Jump to content
The Education Forum

Ruth Paine


Paul Trejo

Recommended Posts

1. Up until she appeared at the Shaw trial, she had not been subjected to cross-examination and her words were left unopposed thanks to the credulousness of the commission.

2. Her memory of the phone call between herself and Michael belies other evidence.

3. Her memory of the phone call from the TEC belies other evidence.

4. Her story about Oswald giving them the phone number to N Beckley in case Marina went into labor, but then neglecting to tell them they should ask for "Mr Lee" lacks internal logic and is most likely self-serving.

5. Her willingness to lie on official government documents is demonstrated via her divorce papers.

6. Her insistence that her religion makes her incapable of lying is shown to be self-serving by the above.

7. Despite your claims that she was a Quaker Charity Voodoo Queen Par excellence! she displayed a clear lack of empathy or charity when she failed to help Oswald secure legal assistance.

8. Despite your claim that the Quaker Charity Voodoo Queen took Marina in due to Marina's desperate need because that is the type of woman Ruth was, you will be unable to come up with a single act of charity in all of the many records concerning her past up until then. She was an evangelical Quaker and as I have already explained to you, evangelical Quakers do not see charity as their business because it was not for God.

9. Your sad tale about Oswald scrounging on her over weekends is belied by her own words - to wit - that it was great to have him around doing all the little chores that needed doing like fixing a door - you know - stuff that the ENGINEER, Mike Paine never got around to doing.

10. Her pants are highly combustible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 806
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

1. Up until she appeared at the Shaw trial, she had not been subjected to cross-examination and her words were left unopposed thanks to the credulousness of the commission.

2. Her memory of the phone call between herself and Michael belies other evidence.

3. Her memory of the phone call from the TEC belies other evidence.

4. Her story about Oswald giving them the phone number to N Beckley in case Marina went into labor, but then neglecting to tell them they should ask for "Mr Lee" lacks internal logic and is most likely self-serving.

5. Her willingness to lie on official government documents is demonstrated via her divorce papers.

6. Her insistence that her religion makes her incapable of lying is shown to be self-serving by the above.

7. Despite your claims that she was a Quaker Charity Voodoo Queen Par excellence! she displayed a clear lack of empathy or charity when she failed to help Oswald secure legal assistance.

8. Despite your claim that the Quaker Charity Voodoo Queen took Marina in due to Marina's desperate need because that is the type of woman Ruth was, you will be unable to come up with a single act of charity in all of the many records concerning her past up until then. She was an evangelical Quaker and as I have already explained to you, evangelical Quakers do not see charity as their business because it was not for God.

9. Your sad tale about Oswald scrounging on her over weekends is belied by her own words - to wit - that it was great to have him around doing all the little chores that needed doing like fixing a door - you know - stuff that the ENGINEER, Mike Paine never got around to doing.

10. Her pants are highly combustible.

Greg,

Good God what a good post.

I mean it.

--Tommy :sun

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Up until she appeared at the Shaw trial, she had not been subjected to cross-examination and her words were left unopposed thanks to the credulousness of the commission.

2. Her memory of the phone call between herself and Michael belies other evidence.

3. Her memory of the phone call from the TEC belies other evidence.

4. Her story about Oswald giving them the phone number to N Beckley in case Marina went into labor, but then neglecting to tell them they should ask for "Mr Lee" lacks internal logic and is most likely self-serving.

5. Her willingness to lie on official government documents is demonstrated via her divorce papers.

6. Her insistence that her religion makes her incapable of lying is shown to be self-serving by the above.

7. Despite your claims that she was a Quaker Charity Voodoo Queen Par excellence! she displayed a clear lack of empathy or charity when she failed to help Oswald secure legal assistance.

8. Despite your claim that the Quaker Charity Voodoo Queen took Marina in due to Marina's desperate need because that is the type of woman Ruth was, you will be unable to come up with a single act of charity in all of the many records concerning her past up until then. She was an evangelical Quaker and as I have already explained to you, evangelical Quakers do not see charity as their business because it was not for God.

