Ruth Paine in Nicaragua

[Cliff Varnell]

Helliwell and the CIA crowd that was involved first in Burma in one of the Agencies earliest covert warfare projects, then were called in to provide support the the Guatemala program, are covered in considerable detail in Shadow Warfare. In fact one of my goals in Shadow Warfare was to trace the careers of all those folks through the early years of the CIA, tie them into the deniable weapons sourcing - which by the way spiked again with the Artime project in 63/64 and to the rumors that Gary Underhill heard at the time of the Kennedy assassination. It took a lot of work separating out fact from fiction on what they were and were not doing and also developing a picture of their actual "practices" related to covert action. And of course in the end it all connected to the same stories that Gene Wheaton heard from Carl Jenkins...

Larry,

On page 161 of Charles Senseney's Church Comm. he refers to "a colonel in the Air Force and a colonel in the Army" who operated a CIA operation -- "Staff Support Group"-- within US Army Special Operations Division at Fort Detrick, MD.

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/reports/vol1/pdf/ChurchV1_6_Senseney.pdf

Edward Lansdale and Lucien Conein come to mind.

Who else would have fit that profile late '50s?

[Cliff Varnell]

Sorry to hi-jack your thread, Jim.

I'll start another thread to discuss the murder of JFK with Larry Hancock.

This thread solely concerns the murder of Oswald, and has nothing at all to do with the murder of JFK.

[James DiEugenio]

Gene:

I greatly appreciate begin compared to Garrison, because he was the guy who finally brought the case out of the routine of critiquing the WR, and finally attempting to find out who actually killed Kennedy.

And part of it spilled out before Garrison's grand jury. Let me quote from Destiny Betrayed, in this general section of the book. First let us continue with Ruth in Nicaragua:

"Whenever Wheaton would encounter Ruth, she said Ruth would be taking copious notes and be accompanied by others who would take snapshots and also tape record proceedings. Wheaton concluded that Ruth was taking down information about Americans in Nicaragua who opposed U.S policy there and that she was probably then giving it to members of the American Embassy who she said she knew.

This posturing as a liberal Quaker, but then acting as a surveillance agent was not just vaguely suggested by Allen Dulles. It was clearly suspected by other intelligence agencies about the Paines. And again, it surfaced through Garrison's grand jury proceedings. When a member of the grand jury asked Marina Oswald if she still associated with Ruth Paine, Marina replied that she did not. When she was asked why she did not, Marina said that it was upon the advice of the Secret Service.

She then elaborated on this by explaining that they had told her it would not look good if the public found out that "she [Ruth] had friends over there and it would be bad for me if people find out connection between me and Ruth and CIA." An assistant DA then asked, "In other words, you were left with the distinct impression that she was in some way connected with the CIA?" To which Marina replied in the affirmative." (p. 199)

[James DiEugenio]

As we will now see, there were others besides Sue Wheaton who suspected Ruth was some kind of agent or asset in Central America. And it was not just in Nicaragua. Ruth's name got around to the neighboring areas.

"In NIcaragua, because the situation was so confrontational and since there was no powerful mainstream media to protect her, the suspicion of Ruth being an asset of the Agency was widespread. Steve Jones followed up on Sue Wheaton's information with another female worker who knew Ruth in Nicaragua and befriended her.

When Ruth's surveillance activities finally became too suspicious in Nicaragua, the two women drove to Costa Rica for some R and R. When they arrived near the Costa Rican camp, some people approached the car to help them out. When they saw it was Ruth, they walked away moaning, "Oh no, its Ruth Paine. Keep her away from us. She's CIA." It got so bad, the pair had to leave." (ibid, p. 199)

Edited November 7, 2015 by James DiEugenio

[Jon G. Tidd]

Someone, I believe J. Edgar Hoover, likened Ruth Paine to Nancy Drew. Ruth got under J. Edgar's skin.

Clearly, Hoover found her an annoyance. Given that Hoover had turf problems with the CIA, it's likely in my opinion that Hoover would have used the fact Ruth Paine was working for the CIA as a club against the CIA if in fact Ruth was playing Nancy Drew for the agency.

[James DiEugenio]

Jon:

Not entirely true.

