Jump to content
The Education Forum
  • Announcements

    • Evan Burton

      OPEN REGISTRATION BY EMAIL ONLY !!! PLEASE CLICK ON THIS TITLE FOR INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR REGISTRATION!:   06/03/2017

      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send an email to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team

Recommended Posts

Ruth Paine and Marina Oswald knew as much about Oswald as anyone. They could have been "character witnesses" for him. Neither was.

Marina had incentives not to try to protect her dead husband's reputation. He was dead; there was no undoing that. She was offered a "clean bill if health" and the ability to stay in the U.S. if she didn't try to protect his reputation. That was important to Marina for her and her children's sake.

Ruth, who was the W.C.'s #2 witness, who spoke endlessly -- so much so that it drove J. Edgar Hoover to the brink -- did nothing to salvage Oswald's reputation. Her incentives were different from Marina's. I believe her incentives were planted by the CIA.

A good, Christian woman? I ask, was her conversion to Quakerism convenient to the CIA? Her Quakerism certainly was not on display in Nicaragua.

The Walker letter? As I've written here, the Walker letter (note) was written by someone who had only a slight grasp of Russian. A grasp less than that of a first-semester student of Russian at a good American university. For Ruth to tout the letter is for her to test whether the individual to whom she touts the letter perceives its structural flaws, flaws that wouldn't be be made by someone with Oswald's alleged Russian language ability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Examining the Warren Commission testimony of Ruth Paine....

XX.%2BRuth%2BPaine%2BBlog%2BLogo.png

David, I just spent the past 48 minutes listening to this video you posted about Ruth Paine addressing a book club in Santa Rosa regarding her experiences with Marina and Lee Harvey Oswald from February to November 1963.

My observations are these:

(1) Ruth spent the first half-hour narrating the time she met Marina through the JFK assassination. Then she took questions.

(2) In her half-hour narrative, she repeated the same story she told the Warren Commission -- 100%. She did not change a single aspect of her story -- yet she told it to this group from the top of her head. Her manner was casual and informal -- as if she was speaking to friends. She read nothing.

(3) Ruth Paine is eminently believable. She was naïve and Christian in her actions toward the Oswalds, and for this very reason Lee Harvey Oswald chose to lie to her and take advantage of her.

(4) Ruth doesn't like to talk about it, or think about it, but she was BETRAYED by both Lee Harvey Oswald and also by Marina Oswald -- because they kept a weapon at her home without telling her.

(5) Ruth had opened her house free of charge to Marina because Marina was 8 months pregnant, and she also fed Lee Harvey Oswald free of charge every weekend from October 4th through September 21st.

(6) At no time did Marina or Lee Harvey Oswald offer to pay Ruth Paine a single nickel for anything they got from Ruth. Yet they also withheld from Ruth the important fact that they were storing a weapon in her personal garage.

(7) I think that's what overwhelms Ruth to this very day. She still likes Marina -- but at the same time she and Marina cannot talk to each other for two minutes without the WORST DAY IN THEIR LIFE coming into the conversation, and they both break down and cry. So they both stopped trying to see each other after 1964.

(8) Marina Oswald apologized again and again and again to Ruth Paine on 11/22/1963 and 11/23/1963. Ruth thought Marina was overdoing it -- but I don't.

(9) Ruth Paine is a fine Christian Quaker, and I'm proud of this fine American lady. I'll vouch for her honesty any day of the week.

(10) I also believe that Ruth Paine was lied to by LHO on another front: Ruth Paine never saw LHO talk with anybody else, or telephone anybody else in her life. She took that fact at face value. I believe that was naïve. I believe LHO had plenty of contacts -- but he kept them secret from Marina and from Ruth. That was the ordinary way for a political activist to treat women in 1963.

(11) Ruth Paine only knows what she saw in 1963, and what the Warren Commission was willing to show to the American people. She didn't have all the facts (as no Americans except Hoover, LBJ, Warren and Dulles had all the facts). If she had all the facts, she would promptly change her story to a CT, I feel confident.

