinsky as a Stalinist clearly puts Dubinsky on one "side" or the other, belieing the qualification he made in the very same breath as seemingly calling Dubinsky a "Stalinist" ... that is, "he's a Stalinist, but I don't know whose side he was on." Doesn't make sense.

"On the face of it," then, MP only said that Dubinsky's was a name he remembered - the only one other than Stalin's - and, since he'd never mentioned Dubinsky elsewhere, and he did mention "the Stalinist group" with respect to his father's associations, I'd have to say that his mention of "the Stalinist" and Dubinsky together in a single sentence - one right after the other, in fact, but separated by a pause of indeterminate length - is more of an "incident of recall" than an attempt to state his belief, parallel to JBS' own, that Dubinsky was a Stalinist.

With apologies to Professor Scott, whom I've never met, I can only say that this whole "right-wing beliefs of Michael Paine" thing - on the basis of this segment of testimony - is a straw we shouldn't grasp at too vigorously as it may not float very well at all. At least, not on the face of it, the record being as it is and all.

:lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... Ronald Reagan was [an FBI informer] for example, and a supporter of JBS ....
... and let's not forget, while we're at it, that Earl Warren was the governor of California during WWII and strongly supported - and indeed, implemented - the detention of Japanese-Americans during that period. One very nearly gets the impression that he understood the word "expedience," and the phrase "for the greater good." One also wonders, in that light, what it was that LBJ might have said that supposedly brought tears to his eyes, and what pressures the President might have brought to bear on the ex-governor during the week following the assassination of his predecessor.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, as to your last point, as you said: the record is as it is. More than just "on the face of it," but as corroborated by an associate of his with whom he worked. Of course, you have to allow for the possibility that Krystinik wasn't part of the plot, and that Oswald was actually at the ACLU meeting, a point made with certainly only by Paine and pal.
DL

According to Krystinik, they were more than just work associates, Duke.

Mr. LIEBELER. You are a friend of Michael Paine's?

Mr. KRYSTINIK. I would like to consider myself a friend of his...

Don't know what "plot" you're talking about, so can't respond to that.

Yes, "certainly" Oswald was at the meeting. I've never said otherwise. But it was not a point "certainly" only made by Paine and Krystinik. As I've already said, Barry Cohen of the Dallas ACLU investigated and verified Oswald was there. As also noted previously, Byrd Helligas recalled speaking to Oswald about the operation of the projector.

If Oswald was there, then either someone got him there (Paine, most likely), or Oswald simply told Paine that he'd been there, and MP decided to project himself into the circumstance for some reason, as if he were there when he really wasn't. He'd also have had to convince his pal Krystinik of the fact, or to perjure himself before the Commission with impunity.
DL

"Paine, most likely"? Sure. But which one.

The FBI report on Barry Cohen states, "Cohen started an investigation to determine why Oswald attended this meeting and found that a Mrs Paine, with whom Oswald's wife was residing, invited Oswald as her guest to this meeting." You can read the full report here CE 1151

Seems a simple enough task. If they had a sign-in book... check that and talk to others who were there. If no sign in book, then the latter would suffice.

It is difficult to imagine Cohen was misinformed, or in some other way, screwed up this simple assignment. It's just as difficult to try and imagine any motive he may have had to lie.

Add Cohen's investigation to the fact that Greg Olds, Dallas branch President of ACLU, was at the meeting, but only "knew" of Mike Paine being there from "unrecalled sources", and Helligas, who, like Olds, knew Paine, but could not recall anyone talking to Oswald apart from himself, and it becomes clear something is amiss with the official story. Perhaps the FBI should have talked to the same people Cohen apparently did?

The simplest solution is, of course, that Paine took Oswald to the ACLU meeting where they met Krystinik.
DL

Accept it as a "given" if you want. But I'd rather weigh up all the available evidence, rather than rely on Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum aka Paine and Krystinik and ignore everything (and everyone) else.

