Jump to content
The Education Forum
  • Announcements

    • Evan Burton

      OPEN REGISTRATION BY EMAIL ONLY !!! PLEASE CLICK ON THIS TITLE FOR INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR REGISTRATION!:   06/03/2017

      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send an email to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team
Dan Doyle

The latest from Ruth Paine

Recommended Posts

17 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

Paul, the FBI document from 1976 posted by Bart Kamp is either a) poorly composed and sloppily written (i.e. imprecision between “subsequent” and immediately following” within a few sentences) or b   carefully written to imply information without actually stating the information. I presume the latter because it is discussing a historical document trail rather than events happening in the moment. That the author jumps from a reference to a possible tap on the Paine household directly to a description of a later tap on Marina Oswald, strongly suggests a correlation. 

If the wiretap was a rogue Hosty operation, then there is no reason for Barger to be involved and it would be highly unlikely that the documents which exist would have been generated.There is no indication in the record that anyone was setting Ruth Paine up, or that either of the Paines were seriously under suspicion.

Jeff,

Thanks for your thoughtful reply.  There is much to consider and reconsider in your observations.   I agree that the document directly names Ruth Paine and then Marina Oswald, with a mention of Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) only in passing -- and yet I am leaning toward a stronger implication of LHO in agreement with one of your observations, viz., "carefully written to imply information without actually stating information."

In my reading, James Hosty's stated objective in his WC testimony, and to Ruth Paine (according to her WC testimony) was that his visit was all about Marina Oswald.  Yet since she just had a baby only weeks ago, James Hosty would have mercy on her, and not interview her at all, to minimize her stress.  Instead, he would only introduce himself politely to her, and assure her that his interest was entirely friendly.   

In the meantime, however, since he was already at Ruth Paine's house, FBI agent Jame s Hosty decided to ask Ruth Paine  several questions about LHOC'mon!  It's clear to me that (1) Hosty claimed he was there to visit Marina Oswald because FBI protocol allowed that it was time to contact any Russian national on his list by procedure, and he could arbitrarily choose Marina; and (2) once there, he didn't meet with Marina all, but grilled Ruth Paine about Lee Harvey Oswald.  

That is, LHO was the real target of his visit, and Marina Oswald was only a ruse to get to LHO, because the FBI had no reason at all to pursue LHO in Dallas on November 1, 1963.  You can't raise the issue of the August arrest of Oswald in New Orleans for his FPCC activities, because LHO himself called the FBI to visit him in that New Orleans jail cell.  The FBI found LHO's meeting entirely useless, and the FBI soon closed the Oswald file.  IT WAS CLOSED.  But here is James Hosty in Dallas seeking information about LHO from Ruth Paine.

This was on November 1, 1963 -- shortly before the wiretap was requested and set-up.   

Now, in his book, Assignment Oswald (1996), FBI agent James Hosty goes on and on about the possibility that Marina Oswald "still might be a KGB sleeper agent."   Hosty in his book said that he did consider the possibility back in 1963.   HOWEVER --- on that first visit Hosty had no questions for Marina, but many questions for Ruth Paine about LHO.  That's no accident, in my reading.

If (and only if) FBI agent Hosty truly thought that Marina Oswald might be a KGB sleeper agent, then by spending his first visit almost entirely with Ruth Paine asking questions about LHO (his whereabouts, his living arrangements, his contact information, his place of employment) then by proxy FBI agent Hosty was also seeking to nail LHO and Ruth Paine as Marina's accomplices.

Otherwise (and I find this more likely) James Hosty was really trying to nail Marina, Ruth and Michael as LHO's accomplices.  This would have been in keeping with the politics of Ex-General Edwin Walker -- anybody who comes from Russia, or consorts with Russians, is automatically suspect of being RED.

At that same time, the Dallas Minutemen, led by Walker (according to Hosty, ibid. p. 4) were planning to greet JFK in Dallas in Dealey Plaza with their rifles in hand (according to me).

Thus, the soon-to-be-implemented wire-tap would have been planned as: (1) a way to continue the FPCC sheep-dip of LHO, but there in Dallas; (2) a way to accuse all Communists of killing JFK; (3) a way to accuse Ruth Paine and Marina Oswald of Communism; (4) a way to include whoever called Ruth Paine on that line of Communism; and (4) a way to prove that Communist plot should be suspects #1 in a JFK Assassination.

In my personal interviews of Ruth Paine over telephone in December 2015, she told me that she is still very interested in learning who set up that wire tap.  She admits that there was a call from Michael Paine on 11/22/1963, at the time reported, and that they did mention JFK and LHO in that context.   She denies the wording as given in the official report.   

