The above Left picture shows an artist’s depiction of the mysterious ‘Raoul’ based on James Earl Ray’s description. Ray was a small time crook who said that ‘Raoul’ framed him for Martin Luther King’s assassination on April 4th 1968 in Memphis, Tennessee.
The above Right photo shows the face of the ‘short tramp’ arrested in a railroad boxcar after the JFK assassination. This individual was ultimately identified as Charles Rogers, and was known to have gone by several aliases which included ‘Richard Montoya’ “Charles Robeson’ ‘Charles Montoya’ ‘Carlos Rojas’ and ‘Frenchy’ among others. Rogers has not been seen or heard from officially since 1965 after police found the dissected remains of his parents in the refrigerator of their Houston home. The Man on the Grassy Knoll authors John R. Craig and Philip A. Rogers theorized that the killings may have been caused by Mr. Rogers’ mother confronting her son about…
View original post 109 more words
Mary Moorman was a 31 year old Dallas resident who went to see the JFK motorcade with her friend Jean Hill on November 22, 1963. Moorman snapped a Polaroid photograph of the JFK limousine as the assassins’ bullets hit JFK. Her photograph shows a wounded JFK as well as some of the grassy knoll area in the background. Moorman and Hill spoke of being harassed by a newspaperman named James Featherstone immediately after the assassination. The FBI took Moorman’s Polaroids of the JFK motorcade and returned them several weeks later ‘mutilated,’ including a…
View original post 817 more words
The Testimony of Roger Craig
Dallas PD’s Roger Craig was on the scene during the chaos in Dealey Plaza during the JFK assassination. His honest testimony totally contradicts the Warren Commission and offers the following new facts for consideration:
-Oswald was picked up after the assassination by a dark skinned man in a station wagon which belonged to Oswald’s landlady/CIA babysitter Ruth Paine! Later, Mrs. Paine’s testimony against Oswald would be the backbone of the bogus Warren Commission and Media’s depiction of Oswald.
-a witness, Arnold Rowland, saw a white male waving a rifle in and ‘a colored male(likely dark skinned CIA operative, David Sanchez Morales) pacing back and forth’ on the 6th Floor of the Texas School Book Depository 15 minutes prior to the JFK assassination!
-Craig personally encountered a phony Secret Service Agent in front of the TSBD. This man would later be identified as Edgar Eugene Bradley (aka Eugene Hale Brading)
View original post 110 more words
How Multiple Lookalikes Were Used to Craft One Lone Scapegoat
The following segments of Jim Douglass’ JFK and the Unspeakable – Why He Died and Why It Matters examine the composite scapegoat served up to the world in the guise of Lee Harvey Oswald and the domestic intelligence network that was writing his story. Recently I read Norman Cousins remarkable “Asterisk to the History of a Hopeful Year, 1962-1963,” The Improbable Triumvirate: John F. Kennedy, Pope John, Nikita Khrushchev. In it, Cousins describes his experiences as an emissary between President Kennedy, Pope John XXIII, and Nikita Khrushchev.
In an April 1963 meeting with Khrushchev at his retreat in Gagra, Cousins asked, “What would you say your principal achievement has been during your years in office?” Khrushchev replied, “Could I talk about two achievements and not just one? The first was telling the people the truth about Stalin. There was a chance, I thought, that if we understood what really happened, it might not happen again. Anyway, we could not go forward as a nation unless we got the poison of Stalin out of our system. He did some good things, to be sure, and I have acknowledged them. But he was an insane tyrant and he held back our country for many years.” (pp. 108-109).
Just as Khrushchev chose to reveal to the people of Russia what had truly occurred during Stalin’s reign of terror so they could all move forward, it is of utmost necessity for all of us in America to finally choose to know the facts concerning why our President was publicly executed in 1963 for becoming, in the eyes of his national security state managers, a traitor and a national security risk. John Kennedy was turning toward peace in the critical imperatives of seeking to end the Cold War with the enemy, his Russian counterpart, and a rapprochement with Cuba’s Fidel Castro, the “thorn in the side” of the American military-industrial-intelligence complex.
The following truth-telling of Butch Burroughs, Bernard Haire, T. F. White, Wes Wise, Robert G. Vinson, and Ralph Leon Yates allows us to peel back layers of obfuscation and unspeakable deception that have been directed at this country’s people for fifty years about why their beloved President was murdered by elements of U.S. national security state personnel that evermore direct the affairs of this corporate empire state. Peace is possible and can manifest when we are willing to see and acknowledge the unspeakable.
Warren Commission counsel David Belin wrote: “The Rosetta Stone [the key to Egyptian hieroglyphics] to the solution of President Kennedy’s murder is the murder of Officer J. D. Tippit.” From the Warren Commission’s standpoint, the killing of Tippit, who presumably challenged the assassin’s flight after he killed Kennedy, was said to prove “that Oswald had the capacity to kill.”
Warren Commission critic Harold Weisberg saw Tippit’s murder instead as the government’s way of poisoning the public mind against Lee Harvey Oswald: “Immediately the [flimsy] police case [against Oswald] required a willingness to believe. This was provided by affixing to Oswald the opprobrious epithet of ‘cop-killer.’”
According to the Warren Report, the tracking of Oswald from Dealey Plaza to Tippit’s murder began with eyewitness Howard Brennan, a forty-five-year-old steamfitter who was standing across the street from the Texas School Book Depository watching the presidential motorcade. Brennan told a police officer right after the assassination that he saw a man standing in a sixth-floor window of the Depository fire a rifle at the president’s car. The Warren Report says Brennan described the standing shooter as “white, slender, weighing about 165 pounds, about 5’ 10” tall, and in his early thirties,” a description matching Oswald that was radioed to Dallas Police cars at approximately 12:45 P.M. Yet, as Mark Lane pointed out, “There could not have been a man standing and firing from [the sixth-floor window] because, as photographs of the building taken within seconds of the assassination prove, the window was open only partially at the bottom, and one shooting from a standing position would have been obliged to fire through the glass.” Moreover, Brennan’s testimony that the man firing the rifle “was standing up and resting against the left windowsill” was also impossible because the windowsill was only a foot from the floor, with the window opened about fourteen inches. So if it was impossible for key witness Howard Brennan to have provided such a description, and if the Warren Commission could cite only him as a source for the 12:45 P.M. police description, who put out that Oswald-like alert if not the conspirators?
Supposedly on the basis of nothing more than that radioed description, Officer Tippit stopped his car at 1:15 P.M. to confront a man walking on East 10th Street in the Oak Cliff area of Dallas. The man then shot Tippit to death. The murderer fled the scene on foot. Half an hour later, the man was reported sneaking into the Texas Theater, which the Dallas police then stormed, arresting a man who was soon identified as Lee Harvey Oswald.
