Ruth Paine

[Ernie Lazar]

Once again Paul resorts to falsehoods in order to make his case.

Welch never stated that FDR or Truman were Communists. That is pure fiction fabricated by Paul. In fact, on several occasions, including in personal correspondence, Welch explicitly rejected the idea that they were Communists.

With respect to the Minutemen: as I have pointed out several times -- the FBI obtained MM membership lists on at least 3 different occasions from 3 different people. The MM never had an active membership of more than a few hundred individuals. Obviously, they were in no position to launch any kind of revolt or major anti-government violence.

Paul suggests that "the left" would have gone after the radical right "with fury" had the right been linked the JFK's murder. Actually, "the left" did blame the radical right anyway but there was no violence.

With respect to Professor Wrone's comment: There were several incidents directed against the Birch Society after JFK's murder. Yes, some billboards were vandalized. In addition, a couple JBS bookstores were on the receiving end of rocks and there were threatening phone calls.

There are ALWAYS such incidents when passions are inflamed by events. [We have seen the same thing happen to American Muslims and their mosques in recent months.]

But it is way-beyond mere hyperbole to suggest that "the left" in our country was likely to engage in widespread violence against the radical right -- EVEN IF it could be proven that a right-wing conspiracy was responsible for JFK's murder. And it is equally absurd to suggest that a few disgruntled Minutemen would somehow be able to launch a revolt against the U.S. government (or any state or local government).

Well, Ernie, are we now splitting hairs? Do you mean to argue that the John Birch Society regarded Presidents FDR and Truman as ideal Presidents? No?

I notice you don't deny that Robert Welch, founder of the JBS, openly called President Eisenhower a Communist.

All you're really saying is that Welch was more careful with his remarks about FDR and Truman. Yet one only needs to read back issues of the JBS magazine, "American Opinion" in order to find countless accusations about the Redness of FDR and Truman.

Not only do you know this, but pretty much every reader here knows this.

Also, isn't it true that John Birch Society ideology was a carrying-forward of the ideas of Senator Joseph McCarthy? Isn't it also true that McCarthy was bold about calling FDR and Truman Communist Traitors?

Wasn't this clear from McCarthy's 1951 publication, "Twenty Years of Treason," which referred to the terms of FDR and Truman, so that in 1952, when Eisenhower was elected President, McCarthy quipped, "Make that 21 years of Treason!"?!

It's disingenuous to suggest that the Radical Right and followers of the JBS held FDR and Truman in high regard, Ernie.

You want to be a stickler for details -- OK -- but please don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Paul -- you have presented yet another straw-man argument---which seems to be your speciality.

Example: Suppose you state that Dallas TX is the capital of the United States. If I then correct your falsehood, am I "splitting hairs" OR does correctly identifying the capital of the U.S. make any difference to you?

Of course neither Robert Welch or the JBS considered Truman or Eisenhower to be "ideal Presidents". No radical right adherent thought so. But why can't you accurate QUOTE or (at least) paraphrase what somebody DOES ACTUALLY BELIEVE? Why is simple factual truth not ever good enough for you? Why must you create false caricatures of what somebody actually believes?

What this example proves (YET AGAIN), is that you have never actually researched what Welch believed. Instead, you feel like it is entirely acceptable and normal behavior to fabricate anything you want --- as long as it conforms to your larger argument.

Now you claim that McCarthy thought FDR and Truman were "Communist traitors". OK--then QUOTE something he wrote or said and give us the bibliographic citation so that we know you are giving us accurate and truthful information.

Then you write: "It's disingenuous to suggest that the Radical Right and followers of the JBS held FDR and Truman in high regard, Ernie."

So, tell us whom (in this thread or any other thread on EF) has ever stated that the radical right or followers of the JBS held FDR and Truman in high regard. QUOTE the persons who have made that statement.

The problem is this Paul: You have NO respect for truth. You just INVENT from whole cloth whatever you want to believe and then attribute YOUR falsehoods to another person.

[Paul Trejo]

Paul -- you have presented yet another straw-man argument---which seems to be your speciality.

Example: Suppose you state that Dallas TX is the capital of the United States. If I then correct your falsehood, am I "splitting hairs" OR does correctly identifying the capital of the U.S. make any difference to you?

Of course neither Robert Welch or the JBS considered Truman or Eisenhower to be "ideal Presidents". No radical right adherent thought so. But why can't you accurate QUOTE or (at least) paraphrase what somebody DOES ACTUALLY BELIEVE? Why is simple factual truth not ever good enough for you? Why must you create false caricatures of what somebody actually believes?

What this example proves (YET AGAIN), is that you have never actually researched what Welch believed. Instead, you feel like it is entirely acceptable and normal behavior to fabricate anything you want --- as long as it conforms to your larger argument.

Now you claim that McCarthy thought FDR and Truman were "Communist traitors". OK--then QUOTE something he wrote or said and give us the bibliographic citation so that we know you are giving us accurate and truthful information.

Then you write: "It's disingenuous to suggest that the Radical Right and followers of the JBS held FDR and Truman in high regard, Ernie."

So, tell us whom (in this thread or any other thread on EF) has ever stated that the radical right or followers of the JBS held FDR and Truman in high regard. QUOTE the persons who have made that statement.

The problem is this Paul: You have NO respect for truth. You just INVENT from whole cloth whatever you want to believe and then attribute YOUR falsehoods to another person.

You simply overstate your case, Ernie. This isn't a Forum about the JBS or Robert Welch, but about the JFK Assassination.

When I generalize about the JBS or Robert Welch, I believe that my readers take my statements in CONTEXT.

Posting on a FORUM is not the same as submitting a thesis to a Doctoral Committee. I'm under no obligation to provide citations and footnotes for every post I make.

If I were so obliged, then everybody would be, and then there would be crickets on this Forum.

This is an INFORMAL medium, Ernie. You're being too rigid here, and out of context. You actually AGREE with me that Robert Welch and the JBS were sharply critical of FDR and Truman, don't you? DON'T YOU?

Yet the language that you use suggests that you disagree with me FULLY. DOESN'T IT?

That's because your confusing contexts. It's a category mistake.

You're not yet oriented to the main theme here -- the murder of JFK. I think that's your key flaw here.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited January 31, 2016 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

Paul -- you have presented yet another straw-man argument---which seems to be your speciality.

Example: Suppose you state that Dallas TX is the capital of the United States. If I then correct your falsehood, am I "splitting hairs" OR does correctly identifying the capital of the U.S. make any difference to you?

Of course neither Robert Welch or the JBS considered Truman or Eisenhower to be "ideal Presidents". No radical right adherent thought so. But why can't you accurate QUOTE or (at least) paraphrase what somebody DOES ACTUALLY BELIEVE? Why is simple factual truth not ever good enough for you? Why must you create false caricatures of what somebody actually believes?

