Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
LHO blanket in Ruth Paine's garage
41 views
Skip to first unread message
claviger
Apr 25, 2013, 9:43:33 AM4/25/13
to
Deputy Buddy Walthers:
Mr. WALTHERS. I imagine all the officers on the porch did. I know Rose
was trying to show her his credentials and she just pushed the screen
open and said, "Come on in." Now, after we got inside and we were
making a search of the house with their permission, they had no
objection whatsoever. Mrs. Oswald couldn't speak much English and Mr.
Rose was doing most of the questioning, the city officer. We were
just--not actually knowing what we were looking for, just searching,
and we went into the garage there and found this--I believe it was one
of these things like soap comes in, a big pasteboard barrel and it had
a lot of these little leaflets in it, "Freedom for Cuba" and they were
gold color with black printing on them, and we found those and we also
found a gray blanket with some red trim on it that had a string tied
at one end that you could see the imprint of a gun, I mean where it
had been wrapped in it.
Garland Slack:
Mr. SLACK. . . . [He wrapped up his rifle -- which was a Mannlicher-
Carcano similar but not the same as the so-called "Oswald" rifle] and
handed it over the fence, but they had two other guns that type. They
had no scopes on them.
Mr. LIEBELER. Was there somebody else?
Mr. SLACK. That Sunday [November 10] there sure was . . . Lucille
remembers the boy handing the guns over the fence, and they were
throwing the guns in the back of an old-model car and taking off like
they did. . . . [A] gun, a good gun, you are not supposed -- they just
threw those old guns in that car . . . one was wrapped up in a
blanket, a dirty-looking old gray blanket that had a red trim . . .
Mr. WALTHERS. I imagine all the officers on the porch did. I know Rose
was trying to show her his credentials and she just pushed the screen
open and said, "Come on in." Now, after we got inside and we were
making a search of the house with their permission, they had no
objection whatsoever. Mrs. Oswald couldn't speak much English and Mr.
Rose was doing most of the questioning, the city officer. We were
just--not actually knowing what we were looking for, just searching,
and we went into the garage there and found this--I believe it was one
of these things like soap comes in, a big pasteboard barrel and it had
a lot of these little leaflets in it, "Freedom for Cuba" and they were
gold color with black printing on them, and we found those and we also
found a gray blanket with some red trim on it that had a string tied
at one end that you could see the imprint of a gun, I mean where it
had been wrapped in it.
Garland Slack:
Mr. SLACK. . . . [He wrapped up his rifle -- which was a Mannlicher-
Carcano similar but not the same as the so-called "Oswald" rifle] and
handed it over the fence, but they had two other guns that type. They
had no scopes on them.
Mr. LIEBELER. Was there somebody else?
Mr. SLACK. That Sunday [November 10] there sure was . . . Lucille
remembers the boy handing the guns over the fence, and they were
throwing the guns in the back of an old-model car and taking off like
they did. . . . [A] gun, a good gun, you are not supposed -- they just
threw those old guns in that car . . . one was wrapped up in a
blanket, a dirty-looking old gray blanket that had a red trim . . .
mainframetech
Apr 25, 2013, 7:16:51 PM4/25/13
to
doesn't know who he saw, and it was clear that it wasn't Oswald. Tewo
of his friends say they didn't see the same guy. The business about
the grey blanket and red trim sounds like FBI set priming the witness
to fill in a connection with Oswald. He saw a guy that had been given
a ride to the range and had a sawed off rifle 'sporterized' by being
sawed off and having the wood taken off the muzzle end. That's not
the MC rifle. And as time goes on, you see that Slack doesn't really
know anything and saw nothing related to the JFK murder or Oswald.
http://www.jfk-assassination.de/warren/wch/vol10/page378.php
He mentions the guy who worked at a gun shop (Dial Ryder, Irving
Sports Shop) who supposedly put a scope onto Oswald's rifle, but this
guy didn't see Oswald, Oswald already had his scope mounted by Klein's
and the guy was sure it wasn't Oswald. See testimony here:
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh11/pdf/WH11_Ryder.pdf
There's nothing to these connections IMO.
Chris
claviger
Apr 25, 2013, 10:08:20 PM4/25/13
to
>
> He mentions the guy who worked at a gun shop (Dial Ryder, Irving
> Sports Shop) who supposedly put a scope onto Oswald's rifle, but this
> guy didn't see Oswald, Oswald already had his scope mounted by Klein's
> and the guy was sure it wasn't Oswald. See testimony here:http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh11/pdf/WH11_Ry...
