The latest from Ruth Paine

[Gene Kelly]

Paul:

Thanks for pointing out the multiple calls.  I was not so much "conflating" (good word, kudos to Michael C. for using it previously) as pointing out that Ruth said nothing about the alleged later call (around 1pm, no transcript).   The first call was brought up several times in Michael's WC testimony:

 "I called Ruth immediately after getting back just to see that she would turn on the radio and be clued in with the news, but this was before the TSBD was mentioned." (Vol II, p. 424)

 "I called her immediately getting back to the lab, so she would be watching and listening and getting clued in to the news, start watching the news." (Vol IX, p. 449)

It’s interesting that his  colleague Ray Krystinik disagreed with Michael about where they were and what they discussed when first informed of the news.  Of course, there is no mention of the "waitress" that Ruth attributes as breaking the news.  Michael testified to being with a co-op named Dave, talking about "assassins" no less:

Mr. Paine. I was having, at the time of the assassination I was at work, of course, but at the time of the assassination I was in the cafeteria associated with the bowling alley having lunch.  

Mr. Liebeler. Who was with you? Mr. Paine. A student, a co-op student called Dave Noel happened to be with me. We happened to be talking about the character of assassins at the lunchtime, of all things.

Mr. Liebeler. Prior to the time you heard of the assassination? Mr. Paine. That is right.

Mr. Liebeler. ...let me ask you this, who was with you at the first time you heard the assassination? Mr. Paine. Dave Noel.

Mr. Liebeler. Was Mr. Krystinik with you? Mr. Paine. No.

 Frank Krystinik appeared to have recalled it differently. 

Mr. Liebeler. Was Michael with you when you first heard of the fact that the President had been fired at?  Mr. Krystinik. Yes.

Mr. Krystinik. And it wasn't but just a little while later that we heard that Officer Tippit had been shot, and it wasn't very long after that that it came through that the Oswald fellow had been captured, had had a pistol with him, and Michael used some expression, I have forgotten exactly what the expression was, and then he said, "The stupid," something, I have forgotten. It wasn't a complimentary thing. He said, "He is not even supposed to have a gun." And that I can quote, "He is not even supposed to have a gun." Or, "Not even supposed to own a gun," I have forgotten.

 

I'm curious, given your closeness to Ruth and recent contacts.  Have you ever reached out to Michael or spoken with him?

Thanks,

Gene

[Michael Clark]

38 minutes ago, Gene Kelly said:

Paul:

Thanks for pointing out the multiple calls.  .......

I was not so much "conflating" (good word, kudos to Michael C. for using it previously) as pointing out that Ruth said nothing about the alleged later call (around 1pm, no transcript).   The first call was brought up several times in Michael's WC testimony:

 "I called Ruth immediately after getting back just to see that she would turn on the radio and be clued in with the news, but this was before the TSBD was mentioned." (Vol II, p. 424)

 "I called her immediately getting back to the lab, so she would be watching and listening and getting clued in to the news, start watching the news." (Vol IX, p. 449)

It’s interesting that his  colleague Ray Krystinik disagreed with Michael about where they were and what they discussed when first informed of the news.  Of course, there is no mention of the "waitress" that Ruth attributes as breaking the news.  Michael testified to being with a co-op named Dave, talking about "assassins" no less:.......

 

Thanks,

Gene

Thanks Gene.

 And as an FYI, one of my Mcadams PDF's of Mr. Paine's testimony does mention the waitress. Mcadams has three WC testimony docs for Michael Paine. The one quoted below is undated. The other two are March 17 and July 23.(It's just another example of how Paul's reliance on myth for his posts is disrespectful and causes confusion and makes work for other members)

 

