Ruth Paine

[Paul Trejo]

I am not hear to talk about Ruth Paine.

I will be opening up other threads on her soon. Because the Ruth in Nicaragua post at CTKA is in the top ten according to the stats. Hundreds of people are reading it daily.

I just wanted to let everyone know that your posts about the new Walker book are not critically reliable.

There is an art form to writing book criticism, with rules and regulations involved. Just as there is with film and stage reviews.

You comments seem to be totally divorced from those guidelines. I can understand O'Neill. He is the main person Jeff acknowledges at the end.

But to anyone else, such should not be the case. Because that is not criticism. Its cheerleading.

James, your hasty attacks on Jeff Caufield remind me of your hasty attacks on Ruth Paine.

In fact, the Walker-did-it theory has not had a proper hearing in 50 years of JFK research.

Not since the days of Harry Dean in 1965, who first publicly announced it, has there been any sustained focus on General Walker in the JFK assassination.

Naturally, since this is a first effort in a half-century, there will be minor flaws the argument here and there.

Yet the massive amount of data that links General Walker with Joseph Milteer -- and from that dyad to a universe of connections on the Radical Right that lead back to H.L. Hunt and the Hunt brothers -- and to Guy Banister and Robert Allen Surrey -- is remarkable.

Your own CIA-did-it theory is on the skids. Your reasoning is shallow and your evidence is weak. No wonder you want to attack the Walker-did-it theory while it's still in the cradle. But this baby was born to survive, James. You have your work cut out for you.

And by the way, this thread remains about Ruth Paine, because if Walker-did-it, then Ruth Paine didn't.

This is clear from your own weak theory -- which tries to make Ruth Paine the culprit in "framing" LHO for the Walker shooting. You take General Walker's WC testimony at face value. That's your wrong turn.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited November 11, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[James DiEugenio]

Nice way to lose the point Paul. Actually two of them.

I did not post this at the other thread that O'Neill started because he seems to be a decent enough chap. And since he helped Jeff a lot, I understand his rationale. And he is not lashing out at others to make his case.

Jeff does not acknowledge you in that section at the end. Even though you say you conversed with him for years. Hmm, Interesting.

You can say all you want about "massive data", Harry Dean, and the Walker theory not having an airing etc.

As I said, you don't seem to be doing very well here. Probably because of your personal abrasiveness.

But beyond that, good criticism is an art form. That is why its so rare. When people encounter it, because they are so used to hacks, they are a bit mystified by it.

Good book criticism is not just listing the contents of a book and repeating it. Which is what you have done with Caufield. Any nincompoop who knows nothing about the JFK case can do that.

Good criticism is much more than that. Its a long involved process of taking notes, reading carefully, and understanding what is in front of you. Then summoning up your own experience and your analytic powers and asking yourself: what is good about this, what is not, and why? What has value, what is logically argued? How and what do we compare it with? How full is the exposition, how honest is the presentation? Is the author fair to others, why or why not? And can his presentation withstand scrutiny. In other words, does his thesis outrun his evidence and did he eliminate certain aspects to cheat in that manner? Above all it is comparative and qualitative analysis.

And finally, after all this is done--and more--you evaluate the thesis, and sub thesis.

If anyone can show me, besides yourself, where you did this, please do so.

I know how to do this since I studied the art form for many years at the feet of masters like Dwight MacDonald. And I know something about how to write history since I have an MA in it and was taught by, among others, Paul Koistenon, who wrote a magnificent five part series on the creation of the MIC.

This is why people read my reviews. (Believe me I will review the Caufield book soon.) People get angry with my reviews when they disagree, and they get joyous when they agree. And some people say they learn more from my reviews than they do most books. That is what good criticism does--it enlightens and empowers the reader by elucidating what is in front of them. Just repeating what is in front of them does next to nothing. In fact, I think its worse than that. It says more about the critic than it does about the book.

As if we need to know more about PT's ideas. Or the lack of such.

Edited November 11, 2015 by James DiEugenio

[Paul Brancato]

Jim - I am glad you are reading and will review Caulfield's magnum opus because you are an uncommonly excellent book reviewer.

[James DiEugenio]

Thanks Paul.

It may take awhile, since the book has Waldron disease.

Its about 800 pages of text. I took about fifty pages of notes on Ultimate Sacrifice, before I could review it.

