Ruth Paine

[Martin Blank]

jim --

your reason and restraint in this matter is appreciated as always

Edited August 5, 2016 by Martin Blank

[Paul Trejo]

For the record -- nobody here has taken up the challenge of my eighteen points against PROBE magazine.

All that we have seen are emotional expressions -- but not a single cogent argument.

For reasonable readers, this amounts to a confirmation of my eighteen points.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited August 5, 2016 by Paul Trejo

[Gerry Simone]

---------- END EXCERPT FROM BILL KELLY'S REVIEW OF "MRS. PAINE'S GARAGE" ------------

Bill expects (like I expect) that the true resolution of the JFK murder will arrive late -- like the justice that arrived late for Medgar Evers, the murdered NAACP advisor for James Meredith at Ole Miss. Anyway -- Bill Kelly doesn't accuse Ruth Paine of anything specific -- he just wonders why the HSCA just ignored the Paines instead of making them the star of their show. And even that is an overstatement, because let's look at what Bill Kelly adds:

This is what I'm talking about -- conflating the Kennedy Assassination with the Oswald Assassination.

The "true resolution of the JFK murder" is assumed to be found in a study of the Oswald Assassination.

The operating principle of intelligence tradecraft is compartmentalization of operations.

JFK's killers had no connection to Oswald whatsoever.

Oswald's killers were set in the frame up once the patsy survived to be captured, starting with Ruby.

That's my take, at any rate...

Oswald's "killers"?

It was just Ruby, however, the HSCA found that he had significant connections to the Underworld (unlike what the WC said), which I believe was a COG in the whole conspiracy wheel.

(My inaugural post here).

[Gerry Simone]

"Dangle"? I never heard this term in my intelligence training or intelligence work. It's an inviting term. It suggests "bait".

So, Marina's husband was sent to the USSR as bait; sent by some U.S. intelligence organization.

Think about how ridiculous this is.

Marchetti was a B.S. artist who had a brief heydey in the 1970s. He revealed nothing important. What he wrote was misleading.

"Dangle" is a term meant to deceive you. It's a term that appears to be infused with meaning. It means nothing.

Sure, there were some double agents. So I've heard. Sure, M.I. sought to infiltrate anti-war groups in the 1960s. None of this activity involved "bait".

"Bait" is the stuff of fiction, not history.

"Dangle" might make sense if Oswald was a fake defector, an agent provocateur (but it seems the Russians didn't buy it, or should I say swallow - pun intended).

Edited August 6, 2016 by Gerry Simone

[Gerry Simone]

I looked through this entire thread for mention of a long distance call between Ruth and Michael Paine on November 22, 1963 but could not find any, so here it is. CD 206, CD 516 and document DL 100-10461 are reproduced in Barry Krusch's Appendices to his books, IMPOSSIBLE: The Case Against Lee Harvey Oswald, the link for which I will post here:

http://www.krusch.com/jfk/Impossible_CaseAgainstLeeHarvey_Oswald_Appendices.pdf

Read pages 9 to 15.

In short, it seems that a collect call was presumably made by Michael Paine (from work) to Ruth Paine, which was overheard by the operator, who had reported the conversation to the FBI, which actually took place on November 22, 1963 at 1:00 pm CST.*

The male caller felt sure Lee Harvey Oswald had killed the President but did not feel Oswald was responsible, and further stated, "WE both know who is responsible". (My emphasis on 'WE').

The information is based on an FBI report of a confidential informant and actual telephone records proving calls between Ruth Paine's home and Michael Paine's place of employment.

If the above transcript is true, then it would seem that Michael and Ruth Paine had foreknowledge of the assassination, because as John Armstrong points out, "At 1:00 pm Harvey Oswald was changing clothes at 1026 N. Beckley and Roy Truly had not yet told DPD Captain Fritz that Oswald was missing from the building. Oswald would not be arrested for nearly an hour and his name was not known to the public.".