What this example proves (YET AGAIN), is that you have never actually researched what Welch believed. Instead, you feel like it is entirely acceptable and normal behavior to fabricate anything you want --- as long as it conforms to your larger argument.

Now you claim that McCarthy thought FDR and Truman were "Communist traitors". OK--then QUOTE something he wrote or said and give us the bibliographic citation so that we know you are giving us accurate and truthful information.

Then you write: "It's disingenuous to suggest that the Radical Right and followers of the JBS held FDR and Truman in high regard, Ernie."

So, tell us whom (in this thread or any other thread on EF) has ever stated that the radical right or followers of the JBS held FDR and Truman in high regard. QUOTE the persons who have made that statement.

The problem is this Paul: You have NO respect for truth. You just INVENT from whole cloth whatever you want to believe and then attribute YOUR falsehoods to another person.

You simply overstate your case, Ernie. This isn't a Forum about the JBS or Robert Welch, but about the JFK Assassination.

When I generalize about the JBS or Robert Welch, I believe that my readers take my statements in CONTEXT.

Posting on a FORUM is not the same as submitting a thesis to a Doctoral Committee. I'm under no obligation to provide citations and footnotes for every post I make.

If I were so obliged, then everybody would be, and then there would be crickets on this Forum.

This is an INFORMAL medium, Ernie. You're being too rigid here, and out of context. You actually AGREE with me that Robert Welch and the JBS were sharply critical of FDR and Truman, don't you? DON'T YOU?

Yet the language that you use suggests that you disagree with me FULLY. DOESN'T IT?

That's because your confusing contexts. It's a category mistake.

You're not yet oriented to the main theme here -- the murder of JFK. I think that's your key flaw here.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

"Generalize" is totally different from making FALSE statements. The fact that you do not understand the difference is all that needs to be pointed out.

If (as your comments suggest) it is of no particular importance or significance to correctly understand what Robert Welch, or the JBS, or Joe McCarthy actually believed, actually wrote, or actually said --- then why bring up those matters?

[Paul Brancato]

Agree Ernie. Trejo's theory falls on its face when he asserts that Hoover and LBJ failed to bring the guilty to justice in order to avoid civil unrest, and he cannot wriggle his way out of this by making false statements about what might have happened had our government conducted a real investigation.

[Paul Trejo]

In post #687 I summarized my last month of posts on this thread, carefully reviewing Carol Hewett’s 1997 article, The Paines Know – Lurking in the Shadows of the Walker Shooting (Probe, Vol. 5, No. 1, November-December, 1997, p. 11). This was Carol's longest and IMHO most creative article in Probe.

However, at 20 pages of length, post #687 was reportedly too long for many people.

So, I DELETED POST #687. I agree that it was too long.

Then I summarized my identification of the 55 flaws in Carol Hewett's article about Ruth Paine, in only half the space in this post. I again begin with the Table of Contents, giving post number and date for the material summarized:

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

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

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 BND told the 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 is obviously unaware of this BND and FBI report, so she chooses 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.com/images/19750623_EAW_to_Frank_Church.pdf

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 the Houston Post, without offering any citation or any shred of evidence.

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.

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.

6.0. FRIENDS OF THE PAINES

9. Michael and Ruth Paine had known Everett Glover for years, so Carol Hewett presumes that Ruth Paine was close with all of Everett’s friends, including Volkmar Schmidt and George and Jeanne DeMohrenschildt despite Ruth’s many denials. Carol provides no material evidence for her claim.

10. Carol Hewett says that the Oswalds were invited to the Fri22Feb63 party “for the express purpose of meeting the Paines,” suggesting a CIA “hand-off” of LHO from the DeMohrenschildts to the Paines. Again, Carol cites no shred of material evidence to back up her ridiculous claim.

11. Ruth Paine was interested in Marina Oswald as a friend and conversational Russian speaker, and also because Marina Oswald repeatedly asked Ruth for help. Ruth had little interest in LHO or General Walker. Carol Hewett claims that Ruth Paine’s true motives were from the FBI and CIA.

7.0. MICHAEL PAINE AND LHO AS PALS

12. Carol Hewett attempts to make a political link between LHO and Michael Paine; some secret alliance to do violent deeds. LHO associated with Michael Paine two times in 1963 – April 1963 and November 1963 – and both times LHO was blamed for an assassination attempt. So Carol accuses the Paines of manipulating LHO for the FBI and CIA. Carol provides no material evidence whatsoever for this outrageous accusation.

13. Carol Hewett cites reports by SMU students that Michael Paine liked to challenge them with political debates about Communism and Cuba, and challenge them to attend Red meetings and speak their minds. When asked if he did this, Michael boasted to them that he personally knew an ex-Marine who had lived in the USSR and returned to the USA with a Russian wife. Carol wishes to portray this as espionage, but even if true, the report is basically nothing.

14. Carol Hewett cites LHO’s brother, Robert Oswald, in his opinion that Michael Paine was also an FPCC supporter. Yet not one scrap of material evidence is offered for this charge by anybody – not Robert and not Carol.

8.0. WITH MARINA UNDER HER WING

15. Ruth and Marina agree in their WC testimony that Marina told Ruth in March 1963 that she was pregnant, and that LHO was continually threatening to force her to return to the USSR without him. All the letters that Marina wrote to the USSR Embassy about a visa were always written by LHO himself, and LHO forced Marina to sign them. This was the original cause of Ruth’s concern for Marina Oswald. Ruth started out hoping for a friend for Russian conversation, but this soon became a charity concern for a Soviet refugee. Carol Hewett, however, claims that she cannot see any genuine motivation for Ruth Paine’s concern for the welfare of Marina Oswald.

16. Carol Hewett insists that Ruth Paine spoke Russian perfectly well, because she had been taking classes since 1957, and didn’t need any Russian conversational practice. Her evidence is that Ruth Paine got a job teaching Russian language and St. Mark’s School for Boys in Dallas, Texas. But teaching young boys the rules of Russian grammar (for the one semester, part-time) is comparatively easy compared with conversational Russian. Carol just didn’t know that.

17. Ruth denied social ties with the White Russian community in Dallas. They were all native Russian speakers and Russian Orthodox Church members, and Ruth wasn’t. Carol Hewett says Ruth is lying about this, and that Ruth was close to George DeMohrenschildt and the White Russians who were also close to the CIA and worked to frame LHO for the Walker and JFK shootings. The only White Russian that Ruth knew was the elderly Dorothy Gravitas, her Russian tutor. Carol provides no material evidence for her charges.

