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

I discussed the Nov 22 1 PM phone call in Part 5 of my Backyard Photo series. I’ll link it because the footnotes lead to primary documentation of this event:

https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/a-new-look-at-the-enigma-of-the-backyard-photographs-part-5

The Warren Commission, via counsel Liebeler, deliberately made the call appear to be a rumour, and so it was disappeared from the record until the mid-70s when Bernard Fensterwald came across the declassified Gemberling FBI report which identifies the source of information about the call as Confidential Informant Dallas T-4. Irving Police Captain Paul Barger, who initially uncovered the information, made contradicting statements in 1964 and 1976 designed to deflect the source of the information away from the likely wiretap. This tap may have been installed at the phone company rather than in the Paine home. The focus of the tap may have been Marina Oswald rather than the Paines. 

The issue neither Paine has accounted for is why did Oswald, in their minds, figure in the shooting which had occurred only 30 minutes earlier? This has not been clarified because neither was interviewed by the HSCA (despite the controversy sparked by Fensterwald), or later by the ARRB. (I agree that if the Paines had pre-knowledge of the assassination they would not have made this call). It’s likely that the explanation is simply that the call was immediately preceded by an exchange between Michael Paine and Frank Krystinik, after the initial identification of the TSBD, during which Krystinik urged Paine to contact the FBI re: Oswald. Krystinik had been introduced to Oswald, by Michael Paine, on October 25 when the three men attended an ACLU meeting, and had been offended by Oswald’s “Marxist” viewpoints. This simple explanation was not pursued or developed, it seems, to protect FBI sources and methods plus the uncomfortable acknowledgment, or emphasis, that the Oswalds were in the radar all along. Which underlines the official cover-up.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Michael Walton said:

Jeff - thanks for posting.  Would you happen to know where the phone tap originated from - meaning from M Paine's place of work or their home phone?

Irving Police captain Paul Barger was assigned to the Southwestern States Telephone Company in Irving, and it was there he developed the information about the phone call. “He said he felt sure the information he furnished SA LISH had come from some telephone company sources, but he was still unable to identify the individual who related it to him, and he was unable to recall whether it was related in person, or by a telephone call.”

http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10730#relPageId=91&tab=page

The phone records gathered by the FBI concern the Paine home, not Bell Helicopter. Although not explicitly determined, it appears the tap was on the Paine home phone and the records (or recordings) of the tap were held at the telephone company.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

...The issue neither Paine has accounted for is why did Oswald, in their minds, figure in the shooting which had occurred only 30 minutes earlier?

This has not been clarified because neither was interviewed by the HSCA (despite the controversy sparked by Fensterwald), or later by the ARRB. (I agree that if the Paines had pre-knowledge of the assassination they would not have made this call).

It’s likely that the explanation is simply that the call was immediately preceded by an exchange between Michael Paine and Frank Krystinik, after the initial identification of the TSBD, during which Krystinik urged Paine to contact the FBI re: Oswald. Krystinik had been introduced to Oswald, by Michael Paine, on October 25 when the three men attended an ACLU meeting, and had been offended by Oswald’s “Marxist” viewpoints.

This simple explanation was not pursued or developed, it seems, to protect FBI sources and methods plus the uncomfortable acknowledgment, or emphasis, that the Oswalds were in the radar all along. Which underlines the official cover-up.

Jeff,

This is extremely interesting.   I'll respond by the numbers.

(1)  I believe that both of the Paines accounted for their suspicion of Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) so soon after the JFK assassination.   Not directly -- I grant you that -- but indirectly through their WC testimony, taken as an extended whole.

(2) I am willing to go into the details of their WC testimony if you wish a dialogue on the topic.  Otherwise, I'll rest content with some general comments here.

(3) Ruth Paine gave clear impressions of LHO in her WC testimony -- and most of it was negative.  

