Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

I believe Ruth Paine could have helped undermine the W.C.'s case against Oswald. But at certain cost to herself.

A good argument has been made, perhaps by m Gil Jesus, I'm not sure, that Ruth took the New Orleans pictures of June Oswald that were taken with the Imperial Reflex. If this is true, it goes to who had custody of the camera, a critical matter.

Ruth Paine had no moral or other obligation to defend Oswald before the W.C. It appears she didn't anything much to cast him in good light. That's odd to me given that Oswald apparently treated her and her house with respect. It's also odd given they spent time together in her car. Ruth and Oswald may not have been fast friends, but she got to know him as a person, and he treated her decently.

Maybe Ruth Paine had something to hide. Maybe she did odd jobs now and then for the CIA. Maybe the CIA wished to cover-up facts bearing on the JFK assassination, and Ruth Paine served the agency in this role. Maybe as William Manchester has maintained Ruth Paine was a lesbian. Ruth Paaine would have wanted to hide all these facts, regardless of whether they were determinative of who killed JFK.

I discount her family's connections. In my far extended family, going back almost 100 years, there is one member who fought and died for the Austro-Hungarian Empire in WWI. Another who supported Hitler. A third who had communist leanings during the hey-day of Joe McCaarthy. Family connections can mean something, but lots of times they mean zilch.

Back to Ruth Paine. She could clear the air. The fact she's chosen not to do so speaks to her character. She could lay out the facts, today, late in her life with no fear of repercussions. That she does not do so speaks to who she is. A strong-willed person who cares not for her fellow citizens. Her daughter apparently has said as much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's amazing to me how people try to look down on Ruth Paine.

[...]

It boggles my mind why anybody would want to impute Evil Intentions to this Christian heart.

Because many (or most) conspiracy theorists prefer fantasy over facts and the truth.

No CTer has ever come within a thousand miles of proving that Ruth Hyde Paine did anything wrong at all. And no CTer has ever proved (and never will, because the idea is incredibly stupid) that Mrs. Paine served as Lee Oswald's "handler" in late 1963 -- which is hilarious in the first place -- what did RUTH HERSELF do to advance the plot along? She certainly did NOT "plant" Oswald in the Depository. That fact has been proven beyond all doubt.

CTers see sinister "CIA connections" all over the place. But none of them ever go beyond the conjecture stage--and they never will, because Ruth Paine wasn't with the CIA.

The CTer motto is in full bloom when it comes to Ruth Paine --- ACCUSE NOW; PROVE NEVER.

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/04/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-87.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

JIM DiEUGENIO SAID:

I am really proud of the section on the Paines in my book.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

That figures. Defamation of character is always something to be proud of, isn't it Jimbo?

None of [the] crap DiEugenio [has ever written] comes even close to showing Ruth Paine (or Michael Paine) had anything to do with a conspiracy to murder John Kennedy and/or frame Lee Oswald for that murder.

DiEugenio's pathetic attempts to trash Mrs. Paine are sickening.

I only wish I could persuade Ruth to start a slander lawsuit. She'd win, hands down. Does anybody have Ruth's phone number? Maybe I'll give her a call.

dvp-video-audio-archive.blogspot.com/2012/03/ruth-paine.html

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul,

...The Baron later confessed that he met with Oswald at the behest of the CIA. But further, Ruth then lied about how many times she met with George. (Destiny Betrayed, pgs. 194-95)...

First, I want to say how pleased I am to be challenged by such a well-known JFK researcher as James DiEugenio, whose work I have generally valued over the years -- with few exceptions.

Yet in my current CT I flatly reject Jim Garrison's CIA-did-it theory. Thus, I must also respond to all CIA-did-it advocates. Among these, few are more respected than James DiEugenio.

I have already stated that George De Mohrenschildt babysat LHO at the request of the CIA. James DiEugenio wishes to add, however, that "Ruth then lied about how many times she met with George." He offers his famous book, Destiny Betrayed (1992) as evidence, in pages 194-195.

I now have this book in my hands, so let's take a look at those pages. Oops, those pages are both about Irvin Dymond and Charles Spiesel. Not a word about Ruth Paine. Hmm. Maybe I have a different edition.

So, I'll look in the Index. There is an entry, "Paine's Role" on pages 58-59. Maybe that's it. I'll start here:

------------ BEGIN EXCERPT FROM "DESTINY BETRAYED" pp. 58-59 ------------------

As Ed Epstein has noted, one of the inscrutable DeMohrenschildt's aims seems to have been separating Oswald from his wife. He accomplished this by April of 1963 and then left the scene, never to see Oswald again. The woman whom Marina Oswald moved in with at this time was Ruth Paine. Mrs. Paine had been introduced to Marina by DeMohrenschildt in February of 1963. Ruth was separated from her husband at the time (but would reconcile with him after the assassination).