18. To the WC charge that Ruth’s concern for Marina Oswald was “odd” because Marina was married, Ruth explained that Marina complained of her fears that LHO sought to abandon her. Carol Hewett writes: “Ruth didn’t know LHO, so how could she know how much he might interfere?” Actually, Ruth didn’t want to take Marina unless LHO actually did abandon her, and she was sensitive to the marriage of LHO and Marina. Ruth only offered to help when Marina was in real need – e.g. LHO was traveling to NOLA alone, or traveling to Mexico City alone, and Marina was pregnant and penniless. Carol Hewett consistently ignores Ruth’s reasonable explanation for her behavior.

19. Carol Hewett accuses Ruth Paine along with LHO for failing to teach Marina English. This was intended to manipulate Marina, suggested Carol. Actually, Ruth offered multiple times to help Marina with English, but Marina was always too busy with child-care and with other worries.

9.0. DINNER FOR FOUR ON APRIL 2nd

20. Ruth says that she invited the Oswalds to dinner and to meet Michael Paine on April 2, 1963. This was the first time that Michael Paine met LHO face to face. Carol Hewett accuses the Paines of lying here, because Everett Glover had said that Michael Paine met LHO at his apartment earlier in 1963. Actually, Everett Glover said: “I’m pretty sure that he was there. Again, I’m not 100% sure.” Carol Hewett has nothing else to add to this.

21. When the WC asked Michael for the date of this dinner, Michael accidentally answered, April 10th – which was the same day of the Walker shooting. Carol Hewett claimed victory here – because it either gave LHO an alibi for the Walker shooting, or it proved that Michael Paine was involved in the Walker shooting (as Walker also suspected out loud to the WC). Michael then corrected himself and told the WC the actual date, April 2nd. Carol refused to accept the correction.

22. The Oswalds had no car, so Michael Paine testified that he drove the Oswalds from Neeley Street to Irving on April 2, 1963. In that first and only visit to the Oswald apartment (claims Michael) he noticed the apartment’s narrow clapboard siding, so he later recognized the location of the Backyard Photographs (BYPs) when the DPD showed them to Michael. Carol Hewett accuses Michael of lying, because ‘half of all wooden houses in Oak Cliff had that same siding, and still do.’ Carol insists that Michael Paine “must have been” involved in the Walker shooting somehow, but she lacks solid evidence.

23. Ruth Paine says that General Walker wasn’t discussed in her hearing at that April 2nd dinner, and that she wasn’t interested anyway, because she preferred the topic of child-care over politics. Carol Hewett accuses Ruth of lying here, simply because Ruth was college-educated. According to Carol, Ruth Paine “must have been” involved in the Walker shooting somehow, but she lacks solid evidence.

10.0. COME LIVE WITH ME ON APRIL 7th

24. On Sunday, April 7th, Ruth Paine composed a letter in Russian to Marina Oswald, inviting Marina to live with her; but never sent it to Marina. Ruth told the WC that she wanted to protect pregnant Marina from LHO’s threats to send her back to the USSR without him. Yet Ruth wanted to be perfectly certain about LHO’s intent to abandon Marina. Only if LHO really didn’t want Marina would Ruth help Marina get on her feet in the USA. Yet Ruth’s Russian vocabulary was weak, so she wrote her invitation in a letter, to later use that vocabulary in a face-to-face talk with Marina at the right time. Carol Hewett insists that Ruth Paine “must have” sent that letter! Carol doesn’t explain why; she arbitrarily claims Ruth is lying about everything.

11.0. THE WALKER SHOOTING ON APRIL 10, 1963

25. Ruth Paine’s calendar has two entries for April 10th and 11th naming Marina – with an arrow between them. Ruth vaguely recalls hoping to see Marina on those two days, but became too busy. Carol Hewett accuses Ruth of lying, since those were the days of the Walker shooting. Carol guesses: if LHO was really the author of the “Walker Letter,” then he obviously anticipated being arrested. So, if Ruth knew all about it, then Ruth was planning to take Marina under her wing, just in case LHO was arrested. Carol is now arbitrarily making up scenarios.

26. Carol Hewett cites the actual fact that Marina Oswald had begun a regular correspondence with the USSR Embassy since February 17, 1963, regarding her visa to return to Russia, and claims that Marina desired to go back to the USSR. However, Carol ignores Marina’s repeated testimony that LHO was forcing her to write those letters all year long.

27. Carol Hewett cites the actual fact that the FBI would intercept Marina’s mail to the USSR Embassy, and guesses that the FBI asked Ruth Paine to try to keep Marina Oswald in the USA. Carol guesses that this is why Ruth Paine met Marina Oswald on February 22nd at the Everett Glover’s apartment. To float her theory, Carol must ignore the testimony of both Ruth and Marina that Ruth’s motive was her own, independent decision to protect Marina Oswald from being sent back to the USSR, starting in March when Marina herself complained about LHO’s behavior.

28. On Easter Sunday April 14th, says Carol Hewett, the Oswalds were visited by both George and Jeanne DeMohrenschildt at their apartment, where Jeanne found LHO’s rifle. Actually, however, the WC testimony clearly says that the DeMohrenschildts had visited the Oswalds at 10pm on Saturday April 13th – not Easter Sunday.

29. Carol claims that Jeanne DeMohrenschildt’s testimony that she found Oswald’s rifle in the Oswald’s apartment “conflicts with Marina’s statement that as of Easter Sunday the rifle was still buried.” That’s simply untrue. Marina’s WC testimony agreed with Jeanne DeMohrenschildt on dates and basic events. (Besides that, the Russian word for “buried” also means just “hidden”.)

12.0. SATURDAY IN THE PARK – APRIL 20th

30. Ruth Paine testifies that her next contact with the Oswalds was on Saturday morning, April 20th, when she drove their family to a fishing park. LHO was in a bad mood and stayed alone, fishing – out of their sight. When he returned, he had a fish. Carol Hewett guesses that since LHO could not be seen, perhaps LHO was meeting a CIA Agent (or other secret agent) in the park (or elsewhere). Again, Carol is arbitrarily making up scenarios.

31. During April 1963, the Oswalds sometimes met with the Paines and sometimes met with the DeMohrenschildts. Carol Hewett insists that because the time frames were so close, there “must have been” interaction between Paines and DeMohrenschildts; probably secret and plotting with FBI and CIA (as Jim Garrison once proposed). Carol is unable to offer any evidence for her guess.

13.0. A SATURDAY GUN TRANSACTION

32. One Saturday in March or April 1963 (he couldn’t remember when) Robert Taylor, a mechanic at a Shell station near Ruth Paine’s house, traded a $11.50 repair of a black and white 1959 Chevy for a .30 caliber $12 Springfield military rifle, with two odd men. After JFK was killed, Taylor called the FBI and said that LHO could have been one of those men. Mechanic Curtis Crowder also saw the trade; he said it was on Sat20Apr63, and he told the FBI that neither man was LHO, though one showed some resemblance. Carol Hewett weaves a novel scenario: witnesses said the Walker shooting involved a steel-jacketed bullet from a .30 caliber military rifle and a black and white Chevy get-away car! The other man was LHO’s accomplice, she exclaims!