This does not in of itself prove that the Paines were CIA agents, but perhaps it does worse - make them accessories to the murder of the President?

*Initial document refers to a call on the 23rd but the unredacted document shows the 22nd. Liebeler questions Michael Paine about such a reported call on the 23rd, which Michael admits to hearing of such a report, but denies making any such statements or having knowledge of who the assassin "is or was". Armstrong suggests that this date change is obstruction of justice and colluding with a witness to falsify testimony, along with avoiding a perjury charge for Mr. Paine.

P.S. I noted two typos. One in the DL 100-10461 document (Mrs. Michael Paine should be Mr. Michael Paine, as the context suggests), and another in Krusch's commentary on page 12 (CD 506 FBI report should be 206).

Edited August 6, 2016 by Gerry Simone

[Paul Trejo]

I looked through this entire thread for mention of a long distance call between Ruth and Michael Paine on November 22, 1963 but could not find any, so here it is. CD 206, CD 516 and document DL 100-10461 are reproduced in Barry Krusch's Appendices to his books, IMPOSSIBLE: The Case Against Lee Harvey Oswald, the link for which I will post here:

http://www.krusch.com/jfk/Impossible_CaseAgainstLeeHarvey_Oswald_Appendices.pdf

Read pages 9 to 15.

In short, it seems that a collect call was presumably made by Michael Paine (from work) to Ruth Paine, which was overheard by the operator, who had reported the conversation to the FBI, which actually took place on November 22, 1963 at 1:00 pm CST.*

The male caller felt sure Lee Harvey Oswald had killed the President but did not feel Oswald was responsible, and further stated, "WE both know who is responsible". (My emphasis on 'WE').

The information is based on an FBI report of a confidential informant and actual telephone records proving calls between Ruth Paine's home and Michael Paine's place of employment.

If the above transcript is true, then it would seem that Michael and Ruth Paine had foreknowledge of the assassination, because as John Armstrong points out, "At 1:00 pm Harvey Oswald was changing clothes at 1026 N. Beckley and Roy Truly had not yet told DPD Captain Fritz that Oswald was missing from the building. Oswald would not be arrested for nearly an hour and his name was not known to the public.".

This does not in of itself prove that the Paines were CIA agents, but perhaps it does worse - make them accessories to the murder of the President?

*Initial document refers to a call on the 23rd but the unredacted document shows the 22nd. Liebeler questions Michael Paine about such a reported call on the 23rd, which Michael admits to hearing of such a report, but denies making any such statements or having knowledge of who the assassin "is or was". Armstrong suggests that this date change is obstruction of justice and colluding with a witness to falsify testimony, along with avoiding a perjury charge for Mr. Paine.

P.S. I noted two typos. One in the DL 100-10461 document (Mrs. Michael Paine should be Mr. Michael Paine, as the context suggests), and another in Krusch's commentary on page 12 (CD 506 FBI report should be 206).

Your posts are well-considered, Gerry.

Yes, the topic of this phone call from Michael to Ruth Paine on the 22nd has come up before. It came up in the Warren Commission, too. I personally asked Ruth Paine about it, last November, and here's what she told me:

(1) Yes, the call occurred, and the wording was correctly recorded -- and yet nobody has stepped forward to accept responsibility for having recorded it, to the best of her knowledge.

(2) People everywhere jump to conclusions about the meaning of that phrase, "WE BOTH KNOW WHO DID IT."

(3) Of course the CIA-did-it CTers, like CTKA and others, insist that the Paines were talking about the CIA.

(4) That's just making stuff up.

(5) Ruth Paine herself told me the context of that conversation -- she said that the "WHO DID IT" that they implied there was the Dallas political movement which created the "WANTED FOR TREASON: JFK" handbill, and the "WELCOME TO DALLAS, MR. KENNEDY" black-bordered ad in the Dallas Morning News that morning.

(6) In their Warren Commission testimony, both Michael and Ruth Paine (like Marina Oswald) repeatedly affirmed that they had no personal evidence that LHO killed JFK. None. But of course the overwhelming circumstantial evidence that the FBI kept pouring forth was undeniable. The FBI pressure was relentless.

