New Essay by forum member

[greg_parkerAdmin]

First topic message reminder :

Congrats to Tom G. This, along with the essays of John Manning, count among the finest examples of investigative journalism to be found on the case.

Warning: it is 50 pages of tightly packed dynamite. If reality is only for those who can't handle drugs, historical research papers are not for those who can't handle minutia. If that is you, you may be better off reading Lee and Me or the collected works of Chairman Brian.

https://gregrparker.com/rethinking-oswalds-mail/

[Mick_Purdy]

Yep the HOOVER method. Suck most of the shit up and turf it in the bin. What a piece of work he was. Conducive to cover-ups and he was a known control freak. 

Keep spamming away or whatever it is JFK_FNG - the material is outstanding.

[JFK_FNG]

Thanks guys. I will make a website at some point but it's just an idea currently and probably won't be for a good while. Even then I'm sure I'll be spamming this forum with links - I just keep finding new stuff I think is interesting.  

There's all kinds of good stuff in Holmes' chapter in No More Silence. I have the book but found an online link to it too: 

http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/History/The_deed/Sneed/Holmes.html

[Vinny]

Great research, Tom.

[JFK_FNG]

Ruth Paine destroys evidence

Paine testified that she destroyed copies of the Worker and the Militant addressed to Oswald immediately after learning about the BYPs. If anyone can come up with an innocent explanation for this I'm all ears. Even Albert Jenner was suspicious.

Mr. Jenner: Did you observe - have you now concluded the list of newspapers, periodicals or magazines to which he was a subscriber?
Mrs. Paine: I believe so. I might say that my awareness of his subscribing to these last two, the Militant and the Worker, came after the assassination. There was mail waiting for him for that weekend which he did not pick up on the 21st, and after the assassination, indeed, after Saturday evening, the 23rd, when it was announced on television that they had a photograph of Lee Oswald holding two papers. I looked at this pile of mail waiting for him which consisted of these two newspapers, the Militant and the Worker, and I threw them away.
Mr. Jenner: You threw them away?
Mrs. Paine: Without opening them
Mr. Jenner: Why did you throw them away?
Mrs. Paine: I was pleased to throw away anything I could. I just didn't want it. 
Mr. Jenner: Well, my question or query, and I think expression of surprise, is activated by what I am about to ask you as to whether you might call that to the attention of the FBI?
Mrs. Paine: Oh, I am sure they knew.
Mr. Jenner: How are you sure they knew?
Mrs. Paine: Because mail stopped coming on the spot, nothing came after the assassination, I was certain it was still coming to some place.
Mr. Jenner: But this was almost instantaneously after you heard a broadcast that a photograph of him had been found in which he had been holding up the Militant. But you immediately went to see if he had that mail and there was a copy of the Militant and you threw it away?
Mrs. Paine: Why not?
Mr. Jenner: Well, it occurred to me you might have called the FBI's attention to the fact that it had come to the house. But you didn't in any event? 
Mrs. Paine: No I didn't. 

Paine changes her story

In an FBI interview on 7/31/64, Paine was now claiming that she found out that Oswald subscribed to the Militant a week after the assassination instead of on the 23rd, and also that she destroyed a Russian magazine. 




The significance of this, besides the obvious, is that any Russian magazines that would have ended up at 2515 West Fifth St. would have had different readdressing from the Worker and the Militant. This is complicated but is explained in my essay. Basically, even IF Marina forwarded Oswald's regular mail to P.O. Box 30061 in New Orleans, which there is zero evidence for, any Russian magazines at the Paine home would have been readdressed from P.O. Box 2915 while The Worker and The Militant would have been readdressed from P.O. Box 30061. 

Also, if any Russian magazines were found at the Paine home dated prior to 9/26/63, the entire story of Oswald's mail would have been torched. Irving mail carrier J.G. Davis told Postal Inspectors he delivered Oswald's mail to the Paine home starting in July '63 because he never saw Oswald's 5/15/63 change of address order from 2515 W 5th to 4907 Magazine St (which was buried by the Secret Service after the assassination). He would have delivered Oswald's mail to the Paine home because Marina closed P.O. Box 2915 on May 10th and sent the family mail there. 

The DPD also recovered "Russian language newspapers" from the Paine home. To my knowledge not one has ever been seen. 