The reason Ruth Paine gave for wanting to have Marina and her child move in with her was that she wanted to learn Russian, even though she already knew the language well enough to teach it. Mrs. Paine, who had just separated from her husband when she met Marina, took the initiative in their relationship. After obtaining Marina's address, she wrote her asking to visit, and Marina invited her over...

------------ END EXCERPT FROM "DESTINY BETRAYED" pp. 58-59 ------------------

Well, much of that is historically factual except the reference to George DeMohrenschildt, and except for Ruth Paine's mastery of the Russian language. (Ruth could teach tiny children, perhaps, but that's not what's implied there.) As Ruth Paine herself tells the history, she never saw George DeMohrenschildt at any time before 22 February 1963, when she met him for the first and last time at Everett Glover's party.

She knew nobody in the Dallas Russian Community (except a language teacher) and none of the many Russian friends of George DeMohrenschildt in Dallas knew Ruth Paine.

It was Everett Glover, actually, who invited Ruth and Michael to his house for a special party -- to meet the man who had defected to the USSR and then came back to the USA. Everett knew Michael and Ruth from a Madrigal Singing Club. Lots of people came. Michael Paine, however, got a bad cold, so didn't go. Ruth went stag. When she arrived, she greeted Everett and his two room-mates (one of whom was the young Volkmar Schmidt, a German oil engineer and a good friend of George De Mohrenschildt) and other friends of Everett.

George and Jeanne DeMohrenschildt arrived later, bringing Lee, Marina and Junie Oswald with them. It was about 8pm. Everybody at the party spoke only English, except Marina, George, Jeanne and Ruth, who also spoke Russian. Marina spoke only Russian. Ruth's Russian was beginner Russian (at the 8-year old level, she said).

Lee was the life of the party, as everybody surrounded him to ask him questions about the USSR, and how he got inside, and how he got outside again. Lee was enjoying the limelight.

June had to be put to bed, and Marina spent most of that party in the bedroom with Junie. Ruth, also the mother of babies, accompanied Ruth, and practiced her Russian cordialities.

Ruth was impressed by Marina -- Ruth thought Marina was an intelligent, well-spoken, right-thinking person who loved children, and with whom she could carry on a conversation at her level. Ruth was aware that her Russian was clumsy when speaking with Marina, and Marina would kindly and gently correct Ruth's Russian errors. Ruth liked Marina.

Ruth asked for Marina's phone number. "We don't have a phone," admitted Marina. So Marina gave Ruth her mailing address. That's how their relationship began.

Later, in the kitchen, Marina spoke with George and Jeanne De Mohrenschildt in fluent Russian. They spoke circles around Ruth, who could barely keep up with a "yes, or a "no" or an "I don't know" here and there. Then the party was over.

According to Ruth Paine, she never saw George and Jeanne De Mohrenschildt again in her life.

In those pages by James DiEugenio, there is an innuendo that Ruth Paine got Lee Harvey Oswald the job at the TSBD in coordination with the CIA. But no facts are offered to support that claim.

So, there is nothing in those pages that prove that Ruth Paine lied to Garrison about how many times she saw George. So, let me look at the next entry, pages 272-273:

------------ BEGIN EXCERPT FROM "DESTINY BETRAYED" pp. 272-273 ------------------

Guy Banister was not just a private detective. David Ferrie was not just a pilot and moonlighting investigator. Clay Shaw was not just the distinguished former director of the Trade Mart...George DeMohrenschildt was not just a petrochemical engineer. The Paines were more than just an estranged couple who spoke Russian and worked in the aerospace business...

Garrison realized that, with all these people, background was more important than foreground...It seems impossible not to conclude that Oswald was being set up by DeMohrenschildt, passed on to the Shaw-Ferrie-Banister network, and finally placed with the Paines, who got him his job at the depository.

------------ END EXCERPT FROM "DESTINY BETRAYED" pp. 272-273 ------------------

Well, that's very weak, isn't it? No proof at all, just innuendo and jumping to conclusions. But still no indication of Ruth Paine lying to Jim Garrison. So, let's look at the next entry for the Paine's in James DiEugenio's Index, now in the Endnotes, page 343:

------------ BEGIN EXCERPT FROM "DESTINY BETRAYED" page 343 ------------------

The Paines, like most of the "Marxist" Oswald's friends, were members of Dallas' rabidly anticommunist White Russian Community. The faction had ties to both the Tolstoy Foundation and the Russian Orthodox Church, which were both backed by the CIA.

------------ END EXCERPT FROM "DESTINY BETRAYED" page 343 ------------------

Hmm. All innuendo and rumor, with no supporting facts. Actually, Ruth Paine didn't know any of the White Russian Community in Dallas. Why should she -- she was a Quaker! So, this is all just rank speculation, spun together to support Jim Garrison.