14.0. SEPARATION ON APRIL 24th

33. Ruth Paine testified that her next visit with the Oswalds was on Wed24Apr1963, with the names of both Marina and the unemployed Lee in her calendar on this date. When Ruth arrived she was surprised that LHO was packed to move to New Orleans, asking Ruth to transport his luggage to the bus station. Carol Hewett again accuses Ruth of lying – Ruth had really planned to help LHO move to New Orleans, she claims. Again, Carol offers no material evidence for her suspicion.

34. Ruth Paine testified that LHO bought a bus ticket for Marina, and Marina was going to stay at the Neely Street address, without rent money, until LHO got a job and an apartment in New Orleans and sent her a letter (they had no phone) to use her bus ticket to join him. Ruth angrily thought that this plan was unfair to Marina who was already worried that LHO would abandon her. But Ruth kindly offered to LHO to take Marina into her own house and let Marina wait there for LHO to get settled and call Marina on Ruth’s phone. Ruth also offered to personally drive Marina to New Orleans. LHO accepted her offer. LHO went to NOLA and Marina and June went to live with Ruth Paine. On May 10, 1963 (16 days later) LHO called Marina with news that he was ready for her, so Ruth promptly drove Marina and baby June to New Orleans on May 11, 1963. Carol Hewett suspects an evil motive to all this. Plenty of pregnant women ride the bus, with no problem, she writes. Carol insists that Michael’s separation was “no coincidence” and Ruth’s motives were “not charitable,” but she fails to back up these charges with material evidence.

35. For the next five months Ruth and Marina still shared letters, and Marina still worried about LHO. That summer rich Ruth Paine took a 10-week vacation to visit her rich family on the East coast. She told them all how she wanted to rescue this Russian Refugee, Marina Oswald, and spoke of little else. At the end of her vacation, Ruth stopped at New Orleans to visit the Oswalds; Marina was now waddling pregnant, and LHO had lost his job yet again. Ruth again took pity on Marina and offered to take her back to Texas so that Marina could have her baby safely at Parkland Hospital, while LHO looked for work. Carol Hewett refuses to believe that Ruth Paine was being “charitable” here.

36. In all of those letters, Ruth and Marina never discussed Marina living with Ruth, yet Carol Hewett claims that this was Ruth Paine’s original plot; to isolate Marina from LHO. She doesn’t say why, but it sounds conspiratorial so she prints it. Actually, she’s really imitating Jim Garrison’s guess that the CIA role of Ruth Paine was to “isolate Marina from LHO,” but even Jim Garrison didn’t explain why. After Jim Garrison interrogated Ruth Paine in 1968, he dropped this theory. Carol Hewett just repeats Garrison’s failed idea, even though it still has no motive or reason.

37. Ruth Paine’s relatives and friends agreed that Ruth was continually making plans for Marina to live alone as a single mother in the USA, perhaps even among the New York Russian Exile community, if she wanted to – if (and only if) LHO actually abandoned her as he reportedly threatened to do. But Carol Hewett claims that Ruth’s folks told the FBI that Ruth was planning to take Marina to Texas with her all along. Carol fails to offer their actual words, though, and they didn’t actually use those words.

38. When Ruth Paine arrived in New Orleans on September 20, 1963, she found Marina and LHO getting along. So Ruth didn’t say a word about Texas at first, but after she learned that LHO had been fired yet again, and that Marina was only weeks away from giving birth, she was moved. It’s not only Quakers who would step up when friends face a tough spot like this; if we could afford it, most of us would offer to take Marina back to a safe place so that she could give birth at a safe hospital. So she did. LHO loved the idea and was very helpful for the next four days. When Ruth invited a Church family to visit Marina (because one of the daughters spoke Russian), LHO was very polite to them, according to what Ruth could see. Carol Hewett rejects this logical explanation, but insists, without proof, that Ruth was plotting something with the FBI and CIA.

15.0. THE PAINES KNOW

39. Marina Oswald told the WC that LHO told her personally that Michael Paine knew about the Walker shooting. Carol Hewett however, prints that Marina told the WC that both Michael and Ruth Paine knew about the Walker shooting. That is a serious charge, and Carol plainly twisted Marina’s testimony to make her claim.

40. Michael Paine explained to the WC that Marina Oswald was simply mistaken about this belief, and that Marina didn’t claim any first-hand knowledge, but only repeated hear-say from LHO, who can no longer be interrogated. Marina later admitted this, too. Carol omits these facts.

41. The WC asked Ruth Paine about her calendar entry of April 11, 1963, because Ruth had Marina’s name in that calendar square. Ruth explained that she had hoped to see Marina that day, but she got too busy. Carol Hewett accuses Ruth Paine is lying, and that the Paines knew about the Walker shooting because the Paines actually helped LHO with it, and after the plot failed, they helped the Oswalds flee to New Orleans. Carol invents this original scenario: ‘Since LHO told the Paines about the Walker shooting, the only reason the Paines would remain LHO’s friends for the rest of the year was because the Paines were behind the Walker plot;’ mere pulp fiction.

42. The WC noted that a German newspaper (Deutsche Nationalzeitung) article of 11/29/1963 reported that RFK had protected LHO in the effort to kill General Walker. Carol Hewett wonders whether General Walker first heard this first from the German newspaper, or whether the German newspaper heard it first from General Walker. Carol was clearly unaware that FBI reports had long confirmed that the German FBI (BND) interrogation of Helmut Muench proved that the German newspaper had heard it first from General Walker.

43. The WC also noted that a National Enquirer story of May 1964 also suggested that RFK had protected LHO in the effort to kill General Walker. Carol Hewett also notes this article, and she like the WC failed to recognize that General Walker was also the source of that article, as this was one of General Walker’s favorite stories that he often repeated till the year he died.

16.0. MICHAEL SAW THE BACKYARD PHOTOS IN APRIL, 1963

44. Michael Paine admitted to Dan Rather in 1993 that he first saw LHO’s BYP prior to the JFK murder, although Michael Paine had testified to the WC that he never saw LHO with any weapons. Carol Paine exclaims that Michael Paine perjured himself before the WC, to conceal his role as an accomplice to the Walker shooting. However, Michael Paine didn’t tell Dan Rather he saw LHO with literal weapons – Michael only saw a photograph of LHO with weapons. These could have been: (i) fake weapons; (ii) a fake photograph; or (iii) both. So, even though Michael in 1993 admitted he saw a BYP in April 1963, Michael Paine could still say, without perjury, that he never saw LHO with literal weapons in 1963.

