Jump to content
The Education Forum
Dan Doyle

The latest from Ruth Paine

Recommended Posts

Joe I  agree about the tap and patsy statement. I  take  them both as a very brief  yet revealing opening of a window before it was slammed shut again.

I  wasn't  aware that they tried  to  change  the  date  of  the  tap. Is there a link to  that?

Edited by Michael Walton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael W.

I'll try to find that link.

It may be from another thread.

I am going to go to Michael Paine's WC testimony to see if I can see where the questions to him reference different and contradictory dates of the call.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/28/2017 at 7:00 AM, David Lifton said:

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.

David,

 

I agree but i don't think it's just the "phone call" that didn't get explained. I really only became more interested in the Paines because so many researchers that I respect thought that Oswald's last "Embassy Letter" was a forgery. If that is so, that the letter is a forgery, then Ruth Paine's acquisition of Oswald's hand written draft of that very same letter becomes an important event. I was hoping when I read her testimony that her explanation, under oath, would make clear the document's provenance. Unfortunately, just about every aspect of her "story" and how the FBI came to acquire both her copies of that letter fall apart under close scrutiny.

This quandary leads us down a path that suggests the FBI and Ruth Paine were "up to" something. I don't know what it was. Was Ruth Paine an FBI informant and did she have access to and was she searching LHO's stuff prior to the assassination? Was the Ruth's story about forgetting to give the FBI LHO's phone number (twice) legit? If they had a tap on the Paine's phone (they already admit to having a mail intercept active on LHO), what else did the FBI know prior to the assassination that they got through their surveillance?

Was this just an embarrassment to the FBI, (assassination foreknowledge of LHO) or was there something more nefarious that had to be covered up?

Edited by Chris Newton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello to all, read the forum for many years, wanted to ask a question now and then or comment, finally joined.

Mr. Lifton and Newton, thank you for your insight.  This is important to the big picture, to me at least.  Please continue.  For everybody.

Edited by Ron Bulman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

This is important to the big picture, to me at least.

 

It's actually key to the whole extant Oswald myth. LHO went from regular guy who didn't drink and liked watching football on TV, picnics, fishing, playing with his kids and shopping with his family to dangerous, unhappy, drunken wife-beating communist assassin "in no time flat". Ruth Paine's home and garage continued to cough up evidence against LHO for months, even after it had been thoroughly searched many times.

 

Thanks for posting, Ron. Please add your thoughts when you get a chance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Chris Newton said:

 

It's actually key to the whole extant Oswald myth. LHO went from regular guy who didn't drink and liked watching football on TV, picnics, fishing, playing with his kids and shopping with his family to dangerous, unhappy, drunken wife-beating communist assassin "in no time flat". Ruth Paine's home and garage continued to cough up evidence against LHO for months, even after it had been thoroughly searched many times.

 

Thanks for posting, Ron. Please add your thoughts when you get a chance.

And lest we forget, the first search of her home turned up files which subsequently disappeared. They contained, according to the police report, files on Cubans. Were they Ruth's, or Oswald's? 

Edited by Paul Brancato

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The files were probably Michael Paine's. The Warren Commission questioned him about reports he was chatting up SMU students about Cuba. Paine conceded he did this. Paine's WC testimony indicates he was an informant of some kind. 

In my opinion, the answer to "we both know who is responsible" is the person or persons who brought the Paines to the Oswalds in the first place. I believe such person(s) to have links to the Walker milieu and the Banister milieu.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jeff Carter said:

The files were probably Michael Paine's. The Warren Commission questioned him about reports he was chatting up SMU students about Cuba. Paine conceded he did this. Paine's WC testimony indicates he was an informant of some kind. 

In my opinion, the answer to "we both know who is responsible" is the person or persons who brought the Paines to the Oswalds in the first place. I believe such person(s) to have links to the Walker milieu and the Banister milieu.