(12) I don't blame Ruth for rejecting virtually all CT's, because virtually all CT's are so poorly argued and jump to conclusions in an amateur manner. Also, there are so many now, that it takes an expert to keep track of all of them. Ruth saw what she saw. That's all she knows.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ruth and Michael Paine share far too many coincidences and connections to be dismissed as innocent bystanders. As some researchers have asserted - given their associations with Oswald - they should have been arrested and interrogated after the murder ... but instead they become the most quoted and interviewed of all WC testimonies.

They are suspicious beyond belief ... the innocent Quaker handlers of the alleged assassin. The Paines were most accommodating to the Oswalds before November 22nd; but highly incriminating afterwards. According to Walt Brown, the Paines were the most oft-questioned witnesses to appear before the Commission. With friends like the Paines, who would need enemies?

Ruth being simply a devoted Quaker and charity worker is analogous to believing that Carlos Marcello was just a tomato salesman. Yet we are led to believe that the alleged assassin’s family being taken care of by the generosity of the Good Samaritan Ruth Paine was a coincidental accident of history. Ruth Paine is surrounded by a family of intelligence professionals. Her father (William Avery Hyde) was described before the Warren Commission as an insurance underwriter. He was affiliated with the Agency for International Development and became their regional adviser for all of Latin America.... an agency riddled with CIA overtones. John Hoke, (Ruth’s sister Sylvia's husband) also worked for AID. And her sister Sylvia worked directly for the CIA itself. Michael Paine is another long interesting (similar) story in himself.

The Paines show up at a convenient juncture in the Oswald story... and quickly go away after the fact. They have a convenient separation and living arrangement, with a cover story of learning to speak Russian. The incriminating evidence conveniently springs out of their magical garage, including the Walker note (after the fact). Almost everything that would convict Oswald in the public mind came out of the Paine's garage. Their initial meeting at a social party ... just too many coincidences for the rational mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ruth and Michael Paine share far too many coincidences and connections to be dismissed as innocent bystanders. As some researchers have asserted - given their associations with Oswald - they should have been arrested and interrogated after the murder ... but instead they become the most quoted and interviewed of all WC testimonies.

They are suspicious beyond belief ... the innocent Quaker handlers of the alleged assassin. The Paines were most accommodating to the Oswalds before November 22nd; but highly incriminating afterwards. According to Walt Brown, the Paines were the most oft-questioned witnesses to appear before the Commission. With friends like the Paines, who would need enemies?

Ruth being simply a devoted Quaker and charity worker is analogous to believing that Carlos Marcello was just a tomato salesman. Yet we are led to believe that the alleged assassin’s family being taken care of by the generosity of the Good Samaritan Ruth Paine was a coincidental accident of history.

Ruth Paine is surrounded by a family of intelligence professionals. Her father (William Avery Hyde) was described before the Warren Commission as an insurance underwriter. He was affiliated with the Agency for International Development and became their regional adviser for all of Latin America.... an agency riddled with CIA overtones. John Hoke, (Ruth’s sister Sylvia's husband) also worked for AID. And her sister Sylvia worked directly for the CIA itself. Michael Paine is another long interesting (similar) story in himself.

The Paines show up at a convenient juncture in the Oswald story... and quickly go away after the fact. They have a convenient separation and living arrangement, with a cover story of learning to speak Russian. The incriminating evidence conveniently springs out of their magical garage, including the Walker note (after the fact). Almost everything that would convict Oswald in the public mind came out of the Paine's garage. Their initial meeting at a social party ... just too many coincidences for the rational mind.

Well, Gene, you have plenty of suspicion, but very few facts to go on. The fact that Ruth's father was a leader for AID (Agency for International Development) means nothing at all, really. You don't like the politics of AID? That's your opinion.

The fact that Ruth's sister was in the CIA is also incidental -- accidental and means nothing at all.

