(PART 825)


Why do conspiracy theorists insist on focusing on all the wrong things?

We know Lee Oswald was seen carrying a long brown bag by both Linnie Randle and Wesley Frazier.

We know (or least I do) that a long brown EMPTY bag with two of Oswald's prints on it was found near the window where JFK's assassin was located.

And we know that Oswald's rifle was missing from the Paine garage and the rifle was found on the TSBD's sixth floor.

But Colin Crow would rather discuss exactly when Linnie Mae Randle knew that Oswald's name was Oswald.

Colin is also implying that Buell Frazier is a liar concerning the "curtain rods" too.

In other words, conspiracists feel it's their obligation to place some degree of blame or suspicion on everybody except the murderer.


How precisely do "we" know this?

In her testimony, Marina said that she saw (once) what she believed to be the wooden stock of a rifle.

Only a few hours after the murders she was shown the MC rifle found at the TSBD and, according to her affidavit, she could not identify it as Oswald's rifle.

So, how do we know (which obviously is something very different than assuming) that the rifle in Ruth Paine's garage (if there ever was one) indeed belonged to Oswald and that it was in fact the MC rifle later found at the TSBD?


Still fighting the evidence, aren't you, Martin?

Why do you fight it so hard?

....Marina saw a RIFLE in Ruth Paine's garage in approximately October 1963.

....Lee Oswald (based on everything that is known) owned only ONE rifle in 1963.

....Oswald takes a long paper bag into work on 11/22 (after making his first-ever Thursday-night visit to Ruth's house and his first-ever unannounced visit).

....The rifle was missing from Ruth's garage on 11/22.

....Oswald's rifle was found on the sixth floor of the TSBD at 1:22 PM on 11/22.

Add 'em up.

This is kindergarten math.


Martin, you ARE fighting the evidence. And you know it.

The huge pile of evidence against Oswald just sails over your head like a gorgeous Boeing 747 taking off from Heathrow.



Nope... I am questioning the evidence you so readily and blindly have accepted.

But, let's not get sidetracked here.... you still haven't answered my question;

You said:

And we know that Oswald's rifle was missing from the Paine garage and the rifle was found on the TSBD's sixth floor.

And I asked you:

So, how do we know (which obviously is something very different than assuming) that the rifle in Ruth Paine's garage (if there ever was one) indeed belonged to Oswald and that it was in fact the MC rifle later found at the TSBD?

Why don't you just simply answer my question?


There is, of course, some degree of "ASSUMPTION" involved in connecting the dots concerning Oswald, the rifle, the Paine garage, and the assassination.

There HAS to be some "assuming" involved. How can there not be?

But given the rifle/garage/Marina facts I laid out in brief form previously, is it really MORE reasonable to "ASSUME" that the rifle that we know (from Marina) was in Ruth Paine's garage was a DIFFERENT rifle from the one with the number C2766 on it that was found in the Depository?

How can that possibly be MORE reasonable than the conclusion that the "Paine Garage Rifle" and the "TSBD Rifle" are one and the same?

Why does this even need to be explained to any veteran of these JFK wars?

And once again I'll ask --- Why do CTers fight the evidence (and the obvious) so hard?


Regarding whether or not a rifle had ever been wrapped in the blanket in Ruth Paine's garage, I'll also add this WC testimony from Dallas Deputy Sheriff Buddy Walthers.....

MR. WALTHERS -- "...and we also found a gray blanket with some red trim on it that had a string tied at one end that you could see the imprint of a gun, I mean where it had been wrapped in it."

MR. LIEBELER -- "You could really see the imprint of the gun?"

MR. WALTHERS -- "You could see where it had been--it wasn't completely untied--one end had been untied and the other end had been left tied, that would be around the barrel and you could see where the gun had rested on the inside of it. .... You could tell it from the way it was tied and the impression of where that barrel went up in it where it was tied, that a rifle had been tied in it, but what kind---you couldn't tell, but you could tell a rifle had been wrapped up in it."


What is this? Comedy hour?

You can't be serious! Are you really so desperate, David?


What's so funny about Walthers' "assumption" regarding the rifle impressions in the blanket, Martin?

It looks like a fairly nice piece of "assuming" to me, which corroborates Marina's "assumption" that she saw the stock of a rifle in that same blanket in October.

Was Walthers in cahoots with Marina, Martin?