If you'd like me ascribe a motive for their lie, it is this:

Not only were P & K the only people interviewed by FBI or WC who said they were there, they were also the only people interviewed who "recalled" Oswald standing up and denouncing the JBS as anti-Semites

Mr. PAINE - I thought the meeting was conducted in a manner that illustrated its own beliefs. One of the things said was that the Birchers must not be considered anti-Semitic, anti-Semites because they' are also Birchers. Lee at this point got up, speaking loud and clear and coherently, saying that, reporting that, he had been to this meeting of the right-wing group the night before or two nights before and he refuted this statement, saying names and saying how that people on the platform speaking for the Birch Society had said anti-Semitic things and also anti-Catholic statements or spoke against the Pope or something.

and the only ones who recalled him arguing about politics.

Mr. PAINE - Later on in the meeting, when the meeting broke up, people clustered into discussion groups, and Frank, I told Frank, who was a colleague at work, Frank Krystinik, about Lee and Marina, and so of course he immediately came to defend free enterprise and what not in opposition to this fellow I told him about, and I left the discussion at that point, thinking I knew the kind of discussion it would be. It was a discussion between three people, a more elderly man whom I probably thought was a member of the ACLU, and Frank and Lee.

Mr. LIEBELER - Did you hear any part of the discussion?

Mr. PAINE - I didn't hear any part of the discussion.

Mr. LIEBELER - Did you subsequently discuss it with either Oswald or Krystinik?

Mr. PAINE - And in the car going home, Lee asked me if I knew this man he had been talking to, this older man he had been talking to, and I think he said that the man seemed to be friendly to Cuba or rather he said, "Do you think that man is a Communist?" And I said, "No." And then he said something, "I think he is." Then I asked him why and I think he said something in regard to Cuba or sympathy with Cuba, and then I thought to myself, well, that is rather feeble evidence for proving a Communist. But he seemed to have the attitude of, felt he wanted to meet that man again and was pleased he had met him. I thought to myself if that is the way he has to meet his Communists, he has not yet found the Communist group in Dallas.

In short, I believe they were helping cement his "legend" as confused lone Marxist.

Accepting that as a given, the question is why Paine also took LHO to a Bircher meeting - as testified to by pal Krystinik in reference to Oswald alone - and didn't say so. He did testify that he, himself, was there "the night of the Stevenson incident," while Krystinik put Oswald there "the night before the Stevenson incident."
DL

Who was at what rightist meeting and when is a good question, and harder to pin than the question on the ACLU one.

Marina placed them together at a Walker meeting:

Mrs. Oswald.

Because my husband's favorite topic of discussion was politics and whoever he was with. he talked to them politics and Mr. Paine was with him a fair amount and I am not sure they talked about politics. Apparently it should have been "I am quite sure they talked about politics." But, at any rate, the transcript does read, "I am not sure they talked about politics." They went to meetings of some kind together. I don't know what kind of meetings.

Mr. McKenzie.

Do you know where the meetings were?

Mrs. Oswald.

In Dallas. After they came back from some meeting, my husband said to me something about Walker being at this meeting.

When asked about Marina's testimony, Paine explained:

Mr. Paine.

General Walker was present at the Oswald mentioned the U.N.- U.S. Day meeting held by the rightists, which occurred a day or two or two nights before the ACLU meeting. He had been to that by himself. I had gone that same evening to a John Birch meeting. We were not together, but they were two things that occurred

simultaneously, and that's where Lee, by his report at the ACLU meeting said he was and Walker was there. Maybe that's what Marina had in mind.

Oswald himself Wrote to Arnold Johnson of the CPUSA stating he had attended an ultra right meeting headed by Walker on the evening of October 23.

Krystinik was not certain if it was one or two nights prior to the Stephenson incident.

Mr. LIEBELER. That meeting would have been just the night before Mr. Stevenson came to Dallas?

Mr. KRYSTINIK. Yes, sir; I think, or it could have been the same night. I don't remember the exact date.