9. Your sad tale about Oswald scrounging on her over weekends is belied by her own words - to wit - that it was great to have him around doing all the little chores that needed doing like fixing a door - you know - stuff that the ENGINEER, Mike Paine never got around to doing.

10. Her pants are highly combustible.

1. Very subjective, Greg, to suggest that Ruth Paine's words were "left unopposed" for the Warren Commission. She was asked more than 5,000 questions. That's a heck of a lot of legal examination. You're not actually putting anything up for consideration -- but just being abstract again. Also, as for Jim Garrison's cross-examination, Garrison was hot to write an indictment, but he found NOTHING with which to indict Ruth Paine. You neglected that fact.

2. Ruth Paine's memory of the wire-tapped phone call between herself and Michael Paine belies NOTHING. Michael Paine said, "LHO will be blamed, but we both know who did it." A biased person will read anything they want into that, of course, but Ruth Paine explained it fully when she said they were talking about the people who made: (1) the black-bordered ad; and (2) the WANTED FOR TREASON handbill. Actually, hundreds of people in Dallas already thought the same thing, and thousands of Americans thought the same thing the next day. (In fact, it's the true solution to the JFK murder.)

3. Ruth Paine's memory of the Texas Employment Commission calls are fully explained. The guy from the TEC called about the luggage-handler job at the time LHO was at the TSBD applying for a job. There was nobody home. Then, the TEC guy called the next day and got Ruth, who told him that LHO was already working at the TSBD. Very simple. As for Ruth forgetting all about it, the fact is that Ruth didn't owe LHO *anything* else; the guy finally had a job to feed his own children. Dang.

4. Ruth Paine testified that Oswald never told her that he was registered as Mr. Lee. LHO liked to play spy games -- he liked to keep Marina in the dark. It's so obvious. LHO botched this one. Admit it.

5. Ruth never lied on her divorce papers. Prove it.

6. Ruth never, ever said that being a Quaker is immunity from lying. Prove it.

7. In fact, LHO called Ruth Paine from the DPD when he was arrested there, and he calmly and casually demanded that she contact New York attorney John Abt for him, and keep trying until she made contact. LHO's attitude, when he was clearly on trial for his life, was smug and arrogant. Ruth wasn't LHO's personal secretary. LHO really had some nerve. Despite this, Ruth Paine overlooked this flaw and called both of John Abt's phone numbers multiple times, and never got a response. Think about it -- did John Abt want to return the call of Lee Harvey Oswald on the afternoon that JFK was assassinated? Ruth Paine didn't FAIL to get Oswald legal assistance -- she recommended ACLU advice for him, and LHO insisted that he wanted John Abt. Very clear.

8. Now you claim to be an expert in Quaker theology, Greg? Get real.

9. Actualy, Ruth Paine was ambivalent about LHO and she admitted it. He was acting like a leech, pure and simple, but Marina Oswald, her friend (as Ruth thought) still loved him. So Ruth did her best to get along with him. When LHO saw that Ruth was taking care of Marina, AND HIS NEW BABY, he did begin to offer to do chores around the house -- and Ruth wrote to her mother that LHO was showing signs of improvement. He wasn't redeemed, but he was trying -- sort of. It would have been nice if he would have brought some food over for his family now and again -- but he DIDN'T. Ruth also said that. So, it was ambivalent. In other words, it was human.

10. You believe you showed that Ruth Paine lied, Greg, but you're entirely mistaken. You showed nothing of the sort. You only showed your own bias.

Tommy thinks your post was GREAT. I think your post was a GREAT FLOP. You still fail to raise any substantive issue for consideration. What flimsy objections!

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Get real? And that's the best anyone can do for Ruthie? What a flimsy defense.

Oh, I wasn't defending Ruth Paine there, David, I was criticizing Greg Parker's weak objections.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is ridiculous.

That was obviously just a bullet list.

