My friends--so much has happened! There's a lot to say! A new book is on its way--DAVID FERRIE: MAFIA PILOT--more on that soon! Right now, there are two big announcement to make. The first is about an important Conference to be held Sept. 26-27-28 in Washington, DC ABOUT THE WARREN COMMISSION. It's the 50th anniversary of that sorry set of volumes, and as usual, the media will be trotting it out to indict the innocent Lee Harvey Oswald, even though the WC is obsolete, outdated, and missing hundreds of key documents. COME TO WASHINGTON AND HEAR THE TRUTH!
SIGN UP, SHOW UP, SPREAD THE WORD!
I'll be there, speaking on several important topics, including the pixelation analysis of the Doorway Man that proves Billy Lovelady wasn't standing "out front" by the door to the TSBD building, but that Lee harvey Oswald almost certainly is the figure, after all. The analysis is used
in microbiology to identify chromosomal patterns but works quite well on the Atlgens6 photo, too.
I'll also be speaking about the life and death of David Ferrie--the suspect seen in the film JFK who was found dead five days after he told Jim Garrison that he was a dead man because his name got in the papers. I knew Dave personally. His story has never been presented in a book before now --that's changed, since Trine Day will be releasing DAVID FERRIE-MAFIA PILOT by October--maybe a bit sooner! As the truth emerges, the obsolete Warren Commission looks more and more like the frame-up of Lee Oswald that it was. AND WE WON'T BE FINISHED IN SEPTEMBER!
IN OCTOBER, MEET ME ON LEE OSWALD'S BIRTHDAY, OCT. 18, IN NEW ORLEANS. We will be celebrating Lee's 75th birthday. New Orleans has awakened! The people now know that he is a hero, not an assassin. They have read the book ME & LEE! (If you haven't, order it from Trine Day, Barnes & Noble, or Amazon! If you have any questions about the book after reading it, you can contact me at my facebook page [Judyth Baker]. Your eyes will be opened!
IN NOVEMBER, COME TO DALLAS! On Nov. 22-23-24 you can attend a FREE CONFERENCE -- sponsored by hundreds of Facebook friends who have donated to make that possible! THE JFK ASSASSINATION CONFERENCE WILL BE HELD AT TWO LOCATIONS: ON NOV. 22 , AT THE BOB DUNCAN CENTER, 2800 S. CENTER ST., ARLINGTON, TX (on Dallas' doorstep!). On Nov. 23 & 24, the Conference will continue at Wingate-at-Arlington, Bush Hall, at 1024 Brookhollow Plaza Dr, Arlington. Here's our schedule so far:
JFK ASSASSINATION
CONFERENCE
NOV. 22-23-24
[==this
is a free conference, thanks to Facebook friends’ donations! Consider helping
with your donation, too!==]
SAT. NOV. 22
SITE:BOB DUNCAN BALLROOM,
ARLINGTON
2800 S. CENTER ST., ARLINGTON, TX (on Dallas’ doorstep!)
8:00 – 11: 00 SPEAKERS
11:
45 – 1:15 “Meet at the Grassy Knoll” --event
to honor JFK
“JUSTICE FOR JFK”; Dealey Plaza, Meet at Grassy
Knoll: Master of Ceremonies, George
Butler
SPEAKERS TBA:
12:30 Moment of Silence :
12:32
–1:15 SPECIAL SPEAKERS
2:00 - JFK ASSASSINATION
CONFERENCE
RESUMES IN ARLINGTON
BOB DUNCAN BALLROOM, 2800 S. CENTER ST.,
ARLINGTON, TX
(on Dallas’ doorstep!)
2: 00 – 5:00 SPEAKERS TBA
5: 00 – 6:00 DINNER
6:05– 6:15 MUSIC
6:15 – 9:15 SPEAKERS
9:15 - 9:45 Authors’ Tables,
book signings
SUN.