Well, I'm now in the Endnotes, and I still don't see the material that James DiEugenio is talking about. Please, somebody, throw me another clue.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

Ruth Paine had no moral or other obligation to defend Oswald before the W.C. It appears she didn't anything much to cast him in good light. That's odd to me given that Oswald apparently treated her and her house with respect. It's also odd given they spent time together in her car. Ruth and Oswald may not have been fast friends, but she got to know him as a person, and he treated her decently...

Well, Jon, when one reads all the WC testimony given by Ruth Paine, one sees a very different side of her than you painted there.

Ruth Paine said many times that she didn't think LHO killed JFK. It was not her first thought. She never thought he was violent. She never saw LHO behave violently toward Marina or anybody. She liked the way that Lee liked children, and children liked Lee.

Ruth Paine said many times that she disapproved of Lee's treatment of Marina during the times when Marina cried -- but that wasn't due to violence, but because Lee threatened to send her back to the USSR without him. Lee even made her write to the Soviet Embassy about this. This made Marina cry to Ruth.

This made Ruth angry -- but at these times she thought of LHO as a deadbeat -- a stingy miser who refused to take care of his own family -- and not as a violent person. So even at the worst, Ruth never feared that LHO was a violent person.

She told all this to the Warren Commission.

Ruth Paine then said that after her summer vacation, when LHO was going "off to Houston to find work" as he claimed, that LHO's behavior changed dramatically. He was kinder, more helpful, and more polite around the house. She changed her mind about LHO at that time, and her opinion improved even more in October when Lee came to visit Marina on the weekends at Ruth's home. Lee was helpful and kind.

It was astounding to Ruth to learn that LHO had kept a rifle in her garage. It was astounding to Ruth to learn that Marina knew about this rifle, but kept it a secret from Ruth. Ruth felt betrayed.

...

Maybe Ruth Paine had something to hide. Maybe she did odd jobs now and then for the CIA. Maybe the CIA wished to cover-up facts bearing on the JFK assassination, and Ruth Paine served the agency in this role. Maybe as William Manchester has maintained Ruth Paine was a lesbian. Ruth Paine would have wanted to hide all these facts, regardless of whether they were determinative of who killed JFK.

We find no evidence of any kind -- not even a stitch -- that Ruth was a CIA operative. Jim Garrison was not very generous to Ruth Paine -- and he even subpoenaed her and grilled her for hours -- but Garrison never brought charges against Ruth. At the end he merely begged for her help in finding more clues.

Also, William Manchester didn't "maintain" that Ruth was a lesbian, but only suggested it in the eyes of many readers, because she used Christian words like "love" and "embrace" and "kiss" in her letters to Marina -- but all within a Christian context. Of course, ordinary and coarse people will read whatever they want into Christian intentions.

Back to Ruth Paine. She could clear the air. The fact she's chosen not to do so speaks to her character. She could lay out the facts, today, late in her life with no fear of repercussions. That she does not do so speaks to who she is. A strong-willed person who cares not for her fellow citizens. Her daughter apparently has said as much.

Well, I can say with complete confidence that Ruth Paine has already cleared the air. She told the full and complete truth to the Warren Commission, and to everybody else who ever contacted her with questions. Her story has never changed one tiny bit in 52 years.

What speaks to her character is that she has always told the truth, and she has always been open to the News Media and to investigators without exception. What she doesn't understand is why people will approach her with the accusation that's she's a L-I-A-R -- without any evidence.

Earlier this year Ruth Paine met a member of another JFK Forum, and gave him a copy of the WALKER LETTER which the CIA/Secret Service accused Ruth Paine of forging. She wanted to know what this interviewer thought of the letter. That would tell her everything she wanted to know about this person -- was he going to accuse her of perjury and conspiracy to kill JFK? If so, why should she subject herself to such abuse? Ruth Paine has dignity.

Also, Jon, I think you've misinterpreted the words of Ruth's daughter. Their relationship isn't nearly as bad as you portray it.

Ruth Paine is a dear, sweet, Christian woman, who takes a lot of heat for NOTHING. Jim Garrison himself backed off from her. That said, if there is real, solid evidence against her, I am very OPEN and EAGER to see it.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...None of [the] crap DiEugenio [has ever written] comes even close to showing Ruth Paine (or Michael Paine) had anything to do with a conspiracy to murder John Kennedy and/or frame Lee Oswald for that murder.

DiEugenio's pathetic attempts to trash Mrs. Paine are sickening...

David, two things.

First, I truly appreciate your sympathetic approach to Ruth Paine. I agree with you fully on that.

Secondly, however, I want to ask you kindly, with all due respect, to please help me tone down the ad hominem attacks on this thread.