> He mentions the guy who worked at a gun shop (Dial Ryder, Irving
> Sports Shop) who supposedly put a scope onto Oswald's rifle, but this
> guy didn't see Oswald, Oswald already had his scope mounted by Klein's
>
> There's nothing to these connections IMO.
>
> Chris
Thought you CTs would love this Slack story since he saw three similar
> There's nothing to these connections IMO.
>
> Chris
rifles, which sounds like conspiracy to me! How coincidental he
describes a blanket just like the one found in Ruth Paine's garage.
This case seems to have several such oddities.
Anthony Marsh
Apr 25, 2013, 11:44:15 PM4/25/13
to
seen all the evidence.
mainframetech
Apr 26, 2013, 4:01:13 PM4/26/13
to
>
Claviger, you have me mixed up with theorists. I'm interested in
evidence and fact. Also common sense and logic, but not theories.
Theories, especially wacky ones are more the province of the WC and
their faithful followers.
Chris
Anthony Marsh
Apr 26, 2013, 11:25:16 PM4/26/13
to
> Chris
>
>
claviger
Apr 26, 2013, 11:48:29 PM4/26/13
to
deal with raw data as is. Instead you are trying to create an alternative
parallel universe where witnesses say what you want them to say. When we
fact check your paraphrase of witnesses we find they did not say what you
represented they said. Robert A Frazier is a perfect example. You
suggested I read his testimony and I did. It did not support your
position, in fact just the opposite. The only person who could know if
LHO practiced with his rifle and kept it clean and oiled is Marina, and
yet your belittle her testimony. How can we take your seriously when you
do things like that?
claviger
Apr 26, 2013, 11:48:38 PM4/26/13
to
one of the few possessions Lee and Marina brought to the US. Strange
that Slack saw one just like it at the firing range.
Anthony Marsh
Apr 27, 2013, 1:05:54 PM4/27/13
to
mainframetech
Apr 27, 2013, 1:12:21 PM4/27/13
to
when it is on your website. Not any other evidence you rarely show.
>
>
Chris
mainframetech
Apr 27, 2013, 1:12:33 PM4/27/13
to
You say that I have belittled Marina's testimony (true). I'm not a
fellow that sits and looks dumbly at 'raw data' and says nothing. I
look at it as anyone would look at information that comes to them. I
have a copy of parts of Frazier's testimony from the WC, and I have
copied it here on occasion. If you believe that I have misquoted him
or attributed something to him that he didn't say. let me know and I
will check it out and apologize or prove I was right. I have not AT
ANY TIME said that Frazier supported my views, I have simply quoted
what he said in testimony.
Note that in the case of Marina's HSCA testimony, that she said
many things that she didn't say in earlier times in other panels, like
the WC. She has shown that she has lied or misrepresented things in
the past, so why would I automatically believe her as you seem to have
done? She said what you wanted to hear, and I'm willing to bet that
many people out there in TV land will happily go along with you and
say, 'see? All settled. All those sticky points that were showing
conspiracy, or that Oswald wasn't the shooter have all been put to bed
because Marina changed her testimony and said so.' But I'm not
looking for her to say those things, I'm looking at her as a person
that was still in fear of her being sent back to Russia, and someone
willing to say whatever authorities wanted to not have the problems
they could make for her. I think she decided it was better here than
there and was willing to forego her place in heaven by saying what
they wanted.
If one looks at the evidence of all of Marina's testimony, earlier
and later, including most recently, and looks at her situation, and
specifically what she said, one finds that she was saying what the
authorities needed her to say to help clear up suggestive evidence
that Oswald wasn't the shooter, and that information had been a thorn
in the side of the authorities for years. More recently, Marina has
stated in no uncertain terms that Oswald was innocent of the murders
of both JFK and officer Tippit. She certainly is smart enough to
figure out the implications of her earlier testimony about trying to
hide a full length rifle under a raincoat and going on a bus to a
range and practicing. In Texas, why hide a rifle if you're going to
take it out in front of people anyway at a range?
It all comes to the same thing. If I say something that you think
is wrong, brace me right away and I'll make it right one way or the
other. Apologize and admit wrong, or prove my point. The accusations
here aren't specific enough for me to address...is that intentional,
or just something forgotten?
Chris
mainframetech
Apr 27, 2013, 1:12:45 PM4/27/13
to
On Apr 26, 11:48 pm, claviger <historiae.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
rifle hidden under a raincoat to do some clandestine practice and
leaving the blanket at home in the garage. Why take the rifle out in
a blanket one time and sneak it out under a raincoat another? The
stories of Slack and Marina don't match. Of course, the authorities
saw the blanket and knew it had hidden the rifle at some point.