Two JBS meetings on back-to-back nights that Oswald went to one alone (how did he get there?), and Paine went to the other separately the next night? I'm not buying into this cheaply....
DL

Not that there was much difference, but I believe the meeting of the 23rd was of the so-called "Walker Group". Even the DPD intelligence service recognized this as a separate entity to the JBS. It was probably the final preparation for the Stephenson rally. But I'm glad you're not buying into it cheaply :rolleyes:

I'll address your Dubinsky concerns when time permits.

Edited by Greg Parker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Forgive me: I'm new to this particular line of inquiry, so may not have all of my facts straight, but here are some of the facts I've been able to discern so far:

First, that Greg Olds was the President of the ACLU Dallas chapter and was at the meeting in question on Friday, October 25 (a night, incidentally, that LHO normally spent with Marina and June at Ruth's ... from whom Michael was separated). He said that it he could not recall whom it was who'd said Oswald had been at the meeting, not that he couldn't recall who'd said Michael Paine was there. He volunteered his "belief" (the FBI's word) that Paine had brought Oswald to the meeting, if in fact Oswald was there at all.

Barry Cohen was not at the meeting, so he had no personal knowledge of either Oswald or Paine - Michael or Ruth - having been there, but had only learned, as a result of his "investigation," that Ruth had invited Oswald there. Cohen was a member of the ACLU (albeit a "very active" one), but did not claim to have been an officer of the organization, and thus had no authority to conduct a formal investigation into the matter. He also did not claim to have been requested to conduct an investigation, nor to have reported (or to have been requested to report) his findings to anyone in authority.

Olds, who did have that authority, stated that he did not "undertake" an investigation, which means not only did he not do so personally, but as President, did not apparently authorize, request or condone such an investigation: any investigation would have been "his" regardless of who did the actual legwork. Olds was interviewed fifteen days after Cohen was interviewed (December 19 vice December 4), and not only did not mention or refer to Cohen's investigation, but also specifically denied that one had been undertaken by his authority.

These are facts, all referenced in the preceding discussion (as well as CE1151 and CE1388). Further, then, to your comment "It is difficult to imagine Cohen was misinformed, or in some other way, screwed up this simple assignment:" on the contrary, it is very easy, to me, to imagine that Cohen was misinformed - that is, given wrong information - and more importantly, there is no evidence at all to suggest Cohen's "investigation" was in any way an "assignment," simple or otherwise. Otherwise, if Cohen was the "unrecalled" source of the information that Olds cited, we must then believe that Olds "couldn't remember" whom he had "assigned" to the "investigation" he denied having undertaken.

The clear inference, then, is this: Cohen's "investigation" was personal, informal and without bearing. It was, in sum, hearsay and guesswork. And he kept it to himself (and the FBI).

Second, while it may seem that in the period leading up to the October 25 ACLU meeting, there were two others, respectively, of the "Walker group" (possibly on Wednesday, October 23) and the JBS "recruiting meeting" meeting MP had gone to on the night of the spit-a-thon (Thursday, October 24). The facts do not support that in full.

Paine did not (in his initial testimony anyway) specify the date of the ACLU meeting, nor its date relationship to the ACLU meeting, nor the ACLU's meeting relative to when Adlai had his "unhappy incident," which was on October 24. The ACLU meeting was on the 25th; the meeting Paine had attended was also on the 24th. Paine noted that LHO had been to a meeting "a night or two before" the ACLU meeting, noting only that that meeting was of "the right-wing group" where there were "people on the platform speaking for the Birch Society." That would also be an adequate - and expected! - description of the JBS "recruiting" meeting that Mike had attended the night before. His description of the meeting LHO had attended "a night or two before" certainly encompasses "the night before," wouldn't you agree?

This is called tap-dancing. Mike simply didn't want to say that he'd taken Lee to a right-wing meeting and a "left-wing" meeting too.