Actually, Marina wasn't even there when the police picked up the blanket. Michael Paine was! You remember him, don't you? The guy that left work (mid-day) and drove to Irving (where he did not live) when he heard about the shooting and he just did so to see if he could help..... Help with what?

And it wasn't Marina who told the police about the blanket, it was the "translating" Ruth Paine who did that! You remember Ruth, don't you? The woman who greeted the police by saying something like "I was expecting you"...... Huh?

Besides, and more to the point, how can anybody remove a rifle or any other object from a wrapped up blanket in such a way that the imprint of that object is retained in that blanket? Can parts of a blanket float? For crying out loud, a blanket collapses completely as soon as you remove whatever was contained in it. That's why Walthers' testimony is funny.

For you to even use something so silly is actually quite sad and pathetic.


You don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about, Martin.


Wow....... So, now your opinion becomes a strategy to combat my comments?

Just tell the other guy he doesn't know what he is talking about, and because I, David von Pein [sic], say it he will run and hide.... Was that the plan? Sorry, it ain't working....

Could it be you have run out of arguments? Was the magic blanket (let's call it that, shall we) really the best you have got?


You're lost in a world of perceived conspirators and plotters.

Sad and pathetic indeed.

But it's nice to see Martin's list of liars growing, post by post. He's now added Eddy (Buddy) Walthers to the LIARS list.

Martin has also implied today that Ruth Paine was a liar, along with Michael Paine, plus Howard Brennan. And Marina, of course. Did I miss anyone on today's Liar's List, Martin?


Is this the way you deal with everything in this case, David? If so, I'm beginning to understand how you can be so misguided and confused.

First you confuse assumptions for evidence and now you claim falsely that I have accused Walthers of lying. I never did any such thing. Walthers may well have believed that he did see an imprint in the blanket but common logic should tell you that blankets simply do not retain their shape when something that was wrapped up in it is removed.


I don't know why you say this, Martin. An object wrapped up in a blanket, especially if it had been wrapped quite snugly in the blanket and had been there for an extended period of time, it seems to me could certainly leave behind an imprint in the blanket after the object is removed. Particularly if the person removing the object took measures to make it want to appear as if the object was still inside the blanket, with that person very carefully removing the object so that the imprint pattern in the blanket remained (which is probably what Oswald did when he took his rifle out of that blanket).

Anyway, Deputy Walthers said he saw the outline of a rifle when he looked at the empty blanket. If you want to dismiss that testimony as crazy and cockeyed, you're free to do so. I, however, do not wish to do so.


I had a feeling I'd find at least one other police officer saying (on the record) that he saw the outline of a rifle in the blanket. And, sure enough, it took me about five seconds to find one. It's in Detective Guy (Gus) Rose's Warren Commission testimony.....

MR. ROSE -- "...and she pointed to a blanket that was rolled up and laying on the floor near the wall of the garage and Ruth Paine said, "Says that that's where his rifle is." Well, at the time I couldn't tell whether there was one in there or not. It appeared to be--it was in sort of an outline of a rifle."

MR. BALL -- "You mean the blanket had the outline of a rifle?"

MR. ROSE -- "Yes, it did."

So, that's Walthers and Rose who said they saw the outline of a rifle in the empty blanket in Ruth Paine's garage.



Marina wasn't even there when the police picked up the blanket.


Huh? Why on Earth are you saying something so obviously incorrect, Martin?

Marina Oswald was most certainly there at Ruth Paine's house when the police found the blanket in the garage and when it was picked up by Detective Rose.

Who do you think it was who told the police that Lee's rifle was kept in a blanket in the garage? It wasn't Ruth Paine who provided that information. It was Marina. Ruth didn't even know there was any rifle ever stored in her garage. Yes, Ruth translated Marina's Russian for the policemen. But it was MARINA, not Ruth, who was providing the "Rifle in blanket" information. And Detective Rose's testimony verifies that fact....

MR. ROSE -- "I talked with Ruth Paine a few minutes and she told me that Marina was there and that she was Lee Oswald's wife and that she was a citizen of Russia, and so I called Captain Fritz on the phone and told him what I had found out there and asked him if there was any special instructions, and he said, "Well, ask her about her husband, ask her if her husband has a rifle." I turned and asked Marina, but she didn't seem to understand. She said she couldn't understand, so Ruth Paine spoke in Russian to her and Ruth Paine also interpreted for me, and she said that Marina said--first she said Marina said "No," and then a minute Marina said, "Yes, he does have." So then I talked to Captain Fritz for a moment and hung up the phone and I asked Marina if she would show me where his rifle was and Ruth Paine interpreted and Marina pointed to the garage and she took me to the garage and she pointed to a blanket that was rolled up and laying on the floor near the wall of the garage and Ruth Paine said, "Says that that's where his rifle is." Well, at the time I couldn't tell whether there was one in there or not. It appeared to be--it was in sort of an outline of a rifle."