Chris
Anthony Marsh
Apr 27, 2013, 11:19:38 PM4/27/13
to
>>
>>
> Chris
>
mainframetech
Apr 28, 2013, 10:19:55 AM4/28/13
to
statement was not a cover all statement. It said I don't look at
evidence on your website, though I admit to looking at a picture one
time. I will look at all kinds of evidence pictures from other sites
though.
>
Chris
Anthony Marsh
Apr 28, 2013, 7:12:44 PM4/28/13
to
If you were smart enough to figure out how a search engine works, you
might be lucky enough to find the same photo on Corbis.
>
>>
> Chris
>
Walt
May 2, 2013, 6:07:10 PM5/2/13
to
blanket with red trim? As I recall the blanket was gray and
green.........
Walt
May 2, 2013, 6:08:32 PM5/2/13
to
On Apr 25, 8:43 am, claviger <historiae.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Deputy Buddy Walthers:
>
> Mr. WALTHERS. I imagine all the officers on the porch did. I know Rose
> was trying to show her his credentials and she just pushed the screen
> open and said, "Come on in."
Is this a normal reaction ?..... Would a woman who had been watching the
> Deputy Buddy Walthers:
>
> Mr. WALTHERS. I imagine all the officers on the porch did. I know Rose
> was trying to show her his credentials and she just pushed the screen
> open and said, "Come on in."
unfolding horror story about the murder of the President on TV throw open
the door to the first man who knocked on her door and said that he was a
cop?
Walthers said that Ruth Paine ignored looking at Detective Rose'
credentials and just opened the door and said "come on in" . WHY was Ruth
Paine so cooperative? Obviously she was anticipating the arrival of the
police, and was prepared to lead the police to any evidence that
incriminated Lee Oswald.
Anthony Marsh
May 2, 2013, 11:07:46 PM5/2/13
to
On 5/2/2013 6:08 PM, Walt wrote:
> On Apr 25, 8:43 am, claviger <historiae.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Deputy Buddy Walthers:
>>
>> Mr. WALTHERS. I imagine all the officers on the porch did. I know Rose
>> was trying to show her his credentials and she just pushed the screen
>> open and said, "Come on in."
>
> Is this a normal reaction ?..... Would a woman who had been watching the
> unfolding horror story about the murder of the President on TV throw open
> the door to the first man who knocked on her door and said that he was a
> cop?
>
> Walthers said that Ruth Paine ignored looking at Detective Rose'
> credentials and just opened the door and said "come on in" . WHY was Ruth
> Paine so cooperative? Obviously she was anticipating the arrival of the
> police, and was prepared to lead the police to any evidence that
> incriminated Lee Oswald.
>
As a loyal American she eagerly wanted to cooperate with the police.
> On Apr 25, 8:43 am, claviger <historiae.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Deputy Buddy Walthers:
>>
>> Mr. WALTHERS. I imagine all the officers on the porch did. I know Rose
>> was trying to show her his credentials and she just pushed the screen
>> open and said, "Come on in."
>
> Is this a normal reaction ?..... Would a woman who had been watching the
> unfolding horror story about the murder of the President on TV throw open
> the door to the first man who knocked on her door and said that he was a
> cop?
>
> Walthers said that Ruth Paine ignored looking at Detective Rose'
> credentials and just opened the door and said "come on in" . WHY was Ruth
> Paine so cooperative? Obviously she was anticipating the arrival of the
> police, and was prepared to lead the police to any evidence that
> incriminated Lee Oswald.
>
Not like those punks at Dartmouth.
mainframetech
May 3, 2013, 7:49:55 PM5/3/13
to
if it's true that "the ONLY place you can find that photograph is MY
website", then it is suspect. If no one else found it of interest or
of honesty, it is suspect. Doesn't mean it's NG, just suspect.
>
Chris
Walt
May 3, 2013, 9:23:23 PM5/3/13
to
On May 2, 10:07 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 5/2/2013 6:08 PM, Walt wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 25, 8:43 am, claviger <historiae.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Deputy Buddy Walthers:
>
> >> Mr. WALTHERS. I imagine all the officers on the porch did. I know Rose
> >> was trying to show her his credentials and she just pushed the screen
> >> open and said, "Come on in."
>
> > Is this a normal reaction ?..... Would a woman who had been watching the
> > unfolding horror story about the murder of the President on TV throw open
> > the door to the first man who knocked on her door and said that he was a
> > cop?
>
> > Walthers said that Ruth Paine ignored looking at Detective Rose'
> > credentials and just opened the door and said "come on in" . WHY was Ruth
> > Paine so cooperative? Obviously she was anticipating the arrival of the
> > police, and was prepared to lead the police to any evidence that
> > incriminated Lee Oswald.