NOV. 23
: JFK ASSASSINATION CONFERENCE
SITE: WINGATE-AT-ARLINGTON
1024 Brookhollow Plaza Dr,
Arlington, TX 76006
8:30
- 12:30 SPEAKERS
12:30
-1:30–LUNCH BREAK
1:30
– 5:00 SPEAKERS
5:00 – 6:30 BUS (OR MINIBUS) TOUR OF IMPORTANT PLACES IN
DALLAS, ENDING WITH OAK CLIFF SITES (COST: $15)
6:30 MEET AT OAK CLIFF: TIPPIT PLAQUE CAMPAIGN –
[protests,
publicity and petition... 1/2 hr., then return to Wingate]
7:30
– 9:00 LATE NIGHT DINNER -- SITE TBA
MON. NOV. 24: JFK ASSASSINATION
CONFERENCE
SITE: WINGATE-AT-ARLINGTON
1024 Brookhollow Plaza Dr, Arlington,
TX 76006
9:00 -12:00
SPEAKERS: HONORING JOHN F. KENNEDY
and REVEALING THE
REAL LEE HARVEY OSWALD
12:00 – 1:30 LUNCH
1: 30 meet at ROSE HILL
MEMORIAL
SPEAKERS
PLACE
FLOWERS ON LEE’S GRAVE
5:00
- 7:00 CLOSING DINNER –SITE TBA
THOSE WHO DONATE $50 OR MORE WILL HAVE A RESERVED SEAT
(UPON REQUEST) AT THE CONFERENCE! (YOU CAN DONATE AT THIS BLOGSITE!)
I'LL BE SPEAKING AT BOTH CONFERENCES --SEE YOU THERE!
Well--they've done it again. Ignored new witnesses in the Kennedy assassination ---such as myself--while giving old-time CIA asset Max Holland yet another opportunity to declare Lee Oswald is now 'proven' to have killed Kennedy. Uh...sure, Max. We believe you. After all, the CIA believes you! Yes, Max Holland continues to create pieces of rewritten history that mainstream media--most lately FOX NEWS --takes seriously. Why not? the CIA defends Holland. The CIA tells us they did not help kill Kennedy. The same CIA whose director, Richard Helms, told Congress that the CIA will lie whenever necessary. Max Holland has kindly provided this year's contribution to the government's annual November LIE that Lee Harvey Oswald killed President John F. Kennedy. To do so, he had to invent a new whopper--that the Zapruder film did not film the 'first' shot --giving Lee Oswald an extra five seconds to shoot. How convenient. How unfortunate that the Secret Service had no reaction whatsoever to this so-called gunshot. Nor did the pigeons on the rooftop of the TSBD. nor did anybody in the crowd. But the extra five seconds, never reported by anybody in the past at that point in the motorcade,gives Holland his chance to 'prove' Lee Oswald had time to shoot--a problem that inconveniently kept coming up these past 48 years. Next,Holland wants us to know that 'someone' can be seen,with enhancement to the original flms taken that day, moving around on the 6th floor of the TSBD. As if we didn't know this previously! He declares it is Lee Oswald, never indicating that witnesses said TWO people had been seen on the 6th floor--not just one. But to mention a second person there would mean a conspiracy--so Max ignores the reports that two persons were present. For example: http://elderlynegro.freehomepage.com/custom.html
and note this:
Arnold and Barbara Rowland : From the street Arnold Rowland saw TWO men on the 6th floor of the Texas School Book Depository minutes before the assassination. One at the western window was carrying a gun. The other man at the eastern window (the so called 'sniper's nest') was a dark complected man. The FBI wrote nothing about this and the Warren commission said he was mistaken.
Carolyn Walther : From the street Carolyn Walther saw TWO men on one of the upper floors of the Texas School Book Depository minutes before the assassination. She heard one shot, then two almost simultaneously, then a fourth shot. She was never called as a witness by the Warren commission. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_ZYa_nK-…
Ruby Henderson : From the street Ruby Henderson saw TWO men on the 6th floor of the Texas School Book Depository. Again, she heard one shot, then two almost simultaneously, then a fourth shot. Likewise she was never called as a witness by the Warren commission.
John Powell : John Powell was an inmate on the 6th floor of the Dallas county jail, straight across the street from the book depository. He and some of his inmates saw TWO dark complected men in the southeast corner ('sniper's nest') of the book depository. None of them were called to testify before the Warren commission.
Robert H West : Robert H West stood in the old courthouse. He heard FOUR shots.