Nevertheless -- even today Ruth says that she's open to further evidence. She always was. So was Michael, she said.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited August 7, 2016 by Paul Trejo

[Gerry Simone]

@ Paul,

Don't you think it's strange that Liebeler did not accurately refer to that call being on the 22nd, if not lied about the true date in his questioning?

Or strange that Liebeler left out the part that the male caller "felt sure LHO had killed the President"?

Don't you think it's odd that Michael Paine went along with Liebeler's line of questioning without correcting the time and day to November 22nd?

How did Michael Paine (or whoever) know, or why did he say that he felt Oswald was the killer, when Oswald had not yet been arrested by the time of that long distance call to Ruth?

Doesn't it strike you as suspicious that he would know beforehand?

If Ruth admits to that remark about, "We both know who was responsible for the assassination", then Mr. Paine lied about the whole conversation, whether indirectly or by omission:

Mr. LIEBELER - Now, there has been a report that on November 23, 1963, there was a telephone call between a man and a woman, between the numbers of your residence and the number of your office, in which the man was reported to have said in words or substance, "We both know who is responsible for the assassination." Have you been asked about this before?
Mr. PAINE - I had heard that--I didn't know it was associated with our numbers. I had heard a report that some telephone operator had listened in on a conversation somewhere, I don't know where it was. I thought it was some other part of the country.
Mr. LIEBELER - Did you talk to your wife on the telephone at any time during Saturday, November 23, on the telephone?
Mr. PAINE - I was in the police station again, and I think I called her from there.
Mr. LIEBELER - Did you make any remark to the effect that you knew who was responsible?
Mr. PAINE - And I don't know who the assassin is or was; no, so I did not.
Mr. LIEBELER - You are positive in your recollection that you made no such remark?
Mr. PAINE - Yes.

As Bugliosi would say, such lies or omissions or avoidance of the issue at hand, could demonstrate "consciousness of guilt".

Edited August 9, 2016 by Gerry Simone

[Paul Trejo]

@ Paul,

Don't you think it's strange that Liebeler did not accurately refer to that call being on the 22nd, if not lied about the true date in his questioning?

Or strange that Liebeler left out the part that the male caller "felt sure LHO had killed the President"?

Don't you think it's odd that Michael Paine went along with Liebeler's line of questioning without correcting the time and day to November 22nd?

How did Michael Paine (or whoever) know, or why did he say that he felt Oswald was the killer, when Oswald had not yet been arrested by the time of that long distance call to Ruth?

Doesn't it strike you as suspicious that he would know beforehand?

If Ruth admits to that remark about, "We both know who was responsible for the assassination", then Mr. Paine lied about the whole conversation, whether indirectly or by omission:

Mr. LIEBELER - Now, there has been a report that on November 23, 1963, there was a telephone call between a man and a woman, between the numbers of your residence and the number of your office, in which the man was reported to have said in words or substance, "We both know who is responsible for the assassination." Have you been asked about this before?

Mr. PAINE - I had heard that--I didn't know it was associated with our numbers. I had heard a report that some telephone operator had listened in on a conversation somewhere, I don't know where it was. I thought it was some other part of the country.

Mr. LIEBELER - Did you talk to your wife on the telephone at any time during Saturday, November 23, on the telephone?

Mr. PAINE - I was in the police station again, and I think I called her from there.

Mr. LIEBELER - Did you make any remark to the effect that you knew who was responsible?

Mr. PAINE - And I don't know who the assassin is or was; no, so I did not.

Mr. LIEBELER - You are positive in your recollection that you made no such remark?

Mr. PAINE - Yes.

As Bugliosi would say, such lies or omissions or avoidance of the issue at hand, could demonstrate "consciousness of guilt".

Well, Gerry, I am trying to be as objective as possible, and I see no guilt whatsoever in Michael Paine's statement.

