The Beckley Call Lie and Slip-ups by Ruth Paine et al.

new

« Prev
1
Next »

Tom Sorensen
Administrator

The truth hurts.

Posts: 590

The Beckley Call Lie and Slip-ups by Ruth Paine et al. Dec 6, 2020 4:55:27 GMT -5 Michael Capasse and Arjan Hut like this

Quote

Post by Tom Sorensen on Dec 6, 2020 4:55:27 GMT -5

The Beckley Call Lie

The BitChute channel SaintlyOswald has a short video on a phone call allegedly placed by Ruth Paine to the 1026 North Beckley rooming house where Lee Oswald was said to reside up until the assassination of JFK on November 22, 1963. The video is linked here:

[sorry, video no longer available]

The JENNER reply, "And if you will just sit back and relax a little.", is a really nice catch! Why would Mrs. Perfect become agitated unless she realized that she just screwed up by saying "he"? On the other hand, if she actually made that call, and it was a man, there would be no reason to be upset, right?

But lets bring up this part of the conversation again (3H 44):

Mr. JENNER - When you dialed the number did someone answer?

Mrs. PAINE - Someone answered and I said, "Is Lee Oswald there?" And the person replied, "There is no Lee Oswald here," or something to that effect.

Mr. JENNER - Would it refresh your recollection if he said, "There is nobody by that name here"?
Mrs. PAINE - Or it may have been "nobody by that name" or "I don't know Lee Oswald." It could have been any of these.

Mr. JENNER - We want your best recollection.
Mrs. PAINE - My best recollection is that he repeated the name.

Mr. JENNER - He repeated the name?
Mrs. PAINE - But that is not a certain recollection.

Mr. JENNER - I take it then from the use of the pronoun that the person who answered was a man?
Mrs. PAINE - Was a man.

Mr. JENNER - And if you will just sit back and relax a little. I would like to have you restate, if you now will, in your own words, what occurred? You dialed the telephone, someone answered, a male voice?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes.

Notice that it's JENNER who introduces the pronoun "he" along with his own fabricated quote when Ruth realizes, too late, that she has screwed up. Problem is, she's not quoting from memory and JENNER, maybe unintentionally, makes her trip. IMO, the agitation comes from realizing that she flat out blundered, not the fact that she's lying, and is now stuck with a male replying as opposed to, possibly, the landlady. Shit may happen when you start fabricating!

But wait...there's actually a third attempt to have the use of an O. H. Lee alias confirmed. That happened on February 3, 1964, when Marina Oswald was interviewed by General Council Lee Rankin. I covered this incident in a thread near the end of this post. Despite RANKIN repeatedly baiting Marina he gets nowhere and has to back off before making a complete fool of himself.

Also note that Marina, in that interview, does not specifically confirm the telephone call to the Beckley address ever took place! And she's also in conflict with Ruth Paine whether she (Marina) called the Bledsoe rooming house.

I doubt JENNER would not know of this early failed attempt by RANKIN asking Marina loaded questions with the specific goal of having her corroborate the alias O.H. Lee possibly used by Lee when allegedly residing at the Beckley address. Lets just note that the only evidence provided by the landlady of an O.H. Lee alias was a scrap of paper, a copy of a kind of receipt, but the registry itself she kept was not produced and not entered into evidence.

Backing up further the Ruth Paine conversation, this time JENNER was asking the questions and seemed to be more careful, viz.:

Mr. JENNER - Do you recall an occasion when a call was made to him and you girls were unable to reach him when that call was made?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes. I will describe the call, and there is a dispute over what night it was.

Oh yeah, I can't wait to get started....text book Ruth Paine reply when she's ready to help out the commission. BTW what dispute? Nu doubt Ruth had been primed but DULLES, who's also present, interjects a question that interrupts the flow of questions about when the call took place. This leads up to Ruth blundering.

I think 'SaintlyOswald' arrives at the wrong conclusion about the reason for Ruth Paine to deal with the call: Marina's poor, or rather alleged poor, language skills (English) would be challenged if she had actually conversed whoever picked up the phone at the rooming house. I don't see how an exchange of a few words on a phone, in view of her request instantly being declined, could have been an issue RE her spoken English.

What the WC badly needed was any corroboration for Lee Oswald to have registered under a false name (O. H. Lee) and it's obvious Ruth Paine, once again, was ready to deliver although it's pretty obvious she was also lying this time.