 

Jeff - That's interesting, and news to me. Of course, chatting with students is a far cry from files. I have not heard that Michael Paine was an informant. Not disbelieving it, just never thought of it. If he was, what was his connection with the Walker/Banister milieu? I'm aware that he and Oswald went to hear Walker speak. Do you dismiss DeMohrenschildt as the connector of the Paines to the Oswalds? 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to note that nowhere in this thread are the Paine's East Coast Establishment and CIA connections addressed.  Re reading the thread led me back to eight pages in Destiny Betrayed.  Michael came from the Forbes and Cabot's (E.G Henry Cabot Lodge, incumbent Senator JFK defeated in 1952 and appointed Ambassador to Vietnam in 1963) and his step dad invented Bell Helicopter where he worked in 1963.  Ruth's dad was in the OSS in WWII.  He was later in AID, the Agency for International Development, reputedly a CIA front.  Her sister was a psychologist for the CIA for years before the assassination and at the time of it.  Then there's the link to Dulles.  His agent and lover in WWII, Mary Bancroft was the childhood best friend of Ruth Forbes Hyde, Ruth Paine's mother.  In Dulles own words "conspiracy buffs would have had a field day if they had known...he had actually been in Dallas three weeks before the murder... and that one of Mary Bancroft's childhood friends had turned out to be the landlady for Marina Oswald...".

In this context I tend to agree with Sandy Larsen to an extent.  They may not have known they had a "handler" previously but when the assassination happened they knew they had been used whether they were inferring the Government, Establishment or the CIA itself.

I've thought for many years now Ruth's trip to see her sister and other family in the North East in the summer of 1963 and return trip going out of the way through New Orleans to pick up Marina is if not suspicious at least intriguing.  It begs the question, might she have been at the minimum briefed about if not trained for an assignment to monitor a recent returned defector and his Russian wife?  Someone should have questioned her on this subject in depth as well. 

Might not this potential monitoring have been the basis for a phone tap too?    

   

Edited by Ron Bulman
add to

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

Jeff - That's interesting, and news to me. Of course, chatting with students is a far cry from files. I have not heard that Michael Paine was an informant. Not disbelieving it, just never thought of it. If he was, what was his connection with the Walker/Banister milieu? I'm aware that he and Oswald went to hear Walker speak. Do you dismiss DeMohrenschildt as the connector of the Paines to the Oswalds? 

 

 

 

Considering Michael Paine as informant of some kind relies on the veracity of the claim by Buddy Walthers that files with information on Cuban sympathizers were found at the Paine home. Those files would provide the unspoken context of Paine’s activity at Luby’s Restaurant in the Spring of 1963.  http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=59614#relPageId=36&tab=page

During his Warren Commission testimony, Paine would refer to his inclination to “sense the pulse of various groups in the Dallas area.” http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=38#relPageId=420&tab=page   Ruth Paine was also apparently an informant of some kind in the 1980s.

The deMohrenschildt’s apparently did not know the Paine’s before the Magnolia Oil party in February 1963, when Ruth Paine met Marina. The host of the party was Everett Glover, who made the invitations. Ruth Paine would soon be persistently offering Marina the opportunity to separate from Lee. Jeanne deMohrenschildt would speak of a similar project to separate the Oswalds, prospectively for several months within the White Russian community, through the autumn of 1962. Also that autumn, George deMohrenschildt was trying to find Lee work in industrial security, and initiated the brief separations which did occur. 

I don’t think the Paine’s had connection or interest in the Walker/Banister milieu, but suspect person(s) with such connection were the link taking the Paines to the Oswalds. Ruth Paine enabled a separation just as Oswald was initiating his FPCC activity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi everyone.  This is my first post.  I've been reading various threads on here for years.

I'm making the new documentary about Ruth Paine.  Here's what she told me about that "we both know who is responsible" phone call--this is from a transcript of our interview:

 

Quote

 

Q: And there was supposedly an FBI phone intercept between your home number and some, Michael's office number, something like that where they say you guys, probably you guys were having a conversation and you said, "Oswald did it, but he's not the one who's responsible. We both know who is responsible."

 

A: Pure garbage. Pure garbage. I did describe the phone call that Michael and I had, after the assassination when we were kind of commiserating with each other, about the Kennedy's killing thinking that it was conspiracy, right wing radicals who had done it. We both thought we knew, but we didn't know who had done it. I hear that every now and then. That one comes up, but there's nothing to it.

 


BTW, Chris Smith at the Santa Rosa Press Democrat has written several articles on Ruth over the years:

http://www.pressdemocrat.com/news/6833725-181/smith-santa-rosa-woman-will?artslide=0

http://www.pressdemocrat.com/csp/mediapool/sites/PressDemocrat/News/story.csp?cid=2884078&sid=555&fid=181

http://www.pressdemocrat.com/news/2225040-184/ruth-paines-former-texas-house?gallery=2340080&artslide=0

http://www.pressdemocrat.com/news/2224953-181/smith-they-tried-to-be?ref=related

http://www.pressdemocrat.com/csp/mediapool/sites/PressDemocrat/News/story.csp?cid=1860814&sid=555&fid=181&artslide=0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/28/2017 at 9:00 AM, David Lifton said:

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

David,

I’m returning to the Forum after a two-month hiatus, and your post is first on my list.