Amos E Euins : Amos E Euins saw a man fire a rifle from the 6th floor of the book depository. He described the man as black and bald. He heard FOUR shots. Euins's mother received several phone threats before he should give statement before the Warren commission.
[CIA/50s/Guat]. Holland, Max. "The 'Photo Gap' that Delayed Discovery of Missiles in Cuba." Studies in Intelligence 49, no. 4 (2005): 15-30. "The political ...
C.I.A. Police Training Magazine article by Kai Bird, Max Holland; The Nation, Vol. 242, June 7, 1986. Read C.I.A. Police Training at Questia library.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PBHistory
CIA documents; Holland, Max. “Operation PBHistory: The Aftermath of SUCCESS” International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence. 17: 300-332 ...
Well, we could go on and on...but Fox News doesn't go 'on' at all...they simply call Holland a "Historian" and give him front page attention (Nov.18, 2011).
The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) is an independent US Government agency ...... See Max Holland, “The Demon in Jim Garrison,” Wilson Quarterly, Vol. ...
Seasoned researcher Lisa Pease wrote this awhile back:
to The Nation: Dear Editors,
I was shocked that you allowed Max Holland to comment on the recent JFK Conference. He’s already shown his lack of journalistic integrity on the subject. In the current piece, he made the bald-faced lie that “In point of fact, 99.99 percent of the HSCA’s report improved upon or underscored the accuracy of the Warren Report’s key findings.” It did nothing of the sort, as those of us in the research community who have actually READ the HSCA’s report know very well. Is there no fact checker at The Nation? When you rightly avoided publishing his article espousing the notion that the KGB caused Americans to suspect CIA involvement in the JFK case, he took it to the CIA, which published it happily, since it exculpated them of any involvement in the Kennedy assassination. But that’s not necessarily a new relationship. Holland got his early start with the Voice of America, a well-known outlet for the CIA’s propaganda during the Cold War. In fact, that was the pattern at the conference, which I also attended. While most leading researchers on the case believe elements of the CIA were directly involved, those who take the opposite view, like Holland, invariably end up having a cozy relationship with the chief suspect. It should embarrass you to learn that Holland omitted mention of the most interesting and heated exchange at the conference. Two speakers rose to debate the acoustic evidence on which the HSCA based its conclusion of “probable conspiracy.” The first, Richard Garwin, said the sound evidence was off by a second, and therefore proved nothing. The second, Don Thomas, said that Garwin was using a different copy of the audio tape, proven by the number on the tape, and that the discrepancy was attributed to its being a copy. Thomas then showed how the sound evidence matched perfectly with all the extant video evidence. It was a stunning refutation of Garwin’s weak defense of the non-conspiracy view.
Would it surprise you to learn that Garwin was, as he admitted publicly when challenged, a CIA man? As a conference participant, I found that confession stunning. As a “journalist”, Max Holland didn’t even find that worthy of mention.
Is Max Holland a CIA asset at The Nation? If he is, that’s a tragedy for the nation and The Nation. If he isn’t, he’s simply a guy who, for whatever private reason, is more comfortable repeating the assertions of others than uncovering the truth. And his “99.99%” statement shows he’s willing to lie to do so. So it hardly matters if he’s CIA or not. Whatever he is, he sure doesn’t belong at The Nation. We continue to learn every day how official lies bring heinous tragedy upon the innocent. His perversions of history do no less damage. We can’t learn the lessons of history when he presents a false version of it.
Max Holland, whose words have appeared in The Nation, in mainstream publications, as well as in U.S. government-sponsored publications, such as the CIA's...
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML your computer “CIA.gov + Max Holland.” You will find on the first page alone numerous articles by Holland supporting and defending the CIA and attacking ..
Proof the FBI Changed Documents, and Vincent Bugliosi Was Wrong
by Pat Speer 13 Apr 2009
In 2007, the legendary true crime writer Vincent Bugliosi released Reclaiming History, a Bible-sized book designed to answer all the questions regarding a possible conspiracy in the murder of President John F. Kennedy. Unfortunately, his “answers” provoked more questions. This short essay examines both the way Bugliosi dealt with one controversial matter, and the truth about this matter, as recently discovered by the author.
