Tag: RUTH PAINE

---

The Inconvenient Witness

Thomas Mallon. “And he (Oswald) had gotten away with it. The bullet had almost grazed the top of Walkers head, the hair, and he got away on foot, he didn’t drive a car… (And) he hid the rifle by the railroad tracks…”

To rebut Mr. Mallon’s claims, it is crucial to highlight that there is a substantial and irrefutable body of evidence indicating that Lee Harvey Oswald was never seen at or near General Walker’s home at4011 Turtle Creek Boulevard before, during, or after the attempted Walker assassination on April 10th, 1963. This point is not merely speculative but grounded in well-documented and verified accounts.

Furthermore, the weight of the evidence supports the conclusion that the assassination attempt involved not just one, but two individuals. Particularly compelling testimony comes from Walter Kirk Coleman, a 15-year-old residing near the General’s residence. On the night of April 10th, 1963, Coleman reported hearing a gunshot, an ominous sound aimed at ending General Walker’s life. In a swift reaction, Coleman dashed outside and peered over his fence. His vantage point provided a clear view of the church parking lot adjacent to General Walker’s residence. What he witnessed there is crucial to understanding the events of that fateful night.

Coleman observed:

A man getting into a 1949 or 1950 Ford, which was parked headed towards Turtle Creek Boulevard, with the motor running and the headlights on. (Before the man got into the car, he) glanced back in the direction of Coleman and (took) off. Also, further down the parking lot was another car, a two door, black over white, two-door Chevrolet sedan and a man was in it. He had the dome light on, and Kirk could see him bend over the front seat as if he was putting something in the back floorboard. Kirk described the car as; “black with a white stripe.” The man who took off in the Ford was described as; “a white male, about 19 or 20 years of age, about 5”10 tall, and weighing about 130 pounds. He was attired in “Kakhi pants and a sports shirt with figures in it. Kirk stated, “that this man had dark bushy hair, a thin face with a large nose, and was real skinny”. The second man was described by Coleman as, “a white male, about 6”1, about 200 pounds, wearing a dark long sleeve shirt and dark pants. Kirk could furnish no information on this man’s facial features nor his age.

Was one of the men Kirk Coleman saw, Lee Harvey Oswald?

“Coleman stated that he had seen numerous pictures of Lee Harvey Oswald, and he was shown a photograph of Oswald among several other photographs. He stated that neither man resembled Oswald and that he had never seen anyone in or around the Walker residence or the church before or after April 10, 1963, who resembled Lee Harvey Oswald”.

This testimony is a significant piece of evidence, as it directly challenges any claims that Oswald was present at the scene of the attempted assassination. (see this and this)

Coleman’s account is corroborated by Walker himself who testified to the Warren Commission that; “As I crossed a window coming downstairs in front, I saw a car at the bottom of the church alley just making a turn onto Turtle Creek. The car was unidentifiable. I could see the two back lights, and you have to look through trees there, and I could see it moving out. This car would have been about at the right time for anybody that was making a getaway. (Volume XI; p. 405)

April 8^th, 1963.

Between 9:00-9:30pm on April 8^th, 1963, Robert Surrey, a disciple of General Walker’s, was proceeding up Avondale Avenueto the house at 4011, Turtle Creek Boulevard. It was Surrey’s intention to enter the General’s property via the alleyway entrance. However, just prior to turning off Avondale, Mr. Surrey, “Observed a 1963 dark brown or maroon, four door Ford, parked on Avondale with two men sitting in it.” Surrey decided to avoid taking the alley, instead continuing around to block the car-park near the Mormon Church. Surrey observed the two men, “Get out of the car, walk up the alley and onto the Walker property and look into the windows of the Walker house.” At this point Surrey went to their automobile, where he checked the rear of the car, and observed there was no license plate. He then opened the door and looked into the car and opened the glove compartment. He observed nothing in the car or glove compartment which would help identify the occupants. He then went back to his car and drove to a position where he could observe the 1963 Ford leave.

Surrey testified to the Commission regarding the strange behavior of these two individuals…

Robert Surrey.“Well, the gist of the matter is that two nights before the assassination attempt, I saw two men around the house peeking in windows and so forth, and reported this to the general the following morning, and he, in turn, reported it to the police on Tuesday, and it was Wednesday night that he was shot at. So that is really the gist of the whole thing.”

Surrey told the FBI that, “He had never seen either of these two men before or since this incident, and (believed) neither of these two men was identical with Lee Harvey Oswald. (Surrey) “Described one of the men as a white male, in his 30s, about 5’10” to 6’ tall and weighing about 190 pounds. (Surrey) described the second individual as a white male, in his 30’s, 5’10” to 6’ tall, and weighing about 160 pounds. Both men were well dressed in suites, dress shirts and ties.FBI 105-82555 Oswald HQ File, Section 186 (maryferrell.org)

The Ballistics Evidence

From April 10, 1963, the bullet which was fired at General Walker, “Appeared to be from a high-powered, 30.06 rifle, and was a Steel jacketed bullet”. (see this)

This information was highly disseminated throughout the press and was reported in a New York Times article of April 12, 1963.

A Mystifying Metamorphosis: The “Magic Bullet” Phenomenon

From the ashes of President Kennedy, Officer Tippit and Lee Oswald’s tragic murders, a bewildering transformation occurred within the confines of the Dallas Police Evidence Room. Here, the “Walker bullet” performed a baffling act of alchemy, transforming from its official initial classification as a 30.06 steel-jacketed projectile into a 6.5 Mannlicher Carcano bullet—its steel guise mysteriously supplanted by copper. This near-miraculous change provided the Warren Commission with a serendipitous twist in their narrative, allowing them to lay the blame for the attempted assassination of Maj. Gen. Edwin A. Walker squarely on the now-silenced Oswald. This switch, a masterpiece of evidentiary sleight of hand, was instrumental in allowing the Commission to fortify their case of circumstantial evidence, confidently proclaiming in their report: “Oswald had attempted to kill Maj. Gen. Edwin A. Walker (Retired, U.S. Army) on April 10, 1963, thereby demonstrating his disposition to take human life.” (WCR; p. 20). Through this narrative legerdemain, the Commission could weave a more compelling, albeit convenient, story of guilt. (WCR;p..20)

A Dichotomy of Possibilities: Incompetence or Subterfuge?