[John Dolva]

I'm not a reviewer. I learnt more about reviewing in Jim's post than I knew before. I never though Paul was reviewing JC's book. For me the value is the summarising (albeit from Paul's perspective which no doubt leaves out things and emphasies some in favour of others) of it chapter by chapter and I hope that continues. Combined with comments by Ernie, in particular, imo a valuable resource. I've yet to buy the book. I happen to be in a large secondhand bookshop so sooner or later things percolate their way to me. I've read parts of other reviews on this forum by Jim and very much look forward to reading a review by him of Jeff's book. As outlined by Jim, Paul's attacks on him over RP seem quite deplorable. It seems a response when pushed into a corner. I tend not to encourage people to keep digging if the hole is deep enough already. Cheers.

[Paul Trejo]

Nice way to lose the point Paul. Actually two of them.

I did not post this at the other thread that O'Neill started because he seems to be a decent enough chap. And since he helped Jeff a lot, I understand his rationale. And he is not lashing out at others to make his case.

Jeff does not acknowledge you in that section at the end. Even though you say you conversed with him for years. Hmm, Interesting.

You can say all you want about "massive data", Harry Dean, and the Walker theory not having an airing etc.

As I said, you don't seem to be doing very well here. Probably because of your personal abrasiveness.

But beyond that, good criticism is an art form. That is why its so rare. When people encounter it, because they are so used to hacks, they are a bit mystified by it.

Good book criticism is not just listing the contents of a book and repeating it. Which is what you have done with Caufield. Any nincompoop who knows nothing about the JFK case can do that.

Good criticism is much more than that. Its a long involved process of taking notes, reading carefully, and understanding what is in front of you. Then summoning up your own experience and your analytic powers and asking yourself: what is good about this, what is not, and why? What has value, what is logically argued? How and what do we compare it with? How full is the exposition, how honest is the presentation? Is the author fair to others, why or why not? And can his presentation withstand scrutiny. In other words, does his thesis outrun his evidence and did he eliminate certain aspects to cheat in that manner? Above all it is comparative and qualitative analysis.

And finally, after all this is done--and more--you evaluate the thesis, and sub thesis.

If anyone can show me, besides yourself, where you did this, please do so.

I know how to do this since I studied the art form for many years at the feet of masters like Dwight MacDonald. And I know something about how to write history since I have an MA in it and was taught by, among others, Paul Koistenon, who wrote a magnificent five part series on the creation of the MIC.

This is why people read my reviews. (Believe me I will review the Caufield book soon.) People get angry with my reviews when they disagree, and they get joyous when they agree. And some people say they learn more from my reviews than they do most books. That is what good criticism does--it enlightens and empowers the reader by elucidating what is in front of them. Just repeating what is in front of them does next to nothing. In fact, I think its worse than that. It says more about the critic than it does about the book.

As if we need to know more about PT's ideas. Or the lack of such.

There was no reason for Jeff Caufield to acknowledge me, James, because although I conversed with him for years, the conversation was one-sided, as he provided *me* with information, and not the other way around.

Yet you have some nerve calling me abrasive, James DiEugenio, given the way you accuse Ruth Paine of CIA murder, with only a handful of guesses and various nonsense.

You openly called for "Open Season on Ruth Paine" within this very Forum. And you call *me* abrasive? What a laugh.

You really do need to review Caufield's book, James, because you're going to learn a lot -- you've been ignoring General Walker as a major suspect in the JFK murder ever since you started in your JFK research -- and it really shows.

So, let's see how well you really know literary and historical criticism, James. From what I've seen so far, it isn't much. Your condemnation of Ruth Paine based on the shabby so-called evidence you've produced, would get you an F minus from any History Professor I know.

You're under a microscope, now, James. And you really put yourself there.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited November 11, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Brancato]

Wow

[Chris Newton]

...based on the shabby so-called evidence you've produced, would get you an F minus from any History Professor I know.

[Paul Trejo]

I repeat -- Ruth Paine is completely innocent of all the bogus charges that James DiEugenio has accused her of in the second edition of his book, Destiny Betrayed (2012, Skyhorse Publishing).

James DiEugenio proves none of his arguments which accuse Ruth Paine of a CIA plot to kill JFK and to frame LHO for the crime.

James DiEugenio proves none of his arguments which accuse Ruth Paine of framing LHO for shooting at General Walker, in some shabby claim that Ruth Paine forged the Walker Note, forged the Backyard Photographs, forged the Walker photograph, convinced Marina Oswald to perjure herself on the topic, and convinced George and Jeanne DeMohrenschildt to perjure themselves on the topic.

Not one stitch of SOLID EVIDENCE was ever presented for a such a far-fetched accusation.