Jim DiEugenio has a following, and so a bar room brawl is a possibility in this thread -- and that only wastes time and space.

So, please help me raise the tone of this thread above ad hominem attacks, David. This will help to highlight when others are using ad hominem

I appreciate your intense energy, David. Now, just elevate it one notch, and it will be more effective, IMHO.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm on ignore here for the most part anyway, Paul. So my participation doesn't matter much.

CTers like DiEugenio, who continually throw slings and arrows at Ruth and Michael Paine without a stitch of evidence to back up their slanderous theories, deserve all the criticism and scorn that can possibly be heaped upon them. (IMO.)

Listen to what Ruth said in 2003 after hearing that Marina thinks Ruth was part of a conspiracy....

JFK Video / Ruth Paine (2003)

"A lot of people will just believe what they're gonna believe.

And there's nothing much I can do about it." -- Ruth Paine; 2003

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In December of 1963, in one of the first things he did while on the WC, Allen Dulles got one of his pals in the Eastern Establishment, Frederick Osborne, to sign a declaration professing to the Paines' "religiosity, good character, and innocence in having anything to do with the assassination of President Kennedy." (Destiny Betrayed, Second Edition, p. 195)

Now, any objective detective worth his salt would have to ask the obvious question: No one was accusing them of begin involved in the assassination at that time. So why would Dulles have to do that?

As Vincent Bugliosi would say--on any other case rather than this one--this betrays "consciousness of guilt".

Do you know who the only Commissioner who had any suspicions at all about this relationship was? Yep, you guessed it. The one guy who conducted his own inquiry, Richard Russell.

How about that whopper of a lie Ruth told Jim Garrison, namely that she did not recall who her sister worked for.

LOL, ROTFLMAO

Well, Greg Parker has now put the nail in the coffin for that one. Because later, when it came out that Sylvia Hyde Hoke worked for the CIA--a fact that Ruth had amnesia about, even though she visited her a few months prior to JFK getting killed--Ruth tried to disguise this by saying words to the effect, Oh, she only designed questionnaire forms.

Yeah Ruthie, for the forerunner to the U 2 program.

BTW, she even tried to disguise where Sylvia lived so that Garrison could not find her!

Now, how aware was Allen Dulles of how dangerous his connections to the Paines (and the Baron) were? While he was on the WC, he had a personal assistant on his staff to warn him when any investigators were getting close to digging up stuff about that subject! (ibid, p. 197) Again, DA's call this consciousness of guilt. And Dulles was fully aware of this, "Dulles joked in private that the [JFK] conspiracy buffs would have had a field day if they had known...he had actually been in Dallas three weeks before the murder, that one of Mary Bancroft's childhood friends had turned out to be a landlady for Marina Oswald...and that he landlady was a well known leftist with distant ties to Alger Hiss." (ibid, p. 198)

But its not just Dulles who was in Dallas at that time. Because Talbot has now shown that, while in Rome, Bill Harvey was also flying to Dallas prior to the assassination! And we also know that Phillips confessed to his brother that he was in Dallas on the day of the assassination. And Hunt somehow cannot recall where he was that day, but Angleton knew he needed an alibi for being in big D.

Now, I guess one can argue that this was all a coincidence. That CIA officers who where stationed elsewhere all had this sudden attraction to be in Dallas at a rather fateful time. (Maybe they were all Cowboys' fans?) Or, that as Talbot demonstrates, Dulles was still holding meetings with some of them, almost two years after JFK had fired him. And that JFK was now going to be in Dallas at that same fateful time. But in my view, I think even Dulles, in one of his personal asides to a pal, would say what Carl Shoffler said to Jim Hougan about being at the Watergate hotel that night, "If I was a jury I'd convict me."

Finally, let me just mention part of the reply to the whole Walker/Oswald/ Paine nexus, one that is usually ignored. As I wrote in the 2012 version of Destiny Betrayed :

"On December 4, five days after she delivered Oswald's 'Walker Note' in Marina's book, Ruth Paine was visited by two Secret Service agents. They were returning the 'Walker Note'. since they though it was from her." (p. 203)

Well, James, I thank you again for the chance to answer your charges against Ruth Paine.

You ask why Allen Dulles asked Fred Osborne to sign a declaration of the moral goodness of the Paines -- claiming that nobody was accusing them of anything.

Yet this was right after the JFK murder -- and tempers were running high all over the USA. People were being blamed left and right. Professor David Wrone says that in his County, people went out with axes to chop down the John Birch Society billboards in their towns. As for the Oswald's, the Secret Service immediately took them into custody for their own protection. Anger was everywhere.

So, I think you're mistaken about the need to protect the Paines.

In no way do I consider that this is any kind of a confession of guilt, or as you put it, James, in the words of Vincent Bugliosi, "consciousness of guilt".