(4) First, Ruth Paine's main interest was in Marina Oswald -- a young mother, college educated, kind, polite, with aristocratic Russian grammar.  Ruth had spent years learning Russian, but like many of us who study Spanish in high school or college, when we visit Mexico, we can hardly keep up with the taxi drivers.  

(5)  Ruth had no Russian conversational skill, and she was paying a lot of money for almost useless lessons from Dorothy Gravitis, the elderly mother-in-law of professor Ilya Mamantov.  Professor Mamantov had turned Ruth Paine down for lessons, because Ruth's skill was so poor.

(6) When Ruth first met Marina Oswald at a party on February 22, 1963, Ruth tried to join a conversation between Marina and Jeanne DeMorhrenschildt, regarding baby Ruth, who was cranky at the party.  Marina was kind enough to correct Ruth's grammar in a polite manner.  Ruth really wanted this new friendship, and made arrangements to meet.

(7) When Ruth first met Marina at a park with their three children, Marina quickly began to complain about LHO.  He was trying to send her back to the USSR without him, she complained -- and she was pregnant.

(8) So, right away, Ruth didn't like LHO.  He was a deadbeat dad, and he wouldn't let Marina learn English, which is so important in the USA.  

(9) In mid-April, 1963, when Ruth went to visit Marina, she was surprised to find LHO there, bags packed to go to New Orleans, and asking for a ride with his bags to the Greyhound bus station.  He was going to leave Marina and baby Ruth alone at their Neely Street apartment, with a few dollars and a bus ticket, and would write a letter (as they had no phone) when he got a job.  He was going to live with his aunt and uncle there.

(10) Outraged at this prospect, Ruth offered to bring Marina and baby Ruth to her own home, to live with her and her two children.  That way, LHO could just call on the telephone when he was ready, and Marina wouldn't be all alone in Dallas, speaking no English.  Then, when LHO was ready, Ruth herself offered to drive Marina to New Orleans.  LHO accepted.

(11) Ruth testifies that she and Marina both accepted the possibility that LHO would abandon his family, and Marina would never hear from him again.  If this happened, Ruth planned to see Marina through her upcoming childbirth, with registration at Parkland Hospital, and then help Marina learn English and get a job -- or else move to New York where there were lots of Russian-speaking immigrants, so she could work there, as a single-parent.  Marina liked the idea.

(12) Again, Ruth had a very low opinion of LHO at this time.  LHO surprised them both by calling in about two weeks.  Marina shouted to baby Ruth, "Papa loves us!"  She was so surprised.  True to her word, Ruth packed up her station wagon with all Marina's things, and drove Marina and their three children to New Orleans.  There, Marina saw the roach-infested apartment that LHO found, and Marina and LHO began fighting again right away, and all night long.

(13) Ruth and Marina kept up their letter-writing correspondence, and Marina continued to complain that LHO kept threatening to send her back to the USSR without him.  She could hardly stand the pressure, she complained.  Ruth came to detest LHO at this point.

(14) Ruth went for a long summer vacation back East to stay with her family and friends.  While they wanted to talk about her separation from Michael Paine, all Ruth wanted to talk about was saving Marina Oswald -- and what a louse LHO was.

(15) Then, at the end of the summer, the third weekend of September, 1963, Ruth drove to New Orleans on her way back from her summer vacation.  Surprised -- LHO was out of a job again.

(16) This time it was worse.  Marina Oswald was now eight months pregnant, had no health insurance, and had not seen a doctor at all during her pregnancy.  It was a crisis.

(17) It's not just that Ruth Paine was a Quaker and inclined toward charity -- Ruth Paine genuinely liked Marina Oswald, and could hardly stand to see Marina -- this college educated and hard-working young mother -- going through such misery.

(18) So, Ruth Paine AGAIN offered to take Marina Oswald and baby Ruth into her home, and register at Parkland Hospital, and keep Marina at her home through February, 1964, when her mother was going to come to live with her.  LHO again agreed.  So he loaded up her station wagon, and Ruth, Marina and their three children drove to Texas.