Yet all of that pales in one of the most BRAINLESS claims in all of JFK Research -- namely, that because Ruth Paine's mother-in-law had a childhood friend that was a lover of Allen Dulles -- that this must be taken as evidence that Ruth Paine was a CIA Agent.

There must be other people than myself who recognize the utter brainlessness of such a claim.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

[James DiEugenio]

I think its you who is under a microscope Paul.

[Paul Trejo]

I think its you who is under a microscope Paul.

We're both under microscopes, James. It's the Internet.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

[James DiEugenio]

Paul,

I have had my own web site on the JFK case for about 12 years.

I previously published a journal on the case for about 7 years.

I have written or co edited four books.

I daresay I have developed a reputation already. As to what I think of the case, about JFK, and others in the field.

In contrast to that, you have written no books, published no journals and have no web site on this case.

Its you who are now under the microscope.

Edited November 12, 2015 by James DiEugenio

[Paul Trejo]

Paul,

I have had my own web site on the JFK case for about 12 years.

I previously published a journal on the case for about 7 years.

I have written or co edited four books.

I daresay I have developed a reputation already. As to what I think of the case, about JFK, and others in the field.

In contrast to that, you have written no books, published no journals and have no web site on this case.

Its you who are now under the microscope.

Well, you're mistaken, James, that just having several decades in JFK research makes you an authority.

Actually, nobody in a half-century of JFK research has solved the JFK murder.

But y'all keep looking in the same places, and repeating the same old, tired arguments. Total crocks.

Just because you've been around the block, James, doesn't mean a thing -- if you don't have the solution.

Reputation among WHOM? Your fan base? But not everybody is part of your fan base, are they, James?

In fact, you probably have more detractors than fans -- and that's what's making you defensive.

First you said you were going to boycott this thread on Ruth Paine -- and now here you are back on it. Hmm.

Well -- your ideas have already taken a whoopin' by my posts from two weeks ago, and you haven't been able to read them, have you?

You sure have no response for them.

You now say you base your claims on Carol Hewett. Well, in just a few more days we're going to put CAROL HEWETT UNDER A MICROSCOPE.

Right here on this thread.

Remember -- y'all started it when you started accusing innocent people of murder. These people are still alive, and their children can read your accusations. Y'all owe lots of apologies.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited November 12, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[David G. Healy]

Paul,

I have had my own web site on the JFK case for about 12 years.

I previously published a journal on the case for about 7 years.

I have written or co edited four books.

I daresay I have developed a reputation already. As to what I think of the case, about JFK, and others in the field.

In contrast to that, you have written no books, published no journals and have no web site on this case.

Its you who are now under the microscope.

Well, you're mistaken, James, that just having several decades in JFK research makes you an authority.

Actually, nobody in a half-century of JFK research has solved the JFK murder.

But y'all keep looking in the same places, and repeating the same old, tired arguments. Total crocks.

Just because you've been around the block, James, doesn't mean a thing -- if you don't have the solution.

Reputation among WHOM? Your fan base? But not everybody is part of your fan base, are they, James?

In fact, you probably have more detractors than fans -- and that's what's making you defensive.

First you said you were going to boycott this thread on Ruth Paine -- and now here you are back on it. Hmm.

Well -- your ideas have already taken a whoopin' by my posts from two weeks ago, and you haven't been able to read them, have you?

You sure have no response for them.

You now say you base your claims on Carol Hewett. Well, in just a few more days we're going to put CAROL HEWETT UNDER A MICROSCOPE.

Right here on this thread.

Remember -- y'all started it when you started accusing innocent people of murder. These people are still alive, and their children can read your accusations. Y'all owe lots of apologies.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Oh I doubt anyone will forget, nor doubt your vivid imagination, Paul. Now to more important matters, will you post a cite for the below, please:

Trejo quote on:

"Remember -- y'all started it when you started accusing innocent people of murder. These people are still alive, and their children can read your accusations. Y'all owe lots of apologies."

Trejo quote off

WHO is the alleged innocent party and WHO accused said party of murder? Cite please.

Perhaps it's YOU that owes this entire forum an apology?

Edited November 12, 2015 by David G. Healy

[Paul Trejo]

Oh I doubt anyone will forget, nor doubt your vivid imagination, Paul. Now to more important matters, will you post a cite for the below, please:

Trejo quote on:

"Remember -- y'all started it when you started accusing innocent people of murder. These people are still alive, and their children can read your accusations. Y'all owe lots of apologies."

Trejo quote off

WHO is the alleged innocent party and WHO accused said party of murder? Cite please.