Although it is not mentioned in the text itself, on Reclaiming History's accompanying CD-ROM Bugliosi tackles a particularly troublesome question related to a pair of conflicting FBI reports. Intriguingly, these reports were written on the finding of a paper bag in the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD), the workplace of alleged assassin Lee Harvey Oswald. The Warren Commission had concluded that Oswald had made this bag from paper materials available in the shipping room of the building, (Warren Report, p. 136) and had then used this bag to carry his rifle into the building. But the Commission had failed to uncover and reveal an important problem with the purported match between the paper used to create this bag, and the paper then in use in the building. Bugliosi compounds this mistake. On page 405 of his endnotes, Bugliosi discusses this problem and offers an explanation:
In a 1980 article in Penn Jones Jr.’s conspiracy newsletter, Continuing Inquiry, critic Jack White claimed that the FBI had “sanitized” a document relating to the FBI’s examination of the paper and tape used to construct the bag found in the Depository, and hence, was part of the “cover-up” to hide the truth about the assassination. White reported that two nearly identically worded FBI documents, found by a researcher at the National Archives, offered two opposite conclusions regarding the source of the paper Oswald allegedly used to construct the bag. One version stated that paper samples obtained from the Depository shipping area on November 22 were found to have the same observable characteristics as the brown paper bag recovered from the sixth-floor sniper’s nest. A second version said that the paper samples were found “not to be identical” with the paper gun sack discovered at the scene of the shooting. (Jack White, “The Case of Q-10 or the FBI Cover-Up Is in the Bag”, Continuing Inquiry, February 22, 1980, pp.1–2)
Paper bag being carried from TSBD.
Although White crowed that the documents “cast doubt on the credibility of the official story,” and his allegations have subsequently been used by a parade of critics in many conspiracy books, magazine articles, and Internet postings as “proof ” of the FBI’s willingness to alter evidence in the Kennedy case, the two documents are no doubt examples of a misunderstanding that was cleared up by the Warren Commission in early 1964. In a March 12, 1964, letter, Warren Commission general counsel J. Lee Rankin asked FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover to settle the two ostensibly contradictory FBI reports. Rankin wrote, “We are in doubt. Please submit a report . . . as to the tests made and the conclusions drawn.” (FBI Record 124-10045-10081, Letter from J. Lee Rankin to J. Edgar Hoover, March 12, 1964, p.1; see also FBI Record 124-10022-10200) A week later, on March 19, Hoover responded that both reports were correct. The first report, dated January 7, 1964, referred to samples obtained from the Depository on December 1, 1963 (nine days after the assassination). By then, the shipping department had replaced its roll of wrapping paper with a fresh roll, since the fall period was its “heavy shipping season.” Consequently, the samples obtained by the FBI in December did not match the characteristics of the paper bag found on the day of the shooting. The second report, dated January 13, 1964, related to samples taken from the Depository on November 22, the day of the assassination. These samples were found to be “similar in color to [the bag recovered from the sixth floor]” and were “similar in appearance under ultraviolet fluorescence, as well as in microscopic and all other observable physical characteristics.” However, Hoover noted that while the paper bag found on the sixth floor could have been made from the materials available at the Depository, the paper and tape did not contain any watermarks or other significant, unique, identifying features. Consequently, the paper bag could have been constructed from similar materials “obtained from many paper dealers, or from other users.” (FBI Record 124-10022-10199, Letter from J. EdgarHoover to J. Lee Rankin, March 19, 1964, pp.1–2; see also FBI Record 124-10045-10082; CD 897, pp.157–168; CE 1965, 23 H 816)
Bugliosi's explanation is both incredibly deceptive and incredibly wrong.
11/30/63 FBI report on paper bag, stating that it had the "same
observable characteristics" as TSBD-furnished paper. CD 5 p.129.
Click image to view full document page.