It was Krystinik who said that "a night or two nights before" the ACLU meeting, Oswald had attended "the General Walker meeting." His time frame is the same as Mike's except, of course, that neither of them mention Mike as having been at the JBS meeting the night before, and Mike didn't mention Walker being at the meeting he'd attended, implying instead (if only by omission) that LHO had gone on his own. While I agree that "the Walker group" and JBS were often considered separate, Walker, you will recall, did not claim affiliation with any particular group and was, in fact, a champion of the right-wing movement in general (in his testimony before WC counsel, he was only asked about - and disclaimed - membership in the Minutemen): he supported The Cause, and didn't have to be - and could truthfully disavow being - a "member" of any one of the various organizations that formed it.

Generals, after all, lead armies ... they don't "belong" to batallions!

Walker was a high-ranking, widely-respected and popular speaker at events for several groups, all of whom were happy to claim him as one of their own even if he did not reciprocate. There is absolutely no reason, therefore, to think either that Walker was not welcome at - nor that he would not attend - a JBS meeting, or that he could not have attended the Thursday JBS meeting that Mike was at because he was too busy spitting at the Senator. Generals - especially those who are West Pointers, as Walker was (and as too were both his father and son) - just don't do that sort of thing.

The inference and reasonable conclusion, then, is that Walker was at the JBS meeting on Thursday, October 24, while Adlai was busy being a target ... and so were both Mike Paine and Lee Oswald. A big question, then, is why Mike didn't want to make this fact plain and instead chose to dance around it ... just as he did under oath more specifically when confronted with Marina's testimony that said the same thing that I concluded above: that the two of them had gone to a meeting at which Walker was present. Why?

(I said that "the facts don't support the three-meeting scenario in full:" it remains possible, however, that there was a Wednesday "Walker group" meeting that was a "pep rally" for the anti-Stevenson demonstration ... but I don't think that was really necessary: it only became a "big" incident as a result of spontaneity, and wasn't - until after the fact - anything that a general needed to organize or attend. The other mitigating factor is LHO's CPUSA letter talking of the October 23 meeting ... but we all know Lee was pretty dyslexic about dates and spellings, so ...?)

Finally, as to Helligas, he stated only that he "recognized" Oswald from TV coverage after the assassination as someone he'd spoken with almost a month before, that conversation so un-noteworthy as to be unrecalled other than "something ... about the projector ... some comment about how the projector worked." In sum, Oswald was someone he'd "recognized" only as a result of his sudden infamy and consequent news coverage. We will recall that Howard Brennan, William Whaley and numerous other November 22 witnesses "remembered" Oswald after he'd been on TV, as had several other people who'd "seen him" at places like rifle ranges, car dealerships, gun and furniture shops, barber shops and more ... places he apparently never been. Why should Helligas' memory be more accurate? Or, for that matter, why should the person he'd claim to have seen been Oswald more so than the rest?

Well, as to your last point, as you said: the record is as it is. More than just "on the face of it," but as corroborated by an associate of his with whom he worked. Of course, you have to allow for the possibility that Krystinik wasn't part of the plot, and that Oswald was actually at the ACLU meeting, a point made with certainly only by Paine and pal.
According to Krystinik, they were more than just work associates, Duke.

Mr. LIEBELER. You are a friend of Michael Paine's?

Mr. KRYSTINIK. I would like to consider myself a friend of his...

He makes no note of other social engagements between them other than having MP, separated from Ruth, to dinner at his house. That he would "like to consider" himself a friend, that is his perception or wish alone. Mike only called Frank "an associate from work." Some friend, eh?

You also said:

If you'd like me ascribe a motive for their lie, it is this:
... but you never ascribed one. Care to elaborate?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Forgive me: I'm new to this particular line of inquiry, so may not have all of my facts straight, but here are some of the facts I've been able to discern so far:

First, that Greg Olds was the President of the ACLU Dallas chapter and was at the meeting in question on Friday, October 25

DL

Correct.

(a night, incidentally, that LHO normally spent with Marina and June at Ruth's
DL

I would argue that this arrangement was only 5 weeks old and therefore not lengthy enough to establish any "norm".

from whom Michael was separated
DL

Yes. From Sept the previous year and coinciding with Mike's initial attempts to "connect" with the right wing.