MR. BALL -- "You mean the blanket had the outline of a rifle?"

MR. ROSE -- "Yes, it did."

MR. BALL -- "Was it tied at one end?"

MR. ROSE -- "Yes, sir; it was sort of rolled up, but it was flattened out from laying down and tied near the middle, I would say, with a cord and so I went on and picked the blanket up, but it was empty--it didn't have the rifle in it."

MR. BALL -- "You brought that in?"

MR. ROSE -- "Yes, I did."


There is also this quote from Dallas Deputy Sheriff J.L. Oxford, another one of the six police officers who searched Ruth Paine's house on the afternoon of November 22, 1963:

"We found a blanket in the garage. This blanket looked like a rifle had been wrapped in it." -- J.L. Oxford; 11/23/63 Sheriff's Office Report


This entire "I could see the outline" stuff is just selfserving rubbish.


And yet we've got three different officers (Rose, Walthers, and Oxford) saying a rifle imprint was in the blanket. Why would they all lie?

And Harry Weatherford's Sheriff's report says the same thing....

"...and a blanket which looked to have been wrapped around a rifle." -- H. Weatherford


Oh boy.... I can't believe that you did not understand what I was saying. Anybody who knows anything about this case knows that Marina was at Ruth Paine's house when the police came. But she wasn't there (i.e. in the garage) when the police picked up the blanket..... Michael Paine was. Read his testimony.


Please point me to that testimony, because I sure can't find it at all.

But even if you're correct on this point---so what? What difference does it make?


Why would they ask [Michael] Paine whether it was a rifle, when all the needed to do (if she was there) is ask Marina whether this was the blanket that contained the rifle?


Big deal. They asked Marina TOO, of course. We know that. But they also asked Michael Paine about the blanket as well. Just as they should have.

You, like all CTers, are making large mountains out of nothingness.


Micheal Paine is suffering from "very fuzzy impressions", but his testimony clearly indicates IMO that he was in the garage when the blanket was picked up, Marina was not.


I guess that's why Michael Paine said this, huh?.....

MR. LIEBELER -- "And your wife was with the police officers further in?"
MR. PAINE -- "Yes, I think she was."
MR. LIEBELER -- "Was Marina Oswald there?"
MR. PAINE -- "Failure of recollection, I would say, yes. But it is a very fuzzy recollection."

But as I indicated previously----who cares?


As to your comments about the police officers seeing a shape that looked like a rifle:

Mr. PAINE - It doesn't really make sense as to why they would still leave the blanket there, and these things would have been discussed at that time, but I kind of remember a kind of silhouette situation, a police officer either lifted up or kicked this blanket, which was in exactly the same location that the rifle, the package had been, underneath the saw and somewhat in the sawdust. And I think he put it back there.

Isn't it just amazing how a blanket can retain its shape not only after a rifle was removed, but also after it was picked up or kicked and then put back in its place.


Nobody said it retained a rifle shape AFTER it was picked up by Detective Rose. It had been picked up earlier by Rose and it hung limp over his arm (per Ruth Paine). But that, of course, would have obviously occurred AFTER both Rose and Walthers (and possibly Deputy Oxford too) took note of the rifle shape in the blanket.

Try again, Martin.

And whatever you do, keep avoiding the obvious regarding Oswald, the blanket, and the brown paper bag.


Please go back to Micheal Paine's testimony and you will read that the wrapped up blanket was "underneath the saw and somewhat in the sawdust"...

Mr. LIEBELER - Can you tell us where the blanket was found?
Mr. PAINE - It doesn't really make sense as to why they would still leave the blanket there, and these things would have been discussed at that time, but I kind of remember a kind of silhouette situation, a police officer either lifted up or kicked this blanket, which was in exactly the same location that the rifle, the package had been, underneath the saw and somewhat in the sawdust. And I think he put it back there. He may have asked me at that time, "Did you know what was in this?"

In other words, nobody could have yet disturbed it earlier. So, this must have been the first time the officers laid eyes on the package... and according to Paine they kicked it or lifted it up....