Perhaps it's YOU that owes this entire forum an apology?

Well, David, I gather that you're a long-time fan of James DiEugenio.

Apparently you believe that everybody on the Forum is a big fan of James DiEugenio. This would explain why you believe that I owe "this entire forum" an apology. This is because you presume that when I criticize James DiEugenio, that I criticize everybody here.

Yet that's simply inaccurate. Not everybody on this Forum is a fan of James DiEugenio and his sloppy thinking about Ruth Paine and other matters regarding the JFK assassination.

You ask me, "WHO is the alleged innocent party and WHO accused said party of murder? Cite please."

The alleged innocent party, David, is none other than the theme of this thread, Ruth Paine. James DiEugenio accuses Ruth of participating in a material way in a CIA plot to kill JFK. Nevermind that there's no proof of such a CIA plot, nevertheless, James DiEugenio presumes that there was (on the authority of Jim Garrison) and James DiEugenio further presumes that Ruth Paine was part of that murder.

So, David, to answer your question tersely: Ruth Paine is the alleged innocent party, and James DiEugenio accused her of murder.

Evidence for my claim is found in pages 193-208 within the second edition of James DiEugenio's book, Destiny Betrayed (2012), in the section, The Baron, the Paines, and Dulles. I posted several criticisms (assorted posts from #292 to #322) of these weak arguments some weeks ago on this thread, but for the sake of brevity, I'll summarize the eighteen criticisms here:

1. James DiEugenio says that George DeMohrenschildt was a CIA Agent who “handed over” the Oswalds to the CIA Agent couple, the Paines, during a February 22nd 1963 party at Everett Glover’s apartment. DiEugenio is certain that the Paines had known the DeMohrenschildt’s for a long time, despite Ruth’s 1964 claim that she met them for the first and last time in her life, at that party. (James accused Ruth's 1964 testimony of perjury, based on the fact that she met them again in 1966!)

2. James DiEugenio insists, that Michael Paine had “hidden associations” in the CIA, namely, the elder members of his own family – a grand uncle and a cousin involved in United Fruit, and another cousin who leased land to David Atlee Phillips for Radio Swan. Oh – and Michael’s mother had a childhood friend who later became the mistress of Allen Dulles. This figures huge in James’ theory.

3. James DiEugenio insists that Ruth Paine had “hidden associations” in the CIA, namely, her father, an insurance actuary, also led an organization called AID (Agency for International Development) to stimulate business in Latin America. As the CIA would often hitch a ride with USA international corporations, to seek out international crime, James concludes that AID=CIA. Ruth’s brother in law also worked there. Ruth denied knowing they were in the CIA. Ruth’s elder sister was a psychologist – who secretly worked for the CIA, and Ruth denied knowing that, too. James just accuses Ruth of lying about not knowing.

4. Dallas Sheriff’s Deputy Buddy Walthers claimed that he saw in Ruth Paine’s garage “six or seven metal filing cabinets with names of Castro sympathizers.” The fact that no other witnesses ever saw these, and they were never documented, and never photographed, doesn’t slow down James DiEugenio at all. He’s certain they prove Ruth Paine was a CIA Agent.

5. James DiEugenio accuses Ruth Paine of CIA murder in Nicaragua, because she was part of an Interfaith movement of Catholics, Quakers, Methodists and other churches in 1991 to provide Relief to women and children in the Civil War torn region. (James has an open Forum thread on just this topic.) When further deaths of Relief Workers became a great strain, the leaders of the movement asked Ruth Paine to please return to the USA because her history with Lee Harvey Oswald and the JFK assassination made too many people suspicious and afraid. Ruth understood and complied as soon as she was requested. But James accuses Ruth Paine of CIA murder in Nicaragua, which he also presumes is evidence that Ruth Paine helped the CIA murder JFK.

6. A personal friend of Ruth Paine confided to journalist Steven Jones elements of her conversations with Ruth Paine about Ruth's strained relationship with her daughter, who was into Wicca at that time. One of the statements Ruth’s daughter said was that her mother could never be free until she confronted the “evil” within her. No more detail was given, but James DiEugenio presumes that this referred to Ruth’s role in the CIA conspiracy to murder JFK.

7. Marina Oswald told the FBI in early December 1963 that LHO confessed to her on the night of 10 April 1963 that he had tried to kill General Walker at his Dallas home. According to James DiEugenio, LHO never shot at Walker, but Ruth Paine and the CIA forged evidence to make it appear so, and somehow made Marina Oswald perjure herself, and also made George and Jeanne DeMohrenschildt perjure themselves on this topic.