As Weisberg pointed out, the killing of Tippit provided a dramatic reinforcement of Oswald’s assumed killing of Kennedy. At the same time, the killing of a fellow police officer helped motivate the Dallas police to kill an armed Oswald in the Texas Theater, which would have disposed of the scapegoat before he could protest his being framed.
Once again, however, the assassination script was imperfectly carried out. Oswald survived his arrest in the theater. And as in a flawed movie where scene variations are shot, doubles are used, and the director is in a hurry, the final version of this film for our viewing doesn’t add up. The Warren Commission’s attempt to squeeze it all into a lone-gunman explanation has resulted in an implausible narrative.
According to the Warren Report, between President Kennedy’s assassination at 12:30 P.M. and Officer Tippit’s murder at 1:15 P.M., Lee Harvey Oswald did the following:
After the lone assassin shot the president to death and wounded Governor Connally from a sixth-floor window in the Texas School Book Depository, he hid his rifle and stepped quickly down four flights of stairs to the lunchroom, where he was seen calmly preparing to buy a bottle of Coca Cola from a vending machine. He escaped from the building and walked seven blocks. He took a bus that was headed back toward the Texas School Book Depository, got stuck with the bus in a traffic jam, and got off it. He walked three to four blocks to hire a taxi. He offered to give up his taxi to an old lady when she asked his driver for help finding a cab (an offer she refused, allowing him to continue his escape without changing taxis). He rode 2.4 miles in the taxi, taking him five blocks too far past his rooming house. He paid his fare, got out, and walked five blocks back to his rooming house. “He went on to his room and stayed about 3 or 4 minutes,” picked up his jacket and a revolver, and departed. The housekeeper saw him standing in front of the house by the stop for a northbound bus. He apparently gave up on the bus and instead walked south another remarkably brisk nine-tenths mile. All of these actions, following his killing of the president, were, by the Commission’s timetable, accomplished in forty-five minutes. Oswald then, we are told, used his revolver to calmly murder Officer J. D. Tippit on a quiet street in the Oak Cliff neighborhood of Dallas, “removing the empty cartridge cases from the gun as he went,” helpfully leaving a trail of ballistic evidence for the police to collect. He thereby aborted his escape and became a magnet for a massive police chase. The police arrested him in the Texas Theater at 1:50 P.M.
This jam-packed scenario was created by more than one man bearing Oswald’s likeness, with help from behind the scenes. At 12:40 P.M., exactly the same time that Deputy Sheriff Roger Craig and Helen Forrest saw Oswald get into a Rambler station wagon in front of the Book Depository, Oswald’s former landlady, Mary Bledsoe, saw him board a bus seven blocks east of the Depository. Oswald told Captain Will Fritz he rode the bus, until its holdup in traffic made him switch to a taxi. A bus transfer found in his shirt pocket at his arrest seemed to confirm the short bus trip. Yet when Fritz told Oswald that Craig had seen him depart by car, Oswald said defensively, “That station wagon belongs to Mrs. Paine. Don’t try to drag her into this.”
When he added dejectedly, “Everybody will know who I am now,” Oswald seemed to imply that his (or a double’s) departure in the station wagon, and the vehicle’s association with Mrs. Paine, were keys to his real identity.
If he was not the man picked up by the station wagon, then Roger Craig and Helen Forrest had seen, in Forrest’s words, “his identical twin.” The man spirited away by the Nash Rambler had been either Oswald or a double; driven, Craig said, by “a husky looking Latin.”
Besides the mysterious Nash Rambler that was in the end spotted by so many mutually supportive witnesses—Craig, Forrest, Pennington, Carr, Robinson, and Cooper—there may have been two more cars even more deeply in the shadows that helped Lee Harvey Oswald make his otherwise unlikely transitions that climactic afternoon in the assassination plot. Another car appeared out of nowhere when he arrived at his rooming house.
After Oswald went to his room at 1:00 P.M., the housekeeper, Mrs. Earlene Roberts, saw a police car stop directly in front of the house. She told the Warren Commission that two uniformed policemen were in the car. The driver sounded the horn, “just kind of a ‘tit-tit’—twice,” an unmistakable signal, then eased the car forward and went around the corner.
After “about three or four minutes,” Oswald returned from his room and went outside. Before Mrs. Roberts turned her attention elsewhere, she saw him standing in front of the house by a northbound bus stop—to be heard from next in the Warren Report twelve minutes later as the apparent killer of Officer Tippit near the corner of Tenth and Patton, almost one mile away in the opposite direction. How he got there in time to kill Tippit, or even if he did, has never been clearly established.
He may have been picked up by the Dallas police car that parked briefly in front of the house, beeped its horn twice lightly—tap, tap—in an apparent signal, and drove around the corner (perhaps only to circle the block and return for him). Earlene Roberts told the Warren Commission that the number on the police car was 107. As the Commission’s staff would discover, the Dallas Police Department no longer had a car 107. It had sold its car 107 on April 17, 1963, to a used car dealer. The Dallas Police would not resume using the number 107 until February 1964, three months after the assassination. If Mrs. Roberts had the car’s number right, then the horn signal to Oswald came from two uniformed men in a counterfeit police car. Their likely destination, with Oswald as their passenger, was the Texas Theater, where they would drop off Oswald for a setup for his arrest and murder—while the Oswald impostor in the Nash Rambler was being let off for a short walk to meet Officer Tippit in a fatal encounter at Tenth and Patton.
The Warren Report describes the murder of Officer Tippit “at approximately 1:15 P.M.,” after he confronted a man walking east along the south side of Patton: “The man’s general description was similar to the one broadcast over the police radio. Tippit stopped the man and called him to his car. He approached the car and apparently exchanged words with Tippit through the right front or vent window. Tippit got out and started to walk around the front of the car. As Tippit reached the left front wheel the man pulled out a revolver and fired several shots. Four bullets hit Tippit and killed him instantly. The gunman started back toward Patton Avenue, ejecting the empty cartridge cases before reloading with fresh bullets.”
As the gunman walked and trotted away from the murder scene while still holding the revolver, the Warren Report says he was seen by at least twelve persons: “By the evening of November 22, five of them had identified Lee Harvey Oswald in police lineups as the man they saw. A sixth did so the next day. Three others subsequently identified Oswald from a photograph. Two witnesses testified that Oswald resembled the man they had seen. One witness felt he was too distant from the gunman to make a positive identification.”
The fleeing man identified later as Oswald was seen finally by Johnny Calvin Brewer, manager of Hardy’s Shoestore, located a few doors east of the Texas Theater. After spotting the man acting suspiciously in the recessed area in front of his store, Brewer went outside. He saw the man ducking into the theater up the block. The ticket-seller, Julia Postal, confirmed to Brewer that the man had not bought a ticket. She called the police.