So, did Lee Oswald actually stay at 1026 North Beckley?

Zooming out, the idea of Oswald registering under a false name and giving Ruth Paine the phone number knowing his second child was due within weeks and knowing he could only be reached by phone at work or at the rooming house, which had no Lee Oswald registered, makes no sense to me.

Continued...

Last Edit: Jul 8, 2021 3:04:14 GMT -5 by Tom Sorensen: No video, corrected address.

Tom Sorensen
Administrator

The truth hurts.

Posts: 590

The Beckley Call Lie and Slip-ups by Ruth Paine et al. Dec 7, 2020 4:35:59 GMT -5

Quote

Post by Tom Sorensen on Dec 7, 2020 4:35:59 GMT -5

The Next Day Fallout

So, as the story goes, according to Ruth Paine, she called the rooming house on 1026 N. Beckley and was informed by this male voice that no Lee Oswald resided there; she even checked that she had in fact called the right number. Didn't ask for the address though, to see if that made sense although it was a White Hall number (WH 3-8993).

Anyway, what she and Marina did not anticipate was all hell to break lose the next day when Marina answered the schedules afternoon call from Lee. From the kitchen Ruth overheard the conversation, in summary:

(3H 45)

Mrs. PAINE - She said immediately he didn't like her trying to reach him at the phone in his room at Dallas yesterday. That he was angry with her for having tried to reach him. That he said he was using a different name, and she said, "This isn't the first time I felt 22 fires," a Russian expression.

Why do I immediately smell a rat?

For two reasons:

first, why does Lee not call the Paine residence as usual the day of the failed call?
second, how would he have any knowledge of the call by Ruth Paine the previous day?

Let's just have a look at what happened when the Dallas Police showed up at 1026 N. Beckley. According to Earlene Roberts:

(6H 438)

Mrs. ROBERTS. Well, it was Will Fritz' men---it was plainclothesmen and I was at the back doing something and Mr. Johnson answered the door and they identified themselves and then he called me.

Mr. BALL. What did they say?

Mrs. ROBERTS. Well, they asked him if there was a Harvey Lee Oswald there.

Mr. BALL. What did he say?
Mrs. ROBERTS. And he says, "I don't know, I'll have to call the housekeeper," and he called me and I went and got the books and I said, "No; there's no one here by that name," and they tried to make me remember and I couldn't, and Mrs. Johnson come in in the meantime and there wasn't nobody there by that name, and Mrs. Johnson said, "Mrs. Roberts, don't you have him?" And, I said, "No; we don't, for here is my book and there is nobody there by that name." We checked it back a year.

Mr. BALL. And you didn't have that name you didn't ever know his name was Lee Oswald?
Mrs. ROBERTS. No---he registered as O. H. Lee and they were asking for Harvey Lee Oswald.

Slight permutation of names there from the DP boys!

Even Earlene Roberts, who's effectively running the booking of the rooms, does not connect a Mr. Lee with Lee Oswald, believe it or not, and Mr. & Mrs. Johnson haven't got a clue who the DP is looking for even though Oswald currently is rooming there, supposedly. As Oswald is not socializing with the other "inmates" how would he have been informed of that call?

Do remember the rooming house had 20 rooms so there would constantly be people, mostly men I suspect, coming and going which means there would likely be women placing calls inquiring about men that had moved out, no big deal. Nobody among the tenants taking a wrong call from some chick could care less.

I call B U L L S H I T on that story as told by Ruth Paine. Period.

Continued...

Last Edit: Dec 8, 2020 4:37:48 GMT -5 by Tom Sorensen: Typos

Tom Sorensen
Administrator

The truth hurts.

Posts: 590

The Beckley Call Lie and Slip-ups by Ruth Paine et al. Dec 8, 2020 4:09:14 GMT -5

Quote

Post by Tom Sorensen on Dec 8, 2020 4:09:14 GMT -5

"It [the Harvey middle name] was never used with him." -- Ruth Paine

Clearly, among the witnesses, Ruth Paine was in a league of her own juggling hundreds of details, real mixed with fake, and she pretty much got away with it thanks to the Commission. The honorable members welcomed any Lee Oswald back story she could provide which supported their lone nut misfit commie-rat narrative.