This is easy to see, once you know where to look. The article to which Bugliosi refers is a February 22, 1980 essay on the probable changing of a document provided the Warren Commission as part of an 11-30-63 FBI report (see Commission Document 5, p. 129, shown at right). What Bugliosi either fails to notice or fails to tell his readers, however, is the first thing he should have noticed: the date on the document. As displayed on the cover of the 1980 article dismissed by Bugliosi, and therefore presumably read by Bugliosi, both versions of the document were dictated on 11/29/63. This date is problematic. By Bugliosi's own account, the paper samples that did not match the characteristics of the paper bag were obtained on 12-1-63. So...how can a report refer to the results of a test that has not yet been performed, on an object that has not yet been procured? It can't. One might venture then that Bugliosi's "explanation" is little more than smoke, and that he really has no clue how to refute Jack White's article.
Alternate 11/30/63 FBI report discovered in National Archives by
Gary Shaw, stating that the TSBD-furnished paper was "found
not to be identical with the paper gun case."'
Reprinted in Henry Hurt's "Reasonable Doubt."
But, if so, he's not the first to run from this issue. Although it's widely presumed the document saying the paper and bag were not identical was first discovered in 1980, it was actually found years earlier, and brought to the government's attention at a time when it could easily have been investigated. Courageously, the discoverer of this document, J. Gary Shaw,discussed the document’s existence at a 9-17-77 conference sponsored by the House Select Committee on Assassinations, and suggested they interview FBI agent Vincent Drain, the author of the documents.
While the HSCA, sadly, failed to heed Shaw's request, we can still take comfort that Shaw found some outside interest, and that a series of researchers were able to ask and answer many of the questions the HSCA ignored. In 1981, researcher Ed Tatro, inspired by Jack White’s 1980 article on Shaw’s discovery, contacted the FBI seeking an explanation for the two conflicting documents. The Bureau's initial response explained nothing. In 1984, however, Tatro asked again, and this time received what is as close to an “official” explanation as we are likely to receive. As recounted by Tatro in an article in the January 1985 issue of The Third Decade, the FBI’s Assistant Director of the Office of Congressional and Public Affairs, William Baker, offered that the document discovered by Shaw was found to be “inaccurate” upon review at FBI headquarters, and that “The Dallas office was instructed to make corrections at that time.” To the question of how Shaw was able to find an uncorrected copy in the files, Baker explained further that the FBI sent two copies of the 11-30-63 master report to the Warren Commission, one on 12-20-63 and one three days later, and that the first copy had the uncorrected copy of page 129 later discovered by Shaw. As Shaw confirmed to this writer that he found the document in the Warren Commission’s files, and not the FBI’s files, this actually makes sense.
But this explanation also raises some questions. In 1980, after the appearance of Jack White’s article in The Continuing Inquiry, journalist Earl Golz asked the supposed author of these reports, FBI agent Vincent Drain, about the two conflicting reports bearing his name. Now, if Drain’s words were consistent with Baker’s subsequent explanation, one might reasonably conclude that the “mystery” surrounding the conflicting documents had mostly been solved. As reported by Jerry Rose in the March 1985 issue of The Third Decade, however, Drain’s answers were at odds with what Baker told Tatro. While Drain, in order to align with Baker’s subsequent explanation, should have admitted something along the lines of “I screwed up, and was asked to rewrite my report” he instead “expressed shock at seeing” the documents and “said he was as ‘puzzled’ as Golz about them.” Even more problematic, in light of what Baker was to reveal, Drain “expressed certainty that the copy saying the materials tested were the same was the original document,” and speculated that the document discovered by Shaw, and subsequently acknowledged by the FBI’s Assistant Director to be the de facto original document, was a “fake.”
If Drain, who had no way of knowing what Baker was to tell Tatro, was deliberately deceiving Golz, he was at least consistent. In 1984, author Henry Hurt asked Drain about the documents a second time, and gave him a second chance to admit he’d mistakenly written an “inaccurate” report, as later claimed by Baker. But Drain once again held firm. According to Hurt, Drain responded "I am certainly as perplexed as you are" and then claimed the report saying the paper bag and paper sample had the same observable characteristics was correct. (p. 98 of Reasonable Doubt, by Henry Hurt, Henry Holt and Co., 1985). (As a conclusion that the bag and sample were not identical would have cast doubt on the "official story" holding that Oswald created the bag at his work, Drain's proposal that the correct document was the one claiming the bag and sample matched was not exactly a surprise.)
The smoking file: 12-18-63 airtel from Shanklin to HQ.
