Jump to content
The Education Forum
James DiEugenio

The Real Ruth and Michael Paine

Recommended Posts

PT: Nobody has been able to poke any holes in her account of the LHO saga -- although Jim Garrison, Carol Hewett and James DiEugenio have tried FOR DECADES to pin something on her.

See above, the matters of both Robert Adams and the Minox camera at post 516. Referring to work of Jim Douglass and Carol Hewett.

​In this author's opinion, Ruth could have been indicted for perjury on the first and Mike Paine on the second.

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You go James.

David - the angle you brought up - that Mike Paine looked enough like Oswald that he was mistaken for him, is interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I go where Paul?

You're bowling a 300 in your debate with PT James!

(And no, I don't mean you are literally bowling. Just as I'm sure Paul Brancato didn't literally mean you are going somewhere. :) Ha! Just teasing you, man. Except the part about bowling/debating a 300... that was sincere. Paul B. is cheering you on.)

Edited by Sandy Larsen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, alright then.

BTW, the MInox camera episode can also be construed as an obstruction of justice.

If that charge was around back then.

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did everyone notice the three books that Ruth recommends for reading on the case. She actually has them sitting on the table.

1. Mallon's Mrs. Paine's Garage. (Which I call the anti-Carol Hewett book. Since in it he actually takes note of a panel she was on at a Lancer conference and says how angry he got listening to it.)

2. PJM and Marina and Lee. (She says this is good because it shows the couple as being two abused adolescents, or something like that.)

3. Bugliosi's Reclaiming History. (She uses this one because she wants to mention the mock trial done in England, at which she testified.)

So, fifty years later, Ruth sees not a shred of evidence showing any question that LHO did it.

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess she forgot about the MInox Camera and the Adams call.

BTW, obstruction of justice is an old statue, stemming from 1831.

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess she forgot about the Minox Camera and the Adams call.

Neither thing you mentioned indicates "conspiracy" in the slightest way, of course. Only rabid Internet CTers believe such a goofy thing.

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/04/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-87.html#LHO-And-The-Other-Job

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As anyone can see from the above, I was precise in what I said they did indicate.

And by not giving Oswald the info from Adams, in all probability, that kept LHO on the motorcade route.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, James, y'all are mistaken when you say that Ruth Paine is an LNer. I spoke with Ruth Paine a number of times in the past three months -- and she says that she is open to a CT -- but she hasn't found one yet that makes any sense to her.

I totally sympathize with that. There is so much garbage and foolishness in CT literature that DVP seems like a genius sometimes.

Also, James, you're mistaken that Mrs. Paine's Garage (2002) was written in response to Carol Hewett's pitiful hatchet job on Ruth Paine. I've exposed dozens of flaws in Carol Hewett's Probe articles in my FORUM thread, "Ruth Paine". Her articles are useless junk. She should be ashamed. In fact, I hear that she refuses to talk about them at all anymore.

In fact, Mrs. Paine's Garage is a mere literary work that doesn't go far enough, IMHO, to clarify all the issues -- but it's a start. What's needed now is a real historian to document Ruth Paine's story.

Also, James, there's no point in raising Bugliosi's flawed work -- it has nothing to do with Ruth Paine -- it's just hot air. Stick the issue of Ruth Paine -- if you can.

Ruth Paine said several times to the WC -- she didn't see any logic in LHO as the killer of JFK. Michael Paine said the same thing.

On 11/22/1963, somebody (we still don't know who, because nobody has claimed responsibility) overheard a private telephone conversation between Michael and Ruth Paine, and told the FBI -- Michael had told Ruth in effect, "LHO will be blamed for the JFK murder, but we both know who did it."

.

I asked Ruth Paine point blank about the telephone call, and she admitted it was real -- not a fake report. She would like to know who reported it though, because she didn't think her phone was tapped that early in November.

Anyway, Ruth told me, "The ones we had in mind when we said we 'knew' who did it, were those strange folks who published the WANTED FOR TREASON:JFK handbill and the WELCOME MISTER KENNEDY TO DALLAS black-bordered ad in the Dallas Morning News that day, whoever they were."

This is what they were talking about -- and as the Warren Commission concluded, the people responsible for those hostile products were the people surrounding General Walker and his operation in Dallas -- Robert Allen Surrey, Larrie and Robbie Schmidt, the JBS and their Minutemen supporters.

The intuition of the Paines was 100% correct -- as Dr. Jeffrey Caufield has demonstrated cogently, with hundreds of scholarly citations in his new book, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: The Extensive New Evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy (2015).

I want to point out another book that supports Jeff Caufield's theory to a remarkable degree, the relatively new book by Joseph McBride, Into The Nightmare (2013), which also considers, like Caufield, the likelihood that J.D. Tippit was one of the JFK shooters.

By the way, Ruth Paine asked me what readings I recommend, and I told her about Jeff Caufield, but I also told her that the best book IMHO, is still David Lifton's Best Evidence (1980) which was recently shown to be true history by Douglas Horne, Inside the ARRB (2009).

