Ruth Paine

[Paul Trejo]

Paul, Get off your high horse for a minute! RCD didn't start that thread--Lee Farley did. The last time Lee left the forum,he asked that all of his threads be deleted. It had nothing to do with "abject shame" , ROFL, it is just that none of his threads are here anymore. Since you wrote that about RCD deleting the thread,which was untrue, you should probably apologize to him along with Lee.. Members cannot actually delete threads. That is why you'll see, on some occasions, a member post with the word "delete" in it, or duplicate threads with one asking if it could be deleted.

Kathy -- I gather that you're a Moderator, so I have a specific question just for you.

Now, Lee Farley started that thread we speak of -- and he had a right to delete all his OWN material -- but did he have a complete and full right to delete all the writings of everybody ELSE in that thread?

For example, RCD wrote in that thread. I also wrote dozens of pages in that thread. So did many other people. Is it right to delete EVERYBODY's material, just because one person wanted his own material deleted?

Does that sound fair? Should the rest of us lose an archive of dozens of pages of hard work and research in that way?

Can we, for example, revive that thread under another name (for example, Did LHO Beat Marina Oswald?) but just leave out all of Lee Farley's writing -- because he requested that?

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited February 23, 2016 by Paul Trejo

[James R Gordon]

Paul,

Lee was insistent that his work was deleted. Work deleted, means it is deleted and can never be retrieved. Under no circumstance can that work now be restored. Further - as was the case with Lee's work - when a post was also a lead post [ or a thread initiator - deletions of these posts can cause thread disruption.

The contributions on these threads by other members may still actually exist, but the extent of thread deletions may mean that it is unlikely they can be recovered because of the disruption = to the threads - from the deletions of Lee's posts.

[Paul Trejo]

Paul,

Lee was insistent that his work was deleted. Work deleted, means it is deleted and can never be retrieved. Under no circumstance can that work now be restored. Further - as was the case with Lee's work - when a post was also a lead post [ or a thread initiator - deletions of these posts can cause thread disruption.

The contributions on these threads by other members may still actually exist, but the extent of thread deletions may mean that it is unlikely they can be recovered because of the disruption = to the threads - from the deletions of Lee's posts.

Thank you James. Is there any chance that my own extensive work on that particular thread started by Lee Farley can be salvaged? If so, would there be a cost involved?

I ask because I personally did a lot of research for that thread -- covering lots of WC witness testimony about the question of LHO beating Marina, and responding to some ostensibly authoritative charges posed against Marina's credibility.

I think my work would still be of interest to researchers today.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited February 23, 2016 by Paul Trejo

[James R Gordon]

Paul,

It cannot be recovered. Too much time has passed since that material was deleted and the Invision backups now no longer contain that material.

[Paul Trejo]

Paul,

It cannot be recovered. Too much time has passed since that material was deleted and the Invision backups now no longer contain that material.

Thank you, James Gordon, for explaining the loss of my research and work on that thread.

That thread, by the way, was originally addressed to me -- it was an attack on my claim that Neighbors had told Police that LHO had beat Marina.

I was somewhat mistaken in my claim -- actually, the Neighbors had told the FBI -- and I had conflated the FBI with the Police -- but that wasn't good enough for Lee Farley.

Lee Farley started a new thread and challenged me to PROVE that LHO had ever at any time actually beaten Marina Oswald.

One of the first challenges he posed was that Marina's own testimony must be disqualified. Lee produced a well-known document by some authority or other, which "proved" in his opinion, that Marina's sworn WC testimony must be disqualified because she was "proven" to be a L-I-A-R. (I don't remember that "authority's name." I'd appreciate it if somebody could refresh my memory.)

I went through that document sentence by sentence, and showed conclusively that the so-called "authority" was mistaken in every single one of his claims. That was a lot of work.

Then, some of the other challengers on this thread -- I believe RCD was one of them -- challenged me to find even ONE EYE-WITNESS to Marina's being beaten by LHO.

I counted four, IIRC. To do that, I covered every single witness cited by the Warren Commission -- that was also a lot of work.

It's too bad it's lost, James, but as you explained -- IT WAS YEARS AGO. So, I accept your technical explanation.