Now, do you really want us to believe that these officers first went into the garage, looked at the blanket and saw the outline of a rifle but nevertheless left it alone, in order to come back moments later with Michael Paine and then kick or lift the blanket? Really?


This is ridiculous, Martin. Michael Paine wasn't even there at Ruth's house yet when the police first arrived. And they went almost immediately to the garage to search (per Ruth Paine's testimony), after Ruth told them that most of Oswald's belongings were kept in the garage.

Michael Paine arrived later, at about the time when Buddy Walthers and other officers were transporting some of LHO's things out to the police cars. (See Walthers' testimony on this.)

So Michael almost certainly was not present in the garage when Detective Rose first picked up that empty blanket.


You are not making any kind of sense.


No, the person who doesn't make a lot of sense is the person whose memory about the events at Ruth's house was, as he said, "fuzzy" -- and that's Michael Paine.

We know the cops went almost immediately to the garage after they arrived at Ruth's house. And they saw the blanket on the floor at that time. And that's when Rose picked it up off the floor.

Michael Paine came in a little bit later -- per Detective Rose, the police had been there just "a few minutes" before Michael arrived. And per the DPD's Richard Stovall, the police had been there for "approximately 15 minutes when Michael Paine came out".

I think it's reasonable to conclude that the police had already been in the garage and seen the blanket prior to Michael Paine's arrival.

Plus, Ruth Paine said nothing about her husband being present when the garage was first searched. Ruth said....

"Marina and I went with two or three of these police officers to the garage."


The way things stand at the moment, I do not believe there ever was a rifle stored in a wrapped up blanket in Ruth Paine's garage and I have already given you my reasons for reaching that conclusion.


Then where do you think Lee Oswald stored his Mannlicher-Carcano rifle--if not in Ruth Paine's garage?

Did he keep it in his room on Beckley?

Or do you want to travel down the road marked "Lee Oswald Never Owned Any Rifle At All"?


You don't know what happened to the rifle Oswald was photographed with in April 1963, David. All you have is two statements from Marina to base your entire case on. Everything else is pure and utter assumption.


Wrong. There's the HSCA Photographic Panel and their conclusions regarding the rifle seen in the backyard photos. Let's see what they had to say about it:

"A comparison of identifying marks that exist on the rifle as shown in photographs today with marks shown on the rifle in photographs taken in 1963 indicates both that the rifle in the Archives is the same weapon that Oswald is shown holding in the backyard picture and the same weapon, found by Dallas police, that appears in various postassassination photographs." -- HSCA Volume 6, Page 66


Very well... all this proves is that the rifle Oswald was holding in the BY photos is the same one as the rifle found at the TSBD.



But you don't think that particular "Backyard Photo/TSBD Rifle" connection is important at all in trying to decide whether it was OSWALD'S rifle that was used to fire bullets at President Kennedy on November 22nd?

To borrow your own words --- What is this? Comedy hour?

You've just admitted (which is incredible for a conspiracy theorist to do, so I tip my cap to you for this stipulation, because you're probably the first CTer that I've talked with during the last five years who has ever admitted this) that the rifle Lee Harvey Oswald is holding in this backyard picture is, indeed, the very same weapon that was found on the sixth floor of the Book Depository on the day of JFK's murder. (And we know that THAT exact gun definitely was being used to shoot JFK on 11/22/63.)

So, I guess it must be your contention that Oswald got rid of Rifle C2766 during the eight-month period between March 31 and November 22, 1963, right?

Because if he didn't, then the TSBD rifle belonged to Lee Oswald. And you don't want to entertain that crazy idea--do you, Martin?


Oswald was photographed holding a rifle in April 1963. According to the WC he used that same rifle in his attempt to kill General Walker. He then moved to New Orléans and allegedly took the rifle (he had just used for an attempted murder in Texas, of all places) with him on a public bus. We know all this only because (here we go again...) Marina said she had seen Oswald dry-fire the rifle in New Orléans. That's it.... that's all there is.

So, then he wrapped that same rifle (the one he used for an attemted murder) in a blanket (hardly a reliable way of packaging) and let a woman he hardly knew [Ruth Paine] transport it back to Texas, where it was completely out of his control. All of this is of course assumption, yet again, because (here we go again...) Marina said she had seen what she believed to be the wooden stock of a rifle wrapped in that blanket in late September 1963.

What is this? A comedy of errors?

If Oswald had used that rifle to shoot at General Walker, the last thing he would have done was surrender it to Ruth Paine. It just doesn't make sense.