Ruth remains a Quaker to this day. Ruth never changed her story one iota since 1963. Ruth has never dodged the Media or any interviewers, except those rabid zombies who simply scream in her face that she's a L-I-A-R without any evidence at all.

Ruth did charity work by taking care of the PREGNANT Marina Oswald when Lee Oswald was out of work (which was frequent).

To try to read something sinister in that shows that the JFK researcher is REACHING. Grasping at straws, really.

I have no dog in this fight -- If somebody has something on Ruth Paine, I'd like to see it. But just tossing around the naked speculation, as Jim Garrison once did, that Ruth Paine *must have* been guilty of *something* is just silly, isn't it?

Ruth Paine was kind enough to respond to Jim Garrison's subpoena of her, though she didn't have to, and in fact the Dallas City Hall advised her not to. Jim Garrison grilled her for hours, in his swaggering manner. He found nothing at all. He would have charged her if he had -- believe me.

At the end, Jim Garrison just gave Ruth Paine his puppy-dog eyes and begged her to help him find some clues. But Ruth Paine had already done everything she could. If the US Government couldn't solve the JFK murder -- why expect her to?

I repeat -- if Ruth Paine is withholding anything at all, it would be about her former husband, Michael Paine, and his possible role or knowledge about LHO's shooting at General Walker. Yet since this was the 1960's, the odds are very high that Michael Paine told Ruth Paine absolutely nothing about his possible role or knowledge about LHO's shooting at General Walker.

Given that, Ruth surely can't tell what she doesn't know. Also, Ruth's character clearly isn't given to spreading rumors without facts. She's an upstanding Christian in that way.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The fact that Ruth's father was a leader for AID (Agency for International Development) means nothing at all, really. You don't like the politics of AID? That's your opinion.

No. USAID is the "white" propaganda arm of the CIA. It's a grandchild of the OWI and you can trace it's genealogy thorough USIS and USIA. It's long been used a cover for Intelligence so much so that foreign peoples regard all USAID employees with great suspicion.

I am not a person who believes that the children of intelligence assets "inherit" their parents or grandparents connections and to that end, Ruth Paine's father's indiscretions would be his own had Ruth herself NOT been involved Nicaragua.

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a539798.pdf

http://www.jfkpage.com/Paine/Occurrence_in_Nicaragua.pdf

Edited by Chris Newton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reading the book on Ruth Paine written by Thomas Mallon, Mrs. Paine's Garage (2002), we find one and only one item of suspicion available to the objective and logical reader. This is the fact that in 1993, Dan Rather interviewed Michael Paine, who repeated his story about his first meeting with Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) on the evening of April 2nd, 1963 -- and Paine added a fact that the never told the Warren Commission.

That startling fact is really a blockbuster, IMHO, namely, that when Michael Paine arrived at the Oswald's house on Neeley Street in Dallas, as Marina Oswald scurried to get ready for their dinner at Ruth Paine's home, and as Michael spoke with LHO in that living room, LHO handed Michael one of his Backyard Photographs!

That's what Michael Paine told Dan Rather in 1993. Twenty-nine years before that, in 1964, Michael Paine was grilled by the Warren Commission for hours, as they asked Michael if he had any inkling at all whether LHO had any weapons. Michael always told them, no, he had no clue.

But this is a blockbuster. When Thomas Mallon confronted Ruth Paine with this fact, Ruth said, "Well, it would have been useful if Michael had told me about it!"

Ruth continued to deny that Michael Paine ever told her about the Backyard Photograph that Michael saw on April 2nd, 1963, with LHO boasting about it.

Now -- in my theory, the Walker shooting is the Rosetta Stone of the JFK murder. It doesn't mean that LHO shot JFK -- I don't believe that he did -- I believe that the Dallas Police who were also members of the Minutemen and the "Friends of Walker" shot JFK.