The ballistic evidence bifurcates into two realms of possibility. One path leads to a conclusion of stark incompetence on the part of General Walker and the Dallas Police Department investigators, a lapse in judgment and identification that stood unchallenged for over seven months. The alternate path veers towards a more sinister landscape, positing that the bullet now residing in the National Archives (CE573) and officially linked to the Walker case was, in fact, a posthumous plant designed to frame Oswald. While this theory may initially seem steeped in the realms of far-fetched conjecture, it gains a semblance of plausibility when juxtaposed against the backdrop of questionable evidence marshalled against Oswald in both the JFK and Tippit cases.

The FBI’s Spectrographic Analysis: A Tale of Suppressed Evidence

Adding to the enigma, the FBI’s spectrographic analysis of Q-188 (CE573) painted a divergent picture. Special Agent Henry H. Heilberger, in his analytical report (PC-78378), discerned that the lead alloy comprising the Walker bullet bore no resemblance to the lead alloy from the two large bullet fragments allegedly retrieved from beneath the presidential limousine’s jump seat. This revelation, chronicled in Breach of Trust (pp. 49-50), never saw the light of public scrutiny, as both the FBI and Warren Commission elected to sequester Heilberger’s findings from the official record, and notably, his testimony was conspicuously absent from their proceedings. One ponders the alacrity with which the Commission might have embraced Heilberger’s testimony had it tilted the scales of evidence towards Oswald’s guilt in the Walker affair.

In the police report filed by Officers Van Cleave and McElroy, the authors noted that the projectile was steel jacketed. Both local Dallas newspapers, and an Associated Press story depicted the projectile as being 30.06 in caliber. (James DiEugenio, The JFK Assassination: The Evidence Today, p. 100) But three weeks after the assassination, the FBI now had transformed the bullet to a 6.5 caliber, copper jacketed projectile. In fact, the bullet today in the National Archives, allegedly shot at Walker, is copper coated. But none of the Dallas policemen who handled that bullet were called to testify under oath before the Commission. (ibid) In other words, unlike what Mallon and Ruth Paine told their spectators, the eyewitness testimony and the ballistics evidence is exculpatory of Oswald.

I now wish to posit some questions to Mrs. Paine & Mr. Mallon regarding some substantial inconsistencies in their narrative surrounding Oswald’s guilt in this case.

Marina testified that Lee allegedly extracted the rifle from their Neely Street residence three days before the attempt, concealing it in bushes near Walker’s home. However, this raises significant questions about the practicality and rationality of such a decision. Why would a logical individual choose to stow this surplus WWII, Mannlicher Carcano, in a bush for an extended period, subjecting it to various environmental elements, only to later retrieve it for an assassination attempt? This scenario, frankly, challenges the bounds of credibility. (Breach of Trust; p.53)

Storing a rifle in a bush for three days before committing a crime poses several significant issues:

1. Weather Damage:The rifle’s exposure to rain, humidity, or extreme temperatures could impair its functionality, leading to potential malfunctions.
2. Rust and Corrosion: Continuous exposure to moisture and air might result in rust, which could negatively affect the rifle’s accuracy and reliability.
3. Dirt and Debris: Accumulation of dirt and debris could obstruct the barrel or jam the firing mechanism, hindering the rifle’s operational efficiency.
4. Visibility and Discovery Risk: Concealing a rifle in a public or semi-public area substantially increases the likelihood of it being discovered by others, potentially leading to premature arrest or the foiling of the planned crime.
5. Damage to Ammunition: If ammunition is also stored under similar conditions, its efficacy and reliability could be compromised.
6. Mechanical Failures:The rifle’s prolonged exposure to outdoor elements could lead to mechanical failures in its moving parts, affecting its performance.
7. Inconsistent Performance: Environmental conditions may alter the rifle’s condition, resulting in inconsistent performance and reduced accuracy.
8. Legal Risks: Discovery of the rifle by authorities could lead to early detection and intervention, preventing the crime.
9. Compromised Concealment: The need to retrieve the rifle from a public location heightens the risk of being seen and identified before committing the crime.
   Marina Oswald testified: That she accosted Lee over the Carcano’s whereabouts in the immediate aftermath of the Walker attempt; “Where is the rifle? What did you do with it? ‘Lee’ said that he had left it somewhere, that he had buried it, it seems to me, somewhere far from that place, because he said dogs could find it by smell. I don’t know—I am not a criminologist”. (Volume I; p.16)
10. How did Oswald bury a rifle in the ground without using a spade and shovel or any implement other than his bare hands?
11. How did he protect the rifle from corrosion and other damage to be expected if the rifle was buried in soil for some four days or more?
12. If he used no protective wrappings, why did the microscopic examination of the rifle by FBI Expert Paul Stombaugh on November 23, 1963 reveal no traces of soil?
13. Since Oswald ostensibly buried the rifle in the dark of night, how did he locate the place of burial some four days later? And how did he dig it up without a shovel or any other implement?
14. How is it that many searches of Oswald’s property and possessions by local officers and federal agents uncovered no rifle cleaning equipment.(Sylvia Meagher, Accessories After The Fact; p.129)
15. During his testimony before the Warren Commission, General Edwin Walker was not presented with Commission Exhibit 573 for authentication, despite his role in the custody chain. Why?
16. Why was the DPD officers, who were present that night at the Walker residence, Van Cleave, McElroy, Tucker and Norvell not called to give testimony before the Warren Commission?
17. Why was Walter Kirk Coleman not called to testify before the Warren Commission?
18. Why are there no contemporaneous photographs of the Walker bullet, taken on April 10, 1963, in the record?
19. Who were the two men observed by Robert Surrey scoping out General Edwin Walker’s residence two nights before the attempt on his life, and what were their motives for such reconnaissance?
20. What is the chain of custody for the Walker bullet?
21. How do you interpret the fact that Lee Oswald was not considered a suspect in the Walker case until after his death, which means the charge is post-mortem.