(19) When Ruth unpacked the car, there was no sign of a rifle anywhere in the Oswald luggage.  She remains certain.

(20) Again, briefly, Ruth and Marina considered the possibility that LHO would just run away and never be heard from again.   Until Oswald re-appeared two weeks later, they never heard from LHO, and barely noticed the absence.  The real problem was the upcoming childbirth, the medical attention, and the possibility that Marina would be a single-parent in the USA.

(21) About two weeks later, in early October, LHO showed up at Ruth's place.  Penniless and out of work, LHO was not welcome to live with Ruth.  Her house was small, and there were already five people living there.  But he asked if he could come around on weekends, and Ruth, out of kindness to Marina and baby Ruth, said yes.

(22) There was a brief period in mid-October 1963 when Ruth Paine began to develop a mildly positive impression of LHO, and she wrote her mother about this change in attitude, because her mother was worried that this negative person whom Ruth had complained about all summer, was now coming into Ruth's home on a weekly basis.  So, Ruth sent her mother a "don't worry" letter, and painted a positive portrait of LHO for her.

(23) But that all changed with the first days of November, 1963, when FBI agent James Hosty came to visit.  Marina became cranky about it.  Then LHO became cranky about it.  Then Ruth found LHO's "Soviet Embassy Letter" in her home, which slammed the FBI, and Ruth didn't like that.  Ruth was and remains a conservative American.

(24) Oswald was an oddball.  Michael Paine came around to visit on weekends when LHO was there, because his children were in the house, after all.  Ruth and Michael discussed whether LHO was dangerous, and they both agreed that he was not.  He was something of a leech, but that's not dangerous.  Ruth had a commitment to Marina Oswald, and schlepping LHO along was just part of the cost.

(25) Ruth and Michael Paine were unimpressed with LHO's "Marxist" pretensions.  Any normal Marxist would join some Communist Party or other, and spend his weekends at some political rally or march.  LHO would watch TV on the weekends.

(26) About the only thing that LHO and Michael Paine agreed upon was General Walker, the right-wing nut.  At least, that's what Michael believed.

(27)  Michael's apprehension about LHO was not sparked by Frank Krystinik, his co-worker at Bell Helicopter.  Frank witnessed Michael getting upset all on his own.  The problem was that LHO worked at the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD) -- and when the radio news mentioned the TSBD, bells in Michael's head went off.

(28) The same was true of Ruth Paine.  The tone of the JFK assassination was shocking -- but to hear the TSBD building named over the radio, sent bells off in her head.  Ruth immediately ran out to the backyard where Marina Oswald was hanging laundry, and announced, "The shots came from the TSBD building!"   She was already nervous.

(29) Ruth Paine knew that her lifestyle in Texas was unique.  She and Michael came from wealthy, East Coast families with intellectual backgrounds.  This alone was rare in Dallas and Irving, Texas.  But then they added Marina Oswald to their world -- and they were nearly unique.  LHO was the odd duck which made everything weird.

(30) Ruth and Michael Paine knew that LHO was weird.  I mean, they were from the East Coast so they knew people even more weird.  But this was Texas -- and LHO really stood out like a sore thumb.

(31) So, IMHO that explains the premonitions of Ruth and Michael Paine soon after the JFK assassination.  It completely fails to explain why somebody in the US Government had tapped their telephone on 11/22/1963.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Paul Trejo said:

I'll respond by the numbers.

 

I don't have the energy to go through this drivel line by line but you've certainly found your inner "Dr. Phil". Thank you once again for telling us what everyone was "thinking" and "feeling".

My "feeling" is this:  if we had a "bull-do-do" filter that we sifted the above post through we'd probably be left with one or two tiny nuggets that would be pertinent.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

I discussed the Nov 22 1 PM phone call in Part 5 of my Backyard Photo series. I’ll link it because the footnotes lead to primary documentation of this event:

https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/a-new-look-at-the-enigma-of-the-backyard-photographs-part-5

 

Jeff,

Thanks for posting your 2015 article on Michael Paine and the Backyard Photographs of Lee Harvey Oswald.  Here are some comments.  Your text will be in red.