The questions were worded so that he could easily deny them.

I note first that Michael Paine didn't make any point regarding November the 22nd or the 23rd. It was taken as an everyday slip of the tongue, and Michael quickly knew which phone conversation that Liebeler meant, and Michael promptly referred to the correct phone conversation.

Secondly, the implication by Liebeler was that Michael Paine knew the names and identities of the JFK killers. A careful and unbiased reading of Michael's words in that 11/22/1963 phone call does not suggest that Michael Paine knew the NAMES of the killers. So Michael could honestly, under oath, deny that he knew their NAMES.

Notice that Michael Paine didn't deny the phone call -- or even the wording. It was only this implication that he knew the NAMES of the killers that he denied.

As Michael told Ruth on 11/22/1963 -- and as Ruth Paine told me on or about 11/22/2015 -- Michael and Ruth Paine both had in their minds the very real, very fresh and very shocking publications circulating in Dallas that day:

1. The WANTED FOR TREASON: JFK handbill
2. The WELCOME TO DALLAS, MISTER KENNEDY black-bordered ad in the Dallas Morning News.

Those two publications shocked most or perhaps all liberal-minded young people in Dallas that day. The hatred in those publications still shines through, 53 years later.

This was uppermost in their minds. This is what Michael meant, and Ruth understood, when he said, "We both know who did it."

It makes perfect sense to me. It is mainly those CTers who are "certain" that the CIA-did-it who loudly accuse Michael and Ruth Paine of lying to cover up for the CIA. That's ludicrous, in my opinion. It's making stuff up.

The truth is simple and straight-forward. Any normal person would have said the same thing in Dallas on 11/22/1963. Furthermore, as Dr. Jeff Caufield has shown, the people who created those two scurrilous documents were indeed the same people who assassinated JFK. (See his book, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy; the Extensive New Evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy (2015).)

So the intuition of Michael and Ruth Paine was spot on. They just didn't know the names of the plotters.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited August 9, 2016 by Paul Trejo

[Gerry Simone]

@ Paul,

Don't you think it's strange that Liebeler did not accurately refer to that call being on the 22nd, if not lied about the true date in his questioning?

Or strange that Liebeler left out the part that the male caller "felt sure LHO had killed the President"?

Don't you think it's odd that Michael Paine went along with Liebeler's line of questioning without correcting the time and day to November 22nd?

How did Michael Paine (or whoever) know, or why did he say that he felt Oswald was the killer, when Oswald had not yet been arrested by the time of that long distance call to Ruth?

Doesn't it strike you as suspicious that he would know beforehand?

If Ruth admits to that remark about, "We both know who was responsible for the assassination", then Mr. Paine lied about the whole conversation, whether indirectly or by omission:

Mr. LIEBELER - Now, there has been a report that on November 23, 1963, there was a telephone call between a man and a woman, between the numbers of your residence and the number of your office, in which the man was reported to have said in words or substance, "We both know who is responsible for the assassination." Have you been asked about this before?

Mr. PAINE - I had heard that--I didn't know it was associated with our numbers. I had heard a report that some telephone operator had listened in on a conversation somewhere, I don't know where it was. I thought it was some other part of the country.

Mr. LIEBELER - Did you talk to your wife on the telephone at any time during Saturday, November 23, on the telephone?

Mr. PAINE - I was in the police station again, and I think I called her from there.

Mr. LIEBELER - Did you make any remark to the effect that you knew who was responsible?

Mr. PAINE - And I don't know who the assassin is or was; no, so I did not.

Mr. LIEBELER - You are positive in your recollection that you made no such remark?

Mr. PAINE - Yes.

As Bugliosi would say, such lies or omissions or avoidance of the issue at hand, could demonstrate "consciousness of guilt".

Well, Gerry, I am trying to be as objective as possible, and I see no guilt whatsoever in Michael Paine's statement.