Ruth Paine does admit that Michael said, "We both know who's responsible."   She explains that as a generic statement -- in reference to the fact that the WANTED FOR TREASON: JFK handbill was all over Dallas that day, and the Dallas Morning News, full page, black-bordered ad, "Welcome, Mister Kennedy to Dallas" stunned many Dallas residents.  The meaning of Michael's comment was interpreted by Ruth Paine as, "Whoever is responsible for these publications was responsible for the JFK Assassination."   That's her explanation.

In any case, Ruth Paine repeatedly asked the Warren Commission to tell her who tapped her home telephone.  They never did.  It's apparently part of the top secret JFK data that is supposed to come out in the final rounds of the JFK Records Act.

So, Bart Kamp shared with us this new release of the Aynesworth document.  Yet what it says is that the FBI did not set up this wire-tap.   I think there is some budding suspicion that FBI James Hosty was involved, but if so, he acted on his own, without telling the FBI Headquarters.  Does that sound right to you, too, Jeff?

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
typos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Jeff,

Thanks for your thoughtful reply.  There is much to consider and reconsider in your observations.   I agree that the document directly names Ruth Paine and then Marina Oswald, with a mention of Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) only in passing -- and yet I am leaning toward a stronger implication of LHO in agreement with one of your observations, viz., "carefully written to imply information without actually stating information."

In my reading, James Hosty's stated objective in his WC testimony, and to Ruth Paine (according to her WC testimony) was that his visit was all about Marina Oswald.  Yet since she just had a baby only weeks ago, James Hosty would have mercy on her, and not interview her at all, to minimize her stress.  Instead, he would only introduce himself politely to her, and assure her that his interest was entirely friendly.   

In the meantime, however, since he was already at Ruth Paine's house, FBI agent Jame s Hosty decided to ask Ruth Paine  several questions about LHOC'mon!  It's clear to me that (1) Hosty claimed he was there to visit Marina Oswald because FBI protocol allowed that it was time to contact any Russian national on his list by procedure, and he arbitrarily chose Marina; and (2) once there, he didn't meet with Marina all, but grilled Ruth Paine about Lee Harvey Oswald.  

That is, LHO was the real target of his visit, and Marina Oswald was only a ruse to get to LHO, because the FBI had no reason at all to pursue LHO in Dallas on November 1, 1963.  You can't raise the issue of the August arrest of Oswald in New Orleans for his FPCC activities, because LHO himself called the FBI to visit him in that New Orleans jail cell.  The FBI found LHO's meeting entirely useless, and the FBI soon closed the Oswald file.  IT WAS CLOSED.  But here is James Hosty in Dallas seeking information about LHO from Ruth Paine.

This was on November 1, 1963 -- shortly before the wiretap was requested and set-up.   

Now, in his book, Assignment Oswald (1996), FBI agent James Hosty goes on and on about the possibility that Marina Oswald "still might be a KGB sleeper agent."   Hosty in his book said that he did consider the possibility back in 1963.   HOWEVER --- on that first visit Hosty had no questions for Marina, but many questions for Ruth Paine about LHO.  That's no accident, in my reading.

If (and only if) FBI agent Hosty truly thought that Marina Oswald might be a KGB sleeper agent, then by spending his first visit almost entirely with Ruth Paine asking questions about LHO (his whereabouts, his living arrangements, his contact information, his place of employment) then by proxy FBI agent Hosty was also seeking to nail LHO and Ruth Paine as Marina's accomplices.

Otherwise (and I find this more likely) James Hosty was also trying to nail Marina, Ruth and Michael as LHO's accomplices.  This would have been in keeping with the politics of Ex-General Edwin Walker -- anybody who comes from Russia, or consorts with Russians, is automatically suspect of being RED.

Yet at the same time, the Dallas Minutemen, led by Walker (according to Hosty, ibid. p. 4) were planning to greet JFK in Dallas in Dealey Plaza with their rifles in hand (according to me).

Thus, the soon-to-be-implemented wire-tap would have been planned as: (1) a way to continue the FPCC sheep-dip of LHO, but there in Dallas; (2) a way to accuse all Communists of killing JFK; (3) a way to accuse Ruth Paine and Marina Oswald of Communism; (4) a way to include whoever called Ruth Paine on that line of Communism; and (4) a way to prove a Communist plot should be suspect #1 in the plot to kill JFK.