In 1993, Michael Paine began telling interviewers that Oswald had showed him a backyard photo when they first met in the Spring of 1963.  If Michael Paine’s relatively recent claim is actually true, then his Warren Commission testimony is severely compromised, a fact which appears to have escaped many mainstream journalists and network research departments (Jeff Carter, 2015).

You use the phrase, "severely compromised," Jeff, and then you explain why:

This event, if true, is entirely absent from Paine’s long and detailed description of his half hour with Oswald as told to the Warren Commission.

As I see it, Michael Paine withheld this fact about seeing the Backyard Photographs because of the "hang-em-high" atmosphere of the JFK investigation.  Observing the torture that was given to Sylvia Odio in Mexico City gives a clue to the mindset of Dallas, Texas -- seeking Communists to blame for the JFK assassination was a high priority.   That explains why Michael Paine would only answer the questions asked -- exactly as asked and no further.  Then you add:

If true, and Oswald was offering Michael Paine visual evidence of an apparent tendency to violent fanaticism, it is not at all clear why this troubling information was not passed to Ruth Paine as she continued to forge her friendship with Marina.  Ruth Paine claimed to the Warren Commission that she did not know Lee owned a rifle and would not have accepted the presence of a rifle in the same home as her children (Jeff Carter, 2015).

To use a phrase from Ernest Hemingway, "the rich are different from you and me."   Michael Paine's wealthy father was a Trotskyite Marxist.   Michael didn't favor Marxism, but he knew a lot about it -- far more than Oswald would ever know.   What Michael saw in Oswald -- very quickly -- was that Oswald was a Fake Marxist.

Furthermore, just because Oswald posed in a photo with guns, did not in the slightest prove that Oswald himself owned any guns.   Nor did it prove that Oswald was violent.  Nor did it suggest that Oswald was a "violent fanatic."  Instead, Michael Paine regarded Lee Harvey Oswald -- very quickly -- as a sort of clown.

(Michael Paine had no reason on April 2, 1963, to suspect the Backyard Photos of being Faked.

Ruth Paine was interested in Marina Oswald -- with utterly no interest at all in Lee Harvey Oswald.  Besides that -- Ruth could take care of herself.  Michael wasn't concerned.  He was bemused.  Too bad the interesting Marina Oswald came with this unfortunate baggage -- but she did.

Michael Paine denied the content of the call during an interview conducted December 23, 1963 by FBI Special Agent Bardwell Odum. “Mr. PAINE advised that on November 23, 1963, he did not make any statement to anyone that he felt sure LEE HARVEY OSWALD had killed the President but did not feel OSWALD was responsible ... Mr. PAINE advised that what he did say, in fact, in a conversation with his wife, was that he was not sure that OSWALD had killed the President, because at that time he had no facts at his command ...” (Jeff Carter, 2015

Michael Paine was being entirely truthful -- according to what Ruth Paine told me personally (12/12/2015).  While Michael did add, "We both know who's responsible," meaning the Dallas Radical Right (says Ruth Paine), Michael never said that he felt sure that Oswald killed JFK.

We do agree that Paul Barger’s story of a telephone repairman -- or that he could not remember -- lacks credibility.  A good wiretap has reliable documentation, but this wiretap was, IMHO, politically motivated.  

Ruth Paine does not deny that the call happened -- she does deny that the transcript of the call was correct.  Also, she remains upset that the US Government has refused to tell her honestly who tapped her telephone on 11/22/1963.  Since I believe that Ruth Paine is telling the truth -- it is reasonable for me to presume that Michael Paine would agree with her.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
correct

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/18/2017 at 7:45 PM, Sandy Larsen said:


My take is that the Paines figured out that Ruth's CIA handler had used her to facilitate the assassin in the CIA's plot against JFK. (Not anything to do with LBJ.)