As for Senator Richard Russell, we must remember that he was a Segregationist, so IMHO he didn't want the Real Killers (the Segregationists) of JFK to get the spotlight, so he was delighted to deflect the spotlight onto anybody else, and the Paines were a convenient target.

You say that Ruth Paine should have known that her sister worked for the CIA, but you don't say why -- actually the CIA policy is to hide that fact as far as possible. You might laugh, but I don't find it to be a laughing matter. CIA employment is a delicate subject.

Greg Parker's alleged "proof" turns out (again) to be nothing more than innuendo.

Also, just because Allen Dulles was protective of the Paines -- at any level -- this cannot be confused with a "confession of guilt" as you hope to do. As I said, tempers ran irrationally high in the weeks after the JFK murder.

And it's really a fact -- an undeniable fact -- that JFK conspiracy buffs are trying to make a hay out of the coincidence that Dulles had been in Dallas three weeks before the JFK murder, and that one of Mary Bancroft's childhood friends was allegedly Ruth Paine, who was allegedly "a well known leftist with distant ties to Alger Hiss."

Allen Dulles laughed about that, and so do I -- ROTFL. Dulles in Dallas in early November means NOTHING AT ALL. Also, Mary Bancroft was a full generation older than Ruth Paine. Also, "distant ties to Alger Hiss" means utterly nothing. Ruth wasn't a well-known "leftist," she was a Quaker, for God's sake. A "leftist" is a Marxist-Leninist who believes in the violent overthrow of the government. A Quaker is a pacifist. So, it's a JOKE.

Again -- if you can find CIA people in Dallas on the day of the JFK murder, or the day before, then this has historical interest for serious scholars. But to grasp for Dallas vists weeks before -- this is REACHING.

As for David Atlee Phillips confessing to his brother that he was in Dallas on the day of the JFK murder -- I agree that this is very important. Yet it has nothing whatsoever to do with Ruth Paine. No connection is even offered.

Again -- it's one thing to speculate about the CIA involvement in the JFK murder. It's another thing to provide solid proof.

Last year, Bill Simpich threw a paradigm shift into the JFK CT arena with his landmark eBook, "STATE SECRET: WIRE-TAPPING IN MEXICO CITY" (2014). In this book, he shows that the CIA high-command scattered to find a Mole inside the CIA, because they had *no clue* who was impersonating Lee Harvey Oswald in Mexico City on October 1st, 1963.

Bill Simpich has arguably exonerated the CIA in the JFK plot with his "Simpich Mole Hunt." But have the Jim Garrison fans caught up with Bill Simpich yet? I don't think so.

As for the WALKER NOTE, and the Secret Service accusation to Ruth Paine that she must have forged it -- this wasn't the first time the Secret Service was dead wrong.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm on ignore here for the most part anyway, Paul. So my participation doesn't matter much.

CTers like DiEugenio, who continually throw slings and arrows at Ruth and Michael Paine without a stitch of evidence to back up their slanderous theories, deserve all the criticism and scorn that can possibly be heaped upon them. (IMO.)

Listen to what Ruth said in 2003 after hearing that Marina thinks Ruth was part of a conspiracy....

JFK Video / Ruth Paine (2003)

"A lot of people will just believe what they're gonna believe.

And there's nothing much I can do about it." -- Ruth Paine; 2003

David, so far I'm finding you to be a valuable resource. You don't jump to conclusions, and you don't blindly follow Jim Garrison.

Jim Garrison made some great historical contributions, IMHO, like linking LHO with Guy Banister at 544 Camp Street. That's historical. But aside from that Jim Garrison led the field in jumping to conclusions.

As for Ruth Paine, I hope to convince her, through threads like this one, that there really was a JFK conspiracy -- namely -- that General Walker organized the Dallas Radical Right to "greet" JFK in Dallas as they had "greeted" Adlai Stevenson only one month previous.

I'm confident that Ruth Paine was concerned about her Christian Charity, and about Marina Oswald and her babies, and about taking care of her own babies -- and this took up all of her time.

When it comes to the local politics of Dallas Texas, with a focus on the right-wing extremism of General Walker -- I believe that Ruth Paine was blissfully ignorant of it -- although I believe that Michael Paine knew *far* more than he told the Warren Commission, or Ruth Paine, or anybody.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for Ruth Paine, I hope to convince her, through threads like this one, that there really was a JFK conspiracy -- namely -- that General Walker organized the Dallas Radical Right to "greet" JFK in Dallas as they had "greeted" Adlai Stevenson only one month previous.

But how does such a pre-arranged "Radical Right greeting", even if it were true, segue into pro-Castro leftist Lee Harvey Oswald killing President Kennedy from the TSBD on Nov. 22?