If anybody remembers any aspect of that thread that I omitted here, please feel free to tell me about it.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited February 24, 2016 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

Shall we continue to look closer at what James DiEugenio wrote in the second edition of his book, Destiny Betrayed (2012), specifically attacking Ruth and Michael Paine as being CIA operatives in a plot to frame Lee Harvey Oswald for the murder of JFK -- without any material evidence?

James DiEugenio, following the lead of Carol Hewett, Steven Jones and Barbara LaMonica from Probe magazine (1992-1999) falsely claimed that Ruth Paine was part of the Russian expatriate community in Dallas. James writes:

Because Ruth was still interested in the Russian language, the Paines became part of the local Russian expatriate community. Which was quite conservative, anti-Soviet, and with a parish church, which, as noted, was reportedly CIA affiliated. As George Michael Evica notes, this was a curious fit. For Quakers are usually liberal and have their own special church customs, which are not at all like Russian Orthodox. (DiEugenio, DB2, p. 196)

Actually, Ruth Paine testified to the WC that she didn’t recognize any of the many names of the Dallas Russians, as read from a long list by WC attorneys, except for two on the sidelines. (Ruth tried to get Russian language lessons from Professor Ilya Mamantov at a local college, but he rejected her down because her Russian skills were too low. Instead, the Professor recommended his elderly mother-in-law, who would charge Ruth high prices to wade through a text-book – which didn’t satisfy Ruth’s quest for modern conversational Russian practice. But it was better than nothing, so she took it.)

Actually, Ruth Paine didn't speak Russian well enough to be part of the White Russian community in Dallas. Besides, Ruth attended a Quaker Church regularly -- with no interest in the Russian Orthodox Church. Nevertheless, James DiEugenio insists that Ruth was part of the Russian expatriate community, because to James, they are all just CIA. Not that he has any evidence.

James’ charge that the Russian Orthodox Church was bought and sold by the CIA is probably insulting to that entire religion. But James is so eager to blame the CIA for the murder of JFK that he tries to link the Dallas Russians to the CIA and then to Ruth Paine – regardless of any evidence.

Just to be clear -- I have nothing personal against James DiEugenio -- I'm here to defend the truth about Ruth Paine. It just so happens that the loudest voice against Ruth Paine today is still James DiEugenio. James has said things in his works on other topics that I do agree with. But this thread is about Ruth Paine, and I think it's important to set the record straight.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited March 1, 2016 by Paul Trejo

[Gayle Nix Jackson]

Mr. Root,

I tried to message you but it said you weren't taking messages. Could you please contact me when you have the time? Thank you so much!

Gayle Nix Jackson

[Michael Walton]

I'm genuinely interested in this RP thread because I learned something new recently and would like to get thoughts and opinions on it.

I always suspected Ruth Paine played some kind of finger-pointing role in the case. I like to use the "what are the odds" approach - what are the odds that she had a sister who worked for the CIA; that Dulles knew a family member of hers; that she suddenly had all of this incriminating info on LHO; but that she was nothing more than an innocent, Quaker bystander of it all?

But something I learned a few days ago that I was not aware of is her calendar and how she had marked it as LHO purchasing the rifle on 3/20/63. Now, I realize that she knew the Oswalds but once again, what are the odds that she would make such a dramatic entry on her kitchen calendar? Or put another way, my wife was born in 1962 and in a photo of her for her one-year birthday in her grandparents' kitchen, you can see a 1963 calendar hanging on the wall. The point is - how many other Americans would write such a dramatic entry on their calendar like the "LHO gun purchase" and star entry she made?

If anyone would like to share pros and cons about this part of RP here (the calendar), I'd appreciate it.

Edited March 24, 2016 by Michael Walton

[Paul Brancato]

Michael - do we know when Ruth marked that on her calendar?

[Paul Trejo]

I'm genuinely interested in this RP thread because I learned something new recently and would like to get thoughts and opinions on it.

I always suspected Ruth Paine played some kind of finger-pointing role in the case. I like to use the "what are the odds" approach - what are the odds that she had a sister who worked for the CIA; that Dulles knew a family member of hers; that she suddenly had all of this incriminating info on LHO; but that she was nothing more than an innocent, Quaker bystander of it all?