However, she was very cautious not to present blatant lies, mostly just hinting at what might suggest nefarious intent by Lee. Good indicators to look for in spotting her lying is when she's trying too hard to cover every detail that might give her away or when a diversion leads to crazy complicated phrasing. But on occasion she makes seemingly unprovoked mistakes. Let's return to that Beckley phone call which has sparked DULLES' interest:

(3H 44, March 19, 1964)

Mr. DULLES - You are quite sure you used the first name "Lee," did you, you did not say just "Mr. Oswald," or something of that kind?
Mrs. PAINE - I would not say "Mr. Oswald." It is contrary to Quaker practice, and I don't normally do it that way.

Mr. JENNER - Contrary to Quaker practice?
Mrs. PAINE - They seldom use "Mister."

Mr. JENNER - I see.
Mr. DULLES - And you wouldn't have said "Harvey Oswald," would you?
Mrs. PAINE - I knew he had a middle name but only because I filled out forms in Parkland Hospital. It was never used with him.

Classic example of distancing oneself form the denial, "I would not" vs. "I didn't", followed by an explanation for the denial and further elaborating what would be her "normal" way of conducting a phone call as, we must infer, this was indeed a normal phone call, right? What's going on is that she's introducing the Normal Factor to persuade the interviewer: Since she was not using the "Mr. Oswald" format this was indeed just a normal phone call...

According to Quaker practice, wow! But if she's following Quaker practice, implying she is a Quaker, why doesn't she say "we" instead of "they"? Is this Quaker BS just another neat little cover story? Text book example of how a simple explanation is expanded to add credibility which then leads to a slip. Again, she's feeling the need to convince the interviewer because she is not conveying an actual event. It's called fabricating, and in just one reply she's giving herself away.

Dang, that middle name! Note how her answer to the question comes last and, again, note the distancing going on although it's her use of the middle name being discussed, in fact a straight 'no' would have sufficed. Instead she sees an immediate need to distance herself from the middle name, why? Because the question is not as innocent as it looks. DULLES can be so sneaky, this is what Ruthie said right at the beginning of the interview the same day:

(3H 8, March 19, 1964)

Mrs. PAINE - My recollection is that he was present most of the weekend [in New Orleans]. He went out to buy groceries, came in with a cheery call to his two girls, saying, "Yabutchski," which means girls, the Russian word for girls, as he came in the door. It was more like Harvey than I had seen him before. He remembered this time. I saw him reading a pocketbook.

BOOM....massive Freudian slip, everybody sits tight as JENNER continues....phew! Probably the worst of her unprovoked blunders during all her interviews. So "Harvey" wasn't used with him -- LOL. It's very hard to not conclude there's a Lee and a Harvey personality referred to here reaching back in time and why would Lee be known as Harvey to her?

There's no doubt DULLES took note and intentionally tripped her up later in the interview, brilliant. Also odd wording about remembering "this time", as opposed to what other time, or was it using the Russian term "Yabutchski"? Why, if he was fluent in Russian?

Two days later Ruth is in trouble again dealing with that unfortunate note in her calendar telling LHO bought a rifle; this was her interaction with JENNER:

(9H 358-359, March 21, 1964)

Mr. JENNER - Now, I turn to March, and I direct your attention to the upper left-hand corner of that card, and it appears to me that in the upper left-hand corner are October 23, then a star, then "LHO" followed by the words "purchase of rifle." Would you explain those entries?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes. This was written after.

Mr. JENNER - After?
Mrs. PAINE - This was written indeed after the assassination.

Mr. JENNER - All right.
Mrs. PAINE - I heard on the television that he had purchased a rifle.

Mr. JENNER - When?
Mrs. PAINE - I heard it on November 23.

Mr. JENNER - Yes.
Mrs. PAINE - And went back to the page for March, put a little star on March 20 as being a small square, I couldn't fit in all I wanted to say. I just put in a star and then referring it to the corner of the calendar.

Mr. JENNER - That is to the entry I have read?
Mrs. PAINE - Put the star saying "LHO purchase of rifle." Then I thought someone is going to wonder about that, I had better put down the date, and did, but it was a busy day, one of the most in my life and I was off by a month as to what day it was.

Mr. JENNER - That is you made the entry October?
Mrs. PAINE - October 23 instead of November.

Mr. JENNER - It should have been November 23?
Mrs. PAINE - It should have been November 23.

Mr. JENNER - And the entry of October 23, which should have been November 23, was an entry on your part indicating the date you wrote on the calendar the star followed by "LHO purchase of rifle" and likewise the date you made an entry?
Mrs. PAINE - On the 20th.