If Lee Harvey Oswald had been brought to trial for the alleged attempt on General Edwin Walker’s life, the task facing Dallas District Attorney Henry Wade would have been daunting, to say the least. The prosecution’s case would have been fraught with a series of significant hurdles, each casting a shadow of doubt over Oswald’s culpability. Key among these were the logistical improbabilities – the complex chain of events leading up to the incident that seemed almost too convoluted to be feasible. Coupled with this were glaring inconsistencies in the evidence presented, gaps large enough in the witness testimonies to drive a truck through, and serious procedural questions that begged to be answered.

To surmount these formidable challenges, the prosecution would have needed more than just the usual evidentiary fare; it would have required exceptionally strong and unimpeachable alternative evidence, alongside coherent and convincing explanations to iron out the existing inconsistencies. The absence of direct testimonies and conclusive photographic evidence only compounded the issue, necessitating an even more persuasive argument to bridge these gaps.

It’s noteworthy that, to this day, no one, whether officially or unofficially, has truly grappled with these glaring deficiencies in the case against Oswald for the attempted assassination of General Walker. The shortcomings in the case are not merely minor quibbles or legal technicalities; they represent fundamental flaws that go to the very heart of the judicial process and the principles of fair trial and justice. For any defense attorney, these issues would not just be talking points; they would be central pillars of a defense strategy rooted in the bedrock of reasonable doubt.

“I had no way of knowing that Oswald attacked me. I still don’t. And I am not very prone to say in fact he did.” Edwin Walker. (Volume X1; p.426)

Thomas Mallon Praises the Warren Commission

“Before publication of the Warren Report, there was the irresistible reaction against the audacity of those who loudly proclaimed the dead man’s guilt but asked those who had doubts to keep silent. After the Report, there was something even more irresistible: the feeling that, in this case, silence would give consent to injustice.” Leo Sauvage. (see this)

Thomas Mallon. All these years later, how do you feel The Commission, that Report, it still essentially holds up?

Ruth Paine. Oh yea, oh yea. They were very thorough…

Advocating for the Warren Report’s conclusions, 60 years after the fact, is not just a matter of differing historical interpretation; it’s a position that, quite frankly, borders on the delusional or suggests a profound misapprehension of the facts. In my detailed analysis in ‘Assassination 60’, particularly in point 13, I underline the profound skepticism held by key figures regarding the Report. Notably, Bobby Kennedy dismissed it as ‘a shoddy piece of craftsmanship,’ a stark indictment from a figure intimately connected to the events.

Sylvia Meagher.”It was appalling to find how many of the Commission’s statements were unsupportable or even completely contradicted by the testimony and/or exhibits. I began to list what is now a long series of deliberate misrepresentations, omissions, distortions, and other defects demonstrating not only extreme bias, incompetence, and carelessness but irrefutable instances of dishonesty.” (Praise from a Future Generation; pp. 149-150)

Penn Jones Jr. “I really believe that the only way you can believe the Warren Report is not to read it.” (Praise from a Future Generation; p. 130)

The Commission’s credibility is further eroded by the dissent within its own ranks. Commissioners Richard Russell, Hale Boggs, and John Cooper explicitly expressed their disbelief in the Single Bullet Theory (SBT), a cornerstone of the Commission’s findings. John Sherman Cooper was unequivocal: “I could not convince myself that the same bullet struck both of them. No, I wasn’t convinced by [the SBT]. Neither was Senator Russell.” (James DiEugenio, JFK Revisited, pp. 30-31)

Hale Boggs voiced similar concerns, “I had strong doubts about it [the single bullet theory], the question was never resolved.” (Edward Epstein, Inquest; pp.149-150)

Commissioner Gerald Ford told French President d’Estaing that the President’s murder “was something set up. We were sure it was a set up, but we were not able to discover by whom.” (JFK Revisited; p. 57)

Even more damning is the disbelief expressed by Richard Russell, a sentiment shared by President Lyndon Johnson himself: “…they said that they believed…that the Commission believed that the same bullet which hit Kennedy hit Conaolly… well I don’t believe it.” To which Johnson replied, “I don’t either.” (Phone call of 9/18/64).

In the fantastic new collaborative book The JFK Assassination Chokeholds by Jim DiEugenio. Paul Bleau, Matt Crumpton, Andrew Iler and Mark Adamczyk, Professor Bleau presents a modern, critical examination of the Warren Report, demonstrating conclusively that the official record challenges, rather than supports, the Commission’s findings. This contemporary analysis further undermines the Report’s standing.

Perhaps the most scathing indictment comes from the late United States Senator Richard Schweiker, who declared, “The Warren Commission has in fact collapsed like a house of cards and I believe it was a set up at the time to feed pablum to the American people for reasons yet known, and one of the biggest cover-ups in the history of our country occurred at the time.” (JFK Revisited, p. 108)

A Tumultuous Marriage?

Thomas Mallon. “Not everybody knows (this) about Oswald, he was not a good husband… he beat Marina, this is very well documented in Pricilla McMillian’s book…”

Lee and Marina Oswald’s marriage remains a subject of intrigue and speculation. While Lee’s character has often been scrutinised, Marina’s role in their relationship is less frequently examined.

In a memorandum written in 1964, Norman Redlich reports that, “James H. Martin stated that (after the assassination) he had consciously attempted to create a public image of Marina Oswald as a simple, devoted housewife who had suffered at the hands of her husband and who was now filled with remorse for her husband’s actions and deeply grateful for the generosity and understanding of the American people… As Martin’s testimony indicates, there is a strong possibility that Marina Oswald is in fact a very different person— cold, calculating, avaricious, scornful of generosity, and capable of an extreme lack of sympathy in personal relationships. A wife who married him for selfish motives, degraded him in public (and) taunted him about his inadequacies…” (see this)

The George and Jeanne De Mohrenschildt testimonies also revel the mutual abuse the young couple would engage it.