But something I learned a few days ago that I was not aware of is her calendar and how she had marked it as LHO purchasing the rifle on 3/20/63. Now, I realize that she knew the Oswalds but once again, what are the odds that she would make such a dramatic entry on her kitchen calendar? Or put another way, my wife was born in 1962 and in a photo of her for her one-year birthday in her grandparents' kitchen, you can see a 1963 calendar hanging on the wall. The point is - how many other Americans would write such a dramatic entry on their calendar like the "LHO gun purchase" and star entry she made?

If anyone would like to share pros and cons about this part of RP here (the calendar), I'd appreciate it.

Well, Michael, the odds increase that somebody would have a sister who worked for the CIA whenever we are dealing with wealthy people..

We can't be surprised that these wealthy Easterners like Michael and Ruth Paine would have US Government connections.

Yet it would be facile to jump to conclusions based on this common fact.

Also -- there is rumor but no evidence that Alan Dulles knew any family member of Ruth Hyde Paine other than the fact that his mistress, Ann Bancroft, had a childhood friend who happened to be the mother of Michael Paine. Rumors try to exaggerate this useless bit of data into something important.

Ruth Paine suddenly had all this incriminating data on LHO because LHO brought it to her garage when he was out of a job, when Marina was eight months pregnant and had no insurance, and Ruth Paine took pity on Marina Oswald.

Ruth Paine was indeed an innocent, Quaker bystander regarding the JFK assassination. Only rumors still try to accuse her.

Regarding your question about Ruth Paine making a notation in her calendar about LHO buying a rifle, the WC attorneys already asked Ruth about this. We should review Ruth's actual WC testimony here.

------------ EXTRACT OF RUTH PAINE'S WC TESTIMONY, March 21, 1964, vol. 9, p. 331ff -----------------------

Mr. JENNER. Now, I turn to March, and I direct your attention to the upper left-hand corner of that card, and it appears to me that in the upper left-hand corner are October 23, then a star, then “LHO” followed by the words “purchase of rifle.” Would you explain those entries?

Mrs. PAINE. Yes. This was written after.

Mr. JENNER. After?

Mrs. PAINE. This was written indeed after the assassination.

Mr. JENNER. All right.

Mrs. PAINE. I heard on the television that he had purchased a rifle.

Mr. JENNER. When?

Mrs. PAINE. I heard it on November 23.

Mr. JENNER. Yes.

Mrs. PAINE. And went back to the page for March, put a little star on March 20 as being a small square, I couldn’t fit in all I wanted to say. I just put in a star and then referring it to the corner of the calendar...I p

ut the star saying “LHO purchase of rifle.” Then I thought someone is going to wonder about that, I had better put down the date, and did, but it was a busy day, one of the most in my life, and I was off by a month as to what day it was.

Mr. JENNER. That is you made the entry October?

Mrs. PAINE. October 23 instead of November.

Mr. JENNER. It should have been November 23?

Mrs. PAINE. It should have been November 23.

Mr. JENNER. And the entry of October 23, which should have been November 23, was an entry on your part indicating the date you wrote on the calendar the star followed by “LHO purchase of rifle” and likewise the date you made an entry?

Mrs. PAINE. On the 20th.

Mr. JENNER. This is the square having the date March 20?

Mrs. PAINE. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Is that correct?

Mrs. PAINE. I might point out that I didn’t know Lee had a middle name until I had occasion to fill out forms for Marina in Parkland Hospital.

Mr. JENNER. That is when you learned that his middle name was Harvey and his initial was H?

Mrs. PAINE. Right.

Mrs. PAINE. Yes. Written at the time there is an entry for Tuesday, April 2, “Marina and Lee, dinner” and it looks like “7 o’clock” above the word “dinner.” That has been testified to.

Mr. JENNER. You have testified about that?

Mrs. PAINE. Yes. Then there is an entrance on – –

Mr. JENNER. An entry?

Mrs. PAINE. An entry, yes, sorry; on April 8 where Marina’s name appears, this time written in Russian.

Mr. JENNER. You have testified about that?

Mrs. PAINE. Yes, and there is a similar entrance for the 10th of April with an arrow.

Mr. JENNER. Entry, you mean again?

Mrs. PAINE. I am sorry, an entry pushing it over to the 11th, which would indicate to me that the actual meeting took place on the 11th.