However, the man who shot Tippit, fled the murder scene, sneaked into the Texas Theater just before 1:45 P.M., and was identified as Lee Harvey Oswald, posed another bi-location problem. Oswald once again seemed to be in two places at the same time.
According to Warren H. “Butch” Burroughs, the concession stand operator at the Texas Theater, Lee Harvey Oswald entered the theater sometime between 1:00 and 1:07 P.M., several minutes before Officer Tippit was slain seven blocks away. If true, Butch Burroughs’s observation would eliminate Oswald as a candidate for Tippet’s murder. Perhaps for that reason, Burroughs was asked by a Warren Commission attorney the apparently straightforward question, “Did you see [Oswald] come in the theater?” and answered honestly, “No, sir; I didn’t.” What someone reading this testimony would not know is that Butch Burroughs was unable to see anyone enter the theater from where he was standing at his concession stand, unless that person came into the area where he was working. As he explained to me in an interview, there was a partition between his concession stand and the front door. Someone could enter the theater, go directly up a flight of stairs to the balcony, and not be seen from the concession stand. That, Burroughs said, is what Oswald apparently did. However, Burroughs still knew Oswald had come into the theater “between 1:00 and 1:07 P.M.” because he saw him inside the theater soon after that. As he told me, he sold popcorn to Oswald at 1:15 P.M.—information that the Warren Commission did not solicit from him in his testimony. When Oswald bought his popcorn at 1:15 P.M., this was exactly the same time the Warren Report said Officer Tippit was being shot to death—evidently by someone else.
Butch Burroughs was not alone in noticing Oswald in the Texas Theater by then. The man who would soon be identified as the president’s assassin drew the attention of several moviegoers because of his odd behavior.
Edging into a row of seats in the right rear section of the ground floor, Oswald had squeezed in front of eighteen-year-old Jack Davis. He then sat down in the seat right next to him. Because there were fewer than twenty people in the entire nine-hundred-seat theater, Davis wondered why the man chose such close proximity to him. Whatever the reason, the man didn’t stay there long. Oswald (as Davis would later identify him) got up quickly, moved across the aisle, and sat down next to someone else in the almost deserted theater. In a few moments, he stood up again and walked out to the lobby.
Davis thought it obvious Oswald was looking for someone. Yet it must have been someone he didn’t know personally. He sat next to each new person just long enough to receive a prearranged signal, in the absence of which he moved on to another possible contact.
Back out in the lobby at 1:15 P.M., Oswald then bought popcorn from Butch Burroughs at the concession stand. Burroughs told author Jim Marrs and myself that he saw Oswald go back in the ground floor of the theater and sit next to a pregnant woman—in another apparently fruitless effort to find his contact. Several minutes later, “the pregnant woman got up and went to the ladies washroom,” Burroughs said. He “heard the restroom door close just shortly before Dallas police came rushing into the theater.” Jack Davis said it may have been “twenty minutes or so” after Oswald returned from the lobby (when Burroughs saw Oswald sit by the pregnant woman) that the house lights came on and the police rushed in.
The police arrested Oswald in a curious way. They entered the theater from the front and back, blocking all exits and surrounding Oswald. Officer M. N. McDonald and three other officers came in from behind the movie screen. With the theater lights on, McDonald scanned the audience. Johnny Brewer, who had seen the man who looked like Oswald duck into the theater, showed McDonald where the man was sitting—in the third row from the rear of the ground floor.
With the suspect identified and located, McDonald and an accompanying officer, instead of apprehending the man in the rear of the theater, began searching people between him and them. As the police proceeded slowly toward Oswald, it was almost as if they were provoking the suspected police-killer to break away from his seat. His attempt to escape would have given Tippit’s enraged fellow officers an excuse to shoot him.
When McDonald finally reached his suspect in the third row from the back, Oswald stood up and pulled out his pistol. While he struggled with McDonald and the other officers who had converged on the scene, they heard the snap of the hammer on his gun misfiring. However, Oswald, instead of being shot to death on the spot, was wrestled into submission by the police and placed under arrest. The police hustled him out to a squad car. They drove him to Dallas Police Headquarters in City Hall.
Butch Burroughs, who witnessed Oswald’s arrest, startled me in his interview by saying he saw a second arrest occur in the Texas Theater only “three or four minutes later.” He said the Dallas Police then arrested “an Oswald lookalike.” Burroughs said the second man “looked almost like Oswald, like he was his brother or something.” When I questioned the comparison by asking, “Could you see the second man as well as you could see Oswald?” he said, “Yes, I could see both of them. They looked alike.” After the officers half-carried and half-dragged Oswald to the police car in front of the theater, within a space of three or four minutes, Burroughs saw the second Oswald placed under arrest and handcuffed. The Oswald look-alike, however, was taken by police not out the front but out the back of the theater.
What happened next we can learn from another neglected witness, Bernard Haire.
Bernard J. Haire was the owner of Bernie’s Hobby House, just two doors east of the Texas Theater. Haire went outside his store when he saw police cars congregating in front of the theater. When he couldn’t see what was happening because of the crowd, he went back through his store into the alley out back. It, too, was full of police cars, but there were fewer spectators. Haire walked up the alley. When he stopped opposite the rear door of the theater, he witnessed what he would think for decades was the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald.
“Police brought a young white man out,” Haire told an interviewer. “The man was dressed in a pullover shirt and slacks. He seemed to be flushed, as if he’d been in a struggle. Police put the man in a police car and drove off.”
“I don’t know who I saw arrested,” he said in bewilderment.
Butch Burroughs and Bernard Haire are complementary witnesses. From their perspectives both inside and outside the Texas Theater, they saw an Oswald double arrested and taken to a police car in the back alley only minutes after the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald. Burroughs’s and Haire’s independent, converging testimonies provide critical insight into the mechanics of the plot. In a comprehensive intelligence scenario for Kennedy’s and Tippit’s murders, the plan culminated in Oswald’s Friday arrest and Sunday murder (probably a fallback from his being set up to be killed in the Texas Theater by the police).
There is a hint of the second Oswald’s arrest in the Dallas police records. According to the Dallas Police Department’s official Homicide Report on J. D. Tippit, “Suspect was later arrested in the balcony of the Texas theatre at 231 W. Jefferson.”
Dallas Police detective L. D. Stringfellow also reported to Captain W. P. Gannaway, “Lee Harvey Oswald was arrested in the balcony of the Texas Theater.”