In an upcoming link to the From the Archives feature at CTKA, I will show, via Carol Hewett again, that Ruth and Michael were equal opportunity employees, that is they also did dirty work for the FBI in the Oswald case.

Edited November 7, 2015 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

To continue from page 199 of Destiny Betrayed, Second Edition, from reply 34 above, about Ruth and her friend from Costa Rica:

"When they got back to the USA, they remained friends. The woman actually won Ruth's confidence.

For Ruth admitted to her that her father, William Hyde, had worked for the CIA. She even told her that she had an estranged daughter who would not talk to her until she came to grips with the evil she had down in her life.

When the woman asked Ruth, "What evil?" she clammed up. But the friend is certain that she was talking about the Kennedy assassination since the assassination was the previous context of the discussion."

Edited November 7, 2015 by James DiEugenio

[Paul Trejo]

Gene:

I greatly appreciate begin compared to Garrison, because he was the guy who finally brought the case out of the routine of critiquing the WR, and finally attempting to find out who actually killed Kennedy.

And part of it spilled out before Garrison's grand jury. Let me quote from Destiny Betrayed, in this general section of the book. First let us continue with Ruth in Nicaragua:

"Whenever Wheaton would encounter Ruth, she said Ruth would be taking copious notes and be accompanied by others who would take snapshots and also tape record proceedings. Wheaton concluded that Ruth was taking down information about Americans in Nicaragua who opposed U.S policy there and that she was probably then giving it to members of the American Embassy who she said she knew.

This posturing as a liberal Quaker, but then acting as a surveillance agent was not just vaguely suggested by Allen Dulles. It was clearly suspected by other intelligence agencies about the Paines. And again, it surfaced through Garrison's grand jury proceedings. When a member of the grand jury asked Marina Oswald if she still associated with Ruth Paine, Marina replied that she did not. When she was asked why she did not, Marina said that it was upon the advice of the Secret Service.

She then elaborated on this by explaining that they had told her it would not look good if the public found out that "she [Ruth] had friends over there and it would be bad for me if people find out connection between me and Ruth and CIA." An assistant DA then asked, "In other words, you were left with the distinct impression that she was in some way connected with the CIA?" To which Marina replied in the affirmative." (p. 199)

James, your citation from the second edition of Destiny Betrayed (2012) shows a lot of guesswork, and a mean-spirited willingness to accuse Ruth Paine of horrific acts -- but no actual proof.

Also, twisting the words of Susan Wheaton in that way doesn't strengthen your case, it weakens it.

Ruth Paine was working for the Quaker Church in a Relief Effort for Nicaraguan women and children during the bloody civil strife there. Ruth Paine was responsible for reporting to the Quaker Church the progress of their effort, which involved considerable expense to them. Naturally she took photographs, kept notes and held interviews -- for the Quaker Journal.

To accuse her of CIA murders based on your guesswork is just mean-spirited.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

To continue from page 199 of Destiny Betrayed, Second Edition, from reply 34 above, about Ruth and her friend from Costa Rica:

"When they got back to the USA, they remained friends. The woman actually won Ruth's confidence.

For Ruth admitted to her that her father, William Hyde, had worked for the CIA. She even told her that she had an estranged daughter who would d not talk to her until she came to grips with the evil she had down in her life.

When the woman asked Ruth, "What evil?" she clammed up. But the friend is certain that she was talking about the Kennedy assassination since the assassination was the previous context of the discussion."

Again, James, your guesswork is all you can offer the reader. "What evil?" You won't consider the fuller context, I.e. Ruth Paine's daughter was into Wicca at the time -- Wicca versus Quaker -- it was a religious conversation.

You took this third party report out of context, and you want to claim that Ruth Paine is guilty of CIA murders based on that? Pathetic.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited November 7, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[James DiEugenio]

In this thread, I have only quoted from two pages of my book Destiny Betrayed, second edition. I wrote many more than that about the Paines. In both Destiny Betrayed and Reclaiming Parkland. And still, there were things that I decided to leave out, like the calendar.

Some people who read Destiny Betrayed, were kind of taken aback by all of these pages and questions. One person asked me, "Have the Paines ever really been investigated?"