1. The questions were worded so that he could easily deny them.

2. I note first that Michael Paine didn't make any point regarding November the 22nd or the 23rd. It was taken as an everyday slip of the tongue, and Michael quickly knew which phone conversation that Liebeler meant, and Michael promptly referred to the correct phone conversation.

3. Secondly, the implication by Liebeler was that Michael Paine knew the names and identities of the JFK killers. A careful and unbiased reading of Michael's words in that 11/22/1963 phone call does not suggest that Michael Paine knew the NAMES of the killers. So Michael could honestly, under oath, deny that he knew their NAMES.

4. Notice that Michael Paine didn't deny the phone call -- or even the wording. It was only this implication that he knew the NAMES of the killers that he denied.

As Michael told Ruth on 11/22/1963 -- and as Ruth Paine told me on or about 11/22/2015 -- Michael and Ruth Paine both had in their minds the very real, very fresh and very shocking publications circulating in Dallas that day:

1. The WANTED FOR TREASON: JFK handbill
2. The WELCOME TO DALLAS, MISTER KENNEDY black-bordered ad in the Dallas Morning News.

Those two publications shocked most or perhaps all liberal-minded young people in Dallas that day. The hatred in those publications still shines through, 53 years later.

This was uppermost in their minds. This is what Michael meant, and Ruth understood, when he said, "We both know who did it."

It makes perfect sense to me. It is mainly those CTers who are "certain" that the CIA-did-it who loudly accuse Michael and Ruth Paine of lying to cover up for the CIA. That's ludicrous, in my opinion. It's making stuff up.

The truth is simple and straight-forward. Any normal person would have said the same thing in Dallas on 11/22/1963. Furthermore, as Dr. Jeff Caufield has shown, the people who created those two scurrilous documents were indeed the same people who assassinated JFK. (See his book, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy; the Extensive New Evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy (2015).)

So the intuition of Michael and Ruth Paine was spot on. They just didn't know the names of the plotters.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

1. Indeed Liebeler worded his question so that the call of November 22nd could be avoided, denied and omitted.

2. Michael Paine lied about that phone call (regardless of the date) by vaguely recalling that it was a DIFFERENT report that was made elsewhere in the country (where would he have heard about it in the first place?!). He never acknowledged it as being his own.

3. A careful and unbiased reading shows that Liebeler did NOT ask who the killerS were, just who was 'responsible' - and Michael Paine was not responsive. He only says he doesn't know who the assassin is. It was only later that he denies having made the "we know who is responsible remark".

4. If we are to believe Ruth Paine's after-the-fact explanation, then why didn't Michael Paine say so at the time (that it was the Birchers, etc.)? Instead, he lied having no knowledge of that remark.

This was no slip of the tongue error. Both Michael Paine and Liebeler are tippy-toeing around the truth. I can show those Commission Documents and the WC transcript to other readers and I'm sure that they will smell a rat.

In short, the comments that he "felt sure Lee Harvey Oswald had killed the President" and that "We both know who is responsible" are NOT mutually-exclusive. If you concede the latter (as Ruth Paine has, much after-the fact), then you cannot deny the former because they were both heard by the operator/confidential informant, and reported to the FBI who wrote those reports. The WC deposition avoids the embarrassing truth that two people knew about the alleged assassin Oswald before it was publicized and that others were possibly involved. I'm sorry but this makes the Paines highly suspect (and another example of the WC whitewash).

Edited August 9, 2016 by Gerry Simone

[Paul Trejo]

1. Indeed Liebeler worded his question so that the call of November 22nd could be avoided, denied and omitted.

2. Michael Paine lied about that phone call (regardless of the date) by vaguely recalling that it was a DIFFERENT report that was made elsewhere in the country (where would he have heard about it in the first place?!). He never acknowledged it as being his own.

3. A careful and unbiased reading shows that Liebeler did NOT ask who the killerS were, just who was 'responsible' - and Michael Paine was not responsive. He only says he doesn't know who the assassin is. It was only later that he denies having made the "we know who is responsible remark".