To whom are the Homicide Report and Detective Stringfellow referring? Lee Harvey Oswald was arrested in the orchestra, not the balcony. Are these documents referring to the Dallas Police Department’s second arrest at the Texas Theater that afternoon? Was Butch Burroughs witnessing an arrest of the Oswald look-alike that actually began in the balcony? That would have likely been the double’s hiding place, after he entered the theater without paying, thereby drawing attention to himself and leading the police to the apprehension of his likeness, Lee Harvey Oswald (who was already inside). As Butch Burroughs pointed out, anyone coming in the front of the theater could head immediately up the stairs to the balcony without being seen from the concession stand.
The Oswald double, after having been put in the police car in the alley, must have been driven a short distance and released on higher intelligence orders. Unfortunately for the plotters, he was seen again soon. With the scapegoat, Lee Harvey Oswald, now safely in custody, we can presume that the double was not supposed to be seen again in Dallas—or anywhere else. Had he not been seen, the CIA’s double-Oswald strategy in an Oak Cliff shell game might have eluded independent investigators forever. But thanks to other key witnesses who have emerged, we now have detailed evidence that the double was seen again—not just once but twice.
At 2:00 P.M., as Lee Harvey Oswald sat handcuffed in the back seat of a patrol car boxed in by police officers on his way to jail, Oswald knew what final role had been chosen for him in the assassination scenario. That night, while being led through police headquarters, he would shout out to the press, “I’m just a patsy!”
Also at about 2:00 P.M., a man identified as Oswald was seen in a car eight blocks away from the Texas Theater, still very much at large and keeping a low profile. A sharp-eyed auto mechanic spotted him.
T. F. White was a sixty-year-old, longtime employee of Mack Pate’s Garage in the Oak Cliff section of Dallas. While White worked on an automobile the afternoon of the assassination, he could hear police sirens screaming up and down Davis Street only a block away. He also heard radio reports describing a suspect then thought to be in Oak Cliff. The mechanic looked out the open doors of the garage. He watched as a red 1961 Falcon drove into the parking lot of the EI Chico restaurant across the street. The Falcon parked in an odd position after going a few feet into the lot. The driver remained seated in the car. White said later, “The man in the car appeared to be hiding.” White kept his eye on the man in the Falcon.
When Mack Pate returned from his lunch break a few minutes later, T. F. White pointed out to his boss the oddly parked Falcon with its waiting driver who seemed to be hiding. Pate told White to watch the car carefully, reminding him of earlier news reports they had heard about a possible assassination attempt against President Kennedy in Houston the day before involving a red Falcon.
T. F. White walked across the street to investigate. He halted about ten to fifteen yards from the car. He could see the driver was wearing a white t-shirt. The man turned toward White and looked at him full face. White stared back at him. Not wanting to provoke a possible assassin, White began a retreat to the garage. However, he paused, took a scrap of paper from his coveralls pocket, and wrote down the Texas license plate of the car: PP 4537.
That night, while T. F. White was watching television with his wife, he recognized the Dallas Police Department’s prisoner, Lee Harvey Oswald, as the man he had seen in the red Falcon in EI Chico’s parking lot. White was unfazed by what he did not yet know—that at the same time he had seen one Oswald sitting freely in the Falcon, the other Oswald was sitting handcuffed in a Dallas police car on his way to jail. Mrs. White, fearing the encompassing arms of a conspiracy, talked her husband out of reporting his information to the authorities. Thus, the Oswald sighted in the parking lot might have escaped history, but for the fact White was confronted by an alert reporter.
On December 4, 1963, Wes Wise, a Dallas newscaster whose specialty was sports, gave a luncheon talk to the Oak Cliff Exchange Club at EI Chico’s restaurant. At the urging of his listeners, he changed his topic from sports to the president’s assassination, which Wise had covered. He described to his luncheon audience how he, as a reporter, had become a part of Jack Ruby’s story. Wise’s encounter with the man he knew as a news groupie came on the grassy knoll, the day before Ruby shot Oswald. Wise had just completed a somber, day-after-the-assassination radio newscast from the site banked with wreaths.
While he sat in his car in silent reflection beside the Texas School Book Depository, he heard a familiar voice call out, “Hey, Wes!”
As Wise told the story, “I turned to see the portly figure of a man in a dark suit, half-waddling, half-trotting, as he came toward me. He was wearing a fedora-style hat which would later become familiar and famous.” Jack Ruby was making his way along the grassy knoll “from the direction of the railroad tracks,” precisely where the day before, as Ed Hoffman watched, another man in a suit had fired a rifle at the president—an hour and a half after Julia Ann Mercer saw a man, dropped off by Jack Ruby, carry a rifle up the same site.
Ruby leaned into Wise’s car window and said, his voice breaking and with tears in his eyes, “I just hope they don’t make Jackie come to Dallas for the trial. That would be terrible for that little lady.”
In retrospect, Wise wondered if Ruby was trying to set him up for a radio interview—to go on record the day before with his famous “motive” for murdering Oswald. Although Wise had no interest then in interviewing Jack Ruby, he had already just been told enough for him to be called as a witness in Ruby’s trial. He would be subpoenaed as a Ruby witness by both the prosecution and the defense. His testimony at the trial, quoting what Ruby said to him the day before Ruby murdered Oswald, would then be cited in Life magazine.
At the end of Wise’s talk to his absorbed audience at the Oak Cliff Exchange Club, Mack Pate, who had walked across the street from his garage to listen, gave the newscaster a new lead. He told Wise about his mechanic having seen Oswald. Wise asked to go immediately with Pate to speak with his employee.
As Wes Wise told me in an interview four decades later, he then “put a little selling job on Mr. White” to reveal what he had seen. Wise said to the reluctant auto mechanic, “Well, you know, we’re talking about the assassination of the president of the United States here.”
Convinced of his duty, T. F. White took Wise into EI Chico’s parking lot and walked him step by step through his “full face” encounter with Oswald. Wise realized the car had been parked at the center of Oswald’s activity in Oak Cliff that afternoon: one block from where Oswald got out of the taxi, six blocks south of his rooming house, eight blocks north of his arrest at the Texas Theater, and only five blocks from Tippit’s murder on a route in between.
White reached in his pocket and took out a scrap of paper with writing on it. He handed it to Wise.
“This is it,” he said.
Newscaster Wes Wise notified the FBI of White’s identification of Oswald in the car parked in the EI Chico lot, and cited the license plate number. FBI agent Charles T. Brown, Jr., reported from an interview with Milton Love, Dallas County Tax Office: “1963 Texas License Plate PP 4537 was issued for a 1957 Plymouth automobile in possession of Carl Amos Mather, 4309 Colgate Street, Garland, Texas.” Agent Brown then drove to that address. He reported that the 1957 Plymouth bearing license plate PP 4537 was parked in the driveway of Mather’s home in Garland, a suburb of Dallas. Thus arose the question of how a license plate for Carl Amos Mather’s Plymouth came to be seen on the Falcon in EI Chico’s parking lot, with a man in it who looked like Oswald.