Mr. PAINE - A student, a co-op student called Dave Noel happened to be with me. We happened to be talking about the character of assassins at that lunch-time, of all things.
Mr. LIEBELER - Prior to the time you heard of the assassination?
Mr. PAINE - That is right. When we first sat down at the meal we were discussing it, beside the point, except unless you believe in extrasensory perception, but we happened to just--we didn't have enough historical knowledge to explore it, but I just raised the question and tried to pursue it, and then dropped it, and then a waitress came and said the President had been shot, and I thought she was cracking a nasty joke, and went over to a cluster of people listening around a transistor set, and heard there was some commotion of this sort from the tone of the voice of the transistor set, and we went back to the lab where there is a good radio, and followed the news from there.
When it was mentioned, the Texas School Book Depository Building was mentioned, then I told Frank Krystinik that that was where Lee Oswald worked, and then in a few minutes he came back and said, he asked me, didn't I think I had better call the FBI and tell them.
So over a period of about 20 minutes, I trying to carry on work in a foolish way, or talking or discussing other things or something, we were discussing this problem, and I thought, I said to myself, or said to him, that the FBI already knew he worked there. Everybody would know he was a black sheep, and I didn't want to--a friend or one of the few friends in position of friendship to him, I didn't want to--join the mob barking at his heels or join in his harassment, so I declined. I didn't tell Frank that he couldn't call the FBI, but I said I wasn't going to do it, so I didn't.
I called Ruth immediately after getting back just to see that she would turn on the radio and be clued in with the news, but this was before the Texas School Book Depository Building was mentioned, to my knowledge, and she was already watching the news. So we communicated nothing at that time.

Mr. DULLES - Do you know whether your luncheon companion did or did not telephone the FBI?

Mr. PAINE - This is not the luncheon companion. This is Dave Noel Frank Krystinik brings his lunch, and he eats his lunch at the lab.
Mr. DULLES - At the lab?
Mr. PAINE - Yes.

Edited August 4, 2017 by Michael Clark

[Paul Trejo]

3 hours ago, Gene Kelly said:

Paul:

Thanks for pointing out the multiple calls....The first call was brought up several times in Michael's WC testimony:

 "I called Ruth immediately after getting back just to see that she would turn on the radio and be clued in with the news, but this was before the TSBD was mentioned." (Vol II, p. 424)

 "I called her immediately getting back to the lab, so she would be watching and listening and getting clued in to the news, start watching the news." (Vol IX, p. 449)

...I'm curious, given your closeness to Ruth and recent contacts.  Have you ever reached out to Michael or spoken with him?

Thanks,

Gene

Gene,

Kudos for identifying that 1st call from Michael Paine to Ruth Paine, right around the end of lunch time.   This was before the TSBD was mentioned, and so it was also before Lee Harvey Oswald was mentioned, and there was no wire-tap transcript for it.

As for the 2nd call, which was wire-tapped, I estimate a time-frame after 2pm.  (The wire-tap transcript failed to give the precise time of the call.)   Michael Paine called Ruth, and then sped over to her house in Irving from work -- as I read it.   When he arrived, the Dallas Police were already there.

If we can time the arrival of the Dallas Police at Ruth's home, and also time the drive from Bell Helicopter to Ruth's home, then I think we might be able to more precisely estimate the time of the 2nd call.

Finally, as for Michael Paine -- I did ask Ruth Paine for his contact information, and she declined to share it with me.  I have never been able to find any contact information for Michael Paine.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited August 4, 2017 by Paul Trejo

[Michael Clark]

6 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

 

Kudos on identifying that 1st call from Michael Paine to Ruth Paine, right around the end of lunch time.   

As for the 2nd call, which was wire-tapped, I estimate a time-frame after 2pm.   

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Can someone verify what Paul is talking about with the second call, or is this one of his myths? I would dig-in, but I would be looking through 5000 questions in testimony, just from Ruth, to look for something that I don't recall being there.

Edited August 4, 2017 by Michael Clark

[James DiEugenio]

No one knows the time of the phone call or if there are more than one.

All we know about for sure is the record of the one call.  And we do not know the actual time of that call.  Jeff Carter has done the best work on that and its clear there were FBI records and phone company records.  The WC did their usual crappy job on this and they actually went along with a cover up for the Paines.  No surprise.