4. If we are to believe Ruth Paine's after-the-fact explanation, then why didn't Michael Paine say so at the time (that it was the Birchers, etc.)? Instead, he lied having no knowledge of that remark.

This was no slip of the tongue error. Both Michael Paine and Liebeler are tippy-toeing around the truth. I can show those Commission Documents and the WC transcript to other readers and I'm sure that they will smell a rat.

In short, the comments that he "felt sure Lee Harvey Oswald had killed the President" and that "We both know who is responsible" are NOT mutually-exclusive. If you concede the latter (as Ruth Paine has, much after-the fact), then you cannot deny the former because they were both heard by the operator/confidential informant, and reported to the FBI who wrote those reports. The WC deposition avoids the embarrassing truth that two people knew about the alleged assassin Oswald before it was publicized and that others were possibly involved. I'm sorry but this makes the Paines highly suspect (and another example of the WC whitewash).

Thanks for the civilized discussion, Gerry. OK, by the numbers:

(1) Although Liebeler worded his question so that the call of November 22nd could be avoided, denied or omitted, the fact remains that Michael Paine neither avoided it, nor denied it, nor omitted it. Michael Paine tackled it head-on.

(2) Michael Paine told the truth about that phone call (regardless of the date) because what was DIFFERENT was that implication that Michael Paine knew the NAMES of the killers. That never was his own message.

(3) With Liebeler asking WHO was responsible, the implication was that Michael knew the NAMES. That is why Michael said that he did not WHO the assassins were. It is the ambiguity of the statement that was on trial, and Michael along with it.

(3.1) It is a common phrase -- as in the movie, "Driving Miss Daisy," when Miss Daisy asked who was responsible for killing MLK, and her driver answered, "You know as well as me, it's always the same ones!" This is what the Paines meant, and common sense knows it, too.

(4) Michael Paine did not lie -- he said he made no such remark as being implied by Liebeler, that Michael KNEW EXACTLY WHO WAS RESPONSIBLE. That was the question that was being put to him by Liebeler, with plenty of heat. Ruth Paine also felt that same heat. So did, by the way, Wesley Frazier -- as the WC Attorneys were hot to find ACCOMPLICES of Oswald, especially if they were in the Communist Party. Michael Paine was fighting for his life there, and he knew it.

(4.1) Michael did not deny the phone call -- far from it. He only denied the implication that he must have known EXACTLY who killed JFK. The WC Attorneys pressed, because they knew they had only circumstantial evidence to convict Lee Harvey Oswald. So they were desperate. They truly pressed Michael Paine, and Michael Paine answered in a calculated way -- yet honestly.

(4.2) The only rat to smell in the WC testimony is that Liebeler was trying to trick Michael Paine into confessing the Communist accomplices of LHO. The entire WC testimony is filled with this sort of nonsense.

(4.3) So are the DPD reports e.g. Buddy Walthers fiction that Ruth Paine's garage had "six or seven metal filing cabinets full of names of Communists."

(5) The Informant who supplied the comment that Michael "felt sure Lee Harvey Oswald had killed the President" was clearly somebody trying to frame Lee Harvey Oswald, and who had the ability to bug the Paine's phone line before the day of the JFK assassination. WHO WOULD THAT BE?

(5.1) The best evidence is that DPD rogues (like Buddy Walthers and Roscoe White) along with FBI rogue James Hosty (who was the bridge partner of Robert Allen Surrey) were in that perfect position.

(5.2) I'm sorry Gerry, but you must add fiction to the actual phone call in order to get the results that you want.

(5.3) Now the result that you want is that the CIA killed JFK, right?

(5.4) And this argument, that Michael Paine and Ruth Paine really knew EXACTLY who killed JFK plays into that theory, because they were wealthy and from the East Coast, and so they were both CIA, right?

(5.5) No -- common sense agrees with Michael and Ruth Paine. What Michael Paine meant was: "You know as well as me, it's always the same ones!"