Do you think General Walker himself arranged for Lee Oswald to get hired at the Depository in October? Which would also have to mean that Walker was involved in a miraculous "Seeing Into The Future" conspiracy with Linnie Mae Randle, since it was Randle, not Ruth Paine, who was really the person most responsible for providing anyone on Fifth Street with any information about a possible job opening at the TSBD.

Or do you think Walker conceived of a plot against JFK after October 15?

Either way, it sounds like a lot of speculation, innuendo, and rumor to me regarding any Walker participation, Paul. The very things you criticize Jim DiEugenio of engaging in.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for Ruth Paine, I hope to convince her, through threads like this one, that there really was a JFK conspiracy -- namely -- that General Walker organized the Dallas Radical Right to "greet" JFK in Dallas as they had "greeted" Adlai Stevenson only one month previous.

But how does such a pre-arranged "Radical Right greeting", even if it were true, segue into pro-Castro leftist Lee Harvey Oswald killing President Kennedy from the TSBD on Nov. 22?

Do you think General Walker himself arranged for Lee Oswald to get hired at the Depository in October? Which would also have to mean that Walker was involved in a miraculous "Seeing Into The Future" conspiracy with Linnie Mae Randle, since it was Randle, not Ruth Paine, who was really the person most responsible for providing anyone on Fifth Street with any information about a possible job opening at the TSBD.

Or do you think Walker conceived of a plot against JFK after October 15?

Either way, it sounds like a lot of speculation, innuendo, and rumor to me regarding any Walker participation, Paul. The very things you criticize Jim DiEugenio of engaging in.

Well David, it's a good question. Let's see how I might approach that.

If I could speak to Ruth Paine today, I'd tell her that LHO was never a pro-Castro leftist. By the way, Ruth Paine never heard LHO mention Cuba or Castro even one time.

But she did hear LHO talk a lot about Marxism. Yet LHO continually insisted he wasn't a Communist. That's important. Also, LHO never joined the Communist Party, the Socialist Worker's Party, or the FPCC. Yet he said he was a Marxist.

Jim Garrison -- for all his faults -- correctly showed the LHO was never a leader of the FPCC in New Orleans (as the Media continually report about him to this very day). Rather, LHO was a leader of a Fake FPCC in New Orleans, led by ultra-right-wing fanatic, Guy Banister. I congratulate Jim Garrison for this discovery.

I'd point out that Alfred Rosenberg and Joseph Goebbels, the famous Nazis,once followed Marx and Socialism -- so, one could be a Marxist and be ANYTHING -- not necessarily a Communist or even a Leftist.

I think that the TSBD placement of the Patsy was entirely accidental. I know that sounds novel, but remember that Gerry Patrick Hemming's rifle was also picked up by the Dallas Police on November 22nd. There were many other Patsies already set-up to take the fall -- unbeknownst to them. If Oswald had been out of town, there would have been others.

Yet I do believe that General Walker tracked LHO ever since April 1963. This is because Walker knew LHO was his would-be assassin on 10 April 1963, as he told Senator Frank Church in 1975:

http://www.pet880.com/images/19750623_EAW_to_Frank_Church.pdf

But if the Randle's were involved with General Walker, it would have been her husband, I think -- and we should ask which one was a member of the Dallas group, "Friends of Walker." There were several women in that group, but Linnie Mae doesn't fit the profile, IMHO.

The resigned General Edwin Walker had control of several County and City workers, and many Dallas Police officers, through his leadership role in the Dallas Minutemen, the Dallas Citizen's Council, the NIC, the local John Birch Society, and the "Friends of Walker." Walker was a force to be reckoned with in Dallas -- and people who don't know that simply don't know Dallas history.

I think that General Walker conceived of a plot against JFK as early as April 1963 -- shortly after LHO's shooting at him. Walker thought that RFK had sent LHO to kill him. We know this from Walker's personal papers -- including the article in the German newspaper on 11/29/1963.

http://www.pet880.com/images/19631129_Deutsche_NZ.jpg

From April forward, General Walker plotted to make LHO his Patsy.

General Walker could have killed JFK in Miami, in DC or in Chicago if he saw a clear path -- but Dallas was his home town -- where the path was the clearest. As soon as the annoucement was made of a JFK visit, preparations just fell into place with military precision.

I'm not operating on speculation and innuendo, David -- but on Walker's personal papers, as well as on a new book that came out last month by Dr. Jeffrey Caufield, entitled, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy (2015). Actually, I've been building my theory for about ten years now, and I've enjoyed help from Dr. Caufield for the past three years.

A segment of the Dallas Police killed JFK, and they were led by General Walker. That's my theory. J. Edgar Hoover feared a left-wing backlash, and riots in the streets during the Cold War, so he invented the "Lone Nut" theory to blame one person (it did not matter who) so that the matter would not turn into street riots between the Right and Left, risking USSR interference and WW3.