The FBI had also discovered that Carl Amos Mather did high-security communications work for Collins Radio, a major contractor with the Central Intelligence Agency. Three weeks before Kennedy’s assassination, Collins Radio had been identified on the front page of the New York Times as having just deployed a CIA raider ship on an espionage and sabotage mission against Cuba. Collins also held the government contract for installing communications towers in Vietnam. In 1971, Collins Radio would merge with another giant military contractor, Rockwell International. In November 1963, Collins was at the heart of the CIA-military-contracting business for state-of-the-art communications systems.
Carl Mather had represented Collins at Andrews Air Force Base by putting special electronics equipment in Vice President Lyndon Johnson’s Air Force Two plane. Given the authority of his CIA-linked security clearance, Carl Mather refused to speak to the FBI. The FBI instead questioned his wife, Barbara Mather, who stunned them. Her husband, she said, was a good friend of J. D. Tippit. In fact, the Mathers were such close friends of Tippit and his wife that when J. D. was murdered, Marie Tippit phoned them. According to his wife, Carl Mather left work that afternoon at 3:30 and returned home. Carl and Barbara Mather then drove to the Tippit home, where they consoled Marie Tippit on the death of her husband (killed by a man identical to the one seen a few minutes later five blocks away in a car bearing the Mathers’ license plate number).
Fifteen years after the assassination, Carl Mather did finally consent to an interview for the first time—with the House Select Committee on Assassinations, but on condition that he be granted immunity from prosecution. The electronics specialist could not explain how his car’s license number could have been seen on the Falcon with its Oswald-like driver in the El Chico lot.
The HSCA dismissed the incident as “the Wise allegation,” in which a confused auto mechanic had jotted down a coincidentally connected license plate, as “alleged” by a reporter. The odds against White having come up with the exact license plate of a CIA-connected friend of J. D. Tippit were too astronomical for comment, and were given none.
What kept “the Wise allegation” from sinking into total oblivion over the years was the persistent conscience of Wes Wise, who in 1971 was elected mayor of Dallas. During his two terms as mayor (1971-76), Wise guided Dallas out from under the cloud of the assassination and at the same time saved the Texas School Book Depository from imminent destruction, preserving it for further research into the president’s murder.
In the fall of 2005, I interviewed Wes Wise, who recalled vividly T. F. White’s description of his confrontation with a man looking like Oswald in the El Chico parking lot. Wise said he was so struck by the incident that he returned to the El Chico lot on a November 22 afternoon years later to reenact the scene with similar lighting and a friend sitting in an identically parked car. Standing on the spot where T. F. White had and with the same degree of afternoon sunlight, Wise confirmed that one could easily recognize a driver’s features from a “full face” look at that distance, irrespective of whether the car’s window was up or down.
The possible significance of what he had learned stayed with Wise during his years as a reporter and as Dallas mayor, in spite of its repeated dismissal by federal agencies. Knowing the value of evidence, Mayor Wise preserved not only the Texas School Book Depository but also the December 4, 1963, luncheon invitation on which he had immediately written down T. F. White’s identification of the license plate on the Oswald car. Producing it from his files during our interview, Wise read to me over the phone T. F. White’s exact identification of the license plate, as the auto mechanic had shown it to the reporter on the scrap of paper taken from his coveralls pocket, and as Wise had then copied it down on his luncheon invitation: “PP 4537.”
At the end of our conversation, Mayor Wise reflected for a moment on the question posed by Lee Harvey Oswald’s presence elsewhere at the same time as T. F. White saw him in El Chico’s parking lot (in a car whose license plate could now be traced, thanks to the scrupulous note-taking of White and Wise, to the employee of a major CIA contractor).
“Well,” he said, “You’re aware of the idea of two Oswalds, I guess?”
From personal experience, and as bizarre as it may seem to the uninitiated, Paine the “Quaker” exactly fits the profile of the “person you’d never suspect” as a powerful and clever agent. Her suppressed facial expressions in The Men Who Killed Kennedy illustrate her self control, but even then there were leaks of expression – micro expressions indicating duper’s delight and of course various other signs of dishonesty.
And once CIA always CIA:
The Paine Panel
by John Kelin
On Saturday afternoon I left the COPA conferfence and took a cab up to the Dallas Grand Hotel, where the Lancer conference was underway. Its Paine Panel was scheduled for 1pm; it was one I was especially looking forward to.
I should perhaps note that a virtually identical panel was scheduled for the COPA conferfence on the following day. Identical but for one personnel change, with William Kelly replacing Nancy Wertz. For scheduling reasons not important enough to go into here, I opted to attend Lancer’s Paine panel.
* * *Lancer’s Paine panel consisted of Steve Jones, Carol Hewett, and Nancy Wertz, who also served as moderator. In introducing Steve Jones, Wertz called the Paines “the couple we all love to hate.” She said that studying the Paines helps to understand “how Michael and Ruth, unwittingly or knowingly, and to what degree, were utilized by intelligence operatives in the assassination planning.”
Jones said he wanted to share with the audience “some private thoughts and confessions that Ruth Paine shared with a close personal friend of hers, that this friend shared with me.” He had promised to never reveal the friend’s name, Jones said, because of her fears of reprisal from the national security state. And so her identity was not revealed.
Jones said he first heard of the friend from Jim Douglass, a peace activist who had heard of a woman who had worked in NIcaragua with Ruth Paine, who knew Ruth Paine very well, and might be able to tell him something about her.
After making contact, Jones said he went to her home to talk, but the woman would only speak out-of-doors for fear her house was bugged. “This may, at first, seem like a paranoid reaction by someone,” Jones said, “but as we talked, I believe that there was very good reason for her to say this.”
After going to what Jones described as a “neutral place” to talk, the woman described how, after returning from Nicaragua some six months earlier, the FBI had openly tailed her, “in a very open, brazen attempt to intimidate her.” Similarly, she said that while in Nicaragua, CIA infiltrators would play mind games with peace workers there.
Eventually the discussion came to the Kennedy case, and the woman told Jones she had gotten to know Ruth Paine in 1990 while working for an organization called Pro-Nica. Ruth Paine was another volunteer for Pro-Nica, but everyone was suspicious of her. “Ruth was taking photographs of people all the time, for purposes that turned out to be untrue. She was always taking notes, and asking people a lot of personal questions.” After being bombarded with agent-provacateurs and spies, the peace workers were getting good at picking out who was phony, “and Ruth Paine was someone they very quickly determined was not legit.”