He said that it he could not recall whom it was who'd said Oswald had been at the meeting,
DL

Correct.

He volunteered his "belief" (the FBI's word) that Paine had brought Oswald to the meeting, if in fact Oswald was there at all.
DL

The last part is your addition. Olds did not express any doubts or qualifications. And his "belief" that Mike Paine had brought Oswald wasn't plucked from thin air, or come as Divine inspiration. It was almost certainly from the same "unrecalled sources". Olds did tell the FBI that he intended to talk to Paine about Oswald, but to date, hadn't had the opportunity. Too bad the WC didn't ask if he had managed to have that talk in the interim.

Barry Cohen was not at the meeting, so he had no personal knowledge of either Oswald or Paine - Michael or Ruth - having been there, but had only learned, as a result of his "investigation," that Ruth had invited Oswald there.
DL

Correct.

Cohen was a member of the ACLU (albeit a "very active" one), but did not claim to have been an officer of the organization, and thus had no authority to conduct a formal investigation into the matter.

DL

He had spoken to Olds about Oswald being a member of the ACLU. It is a reasonable assumption that Oswald's attendance at the Oct 25 meeeting was therefore also discussed. Perhaps Olds asked Cohen to look into the rumours, or Cohen volunteered to do it? No one claimed it was a "formal" investigation, and I'm not certain that's of any great import. Conducted formally or informally, it was a simple task involving checking a sign-in register (if one was used) and interviewing members who were present. The exact nature of the investigation, and how accurate the results could have been cleared up by the WC. Instead, they totally ignored Cohen's statement.

He also did not claim to have been requested to conduct an investigation,
DL

He also did not claim he was a white male Jew. Perhaps if he'd been asked who requested/authorised his investigation, he would have said. He did volunteer that he'd spoken to Olds on a very much related matter. You draw a lot of inferences elsewhere, but none here from that?

nor to have reported (or to have been requested to report) his findings to anyone in authority.
DL

"Mr Barry M Cohen appeared voluntarily at the Dallas Office of the FBI..." Did the FBI call him in because they had been told of his investigation, or did he decide he should tell them about it?

Olds, who did have that authority, stated that he did not "undertake" an investigation
DL

Correct.

which means not only did he not do so personally, but as President, did not apparently authorize, request or condone such an investigation: any investigation would have been "his" regardless of who did the actual legwork.

Holy batxxxx. Are we talking about the small Dallas branch of the very democratic ACLU, or the Kremlin? Even the head office in New York wasn't that rigid in structure. Your argument thus far: it had to be a formal investigation authorised by Olds, or it had no merit. No doubt, Cohen had to hand in a report in triplicate, as well - a mere verbal report not being worth the paper it's written on!

Olds was interviewed fifteen days after Cohen was interviewed (December 19 vice December 4), and not only did not mention or refer to Cohen's investigation, but also specifically denied that one had been undertaken by his authority.
DL

According to the FBI, he said that "he had not made any investigation regarding Oswald..." I know you confer Olds with the powers of a potentate, and that any reference to him is ipso facto, a reference to any in his fifedom at the Dallas ACLU branch, but I think you'll find that Olds was a bit more down-to-earth and egalitarian than you credit him as being. Olds' memory may also have been at fault. Didn't recall seeing Oswald. Didn't recall seeing Mike Paine. Didn't recall who his sources were. Didn't even recall at the start of the FBI interview where he in fact, does mention investigating Oswald, insofar as his membership was concerned.

These are facts, all referenced in the preceding discussion (as well as CE1151 and CE1388).
DL

No. You have some facts mixed with some errors and some inferences.

Further, then, to your comment "It is difficult to imagine Cohen was misinformed, or in some other way, screwed up this simple assignment:" on the contrary, it is very easy, to me, to imagine that Cohen was misinformed - that is, given wrong information - and more importantly, there is no evidence at all to suggest Cohen's "investigation" was in any way an "assignment," simple or otherwise.
DL

It was indeed, an assignment - even if you can demonstrate he acted on his volition.