 

 

Sandy,

In that scenario, do you think Ruth was originally assigned to Oswald on some rather innocent project which "went bad" on her on 11/22/63?

--  Tommy :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Thomas Graves said:
On 5/18/2017 at 8:45 PM, Sandy Larsen said:


My take is that the Paines figured out that Ruth's CIA handler had used her to facilitate the assassin in the CIA's plot against JFK. (Not anything to do with LBJ.)

 

Sandy,

In that scenario, do you think Ruth was originally assigned to Oswald on some rather innocent project which "went bad" on her on 11/22/63?

--  Tommy :sun


Tommy,

That's a very good question.

I can't think of anything prior to Oswald's New Orleans adventure that could be construed as being part of the frame-up. Some have suggested that Oswald's bum rap as wife beater might have been part of it. But I studied that incident pretty thoroughly (which explains my confidence in calling it a bum rap), and all of it can be explained as careless gossip with the exception of what one man said. And he said a lot of bad things about Oswald.

I suppose the guy could have been paid to lie in order to make Oswald look bad. But it could be that the guy just had an active imagination and nasty disposition. Either way, there is nothing I can think of that indicates his role had been pre-planned.

So, as far as I can tell, Ruth could have befriended Marina for some other, non-assassination related  reason.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul Trejo - “when the radio news mentioned the TSBD, bells in Michael's head went off.”

hi Paul, 

Having read through the testimonies of both Paines, I must say that my impressions and conclusions  are quite different from yours. In my opinion, you tend to take things at face value and so bypass important context.

Specific to the phone call, Michael Paine’s testimony to the Warren Commission does not really imply that “bells went off”, rather he agrees that his first impression was that Oswald was not involved. He also claims the 1 PM phone call to Ruth occurred before he heard the TSBD mentioned on the radio, although what would then motivate bringing up Oswald (as reported to the FBI after review) is unknown. Michael Paine’s account of monitoring the immediate aftermath of the shooting at Bell helicopter differs somewhat from what Frank Krystinik would say. But between the two accounts, and because Oswald was mentioned in the phone call, it seems that the TSBD had been mentioned on the radio, Krystinik was suspicious of Oswald, and MP decided to check in with Ruth. Why either Paine would assume Oswald “was involved” based solely on the location is hard to fathom.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=38#relPageId=433&tab=page

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/21/2017 at 7:35 PM, Paul Trejo said:

Jeff,

Thanks for posting your 2015 article on Michael Paine and the Backyard Photographs of Lee Harvey Oswald.  Here are some comments.  Your text will be in red.

In 1993, Michael Paine began telling interviewers that Oswald had showed him a backyard photo when they first met in the Spring of 1963.  If Michael Paine’s relatively recent claim is actually true, then his Warren Commission testimony is severely compromised, a fact which appears to have escaped many mainstream journalists and network research departments (Jeff Carter, 2015).

You use the phrase, "severely compromised," Jeff, and then you explain why:

This event, if true, is entirely absent from Paine’s long and detailed description of his half hour with Oswald as told to the Warren Commission.

As I see it, Michael Paine withheld this fact about seeing the Backyard Photographs because of the "hang-em-high" atmosphere of the JFK investigation.  Observing the torture that was given to Sylvia Odio in Mexico City gives a clue to the mindset of Dallas, Texas -- seeking Communists to blame for the JFK assassination was a high priority.   That explains why Michael Paine would only answer the questions asked -- exactly as asked and no further.  Then you add:

If true, and Oswald was offering Michael Paine visual evidence of an apparent tendency to violent fanaticism, it is not at all clear why this troubling information was not passed to Ruth Paine as she continued to forge her friendship with Marina.  Ruth Paine claimed to the Warren Commission that she did not know Lee owned a rifle and would not have accepted the presence of a rifle in the same home as her children (Jeff Carter, 2015).