George DeMohrenschildt.“I don’t like a woman who bitches at her husband all the time, and she did, you know. She annoyed him. She bickered. She brought the worst out in him. And she told us after they would get a fight, you know, that she was fighting also. She would scratch him also. ‘He has been beating me’, but she said, ‘I fight him back also…She was annoying him all the time ‘Why don’t you make some money?’, why don’t they have a car, why don’t they have more dresses, look at everybody else living so well, and they are just miserable flunkeys. She was annoying him all the time. Poor guy was going out of his mind. She openly said he didn’t see her physically–right in front of him. She said, ‘He sleeps with me just once a month, and I never get any satisfaction out of it.’ A rather crude and completely straightforward thing to say in front of relative strangers, as we were.” (Volume IX; p. 166-284)

Jeanne De Morenschildt.…His greatest objection was that people helped them too much, they were showering things on Marina. Marina had a hundred dresses given to her…He objected to that lavish help, because Marina was throwing it into his face. He could never give her what the people were showering on her. So that was very difficult for him, no matter how hard he worked–and he worked very hard. (Volume IX; p. 309)

The Assassination & Mrs Paine

Mrs. Paine, in a response to a question from Mr. Mallon, then highlights her displeasure at the recent documentary by researcher Max Good, The Assassination and Mrs. Paine. She states;

Ruth Paine. “What troubles me is, for instance there is this new DVD out… Mrs Paine and the murder of John F. Kennedy… I asked him, you know, what do you think, what is your opinion about the attempt on Walker and he (Max) says well I don’t think that happened. So that’s how some of the plot people, follow their stories, they just take what they want and leave the rest alone, and that is not good research.”

Thomas Mallon.“Yea, which is the way they pick and choose from the Warren Report, the different ‘facts’”.

I was interested if Max had seen this segment, so I reached out to him and asked what his thoughts were on it;

Max Good.“I think Ruth was referring in this talk to my meeting with her several months ago, which was set up and filmed by the producers of “Four Died Trying.” She did ask me my thoughts on the Walker shooting. I believe I said that I had doubts that it happened the way the official story describes. The way Ruth states it in this talk with Mallon, it sounds like I am denying that anything happened. In reality, I believe the Walker shooting was probably a staged event and that if Oswald was involved, it was as a pawn. The evidence throws all kinds of doubt on the official story, including the type of bullet not matching Oswald’s rifle and a witness seeing two suspects each leaving in separate cars. I’ve never heard Ruth discuss any of these details of the investigation. She seems to depend solely on the dubious “Walker note” and testimony of Marina, and the conclusions of the Warren Commission. It seems that she’s just as guilty of “taking what she wants and leaving the rest alone.” (Personal Correspondence) (buy the documentary here)

With the session now moving into its question-and-answer phase, Mr. Mallon assumed the role of a careful gatekeeper, sifting through and discarding the numerous inquiries presented to him. He selectively allowed only a subset of questions, primarily the less challenging ones, to be presented to Mrs. Paine. More demanding questions put forward by Dealey Plaza UK members in the audience were amongst those discarded. In this sea of generally unremarkable questions, however, there was one that emerged as notably intriguing. This question is detailed below.

Thomas Mallon. “Ruth someone asks, do you think Dallas being The City of Hate, as it was sometimes called, because there was such fierce opposition to Kennedy, do you think any of that motivated Oswald”

Ruth Paine.“No… no… no, he (Oswald) saw an opportunity on Wednesday morning, and he fired the gun on Friday.

Thomas Mallon. …And the really awful part of the journey home (from New Orleans to Dallas) was you didn’t know that one of the items, that was in the car, that he had packed, that was with everything… and one of the things in the car was the rifle.

Ruth Paine.“It has to have been.”

Thomas Mallon.“Yes.”

Ruth Paine.“There were two large Marine duffel bags, standing this high, he could have easily put a full-fledged rifle, it wouldn’t even have to have been broken down to fit in there, so yea, looking back it has to have been in there.”

In a notable deviation from recent disclosures, Mrs. Paine had testified to the Warren Commission about Oswald’s luggage and the alleged concealment of the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle within. When probed specifically about the possibility of these bags containing a long, slim object like a rifle, Mrs. Paine firmly denied noticing anything that would suggest the presence of such an item, asserting that the bags appeared to be filled with clothes and showed no signs of concealing a weapon. (Volume II; p. 462-463)

Let He Who is Without Sin, Cast the First Stone

Thomas Mallon.“He (Oswald) was not shy about asking for favours sometimes, one of the extraordinary things he did on the Saturday (November 23^rd) after the assassination, when he was in the Dallas City Jail, he called and what did he want?

Ruth Paine.“… he called and wanted me to contact a man named John Abt, who had acted as a lawyer for the American Communist Party, he gave me a phone number, this is Saturday, the day after the assassination. So, I did as he asked, rang up the phone and nobody answered, which is not really a surprise.

Thomas Mallon.“But he was still willing to be helped by you, a day after he had upended, you’re own life.”

Ruth Paine.“Oh yes”

Michael Paine was a Christian Unitarian, and Ruth came from a Quaker background. Quakerism is sometimes called the Society of Friends. Quakerism arose in England as a religion without creeds, or clergy. A religion coming from an Inner Light. Quakerism is usually attributed in America to the founding of Pennsylvania by William Penn. In addition, that state is usually considered one of the hotbeds of the American Revolution and the Bill of Rights, the latter of which is perhaps what the revolution was about. Oswald had a right to counsel, he was also supposedly granted the presumption of innocence. Therefore according to both religion and the American Creed what was so jarring about Oswald requesting Ruth to make a call for an attorney?

What makes this even worse is that neither Mallon nor Paine ever refer to how Greg Olds of the local American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) was apparently bamboozled in his attempt to represent Oswald by the Dallas Police. (WC Vol. 7, pp. 322-25) But here is the capper that Mallon never asked: “Ruth were not you and your husband members of the ACLU? And did not your husband take Oswald to an ACLU meeting? And did not Oswald later join that group?” (Philip Melanson, Spy Saga, pp. 56-57) The icing on the cake would be this: the ACLU came to prominence due to the deprivation of legal rights during the Palmer Raids.