If there was another call then Paul likely got that from Ruthie.  Who he trusts implicitly no matter what she says.

[Ron Bulman]

3 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

No one knows the time of the phone call or if there are more than one.

All we know about for sure is the record of the one call.  And we do not know the actual time of that call.  Jeff Carter has done the best work on that and its clear there were FBI records and phone company records.  The WC did their usual crappy job on this and they actually went along with a cover up for the Paines.  No surprise.

If there was another call then Paul likely got that from Ruthie.  Who he trusts implicitly no matter what she says.

Jim, the WC covered up for the Paines?  Do you think Paul realizes this?

[James DiEugenio]

LOL 

[Paul Trejo]

On ‎8‎/‎4‎/‎2017 at 9:53 PM, Ron Bulman said:

Jim, the WC covered up for the Paines?  Do you think Paul realizes this?

On the contrary, Jim and Ron.  Ruth Paine was subjected to more interrogation than any other WC witness -- by far.

Ruth answered more than five thousand questions for the WC -- in several sessions, including WC sessions in her own garage.

The only time one might argue that the WC gave Michael Paine a break was in their weak handling of the phone call wire-tap of 11/22/1963.  But that is easily explained by selfishness of the WC -- if they had pressed the issue correctly, they would have had to cough up facts about the illegal nature of that wire-tap, and arrest their own wire-tappers.

So, excluding that, the WC was very stern with the Paines.  They especially grilled both of them for possible Communist ties, to answer many rumors of a Reds-did-it CT. 

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

[Michael Clark]

1 hour ago, Paul Trejo said:

 

 

The only time one might argue that the WC gave Michael Paine a break was in their weak handling of the phone call wire-tap of 11/22/1963.  But that is easily explained by selfishness of the WC -- if they had pressed the issue correctly, they would have had to cough up facts about the illegal nature of that wire-tap, and arrest their own wire-tappers.

Ok, Paul Trejo is claiming that the Warren Commission had wire-tappers in place on 11-22-63. A couple days ago he was wondering who "ordered" the tap.

So, excluding that, the WC was very stern with the Paines.  They especially grilled both of them for possible Communist ties, to answer many rumors of a Reds-did-it CT. 

The Paine's were given softball question, outs, and passes throughout the testimony; critically, with regard to the John Abt call.

 

Replies in bold

[Jason Ward]

On 8/7/2017 at 0:20 PM, Paul Trejo said:

On the contrary, Jim and Ron.  Ruth Paine was subjected to more interrogation than any other WC witness -- by far.

Ruth answered more than five thousand questions for the WC -- in several sessions, including WC sessions in her own garage....

...

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Paul, (& everyone)

I'm a longterm reader but I just joined and am still skittish about posting.   I want to make a couple observations here.

1. You (Paul) focus on primary sources - original testimony, original documents, etc.  You see Ruth Paine for exactly what she says she is because primary sources indicate nothing more.  Your conflict is, in my view, largely because you discount secondary sources.
2. The case against Ruth Paine -and especially that she was a CIA operative- is based on secondary sources or assumptions that if Ruth knows people in the CIA, she is in the CIA.  A lot of CTs cite other CTs or themselves as evidence of Ruth Paine's CIA connections.  I don't see ANY original testimony, released internal CIA/FBI/HSCA documents, unofficial witness statements quoted in newspapers, nor any other PRIMARY source that suggests Paine is in bed with the CIA.

I have to agree with you that the Paine family's CIA links mean almost nothing without documented primary source material linking Ruth herself to the CIA.  Likewise, the fact that she did things that we 50+ years later categorize as supporting the LN / WC narrative is again meaningless without some solid evidence of an intelligence connection.   By way of example; I went to school in Texas, with Barr McClellan's son. He was among perhaps a dozen friends I knew who got caught up in supporting George W Bush.    Scott and a few others I knew ended up in the West Wing, involved in the Gulf War, etc.  If I did what Ruth Paine did half the CT community would be saying I am an obvious Bush family/CIA operative.  I mean, afterall, I've got all those connections, right?   But in reality, I never knew any Bush family member, was never much interested in partisan politics, never went to Washington, and the only relationship I had with these guys was drinking a lot of beer when we were in school and occasionally meeting up for a football game or drinks once we were adults.  If I did what Paine did I'd be hung because, well, I've got 10 straight line connections to the Bushes, even though I'm not connected at all and am as much  an outsider to the Bushes as anyone else.   