The mail forwarding issues seem to have troubled the Warren Commission. During the testimony of Michael Paine, Allen Dulles cut in on Wesley Liebeler to ask the following questions:

Mr. Dulles: Do I understand that this was, this Daily Worker was, mailed-- 
Mr. Paine: To 515. 
Mr. Dulles: To your address in Irving? 
Mr. Paine: That is right. Or Ruth's address. 
Mr. Dulles: It wasn't readdressed but it was directly sent? 
Mr. Paine: That is correct. 
Mr. Dulles: He gave your address for The Worker to come to? 
Mr. Paine: That is right. 
Representative Ford: What prompted him to hand you The Worker? Was there any preface to the actual handing of it to you? 
Mr. Paine: Yes. I think I was asking him, I would like to, I wanted to see some literature or what he liked to read or something like that. I think it was as a response to some question or inquiry of mine. 
Mr. Dulles: Do you know whether this was addressed to him in care of you or Ruth Paine or was it just sent at the Paine address? 
Mr. Paine: I don't remember for certain. I would think it would have just been Oswald at that address but I don't remember. It may have been. There were enough of those packages but I just don't remember. 

Dulles knew that those magazines should have been readdressed from P.O. Box 30061. Notably, Dulles said nothing when Paine talked about Oswald's Russian magazines.

[Mick_Purdy]

Paine testified that she destroyed copies of the Worker and the Militant addressed to Oswald immediately after learning about the BYPs. If anyone can come up with an innocent explanation for this I'm all ears. Even Albert Jenner was suspicious.


+1 on that!

[JFK_FNG]

The worst part I think is that she changed her story. She gave very clear, specific testimony that she tossed the magazines after seeing the BYP story on TV Saturday night, and that NO mail for Oswald arrived at her house after the assassination.

Four months later, she tells the FBI that mail DID arrive after the assassination and that she actually threw away the papers, plus a Russian magazine, a week later instead of on the 23rd. She also declined to mention to the FBI any connection to her learning about the BYP’s.

The second story obviously makes her look a bit better, and the initial story is so specific I don’t think any reasonable person could believe she just made a mistake. The whole thing smells to me like what Bugliosi would call “consciousness of guilt”.

Why would she destroy the magazines though? Could they have been the same issues seen in the BYP’s? What’s really weird about this is that Oswald should have stopped receiving The Worker and The Militant at 2515 West Fifth St. on Nov. 2nd, when he filed change of address orders directly with the publishers changing his address from box 30061 to box 6225. Sure it’s possible that the publishers didn’t see the change of address right away, but that BOTH would still be delivering to the wrong place three weeks later is quite the stretch.

[Greg_Doudna]

[deleted]

[JFK_FNG]

I’ve been keeping an open mind about Ruth Paine, but this is one thing that makes me wonder. If she had given your explanation under oath to the Warren Commission instead of “I just didn’t want it” and “why not?” that would be one thing but she didn’t. Based on her eagerness to turn over anything incriminating she found in her house, I don’t really buy that Paine didn’t see the problem with tossing key evidence in the investigation immediately after learning it was potentially important. Her playing dumb to Jenner seems like an act to me.

A bigger problem though is why would she lie to the FBI and change her story in a way that makes her look better, and leaves out important details that she already testified to? You have to admit that this kind of behavior warrants reasonable suspicion.  

Perhaps the biggest problem is Paine saying that two magazines that Oswald had changed his address with three weeks earlier were waiting in the mail for him on the weekend of the assassination.

Yes lying and changing stories is not evidence of someone being a witting co-conspirator, but I don’t think we should write off persons of interest in the case who do questionable things either. I think changing stories and lying to federal agents about evidence destruction qualifies as questionable.

EDIT: The Bugliosi reference is because this whole episode reminded me a bit of Jerry Owen in the RFK case, who volunteered the Sirhan hitchhiker story immediately after the assassination, but the story didn’t hold up then evidence came forth linking Owen to Sirhan in a much more suspicious way. Bugliosi, in advocating for conspiracy in the RFK case, said in court in Owen’s libel case that Owen’s actions and statements following the assassination show “consciousness of guilt”, because he volunteered  information linking him to Sirhan, then lied, changed his story, and the truth looked to be a lot more sinister.