Mr. JENNER. You testified about that, is that correct?

Mrs. PAINE. Yes, I have. And then I have also testified about meeting, picnic, Marina and Lee, on the 20th of April.

Mr. JENNER. All right.

Mrs. PAINE. And then I have also testified about seeing both of them on the 24th of April, and in that square on my calendar appear the words “Lee and Marina.”

Then there was an entry referring to the Oswalds – -

Mr. JENNER. You mean theirs?

Mrs. PAINE. Theirs, but written in later, saying, “Marina and Lee Wedding Anniversary two years ago.”

Mr. JENNER. That is, you mean you didn’t write it on the 30th of April?

Mrs. PAINE. I wrote that later. I learned that date some time in the fall.

Mr. JENNER. You have now identified all entries on the April calendar referring to the Oswalds?

Mrs. PAINE. Yes; I have.

Mr. JENNER. Let’s take May.

Mrs. PAINE. Well, I have referred to the fact that this entry on May 1 “Mary” refers to a babysitter, followed by “War and Peace.” This recalls to me the fact that Marina went with me and we took June and we saw the movie War and Peace.

Mr. JENNER. About which you have testified?

Mrs. PAINE. Yes. The next entry – –

Mr. JENNER. The next one relating to the Oswalds.

Mrs. PAINE. Right, is on May 10 going over to the 11th where in New Orleans and it means these were the days we were going to New Orleans.

Mr. JENNER. And you have testified about that entry and that event?

Mrs. PAINE. I have.

Mr. JENNER. Any other entries on the May calendar relating to the Oswalds?

Mrs. PAINE. No.

Mr. JENNER. All right; now drop down to June, please.

Mrs. PAINE. No entries relating to the Oswalds in June.

Mr. JENNER. Turn the page and go to the calendar for July.

Mrs. PAINE. I see an entry on July 17 which says, “Marina birthday.” This was written either before or after I did know in the spring that her birthday was in July. I am not certain I have got it down on the right date, and that is all.

Mr. JENNER. Drop down then to the calendar for August. Are there any entries relating to the Oswalds on that date?

Mrs. PAINE. No.

Mr. JENNER. Turn the page. We have now reached the calendar for September. Are there any entries relating to the Oswalds?

Mrs. PAINE. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Would you identify them, please?

Mrs. PAINE. On September 23 there is an entry, “A.M. left N.O.” meaning New Orleans.

Mr. JENNER. That is an entry of your having departed from New Orleans to go back to – –

Mrs. PAINE. And this was written shortly after that event.

Mr. JENNER. To go back to Texas?

Mrs. PAINE. On the 24th is written, “Home arrived 1:30 p.m., from N.O.” meaning New Orleans.

Mr. JENNER. When was that entry made?

Mrs. PAINE. These were both made after our arrival back.

Mr. JENNER. But shortly afterwards?

Mrs. PAINE. Very shortly.

Mr. JENNER. Did you say you had a luncheon engagement?

Mrs. PAINE. No.

Mr. JENNER. Would you like to suspend, and we have lunch and then come back?

Mrs. PAINE. Sure.

Mr. JENNER. It is now I o’clock. We will be back at 2. Could you finish this calendar?

Mrs. PAINE. We have finished September. We are up to October 1963. There is an entry on Friday the 4th that says, “Gave blood” and that has been referred to in testimony previously.

Mr. JENNER. That was in connection with Marina’s entry into Parkland Hospital for the birth of her child?

Mrs. PAINE. That is correct. Crossed out on the 7th of October is “Lee birthday?” On the 18th of October appears an entry “Lee birthday.”

Mr. JENNER. You had it in the wrong place initially?

Mrs. PAINE. That is right.

------------ END EXTRACT OF RUTH PAINE'S WC TESTIMONY, March 21, 1964, vol. 9, p. 331ff -----------------------

So, along with the date of LHO buying his rifle around March 20, 1963 there in Ruth Paine's diary, we also have the date that she wrote those -- October 23rd. That has to be explained, too.

So Ruth said that she had been overwhelmed at the time she wrote that, on November 23rd, that she accidently wrote October 23rd. That's her response.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

It's been some months since I started this thread showing the weakness of PROBE magazine (1993-1999) articles on Ruth Paine, so it's time for a review.