To me, it means that many more people knew that LHO shot at Walker than we were ever permitted to believe. Also, Walker himself believed that LHO was his shooter, even back in April 1963, as we see from his personal papers; for example, this one:

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

The reason that General Walker killed JFK in Dallas (as he had humiliated Adlai Stevenson in Dallas just one month prior) was twofold: (1) Walker believed that Communists had taken over the White House; and (2) Walker believed that JFK and RFK had sent LHO out to kill him back in April. This is seen from Walker's personal papers, too; for example, this one:

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

So, IMHO, General Walker killed JFK because of the Walker shooting -- and General Walker made LHO into his Patsy because of the Walker shooting. That is why I say that the Walker shooting is the Rosetta Stone of the JFK murder.

I believe that Michael Paine knows far more about the General Walker shooting than he ever told the Warren Commission -- and my proof is his confession to Dan Rather in 1993.

I will continue to believe Ruth Paine -- she knew nothing about it -- even from her husband, Michael Paine.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. USAID is the "white" propaganda arm of the CIA. It's a grandchild of the OWI and you can trace it's genealogy thorough USIS and USIA. It's long been used a cover for Intelligence so much so that foreign peoples regard all USAID employees with great suspicion.

I am not a person who believes that the children of intelligence assets "inherit" their parents or grandparents connections and to that end, Ruth Paine's father's indiscretions would be his own had Ruth herself NOT been involved Nicaragua.

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a539798.pdf

http://www.jfkpage.com/Paine/Occurrence_in_Nicaragua.pdf

Ruth Paine was involved in Nicaragua as a Quaker to do Charity work there.

While Ruth Paine was there, some of the Charity workers who helped her were killed in cold blood.

The fact that Ruth Paine's name was associated with Lee Harvey Oswald and the JFK murder was worrying to some -- especially since they were getting killed off. Maybe Ruth Paine had enemies in high places.

So, they took their concerns to Ruth Paine, who agreed with them that the perception of the connection of Ruth Paine's name with the whole JFK saga was very suspicious -- and she could not stand watching her friends get killed off. In sympathy for their worries, Ruth Paine left that Nicaraguan compound and never returned. She wept for her murdered friends.

To blame Ruth Paine for the death of these Nicaraguan relief workers is cynical beyond cynicism. Again -- it is attributing Evil Intentions to a Quaker Charity organization. Please reconsider such wild blaming.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All the evidence says that Ruth Paine was in Nicaragua working with the State Department to try and trace Americans who were there and sympathized with the Sandinistas.

She was masquerading as a pure Quaker type, while working with the government in order to inform on liberals who did not like what the American government was doing.

This, of course, fits in perfectly well with who her family was, and especially where Michael Paine came from. As his uncle was in the State Department when the USA and Allen Dulles decided to remove Arbenz from Guatemala.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The source that Greg Parker uses to show that Ruth’s sister was in on important CIA studies is the fact that her name was published as part of the study to determine what pilots were best to be in this forerunner to the U2 program. Her name was actually on the study, which was published and is available at George Washington University.

He actually has the cover of the study, with her name on it, in his book.

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As per Garrison's questioning of her, he found out two things that I think were important.

First, Ruth would not tell him either where her sister worked, or where she lived.

Second, Garrison exposed the fact that she had not been honest with the WC about how many times she met with George DeMohrenschildt.

In addition to not reading the right edition of my book, it seems that Paul did not ever read Probe Magazine. All of this crucial stuff on the Paines was first exposed by attorney Carol Hewett in those pages. Which are still available on CD.

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul

I tend to believe, as you do, that Ruth Paine was an innocent (albeit close) bystander to the events of Nov. 22.

I do not believe that Ruth Paine gave the FBI the note that Oswald had written on April 10th, at least not knowingly. I believe she gave them a book that contained the note without really knowing what was in that book.

The Commission evaluated the following evidence in

considering whether Lee Harvey Oswald fired the shot which almost
killed General Walker: (1) A note which Oswald left for his wife
on the evening of the shooting, photographs found among Oswald's
possessions after the assassination of President Kennedy, (3)
firearm identification of the bullet found in Walker's home, and
(4) admissions and other statements made to Marina Oswald by
Oswald concerning the shooting.