8. The “Walker Note,” which was verified by handwriting experts to be written by LHO, and sworn by Marina Oswald to have been left in her possession by LHO on 10 April 1963, is a set of instructions, in Russian language, telling Marina what to do in case he got arrested on that night. According to James DiEugenio, Ruth Paine forged the "Walker Note" to frame LHO for the Walker shooting.

9. James DiEugenio even recognizes the mismatch between the Walker shooting and the JFK shooting – Walker was missed; JFK was hit – Walker was a fascist, JFK was a liberal. Despite the fuzzy connection, James is comfortable blaming Ruth Paine for framing LHO for the Walker shooting so that she could also frame LHO for the JFK assassination.

10. James DiEugenio also insinuates that of the four cameras the DPD found in Ruth Paine’s house: the Cuera, the Stereo Realist, the Imperial Reflex and the miniature Minox spy camera, that the latter two really belonged to Ruth Paine, because she was the spy and the Walker photos were taken with the Imperial Reflex. That's the extent of his logic.

11. James DiEugenio denies that LHO went to Mexico City, but insists that CIA Agent Ruth Paine framed LHO as having been there by using Mexican souvenirs which were all CIA props. James’ proof is that LHO denied it, and at first Marina just denied everything to the FBI. (James prefers to believe Marina’s blanket denials to the FBI and Secret Service when she was first put under house-arrest, and wasn’t under oath – over the times when she was comfortably in her own home and was under oath.) James also omits the Lopez Report (a formerly classified CIA report that became a FOIA release in 2003) which confirms that LHO was indeed in Mexico City.

12. James DiEugenio accuses Ruth Paine or the CIA of inventing the Undelivered, Undeliverable package that was officially reported in the Irving Post Office nine days after the JFK assassination, addressed to Lee Oswald at a bogus address, which contained nothing but a paper bag. In James’ imagination, the CIA hoped that LHO would put his fingerprints on the paper bag, so they could link this paper bag with the one later found at the TSBD 6th floor. James has no explanation for the fizzling failure of this imaginary plot.

13. James DiEugenio strains to link the Undelivered, Undeliverable package (which has no date or postage on it) onto a Postage Due notice of November 20th 1963 found at Ruth Paine's house. Although the Post Office says it was fulfilled with a ‘magazine delivery,’ James insists it couldn’t have been fulfilled, because it *must have been* for the Undelivered, Undeliverable package. After the JFK assassination, claims James, the CIA or FBI put a bogus address sticker over Ruth Paine’s address to conceal this imaginary CIA plot. Sheesh.

14. James DiEugenio seizes upon a double “Postal Form” found in Ruth Paine's house, with the name and address of both George Bouhe, leader of the White Russian Community, and Lee Harvey Oswald. That *must have been* a CIA plot – somehow. Actually, since LHO was also receiving mail at Ruth Paine's house, and George Bouhe was well-known to both Marina and Lee Oswald, there is no real mystery. But James believes the White Russian Community and the Russian Orthodox Church were CIA Agents.

15. James DiEugenio harps on Ruth’s marking in her calendar on the day after the JFK assassination that LHO bought a rifle back in March. Ruth explained it as a result of the pressure of this news hitting everybody from all sides on 11/23/1963, when she made the entry. James finds her explanation, “bewildering.”

16. James DiEugenio then claims that Ruth Paine couldn’t have wanted to improve her Russian conversational skills by having Marina Oswald live with her, because Ruth was already fluent enough, in James DiEugenio’s opinion. She could teach small boys Russian grammar – so what more could she possibly want?

17. James DiEugenio is "surprised" that Ruth Paine could be offended by the way LHO treated her from jail –- phoning her, cool and calm, and bossing her like a personal secretary to call attorney Abt for him – and keep calling until she got him. I think most people would be offended. I know I would have.

18. James DiEugenio expresses outrage at a report that Michael Paine told the Houston Post on November 23 that Oswald may have been involved in the Walker shooting. But the only source James cites for this is PROBE magazine – his pal’s journal. (Somebody told the Houston Post, but nobody knows who. Robert Allen Surrey is a better guess, IMHO; or Walker himself as he told the Deutsche Nationalzeitung less than 18 hours after JFK was killed.)

Anyway, there it is. Based on this “careful research” James DiEugenio claims that “the Paines should be on the short list to be sworn before a grand jury.” (DB2, p. 208) It’s “open season” on the Paines, announced James DiEugenio. The 18 points above are examples of his marksmanship.

Regards,

Paul Trejo