PROBE magazine, former publication of the influential CTKA, has accused Ruth of participating in a material way in a CIA plot to kill JFK. The CIA plot itself is merely presumed -- and PROBE writers further presumed that Ruth Paine was part of that murder plot.

More recently, the second edition of James DiEugenio's book, Destiny Betrayed (2012), in the section, The Baron, the Paines, and Dulles, pages 193-208, repeats all these silly accusations in a sort of summary.

I posted several criticisms (assorted posts from #292 to #322) of DiEugenio's weak arguments many months 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 incompetently accused Ruth's 1964 testimony of perjury, based on the fact that Ruth met George 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. So, these "hidden associations" just turn out to be wealthy relatives. James then adds a special dig -- that Michael’s mother had a childhood friend (Anne Bancroft) who later became a mistress of Allen Dulles. James presents this as *proof* of CIA connections.

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 simply concludes that AID was 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 never spoke about her work with the CIA, and Ruth denied knowing about her work. James just accuses Ruth of lying.

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, never catalogued and never photographed, doesn’t phase James DiEugenio. He’s certain they exist and that 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 even started a Forum thread on 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 callously 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 -- and nothing to do with Wicca.

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. Yet Marina and the De Mohrenschildt's all expressed their disgust at General Walker and his racist politics. They had no reason to perjure themselves on Walker's behalf.

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" in order to frame LHO for the Walker shooting. James simply ignores the Secret Service handwriting experts.

9. James DiEugenio 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, and so on. Despite the lost connection, James insists on 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. James' logic is hat Ruth was a CIA spy and the Walker photos were taken with the Imperial Reflex, so she "must" have owned those cameras.

11. James DiEugenio denies that LHO went to Mexico City, but he insists that Ruth Paine framed LHO as having been there by using Mexican souvenirs which were all CIA props. James’ only evidence is that LHO denied it, and at first Marina just denied everything to the FBI (as most people would deny everything). James also ignores 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 and 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 fact that the package was Undeliverable.

13. James DiEugenio strains to link the Undelivered, Undeliverable package (which has no date or postage on it) onto an unrelated Postage Due notice of November 20th 1963 found at Ruth Paine's house. Although the Post Office says the Postage Due notice was fulfilled by 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 their plot; claims James.

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, claims James. 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. Yet James believes the everybody in the Dallas Russian expatriate community and in their 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, as she had heard on TV that day. Ruth explained her act as a result of the high pressure of the JFK news hitting everybody from all sides on 11/23/1963, when she made her note. 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 non-expert opinion. Ruth could teach small boys from a Russian grammar textbook – so what more could she possibly want?

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

18. James DiEugenio expresses outrage at an allegation 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 a PROBE magazine rumor. (Somebody told the Houston Post, but nobody knows who. Robert Allen Surrey is a better guess, IMHO; or Walker himself as he had told the Deutsche Nationalzeitung less than 18 hours after JFK was killed.) James is simply reaching -- again.

Anyway, there it is. Based on these arguments over the past two decades, James DiEugenio has claimed 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

Edited August 4, 2016 by Paul Trejo

[David G. Healy]

It's been some months since I started this thread showing the weakness of PROBE magazine (1993-1999) articles on Ruth Paine, so it's time for a review.

PROBE magazine, former publication of the influential CTKA, has accused Ruth of participating in a material way in a CIA plot to kill JFK. The CIA plot itself is merely presumed -- and PROBE writers further presumed that Ruth Paine was part of that murder plot.

More recently, the second edition of James DiEugenio's book, Destiny Betrayed (2012), in the section, The Baron, the Paines, and Dulles, pages 193-208, repeats all these silly accusations in a sort of summary.

I posted several criticisms (assorted posts from #292 to #322) of DiEugenio's weak arguments many months 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 incompetently accused Ruth's 1964 testimony of perjury, based on the fact that Ruth met George 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. So, these "hidden associations" just turn out to be wealthy relatives. James then adds a special dig -- that Michael’s mother had a childhood friend (Anne Bancroft) who later became a mistress of Allen Dulles. James presents this as *proof* of CIA connections.

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 simply concludes that AID was 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 never spoke about her work with the CIA, and Ruth denied knowing about her work. James just accuses Ruth of lying.