45. Carol Hewett accuses Michael Paine: he “must have” known all about LHO, which is why he panicked when he heard JFK was shot. He “must have” known LHO was prone to violence back in April, and yet he remained pals with LHO for the rest of 1963, and even let LHO stay at his own wife’s house with his own children. He “must have” known that the long metal object inside a blanket in his garage was a rifle, and he “must have” even placed it into his garage himself. For Carol Hewett, Michael and Ruth Paine secretly managed LHO’s rifle, and lied to the WC about it. But Carol offers no material evidence for this charge; only her own guesswork.

17.0. HUNTER OF FASCISTS INSIDE A RECORD ALBUM

46. When Ruth Paine drove Marina and baby June Oswald to New Orleans to join LHO in NOLA on May 11th, 1963, Ruth also asked Michael Paine to return some items that Marina had borrowed from the DeMohrenschildts in 1962 – long before Ruth had met Marina. These items were a record player and a box of “Learn to Speak English” records. The DeMohrenschildts now lived in Haiti, but Michael’s longtime Unitarian friend, Everett Glover, was also a friend of the DeMohrenschildts and was now house-sitting for them. Everett had a place in the garage for DeMohrenschildt storage, and he placed Marina’s items there. This box of records also contained a BYP, dedicated to George and signed and dated by LHO himself on April 5, 1963. George DeMohrenschildt found this BYP in 1967 and turned it over to authorities. Carol Hewett claims that George DeMohrenschildt had long “incriminated” LHO for the JFK murder, and in 1967 was happy to do so again. Probably Carol never read George’s 1978 manuscript, I’m A Patsy! I’m A Patsy!

47. Carol Hewett jumps to this conclusion about the Paines and DeMohrenschildts: “this record player incident certainly means that the two couples were quite aware of one another.” Actually, it means no such thing. Marina received them in 1962, before she met Ruth. Everett Glover had delivered them to Marina in 1962 and returned them to the DeMohrenschildts in 1963. No direct contact is implied between the Paines and the DeMohrenschildts in the “record player incident.”

48. On 11/25/1963 Ruth Paine told the FBI that Everett Glover was living at the DeMohrenschildt residence. Carol Hewett exclaims that this is proof that the Paines were close to the DeMohrenschildts; otherwise, how would she know this? Simple; Marina Oswald knew the DeMohrenschildts very well, and Marina told Ruth. Yet Carol blithely rejects Ruth Paine’s 1964 testimony that she only met the DeMohrenschildts once in her life.

49. Regarding the BYP, Carol Hewett speculates: (i) the Garrison investigation just became public in 1967; (ii) Garrison claimed that the BYPs were Fakes; and (iii) George DeMohrenschildt was sent by the CIA to prove the BYP were real. Actually, Carol confuses two separate issues: (i) the BYP are clearly Fakes; and (ii) LHO signed George’s BYP in April 1963, as confirmed by handwriting experts. Carol should have concluded that LHO himself created the Fakes for plausible denial, but instead Carol claims that the CIA sent DeMohrenschildt in 1967 to prove that the BYP were real; and that the CIA sent Michael Paine in 1993 to prove that the BYP were real. Actually, neither George nor Michael said that the BYPs were real – only that Michael saw one in April 1963, and that LHO had signed George’s copy in April 1963. They could still be Fakes. Carol missed that.

50. The WC noted that the BYPs fit a pattern of LHO trying to make himself look like a left-wing revolutionary, e.g. in NOLA by publicly handing out FPCC fliers, and in Mexico City by demanding a visa to Havana and making a scene there. This remains true even if the BYPs are Fakes that were created by LHO himself at Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall. Carol Hewett, however, insists that LHO’s enemies created the BYP Fakes before the Walker shooting to frame LHO as a Red fanatic. Carol ignores the fact that LHO deliberately put himself out in the public eye as a Leftist Activist.

51. Ruth Paine testified in 1964 that she met the DeMohrenschildts one and only one time in her life. Carol Hewett insists that Ruth Paine is lying about this. The two couples had dinner together in 1966 to discuss the JFK murder and the newly found BYP, she said. (Actually, she got the date wrong, because George DeMohrenschildt said in his 1978 manuscript, I’m a Patsy! I’m a Patsy! that he found the BYP in February 1967.) Yet Carol’s point is that George said in that manuscript that he spoke of the BYP only with “close friends.” Therefore, concludes Carol, the Paines must have been “close friends” of the DeMohrenschildts because they spoke of the BYP in 1966. Since Ruth lied, claims Carol, they “must have” been friends long before Ruth Paine met Marina Oswald. Carol Hewett totally takes words out of context to build her sand castles.

52. Although the BYPs do reveal aspects from LHO’s Imperial Reflex 35mm camera, they also reveal aspects from a 15mm camera lens, according to one WC expert. Carol Hewett jumps to the conclusion that since Michael Paine’s Minox camera had a 15mm camera lens, that Michael Paine “must have” had a hand in creating the BYP. Carol neglects the simple fact that countless other cameras have 15mm lenses, and that includes many cameras at Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall, where LHO worked until April 1, 1963.

18.0. RUTH AND THE GARRISON INQUIRY

53. Ruth Paine told journalist Jessmyn Westin the summer of 1964 that she was “glad” that LHO was killed by Jack Ruby. This is a harsh remark, but Ruth explained her meaning – LHO’s death spared Marina the trauma of watching LHO convicted as the “Lone Nut” and getting the Dallas electric chair – whether guilty or not – based on the vast circumstantial evidence from which the WC and FBI refused to back down. Carol Hewett, however, claims this is a totally Un-Christian attitude on the part of Ruth Paine, and so she sarcastically calls Ruth, “this pious Quaker.” Rather, insinuates Carol Hewett, Ruth Paine is a heartless CIA agent who plotted to murder JFK and then blame LHO, as Jim Garrison had tried but failed to prove. However, I think that many people can sympathize with Ruth Paine’s concern for Marina Oswald, given the perfect framing of LHO for the JFK murder. Dallas DA Henry Wade said, “I’ve sent men to the electric chair with less evidence than this!” LHO had made the mistake of trusting his framers, and handing over his rifle to them. The FBI had no other suspect so perfectly framed.

54. Ruth Paine wrote a gushing, sympathetic letter to Jim Garrison in April 1968, praising his courage and offering to help him if she could. Carol Hewett was surprised by this letter, but then concluded that Ruth Paine was actually being cold-blooded, and had written this letter to Garrison as some sort of trick. Yet Carol had no explanation about what such a trick would accomplish.