I'm ploughing through the recent document dump.  I'm catching up on what I've missed in Mary Ferrell's huge collection.  OBVIOUSLY, there was a conspiracy.   But Ruth Paine is about the weakest potential avenue to explore, in my view.  There are people with advanced knowledge long forgotten/ignored, there are numerous documentary leads that have never been pursued, and there are lots of places to look: Why waste effort on the weak conjecture that Paine was CIA?    In my view, the CT community would take a turn towards even more mainstream acceptance and perceived legitimacy if it would concentrate on primary source material.

Edited August 17, 2017 by Jason Ward
privacy

[Paul Trejo]

Jason,

I appreciate the encouragement.  It's a refreshing change of pace here.

Also, your distinction between primary documents and secondary documents suggests that you assume a scientific approach to the history of the JFK assassination.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited August 15, 2017 by Paul Trejo

[Ron Bulman]

Oh Boy!  Should we start a new thread?  Those Iconic Paine's ?  A classic example of Ike's late 50's Peace in black and white, perfect couple, she a Quaker, he descended from the Cabot's and Lodge's with a trust fund and had attended Harvard. Thrust into the 60's, The Assassination.  Separation, not common at the time.  She was just learning Russian as a pastime.  Sisters don't discuss the family business on Ruth's vacation in the summer of 63.  Yes Ruth, you should help this poor Communist woman.  Ah, flunking out of Harvard in 2 years, landing at step dad's company with a security clearance, no big deal.   

Edited August 15, 2017 by Ron Bulman

[Chris Newton]

1 hour ago, Jason Ward said:

The case against Ruth Paine -and especially that she was a CIA operative- is based on secondary sources or assumptions that if Ruth knows people in the CIA, she is in the CIA.  A lot of CTs cite other CTs or themselves as evidence of Ruth Paine's CIA connections.  I don't see ANY original testimony, released internal CIA/FBI/HSCA documents, unofficial witness statements quoted in newspapers, nor any other PRIMARY source that suggests Paine is in bed with the CIA.

 

Hi Jason and welcome to the Forum.

I fully appreciate your opinions and I concur that it is really difficult to draw a solid line between Ruth Paine and the CIA. Despite your extensive research, could there be files on this subject that have been held back from us? Do you know if any files related to the Paines are scheduled to be released this year?

I notice that all of your comments above relate to the CIA. What of Ruth's relationship to the FBI?

If I can prove that Ruth was untruthful about major portions of her Warren Commission testimony, what would that say about other assumptions?

PS Nice story about Barr. Didn't he write his own book on the JFK assassination and suggested it was a Texas based conspiracy led by LBJ?

Edited August 15, 2017 by Chris Newton

[James DiEugenio]

Jason:

The comparison of you knowing Scott McClellan and somehow that is equivalent to characterizing what some people think Ruth Paine was, it completely falls down in the face of the facts that have been accumulated.

Did the Secret Service ever return a letter you wrote to Scott because they thought you were a CIA agent who was trying to frame him? They did that to Ruth Paine.

Did the Secret Service ever tell Scott's wife to stay away from you because they knew you were CIA?  They told that to Marina Oswald in order to keep her away from Ruth.

Did you ever help the FBI create a piece of evidence in order to exculpate Scott from the Plame affair?  The Paines did so at the request of J Edgar Hoover.

Did you ever visit Iraq during the war and try to get some R and R with Scott, but when you got out of the car, several Iraqui citizens started hissing and booing you and saying, "Its Jason Ward, he's CIA!"  That is what happened to Ruth Paine in Central America during the Contra War in the eighties.