After learning of her connection to the Kennedy assassination, Ruth was ostracized by everyone, Jones said — except for the woman Jones had met, and was telling the Lancer audience about. This woman “took a liking to Ruth, kind of pitied her.” While she, too, was suspicious of Ruth, she also felt she was a nice person, and decided to befriend her.
For her part, Ruth Paine insisted she was innocent, and had nothing to do with the CIA, or any other government agency. But she spent the rest of her time in Nicaragua friendless, except for this particular woman.
The women remained friends and kept in touch after returning to the United States. According to Jones, the woman said they could discuss anything — except the Kennedy assassination and the CIA. “Ruth said, ‘I don’t want to talk about this,'” and offered to send the woman some back issues of Life magazine. “‘That will tell you everything you need to know.'” That got a few chuckles from the audience.
The friend sensed Ruth had something to tell, apparently, because she appealed to her at various levels to come clean. She never did; however, Jones said, “Ruth did share with her a few things that are, I think, very significant.” Some of these things corroborate some suspicions about the Paines, Jones said, while others dismiss some.
For example, Jones cited a mysterious road trip Ruth Paine made in the summer of 1963, which was the subject of a COPA presentation several years before (see Fair Play, Issue #7). “I thought that perhaps she was doing something of an intelligence nature, maybe was involved with an Oswald impersonator, or with Oswald, or whatever. And, this friend told me that Ruth makes those trips every summer … she always visits the same friends, she always visits her ex-husband Michael — they were divorced in 1971 but they still maintain an amicable relationship. So I think there was probably nothing suspicious about that summer trip, based on what this woman told me.”
But some other things this woman said do point to suspicious activity, Jones said. “The friend mentioned to me that Ruth had admitted to her that her father had worked for the CIA,” Jones stated. Ruth told her friend that in his capacity as a businessman, and later a government employee with AID, “he routinely collected intelligence information and reported it to the CIA. So, in other words, he was an asset — a businessman who was an asset of the CIA, not a direct employee.”
Ruth added that her father never would have done it if he had understood the CIA’s true objective of destabilizing a third world country so that American corporations could control its economy.
Perhaps the most compelling statement Jones made during his presentation followed this. “The friend told me that the only time Ruth ever even cracked the least bit about the Kennedy assassination was once when she said, she kind of, with tears in her eyes, she said, ‘My daughter isn’t speaking to me any more, and the reason why she isn’t is because she says I really need to come to grips with the evil that I’ve been associated with in my life.’ And this was said during the context of a discussion of the Kennedy assassination.
“And when the friend tried to probe further, and said ‘What evil? What do you mean?’ then Ruth clammed up, didn’t say another word. But the indication was clear to the friend that it had to do with some kind of evil that Ruth didn’t want to talk about, what Ruth perceived as an evil that had to do with the Kennedy assassination. And the friend got the clear impression that it wasn’t Lee Harvey Oswald that she was talking about.”
In the summer of 1997, Jones and several other researchers decided to try using this friend as a go-between in an effort to confront Ruth Paine with certain data. Ruth was expected to visit the friend during her annual summer trip, so the data was given to the friend. But about a week before she was due, Ruth called and said she wouldn’t have time to visit the friend. Not long after this, the friend cut off communication with Steve Jones, and he is no longer in contact with her.
Jones then briefly discussed some new information linking Ruth Paine to Allen Dulles. He said an FBI document surfaced dated December 3, 1963, in which a man named Frederick Osborne Jr. vouched for Ruth Paine’s lack of knowledge about the Kennedy assassination.
But it turns out, Jones said, that Osborne’s father, Frederick Sr., is “a friend and associate of Allen Dulles. Osborne Sr. graduated from Princeton in 1910. His resumé looks like something right out of Who’s Who in America, which he was in for many many years.” He sat on the Boards for numerous organizations, including the Carnegie Corporation and Princeton University, and served as a U.S. representative for the United Nations Atomic Energy Commission.
Osborne Sr. and Allen Dulles also co-founded an organization called Crusade for Freedom, “which very little is known about,” Jones said. “It was some type of a propaganda organization, kind of patterned after Radio Free Europe,” with which it eventually merged in 1962. Osborne Sr., Jones went on, served as its first president.
This example, coupled with other indirect connections between the Paines and the world of Intelligence, Jones said, must give one pause. “There’s a little bit too much coincidence going on here — that the woman who fed and housed Oswald’s wife and children happened to have these connections to the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency.”
* * *Next on the Paine Panel was Carol Hewett, a Florida-based attorney who has worked closely with Steve Jones and others in researching the Paines.
“The Paines were important for two reasons,” Hewett began. “Like the DeMohrenschildts, the Paines, as a couple, were the closest to the Oswalds. And they were close to the Oswalds during two critical periods in 1963 — the first being April of ’63, the spring of ’63, which happened to coincide with the Walker assassination attempt. And the second critical period was the fall of 1963, which happened to coincide with the successful assassination of President Kennedy.”
She said that one reason the ARRB wasn’t interested in questioning the Paines was that they felt they had been questioned enough. It’s true they spent a long time on the witness stand, Hewett said — days, in fact — but many of the questions they were asked were irrelevant.
Another reason the Paines are important is that their home was one of two major sources of evidence seized against Oswald, the other being, of course, the Texas School Book Depository. Evidence implicating Oswald “simply oozed out of the Paine household, like a seeping wound,” Hewett said, and included the Walker photos, the blanket that allegedly held the assassination weapon, the fake Hidell documents, the negative used to fake Hidell identification, and some, but not all, of the infamous “backyard” photos.
Two other important pieces of evidence seized from the Paine house on the assassination weekend were the Minox camera and the November 9 embassy letter, although their existence was not learned of until later.
It is difficult for researchers to categorize the Paines, Hewett said. While there are plenty of suspicious circumstances surrounding them, what does it mean? Some plainly suggest a CIA connection, as with the evidence presented by Steve Jones. But, Hewett continued, “the facts surrounding the circumstances of these two items of evidence have led me to believe Ruth Paine may have had some FBI affiliation.”
The question of the Minox camera is rather problematic. It was discovered among Oswald’s possessions by the Dallas police. But according to research by John Armstrong, this camera and hundreds of other items were seized by the FBI on the evening November 22, 1963. By manipulating police records, it appears, knowledge of the camera’s existence was suppressed.
By early 1964, word of the camera’s existence began to leak out. “An article appeared in The Nation magazine, in January of 1964, highly critical of the FBI, and accusing the FBI of suppressing evidence,” Hewett said. FBI chief J. Edgar Hoover ordered Dallas agents to find the camera. But, she said, “This was a camera they had all along in their possession.”