55. Carol Hewett said that Jim Garrison always remained convinced that the Paines were somehow involved in the JFK murder. In fact, Ruth Paine faced Jim Garrison’s investigation before his Grand Jury, and Garrison found NOTHING to indict. This impressed Jim Garrison. After Ruth’s testimony, Jim Garrison warmly greeted Ruth Garrison and emotionally begged for her help in solving the JFK murder. Carol Hewett neglects to report this important fact.

19.0. CONCLUSION

Carol Hewett concludes that the Walker shooting links the DeMohrenschildts and the Paines, and so Ruth and Michael Paine should have been forced to testify before the ARRB about the assassination of JFK.

I say that Carol failed to provide even one single stitch of valid evidence to support her claims. Even if the ARRB did take witnesses (which they didn’t), Carol Hewett’s attempt to implicate the Paines in the General Walker shooting misses its mark.

I invite comment and debate on my points; either singly, in groups or as a whole.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited February 5, 2016 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

For the next several weeks I will review the last three months of my thorough criticism of Carol Hewett's attacks on Ruth Paine as filtered through her follower, James DiEugenio, in the second edition of his book, Destiny Betrayed (2012) and in her own Probe articles.

I'll start with James' claim that that George DeMohrenschildt was a CIA handler who handed off LHO to Ruth Paine.

We can admittedly tie George with the CIA, as well as with the Nazi party and the Communist party in Europe. George was born a wealthy White Russian aristocrat, but his family lost their Estate in the 1917 Communist Revolution. George did whatever he could to get his family fortune back -- but all attempts failed. He was superbly educated, like this old brother, whom he finally followed to the USA. Here George became a playboy, trained as an oil geologist and did side jobs gathering information for the FBI and the CIA -- mostly Cold War stuff.

The problem is that James DiEugenio tries to imagine a sinister CIA link between George DM and Ruth Paine. In this theory, Carol Hewett and James DiEugenio are building on the CT's of Ed Epstein and Jim Garrison, who were seeking a CIA solution to the JFK murder. They suspected that both George DeMohrenschildt and Ruth Paine were CIA agents, and that George was "handing off" LHO to Ruth before George went to Haiti in April, 1963.

The date of the alleged "handoff" was February 22, 1963, at a Dallas engineers' party in the home of Everett Glover, who was a long-time friend of Michael and Ruth Paine. Here's the story as presented by Ruth Paine:

1. Ruth and Michael had known Everett Glover through a Unitarian Church madrigal singing group (ca. 1959)
2. Ruth and Michael Paine, who had been separated for six months, were invited to a 22 February 1963 party by Everett Glover, at his apartment.
3. Michael had a cold that night and couldn't come.
4. Ruth went alone, arrived at about 8pm, and was greeted by her friend, Everett Glover. She had seen a couple of Everett's room mates and neighbors at previous visits, but most people there she didn't know.
5. George and Jeanne DeMohrenschildt arrived with the Oswalds, and briefly introduced them to the entire group.
6. Not only had Ruth never seen the Oswald's before, she had never seen George and Jeanne DeMohrenschildt before, either.
7. Furthermore, Ruth testified in 1964 that she never saw the DeMohrenschildt's at any other time afterwards, either. That was the first and last time.
8. Only a few people at the party spoke Russian -- LHO, Marina, George and Jeanne DeMohrenschildt, and Ruth Paine. Everybody else -- more than a dozen -- spoke English only. They all gathered around LHO and asked him twenty questions in English about his choice to go and come from the USSR. Lee loved the limelight.
9. Marina, who spoke no English, went to a bedroom with baby June, who didn't want to go to sleep as she should. Ruth joined Marina, June and Jeann DeMohrenschildt in the bedroom and tried to keep up with their Russian conversation.
10. Marina was educated, and very patient with Ruth's errors in Russian language, and Ruth liked that. Plus Marina was a young mother like herself. So, Ruth asked Marina for her phone number. Marina said, "We don't have a phone," and gave Ruth her mailing address.

OK, that's a simple story, very down to earth and common sense. Yet, without any material evidence, both Carol Hewett and James DiEugenio accuse Ruth Paine of lying about this, and they claim that Ruth Paine had known George DeMohrenschildt at least since 1962, through the CIA, and were actually making a "handoff" of LHO and Marina for some CIA plot.

Common sense can see that their argument is Pulp Fiction, intended to sell books and magazines. There is no material evidence presented, unless the reader counts the fact that Ruth Paine's step-mother, when she was a girl, had a childhood friend who later became the lover of Allen Dulles. Believe it or not, this irrational outburst forms a crucial part of their so-called evidence.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited February 5, 2016 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

So, let's take a closer look at what James DiEugenio wrote in the second edition of his book, Destiny Betrayed (2012), specifically attacking Ruth and Michael Paine.

James recklessly implicates the Paines as being CIA operatives in a plot to frame Lee Harvey Oswald for the murder of JFK -- without a stitch of material evidence. His main source is Carol Hewett, whose many flaws we have already uncovered.

On page 155 of James' book, he tries to portray Ruth Paine in a close, CIA relationship with a known CIA asset named George DeMohrenschildt, despite the fact that Ruth Paine told the WC that she never met George DeMohrenschildt either before or after the party at Everett Glover's place on 22 February 1963, when she first met the Oswalds.

George and Jeanne DeMohrenschildt drove the Oswalds to that party and introduced them to the crowd there. James writes:

Commission lawyer Wesley Liebeler...asked Ruth Paine if Marina Oswald had ever mentioned DeMohrenschildt to her. Ruth answered with: “Well, that’s how I met her.” That is, he introduced Lee and Marina to Ruth and Michael Paine. (DiEugenio, DB2, 2012, p. 155)

OK, so far, so good. That's factual and truthful reporting up to this point -- but James doesn't stop there, but he goes on to spin some fiction, following Carol Hewett:

As one reads the interactions of this White Russian community with the Oswalds, it is fairly clear that they are trying to separate Lee from Marina. And, in fact, they actually did do that, temporarily. But as we shall see later, Ruth Paine actually accomplished this for a longer interval and at a much more crucial time. (DiEugenio, DB2, 2012, p. 155)

The notion comes from out of the blue. Actually James copies the idea from the famous Edward Jay Epstein. In his early opinion (1966) the purpose of Ruth Paine was to "separate Lee from Marina". Why? Well, Epstein didn't really know why. He offered no explanation. Still, James DiEugenio evidently thinks it sounds cool, so that is his first accusation about Ruth Paine -- she was set up by the CIA to separate Marina and Lee. No evidence -- just Epstein's wild guess.