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited August 11, 2016 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

Also, Gerry, there was a separate, distinct motivation for the Warren Commission to pressure Michael Paine about his admitted comment to Ruth Paine over the telephone on 11/22/1963, namely, "We both know who did it."

The motive of the Warren Commission -- as shown clearly in their willingness to tamper with ballistics evidence, witnesses, medical evidence, and more -- was to convince the world that only Lee Harvey Oswald -- and nobody else -- was involved in the JFK assassination.

Their "Lone Nut" theory was king.

Many witnesses were pressured to admit that they had no credible evidence whatsoever of any other assassins. That is one strong reason why attorney Liebeler would insist -- on behalf of the Warren Commission -- that Michael really and truly didn't have any credible evidence of the NAMES of anybody who would have killed JFK.

The same pressure, for example, was heaped upon General Walker by Liebeler himself -- when General Walker insisted that the JFK assassination was a Communist plot, specifically executed by the FPCC.

Liebeler pressured Walker -- do you have any EVIDENCE of this? Walker insisted that "it should be obvious since Oswald was a member of the FPCC."

Liebeler pressured Walker more emphatically -- do you have any MATERIAL EVIDENCE of this? Walker had to admit that he had none.

This is another way to explain Liebeler's slip-of-the-tongue, almost fearing what Michael Paine might say. I think it is important to recognize that Michael Paine did not shy away from the question, even though Liebeler got the date wrong.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited August 11, 2016 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

In 1997, attorney Carol Hewett published an article in the CTKA Probe Magazine, entitled, The Paines Know – Lurking in the Shadows of the Walker Shooting (Probe, Vol. 5, No. 1, November-December, 1997, p. 11).

IMHO, this was Carol Hewett's longest and most creative article in Probe. Yet I've found 55 flaws in Carol Hewett's article about Ruth Paine. Here again is her Table of Contents, along with the numbers of my posts from last year and early this year which summarize her flaws, section by section.

================ The 55 FLAWS OF CAROL HEWETT -- TABLE OF CONTENTS ======================

PART ONE:......................................................post #573 12/30/2015
1.0. BACKGROUND
2.0. FIRST PUBLIC BLAMING OF LHO FOR THE WALKER SHOOTING
3.0. THE WALKER GETAWAY CAR1
4.0. THE WALKER LETTER

PART TWO:......................................................post #622 1/5/2016
5.0. THE WALKER BULLET
6.0. FRIENDS OF THE PAINES
7.0. MICHAEL PAINE AND LHO AS PALS

PART THREE:....................................................post #627 1/9/2016
8.0. WITH MARINA UNDER HER WING
9.0 DINNER FOR FOUR ON APRIL 2nd

PART FOUR:.....................................................post #657 1/16/2016
10.0. COME LIVE WITH ME ON APRIL 7th
11.0. AN ANTICIPATED ARREST – APRIL 10 & 11

PART FIVE:.....................................................post #658 1/22/2016
12.0. SATURDAY IN THE PARK – APRIL 20th
13.0. A SATURDAY GUN TRANSACTION
14.0. SEPARATION AGAIN – APRIL 24th

PART SIX:......................................................post #681 1/26/2016
15.0. THE PAINES KNOW
16.0. MICHAEL SAW THE BACKYARD PHOTOS IN APRIL, 1963
17.0. HUNTER OF FASCISTS INSIDE A RECORD ALBUM
18.0. RUTH AND THE GARRISON INQUIRY
19.0. CONCLUSION

===================================================================================

I continue to maintain the importance of defending Ruth Paine from the inaccuracies of Carol Hewett and the CTKA from the 1990's, since that disinformation continues to circulate within JFK CT literature. It's the 21st century now, and we should hold to a higher degree of reporting accuracy.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited September 3, 2016 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

Rather than expect readers to flip through months of past posts in this thread, I will briefly summarize all of the posts from last December and January in which I defend Ruth Paine from the 55 mistakes made by Carol Hewett in Probe Magazine in 1997.