The Final Curtain

Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. Aldous Huxley.

Thomas Mallon. “Fundamentally as we look back… do you think the assassination fundamentally was more of a psychological crime rather than a political crime? Meaning it grew form Oswald’s psychology more than from any ideology he picked up?”

Ruth Paine.“His life wasn’t going well at all, and he wanted to be a big shot and he was not.”

From the moment of Lee Oswald’s arrest on November 22, a narrative of presumption has shrouded him in guilt. This presumption was swiftly embraced by Dallas Police and Prosecution officials and eagerly disseminated by the media. As the soul of the nation was entrenched in grief, the martyred President’s remains were solemnly returned to Washington, and Oswald’s guilt was prematurely declared aboard Air Force One.

The Dallas officials quickly branded Oswald—a man without an attorney– as the sole assassin, casting an unjust shadow over his reputation and grossly violating that bedrock of American jurisprudence: the presumption of innocence. Yet, a crucial inquiry persists: What definitive evidence did they possess to warrant such a precipitous rush to judgment?

A critical examination of the evidence reveals a narrative fraught with inconsistencies, credibility issues with key evidence, and outright fabrications, suggesting a narrative far more complex and disturbing than Oswald’s solitary guilt. The tampering with evidence, the distortion of facts, and the neglect of judicial fairness hint at a conspiracy that does not include Lee Oswald.

The failure to conduct a comprehensive and impartial investigation into the full scope of President Kennedy’s assassination has not only failed Oswald but has veiled the truth from both the American people and the world at large.

Faced with such profound doubts, it becomes our imperative duty to challenge the oversimplified and unfounded assertions advanced by Mrs. Paine & Mr. Mallon. In the face of such overwhelming doubts, it is our fundamental duty to reject the simplified and unsupported claims of Oswald’s guilt.

“The worst form of injustice is pretended justice.” – Plato.

The full talk is on YouTube.

---

Go to Part 1 of 2

---

“I frankly don’t like to talk to the people who think it was a conspiracy….” Ruth Paine (November 20th, 2023). 

“The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy.” House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA)

On November 15th, 2023, I set course for a place once dubbed the ‘city of hate’ Dallas, Texas, a city forever haunted by the specter of November 22nd, 1963. This journey was not just a traversal across the Atlantic; it was a pilgrimage borne of a reverence for President Jack Kennedy

My itinerary in the United States was bursting with pivotal events, among these seminal moments was a night imbued with historical significance at Irving’s Dupree Theater on November 20th. Attending ‘An Evening of Conversation: (with) Ruth Paine & Thomas Mallon,‘ I wanted to take an opportunity to see Mrs. Paine and delve into her narrative, all be it one entrenched in the lore of the Warren Commission Report.

The Dupree Theatre, usually pulsating with the dynamism of the arts, had metamorphosed into a solemn sanctuary of contemplation that evening –its seats filled with an eclectic mix of individuals— Warren Commission stalwarts and those who advocate for the innocence of Lee Oswald, sat side by side united by a shared reverence for history.

We had all gathered to witness Mrs. Ruth Paine, a figure whose role in the Kennedy case oscillates between acclaim and controversy. As the most frequent witness before the Warren Commission, her accounts played a significant role in condemning Oswald as the lone assassin of President Kennedy— a portrayal I find quite contestable. Her testimonies, often cited as crucial in cementing Oswald’s culpability, added layers of complexity to an already convoluted historical puzzle. As she spoke, the air brimmed with a mix of reverence and skepticism.

Right on cue and wielding a tone steeped in certainty, Mrs. Paine delivered her highly questionable condemnation of the late Lee Oswald;“It was Lee who murdered President Kennedy, and he acted alone,”she declared, her voice imbued with a conviction that brooked no opposition.

Voltaire’s words echoed in my mind, “It is better to risk saving a guilty person than to condemn an innocent one.” Yet, in the Dupree Theater, Ruth Paine’s stance was unyielding, projecting Oswald’s guilt as an indisputable fact to the captivated audience.

When Mrs. Paine declared Lee Oswald guilty of assassinating President Kennedy, she entered a realm where ethics and legal principles intersect. Such public declarations, especially from those closely linked to a high-profile event, carry an inherent moral duty to provide evidence, even though not legally required. Her statements, lacking substantial corroboration, significantly influence public opinion, placing on her an implicit obligation for fairness and evidence-based assertions. Moreover, her avowed disdain for Oswald, highlighted by a remark about regretting her association with him, raises questions about her objectivity in this historical discourse.

Mr. Mallon, assuming a notably sanctimonious demeanor, then steered the discussion towards the attempted assassination of General Edwin Walker on April 10, 1963. His shift in focus, however, was not underpinned by the presentation of empirical evidence, eyewitness accounts, or ballistic analysis against Oswald. Instead, he chose to spotlight the highly contentious backyard photographs, just then projected onto the overhead screen.

Thomas Mallon. Something which helps to explain the Assassination of The President and that was Oswald’s attempt in April of 63, to shoot General Edwin Walker… This is Oswald in the backyard of the house on Neely Street in Dallas, holding a rifle and a copy of the Daily Worker and he has got his pistol at his waist. Marina took these photographs in the backyard in Neely Street, I think on March 31^st 1963. About 10 days later, he used that rifle, which was the same rifle he would kill the President with, to shoot at General Walker”.

Mr. Mallon, I must press upon a critical point: How do you reconcile the significant leap in logic required to use photographs, taken weeks before the attempt on General Walker’s life and months prior to President Kennedy’s assassination, as conclusive or even suggestive evidence of Oswald’s involvement in both crimes? These photographs, temporally distant from the events in question, seem to offer scant connection to the actual incidents. Could you elucidate how such a substantial leap in deductive reasoning is justified in this case, especially in the absence of more direct, contemporaneous evidence?

Marina Oswald, A Credible or Compromised Witness?