Greg has not fleshed it out at all yet.

But PT Cruiser Car feels religiously compelled to come to the aid of Ruth and Mike immediately. Even though he does not even have the data upon which this is based.

I have seen this so many times with PT it reminds me of a B. F. Skinner experiment.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is ridiculous.

That was obviously just a bullet list.

Greg has not fleshed it out at all yet.

But PT Cruiser Car feels religiously compelled to come to the aid of Ruth and Mike immediately. Even though he does not even have the data upon which this is based.

I have seen this so many times with PT it reminds me of a B. F. Skinner experiment.

Actually, James, if Greg really had anything on Ruth Paine he would have shown it by now.

He keeps saying he's going to publish it "later." We're still waiting.

A bullet list? More like a spit-wad list.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Slightly out of your order Paul, for better flow

1. 5,000 is just a number. It says nothing of the meat of the question, nor does it compensate for lack of cross-examination.

6. "When you swear to do something, you're saying you will do it. This can be interpreted as a religously backed oath or as a sincere promise. [1] Either way, quakers object because they believe they're supposed to tell the truth at all times, and so they "do not swear, but we 'affirm' that we are being honest, as always".

http://www.jefftk.com/p/quakers-and-affirming

Paul, I never said she had IMMUNITY from lying. That is your spin. I said as a Quaker she claimed to be incapable of lying. As shown above - that is a fact. That is what she claimed every timed she made an affirmation.

2 & 3. "Further, you're being asked to tell the "whole truth". Quakers who take not lying very seriously have traditionally still occasionally used not telling the whole truth as a way around that strictness. There are stories about people giving intentionally misleading but not technically false responses to questions like "why would you think that?" and non Quakers warning each other to force a Quaker into giving a straight answer and not to be misdirected by apparent denials that aren't actually making any claim. So even if you do believe that you should be always telling the truth and nothing but the truth, I'm not sure about the whole truth."

http://www.jefftk.com/p/quakers-and-affirming

This nails Ruth Paine's testimony re points two and three to perfection.

more later when I'm not juggling half a dozen other things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Slightly out of your order Paul, for better flow

1. 5,000 is just a number. It says nothing of the meat of the question, nor does it compensate for lack of cross-examination.

6. "When you swear to do something, you're saying you will do it. This can be interpreted as a religously backed oath or as a sincere promise. [1] Either way, quakers object because they believe they're supposed to tell the truth at all times, and so they "do not swear, but we 'affirm' that we are being honest, as always".

http://www.jefftk.com/p/quakers-and-affirming

Paul, I never said she had IMMUNITY from lying. That is your spin. I said as a Quaker she claimed to be incapable of lying. As shown above - that is a fact. That is what she claimed every timed she made an affirmation.

2 & 3. "Further, you're being asked to tell the "whole truth". Quakers who take not lying very seriously have traditionally still occasionally used not telling the whole truth as a way around that strictness. There are stories about people giving intentionally misleading but not technically false responses to questions like "why would you think that?" and non Quakers warning each other to force a Quaker into giving a straight answer and not to be misdirected by apparent denials that aren't actually making any claim. So even if you do believe that you should be always telling the truth and nothing but the truth, I'm not sure about the whole truth."

http://www.jefftk.com/p/quakers-and-affirming

This nails Ruth Paine's testimony re points two and three to perfection.

more later when I'm not juggling half a dozen other things.

Unacceptable, Greg. You merely accuse Ruth Paine of lying once again -- but again provide no evidence for your accusation.

And of course, not only Quakers, but all Christians, and all religious people, and all atheists as well, are morally committed to tell the truth. You too, for that matter.

But by all means, feel free to write nothing as long as you're juggling half-a-dozen other things.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ruth is a perfectly charming, charitable Quaker ... who helped the Oswalds out of pure humanitarian impulses ... she and her husband were simply admirable people.” – George de Mohrenschildt



One casual dinner in the company of Michael and Ruth Paine was enough to set the Oswald's course. Apparently, George and Jeanne didn't have to meet with them again. It must have been quite an impression that Ruth made in that single setting.