>
> As a loyal American she eagerly wanted to cooperate with the police.
> Not like those punks at Dartmouth.
You seem to have forgotten that It was Ruth Paine who coppied a letter
> On 5/2/2013 6:08 PM, Walt wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 25, 8:43 am, claviger <historiae.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Deputy Buddy Walthers:
>
> >> Mr. WALTHERS. I imagine all the officers on the porch did. I know Rose
> >> was trying to show her his credentials and she just pushed the screen
> >> open and said, "Come on in."
>
> > Is this a normal reaction ?..... Would a woman who had been watching the
> > unfolding horror story about the murder of the President on TV throw open
> > the door to the first man who knocked on her door and said that he was a
> > cop?
>
> > Walthers said that Ruth Paine ignored looking at Detective Rose'
> > credentials and just opened the door and said "come on in" . WHY was Ruth
> > Paine so cooperative? Obviously she was anticipating the arrival of the
> > police, and was prepared to lead the police to any evidence that
> > incriminated Lee Oswald.
>
> As a loyal American she eagerly wanted to cooperate with the police.
> Not like those punks at Dartmouth.
that lee had written to the Russian embassy and called the FBI so she
could give them a copy of that letter..... Just a good citizen ....or an
FBI employee?
Anthony Marsh
May 4, 2013, 5:31:51 PM5/4/13
to
no one paid any attention to it, not even Robert Groden.
Another example. No one else looked for photos showing the chrome
topping undamaged before the shooting. Only me.
>>
> Chris
>
BT George
May 6, 2013, 7:36:44 PM5/6/13
to
On Saturday, April 27, 2013 12:12:33 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> On Apr 26, 11:48 pm, claviger <historiae.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 26, 3:01 pm, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >
>
> >
Chris, I do agree that Marina has been an inconsistent person and witness
> On Apr 26, 11:48 pm, claviger <historiae.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 26, 3:01 pm, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >
>
> >
at times. No denying that & so I have great reserve relying solely on her
testimony. (BTW, this post is not getting in the middle of whatever you
and Clavinger are hashing out here. Just making a little point.)
However, there are times that she is the only/best testimony we have and
and sometimes what she said can be fully or partially corroborated.
Correct me if I am wrong, but despite her change of heart to the CT side I
am unaware of her retracting anything meaningful in her WC or HSCA
testimony. If indeed she made up a bunch of critical stuff helpful to the
government's case against LHO, because she feared her interrogators
sending her back to the Soviet Union, then I think it is fair to ask why
she till this day has not taken back damaging testimony like the photos
she says she took of Lee with the rifle or her statement about his having
shot at General Walker?
mainframetech
May 7, 2013, 12:45:02 PM5/7/13
to
On May 6, 7:36 pm, BT George <brock.geo...@st.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, April 27, 2013 12:12:33 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> > On Apr 26, 11:48 pm, claviger <historiae.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 26, 3:01 pm, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Chris, I do agree that Marina has been an inconsistent person and witness
> at times. No denying that & so I have great reserve relying solely on her
> testimony. (BTW, this post is not getting in the middle of whatever you
> and Clavinger are hashing out here. Just making a little point.)
> However, there are times that she is the only/best testimony we have and
> and sometimes what she said can be fully or partially corroborated.
> Correct me if I am wrong, but despite her change of heart to the CT side I
> am unaware of her retracting anything meaningful in her WC or HSCA
> testimony. If indeed she made up a bunch of critical stuff helpful to the
> government's case against LHO, because she feared her interrogators
> sending her back to the Soviet Union, then I think it is fair to ask why
> she till this day has not taken back damaging testimony like the photos
> she says she took of Lee with the rifle or her statement about his having
> shot at General Walker?
>
>
Because Marina is "the only/best testimony" you may have, doesn't
> On Saturday, April 27, 2013 12:12:33 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> > On Apr 26, 11:48 pm, claviger <historiae.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 26, 3:01 pm, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Chris, I do agree that Marina has been an inconsistent person and witness
> at times. No denying that & so I have great reserve relying solely on her
> testimony. (BTW, this post is not getting in the middle of whatever you
> and Clavinger are hashing out here. Just making a little point.)
> However, there are times that she is the only/best testimony we have and
> and sometimes what she said can be fully or partially corroborated.