Ruth Paine told me that she's closely following the work of JFK researcher, Max Holland, at present.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PT:

Ruth Paine is not an Oswald did it advocate. :stupid

I guess you missed the interview with her on my Fifty Reasons for Fifty Years slot. Along with her testimony at the LWT mock trial. And now she follows Max Holland. That takes in quite e a lot of time does it not? :hotorwot

Mallon wrote his book to counter Carol's work. And the evidence is in the book itself.

As for you, you have not mucked up the series in Probe about the Paines by Carol, Barbara and Steve. Just like you did not at all counter RCD's fine catalog of how the White Russian community tried to portray LHO as a wife beater. You have an exalted view of your place on this site and in the critical community. One that does no match up with the people here, or the facts. I will come back to Carol's series as soon as I am done with Caufield's pathetic excuse for a book.

And to say McBride's book supports Caufield's, have you even read that book? Or are your cognitive problems on display again? I know Joe and I know what he thinks, And its not that. He would never endorse Caufield's view of an 80 year old assassin. Or did you miss that one Paul? I didn't. As you will see in my review.

You accept Ruth's version of what she and Mike were talking about that day. :clapping

Did you ask her why the WC tried to change the date of the call and why the Paines did not object to that?

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PT:

Ruth Paine is not an Oswald did it advocate. :stupid

I guess you missed the interview with her on my Fifty Reasons for Fifty Years slot. Along with her testimony at the LWT mock trial. And now she follows Max Holland. That takes in quite e a lot of time does it not? :hotorwot

Mallon wrote his book to counter Carol's work. And the evidence is in the book itself.

As for you, you have not mucked up the series in Probe about the Paines by Carol, Barbara and Steve. Just like you did not at all counter RCD's fine catalog of how the White Russian community tried to portray LHO as a wife beater. You have an exalted view of your place on this site and in the critical community. One that does no match up with the people here, or the facts. I will come back to Carol's series as soon as I am done with Caufield's pathetic excuse for a book.

And to say McBride's book supports Caufield's, have you even read that book? Or are your cognitive problems on display again? I know Joe and I know what he thinks, And its not that. He would never endorse Caufield's view of an 80 year old assassin. Or did you miss that one Paul? I didn't.

You accept Ruth's version of what they were talking about that day. :clapping

Did you ask her why the WC tried to change the date of the call and why the Paines did not object to that?

As for the mock trial put on by Bugliosi at the BBC -- it was a complete farce by Bugliosi himself.

Ruth Paine honestly answered the questions that were asked of her -- as she agreed to do.

The folly of that mock-trial was that instead of Bugliosi and the BBC selecting an opponent who was knowledgeable about the JFK murder, they selected an ambulance chaser who argued cases on the grounds of pity and sympathy.

It was a stacked trial. For a fair trial, Bugliosi should have selected Mark Lane -- and nobody less -- but like most cowards, Bugliosi refuses to deal with "zealots" -- because he knows he'll lose.

Mark Lane would have won the case of LHO, having had many years experience in the case -- but Bugliosi won out against an ambulance chaser.

To blame Ruth Paine for that fiasco is ridiculous -- as if she controls the BBC.

The White Russian Community -- whom you also smear -- loved Marina Oswald, but despised LHO the wife-beater. You blame them, but then again, your CT is so wobbly you're not really seeing straight.

The Radical Right in Dallas are standing there, guilty as sin, and you continue to blame Ruth Paine and the White Russians. This shows a pitiful result of your decades of research, James.

If you really believe that LHO wasn't a wife-beater -- then why not revive that old thread when I trounced Lee Farley on that topic on the FORUM? That thread that has gone missing because of your side's drive to conceal the Truth about the Kennedy assassination!

CTKA?!? More like CLKA. :clapping

Finally, as for Jeff Caufield -- his book is the first of its kind to focus on General Walker as the mastermind of the JFK murder, and of course it can't be perfect. He's had no help. Unlike your loser CT, which has had 50 years of help and still can't arrive at a consensus.

There are two aspect of Jeff's book with which I differ: (1) the Fake Assassination CT that he derived from Gary Wean; and (2) his over-emphasis of Willie Somersett who named the shooters hastily, and then went on a rampage blaming RFK for promoting the cover-up. Otherwise, Caufield's book is pure genius, and puts all your work in the shade.

Not even Jeff Caufield is perfect -- but at least Jeff Caufield is in the right ball-part -- Edwin Walker is the most likely lead JFK plotter -- and certainly not Ruth Paine.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul Trejo,

You have talked with Ruth Paine recently? Today is February 22, 2016.

Paul, may I ask Ruth three questions.

The questions are:

1. Did Ruth take the pictures of June in New Orleans?

End of questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyway, Ruth told me, "The ones we had in mind when we said we 'knew' who did it, were those strange folks who published the WANTED FOR TREASON:JFK handbill ...

Of course... deflecting suspicion away from her employer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...