LBJ, Earl Warren and Allen Dulles all agreed with J. Edgar Hoover's strategy for National Security. That's why we were told we had to wait 75 years for the Full Truth of the JFK murder. That's why there are still Top Secret documents about the JFK murder still being held by the ARRB to this very day.

The Lone Nut theory is plainly wrong. To that degree I must agree with James DiEugenio. But the CIA isn't the guilty party. Nor is Ruth Paine.

This is the message I would like to get through to Ruth Paine today.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul,

In you haste to try and show I don't know what I am talking about, you went ahead and quoted the wrong edition of my book in post 18.

In almost every quote from DB, I have differentiated between the two editions by saying its a reissue, or the second edition, or the 2012 edition of Destiny Betrayed.

Somehow you missed all of that. Which, from a scholar of Hegel, I find hard to buy into.

Since you have become so friendly with DVP, why don't you keep your discussion with him by reading his book. There is only one edition of that out there. So you can't say you confused it with any other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I only wish I could persuade Ruth to start a slander lawsuit. She'd win, hands down. Does anybody have Ruth's phone number? Maybe I'll give her a call.

Maybe the fact that she hasn't should tell you something

Edited by Martin Blank

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A segment of the Dallas Police killed JFK, and they were led by General Walker.

Boy, that Edwin A. Walker was sure one lucky SOB, wasn't he? He was plotting to set up Oswald as a patsy back in April '63 (per Mr. Trejo), and LHO just happens to get the TSBD job on Oct. 15 (with the help of someone who cannot possibly be looked upon as a "co-conspirator", Mrs. Linnie Mae Randle of Irving).

And then, on top of all that, LHO decides he's going to act like a very guilty person on 11/22/63 shortly after 12:30.

You've got to admit, Paul, good fortune like that doesn't come along every day of the week. General Walker must have had TWO crystal balls working for him in the summer and fall of 1963. Maybe three.

Tell me, Paul, what makes YOUR theory re: Walker any more FACTUAL and any LESS SPECULATIVE than any OTHER theory offered up by any other conspiracy theorist?

Have you got any hard evidence---as opposed to just outright speculation and guesswork? I certainly didn't see anything besides speculation and conjecture in your Post #25 above.

And General Walker's papers hardly qualify as proof he had JFK killed.

Thank you.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul,

In you haste to try and show I don't know what I am talking about, you went ahead and quoted the wrong edition of my book in post 18.

In almost every quote from DB, I have differentiated between the two editions by saying its a reissue, or the second edition, or the 2012 edition of Destiny Betrayed.

Somehow you missed all of that. Which, from a scholar of Hegel, I find hard to buy into.

Since you have become so friendly with DVP, why don't you keep your discussion with him by reading his book. There is only one edition of that out there. So you can't say you confused it with any other.

James, I am currently in the process of obtaining the second edition of DESTINY BETRAYED (2002). I appreciate the opportunity to discuss your work with you in a public Forum such as this. It's just a matter of time.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Boy, that Edwin A. Walker was sure one lucky SOB, wasn't he? He was plotting to set up Oswald as a patsy back in April '63 (per Mr. Trejo), and LHO just happens to get the TSBD job on Oct. 15 (with the help of someone who cannot possibly be looked upon as a "co-conspirator", Mrs. Linnie Mae Randle of Irving).

And then, on top of all that, LHO decides he's going to act like a very guilty person on 11/22/63 shortly after 12:30.

You've got to admit, Paul, good fortune like that doesn't come along every day of the week. General Walker must have had TWO crystal balls working for him in the summer and fall of 1963. Maybe three.

Tell me, Paul, what makes YOUR theory re: Walker any more FACTUAL and any LESS SPECULATIVE than any OTHER theory offered up by any other conspiracy theorist?

Have you got any hard evidence---as opposed to just outright speculation and guesswork? I certainly didn't see anything besides speculation and conjecture in your Post #25 above.

And General Walker's papers hardly qualify as proof he had JFK killed.

Thank you.

David, my purpose on this thread is to argue that Ruth Paine didn't have anything to do with the JFK murder. That's my main purpose here. There are other threads in which the case against General Walker is being made (e.g. "New Book" by William O'Neil).

The trouble with defending Ruth Paine is, as you've agreed, that the CIA-did-it CTers are closed-minded about their opinion, and they jump to conclusions promptly.

As for the Walker-did-it scenario, there is plenty of evidence, IMHO, although no smoking gun -- yet. So, I agree with you on that point.

Also, the sheer exhaustion of 50 years of failed CIA-did-it theories is enough to make anybody Skeptical of any CT. So, I sympathize with your frustration -- I really do.