But if George de M. stated this, it must be gospel ... right? He was just an engineer, Oil geologist, if you will. But also a sophisticated and articulate member of the Russian emigre community in Dallas, who taught at a local college, and traveled throughout the Americas. Collected rich wives. one of whom (Phyllis Washington) worked for Radio Free Europe in the early fifties. His brother Dimitri was employed in a confidential capacity by the U.S. government. Introduced (code name Harbin, his wife's hometown in China) to a New York lawyer named Herbert Itkin by Allen Dulles... what a coincidence! A petrochemical consultant with the Agency for International Development (AID) in 1961. Moved to Haiti in mid-1963, where he conveniently remained for over four years, out of the country (out of sight) and nowhere to be seen in November 1963. But he was also acquainted with Janet Auchincloss, mother of Jackie Kennedy, and wrote her a letter from Haiti on December 12th describing that poor young couple and the dead assassin for whom he was a mentor and so-called best friend:



Sometime last fall we heard that Oswald had beaten his wife cruelly, so we drove to their miserable place and forcibly took Marina and the child away from the character. Then he threatened me and my wife, but I did not take him seriously. Marina stayed with the family of Russian refugees for a while, keeping her baby, but finally decided to return to her husband. Somehow then we lost interest in the Oswalds. It is really a shame that such crimes occur in our times and in our country.



Perfectly charming and charitable ... sound familiar?



To quote Ferris Bueller:



"I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Life moves pretty fast. If you don’t stop and look around once in a while, you might miss it."




Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gene - great post and good sleuthing. One thing that Paul T is fond of doing is quoting known liars - George DeM, Hemming, Marina - and claiming that he can discern when they are telling the truth depending of course on how well it fits with his theory. He also likes to claim that we who challenge his theory believe that the CIA did it. I'm having a hard time recalling when I or any one else here said that. Paul T is the only one who knows and states who the guilty are. The rest of us are sure of only one thing basically - that there was a conspiracy to murder JFK, the truth of which was covered up by our government. Paul T hangs his hat on Simpich's work, which he claims proves that top level CIA could not have been involved. It proves no such thing, and Simpich never said it did. What he did say is that Angleton seemed to be confused as to who was impersonating LHO in Mexico City. I say seemed because Angleton's mole hunt does not necessarily prove he was in the dark about that particular event. In any case, it's one author's opinion that Angleton was in the dark, and does not prove or disprove the guilt of other CIA or ex-CIA (Dulles) officials. Newman, whose research into CIA is ongoing and incredibly revealing of their methods of obfuscation, would not argue the innocence of any of these characters. But neither he nor anyone else is claiming to know the whole truth. We leave that to Paul Trejo, a man who clearly allows his personal admiration for Dulles Hoover LeMay etc and his religious convictions to cloud his judgements about history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok Paul, that's a bit more nuanced.

Paul Trejo said,

Yet I maintain that if the WC had fingered General Walker and the Radical Right, then Liberals in the USA would have gone after them with fury. Professor David Wrone (U. of Wisconsin) said that after JFK was murdered, among the people he knew, men went out with axes to chop down JBS billboards “immediately”. There was real anger in the air.

I had never heard that anecdotal story. I assume it's only an anecdotal story, as I hadn't heard much about a liberal backlash.

The left's tactics in late 1963 were mostly non violent peaceful resistance with a few people getting thrown in jail for a day or two. Any fear that the left and right would start a civil war was completely unjustified. The left in 1963 would never have gotten in an armed insurrection with the right, because they knew it would be suicide. They weren't as well financed or prone to carry guns. Remember Paul, this isn't 1969, it's 1963 and those 2 years were worlds apart. But still 5 years later the left had 2 of it's major leaders assassinated and outside of a few short lived incidents, stood by pretty passively.