Click image to view full document page.
Buried deep within the FBI’s files, however, there was a surprise. In thefirst part of Rose’s article in the March 1985 issue of The Third Decade he revealed that researcher Paul Hoch had uncovered a document demonstrating once and for all that Drain had indeed originally wrote that the paper sample and bag were "found not to be identical", and that this had later been changed upon orders from headquarters. This "smoking gun" document, so to speak, can be found in FBI File 105-82555, section 39, page 7. It is a 12-18-63 airtel from the Dallas Special-Agent-in-Charge, J. Gordon Shanklin back to FBI Headquarters, reporting that he is replacing page 129 of the FBI's 11-30-63 report with a different page, and is sending out additional copies of this page so that the page can be replaced in every copy of the report.
Should that document have not proved fatal to Drain’s story, however, two documents subsequently uncovered by Jerry Rose helped bury it completely. As revealed in the May 1985 issue of The Third Decade, the first of these documents, a 12-6-63 airtel from FBI Director Hoover’s office to Dallas, makes note that Drain’s report on page 129 of the 11-30-63 Report contains an “inaccurate statement” and orders the Dallas Special-Agent-in-Charge Shanklin to “handle corrections.”
From these documents, then, one can only conclude that Drain, who’d only escorted the first day evidence from Dallas to Washington, and then flown it back, had either inaccurately represented the FBI Laboratory’s findings on an important piece of this evidence, or had accurately represented the Laboratory’s findings after a decision had been made not to do so. The former is suggested by reports and testimony claiming that the paper bag and sample had “the same observable characteristics.” The latter is suggested by the strange fact that Drain, for what would have to have been considered a monumental mistake, apparently received no reprimand, and that Hoover and Shanklin, in their correspondence on the “inaccurate statement” in Drain’s report, expressed no interest whatsoever on how he came to make such a statement.
While one could go on from here to discuss which version of Drain’s report was actually “accurate”, we’ll stop here instead and focus on the simple, unavoidable fact that the three documents just cited prove beyond any doubt that the FBI did, at least on occasion, change reports, even after they had been signed, dated, typed-up, and circulated.
For those studying U.S. history, this creates a problem. Historians, of all stripes and shapes, operate under the assumption the documents they are studying are written on the day they are dated, and are written by those signing the document. If Vincent Drain, when given the chance, had simply admitted he'd screwed up, and that his superiors had forced him to rewrite an inaccurate report, and that this was the only time this happened, perhaps we might still feel confident this holds true of FBI documents. Drain's initials, after all, appear on the revised document. But he did not. He either lied or forgot entirely about what would have to be considered a major mistake on his part.
As a consequence, we are left to wonder...did the paper sample have the "same observable characteristics" as the bag, or were the paper sample and bag "found not to be identical"?
And, more importantly…what other archive documents have been re-written weeks or months after the fact, and re-inserted in the record as if they were the original documents?
This excellent foreign YouTube video has rare footage showing Lee as he was filmed at the WDSU studios, and with Jim Garrison pointing out Reily Coffee Company, David Ferrie's house, Guy Banister's office & 544 Camp Street entrance.
Delphine Riberts, Banister's secretary, told a witness on the film that Lee was in Banister's office, which I can also verify.
Listen to what Garrison says about who was involved to kill Kennedy....Garrison describes Lee as an agent penetrating the right-wing organizations involved. "Oswald had been placed [at Reily's]..." he tells the interviewer. See the buildings as they looked when Lee and I were there.
The death of Eladio deValle on the same day Ferrie died is also shown.
On Saturday, a day after the assassination, during a ten-minute meetings through panes of glass, using telephones (3:30-3:40 P.M) Robert Oswald, Lee's brother, reported that Lee Harvey Oswald told him, "Junie needs a new pair of shoes."
Marina with little June soon after JFK died
Ask yourself if a man who worried about new shoes for his little girl --at the time he was charged with the murder of the President of the United States, if this harried, stressed and exhausted subject of national attention could have actually killed Kennedy.
Lee's concern was not only for Junie, his toddler, or for little Audrey Rachel. He also cared for Marina, his wife, though he and I had desperately wished to live together in a marriage of our own.