But it's not just Ruth Paine that gets this CIA mission to "separate Lee from Marina," instead, the whole White Russian community is part of this CIA plot. Yet Ruth Paine is far more adept at this mission. James continues:

Once Ruth was introduced to Marina, within two weeks she got in contact with her via a note. Then a week later she visited her in person. About a week after that, Ruth invited the Oswalds to her home for dinner. Even though she and her husband were separated, Michael Paine was also on hand for this event. In fact, it was Michael who actually picked up the Oswalds at their home that night. (DiEugenio, DB2, 2012, p. 155)

There's an obvious error in that text, but James missed it. First, Ruth met Marina on 22 February 1963. Secondly, Ruth invited the Oswalds for dinner on 2 April 1963. That's five weeks -- James DiEugenio, however, counts this as "a week after that." Does James bother to count?

Actually, during the whole month of March 1963, Ruth Paine and Marina Oswald became closer and closer friends. The critical development in their relationship during March was that Marina confided in Ruth that: (1) she was pregnant, and not to tell the White Russian community; and (2) that LHO was threatening to send Marina back to the USSR without him.

That's a pretty important development for James to ignore, but he does ignore it, not only in this citation, but for the rest of his work. James ignores it because his main source for his attacks on Ruth Paine, namely, the attorney and Probe magazine writer, Carol Hewett, also ignored it.

(to be continued)

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited February 9, 2016 by Paul Trejo

[Thomas Graves]

So, let's take a closer look at what James DiEugenio wrote in the second edition of his book, Destiny Betrayed (2012), specifically attacking Ruth and Michael Paine.

James recklessly implicates the Paines as being CIA operatives in a plot to frame Lee Harvey Oswald for the murder of JFK -- without a stitch of material evidence. His main source is Carol Hewett, whose many flaws we have already uncovered.

On page 155 of James' book, he tries to portray Ruth Paine in a close, CIA relationship with a known CIA asset named George DeMohrenschildt, despite the fact that Ruth Paine told the WC that she never met George DeMohrenschildt either before or after the party at Everett Glover's place on 22 February 1963, when she first met the Oswalds.

George and Jeanne DeMohrenschildt drove the Oswalds to that party and introduced them to the crowd there. James writes:

Commission lawyer Wesley Liebeler...asked Ruth Paine if Marina Oswald had ever mentioned DeMohrenschildt to her. Ruth answered with: “Well, that’s how I met her.” That is, he introduced Lee and Marina to Ruth and Michael Paine. (DiEugenio, DB2, 2012, p. 155)

OK, so far, so good. That's factual and truthful reporting up to this point -- but James doesn't stop there, but he goes on to spin some fiction, following Carol Hewett:

As one reads the interactions of this White Russian community with the Oswalds, it is fairly clear that they are trying to separate Lee from Marina. And, in fact, they actually did do that, temporarily. But as we shall see later, Ruth Paine actually accomplished this for a longer interval and at a much more crucial time. (DiEugenio, DB2, 2012, p. 155)

The notion comes from out of the blue. Actually James copies the idea from the famous Edward Jay Epstein. In his early opinion (1966) the purpose of Ruth Paine was to "separate Lee from Marina". Why? Well, Epstein didn't really know why. He offered no explanation. Still, James DiEugenio evidently thinks it sounds cool, so that is his first accusation about Ruth Paine -- she was set up by the CIA to separate Marina and Lee. No evidence -- just Epstein's wild guess.

But it's not just Ruth Paine that gets this CIA mission to "separate Lee from Marina," instead, the whole White Russian community is part of this CIA plot. Yet Ruth Paine is far more adept at this mission. James continues:

Once Ruth was introduced to Marina, within two weeks she got in contact with her via a note. Then a week later she visited her in person. About a week after that, Ruth invited the Oswalds to her home for dinner. Even though she and her husband were separated, Michael Paine was also on hand for this event. In fact, it was Michael who actually picked up the Oswalds at their home that night. (DiEugenio, DB2, 2012, p. 155)

There's an obvious error in that text, but James missed it. First, Ruth met Marina on 22 February 1963. Secondly, Ruth invited the Oswalds for dinner on 2 April 1963. That's five weeks -- James DiEugenio, however, counts this as "a week after that." Does James bother to count?

Actually, during the whole month of March 1963, Ruth Paine and Marina Oswald became closer and closer friends. The critical development in their relationship during March was that Marina confided in Ruth that: (1) she was pregnant, and not to tell the White Russian community; and (2) that LHO was threatening to send Marina back to the USSR without him.

That's a pretty important development for James to ignore, but he does ignore it, not only in this citation, but for the rest of his work. James ignores it because his main source for his attacks on Ruth Paine, namely, the attorney and Probe magazine writer, Carol Hewett, also ignored it.

(to be continued)

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

[ emphasis added by T. Graves ]

Good post, Word Twister.

Seriously.

I've noticed over the years that Mr. James DiEugenio sometimes is either careless ... or actually takes ... liberties, shall we say? ... with the facts.

Naw, say it isn't so! It's probably just overzealous carelessness on his part, right (which mistakes coincidentally always seem to help support his "argument")?

Funny how it works out that way, isn't it.

Regardless, it's hard for me to take him seriously. I'd like to, but I just can't. It would involve way to much fact-checking on my part. So little time, so many mistakes...

--Tommy

PS Keep up the good "exposing of Mr. James DiEugenio's overzealous carelessness" kind-of-work.

Edited February 9, 2016 by Thomas Graves

[David G. Healy]

[...]

That's a pretty important development for James to ignore, but he does ignore it, not only in this citation, but for the rest of his work. James ignores it because his main source for his attacks on Ruth Paine, namely, the attorney and Probe magazine writer, Carol Hewett, also ignored it.

(to be continued)

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Of that, "(to be continued)" I'm sure. And THAT is sad.

Ya know Paul, until you get Ruth Paine and/or her spokesperson in front of a microphone and camera answering a couple hundred questions, unscripted, this Paine thread banter is going nowhere.

Why not start a new thread, Slice and Dice your favorite reviewer with Paul and Thomas hosting? You're not jealous of Jimmy Di are ya? lmfao!

[Thomas Graves]

[...]

That's a pretty important development for James to ignore, but he does ignore it, not only in this citation, but for the rest of his work. James ignores it because his main source for his attacks on Ruth Paine, namely, the attorney and Probe magazine writer, Carol Hewett, also ignored it.

(to be continued)

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Of that, "(to be continued)" I'm sure. And THAT is sad.

Ya know Paul, until you get Ruth Paine and/or her spokesperson in front of a microphone and camera answering a couple hundred questions, unscripted, this Paine thread banter is going nowhere.

Why not start a new thread, Slice and Dice your favorite reviewer with Paul and Thomas hosting? You're not jealous of Jimmy Di are ya? lmfao!

Healy,

Jealous, no.

Envious, maybe.

Regardless, I think "Word Twister" Trejo and I "tag team" very well against Mr. "Always Making Mistakes To His Perceived So-Called Advantage" James DiEugio, don't you?