The issue of Marina Oswald’s credibility is not only discussed in depth in my series, ‘Assassination 60’’, but is also a well-acknowledged concern among experts on the case. Freda Scobey, a lawyer on the staff of Warren Commission dissenter Richard Russell, was one of the first to highlight the inconsistencies and contradictions in Marina’s testimonies, casting serious doubt on her reliability as a witness. Scobey’s observations underscore the problematic nature of using Marina’s testimony as a reliable source. (see this)

Moreover, as highlighted by my compatriot, Scott Reid, an expert on the Walker shooting, in his critical article ‘Oswald and the Shot at Walker:Redressing the Balance,’ zealous prosecutor, Norman Redlich, voiced similar reservations regarding Marina in a 1964 memorandum. He specifically addressed Marina’s pattern of deception: ‘Marina Oswald has repeatedly lied to the (Secret) Service, the FBI, and this Commission on matters which are of vital concern to the people of this country and the world… (Marina) may not have told the truth in connection with the attempt on General Walker.’ (see this)

Fellow commission counsel, J. Lee Rankin also voiced similar concerns to FBI director J. Edgar Hoover, stating; “Marina’s testimony on the Walker shooting to the FBI and Secret Service was giving the Commission lawyers fits because it was riddled with contradictions.” Marina’s statements, Rankin complained, “Just don’t jibe.” (Gerald McKnight, Breach of Trust; p. 57)

And for those still harboring any skepticism, I earnestly encourage delving into the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) 29-page report, “Marina Oswald-Porter, Statements of a Contradictory Nature.” This segment offers a thorough exploration of the discrepancies within her testimonies. It diligently documents the divergences in her narratives across different aspects of the case, presenting a compelling study of inconsistency. (see this)

Taken together, these factors paint a picture of a witness whose credibility has been seriously compromised. As such, the reliance on Marina’s testimony by Mr. Mallon to link Oswald to the Walker case becomes a weak foundation for his argument, raising profound questions about its overall validity.

Oswald Denies the Backyard Photographs

According to the report by Captain Will Fritz, chief of the Homicide & Robbery Division, regarding the interrogation of Lee Harvey Oswald, Oswald himself contested the authenticity of the Neely Street photographs. Fritz’s account reveals that Oswald denounced the backyard photographs as sophisticated forgeries. He reported that Oswald claimed: “I again asked him about his property and where his things might be kept, and he told me about the things at Mrs. Paine’s residence and a few things on Beckley…I showed Oswald an enlarged picture of him holding a rifle and wearing a pistol. This picture had been enlarged by our Crime Lab from a picture found in the garage at Mrs. Paine’s home. He said the picture was not his, that the face was his face, but that this picture had been made by someone superimposing his face, the other part of the picture was not him at all and that he had never seen the picture before. When I told him that the picture was recovered from Mrs. Paine’s garage, he said that the picture had never been in his possession… He denied ever seeing that picture and said that he knew all about photography, that he had done a lot of work on photography himself… and (that it) had been made by some person unknown to him. He told me that he understood photography real well, and that in time, he would be able to show that it was not his picture, and that it had been made by someone else”. (WCR; p. 607-609)

The Legal Considerations of the Backyard Photographs

“As far as I know, according to the local laws here, a wife cannot be a witness against her husband”, Marina Oswald. (Volume I; p.18)

As I also highlighted in ‘Assassination 60’, the question of whether Marina Oswald could have legally testified against Lee raises interesting forensic considerations for the case. Under Texas law, spouses are generally permitted to serve as witnesses for each other in criminal cases. However, a crucial exception exists they cannot testify against each other unless one spouse is being prosecuted for an offense committed against the other. In the context of Oswald’s hypothetical trial, Marina’s testimony would have been excluded based on this spousal privilege. This means that the controversial backyard photographs, which were allegedly linked to Lee, could not have been admitted into evidence to be used against him. This is because Marina’s testimony, which was the sole source of corroboration for the photographs, would have been inadmissible due to the spousal privilege.

A Tribute to Priscilla

“…Priscilla Johnston [sic] … also had contact with Oswald in Russia. [Priscilla was] formerly [a] State Department employee at the American Embassy and [her] contact with Oswald was official business.” (FBI Memo, November 23^rd 1963.)

Thomas Mallon. “Ruth, could you speak, to why you think this (Walker shooting) is so key to understanding the assassination?”

Ruth Paine. “It certainly is.”

At this, Mrs. Paine paid tribute to Priscilla Johnson McMillan, symbolized by a folder in her possession. Addressing the audience, Mrs. Paine conveyed, “That she (Priscilla) described it (the attempt on Edwin Walker) as the Rosetta Stone to understand the attempt on the President (Kennedy), (Oswald’s) trying to kill the President. That knowing what was going on in his mind and how he plotted and did all the preparation for trying to shoot General Walker. Said so much about his personality, his sense of being, not recognized and that he wanted to have notoriety.”

During the tribute, an image of Mrs. Johnson-McMillan suddenly appeared on the screen. Just then, my phone vibrated with a message. Neale Safety, the secretary of Dealey Plaza UK, had sent a message to the DPUK WhatsApp group. It read “Michael, Priscilla & Ruth at a CIA BBQ…” This one liner had undoubtedly become the highlight of the evening.

For those interested in learning more about Mrs. Johnson, I strongly recommend the insightful series ‘Priscilla and Lee; Before and After the Assassination,’ authored by Peter R. Whitmey. (see this)

The Oswald Paradox: Seeking Fame or Framed by Fate?

Mrs. Paine & Mr. Mallon’s narrative is a rehash of the weary, well-worn trope that the Warren Commission clung to in their attempts to explain Oswald’s hypothetical motives in the assassination of President Kennedy. As I dissected in ‘Assassination 60’, this theory buckles under the weight of its own contradictions. If Oswald was indeed driven by a deep-seated craving for notoriety, a thirst to bask in the infamy of such a heinous act, then why did he vehemently and persistently proclaim his innocence during his harrowing detention at the hands of the Dallas Police? His resolute denials, voiced with an unwavering firmness even in the face of grave accusations, starkly undercut the narrative that he was a man hungry for the dark spotlight of historical infamy. This incongruity casts a long shadow of doubt over the simplistic explanation offered by the Warren Commission and echoed by Mrs.Paine & Mr. Mallon, challenging us to look beyond the surface in our quest for truth.