Did you ever "find' evidence to place Scott in a foreign country, therefore associating him with enemies of America?  Ruth did that with Oswald and MC.

I could go on and on.  But the idea you have that somehow if you work with the CIA or FBI, it must be on paper, that is really a wrong headed notion.  Some agents were.  But many were not.  For example, we have the documentation on Clay Shaw.  But there is no such comparable documentation on Ferrie.

 Does that mean Ferrie was not CIA?  You cannot be serious can you?  

I would also advise you of the difference between a CIA agent and asset.  DeMohrenschildt was more of an asset, something he himself later admitted.  And that is why he agreed to babysit Oswald and his wife for J. Walton Moore. That is what I think the relationship was between the Paines and the government.  And most informed commentators believe that they took up where the Baron left off. After the assassination when the Secret Service warned Marina about Ruth, Priscilla Johnson, another CIA asset took Ruth's place.

Edited August 15, 2017 by James DiEugenio

[Gene Kelly]

Jason:

All good points raised, and welcome to the Forum; your fresh views are valued.   I don't think the idea is to link the Paines with the CIA, which I agree is circumstantial and speculative. Frankly, done properly, there would never be any primary sources or evidence in that regard (imho).  Rather, the abundant skepticism about the Paines centers about the many "coincidences" surrounding them --  key primary facts in the JFK murder case against Oswald -- as to strain credibility. 

I'd submit that no one was more instrumental in making the factitious case against Oswald that this couple. With all due respect to Paul's thesis, the primary LHO connections to General Walker come from Michael and Ruth: the Walker note, the photo of Walker's house, even the first person (i.e. Michael Paine) to cite Oswald's role in the April Walker shooting ... all these originate with Ruth and Michael Paine.  When Oswald's presence in Mexico was in question, Ruth provided the evidence. And when the Minox camera became a topic of intrigue, the FBI agents were referred to Ruth Paine. There are simply way too many coincidences at the heart of Oswald's legend and incrimination ... all of which emanate from primary sources and factual information (not speculation):

1. The Paines moved from Pennsylvania to the community of Irving (where Marguerite lived) the same September 1959 week that Oswald left his mother and defected
2. When Oswald returned to Dallas in 1962, the Paines were still there ... as though they had been waiting for him
3. When the enigmatic George de Morenschildt left for Haiti, Ruth and Michael stepped-in as his "benefactors" ... in essence a hand-off to the Paines
4. Lee and Marina meet the Paines at the Glover party, and move in with them for nothing more than Russian language tutoring
5. Michael and Ruth conveniently separate (ostensibly for harsh/cruel treatment) but remain amicable ... Michael watching over Lee while Ruth watches over Marina 
6. Ruth appears on the scene to whisk Marina away whenever Oswald has somewhere important to go (new Orleans, Mexico City)
7. Ruth's visits to the Neely Street apartment coincide with the same days the rifle/revolver are ordered and then shipped
8. Both the Paines and the Oswalds maintain separate residences  from their respective spouses ... this serves to confuse/divert examination of relationships or links
9. The lack of knowledge of a rifle (early on) followed by storage/discovery in the garage
10. Obtaining a critical and timely job for Oswald at the TSBD via a random conversation with a neighbor
11. A virtuous Quaker -Unitarian couple who belonged to the ACLU (ideologically liberal) but did nothing to help Oswald with legal assistance
12. Damming evidence against Oswald that flowed exclusively from the Paine garage (e.g. backyard photographs, Kleins order , radical magazines, Mexican bus ticket, etc.)  
13. They Paines are the most quoted testimony in the Warren Commission record (over 6,000 questions) ... no one is even a close second
14. Characterized as just an average middle-class religious couple who just happened to associate with a Marxist assassin and his Russian wife
15. For the following 30-50 years, they are untouched (e.g. HSCA), untainted (albeit with income tax returns classified) and under-investigated

In my view, Ruth and Michael share far too many coincidences to be dismissed as innocent bystanders.

Gene Kelly