Mr. JENNER - This is the square having the date March 20?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes.

Mr. JENNER - Is that correct?
Mrs. PAINE - I might point out that I didn't know Lee had a middle name until I had occasion to fill out forms for Marina in Parkland Hospital.

Mr. JENNER - That is when you learned that his middle name was Harvey and his initial was H?
Mrs. PAINE - Right.

Sure...but why not simply "Lee" since you knew him as Lee? She was not asked about any initials or middle name so no need to explain anything until asked, just answer the question! No doubt she had been working this out in her head since the day she handed over the calendar in anticipation of being walked through that calendar and hitting March.

But, if she put the note there on November 23 that initial 'H' wouldn't be a problem at all.
and, she already told JENNER (and DULLES -- LOL) this two days ago, so why the need to repeat it?
and, why add "until" when she was passed that event even on October 23?!
or, is her mind actually back in March when, according to her "alibi", she couldn't have known of a Harvey middle name?

Imagine a can of worms that would open up if a real investigation had looked into Lee being more like Harvey, the middle name that wasn't used with Lee!

Last Edit: Apr 24, 2022 3:14:43 GMT -5 by Tom Sorensen: Fixed typo.

Tom Sorensen
Administrator

The truth hurts.

Posts: 590

The Beckley Call Lie and Slip-ups by Ruth Paine et al. Dec 13, 2020 15:57:18 GMT -5

Quote

Post by Tom Sorensen on Dec 13, 2020 15:57:18 GMT -5

A Recap -- Marina Oswald

So, did Marina call any of the rooming houses where Oswald allegedly registered under a false name? It's worth shoving the short but painful attempt by Lee Ranking to have the "Fake O. H. Lee at 1026 Beckley" box checked:

Marina Oswald | WC, February 3, 1964

Mr. RANKIN. Do you recall where he was when he gave this fictitious name?
Mrs. OSWALD. What do you mean where he was? From where he telephoned?

Are there translation issues going on? It wasn't Lee who called, remember?

Mr. RANKIN. Yes, or the number that he gave you--that is the rooming house that he was at when he used this fictitious name, and you told us you called there.
Mrs. OSWALD. He lived at first in one place, and then he changed. It was the last place where he had given a fictitious name. I don't know what name he lived under in the first place, because I never telephoned him.

Was Marina lying when she told the Commission she called or was Ruth Paine lying (October 7 entry in her time line) when she told the FBI that Marina had called the Bledsoe rooming house?

Mr. RANKIN. Do you know the name that he lived under in the second place, when you did call him?
Mrs. OSWALD. No.

Mr. RANKIN. You don't remember the fictitious name that he gave you?
Mrs. OSWALD. I read in the paper after everything happened, but at that time I didn't know. He said that his last name was Lee. He didn't say that. I read that in the paper.

Marina is not cooperating at all, RANKIN is becoming increasingly frustrated.

Mr. RANKIN. Did that remind you, then, that that was the name they gave you when you called and he answered the telephone?
Mrs. OSWALD. No, No one told me anything. I didn't know under what name he lived there.

RANKIN's questions become increasingly weird....unless he actually has details concerning the alleged call; "he answered" and "they gave you" implies that the call wasn't declined but that a Mr. Lee (O. H.) was being discussed. Recall the "he" blunder by Ruth Paine triggered by "JENNER".

Mr. RANKIN. But you found out that he was not living under his own name, is that what you meant before?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

RANKIN bails out....LOL

Marina Oswald | Clay Shaw trial, February 21, 1969

Here is the transcript concerning the rooming houses. Marina remarried and is now Mrs. Porter.

Q: Now, Mrs. Porter, I think you testified that you never went to lee's apartment in Oak Cliff? Is that correct?

A: Yes, sir.

Note singular, no objections from Marina.

Q: Did you ever have occasion to attempt to contact him in Oak Cliff?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Were you successful?

A: No.

Q: How did you attempt to contact him?

A: He left a telephone number where he could be reached, and I called by this number and asked for him, but landlady or whoever answered the phone said nobody by this name lived there.

"Landlady" (or whoever ~ Earline Roberts?) implies female.

Q: Did you ever have a conversation with Lee as to why he could not be reached at that number?

A: Yes, sir, we had argument over that.

Q: What did he say?

A: I asked him, "Why did you give me a telephone number if you couldn't be reached by it?" And he told me he used another name.

Q: He had used an alias?

A: What?