EDIT2: I also don’t agree that Paine’s different stories are simply a case of eroding memory or something. Her testimony was extremely specific and her report to the FBI was wildly different in almost every material detail. Is it really reasonable to believe that Paine (1) Forgot that mail stopped arriving after the assassination; (2) forgot that the trigger for her disposing of the magazines was seeing the news story about the BYPs on Saturday; (3) got the timeframe off by a week; (4) forgot that the magazines were already at her house waiting in the mail for Oswald; and (5) forgot her own testimony? The only consistent detail is that she destroyed evidence, which almost makes me think that neither of her statements tell the full story. 

All I’m saying is that this kind of thing justifies asking questions. If Paine really wanted to tell the “whole truth” why wouldn’t she explain herself instead of brushing it off? Why would she change her story so dramatically? Not wanting to be thought of as a communist for having mail sent to her home addressed to someone that isn’t her (that shouldn’t have even been there because Oswald changed his address) is a pretty flimsy motive when you consider the entire incident, in my opinion.

[Ed.Ledoux]

Absolutely had she said she just tossed out those communist magazines because she felt obliged to do so with a persons mail then she should spend a few nights in the clinck for tampering with US Mail.
She should have marked them and stuck them back in the mail...or just minded her own business and turned over any mail to Marina or authorities.
She didnt.
If Lee is alive and Ruth is selecting what mail he can receive, is there a federal crime she is admitting to.
If she see's the BYPs and then throws away evidence it is beyond suspicion.
If she was questioned by police or feds then throws out mail she is most certainly guilty of a charge.

Do we have Ruth pinned?

[Mick_Purdy]

Absolutely had she said she just tossed out those communist magazines because she felt obliged to do so with a persons mail then she should spend a few nights in the clinck for tampering with US Mail.
She should have marked them and stuck them back in the mail...or just minded her own business and turned over any mail to Marina or authorities.
She didnt.
If Lee is alive and Ruth is selecting what mail he can receive, is there a federal crime she is admitting to.
If she see's the BYPs and then throws away evidence it is beyond suspicion.
If she was questioned by police or feds then throws out mail she is most certainly guilty of a charge.

Do we have Ruth pinned?

We need a lawyer. On the surface it would seem she has committed an offence. 

And I'm sorry Greg D, but after reading your previous posts about Ruth Paine and your obvious bias toward her it's hard to believe that you would post anything derogatory about her here. I mean no offence, but that is a fact and it would also be hard to imagine that you could remain impartial or unbiased in this thread at least to my mind.

[JFK_FNG]

I am not a lawyer, but from a little bit of research it looks like mail destruction has been a felony since 1948 and is prosecuted under 18 USC - 1702:

Section 1702 Obstruction of Mail Generally.  Whoever takes any letter, postal card or package out of any post office or any authorized depository for mail matter, or from any letter or mail carrier, or which has been in the post office or authorized depository, or in the custody of any letter or mail carrier, before it has been delivered to whom it was directed, with the desire to obstruct the correspondence, or try to pry into the business or secrets of another, or opens, secrets, embezzles or destroy the same, shall be fined not more than $2,000 or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both (25 June 1948, ch 645, par 1, 62 Stat. 778).  A violation of this section is a felony.

It also looks like it might fall under 1703 instead, “Delay or destruction of mail or newspapers”, where the key line is:

Whoever, without authority, opens, or destroys any mail or package of newspapers not directed to him, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

Might explain why Ruth changed her story - maybe she realized she admitted to a crime under oath? I can’t imagine the mail being evidence in a murder investigation makes it much better either. So if her testimony is accurate that’s two felonies: obstruction of correspondence and lying to federal agents. On the second matter, lying itself is not a crime, but if Paine’s testimony is accurate her later statement to the FBI sure seems to meet the standard, especially since she had already contradicted herself under oath:

https://www.pagepate.com/experience/criminal-defense/federal-crimes/false-statement-charges/

This is just from a Google search though. We’d definitely need a lawyer to really analyze it. Still though it looks like there’s a very strong possibility that what she did was quite illegal.

[Ed.Ledoux]

Guilty. Guilty and Guilty.
All time and penalties to be consecutive sentences!
Anyone who wants to start a GoFundMe for Ruths incarceration? I got 100 bucks to kickstart it.