He cared for his babies to the end.
To me, Lee said, when I asked him, a short time before midnight (late Nov. 20th) to flee from involvement with the assassination, he replied in a grief-filled voice,"Even if I wanted to, which I do not, I couldn't. We've talked about this before, Juduff. They'd not only do me in, they'd come after my family. They'd find you. You'd all die." A little later, he said, "Tomorrow,I'll go say goodbye to Junie, and Rachel,and Marina--" Lee almost choked when he told me this. We were both crying by then.
Lee cared --more than records show--about his wife during her pregnancy. It's important for you to read the following statement from the anti-Oswald writer,Priscilla McMillan, because in New Orleans, Lee Oswald had matured and was taking more responsibility for his wife and child. He was sorry when Marina'a advancing pregnancy created problems for her:
"The veins had burst in Marina'a legs and her legs and ankles ached. He rubbed them and kissed them and cried. He told Marina that he was sorry to put her through such an ordeal and he would never do it again."(p. 675)
We must then consider if Lee Oswald was a perfect, wretched cad when the baby was finally born. Ruth Paine, with whom Marina and Junie were living at the time, implies as much. YOU decide, after reading what I have to tell you next:
I remember how angry Lee was at Ruth Paine when little Audrey Rachel was born. When Marina went into labor, Ruth persuaded Lee to stay with her little kids and Junie. Ruth argued that Lee's ride to work was with the next-door neighbor and that if he stayed at the hospital with Marina, he wouldn't have a ride to town that he could count on. Besides, little Junie would have to leave both mother and father at the hospital and return to Paine's house to stay there--the very first time Junie had ever been left without either parent. Junie would be certain to be terribly upset.
Ruth added that since she spoke Russian fluently, she would be able to comfort Marina despite the foreign surroundings. Marina might even feel more comfortable knowing the children weren't in the waiting area making noise. Reluctantly,Lee agreed to the arrangement.
Imagine, then, how Lee felt when Ruth Paine returned quickly--obviously having simply dropped Marina off at the hospital -- saying she saw no reason to stay!
"She took Marina to Parkland--and just left her there!" Lee reported to me. Lee said he was so angry he gave Paine some verbal insults, then went into the bedroom and refused to speak to her again, though he overheard enough from Ruth's call to the hospital to know that Marina gave birth about 45 minutes after she had been admitted to the hospital, and that the birth had been quick and easy.
Ruth Paine herself confirmed in her testimony that she didn't remain with Marina, but she calumniates Lee,making it look like he simply went to bed and didn't even care about what happened to his wife, or to the baby!
Would the man who asked his brother Robert to make sure his little Junie had new shoes really not care about what was happening? Ruth Paine actually got away with it to the Warren Commission, and one of the Commission defenders, David Von Pein (yet another "pain") fell for the lie--for it gave him a chance to further defame Lee Oswald. I have placed in bold face the bold faced lies of Ruth Paine. Wrote Von Pein:
MRS. PAINE -- "I informed him [LHO] in the morning that he had a baby girl. He was already asleep when I got back--no, that is not right. He was not asleep when I got back from the hospital, but he had gone to bed, and I stayed up and waited to call the hospital to hear what word there was.
So, that I knew after he was already asleep that he had a baby girl. I told him in the morning before he went to work. ...."
She later added, "He went to bed; I stayed up and waited until what I considered a proper time and then called the hospital to hear what news there was...and learned that he had a baby girl. I then went to bed and told him in the morning."
MR. JENNER -- "You did not awaken him then?"
MRS. PAINE -- "I did not awaken him. I thought about it and I decided if he was not interested in being awake I would tell him in the morning."
Von Pein then comments:
[DVP -- The above comments by Ruth strike me as quite humorous (and kind of sad at the same time). Lee Oswald, who knows his wife is going to have a baby any minute, doesn't seem to care about the impending birth of his child in the slightest degree -- he decides to go to bed, while Ruth waits up to find out if Marina gave birth or not and what her condition is. Unbelievable."