First, I agree with you that it was the responsibility of the original investigators to question both Paines aggressively – and they failed to do so.  Thus, this question arises month after month.

Secondly, when I asked Ruth Paine about it – I pressed her for an answer.  In fact, this was my first question to her, and she did not hesitate.  She and Michael Paine agreed that the writers of the WANTED FOR TREASON poster, and the writers of the WELCOME, MISTER KENNEDY, TO DALLAS black-bordered ad in the DMN, were responsible for killing JFK.

So, when Michael said, “We both know who’s responsible,” I don’t call that generic – I call that politically targeted toward the Radical Right in Dallas.  That doesn’t name names, but it is specific as regards the political group responsible.  That was their intuition on 11/22/1963.  In my humble opinion, their intuition was correct.  

It has the ring of truth, IMHO.  If I were in Dallas on 11/22/1963, and early that morning I saw the WANTED FOR TREASON poster, and then read the WELCOME, MISTER KENNEDY, TO DALLAS black-bordered ad in the DMN, then I feel certain that when JFK was killed at 12:30 PM, I would have immediately thought that the writers of those two scurrilous documents were the killers of JFK.  It has the ring of truth to me. 

Nor did this suggest that the Paines implied that these documents inspired Oswald to kill JFK. I agree with you insofar as it makes no sense even to imagine that.  Instead, the Paines originally thought that Oswald was an innocent scapegoat.  They said so, even to the Warren Commission.

I did press Ruth for an answer.  Ruth was very firm about her answer.  The Paines didn't move in Radical Right circles.  Ruth, a college educated, high-IQ housewife, was a Quaker and moved in liberal circles.  Michael, a college-educated, high-IQ engineer, was a Unitarian and moved in liberal circles.  They were separated at this time, and had many private problems.

Ruth’s main problem during this time was her Charity work for Marina Oswald.  Ruth had taken Marina into her home because Marina was eight-months pregnant, had no money or health insurance, had not yet seen a doctor, and Lee Oswald was out of work (again).  Marina also had a baby in arms.  Ruth also had two babes in arms.  Ruth was very busy.  

Ruth also liked Marina personally, and enjoyed the added benefit of practicing her Russian conversational skills.  Ruth wanted to learn Russian to be of use to Quaker Church missions during the Cold War.  Peace was her political ideal.  The same goes for Marina.

So, David, in my humble opinion, the main question remains, “Who Ordered the Phone Tap?”  Ruth Paine still wants to know, and I also want to know. 

You would like to hear that Ruth Paine knew the names of the people who killed JFK.  I asked Ruth Paine point blank, and she said she and Michael had no idea who specifically pulled the trigger, or who laid the plans.  But she and Michael felt certain that the writers of the WANTED FOR TREASON poster, and the WELCOME, MISTER KENNEDY, TO DALLAS ad, were at the center of it.

The Warren Commission showed that General Walker’s publisher, Robert Allen Surrey, was clearly behind the WANTED FOR TREASON poster, and that General Walker’s connections in the John Birch Society were clearly behind the WELCOME, MISTER KENNEDY, TO DALLAS ad.  

Therefore, even though Ruth and Michael didn’t know General Walker and his minions, their intuition was 100% correct – by my reading.  I believe the recent book by Jeff Caufield, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy; the Extensive New Evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy (2015) fills in the blanks that Ruth didn't know -- and still doesn't know.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
typos

Share this post


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

David,

I’m returning to the Forum after a two-month hiatus, and your post is first on my list.

...........

So, David, in my humble opinion, the main question remains, “Who Ordered the Phone Tap?”  Ruth Paine still wants to know, and I also want to know. 

..............

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Welcome back Paul,

No-one necessarily had to "order" a phone tap, at least not in the sense that I assume you are thinking. Anyone with a "butt-in" test set (a phone with aligator clips) could have listened-in to that call. I don't recall what the two ends of that call were, but if one end was the police station in Dallas, or nearby, it could have been in a manhole or tunnel under the street, in Dallas.

blu1013_1.jpg

Edited by Michael Clark

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

×