Seriously it could take public pressure on DA or feds/uspo to get them to investigate-charge Ruth.
Not that a good lawyer in DC or California couldnt get some traction.

This is huge and puts a whole new light on the quack Quaker.

Lets make this a separate thread and keep up the heat!!!

[JFK_FNG]

Again, am not a lawyer, but I'm sure this would fall under the 5 year statute of limitations for federal crimes. Sure makes a lot of sense though that Paine would be reluctant to tell the FBI, an actual law enforcement agency, what she told the Warren Commission. That more of a follow up on this wasn't done at the time is mind-boggling.

Also, take a look at the language used in her 7/31/64 FBI statement. She says that the copy of The Worker and the Russian newspaper arrived sometime between 11/12 and 11/29 but she couldn't be sure, but says she became aware that Oswald had read the Militant about one week after the assassination, because one issue of the Militant had been addressed to 2515 West Fifth St. 

Oswald changed his address from P.O. Box 30061 to 2515 West Fifth on 9/26/63. There were eight issues of the Militant between 9/26 and 11/22/63. The October 14th issue was never forwarded from P.O. Box 30061, and its discovery in New Orleans is actually what prompted the 7/31/64 interview of Ruth Paine:



Paine testified that an issue of the Militant was waiting for Oswald in the mail on the 21st. Presumably this would have been the 11/18 issue if Paine had retrieved it from the mailbox that weekend. I took another look at Oswald's change of address with the Militant to box 6225 (Dobbs Exhibit 5), and it was mailed on 11/2 but had an effective date of 11/10 and was stamped as received by the Militant on 11/14. The point being that unless the 11/18 issue was mailed before the 14th (which is possible), there shouldn't have been an issue of the Militant in the Paine mailbox that weekend, and to think the magazine was still being delivered there a week after the assassination is preposterous. In addition, Michael Paine told the FBI, in the same series of interviews regarding the 10/14 issue that Ruth always got the mail from the mailbox. 




Thus if we accept the change of address, there were six issues of the Militant that Ruth had pulled out of the mailbox for Oswald since he moved back to Dallas. Michael also testified:

Mr. Liebeler: Did you know whether Oswald received any periodicals or mail at your address in Irving?   

Mr Paine: Yes. The Daily Worker, or is it not the Daily Worker now but the Worker, what is it called now?

Mr. Liebeler: The Worker

Mr. Paine: Would come. Ruth said he received all his, The Militant also there. I don't remember seeing The Militant there but generally, I didn't see the mail very much. She would put my mail apart, I had half my mail or more than half my mail would come to that address...She would separate my mail into a separate pile and I would pick it up. 

So basically Ruth's statement to the FBI that she became aware that Oswald had subscribed to the Militant a week after the assassination is just a flat out lie. But we already knew that from her testimony. 

I'll transfer all this to a new thread tomorrow, unless anyone else wants to start one.

[Mick_Purdy]

Statute of limitation exist here?

[JFK_FNG]

Statute of limitation exist here?

According to 30 minutes of armchair lawyering, yes. 

Although the majority of federal crimes are governed by the general five-year statute of limitations, Congress has chosen longer periods for specific types of crimes—20 years for the theft of art work; 10 years for arson, for certain crimes against financial institutions, and for immigration offenses; and 8 years for the nonviolent terrorist offenses that may be prosecuted at any time if committed under violent circumstances. Investigative difficulties or the seriousness of the crime seem to have provided the rationale for enlargement of the time limit for prosecuting these offenses beyond the five-year standard.


https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/RL31253.html


I moved this to another thread per Ed's request - I found some more stuff on this too I was about to post over there. It's minutiae, but still pretty interesting.

[JFK_FNG]

Len Osanic had me on BoR if anyone feels like listening to semi-coherent rambling. I haven’t listened to it and I’d recommend just reading the essay. We’d been emailing but I thought he just wanted to chat for a bit last night to screen me or something, then he just started recording the show. I was literally twenty minutes out of the hospital, had zero preparation, and was in pain, but I did the best I could, despite forgetting half the stuff I wanted to talk about. I do think I have enough material for an update on the essay though…I’ll work on that.

https://blackopradio.com/archives2022.html

[greg_parkerAdmin]

Len Osanic had me on BoR if anyone feels like listening to semi-coherent rambling. I haven’t listened to it and I’d recommend just reading the essay. We’d been emailing but I thought he just wanted to chat for a bit last night to screen me or something, then he just started recording the show. I was literally twenty minutes out of the hospital, had zero preparation, and was in pain, but I did the best I could, despite forgetting half the stuff I wanted to talk about. I do think I have enough material for an update on the essay though…I’ll work on that.

https://blackopradio.com/archives2022.html

Len's a nice bloke and is always prepared to have people on whose ideas may conflict with more regular guests.