To use a phrase from Ernest Hemingway, "the rich are different from you and me."   Michael Paine's wealthy father was a Trotskyite Marxist.   Michael didn't favor Marxism, but he knew a lot about it -- far more than Oswald would ever know.   What Michael saw in Oswald -- very quickly -- was that Oswald was a Fake Marxist.

Furthermore, just because Oswald posed in a photo with guns, did not in the slightest prove that Oswald himself owned any guns.   Nor did it prove that Oswald was violent.  Nor did it suggest that Oswald was a "violent fanatic."  Instead, Michael Paine regarded Lee Harvey Oswald -- very quickly -- as a sort of clown.

(Michael Paine had no reason on April 2, 1963, to suspect the Backyard Photos of being Faked.

Ruth Paine was interested in Marina Oswald -- with utterly no interest at all in Lee Harvey Oswald.  Besides that -- Ruth could take care of herself.  Michael wasn't concerned.  He was bemused.  Too bad the interesting Marina Oswald came with this unfortunate baggage -- but she did.

Michael Paine denied the content of the call during an interview conducted December 23, 1963 by FBI Special Agent Bardwell Odum. “Mr. PAINE advised that on November 23, 1963, he did not make any statement to anyone that he felt sure LEE HARVEY OSWALD had killed the President but did not feel OSWALD was responsible ... Mr. PAINE advised that what he did say, in fact, in a conversation with his wife, was that he was not sure that OSWALD had killed the President, because at that time he had no facts at his command ...” (Jeff Carter, 2015

Michael Paine was being entirely truthful -- according to what Ruth Paine told me personally (12/12/2015).  While Michael did add, "We both know who's responsible," meaning the Dallas Radical Right (says Ruth Paine), Michael never said that he felt sure that Oswald killed JFK.

We do agree that Paul Barger’s story of a telephone repairman -- or that he could not remember -- lacks credibility.  A good wiretap has reliable documentation, but this wiretap was, IMHO, politically motivated.  

Ruth Paine does not deny that the call happened -- she does deny that the transcript of the call was correct.  Also, she remains upset that the US Government has refused to tell her honestly who tapped her telephone on 11/22/1963.  Since I believe that Ruth Paine is telling the truth -- it is reasonable for me to presume that Michael Paine would agree with her.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

hi Paul

thanks for taking time to read the article. Just to clarify: I believe Michael Paine's 1993 claim that he had been shown a backyard photo by Oswald in April 1963 severely compromises his WC testimony based on Paine's painstaking detail in describing handling the blanket later alleged to have held the assassination rifle and presuming it instead held camping equipment. The backyard photos portray a figure not just holding but rather brandishing and exhibiting leftist political literature and firearms, which in the context of conservative America (Dallas) in 1963 is a provocative gesture which Michael Paine would have presumably been savvy to. That he would not have informed his wife about this, or suspected more than camping equipment when handling the blanket some months later is hard to believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/19/2017 at 7:15 AM, Paul Trejo said:

Chris,

Not quite.  They were not asked directly about it, so they didn't answer directly about it.  That's not the same as a "denial."   You're correct that they weren't pressed about it.  This is probably because the phone tap was obtained illegally, and the WC would have to go into that.  They didn't want to.

In a phone conversation with me in December 2015, however, Ruth Paine admitted that this phone conversation actually happened -- although not exactly as transcribed.  Ruth's big problem was that she was never allowed to face her accuser.   Nobody took responsibility for tapping her telephone.

Ruth did admit that one phrase, "We both know who's responsible."   So I asked her what she meant.  "Who was responsible?"

Ruth replied, "We meant it generically -- the same ones who published the WANTED FOR TREASON: JFK" handbill, along with the "WELCOME, MISTER KENNEDY, TO DALLAS" black-bordered ad in the Dallas Morning News."

That answers the question for me.  