In my personal interviews of Ruth Paine over telephone in December 2015, she told me that she is still very interested in learning who set up that wire tap.  She admits that there was a call from Michael Paine on 11/22/1963, at the time reported, and that they did mention JFK and LHO in that context.   She denies the wording as given in the official report.   

Ruth Paine does admit that Michael said, "We both know who's responsible."   She explains that as a generic statement -- in reference to the fact that the WANTED FOR TREASON: JFK handbill was all over Dallas that day, and the Dallas Morning News, full page, black-bordered ad, "Welcome, Mister Kennedy to Dallas" stunned many Dallas residents.  The meaning of Michael's comment was interpreted by Ruth Paine as, "Whoever is responsible for these publications was responsible for the JFK Assassination."   That's her explanation.

In any case, Ruth Paine repeatedly asked the Warren Commission to tell her who tapped her home telephone.  They never did.  It's apparently part of the top secret JFK data that is supposed to come out in the final rounds of the JFK Records Act.

So, Bart Kamp shared with us this new release of the Aynesworth document.  Yet what it says is that the FBI did not set up this wire-tap.   I think there is some budding agreement that FBI James Hosty was involved, but if so, he acted on his own, without telling the FBI Headquarters.  Does that sound right to you, too, Jeff?

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Paul said: " In my reading, James Hosty's stated objective in his WC testimony, and to Ruth Paine (according to her WC testimony) was that his visit was all about Marina Oswald"

That is worth fact-checking to find out if Paul's "Reading" resembles Hosty's "stated objective.." 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Michael Clark said:

Paul said: " In my reading, James Hosty's stated objective in his WC testimony, and to Ruth Paine (according to her WC testimony) was that his visit was all about Marina Oswald"

That is worth fact-checking to find out if Paul's "Reading" resembles Hosty's "stated objective.." 

Michael,

Absolutely correct.  It is well worth fact-checking.   The information can be found in their WC testimony, which has been online for 20 years now.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/5/2017 at 8:43 AM, James DiEugenio said:

 

David, that is a very interesting video on Ruth Paine's Chevy Bel Air station wagon you posted.

Is this the car ( according to Sheriff Roger Craig's account in his "Two Men In Dallas" interview ) that Dallas PD Captain Will Fritz was referring to in his asking Lee Harvey Oswald "What about the car?" in his interrogation of Oswald, where upon Oswald responded ( again according to Roger Craig's account )

... "that station wagon belongs to Ruth Paine. Don't try to drag her into this."?

The car Craig said he saw pick up Oswald in Dealey Plaza was described by Craig as a " light green Rambler."

I remember cars of that era. Rambler station wagons did closely resemble Chevy Bel Air wagons.

Craig's account of his seeing Oswald running down a grass incline and jumping into this light green station wagon in Dealey Plaza just minutes after the assassination and his recollection of the car question in Will Fritz's interview of Oswald after Oswald's arrest are staggering in their implications if true.

David, do you believe Roger Craig is telling the truth regards the car and Craig's account of Oswald's Ruth Pain statement to Fritz when Oswald was asked by Fritz "what about the car?"

Watching the video you presented of the Ruth Paine Chevrolet Bel Air station wagon begs a few questions.

There is a picture shown in that video of Ruth Pain standing next to this car in the driveway of her Irving Texas home. I assume this was taken around 1963 as Ruth Paine looks to be the age we see her when she had Marina living with her.

In the picture the car looks to be kind of a "two toned" color with the roof darker than the rest of the car. In the 2016 video this supposedly same car doesn't show the roof to be darker. Is that just 61 years of fading?

Also don't mean to go too far off subject, but Ruth Paine's car and Roger Craig's statements about what he saw on 11,22,1963 and what he claimed to overhear regard's Oswald's comments referring to Ruth Paine's car in the Fritz interrogation of Oswald, are important and intriguing enough to mention IMO.

 

Edited by Joe Bauer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Joe Bauer said:

 

Is this the car ( according to Sheriff Roger Craig's account in his "Two Men In Dallas" interview ) that Dallas PD Captain Will Fritz was referring to in his asking Lee Harvey Oswald "What about the car?" in his interrogation of Oswald, where upon Oswald responded ( again according to Roger Craig's account )

... "that station wagon belongs to Ruth Paine. Don't try to drag her into this."?

 

Joe,

 

I don't think so.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/craig.htm

 

Mr. BELIN - Why would you think it was a Nash?
Mr. CRAIG - Because it had a built-in luggage rack on 'the top. And--uh--at the time, this was the only type car I could fit with that type luggage rack.