FBI Agent Bardwell Odum contacted Ruth Paine, Hewett said, and asked her to “check into this matter. And Ruth calls Bardwell back, and says, ‘Oh, yes, we have a Minox camera. I just called my husband at work and he reminded me that we have one, rusting away, in an old coffee can in the garage. We’ll be happy to get it for you.'” Agent Odum soon showed up at the Paine’s house and picked up a Minox camera.
According to Odum’s report, Michael Paine said he offered the camera to the Dallas police, but they weren’t interested in it. “This is a blatant lie,” Hewett said. “This conversation — this alleged conversation between Michael Paine and Bardwell Odum — was recorded on a January 30, 1964 memo. We now have an internal memo dated January 25, 1964, generated by the highest officers and officials of the FBI, in which they acknowledge they had been in possession of the Minox camera all along. And in fact, they were comparing the film in that camera with some film in a New York City counter-espionage file.”
It now appears, Hewett said, that there were two Minox cameras. Michael Paine said the camera he gave to Bardwell Odum was returned to him after the Warren Commission finished its work. It was later stolen, he said. But in 1978, a camera said to be the same one was presented to Marina Oswald for identification — along with a second Minox camera. Mrs. Oswald could not identify either one.
One of those cameras is still in the National Archives, Hewett said, but the other one is missing. But she said it isn’t known which camera it is because the serial number, printed on the inside of the camera, is not accessible. Hewett wrote the Archives asking about this, but “they wrote back claiming the camera was stuck shut.” Informed of this, the ARRB expressed no interest in pursuing the matter. (See Reactions to the Board, in this issue, for more on the ARRB’s lack of interest in the Paines.)
“The other thing that made me consider that perhaps Ruth and Michael were FBI informants was the November 9 embassy letter that Oswald wrote,” Hewett said. There are actually three versions — Oswald’s handwritten version, a more polished typed version, and a third in Ruth Paine’s hand, which she told the Warren Commission she copied from Oswald’s typed version. This last version is missing from the National Archives collection, Hewett said.
The typewritten version has the initials of FBI agent James Hosty on it — dated November 22, although the FBI did not officially assume jurisdiction in the case until November 26. Although Dallas police investigators were searching the Paine home for evidence against Oswald on November 22 and 23, and although Ruth was fully aware of this, Hewett said, “she is providing the FBI with critical documentation behind the backs of the Dallas police.”
Ruth Paine may also have alerted the FBI that a postal notice to Oswald arrived at her home, directing them to the post office to pick up a package. “What we have here,” Hewett summarized, “is Ruth furnishing the FBI with leads, while simultaneously vacating [her] house to let the Dallas police have access to whatever it is they can find.”
As she neared the conclusion of her talk, Carol Hewett went over some facts which she felt demonstrated incongruitites in Ruth Paine’s personality. “Ruth Paine is described by almost all of her friends in the northeast as a charitble individual. And yet, not once did anyone ever describe a single act of charity. There are no indications that she donated money, took in stray dogs, or that she’d ever taken in any other forlorn women and children. We have no specific acts — the only act is her act of her taking in Marina Oswald.
“Repeatedly, throughout her own testimony and the testimony of all her friends, they said that her motive were so that she could learn the Russian language. Now, Ruth Paine studied the Russian language non-stop, from the mid-1950s. And in Dallas, she was studying it not only through the Berlitz school, but she had a personal tutor who was a native-speaking Russian, Dorothy Gravitis. And so what did she need Marina Oswald for?”
So it seems, Hewett said, like a phony excuse. “And the phoniness carries over towards Ruth’s care of Marina, in both the spring of ’63 and the fall of ’63. Ruth is very indignant when she testifies that Oswald would not permit Marina to speak English. Yet at no time did Ruth and Marina speak English. Ruth had ample opportunity to teach Marina English, and yet, just like Oswald, Ruth insisted on talking to Marina in the Russian language in the privacy of their home — where Oswald wasn’t there to interfere. And so this doesn’t seem right.”
Both Paines were active in the Dallas chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union. “And yet, when it came to obtaining counsel for Lee Harvey Oswald, Ruth didn’t try very hard. And she was very annoyed that Oswald even had the audacity to ask her to call John Abt.” There are no indications she actually tried to contact Abt on Oswald’s behalf, Hewett said. “This doesn’t seem to ring true to the civil libertarian that Ruth claims to be.”
The most disturbing incongruity, in Hewett’s view, had to do with Ruth’s reaction to Oswald’s murder. “We have this pious Quaker who, when interviewed by a journalist for Redbook magazine in the summer of 1964, told this journalist that she was glad that Ruby shot Oswald. She was glad that Oswald was dead — these are exact quotes. And this journalist was just appalled that this very religious woman would say such a thing. Because even if Oswald had done the murder, this was a man who was deprived of his civil liberties, was not given the opportunity to have a trial or be defended by counsel. And there was this widow, and two little girls that Ruth was supposed to be attached to, and there was no offer of condolence. Ruth did not go to Oswald’s funeral. Even Jackie Kennedy had the good graces to offer condolences to Marina Oswald.”
Ruth told the Redbook journalist that she was glad Oswald was dead because it spared Marina the trauma of a trial. Noting the obvious parallel to Ruby’s alleged statements about sparing Jackie Kennedy, Hewett wondered, “Do we have the same scriptwriter here?”
None of the preceding, Hewett said, means that either of the Paines participated in a conspiracy to murder JFK. “Our general feeling is that the Paines were babysitters for the Oswalds, especially Marina Oswald. And we feel it’s very unfortunate that we have had three government bodies — two of which were investigative in nature, and the third body that was supposed to collect records and have the power to subpoena witnesses, if need be — these three government entitites have had ample opportunity to question the Paines about their real involvement with the Oswalds. And the shame of it is, they have passed up some very good opportunities, and passed up the chance to perhaps not figure out who the Paines are, but figure out who Lee Harvey Oswald is.
“After all, he is in the epicenter of this earthquake, the reverberations of which continue as we approach the ending of a fourth decade without adequate answers.”
* * *The final panelist, Nancy Wertz, focused on Michael Paine. She said that it is generally easier to find out about Ruth, and it’s almost as if Michael were her appendage. “I really feel the Warren Commissioners in essence kind of elected Ruth their queen during the questioning — the enormous amount of it is evidence of that — but kind of in contrast, they kind of treated Michael Paine as the court jester.”
On his mother’s side of the family, there were anscestors from two very diverse cultures, Wertz said. There was an artistic faction that dated back to Ralph Waldo Emerson, while on the other was the financial empire-building family of the Forbes’.