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Paul:

As someone who has looked at the original FBI 302 report stating what she said on that tapped phone call, it seems clear that the agent making that report was not describing something that was spoken in the spirit of it being a "generic" reference to the general hatred in some quarters in Dallas; and certainly not something spoken in reaction to the Wanter for Treason posters.  First of all, I really do believe it was the responsibility of those who conducted the original investigation to question both Paines properly (and aggressively) as to just what they meant. (And remember the original wording: "We" both know who was responsible., That kind of language does not sound like a reference to something that was "generic."   Second: this very late arriving "it was only a 'generic' reference, finally stated in the year 2015, does not have the ring of truth. Third, if the Paines really believed that--and believed that at the time--are we to believe that they were implying that the right wing "WANTED FOR TREASON" poster inspired Oswald to shoot JFK?  (That makes no sense, and is entirely inconsistent with the Paines' belief that Oswald was, at best, a radical leftist. And was certainly not violent). 

When you spoke to Ruth Paine, did you press her on her answer?  Did you ask any follow-up question(s)?  Or did you just sort of "agree," and let the matter go.

I really do believe that Ruth Paine owes history a more detailed explanation as to what the FBI reported.  A woman as intelligent as she is--remember, she has an IQ of 145 (which was ascertained by another researcher, based on a document)--surely can provide a more detailed explanation than the superficial one that you report.  Further, I believe that if you have an ongoing relationship with her, its worth pressing her further on this particular matter.

I don't think the issue is "who ordered the phone tap?".  The issue is why did she say what she did?  And what did she mean by "we" as in "we both know".  Sounds like a rather specific reference, to me.

DSL

5/28/2017 - 6:55 s.m. PDT

Los Angeles, California

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On May 17, 2017 at 7:46 PM, Chris Newton said:

They, Ruth and Michael,  already denied that the phone call ever happened under oath in WC testimony.

They weren't pressed on it because the assumption is that it would reveal "sources and methods".

The real question is when was the "tap" installed and if it was there before the assassination why has it's "take" been concealed.

Well, technically they didn't lie under oath because the slick WC lawyer asked if the call took place on the wrong date lol...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DAVID LIFTON - I really do believe that Ruth Paine owes history a more detailed explanation as to what the FBI reported.  A woman as intelligent as she is--remember, she has an IQ of 145 (which was ascertained by another researcher, based on a document)--surely can provide a more detailed explanation than the superficial one that you report.  Further, I believe that if you have an ongoing relationship with her, its worth pressing her further on this particular matter.

A good reply here.  And also just circling back not so much who ordered the wiretap but why was it there in the first place.  All supporters of the lone nut theory have always sort of shrugged at this kind of thing, as if the Paines, and Oswald too, were just gobbled up in an historical event. In my mind, this idea that these people were mere nobodies does not have, as you eloquently said previously, the "ring of truth."

I also like to say "what are the odds?"  What are the odds that mere nobodies would have a tap on their telephone? Why not the people next door to the Paines? Why not my family who lived 1,000 miles away? There has to be something more to it than mere happenstance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

DAVID LIFTON - I really do believe that Ruth Paine owes history a more detailed explanation as to what the FBI reported.  A woman as intelligent as she is--remember, she has an IQ of 145 (which was ascertained by another researcher, based on a document)--surely can provide a more detailed explanation than the superficial one that you report.  Further, I believe that if you have an ongoing relationship with her, its worth pressing her further on this particular matter.

A good reply here.  And also just circling back not so much who ordered the wiretap but why was it there in the first place.  

I agree.

The Paine tapped telephone quote "we both know who is responsible" is right up there with Oswald's " I am just a patsy" one in their shared importance of possible intriguing implications.

And also yes, as B.A. Copeland points out:

The placing of the Paine tapped phone call on a date different than it's correct one by their questioner did give the Paines an out in claiming the call and their alleged comments on it didn't happen. It didn't happen on the date stated to them

 

 

Edited by Joe Bauer

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

×