Note left by Oswald.---On December 2, 1963, Mrs. Ruth Paine
turned over to the police some of the Oswalds' belongings,
including a Russian volume entitled "Book of Useful Advice." In
this book was an undated note written in Russian. In translation,
the note read as follows:


1. This is the key to the mailbox which is located in the main
post office in the city on Ervay Street. This is the same street
where the drugstore, in which you always waited is located. You
will find the mailbox in the post office which is located 4
blocks from the drugstore on that street. I paid for the box
last month so don't worry about it.

2. Send the information as to what has happened to me to the
Embassy and include newspaper clippings (should there be anything
about me in the newspapers). I believe that the Embassy will
come quickly to your assistance on learning everything.

3. I paid the house rent on the 2d so don't worry about it.

4. Recently I also paid for water and gas.

5. The money from work will possibly be coming. The money will
be sent to our post office box. Go to the bank and cash the
check.

6. You can either throw out or give my clothing, etc. away. Do
not keep these. However, I prefer that you hold on to my
personal papers (military, civil, etc.).

7. Certain of my documents are in the small blue valise.

8. The address book can be found on my table in the study should
need same.

9. We have friends here. The Red Cross also will help you [Red
Cross in English].

10. I left you as much money as I could, $60 on the second of
the month. You and the baby [apparently] can live for another 2
months using $10 per week.

11. If I am alive and taken prisoner, the city jail is located
at the end of the bridge through which we always passed on going
to the city (right in the beginning of the city after crossing
the bridge).


James C. Cadigan, FBI handwriting expert, testified that
this note was written by Lee Harvey Oswald.

Jim root

Edited by Jim Root

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
To blame Ruth Paine for the death of these Nicaraguan relief workers is cynical beyond cynicism. Again -- it is attributing Evil Intentions to a Quaker Charity organization. Please reconsider such wild blaming.

Those are your words and inference not mine. No where in my post did I make any allegations like that. If you want to debate the intelligence of the organizations that put charity workers in harms way that would be another thread and another subject for another forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me quote from Destiny Betrayed, second edition, on the so called Walker Note:

The Dallas authorities had spent a large part of two days looking through Ruth's home for evidence against Oswald. Their inventory list was 49 pages long. Somehow they missed a note which was inside a book. It was a note allegedly written by Oswald in Russian, which ominously tells Marina what to do if he was in jail, and how to find him there. Why did Ruth produce this book at the time?

She said Marina had to have two books with her. One was entitled Our Child and the other was Book of Helpful Instructions. She had to have them since Marina used them each day. (This while Marina was being detained at a hotel and under 24 hour watch by the FBI and Secret Service.) The note was then found in the latter book by the Secret Service. The note was not dated and did not have Oswald's latent fingerprints on it. This even though the note took up almost one side of a sheet of paper. But also interesting is this: the FBI did happen to take seven latent fingerprints off the note; yet none of them match Lee or Marina. Prior to this, the police had retrieved photos of the exterior of Walker's house from Ruth Paine's garage. It was the confluence of these three elements--the news article, the photo, and the note--that provoked the FBI to take a new look at the Walker Case. Yet even Wesley Liebeler of the Warren Commission asked an obvious question: Why would Oswald keep the incriminating note and photos around for well over seven months? (pgs. 200-01)

The pictures of the outside of Walker's home, along with the famous backyard photographs...both were found at the Paine home. The official story maintains that both photos were taken with an Imperial Reflex camera. Now, during its two searches, the police confiscated three cameras. They were listed on their November 23rd inventory report. One was an American made Stereo Realist. One was a 35 mm Russian camera called a Cuera. The third was listed as a small German camera with with black case and chain. The last was the miniature Minox spy camera which, as we shall see, the FBI desperately wanted to go away.

There was an evidentiary problem here in relation to the photos. All three cameras produced pictures equivalent to 35 mm photos. Yet the photos in evidence were developed on 620 roll film. (p. 203)

Edited by James DiEugenio

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

×