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, never catalogued and never photographed, doesn’t phase James DiEugenio. He’s certain they exist and that 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 even started a Forum thread on 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 callously 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 -- and nothing to do with Wicca.

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. Yet Marina and the De Mohrenschildt's all expressed their disgust at General Walker and his racist politics. They had no reason to perjure themselves on Walker's behalf.

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" in order to frame LHO for the Walker shooting. James simply ignores the Secret Service handwriting experts.

9. James DiEugenio 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, and so on. Despite the lost connection, James insists on 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. James' logic is hat Ruth was a CIA spy and the Walker photos were taken with the Imperial Reflex, so she "must" have owned those cameras.

11. James DiEugenio denies that LHO went to Mexico City, but he insists that Ruth Paine framed LHO as having been there by using Mexican souvenirs which were all CIA props. James’ only evidence is that LHO denied it, and at first Marina just denied everything to the FBI (as most people would deny everything). James also ignores 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 and 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 fact that the package was Undeliverable.

13. James DiEugenio strains to link the Undelivered, Undeliverable package (which has no date or postage on it) onto an unrelated Postage Due notice of November 20th 1963 found at Ruth Paine's house. Although the Post Office says the Postage Due notice was fulfilled by 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 their plot; claims James.

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, claims James. 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. Yet James believes the everybody in the Dallas Russian expatriate community and in their 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, as she had heard on TV that day. Ruth explained her act as a result of the high pressure of the JFK news hitting everybody from all sides on 11/23/1963, when she made her note. 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 non-expert opinion. Ruth could teach small boys from a Russian grammar textbook – so what more could she possibly want?

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

18. James DiEugenio expresses outrage at an allegation 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 a PROBE magazine rumor. (Somebody told the Houston Post, but nobody knows who. Robert Allen Surrey is a better guess, IMHO; or Walker himself as he had told the Deutsche Nationalzeitung less than 18 hours after JFK was killed.) James is simply reaching -- again.

Anyway, there it is. Based on these arguments over the past two decades, James DiEugenio has claimed 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

no traction, give it a rest will ya?

[Paul Brancato]

Here here

[Paul Trejo]

What? No comments at all? You're clearly fans of the PROBE articles -- but you have no defense for them?

Why not just admit that all these 1990's attacks on Ruth Paine were just boneheaded -- then we can leave it at that.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

[James DiEugenio]

Paul, you seem to have no perspective or insight into who you are or what you're limitations are.

Ernie Lazar has completely vitiated you and your Harry Dean story. Because he does something you do not: He actually performs documentary research.

You seem to want to forget what happened with you and RCD. Where, in his usual perceptive way, he proved that the whole Oswald beat his wife meme was single sourced. Which, for anyone else but you, should have been an indication that there was collusion going on with the White Russians to smear the dead Oswald.

Your excuses for what the Paines did with the Minox camera seemed to me to be so lame as not to deserve a reply. Ditto with your excuses for why Ruth Paine did not relay the job offer at the airport to Oswald, and then lied about it.

But worst of all, is what you did with the Caufield book. Remember that? Before anyone had a chance to read and analyze this pile of marinated baloney, you were here day after day, not breaking the book down, not analyzing its contents, but you were literally summarizing the book chapter by chapter! As if everything that Caufield wrote was the gospel truth.

To me nothing indicated just how irresponsible and unreliable your approach to textual analysis really was. Or how agenda driven your psyche really was. For, to put it mildly, Caufield's book was actually a very poor effort all the way around. It was chockfull of errors and misrepresentations and misinterpretations, which somehow, all went undetected by you. The very fact that like Lamar Waldron, Caufield tried to make up in length what he could not achieve with research and data, said it all. His book was 790 pages of pure wind. What with his Pere Marquette conspiracy, Oswald as a neo Nazi, his Ruby conspiracy based on what was in the trunk of his car, his 80 year old assassin, and Somersett's mass assassination of the CFR? The book was nothing less than an embarrassment for the research community.

http://www.ctka.net/2016/CaufieldPart1.html

That you endorsed this atrocity without reservation says it all.

And please do not flatter yourself when no one jumps on to argue with you. No one argued with Stalin from about 1950 on either.

Edited August 5, 2016 by James DiEugenio