Pleading Innocence: The Forgotten Voice of Lee Oswald

Reporter. “Did you shoot the President?”
Lee Oswald. “I didn’t shoot anybody, no sir.”

Reporter. “Oswald did you shoot the President?”
Lee Oswald. “I didn’t shoot anybody sir I haven’t been told what I am here for.”

Reporter. “Kill the President?”
Lee Oswald. “No sir I didn’t. People keep asking me that.”

Reporter. “Did you kill the President?”
Lee Oswald. “No, I have not been charged with that in fact no one has said that to me yet. The first thing I heard about it was when the newspaper reporters in the hall asked me that question.”

Lee Oswald. “I don’t know what dispatches you people have been given but I emphatically deny these charges… I have not committed any acts of violence.” (see this)

Oswald’s Last Defense: Proclaiming Innocence Against History

On November 24, 1963, in the dim, oppressive confines of the City Hall basement, a critically wounded Lee Harvey Oswald lay in a dire state. Surrounded by the urgency and chaos of the moment, his life precariously hanging by a thread, a profound silence enveloped him. Officer B.H. Combest of the Dallas Police Department, amidst the turmoil, sought to extract a final confession or declaration from Oswald, particularly about the assassination of President Kennedy. This was Oswald’s moment, if ever there was one, to claim the notoriety that some believed motivated him. Yet, in this charged atmosphere, where each second could have been his last, Oswald chose silence. He uttered no words of confession, no statements of guilt or pride; he merely shook his head in response to direct prompts. This silence, in such a critical juncture, resonated with a powerful implication of innocence. It stood in stark contrast to the allegations that he sought fame through infamy. Oswald’s refusal to embrace a narrative of notoriety in these final, fleeting moments, where a single word could have immortalized him in infamy, spoke more emphatically than any verbal declaration could. His silence in the face of death, under the weight of such grave accusations, became his most resounding and final testament to his claim of innocence. (Volume XII; p. 176-186)

Mrs Paine: On what firm bedrock of evidence do you anchor your assertion that Oswald was propelled by a voracious yearning for infamy and fame? This supposition appears to starkly contrast with the profound narrative woven by his actions, most notably his resolute silence in the face of imminent mortality.

This pivotal silence speaks volumes, challenging the notion of his supposed thirst for recognition.

As Mrs. Paine’s trenchant condemnations of Oswald continued, they resonated powerfully with the audience, evident in the synchronized nods of her supporters, symbolizing a shared conviction. She complained; “I seem to think that the shooting of Walker is absolutely crucial to understand what was going on with Oswald and what happened… not enough has been said about it!”This crescendo of influence reached its zenith when she directed a leading question to the assembled crowd, skillfully crafted to further cast Oswald in the role of the guilty. Her inquiry, loaded with implication and designed to sway opinion, hung heavily in the air, compelling the audience to view the situation through her lens of accusation; “How many of you know that Oswald, and most of you should because you are here, but how many of you ‘know’ that Oswald tried to kill Edwin Walker in April” (1963).

In a choreographed motion, her hand ascended first, soon echoed by a sea of hands in the crowd. Recognizing this solidarity, Mrs. Paine responded with a mix of satisfaction and camaraderie, remarking, “There you go, good crowd, “laughing as her supporters returned the favor. I would call it kind of a dull crowd. It was hard to comprehend that no one asked the obvious question:

Why would Oswald try to kill a right-wing fascist like Walker and then shoot the most liberal president since FDR? I mean, you must know Ruth that Kennedy sent in troops to put down a riot over integration at Ole Miss staged by Walker in 1962? You do know that don’t you? And you also must know that Kennedy retired Walker from the service for distributing John Birch Society material to his troops?

Absent one sentient person, the dog and pony show continued.

Thomas Mallon.“How did it finally come to light that he had shot Walker?”

Ruth Paine.“ When he went out to try and shoot Walker, he wrote a note for Marina… it started out here is the key to the post office box, if I am arrested here is where the police station is and of course she was frightened, terrified as she didn’t know what to do, who to tell… so she (Marina) tried to threaten him, I am going to hide this and if you ever do anything crazy like this I will go to the police with it, but it didn’t work. The amount of preparation that he did, for trying to shoot Walker, is in no way mimicked in the preparation he did before shooting Kennedy, because that was an impulse. He was working on a place that turned out to be on the parade route, with the car going by. He learned that when he was at work on Wednesday (November 20^th) called and came and got right out to my house, he had never come out on a weekday, he had never come out before asking permission, this was very different… He came out to get his rifle which was hidden in my garage, which I did not know. Got it and went in and shot the President as we ‘know’. It was a little bit later that the note came to light.

Thomas Mallon.“How did the note reach her?”

Ruth Paine.“…I sent the book to Marina (which contained the note). Of course, what is the first thing a Secret Service man going to do when he sees a book? See what falls out, and out came this note. She was confronted with this note and had to explain that it was the note he wrote when he went out to try and shoot Walker. If that note had not been found then I don’t think that we would ever have found out, because she was not going to tell”.

The Walker Note

“Did it seem strange to you at the time, Marina, that Lee did make these careful plans, take pictures, and write it up in a notebook, and then when he went out to shoot at General Walker, he left all that incriminating evidence right in the house so that if he had ever been stopped and questioned and if that notebook had been found, it would have clearly indicated that he was the one that shot at General Walker?” Wesley Liebeler.