Yet here are the facts: The 1992 JFK Records Act released "The Lopez Report" in 2003, which confirms Jim Garrison's theory of LHO working with Guy Banister in New Orleans to assemble a resume specifically to take to the Cuban Consulate in Mexico City to obtain *immediate* passage to Cuba -- as FPCC Directors regularly obtained.

Then, in 2009, Douglas Horne released his careful work on the ARRB showing that David Lifton's suspicions in this landmark book, "Best Evidence" (1986) were entirely correct. The Bethesda autopsy was indeed deliberately falsified, and a JFK Cover-up can be proven scientifically. The actual medical evidence (the Best Evidence) proves that there were multiple shooters at Dealey Plaza.

So -- we know that there were multiple shooters, and we know that LHO was working for the Radical Right. We know this with scientific rigor.

Does it really take a genius to connect the dots at this point?

We need only ask -- who was the leader of the Radical Right wing in Dallas in 1963? It was General Walker -- for those who know US History. Walker ran for Texas Governor in 1962 on a Segregationist ticket, financed by H.L. Hunt, and he lost soundly in May 1962. Then, Walker fomented a race riot at Ole Miss in September 1962, opposing James Meredith's registration there. (Hundreds were wounded and two were killed at that riot on 30 September 1962.)

In response, JFK and RFK had Walker taken into custody by an insane asylum in Missouri for a 90-day evaluation. But in three days the ACLU and psychiatrist Thomas Szasz got Walker released. When Walker flew back to Dallas, and landed at Love Field, Walker was greeted by his Dallas supporters who were still backing Walker for President in 1966. Here's the DMN photograph:

http://photographyblog.dallasnews.com/2012/10/today-in-dallas-photo-history-1962-60s-right-wing-figure-gen-edwin-walker-at-love-field.html/

Notice what appears to be tear-gas stains on his left sleeve. Notice the Confederate Flag above his head. Also, notice the "Walker for President" placards. Walker was BELOVED in Dallas.

In January, 1963, a Mississippi Grand Jury acquitted General Walker of all charges related to the Ole Miss riots. Evidently, the JFK action of sending Walker to an insane asylum won Walker lots of sympathy.

Next, Walker and Segregationist Reverend Billy James Hargis made a coast-to-coast "Midnight Ride" tour of the South, from Miami to Los Angeles, preaching that JFK was a Communist.

When they returned to Dallas in April, that very next night, LHO tried to kill Walker -- goaded on by George De Mohrenschildt (I'm a Patsy! I'm a Patsy!, 1978) and Volkmar Schmdit (see FRONTLINE, Who was Lee Harvey Oswald, PBS video: [,]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5eGdgVkHeE],and skip to 37:55)

Also, I suspect that Michael Paine, who knew Volkmar Schmidt, was also part of the cabal to convince LHO to kill Edwin Walker. The argument that Volkmar used on LHO was that Walker was "like Hitler."

IMHO, the assassination attempt on General Walker was the *prime motive* for Walker to murder JFK. As he said multiple times in his personal papers, he believed that JFK and RFK sent LHO to kill him.

Walker was at one time a great US General. He was turned, however, by the John Birch Society and their rigid dogma that all US Presidents since FDR had been Communists -- especially JFK.

In their twisted world, killing JFK was good for the USA.

I'm convinced that nobody else in Dallas knew Dallas well enough -- nobody else was motivated enough -- nobody else was trained enough in US military science -- and nobody else was as respected enough by the Dallas Police -- to plan and execute the JFK murder in Dallas.

Even Larry Hancock, who has tried to involve at least Rogue CIA Agents in the JFK murder, had to admit that somebody inside Dallas was absolutely mandatory -- somebody who was well-connected and knew Dallas like the back of his hand.

So -- on the basis of US History and the material facts -- I want to continue to see how far I can build a case against General Walker in the murder of JFK.

It hasn't been done in the past 50 years -- it's a brand new CT. But with scholars like Jeff Caufield on my side, I am more motivated than ever to slug this out.

The CIA-did-it theories have to stretch and jump to reach any conclusion. The Mafia-did-it theories can only survive by making J. Edgar Hoover into a hoodlum. The LBJ-did-it theories are the most biased and drooling of all. (Sadly, Mark North, who was relatively level headed in the 1990's, came out in 2011 with his latest CT, "Betrayal in Dallas," which combines the Mafia-Hoover-LBJ in his science-fiction world.)

As for Ruth Paine, if she knows more than she told the WC, it has to be about Michael Paine's interaction with Volkmar Schmidt and the plot against General Walker.

If she truly knows nothing further about the Walker plot, then I must conclude that she was kept in the dark, just as Marina Oswald was kept in the dark -- as this was the most common treatment of women in 1963, even among Left-wing activists.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×