I have asked myself the question, Why would Oswald have kept that rifle after using it to try and kill General Walker?

Here's what I said about that topic at another forum in 2009:

"Oswald could be pretty brazen at times. For example --- Holding on to the rifle with which he shot at General Walker. Oswald, incredibly, apparently actually felt no need or desire to get rid of the weapon with which he took that potshot at Walker.

For more than SEVEN MONTHS he held onto it, even though he almost certainly had to know that the bullet that he fired into Walker's house WAS recovered and could conceivably (for all Oswald knew) be linked to Carcano Rifle #C2766.

I've often wondered why in the world Oswald didn't toss Rifle C2766 in the trash after he shot at Walker on April 10, 1963 (or dispose of it in some other fashion). He ran a fearful risk by keeping that rifle in his possession for all those months.

Perhaps it was a sign of Oswald's miserly and penny-pinching ways. Maybe he just hated the idea of spending $21.45 for a weapon he would only be using once.

I also wonder this --- Would Oswald have disposed of his rifle if he had succeeded in killing General Edwin A. Walker in April 1963?

And I also sometimes wonder this --- If Oswald HAD trashed his Carcano rifle after the Walker shooting, would he have purchased another rifle at some point in time to use in another assassination attempt?

It's possible, of course, that even if Oswald had disposed of the C2766 Carcano, he could have still purchased another gun to use on President Kennedy. Oswald had enough time to get himself another gun between the time he could have learned for certain that JFK would be passing by the front door of the Depository and November 22 itself.

Which begs the follow-up question (which has been asked by many people too) --- Since Oswald had more than $170 and since he had at least 2 to 3 days to get himself another gun (possibly a non-traceable one in a gunshop someplace), why did LHO decide to use his traceable mail-order Mannlicher-Carcano rifle to shoot the President?

Food for thought anyway.

In summary:

We can never know the answers to all these questions relating to Lee Harvey Oswald, his rifle, and the thoughts that might have been floating around in his warped brain. But the one thing that we do know beyond all REASONABLE DOUBT is this --- Lee Oswald took Mannlicher-Carcano rifle #C2766 to work with him on 11/22/63 and fired three shots from that weapon at President Kennedy from the sixth floor of the Book Depository Building."
-- DVP; June 28, 2009


Without Marina's statements, can you show Oswald had a rifle in New Orleans or that he surrendered that rifle to Ruth Paine for transport back to Texas? You wouldn't be once again assuming that he did, right?


Well, I don't know why Marina's testimony about seeing Lee dry-firing the rifle on the porch in New Orleans in the summer of 1963 isn't good enough, but since you want to disbelieve just about everything uttered by Marina Oswald, that's your prerogative, I suppose.

But there is the testimony of Jeanne DeMohrenschildt, who said that she saw a rifle in Lee Oswald's closet in the Neely Street apartment in Dallas shortly after the Walker murder attempt. Now it's true that this is a "rifle sighting" that occurred prior to the time the Oswalds moved to New Orleans in the spring of '63, but it is testimony that links a RIFLE to LEE HARVEY OSWALD in the year 1963....

MRS. DeMOHRENSCHILDT -- "And I believe from what I remember George sat down on the sofa and started talking to Lee, and Marina was showing me the house that is why I said it looks like it was the first time, because why would she show me the house if I had been there before? Then we went to another room, and she opens the closet, and I see the gun standing there. I said, what is the gun doing over there?"

MR. JENNER -- "You say..."


MR. JENNER -- "A rifle, in the closet?"

MRS. DeMOHRENSCHILDT -- "In the closet, right in the beginning. It wasn't hidden or anything."

MR. JENNER -- "Standing up on its butt?"


MR. JENNER -- "I show you Commission Exhibit 139. Is that the rifle that you saw?"

MRS. DeMOHRENSCHILDT -- "It looks very much like it."


A little bit of "bottom line deduction" (coupled with some ordinary common sense).....

....Lee Oswald positively ordered and paid for Carcano Rifle No. C2766 in March of 1963.

....On the day of JFK's murder, Carcano Rifle No. C2766 was found in the building where Oswald worked.

....It was determined by both the Warren Commission and the HSCA that Carcano Rifle No. C2766 was the gun that killed President John F. Kennedy.

....It was determined by fingerprint expert Vincent Scalice in 1993 that Lee Harvey Oswald's fingerprints ARE on the trigger guard of Carcano Rifle No. C2766.