===note by JVB: Of course it's unbelievable, because it's a lie. The same man who planed the doors in Ruth Paine's house so they would close properly (see Ruth Paine's testimony,below), who played with Paine's children, who cared about Junie's shoes, and who rubbed his wife's sore feet, DID NOT GO TO SLEEP, NOT CARING WHETHER OR NOT HIS WIFE HAD SAFELY DELIVERED THEIR BABY.
But Von Pein is not a witness--he exists only to besmirch a man who, I assert, with all my strength, has been maligned, lied about, and defamed to the point of absurdity. Lee Harvey Oswald loved his babies!
Ruth Paine
Von Pein has to repeat the horrible lie, to make sure it sinks in, connecting it with the assassination so that the reader will believe that Lee was a monster:
"While her husband Lee went to sleep in Irving, Marina gave birth to Audrey Marina Rachel Oswald at 10:41 PM, Sunday night, October 20, 1963. Rachel's place of birth was, ironically, Parkland Memorial Hospital in Dallas -- the same hospital where President John F. Kennedy would die 33 days later after having been shot in the back of the head by Rachel's father." Not so. Read what another enemy admits...
Near the end of September, 1963, when Lee was set to go to Mexico City --sent on a mission to deliver a dangerous bioweapon , after which mission he had been promised he could STAY there (a point that has been hidden by anti-Oswald writers, who do not wish any link to exist between me and Lee) -- that same country where I was to meet him---we'd divorce quickly and marry there---Lee was heartsick.
Why was he heartsick? Because when he said goodbye to Marina at that time, with Ruth Paine standing there, waiting to leave for Texas, Lee broke down and wept,believing he might never see little Junie again.
The reason? Lee thought it highly possible that he'd never see little Junie again because he believed he was going to stay out of the country --in Mexico--after his mission in mexico city had been completed. Nor would he see his unborn child.
Here's what the anti-Oswald writer Priscilla McMillan-Johnson had to say about this event, in her book 1977 book, Marina and Lee:
"..when he kissed Marina goodbye, his lips were trembling and it was all he could do to keep from crying." (p.402) "...Lee warned Marina, above all, she was not to tell Ruth he was going to Cuba."(p.463)
Lee had told Marina he was 'going to Cuba' --but only so she would not think about trying to contact him again. At the same time, he sent letters out to various parties, saying he planned to move to certain American cities, such as Philadelphia.
These letters, we believed, would keep everybody guessing as to Lee's final location, which was going to be in Mexico, likely at Merida, though Lee never mentioned that city as our final destination. At first, we'd planned to meet on a beach near what is now known as Cancun, then go inland and climb Chichen-Itza. That region of Cancun (which I recalled as the "village of Kankun" from an anthropologist's paper on file in the Tulane library's special "Latin America" collection ) was extremely remote at the time. Later, when the Mexico City assignment fell through drastically, we decided we'd first have to hide in the Cayman Islands for a year or so.
The Real Lee Oswald, in Ruth Paine's Own Words
Ruth Paine did have some decent words to say about Lee, which are buried in Warren Commission records and rarely quoted. On p.509,Vol. II of the 26 volumes,she says this about Lee (who was nevertheless described by the Warren Commission as a murderous loser and lone nut):
Mrs.Paine: ...I saw him as a person who cared for his wife and child, tried to make himself helpful in my home,tried to make himself welcome although he really preferred to stay to himself..."
Paine then mentions W.C. Exhibit No. 425 -- a letter Paine wrote to her mother. Quoting from the letter, Paine stated, "He...was a happy addition to our expanded family. He played with Chris" --my 3 year old, then 2 --"watched football on the TV,planed down the doors that wouldn't close they had shifted and generally added a needed masculine flavor."
When Lee stood his ground on November 22, he found himself unable to save the President he admired, and for whom he had risked his life--and would now give his life. I also believe that he also saved my life, Marina's life, the lives of Junie and Rachel, and the lives of his double agent contacts in the USSR. He could not say "I'm CIA--I was a spy, I was sent to Mexico to try to eliminate Castro, after posing as pro-Castro to hide my true identity!"
Instead, knowing what little he could say in his own defense, which would not implicate or endanger others, Lee cried out, "I'm just a patsy!"
SPREAD THE WORD.TELL PEOPLE ABOUT ME & LEE, THE BOOK!
thank you.
JVB