I will use Carol Hewett's eighteen section headings in her 1997 article, "The Paine's Know" -- with one post for every section or two.

1.0. BACKGROUND

1. On Fri29Nov1963 the German newspaper, Deutsche Nationalzeitung featured a headline article claiming that RFK had protected LHO after his attempt to kill General Walker back in April. The German FBI (BND) seized their writer and interrogated him until he confessed that General Walker was the original source of that story. The German BND told the American FBI, and the WC had this data. General Walker denied this under oath, and he even claimed that he didn't believe that LHO was his shooter. Carol Hewett -- obviously unaware of the facts which are today easily availbale on the Mary Ferrell web site -- chose to believe General Walker.

NOTE: General Walker’s personal papers contradict his WC testimony, for just one of many examples, this one: http://www.pet880.co...rank_Church.pdf

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited September 3, 2016 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

2.0. FIRST PUBLIC BLAMING OF LHO FOR THE WALKER SHOOTING

2. The Houston Post in its Sat23Nov1963 morning issue passes forth a rumor that Oswald was the Walker shooter, without naming its source. Carol Hewett claims, out of the blue, that Michael Paine was the source of this report to theHouston Post, without offering any citation or any shred of evidence. (In fact, General Walker himself, or perhaps Robert Allen Surrey, are better suspects for that report -- since Walker had already given this data to a German newspaper earlier that same morning.)

3.0. THE WALKER GETAWAY CAR

3. Since the witnesses of the Walker shooting reported a black and white 1958 or 1959 Chevy fleeing the scene, and Charles Klihr’s car in the backyard photo of Walker’s house with the license plate blotched out is a two-tone 1957 Chevy, Carol Hewett writes, “there is sufficient similarity of 1957, 1958 and 1959 Chevy sedans” to make Klihr a clear suspect. Carol Hewett appears ignorant that a 1957 Chevy sedan has very distinctive, wide, vertical rear fins that are impossible to mistake for any other Chevy model.

4. Carol Hewett accuses Ruth Paine of finding-or-forging the infamous “Walker Letter” for the Secret Service on Sat30Nov63 inside of one of Marina’s books, despite Ruth Paine’s denials that she never saw it before in her life. Carol’s argument is that ‘the DPD searched Ruth’s home ‘thoroughly’ on the weekend after the JFK murder.’ The same DPD that was charged to protect JFK and LHO – this same DPD Carol sees as ‘thorough’ and ‘efficient’.

5. Marina Oswald said that LHO wrote the “Walker Letter” the night that he also confessed to her that he shot at Walker. Carol Hewett accuses Marina of lying, because Marina once said that LHO later threatened to shoot Richard Nixon, so she “locked” LHO in a bathroom (from the outside!?) until he calmed down. But bathrooms lock from the inside, and LHO was much stronger than she was. Yet Carol doesn’t give Marina any leeway for her poor English skills, insofar as “locked” to an ESL speaker can mean multiple things. Besides, given that LHO was only teasing Marina about Nixon, in a wicked joke, Marina’s story remains believable.

6. Carol Hewett neglects to report that Secret Service later verified with experts that the handwriting in the “Walker Letter” was LHO’s handwriting, and they apologized to Ruth Paine.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited September 3, 2016 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

5.0. THE WALKER BULLET

7. The FBI Lab concluded that the “Walker Bullet” was too mutilated to match to LHO’s specific rifle. Carol Hewett jumps to the conclusion that LHO could never have shot at General Walker. Yet Carol also claims that LHO could have had accomplices in the Walker shooting, and with accomplices one also has access to other rifles.

8. Carol Hewett claims that General Walker complained that the “Walker slug” held by the Warren Commission is not the one found by the police in his home. Actually, General Walker complained that Robert Blakey showed TV cameras a pristine bullet to stand in for the Walker bullet, and so Walker threatened to sue. Walker knew the WC had the “Walker bullet” on file as CE-437, but he insisted that they only show the original on TV.