--Tommy

Edited February 9, 2016 by Thomas Graves

[Paul Brancato]

You know Tommy, and Paul Trejo - it's not your earnest criticism of author and reviewer James DiEugenio that bothers me, it's the obnoxious tone of that criticism. It had no place here in my opinion, and whatever modicum of respect I had for you both is rapidly disappearing.

[Paul Trejo]

Of that, "(to be continued)" I'm sure. And THAT is sad.

Ya know Paul, until you get Ruth Paine and/or her spokesperson in front of a microphone and camera answering a couple hundred questions, unscripted, this Paine thread banter is going nowhere.

Why not start a new thread, Slice and Dice your favorite reviewer with Paul and Thomas hosting? You're not jealous of Jimmy Di are ya? lmfao!

Yes, David, "to be continued," because I really have several weeks of material that I'm going to post on this thread, for a very good reason.

The attacks that James DiEugenio has published against Ruth Paine (following Carol Hewett and her minions) are offensive to REASON.

I'm not jealous of James, or envious, nor do I want anything he has.

This isn;'t about James -- it's about Ruth Paine.

Ruth Paine took care of Marina Oswald at the request of Marina, when Marina was pregnant and very needy in 1963 -- LHO had been fired from TWO JOBS in 1963. LHO didn't want to associate with his mother, and he didn't want to go to his brothers with hat in hand.

When the pressure got tough on LHO, he threatened to send Marina Oswald back to the USSR without him -- this is what Marina herself testified.

This is what Marina told Ruth Paine -- and that is why Ruth Paine offered to help Marina out.

For that simple act of Christian charity, James DiEugenio slams her, and mocks her Quaker Charity, and insinuates that Ruth Paine was part of a CIA plot to kill JFK and blame LHO. Her role, hisses James, was to "isolate Marina from Lee." Why? James doesn't say; it makes no sense; but it sounds conspiratorial, and after all, James is out to sell books -- even if its pulp fiction.

Perhaps in the 1990's, before the Lopez-Hardway Report was published, and before Bill Simpich's State Secret was published, and before Jeff Caufield's innovative work, James was interesting.

But in the 21st century, James shows himself stuck in the 20th century, still repeating the old, tired ideas of Carol Hewett. I wouldn't even take notice, except that James sill, to this day, insults and attacks Ruth Paine -- WITHOUT A STITCH OF EVIDENCE.

Think about it, David. If James DiEugenio had ANYTHING solid against Ruth Paine, ANYTHING AT ALL, don't you think he would have shown it by now? It's not just that my thread on Ruth Paine is several months old -- but James started his own, separate thread, entitled, "The Real Ruth and Michael Paine," several months ago, and he STILL hasn't shown ANYTHING solid against Ruth Paine.

So, no, I'm not jealous or envious of James -- there's nothing there to envy.

However, I do want to display to the world the emptiness of James' CT, which attacks Ruth Paine without material evidence.

And anybody who follows James down his anti-Paine rabbit hole is also guilty of the same lapse of logic.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited February 9, 2016 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Brancato]

Ruth has done pretty well without your help Paul. Despite her closeness to the events, despite her CIA family connections she has never been cross-examined. So she is fair game. The Paine's tax returns from the period in question are still withheld, something she could rectify, and her great friend Marina, to whom she showed so much Quaker charity, refuses her friendship and hasn't spoken to her for over 50 years. Researchers such as Hewitt have the right to their opinions, and you have the right to examine their ideas and disagree with them. But your rudeness surpasses all bounds of propriety.

[David G. Healy]

Ruth has done pretty well without your help Paul. Despite her closeness to the events, despite her CIA family connections she has never been cross-examined. So she is fair game. The Paine's tax returns from the period in question are still withheld, something she could rectify, and her great friend Marina, to whom she showed so much Quaker charity, refuses her friendship and hasn't spoken to her for over 50 years. Researchers such as Hewitt have the right to their opinions, and you have the right to examine their ideas and disagree with them. But your rudeness surpasses all bounds of propriety.

Quaker Charity = Grandstanding

I'm pretty much done with this nonsense, Paul B. Mr Trejo can post to himself.

Edited February 9, 2016 by David G. Healy

[Paul Trejo]

Ruth has done pretty well without your help Paul. Despite her closeness to the events, despite her CIA family connections she has never been cross-examined. So she is fair game. The Paine's tax returns from the period in question are still withheld, something she could rectify, and her great friend Marina, to whom she showed so much Quaker charity, refuses her friendship and hasn't spoken to her for over 50 years. Researchers such as Hewitt have the right to their opinions, and you have the right to examine their ideas and disagree with them. But your rudeness surpasses all bounds of propriety.

Well, Paul B., I don't think that Ruth Paine needs my help. I just want to set the record straight. Most of the talk that comes from the CT community about Ruth Paine is harsh, but when I research that, I find that it always goes back to James DiEugenio.

Also, when I research James DiEugenio, I find the bulk of his stuff comes from Carol Hewett.

But when I research Carol Hewett's stuff, I find ERRORS ON EVERY PAGE of her writings against Ruth Paine -- AND NOT ONE ACCUSATION THAT STICKS.

No, I don't think that Ruth Paine needs my help -- but I'm on a mission for the TRUTH. And all these accusations and promises to come up with something "really big" against Ruth Paine "one of these days" has gone on for FIFTY YEARS!

Anybody who wants the TRUTH about the JFK assassination should know this.

I mean -- I first got inviolved with the JFK CT literature back in 1991, when millions of others did, who watched Oliver Stone's JFK. What initially attracted me was the perception that America acted like a LYNCH MOB against LHO -- just accusing him without a single eye-witness, and without the benefit of a Fair Trial, and by making so much JFK evidence TOP SECRET.

That's a LYNCH MOB, and I wanted no part of it. I thought the CT community was more fair-minded than that. But over the past quarter-century, what did I find? I found a creeping LYNCH MOB mentality rising up again, this time INSIDE the CT community!

A great part of that bigotry and prejudice is aimed against Ruth Paine -- not because of facts and material evidence -- but only on RANK SUSPICION, which is the stuff that LYNCH MOBS are made of.

That's my mission against the weak writing of James DiEugenio against Ruth Paine. I see only two alternatives to slow me down in my mission:

(1) James DiEugenio will finally, after a quarter of a century, produce some REAL, MATERIAL EVIDENCE against Ruth Paine that will convince me of her guilt, and oblige me to apologize to him...

-- or --

(2) James DiEugenio will publicly and humbly ask Ruth Paine for forgiveness.

Then I'll stop. Not until then. I'm not writing to myself here -- my thread already has 23,000 hits. Somebody's reading this. "The woods are lovely, dark and deep. But I have promises to keep. And miles to go before I sleep." (R. FROST)

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited February 10, 2016 by Paul Trejo