Q: He had used another name? Is that your testimony?

A: Yes, sir.

Q: Do you recall what that name was?

A: No, I don't recall right now, but I was very upset for him hiding his real name.

Q: Could that name have been O. H. Lee?

A: I don't know, sir.

Q: Do you recall when he first rented that apartment?
A: No.

Q: Did he live at Mrs. Paine's home very long when he returned to Dallas from Mexico and New Orleans or wherever he had come from? How long did he live in Mrs. Paine's home?

A: I don't remember, sir.

Q: Do you know whether or not he lived in one apartment, or two apartments in Dallas?

A: I don't know this, sir, I don't know how many apartments he live in.

Certainly plural here!

Q: Did Lee ever tell you much of what he was doing?

A: Yes, he told me.

Yet she lost count of the apartments -- LOL

Q: He didn't tell you he was using the name O. H. Lee? Is that correct?

A: No, he didn't. I don't remember right now what name he told me then he used.

Q: Now, did you ever have an address of the apartment in Dallas?

A: I think so, sir.

Q: Did you ever attempt to go to that apartment?

A: No.

Q: Did you ever attempt to contact Lee at that apartment after you were unsuccessful because of his giving you a false name -- I mean giving the landlady a false name?

A: No. It was only once I called.

The landlady part -- whether it was Gladys Johnson or Earlene Roberts -- gives away Ruth Paine but otherwise no detail are given. It's obvious to me, at this stage, Marina doesn't give a shit and likely doesn't know what the Clay Shaw trial is about. It is worth noting, though, that neither of the "landladies" had ever heard of a Lee (Harvey) Oswald when they testified before Joe Ball of the WC.

Marina Oswald | HSCA, September, 1976

Mr. PREYER - When you were living with Mrs. Paine in Irving and Lee Harvey Oswald was living in Dallas at the Beckley Street roominghouse, did you ever visit him there in Dallas?
Mrs. PORTER - No.

Mr. PREYER - How did you come to find out that he had registered in an assumed name, O.H. Lee, at the rooming house at Beckley Street?
Mrs. PORTER - He left me his telephone number where he can be reached. One day I called and asked to speak with him and they say that a person by that name doesn't live there. So when he came the following weekend to Ruth Paine's house, I asked him what it is all about. He said that he did not give his real name to the landlady because he don't want them to find out that, maybe by reading newspapers, that he was in Soviet Union and maybe it will create some difficulties.

Mr. PREYER is running along with the WC stating as a fact Lee registered as O.H. Lee. Again, she calls but now it's "they" who told her Lee Oswald doesn't live there. Further, now the discussion is not over the phone but the following weekend and the Paine residence. This completely sinks the timeline provided by Ruth Paine as Oswald did not return for the weekend prior to the assassination. Sure, The Dallas newspapers had a keen interest in TSBD order fillers!

Mr. PREYER - What was your reaction on learning that he was renting the room under an assumed name?
Mrs. PORTER - Well, by that time I was quite upset about him living such a secretive life, always making some stories or lies or covering up something, so it was not a very comfortable position to be in, at least for me it was not.

Yada, yada....this is 1976, the Oswald kids are now teenagers, this stuff is a thing of the past.

Conclusion

JENNER, in '64, gets nothing from Marina, not even an approximate date of the alleged call and no follow-up call by Oswald as well as the missing call on day three to punish Marina for being disobedient. Utter failure.

During the '69 Shaw trial Marina seems to cooperate but appears to have no knowledge of Ruth Paine having taken ownership of the call. Marina's reference to a landlady at 1026 Beckley may be something she also picked up from a newspaper. Regardless, it destroys the Ruth Paine narrative.

In the 1976 HSCA interview the follow-up call has morphed into a discussion taking place the following weekend along with a rather contrived argument for why Oswald would have registered under an assumed name. This argument was missing in her previous statements.

To me the Ruth Paine version screams deception. She's building a three stage narrative: The failed call, a next day call to have Lee taking it out on Marina, and the missing call to punish Marina. Unfortunately her "negotiating" with JENNER to find a suitable time slot takes up three pages of transcript!

I consider the 1026 Beckley call to be busted.

Last Edit: Dec 13, 2020 16:04:00 GMT -5 by Tom Sorensen: Fixed wording.

Tom Sorensen
Administrator

The truth hurts.

