Where's Ruth's couch?

[Denny Zartman]

It's difficult for me to understand why any self-described conspiracy theorist would feel this compelled to defend Ruth Paine in the first place. Ruth undoubtedly got Oswald his job at the TSBD. That in and of itself should be a red flag imho. People really believe that there was a conspiracy, yet they also believe that the most vital elements of that conspiracy fell into place by random chance, coincidence, and luck?

I support the concept of having dedicated Devil's Advocates giving even small assumptions the most rigorous of tests. I think this case is important enough for that kind of close examination. But in my view arguing that the Paines were not involved is like standing outside at noon on a cloudless day and insisting that it's midnight.

[James DiEugenio]

Nice one Denny.  The sun is shining.

[Greg Doudna]

21 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

I agree with you on most of this stuff, Greg. But I think it should be noted that officially Ruth Paine knew the Oswald letter to the embassy was important and yet, even so, failed to tell the Dallas Police about it on the day of the assassination. No, she held it to the next day to tell Hosty about it personally.

Another possibility is that Ruth phoned the FBI immediately after her concern and alarm at finding the note--she had a favorable contact with Hosty from the Nov 1 and 5 visits of Hosty--and was told some form of "thanks for calling--just hang on to it until I/we are there next on other grounds and we will pick it up from you then".

This would explain why Ruth said she was waiting for Hosty's next visit to give it to him, and would also explain why she did not turn it over to the Dallas police/sheriff's deputies on Fri Nov 22.

[Pat Speer]

12 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

Another possibility is that Ruth phoned the FBI immediately after her concern and alarm at finding the note--she had a favorable contact with Hosty from the Nov 1 and 5 visits of Hosty--and was told some form of "thanks for calling--just hang on to it until I/we are there next on other grounds and we will pick it up from you then".

This would explain why Ruth said she was waiting for Hosty's next visit to give it to him, and would also explain why she did not turn it over to the Dallas police/sheriff's deputies on Fri Nov 22.

Yes, this may have happened. But why would she hide something relevant from the investigating agency of a murder, so she could share it with the FBI?

It's obvious to me she'd been seduced by spy stuff. This deference to the FBI demonstrates her desire to be of service to that agency, which in turn supports that she was interested in working with them to nail Oswald. 

This cuts into her credibility, and raises the possibility she had a prior "arrangement" with Hosty. 

 

[Greg Doudna]

1 hour ago, Pat Speer said:

Yes, this may have happened. But why would she hide something relevant from the investigating agency of a murder, so she could share it with the FBI?

It's obvious to me she'd been seduced by spy stuff. This deference to the FBI demonstrates her desire to be of service to that agency, which in turn supports that she was interested in working with them to nail Oswald. 

This cuts into her credibility, and raises the possibility she had a prior "arrangement" with Hosty. 

Well, she testified that Hosty on Nov 1 was the first time she met an FBI person in her life. That's her statement on it. I do not see how "good citizen" deference to the FBI means she is not truthful or is a positive argument that she had a prior arrangement with Hosty before Nov 1 (and committed perjury in stating that was not the case). Those seem to be conclusions not warranted from facts cited.

I do not know why she did not volunteer the embassy note to Dallas police and sheriff's deputies on Fri Nov 22. Could it be, per suggestion noted, that she had already called the FBI, either Nov 11 or 12, to tell them of the note and had been asked to keep the note until FBI got there to pick it up, and asked not to tell anyone else before FBI got there?

I go one step along with you on one point: it does look to me like, starting from Nov 1, Ruth was being groomed as a PCI (Potential Confidential Informant) by Hosty/FBI. They wanted PCI's and developed PCI's naturally from cooperative citizens in the normal course of activity. So it would fit the pattern. This would have nothing to do with Ruth being willing to perjure, not to mention it has nothing to do with making her involved in the assassination.

(Speaking of the FBI/confidential informant pattern: when I was a kid growing up in Akron, Ohio, our family attended a large Methodist church. I was maybe 8 or 10. There was a man in the congregation that was a career FBI agent. My father told me later how that FBI agent told other church members (diplomatically without being critical) how Hoover was very strict, dress code, hair style, no overweight allowed, etc. and also this: that the FBI local office would get phone calls or first-time walk-ins from citizens reporting some concerning activity, like some group up to no good. He said standard practice was to thank that citizen (whom they had not sought out, but who was there), treat them very courteously ... and ask them, if they would, to keep in touch and let them know in the future any further news on the suspect group. This was how PCIs were developed, probably the most common mechanism.)

Edited April 30, 2022 by Greg Doudna

[Pat Speer]

54 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

Well, she testified that Hosty on Nov 1 was the first time she met an FBI person in her life. That's her statement on it. I do not see how "good citizen" deference to the FBI means she is not truthful or is a positive argument that she had a prior arrangement with Hosty before Nov 1 (and committed perjury in stating that was not the case). Those seem to be conclusions not warranted from facts cited.

I do not know why she did not volunteer the embassy note to Dallas police and sheriff's deputies on Fri Nov 22. Could it be, per suggestion noted, that she had already called the FBI, either Nov 11 or 12, to tell them of the note and had been asked to keep the note until FBI got there to pick it up, and asked not to tell anyone else before FBI got there?

I go one step along with you on one point: it does look to me like, starting from Nov 1, Ruth was being groomed as a PCI (Potential Confidential Informant) by Hosty/FBI. They wanted PCI's and developed PCI's naturally from cooperative citizens in the normal course of activity. So it would fit the pattern. This would have nothing to do with Ruth being willing to perjure, not to mention it has nothing to do with making her involved in the assassination.

(Speaking of the FBI/confidential informant pattern: when I was a kid growing up in Akron, Ohio, our family attended a large Methodist church. I was maybe 8 or 10. There was a man in the congregation that was a career FBI agent. My father told me later how that FBI agent told other church members (diplomatically without being critical) how Hoover was very strict, dress code, hair style, no overweight allowed, etc. and also this: that the FBI local office would get phone calls or first-time walk-ins from citizens reporting some concerning activity, like some group up to no good. He said standard practice was to thank that citizen (whom they had not sought out, but who was there), treat them very courteously ... and ask them, if they would, to keep in touch and let them know in the future any further news on the suspect group. This was how PCIs were developed, probably the most common mechanism.)

I don't remember the numbers, but I remember reading that after the re-unification of Germany it came out that a huge percentage of East German citizens had been reporting on their neighbors. To my recollection it was something like 25%.