Is it not, therefore, fairly reasonable to assume (yes, I'm "assuming") that the package that Lee Oswald took with him into the TSBD on 11/22/63 contained Mannlicher-Carcano Rifle No. C2766?

And therefore, is it not also reasonable to assume, based on the above set of facts, that Carcano Rifle No. C2766 was stored in Ruth Paine's garage in November of nineteen hundred and sixty-three?

If that's NOT a "reasonable assumption" on my part, then we must live in a topsy-turvy world.


What if George DeMohrenschildt was the one who was setting up Oswald and who had him take those pictures? Ever considered that possibility?


You think George DeMohrenschildt was actively "setting up" Lee Oswald for JFK's murder EIGHT MONTHS before the assassination? That is six months before anyone even knew Kennedy was coming to Texas.

Or do you think DeMohrenschildt was setting him up in a "general" way to take the fall for the President's murder which really hadn't even been mapped out yet by the team of conspirators who were going to frame Oswald for the crime--whenever the time came to assassinate Kennedy?

In other words, the pre-planned "patsy" plotters would do whatever was necessary AFTER the backyard photo session of March 31, 1963, to make sure Oswald would go wherever he was needed in order to be set up to take the fall for the murder of John Kennedy.

Is that the idea?

Vince Bugliosi made a similar point in his book:

"The Garrison devotees have apparently never been troubled by the question of why Shaw and Ferrie would select Oswald, of all people, as their hit man (in view of the fact that these very same devotees strongly believe Oswald was such a dreadful shot) or patsy when they had no way of knowing that the president would even come back to New Orleans, where Oswald lived at the time. Or were they planning to finance Oswald as he traveled, Carcano in his violin case, all around the country stalking Kennedy for a good opportunity to kill him or be the patsy for someone else who would? If the latter, aren’t they troubled by the fact that we know, from Oswald’s known whereabouts, that he never did travel around the country?" -- Vincent T. Bugliosi; Footnote on page 847 of Endnotes in "Reclaiming History"


You say that at least four officers saw the outline of a rifle in the blanket, after the weapon had already been removed, right? If those officers are to be believed, then surely the outline of the rifle must even have been more clear to see when the rifle was still wrapped inside it. Yet, Michael and Ruth Paine both saw the package up close frequently during nearly two months and Michael actually carried it and moved it around several times in the garage, but neither sees the outline of a rifle.......

Can you provide a logical explanation for this mystery, David?


Perhaps when Lee Oswald handled the blanket and the rifle in the Paine garage on the night of November 21st or the morning of the 22nd, he unintentionally manipulated the blanket in such a manner so that after he extracted the rifle from the blanket, the outline of the weapon remained behind.

That might not be a "logical" enough explanation for anyone who resides in the conspiracy camp, but such an explanation cannot possibly be ruled out.

After all, we know (or least I do) that Oswald DID handle that rifle AND that blanket in Ruth Paine's garage at some point in time on either November 21st or 22nd. It is therefore unlikely that the precise shape of the blanket would be exactly the same after Oswald got through with the blanket (when compared, that is, to the precise condition of the blanket PRIOR to Nov. 21 or 22, which is when Michael Paine was handling it).

Another possibility--however unlikely this might seem--is that Oswald took deliberate and precise steps to make sure that anyone who would see the blanket after he removed the rifle would still think the rifle was inside the blanket--particularly Marina, who knew that Lee owned a rifle.

Can we completely rule out a scenario in which Lee Harvey Oswald, on Nov. 21 or 22, intentionally created the alleged "outline" that the police officers said they saw in the blanket?

I think the answer to my last question is --- No, we cannot.


Can we rule out that Oswald intentionally created the outline?.......... Really?

But you are right of course, it is so far fetched IMO that it is utterly ridiculous, but we can not rule that out. Anything is possible in this crazy case, but is it likely or even remotely plausible? I doubt it very much.


Well, Martin, I probably wouldn't have mentioned the idea of Oswald intentionally creating the rifle impression in the blanket, except for the testimony of Deputy Sheriff Buddy Walthers. His testimony could conceivably indicate that whoever took the rifle out of the blanket was trying to make it appear that the blanket still contained the object:

"It wasn't completely untied--one end had been untied and the other end had been left tied. .... You could tell it from the way it was tied and the impression of where that barrel went up in it where it was tied, that a rifle had been tied in it...you could tell a rifle had been wrapped up in it." -- B. Walthers

Anyway, I was just trying to reconcile ALL the evidence and testimony, so that nobody has to be called a liar (except Lee Oswald, of course--we all know he was a lying machine after he was arrested).