Finally, I believe that Hoover, LBJ, Dulles and Warren all agreed – that blaming the Left or the Right for the JFK murder would start riots in the streets – riots that the FBI could not control. And if the riots got really out of hand, the USSR would have been tempted to interfere. Then the violence would have escalated to a fever pitch.

I think the real reasons that Hoover, Dulles and Warren agreed to not blame the left or right was better explained in responses to Jon Tidd's recent post and not because of fear of riots in the streets. Part of the evidence of that is that many rightists still believed LHO was a communist and many leftists wondered just what he really was, and no one started a revolution about it.

OK, Kirk, as for Professor Wrone's remark, IMHO he said this as a report, as a matter of fact. The John Birch Society was repugnant to many American Liberals, but even repugnant to J. Edgar Hoover, who expressed his dismay that Robert Welch was publishing widely that FDR was a Communist, and Truman was a Communist, and even that Eisenhower was a Communist. Hoover implied that any FBI Agent who joined the JBS could turn in his badge tomorrow.

So, yes, the Right-wing was on the ropes. The KKK was all but a joke in 1963, when under President Wilson they were welcome to march, even in Washington DC. So, there was clearly a shift away from Jim Crow for most US States -- though still not in the South.

Yet the Right Wing refused to quit. We see that not only with Barry Goldwater, but also with George Wallace. General Walker attended George Wallace's kick off campaign for Democratic President -- more or less running on the Woodrow Wilson ticket, who kept Princeton U. segregated. General Walker also hoped to run on that ticket one day -- and his constituency encouraged him in his -- including Guy Banister, Pedro Del Valle, Kent Courtney and Joseph Milteer, as well as the entire JBS, the WCC, the NSRP and the Minutemen.

Walker ran for Texas Governor on a segregationist ticket and came in last place -- but that didn't slow the Left down. Kent and Phoebe Courtney called for General Walker for US President in 1962. George Wallace stepped up to the plate, right behind Barry Goldwater. The Segregationist South was not about to give up in 1963.

BTW, I think you make my point when you admit that the Left was terrified to go against the Far Right (especially in the South, but also in Los Angeles and Chicago) in 1963. There was no fear of an insurrection on the Left. So, the Right was not yet fully defeated.

IMHO, however, if the Left in late 1963 had learned that the Radical Right had murdered JFK, I think we would have seen riots break out, as we later saw when MLK was murdered five years later. It wouldn't just have been a Black backlash, but a more generic sort. The Radical Right was profoundly repugnant to millions of Americans. I think historian David Wrone reported a historical fact about his Liberal US neighborhood in Wisconsin.

The notion that LHO was a Communist is ludicrous, IMHO, but the Radical Right had produced tons of evidence -- in police reports, newspapers, radio spots, even TV. Further, the FBI and CIA had spotted LHO in Mexico City seeking a visa to Cuba, with a report under investigation that LHO had called the USSR Embassy from the Cuban Consulate, asking for wanted KGB Agent Valerie Kostikov. The sheep-dip was almost perfect.

In fact, I believe an easy 50% of journalists and US Government workers still believe LHO was a Red to this very day. Jim Garrison proved without any doubt that LHO was working with Guy Banister out of 544 Camp Street, and this completely smashes any notion that LHO was a Red. But the Radical Right worked overtime and won the day. Many still believe them. In 1963, the evidence was overwhelming.

Dr. Caufield believes that LHO was innocent, and set-up as a Patsy -- but he also admits that in 1963, if Jack Ruby had been stopped from killing LHO, the circumstantial evidence was so enormous that LHO would have probably died in a Dallas electric chair, anyway. (Dallas DA Henry Wade had said, "I've sent men to the electric chair on less evidence than this!")

The real problem is that LHO trusted the people who set him up; and he willingly handed over his rifle to them; and he refused to name them when he had the chance.

The question for this thread, however, is what role the Paines had in all these politics. In the opinion of Carol Hewett and her followers, the Paines were secret FBI and CIA Agents. In my opinion, Ruth and Michael Paine were rich liberals who thought they were doing the Oswald family a favor.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Once again Paul resorts to falsehoods in order to make his case.