Otherwise, if Cohen was the "unrecalled" source of the information that Olds cited, we must then believe that Olds "couldn't remember" whom he had "assigned" to the "investigation" he denied having undertaken.
DL

No one has claimed that Cohen was Olds "unrecalled" source. That is absurd. The "unrecalled" source smells to me like someone spreading a rumor. And the only people known from the record who could possibly have started such a rumor are Mike Paine and Frank Krystinik - since they are the only two in the records who claim personal knowledge that Mike took Oswald to the meeting.

The clear inference, then, is this: Cohen's "investigation" was personal, informal and without bearing. It was, in sum, hearsay and guesswork.
DL

An inference based on inferences based on a mix of facts and errors.

And he kept it to himself (and the FBI)

How is telling the FBI "keeping it to himself'? And was it his fault he wsan't called to give evidene before the WC?

Once again, time has beaten me. More ASAP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cohen was a member of the ACLU (albeit a "very active" one), but did not claim to have been an officer of the organization, and thus had no authority to conduct a formal investigation into the matter. He also did not claim to have been requested to conduct an investigation, nor to have reported (or to have been requested to report) his findings to anyone in authority. Olds, who did have that authority, stated that he did not "undertake" an investigation, which means not only did he not do so personally, but as President, did not apparently authorize, request or condone such an investigation: any investigation would have been "his" regardless of who did the actual legwork.
Holy batxxxx. Are we talking about the small Dallas branch of the very democratic ACLU, or the Kremlin? Even the head office in New York wasn't that rigid in structure. Your argument thus far: it had to be a formal investigation authorised by Olds, or it had no merit. No doubt, Cohen had to hand in a report in triplicate, as well - a mere verbal report not being worth the paper it's written on!

Okay....

Having just gotten off of the phone with Mr Olds about half an hour ago, I will concede that Barry Cohen - who had an "inquiring mind," as Olds put it - conducted his own "inquiries" into the whole Oswald thing, unbeknownst to the president or other members of the ACLU board. Cohen was apparently the treasurer of the Dallas ACLU chapter, and apparently made these inquiries on his own, and never reported the results of any such investigation to anyone other than the FBI. (Funny that a guy who was concerned with "civil liberties" would run directly to the cops, but that's the way it works sometimes, I guess.)

Olds also said that he knew Michael Paine and Ruth "quite well" prior to the assassination, hence his notice of Oswald - or someone - having been with MP at the October 25 meeting. "I can even recall where they sat," he said, emphasizing that his memory of that period is "quite vivid" (in response to my query if his memory had "changed" in the past 40 years).

So that part's cleared up, I hope to your satisfaction as well as mine. I've email the link to this forum and this thread to Mr. Olds, so anything else he cares to add (or correct!), I guess he can do himself if he chooses. If not, he's at least invited me to call him back whenever convenient.

That's all I've got time for right now, but some of your other commentary deserves comment. Read the testimony of Dr Rivilo Pendleton Oliver (15H709-744) to see where I'll be going ....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Duke,

If you have the chance to speak with Greg Olds again and you deem it appropriate, can you ask him about the allegations that he was screening an unauthorized copy of the Zapruder film in Austin during the late 1960's?

If true, maybe it can be established where he secured his copy.

James

Edited by James Richards
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cohen was a member of the ACLU (albeit a "very active" one), but did not claim to have been an officer of the organization, and thus had no authority to conduct a formal investigation into the matter. He also did not claim to have been requested to conduct an investigation, nor to have reported (or to have been requested to report) his findings to anyone in authority. Olds, who did have that authority, stated that he did not "undertake" an investigation, which means not only did he not do so personally, but as President, did not apparently authorize, request or condone such an investigation: any investigation would have been "his" regardless of who did the actual legwork.
Holy batxxxx. Are we talking about the small Dallas branch of the very democratic ACLU, or the Kremlin? Even the head office in New York wasn't that rigid in structure. Your argument thus far: it had to be a formal investigation authorised by Olds, or it had no merit. No doubt, Cohen had to hand in a report in triplicate, as well - a mere verbal report not being worth the paper it's written on!