Posts: 590

The Beckley Call Lie and Slip-ups by Ruth Paine et al. Apr 24, 2022 16:19:06 GMT -5

Quote

Post by Tom Sorensen on Apr 24, 2022 16:19:06 GMT -5

A Recap -- Ruth Paine

In a previous post to this thread I pointed out a noteworthy slip-up when Ruth Paine used Oswald's middle name Harvey. We know she was lying when stating that the middle name Harvey was "never used with him" as she used it herself in the beginning of the March 19, 1964, interview.

Further evidence found in a Secret Service report¹ removes any reasonable doubt of her being a blatant liar. During the interview she is quoted using three ways of referring to Lee Harvey Oswald: "Lee", "Lee Harvey" or simply "Oswald". I counted every occurrence of each of the variations and this is what I found:

Lee: 4

Lee Harvey: 11

Oswald²: 9

Even though, strictly speaking, a report like this is second hand information I doubt the Secret Service agents would have misquoted her 11 times!

A common trait among the Secret Service reports is that they predominantly quote the interviewees whereas the information presented in the FBI reports is processes and phrased by be authors, including only few actual quotes. Also, the interviewees when questioned by SS seem to be less vigilant and thus supply all sorts of details they otherwise wouldn't in front of Hoover's agents. All in all I find the SS reports to possess a kind of credibility I don't see in the FBI reports.

So, why did "Harvey" become taboo and when?

Here's a snippet from her March 19th testimony (WC) where the phone call is discussed:

Mr. JENNER - What did he say and what did you say?
Mrs. PAINE - I said, "Is Lee Oswald there." He said, "There is no Lee Oswald living here." As best as I can recall. This is the substance of what he said. I said, "Is this a rooming house." He said "Yes." I said, "Is this WH 3-8993?" And he said "Yes." I thanked him and hung up.

In her November 26th interview (SS), page 3, we see a different choice of name:

He gave us telephone numbers and they are in my notebooks. It developed that when we called for him, he could not be reached. I made one call for Marina and asked for Oswald by that name. I was told that no such person was known. Later, he called and said that he had been living under an assumed name. He usually called nightly to inquire and talk to Marina, but after the call I made for "Oswald" and was not able reach him he did not call so often. He came over the next Thursday night.

Too bad Mrs. Perfect makes several stupid blunders while delivering her story. Note that "It developed that" is entirely superfluous as nothing had to develop since he was already signed in under a false name, allegedly. How about substituting "once upon a time" to get you fairy tale going?

If Oswald later called Ruth Paine and said "he had been living under an assumed name" it implies he had confessed to the housekeeper and landlady to rectify the situation; wrong tense, Ruth! He was living under an assumed name as nothing the WC presented showed evidence of his alias O.H. Lee being replaced by Lee Harvey Oswald. Marina was still expecting a baby so how would they reach him at the rooming house without knowing his false name, something Marina denied, or him having corrected the register to show his actual name?

Right, so Ruth Paine just asked for "Oswald" when her preferred way of referring to Oswald was "Lee Harvey"? Finally she offers this nice detail of Oswald calling less frequently to show "conscious guilt", nice trick! Problem here is that it makes no sense he would react this way if nobody at the rooming house knew he got busted by Ruth Paine; the story lacks any resolution to the problem of how they would reach him next time they called.

SUMMARY: As I stated initially in the thread: It makes zero sense that Oswald would list under a false name and hand out the phone number to the rooming house. The Secret Service report further undermines Ruth Paine's credibility and is evidence that the story to support Oswald rooming as O.H. Lee was already in place a few days after the assassination. At a glance, her 1963 story looks plausible but doesn't hold up to scrutiny. When Dulles interjects himself during questioning, her "Cancel Harvey" idea seems to fix an immediate problem but actually fully exposes her. It appears that, initially at least, Ruth Paine wasn't really concerned with the "rifle entry" in her calendar displaying Oswald's initials ("LHO") and believed, when testifying before the WC, that she had the Parkland cover story in place. Now that story also collapses since it makes no sense she would suddenly start using the newly discovered middle name when talking to Secret Service agents and when interviewed by commission members unlearn (almost!) that habit³.

_______________________

¹ Report by Patterson and Brady dated November 26, 1964: link

² Includes a recap of a quote (1) and references to the fake Beckley phone call where "Oswald" was the name used (2)

³ More Harvey action can be found in this YT video: link

Last Edit: Mar 17, 2023 14:36:21 GMT -5 by Tom Sorensen: Typos, new YT link.