> Correct me if I am wrong, but despite her change of heart to the CT side I
> am unaware of her retracting anything meaningful in her WC or HSCA
> testimony. If indeed she made up a bunch of critical stuff helpful to the
> government's case against LHO, because she feared her interrogators
> sending her back to the Soviet Union, then I think it is fair to ask why
> she till this day has not taken back damaging testimony like the photos
> she says she took of Lee with the rifle or her statement about his having
> shot at General Walker?
>
>
mean that you are forced to accept what she says. Which statements of
hers do you think are corroborated, and by whom? I also have not
heard of her retracting anything she originally said. I'm not sure
why she did not retract any statement. Perhaps she didn't want to
flatly say publicly "I'm a liar". I believe that Oswald did tell
Marina that he shot at Walker, but I just don't believe that he did
it. I also believe he also asked her to take at least one photo of
him with all his weapons on him to look good for the Cubans.
There I a story of 2 men that were in a parking lot to a church
next to Walker's house. It seemed to fit the circumstances of Oswald
and another person being there and possibly shooting at Walker. If
another person was involved, then I'm betting he was the one that shot
at Walker. The story seems like somewhat of an orphan amid all the
other stories going around:
http://www.giljesus.com/Walker/witness.htm
Walt
May 7, 2013, 1:45:54 PM5/7/13
to
On May 6, 6:36 pm, BT George <brock.geo...@st.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, April 27, 2013 12:12:33 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> > On Apr 26, 11:48 pm, claviger <historiae.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 26, 3:01 pm, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Chris, I do agree that Marina has been an inconsistent person and witness
> at times. No denying that & so I have great reserve relying solely on her
> testimony. (BTW, this post is not getting in the middle of whatever you
> and Clavinger are hashing out here. Just making a little point.)
> However, there are times that she is the only/best testimony we have and
> and sometimes what she said can be fully or partially corroborated.
> Correct me if I am wrong, but despite her change of heart to the CT side I
> am unaware of her retracting anything meaningful in her WC or HSCA
> testimony. If indeed she made up a bunch of critical stuff helpful to the
> government's case against LHO, because she feared her interrogators
> sending her back to the Soviet Union, then I think it is fair to ask why
> she till this day has not taken back damaging testimony like the photos
> she says she took of Lee with the rifle or her statement about his having
> shot at General Walker?
I think it is fair to ask why she till this day has not taken back
damaging testimony like the photos she says she took of Lee with the rifle
or her statement about his having shot at General Walker?
Marina originally acknowledged taking ONE photo of Lee holding a
> On Saturday, April 27, 2013 12:12:33 PM UTC-5, mainframetech wrote:
> > On Apr 26, 11:48 pm, claviger <historiae.fi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 26, 3:01 pm, mainframetech <mainframet...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Chris, I do agree that Marina has been an inconsistent person and witness
> at times. No denying that & so I have great reserve relying solely on her
> testimony. (BTW, this post is not getting in the middle of whatever you
> and Clavinger are hashing out here. Just making a little point.)
> However, there are times that she is the only/best testimony we have and
> and sometimes what she said can be fully or partially corroborated.
> Correct me if I am wrong, but despite her change of heart to the CT side I
> am unaware of her retracting anything meaningful in her WC or HSCA
> testimony. If indeed she made up a bunch of critical stuff helpful to the
> government's case against LHO, because she feared her interrogators
> sending her back to the Soviet Union, then I think it is fair to ask why
> she till this day has not taken back damaging testimony like the photos
> she says she took of Lee with the rifle or her statement about his having
> shot at General Walker?
I think it is fair to ask why she till this day has not taken back
damaging testimony like the photos she says she took of Lee with the rifle
or her statement about his having shot at General Walker?
Carcano.....They tricked her into thinking that she could have
inadvertantly taken TWO photos. She saw that the two BY photos were
slightly different and she was puzzled because she remembered only takin
one photo, but since she wanted to cooperate with the authorities she
offered that perhaps she had pressed the shutter twice. The lawyers knew
that this action would have produced a double exposure, but they never
batted an eye because they had her on record as acknowledging that she
took both of the photos that were in evidence. Ten years later a THIRD
photo turned up in the hands of a widow of a DPD officer. I wonder if the
WC lawyer would have accepted an explanation from Marina that she had
inadvertantly snapped the shutter three times.
There no doubt in my mind that Marina did take ONE BY photo. This was the
one that Lee sent to a couple of magazines with the idea that Castro's
agents would see him as a bonafide communist revolutionary.
It is also the photo that Lee had in his "plan of attack" notebook for the
General Walker hoax. He had constructed that notebook with the idea that
the police would find it after he had fled to Cuba and it would be
convincing evidence that he was a revolutionary and friend of Fidel
Castro.
0 new messages