And I really don't think it's "utterly ridiculous" to believe that assassin Oswald would have had a desire to try and fool some people into thinking that the rifle he had just taken out of that blanket was still inside the blanket--at least for a limited period of time anyway, prior to the police searching the Paine house and picking the blanket up off of the garage floor.


So, here's Lee, sneaking into the garage to get the rifle. The light in the garage is on and he runs the risk of being caught at any moment by either Marina or Ruth Paine. So, I'm guessing he wants to be in and out as quick as he can, but he nevertheless takes the time and thus increases the possibility of getting caught to intentionally create a rifle impression in the blanket.

Why would he even consider doing that when nobody had paid any attention to that blanket for the better part of two months? It simply does not make sense.


How in the world would Oswald have known that "nobody had paid any attention to that blanket for the better part of two months"? You wouldn't be speculating, would you Martin? (I know how you hate speculation and assumption.)

For all Oswald knew, everyone in the house might have noticed the blanket roll in the garage between September and November. Do you think Oswald asked Marina and Ruth: "Have you two paid any attention to that blanket in the garage lately?"


And again I ask... if the officers could so easily see the outline of a rifle in the blanket, why did Michael and Ruth Paine fail to notice it completely?


I don't know. But lots of things don't get noticed by people if they aren't really focused on them. Take the paper bag that Oswald left in the Sniper's Nest, for example. Five or six officers noticed it on the floor, but several others didn't see it at all. So even trained police officers don't always observe everything they probably should. Go figure.


As for the rifle impression being left in the blanket.....

I fail to see why such a thing is utterly impossible. (You wouldn't be speculating again, would you Martin?)

Anyway, this question is a pointless one anyhow, because four officers stated they thought it looked like a rifle was in that blanket. You can call all of their testimony and reports about the blanket "selfserving rubbish" if you want to (and you did), but their statements will still be in the official record nevertheless.


If somebody had been paying particular attention to the blanket, don't you think they would have asked Lee or Marina about it?


Not necessarily. If Ruth Paine had noticed that a rifle was in the blanket, via an outline or impression in the blanket or for some other reason that made her aware a rifle was being stored in her garage, she might have indeed mentioned it to Marina or Lee, because Ruth has said in interviews that she would not have wanted a rifle in her house.

But the fact that Ruth was NOT aware that the blanket contained a rifle is a further indication of what I said previously (especially if the rifle outline had, in fact, been visible in the blanket prior to 11/21/63) --- "Lots of things don't get noticed by people if they aren't really focused on them." [DVP]


Your claims seem to contradict each other. On the one hand you argue that the blanket had retained the outline of a rifle, even after the weapon was removed, to such an extent that the police officers could easily see it, yet on the other hand you seem to believe that the same package, with such a clear outline of a rifle, would not have attracted any kind of attention from the people who saw it there for nearly two months.


I offered up an alternate possibility for the outline/rifle impression in the blanket. Oswald, either intentionally or unintentionally, could have possibly created the rifle impression when he handled the blanket on Nov. 21 or 22. And that's an explanation that would have had a rifle impression in the blanket for the police to notice on November 22nd, but NO impression in the blanket prior to November 22nd.

Such a scenario might not be likely, but IMO it could have happened.


Nobody said anything to Oswald about the blanket...ever.


I sense the faint odor of "assumption" and "speculation" in your last statement, Martin.

You might be right....but maybe not.


No need to speculate. Just try it yourself. Do it 10 times and see what the result is. If it is not utterly impossible, then it is at least very extremely unlikely that you can ever get the blanket to retain its shape.


Depending on the thickness and the stiffness of the blanket, I wouldn't think it would be difficult at all to get a blanket to retain the outline of an object that has been stored in that blanket and then carefully removed. I can easily envision such a thing happening. Why you think such a thing is totally impossible is a mystery to me. ~another shrug~


By your logic, the whole JFK discussion is pointless, since we already have the official record. Unfortunately for you, the official record doesn't bother me much, since there is so much more in there that is rubbish also that it has lost all credibility to all except for a few die hard believers. The mere fact that it is part of the official record doesn't make it true.


And the constant protestations and gripes of thousands of die-hard conspiracy theorists won't make the evidence in the JFK and Tippit cases disappear either. Like it or not, you're stuck with the evidence as it is. And you're also stuck with the "rubbish" known as the "official record" too.