His interview style more befits those who can talk for lengthy periods on end and who can easily segue into other topics without prompting or leading questions. 

I will try and make time to listen tonight. I'm sure you did fine - although yes, there are always things you think of later that you could have mentioned.

[greg_parkerAdmin]

Tom,

fantastic job!

I have to wonder how many theories this will now be incorporated into?

[JFK_FNG]

Tom,

fantastic job!

I have to wonder how many theories this will know be incorporatws into?

Thanks Greg. I hope it will get at least a few more people interested in reading the essay and looking into this stuff, and I’m going to start working today on an update. 

Johnny Cairns was on the show pushing that Oswald alone was on the box application as if it was a fact, so I emailed Len with a listener question saying that that argument, despite Harry Holmes’ perjury was basically the government cover story. Jim D. replied and interrogated me, and they decided to have me on. I just didn’t know we’d actually be recording when we did, fresh out of the hospital lol. So I had a plan on what I was gonna say but ended up just winging it. 

If anything gets incorporated by others I think it should be the Dallas to New Orleans mail forwarding stuff, as the evidence for that is pretty rock solid IMO, and it was provably covered up by the government. At the very least I hope more people will question the mainstay argument about section three of the box application.

[greg_parkerAdmin]

Lol. I should stop posting from my phone.

Johnny Cairns is young - possibly still in his 20s. His focus is entirely on the legal aspects of the evidence rather than in verifying its legitimacy. In that sense he is not really a researcher but an advocate.

Overall, he does a great job but obviously there will be an occasional issue as to the legitimicy of some evidence to start with.

Thrre sre a number of things on your essay thar should be taken on board by anyone looking into the case in any depth.

Same applies to the essays of John Manning, Bart's website and to many thteads here.

Look forward to seeing any updates.








Í

[JFK_FNG]

Lol. I should stop posting from my phone.

Johnny Cairns is young - possibly still in his 20s. His focus is entirely on the legal aspects of the evidence rather than in verifying its legitimacy. In that sense he is not really a researcher but an advocate.

Overall, he does a great job but obviously there will be an occasional issue as to the legitimicy of some evidence to start with.

Thrre sre a number of things on your essay thar should be taken on board by anyone looking into the case in any depth.

Same applies to the essays of John Manning,  Bart's website and to many thteads here.

Look forward to seeing any updates.

I've really liked Cairns' stuff overall too, but I see what you mean about him being an advocate. 

One thing I definitely want to incorporate in an update is the stuff Holmes told Larry Sneed for No More Silence.  Another thing I really want to use is this, but I'm not quite sure how to interpret it without a timestamp:



If the memo was sent before 8:00 a.m. CST, the note about Mrs. M. Oswald being "believed to be subject's mother" - in this case actually referring to Marguerite - might tie in to the "mix up" with the 2915 box application. The CIA telling the FBI that Marina was receiving mail in P.O. Box 2915 on Nov. 23rd is pretty damn interesting either way though. 

There's also an interesting side-plot that happened with these letters (that were never given to the WC by the way) involving Alex Kleinlerer that's pretty bizarre. Marina sent two letters to Russia using 602 Elsbeth as a return address, which is weird enough on its own, but she used envelopes for the Texas Import Export Company that had a separate return address of P.O. Box 11277. Kleinlerer told the FBI that Texas I/E was a fake company set up by the Loma Corporation to get quotes from foreign competitors, and that he left some of the stationary at Elena Hall's house while he was banging her during her divorce. Kleinlerer is the guy who tells the FBI and SS two wildly different stories on the exact same day about "witnessing" Oswald hit Marina, so he's quite the piece of work. If anyone knows anything about this episode with Texas I/E Co. I'd be interested in hearing about it.

[Sponsored content]