Okay....

Having just gotten off of the phone with Mr Olds about half an hour ago, I will concede that Barry Cohen - who had an "inquiring mind," as Olds put it - conducted his own "inquiries" into the whole Oswald thing, unbeknownst to the president or other members of the ACLU board. Cohen was apparently the treasurer of the Dallas ACLU chapter, and apparently made these inquiries on his own, and never reported the results of any such investigation to anyone other than the FBI. (Funny that a guy who was concerned with "civil liberties" would run directly to the cops, but that's the way it works sometimes, I guess.)

Olds also said that he knew Michael Paine and Ruth "quite well" prior to the assassination, hence his notice of Oswald - or someone - having been with MP at the October 25 meeting. "I can even recall where they sat," he said, emphasizing that his memory of that period is "quite vivid" (in response to my query if his memory had "changed" in the past 40 years).

So that part's cleared up, I hope to your satisfaction as well as mine. I've email the link to this forum and this thread to Mr. Olds, so anything else he cares to add (or correct!), I guess he can do himself if he chooses. If not, he's at least invited me to call him back whenever convenient.

That's all I've got time for right now, but some of your other commentary deserves comment. Read the testimony of Dr Rivilo Pendleton Oliver (15H709-744) to see where I'll be going ....

Kudos for showing initiative, Duke.

I don't see a "civil liberties" conflict in reporting potentially relevant information to an investigating body regarding a crime. I do see a problem with his not having reported it to other board members - though for Greg Olds to respond with the information he did, Cohen (or someone) must have advised Olds of it at some point.

In regard to your hope that what he told you has cleared this up for me... sorry, but it hasn't.

GO did not write the FBI report, nor was he responsible for what questions were asked, so it's hardly his fault it's short on specifics, lacks clarity and fails to directly address Cohen's statement.

It does not state for instance, that GO recalled seeing Mike Paine there - with or without anyone else. All it states is "it is believed by Olds that Oswald was brought to the meeting by Michael Paine". The only "clues" as to what gave rise to that belief are mentions in other parts of the report of "unrecalled sources" and a comment about Mr Olds following all information on Oswald through the media.

My own hope is that Mr Olds will join in and answer a few questions I (and perhaps others) have.

Does he know if Barry Cohen is still alive, and if he is, where he can be contacted so that we can ask what or who his sources were?

Did Mr Olds associate with the Paines socially outside of the ACLU meetings?

Did anyone addressing the meeting of Oct 25 ask that members refrain from considering Birchers as being anti-Semites?

(If anything should be characterised as "funny" it's that a civil liberties group would tell others what they should think - yet (this is precisely what they did according to Mike and Frank. Even funnier that this alleged attempt by the ACLU to act as spin doctors for Birchers coincided with the Birchers own attempts to shed their anti-Semite image, including the idea of using a Jewish name in a certain spleen-venting ad. But the funniest thing is that NO ONE mentioned hearing this spin-doctoring effort except... good old Mike and Frank)

When did Mr Olds initially learn of Barry Cohen's investigation, and what made him dismiss the findings of it?

Does he have any idea or opinion as to why the Warren Commission failed to ask him any questions about the Oct 25 meeting?

The FBI report indicates Mr Olds was trying to find out all he could about Oswald. Did he find out anything that may shed any light at all on Oswald's activities and motivations for same?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Duke,

If you have the chance to speak with Greg Olds again and you deem it appropriate, can you ask him about the allegations that he was screening an unauthorized copy of the Zapruder film in Austin during the late 1960's?

If true, maybe it can be established where he secured his copy.

James

It's true, and the source was probably an alias, someone claiming to be an "investigator from Waco," possibly - but by no means certainly - associated somehow with the Garrison deal. Email me if you need more details (not that I've got a lot more than that).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...