On Michael’s father’s side, his lineage could be traced all the way back to a signer of the Declaration of Independence, Robert Treat Paine. Michael’s father Lyman was an architect who, after the birth of two sons, became a Marxist Socialist, which eventually estranged him from his family. He divorced his wife, moved to Los Angeles, and remarried.
There was an attempt to bridge the differences between the two sides of the family, Wertz said. “The Forbes family sought legitimacy and validation by becoming patrons of the arts, and supporters of limited social programs. And it was their effort at developing a social conscience. And this maneuver started an overlapping which resulted in the various families moving in the same business and social circles.”
Wertz said there was a lot of intermixing between the families, which was not necessarily a negative thing. “But it is the type of thing that someone can pick up the phone and call and say, you know, ‘I know your mother’ — ‘I know this person and that person.'” And who knows what that might have meant in terms of intelligence circles? Wertz said. She speculated that perhaps “someone like Ruth Paine would be very suggestive to working out in some type of a plan in which she might not know the full objective.”
Michael went to Harvard starting in 1947, but was kicked out after struggling academically for two years. He worked in construction for a time, then returned to college at Swathmore for one year before leaving, still without graduating. In spite of having no degree he was able to get work in a nuclear research lab. He left in under a year, joined the Army, and served in Korea for two years.
Michael and Ruth met in 1955 and were married two years later, Wertz said. Michael soon accepted a position “of some responsibility” at Bell Helicopter in Texas. By early 1961 the Paines had two children but their marriage was foundering. In September of 1962, Wertz continued, Michael established a second residence in order to fulfill Texas divorce requirements. This was the Paine situation when Lee Oswald entered their lives in the spring of 1963.
Wertz said that Oswald and Michael Paine had at least a dozen “earnest conversations” between the time they met and November of 1963. Michael told the Warren Commission that he and Oswald had never really had any serious political discussions. “But from other documents, and his own revelations to various researchers over the years, a different pattern starts to emerge.”
Michael Paine enjoyed political discussion, Wertz said, and found Oswald “a perfect candidate for such discussions.” He soon decided that Oswald had a limited ability for in-depth political analysis, however, and their discussions were not fruitful for him.
Interestingly, an FBI report from June of 1964 stated that Michael Paine, in the spring of 1963, spent several Sunday afternoons at a cafe near a college campus, engaging people in political discussion. “He would actively approach people and start talk of a political nature, like ‘What about Castro?’ etc.” According to FBI witnesses, Paine spoke unfavorably of the U.S. hard line against Castro, easing tensions with Cuba, and increasing trade with Eastern Europe.
After the assassination, Michael Paine “went back and forth” in statements about the accused assassin. He told authorities he once told Oswald that he, Paine, was completely against violence in any form, and said he distinctly recalled that Oswald had no comment. “That statement that he made to the police on Saturday was very, very self-serving,” Wertz noted. “He was like, kind of reminding them, ‘I don’t like violence. This man didn’t even comment on that fact.'”
On the other hand, Paine expressed empathy for Oswald’s apparent inability to hold a job.
Wertz related the incredible fact that, according to his own WC testimony, Michael Paine was discussing, abstractly, presidential assassination during lunch at a restaurant on November 22. Before the meal was over, word of the actual assassiantion reached him, and he raced back to work and called Ruth, who had already heard the news. Before long the identity of the arrested suspect was also learned. Michael testified that he was so upset he decided to leave work.
He went to Ruth’s house and stood helplessly by as police searched the premises. Then he, Ruth, and Marina were all taken to police headquarters, and Ruth was questioned closely. “But what did they do to Michael?” Wertz asked rhetorically. “Other than asking him if he wanted to talk to Lee — an offer that he declined — they didn’t even take an affidavit from him that night.”
Another story about that same night was related by Lee Oswald’s mother Marguerite, Wertz said. She told the FBI in 1965 that after the questioning was done, she was invited to stay the night at the Paine house. But she couldn’t sleep because she kept hearing Marina’s muffled crying in one room, and the continued whispering coming from the bedroom of Ruth and Michael.
“She claimed that at around 2am on Saturday morning, she observed Michael Paine go through a doorway into a room, which she thought was another bedroom, at the time, but later found it to be the inside door to the garage.” Marguerite said she believed Paine may have been planting evidence against her son.
“In my opinion,” Wertz said as she wrapped up her presentation, “Michael’s versions of his actions and reactions on 11-22 are the best evidence we have that he was suddenly confronted with the results of his knowing participation in a plan with an unknown objective.”
She said examining Michael Paine’s background — his family and political leanings — might shed light on what led to his involvement. “These are questions that the Review Board could have helped us with, but unfortunately, that’s lost again with the closing of their doors in September.”
* * *The ARRB’s John Tunheim appeared at the COPA conference that same night, and the question of why neither of the Paines were ever deposed was put to him.
“We had limited time for doing depositions and interviews,” the Judge replied. “There was such an intense focus on the records, and getting the records processed. The Board had to make significant calls on exactly how many people were interviewed.
“I think in an ideal world, and had we had enough staff and enough time, the Paines certainly would have been interviewed and deposed. We chose, with our deposition process, to focus on the medical evidence issue to try to bring some clarification, or more clarification, to that. I think that’s an important addition to the body of knowledge about that very mysterious aspect of the assassination.
“And in an ideal world,” he continued, repeating himself, “the Paines should have been deposed. We just, we ran out of time, and staff, and money to be able to do all that.”
The mist of blood that is seen in the Zapruter film and claimed to be unnatural by the Fetzer crowd, is now recognized as what is called “Backspatter”, which is blood that sprays out of the entry wound as more or less a mist, and it does indeed dissipate within a split second. It proves the shot was from the front.
According to Ms Fiester’s forensic investigation the shot came from the opposite area of the Dealy Plaza towards the triple-underpass, not the grassy knoll. This is not to say that shots did not come from knoll area. This according to modern Trajectory Reconstruction techniques.~ww
THE ZAPRUDER FILM
An Accurate Representation of The Kennedy Assassination
“The goal to create a “Kodachrome original” provides further insurmountable challenges..”
The JFK assassination research community now faces a critical dilemma. That being in that so much effort has been put to disproving the Autopsy Photographs and X-rays. The dilemma the community faces is that all the while it was thought that the results of such faking proved a rear shot, or attempted to. However using the most modern scientific forensic knowledge, it has been proven beyond reasonable doubt that those very documents X-rays and photos in fact prove a single shot from the front killed Kennedy.~Willy Whitten – November 2014
Let us begin first of all with cui bono? Who would have the most to gain from disputing the authenticity of the Zapruder Film?
The answer is obvious, the perpetrators of the assassination, because the film…
View original post 10,925 more words