If Exhibit A in the case against Lee Oswald—anchored by Mrs. Paine and Mr. Mallon’s account of the attempt on General Walker—draws heavily from Marina Oswald’s testimony, then Exhibit B is undoubtedly the infamous ‘Note,’ which surfaced, via Mrs. Paine, only after Oswald’s death. This ‘Note,’ has become a cornerstone of controversy. Its posthumous discovery raises pressing questions: What does the ‘Note’ truly prove? At the heart of this debate, several critical concerns undermine the ‘Note’s’ validity and its connection to Oswald:

1. Absence of Mention of General Edwin Walker: The note’s content does not reference General Edwin Walker, which is a significant omission if it was intended to be related to the assassination attempt on him. This raises questions about the note’s intended purpose and relevance to that specific incident.
2. Lack of Signature and Date: The note’s anonymity and lack of a temporal marker further cloud its authenticity. An unsigned and undated note lacks the definitive characteristics necessary to firmly tie it to a specific individual or time frame, undermining its credibility as a piece of evidence.
3. Fingerprint Analysis Results: The FBI’s analysis revealed that none of the seven latent prints found on the note matched Lee Harvey Oswald or Marina Oswald. This forensic evidence is crucial as it directly challenges the assumption that Oswald had physical contact with the note, casting serious doubts on its connection to him.View Source
4. Secret Service Inquiry into Mrs. Paine’s Possible Involvement: Mr. Gopadze of the Secret Service accosted Mrs. Paine over the “Walker note” suspecting her potential role in its creation. “
5. Expert Consensus on the ‘Walker’ Note’s Authenticity: The House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) consulted three experts to assess the authenticity of the ‘Walker’ note. Notably, there was no majority consensus that the note was written by Lee Harvey Oswald. This raises serious doubts about the note’s legitimacy and its alleged connection to Oswald.View Source
6. Oversight in Dallas Police Search: Despite an extensive search of the Paine residence on November 22-23, 1963, specifically aimed at uncovering evidence that could incriminate Lee Oswald, the Dallas Police failed to uncover the ‘Walker’ note. This oversight is particularly striking given Ruth Paine’s testimony indicating the thoroughness of the search. The fact that such a potentially incriminating item eluded the police during their detailed search adds a layer of mystery to the case and raises questions about the note’s whereabouts during this critical period.

   Ruth Paine:“I was just preparing to go to the grocery store when several officers arrived again from the Dallas Police Office and asked if they could search…and held up their warrant and I said, yes, they could search. They said they were looking for something specific… Before I left, they were leafing through books to see if anything fell out but that is all I saw… “(WC Volume III; p. 86-87)

   th, 2023, and Mrs. Paine stated that the note was contained within “a little book we had, a small book of advice to Russian mothers. It happened to be in the kitchen where we were reading, which made it different from the things in the garage… but they didn’t get that note because it was in my kitchen.”

   Considering your statement, Mrs. Paine, that the note was hidden “inside a little book of advice to Russian mothers’”in your kitchen – a location and item distinct from those in the garage – several deeply perplexing and troubling questions arise.

   Firstly, if this book was indeed in regular use by Marina in the days or weeks prior to the President’s assassination, it seems utterly baffling that neither of you noticed a note concealed within its pages? This oversight becomes even more confounding when considering the ease with which the Secret Service later discovered it. How is it possible that this note remained undetected in a book that was actively being used?

   Secondly this is 1960’s Texas, this period was marked by intense suspicion towards anything remotely associated with communism or the Soviet Union, it stretches credibility to suggest that a book intended for Russian mothers would go undetected by Texas police officers during a property search. My own visit to the property at 2515 W Fifth Street, in November 2023, offered insightful perspectives on this matter. As I toured the house, I found that the garage could be accessed directly from the kitchen/dining area, a detail clearly illustrated in the floor plan I have referenced above. This observation becomes critical when considering Mrs. Paine’s own admission of having given the police unfettered access to search her home in her absence, thus leaving them unsupervised. Given this level of access, and the fact that the garage is directly connected to a central living area of the house, the suggestion that their search would exclude the kitchen, and by extension, overlook a culturally and politically charged item like the book, seems strained. (see this)

7. Marina Oswald’s Initial Disavowal of Knowledge: In a striking turn of initial testimony, Marina Oswald professed complete ignorance regarding the existence of the ‘Walker’ note. This initial declaration of ignorance is pivotal, casting a veil of doubt over her subsequent revelations and the evolution of her narrative. View Source
8. Evidence Destroyed? The scenario as detailed in Marina Oswald’s testimony regarding the Walker shooting incident indeed unravels into a web of paradoxes and inconsistencies. Her claim that she urged Oswald to destroy a notebook, rich with intricate details of the attack on General Walker, stands in stark contrast to their apparent preservation of the ‘Walker’ note. This dichotomy is not just perplexing but contradictory. If Oswald, as suggested by Marina, felt compelled to incinerate the notebook due to its incriminating nature, it is logical to assume that similar caution would extend to all related materials, including the ‘Walker’ note, pictures of Walkers home found in the Paine garage and the notorious Neely Street photographs. The decision to eradicate one potential piece of evidence while seemingly safeguarding others defies logical reasoning and casts a shadow over their approach to handling such sensitive materials.

Marina Oswald. “I was so afraid after this attempt on Walker’s life that the police might come to the house. I was afraid that there would be evidence in the house such as this book… I told him that it is best not to have this kind of stuff in the house…I suggested to him that it would be awfully bad to keep a thing like that in the house.” (Volume XI; p.293-294)

The scenario presented by Marina Oswald’s testimony regarding the Walker shooting incident is fraught with paradoxes and inconsistencies. It is indeed paradoxical that while she claimed to have urged Oswald to destroy a notebook detailing plans for the attack on General Walker – an act acknowledging the danger of retaining incriminating evidence – she seemingly allowed the ‘Walker’ note to remain in their possession. This contradiction is puzzling. If Oswald took the drastic step to burn a notebook for fear of its incriminating nature, logic would dictate that all related materials, such as the ‘Walker’ note, the infamous backyard photographs, and the photographs of Walkers property would also be destroyed to eliminate any trace of involvement.

This inconsistency in the handling of evidence is succinctly highlighted by Wesley Liebeler’s poignant question:’If Oswald was guilty in the Walker shooting, why would Oswald keep the photos and the note around for almost eight months?’

---

Go to Part 2 of 2