Mr. BELIN - A Nash Rambler-is that what you're referring to?
Mr. CRAIG - Yes; with a rack on the the back portion of the car, you know.

 

Steve Thomas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Steve, I have read many times and just read again, the McAdam's site Dave Perry essay on Roger Craig and Craig's testimony regards the Dealey Plaza/Ruth Paine cars and Craig's account of being called into Captain Will Fritz's inner office during Fritz's interrogation of Lee Harvey Oswald and what he overheard there.

Perry speculates a lot himself in his implying that Roger Craig is not to be believed regards Craig's accounts of these events.

Perry had to acknowledge however, the J.Gary Shaw's book photo showing Craig next to the Dallas PD Homicide and Robbery Bureau office which in the least, verified Craig's claim that he was there in that part of the DPD building when he said he was on 11,22,1963.

Despite this photo adding validation weight to Craig's account, Perry still implies that Fritz's claim of not bringing in Craig to the inner office Oswald interrogation is to be believed OVER Roger Craig's claim that he was.

Does anyone really believe that "This case is cinched" Will Fritz didn't lie about anything regards the DPD JFK investigation? Ask Beull Wesley Frazier ( and I can imagine many others ) what he thought of Will Fritz's honesty and integrity.

If Roger Craig made up his account of being called into Fritz's inner office and what was said there by Fritz and Oswald I must consider Craig to be an extremely creative story teller if not a budding talent impressionist.

Craig's word for word recollection of Fritz's interview questions to Oswald ( and Oswald's specific answers back ) while Craig was present there, rings too true, relative to what most know of Fritz's specific verbal and demeanor style, for me to believe Craig made this up.

Craig even specifically describes Oswald's physical reactions and emotional demeanor during this back and forth between Fritz and Oswald. 

Throwing in extra peripheral observations ( beyond just the word for word verbal exchange)  like Craig's specific descriptions of Oswald's physical movements and emotional demeanor in his recounting of the event, are very hard to keep straight in years of being asked to recollect them as they are much more subjective and abstract than the actual quoted word exchange.

Fritz didn't even have a recorder or notary present during his interviews with Oswald.

He had plenty of time to secure these. I believe this was mind blowing outrageous in so many ways it begs one to seriously question, doubt and suspect Fritz's account of not just his recollection of Craig but the whole episode of interrogating Oswald.

I wouldn't trust or believe Will Fritz any more than I would trust Henry Wade.

You do remember Wade's speaking to the national press the evening of 11,24,1963 where he recited his  "I believe his name is Jack Rubenstein" statement as if he didn't know Jack Ruby personally?

 

Edited by Joe Bauer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Joe,

My impression of what Steve wrote was that the car Craig saw could not have been Ruth Paine's car because the car he saw had a luggage rack, whereas Ruth's car did not have one.

Like you, I wonder about the car changing from a two-tone to a single-tone. Also, from blue to green. I can easily accept the latter happening due to fading, but not so sure the former.

 

Edited by Sandy Larsen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was not Ruth Paine's car.

But what Craig said about seeing the man running down the incline who resembled Oswald, and then seeing him in Fritz's office was true.  That has corroboration to it of more than one kind.

Which is why the WC did all they could to ignore it.

But, IMO, what Thompson did with that at the end of Six Seconds in Dallas was unforgettable.  One of the highlights of all the first generation books.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Joe,

My impression of what Steve wrote was that the car Craig saw could not have been Ruth Paine's car because the car he saw had a luggage rack, whereas Ruth's car did not have one.

Like you, I wonder about the car changing from a two-tone to a single-tone. Also, from blue to green. I can easily accept the latter happening due to fading, but not so sure the former.

 

Sandy,

 

I don't want to detract from this thread, but a while back I wrote a piece on what I thought was a possible lead for the rambler.

You can read it here if you like:

https://myjfksite.weebly.com/

Scroll down just a little ways.

I make the case for the car belonging to the House on Harlandale guys, and the driver as Manuel Rodriguez Orcarberro.

 

Steve Thomas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Steve Thomas said:

Sandy,

 

I don't want to detract from this thread, but a while back I wrote a piece on what I thought was a possible lead for the rambler.

You can read it here if you like:

https://myjfksite.weebly.com/

Scroll down just a little ways.

I make the case for the car belonging to the House on Harlandale guys, and the driver as Manuel Rodriguez Orcarberro.

 

Steve Thomas

 

Thanks Steve, I'll definitely check that out.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had always thought it was a Rambler.  There's a photo of it taken at 12.40.  You can see it at 3.33 in the video below which is pretty interesting - filmed in Dallas.

 

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

×