I had to reply that, no , they had not. Whatever questions the WC lawyers and Secret Service had were shoved under the rug.

JIm Garrison tried to cross examine Ruth, but she managed to be, let us say, less than candid about a couple of key matters.

Amazingly, the HSCA never examined her or Michael Paine. That is a shocker even for Bob Blakey.

The ARRB did the same. When Probe understood that the ARRB was going to close down without examining the Paines, we started a letter writing and fax campaign to get them to bring them in for questioning before the doors closed. But by this time the chief counsel, Jeremy Gunn, was gone. The Board was kind of rudderless. But the final chief counsel did call me. And said they were too short of time and funds to take up such a major endeavor.

So I called up Carol Hewett and asked her if she would prepare all the briefing books and the questions for the ARRB on the Paines. I even asked her to be in the room when they were cross examined.

Unfortunately, Cheryl from the ARRB, decided against it.

BTW, ARRB chair Tunheim said more or less the same when someone asked him about the failure to examine the Paines. He said they had limited funds for new investigations, and Gunn and Horne apparently decided to spend it on the medical evidence and the Z film.

So, as George said to Martha in Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf, "And that, as they say, is that." In retrospect, its all kind of incredible to contemplate. I mean, its one thing to just shove under the rug people like Ferrie, Banister, Arcacha Smith, and Shaw in New Orleans. But the Paines were right there, out in the open. And from the beginning, Sen. Richard Russell was not buying them. (Of course, he didn't buy several things that the Troika of Dulles, McCloy and Ford, shoved down the public's throat.) But as outlined above, they largely escaped official inquiries as to who they really were and what they actually did.

That is how bad the inquiry into the JFK case has been.

We should all thank Carol Hewett, or it would have stayed that way.

Edited November 7, 2015 by James DiEugenio

[Paul Trejo]

If Jim Garrison had found anything after his hours of interrogating Ruth Paine, he surely would have charged her.

Jim Garrison found nothing. Ruth Paine answered all Garrison's questions simply and honestly.

Garrison found NOTHING. In the end, Jim Garrison looked at Ruth Paine with his puppy-dog eyes and begged her to help him find clues.

Ruth's reply was this -- if the US Government can't figure out this case, then what do you expect me to do?

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

[James DiEugenio]

Mr. Trejo, I have told you that I will not indulge in a debate with you for reasons I stated previously. You are a zealot. I don't argue with zealots anymore. I had my fill with DVP. In your own way, you are as bad as him.

You have your own thread on Ruth Paine, fine. Anyone who wants to engage with you can do so there.

And my God, anyone who pontificates to me on what Jim Garrison thought about certain suspects in this case has no respect for primary research. Because I am the only person that Garrison's family ever gave his files to prior to the ARRB.

So, if I want to talk to you, I will on your thread. So far, I don't. Zealots don't respect evidence.

Edited November 7, 2015 by James DiEugenio

[Cliff Varnell]

Aren't you a Garrison zealot, Jim?

Your approach to the case suffers from the same tragic flaw -- you conflate a study of the murder of Oswald with a study of the murder of JFK.

[Paul Trejo]

Well, my point is, James, that Ruth Paine is still alive, and you're publicly accusing her of CIA murders, using nothing but guesswork and rank suspicion.

I suppose you aren't concerned that Skyhorse Publishing might get sued for libel.

I'm not a zealot -- I just don't like to see Quaker Charity Ladies become publicly accused of CIA murder -- with no solid evidence at all.

It's morally offensive.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited November 7, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Martin Blank]

Mr. Trejo, I have told you that I will not indulge in a debate with you for reasons I stated previously. You are a zealot. I don't argue with zealots anymore. I had my fill with DVP. In your own way, you are as bad as him.

You have your own thread on Ruth Paine, fine. Anyone who wants to engage with you can do so there.

And my God, anyone who pontificates to me on what Jim Garrison thought about certain suspects in this case has no respect for primary research. Because I am the only person that Garrison's family ever gave his files to prior to the ARRB.

So, if I want to talk to you, I will on your thread. So far, I don't. Zealots don't respect evidence.

i second that.