And there hasn't been a single conspiracy theorist on this vast planet (to date) who has managed to PROVE that even ONE piece of evidence in this case was planted, manufactured, or tampered with. (Speculation and assumption that all of the evidence is phony doesn't cut it, btw.)


Those cops came to Ruth Paine's home with a mindset of looking for a rifle. When Marina pointed them to the blanket they IMO just saw what they wanted to see.


What made Rose, Walthers, Weatherford, AND Oxford (in unison) "want" to desperately see a rifle in that blanket?

You wouldn't be hinting that all four of those Dallas city and county police officers were on a mission to convict (or maybe frame) Lee H. Oswald for John Kennedy's murder, are you?

It kind of sounds like you are leaning in that direction via this part of your last statement -- "They...just saw what they wanted to see."

Now, if they weren't on a mission to convict or frame Oswald, what would make those four officers so anxious to see a rifle impression in that blanket if there really was no such impression there at all?


Since you are the one defending the official record, the onus of proof is on you and you sure as hell are not going to convince me with a magical blanket that retains its shape after the content is removed.


Go ask Rose, Walthers, Weatherford, and Oxford if the blanket had any magical properties or not?

(Oh, that's right -- you think all four of them just made it all up. Sorry.)


Isn't it just amazing how many unlikely scenarios there are in this case?


With the following two being the most unlikely of all (by far)....

1.) Shooting at JFK from the front when the designated "patsy" is in the rear.

2.) All the evidence against Lee H. Oswald has been faked.


I think that the package would no longer have been there on 11/21/63 if anybody had ever said anything to Oswald about that blanket. Let's not forget that the blanket allegedly contained a rifle that allegedly had already been used once in an attempted murder. I just do not see Oswald leaving the package there if anybody had talked to him about it. That would have been way too risky, wouldn't it?


No more risky than Oswald keeping possession of the rifle after shooting at General Walker with it.

And Marina knew about Lee having the rifle AFTER the Walker murder attempt. She saw him with the gun in New Orleans in the summer of '63. (Yes, I know, you don't trust Marina any farther than you can throw her. But her testimony is there just the same.)

And since nobody else at Ruth Paine's house had any knowledge of Lee's attempt on Walker's life, then I see no great risk for Oswald to store the rifle at Ruth's house. Lee seemed pretty confident that Marina wasn't going to spill the beans about Walker. So, where's the risk?


What made several police officers say in their reports that Oswald was arrested on the balcony of the TT?


A very minor mistake really. Not important. He was arrested IN the theater. Just not "in the balcony". But we know the initial DPD radio call said they thought the suspect was "hiding in the balcony". This early erroneous speculation could have been repeated by some of the officers.

Some errors get repeated from one person to the next, yes. But in the "blanket" situation, we've got at least two officers (Walthers and Rose) specifically saying in their WC testimony--independent of each other--that they each saw a rifle imprint in the blanket.

It's harder to tell from the statements of Oxford and Weatherford whether they were merely repeating something they heard through the police grapevine, or whether they too saw the imprint. But they put similar statements in their individual reports at any rate.


What made Bentley say on television that he had found a drivers license and a credit card in Oswald's wallet?


That one's easy. Detective Paul Bentley was using loose terminology and speculation as to what other cards Oswald had in his wallet. He wasn't sure at all....and that fact is obvious when you listen to his 11/23/63 WFAA-TV interview.


Why was a paper bag found at the TSBD instantly considered to be the means by which the rifle had been brought in, hours before anybody had spoken to Frazier or Randle?


Another easy one. I think you even alluded to the answer earlier. The police had just found the shells in the Sniper's Nest and the boxes stacked up to form the barrier around the Nest. It was only logical for the police to connect that EMPTY brown bag with the rifle they found on the other side of that same sixth floor.

Sometimes the police CAN utilize regular common sense, you know? There's no law against it.


All it took was for those four men, standing around that blanket, to decide and agree there and then that there had indeed been a rifle stored in that blanket. Only one man saying that he had seen the outline of a rifle would have been enough for the others to go along with it.


And yet I am scolded for "assuming" things. But you've been assuming a lot of things in this latest round of discussion, Martin. Aren't you ashamed?

David Von Pein
October 25-27, 2014 [This forum link is no longer available.]
November 7-8, 2014 [This forum link is no longer available.]