Welch never stated that FDR or Truman were Communists. That is pure fiction fabricated by Paul. In fact, on several occasions, including in personal correspondence, Welch explicitly rejected the idea that they were Communists.

With respect to the Minutemen: as I have pointed out several times -- the FBI obtained MM membership lists on at least 3 different occasions from 3 different people. The MM never had an active membership of more than a few hundred individuals. Obviously, they were in no position to launch any kind of revolt or major anti-government violence.

Paul suggests that "the left" would have gone after the radical right "with fury" had the right been linked the JFK's murder. Actually, "the left" did blame the radical right anyway but there was no violence.

With respect to Professor Wrone's comment: There were several incidents directed against the Birch Society after JFK's murder. Yes, some billboards were vandalized. In addition, a couple JBS bookstores were on the receiving end of rocks and there were threatening phone calls.

There are ALWAYS such incidents when passions are inflamed by events. [We have seen the same thing happen to American Muslims and their mosques in recent months.]

But it is way-beyond mere hyperbole to suggest that "the left" in our country was likely to engage in widespread violence against the radical right -- EVEN IF it could be proven that a right-wing conspiracy was responsible for JFK's murder. And it is equally absurd to suggest that a few disgruntled Minutemen would somehow be able to launch a revolt against the U.S. government (or any state or local government).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once again Paul resorts to falsehoods in order to make his case.

Welch never stated that FDR or Truman were Communists. That is pure fiction fabricated by Paul. In fact, on several occasions, including in personal correspondence, Welch explicitly rejected the idea that they were Communists.

With respect to the Minutemen: as I have pointed out several times -- the FBI obtained MM membership lists on at least 3 different occasions from 3 different people. The MM never had an active membership of more than a few hundred individuals. Obviously, they were in no position to launch any kind of revolt or major anti-government violence.

Paul suggests that "the left" would have gone after the radical right "with fury" had the right been linked the JFK's murder. Actually, "the left" did blame the radical right anyway but there was no violence.

With respect to Professor Wrone's comment: There were several incidents directed against the Birch Society after JFK's murder. Yes, some billboards were vandalized. In addition, a couple JBS bookstores were on the receiving end of rocks and there were threatening phone calls.

There are ALWAYS such incidents when passions are inflamed by events. [We have seen the same thing happen to American Muslims and their mosques in recent months.]

But it is way-beyond mere hyperbole to suggest that "the left" in our country was likely to engage in widespread violence against the radical right -- EVEN IF it could be proven that a right-wing conspiracy was responsible for JFK's murder. And it is equally absurd to suggest that a few disgruntled Minutemen would somehow be able to launch a revolt against the U.S. government (or any state or local government).

Well, Ernie, are we now splitting hairs? Do you mean to argue that the John Birch Society regarded Presidents FDR and Truman as ideal Presidents? No?

I notice you don't deny that Robert Welch, founder of the JBS, openly called President Eisenhower a Communist.

All you're really saying is that Welch was more careful with his remarks about FDR and Truman. Yet one only needs to read back issues of the JBS magazine, "American Opinion" in order to find countless accusations about the Redness of FDR and Truman.

Not only do you know this, but pretty much every reader here knows this.

Also, isn't it true that John Birch Society ideology was a carrying-forward of the ideas of Senator Joseph McCarthy? Isn't it also true that McCarthy was bold about calling FDR and Truman Communist Traitors?

Wasn't this clear from McCarthy's 1951 publication, "Twenty Years of Treason," which referred to the terms of FDR and Truman, so that in 1952, when Dwight D. Eisenhower was elected President, McCarthy quipped, "Make that 21 years of Treason!"?!

It's disingenuous to suggest that the Radical Right and followers of the JBS held FDR and Truman in high regard, Ernie.

You want to be a stickler for details -- OK -- but please don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...