Jump to content
The Education Forum
Dan Doyle

The latest from Ruth Paine

Recommended Posts

29 minutes ago, Gene Kelly said:

They Paines are the most quoted testimony in the Warren Commission record (over 6,000 questions) ... no one is even a close second

I think this is based on a claim by Trejo and not based on any actual accounting. I don't think it matters but, in terms of time, George De M's testimony may even eclipse Ruth's so even the claim "no one is a close second." is wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Chris Newton said:

 

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?

Thanks Chris for the polite welcome.

Sure, there could be a file held back from us.  But that's like speculating about life on another planet; yes, it seems logical to many of us but until we have some very good evidence I think a rational person just leaves the question as "inconclusive."  It's the same way with the Paine details of common dispute in these threads.  Of course she should be investigated and of course we should say things like, "she smells like CIA to me," but really without primary sources this kind of arguing and speculation does more harm than good for all involved.   There is just a ton of stuff in the documented primary sources that is totally un-investigated.   If you think Paine is CIA or FBI, fine.    But can you agree that it might be better to leave this point as "inconclusive" and focus more on the evidence (lots) still out there that is unexplored?

I've got several more stories about Barr, the whole Austin connection, a few ex-Ruby strippers I know, and Carlos Bringuier, who I also talk with from time to time....we'll save it for another thread!

thanks again,

Jason

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chris:

The source of the extensive Paine WC testimony is an article by Jim DiEugenio in Kennedys and King, dated June 20, 2014 and entitled "On its 50th Anniversary: Why the Warren Report Today is Inoperative".  In that article, Jim quotes a Walt Brown book ("The Warren Omission") where he states (on pages 262-263) that the Paines:

" ... were in the witness chair on a combined nine days and asked well over 6,000 questions ... in fact, Ruth was asked the most questions of any single witness".

Gene

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

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 an 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.

Hi Jim, thanks for your reply and thanks for the work you've contributed to the assassination community.  I'll try to be brief and polite because I severely dislike the angry confrontational tone on these forums.

1. It means almost nothing to me if the CIA or SS sent someone a letter saying you or Me or Paine was in the CIA - I know from experience they make up stuff just on the off chance they are correct or strike a nerve.

2. Much of your thinking seems to based on the authority you place in your own understanding of the CIA, SS, and FBI - and your belief that "informed commentators" have a bearing on the factuality of a matter.  All of this is a logical fallacy - called an appeal to authority.  You're saying that because you know about the FBI/CIA/SS we should believe your point about Paine.  Your further "evidence" is that other "informed commentators" believe the same as you.   All of this is the kind of thing that gives the assassination research community its lunatic fringe reputation among many.  If you don't have a paper document, sworn testimony, or at least a few quotes from reliable sources all of this is just speculation - even if you've spent decades in assassination research.

Anyway, a big part of my point is really something like: ok, you think Paine is CIA.   Others are unconvinced.   Aren't your talents better used in pursuing something more tangible?  There's so much still out there.  Isn't it more rational to say, "Ok, smart people can think Paine is not CIA, lets move on, even if I myself believe it is so" ???  Some very good people spend a lot of time here trying to convince someone Paine was in the CIA (or any of many other pet theories), when really in my view there's tons of leads out there that need real work.

Thanks again, I appreciate your work, and I'll try remain polite and humble if I participate further.

 

Jason

Edited by Jason Ward
privacy concerns

Share this post


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

I think this is based on a claim by Trejo and not based on any actual accounting. I don't think it matters but, in terms of time, George De M's testimony may even eclipse Ruth's so even the claim "no one is a close second." is wrong.

By one count, Larry Crafard came in with around 3900 questions, Ruth with 800. It doesn't sound right to me. I found this on Greg Burnham's site.

-------------------------/-

"One gets an array of strange images reading the testimonies in the Warren Report. Some of them are short and sweet, some are seemingly pointless, others are boringly long and don’t lead anywhere and many simply just have a strange focus. At 10:45pm on the 1st of April 1964 a fellow by the name of Curtis Laverne “Larry” Crafard was called to testify. He was one of many peripheral witnesses that for some reason were of interest to the Commission. 

Crafard worked in the Carousel Club as a “handyman” for Jack Ruby. When the shots occurred on Elm Street he was allegedly asleep in a room behind the bar; the Carousel Club was several blocks away from Dealey Plaza. Exactly why the Commission felt the need for an employee at Ruby’s nightclub to explain his whole life in over 3900 questions is a sheer mystery, especially when he was neither a suspect nor a close witness to the killing. 

Larry Crafard’s testimony – talk about a strange hearing. The inquiry into Crafard’s life and activities continued on for more than two days and contained, as we have said, over 3900 questions; they talked about hitch hiking, lunch money, former brothers in law and just about anything under the sun that seemingly didn’t have anything to do with the Kennedy assassination. When Crafard mentioned that Ruby had a feminine way about him, the Commission would ask him if Ruby lisped. They also asked if George Senator lisped. Apparently and for some weird reason they thought that lisping was a sign of homosexuality. The whole read is crazy.

 

Another person that the Commission spent a lot of time and questions on was Ruth Paine, Marina Oswald’s landlady/alleged CIA handler. Mrs. Paine was also far away from the crime scene. Nevertheless, she was apparently important enough to be questioned for hours on five different occasions in 1964. All in all the Commission asked her approximately 800 questionsCrafard and Paine were seemingly more important than most of the other witnesses; Mrs. Paine certainly was a big “help” in creating the negative image of Lee Harvey Oswald

--------------------------

http://assassinationofjfk.net/the-warren-commission-a-brilliant-deception/

 

 

Edited by Michael Clark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gene Kelly said:

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

 

Hi Gene, many thanks for your kind welcome!

As I've stated already in replies to Jim and Chris above, probably a big part of what I'm saying is: Given that the Paine's relationship to CIA/SS/FBI is as you say "circumstantial and speculative," instead of spending months and months arguing with Paul Trejo, wouldn't it be better to say, "Ok, Paul, you have your strictly-by-the-legal-rules-of-evidence-approach, and many of us believe in our own powers of speculation, but lets move on"???   and yes, This has been going for months...years...the same people arguing the same thing over and over on this Paine matter.

As for the odd things about Paine you give in 15 points: I agree, she deserves close scrutiny.  But I also say: birds of a feather flock together.   Oswald is obviously a very very strange bird.  DeMohrenschildt is not a typical guy.  Quakers are even unusual for Dallas (I live here part time).  Read some of the great books by FBI investigators like Robert Ressler or John Douglas. (granted, they talk mostly about ghastly sensational murders, but the investigative techniques apply for everything from vandallism to complex international conspiracies). There is no such thing as a major case where all the details add up logically.  In fact, the bigger the case, the more often there are dozens of loose ends and pieces that simply don't fit into the puzzle anywhere.  Furthermore, weird people have weird friends who all do weird things.   I mean none of the major characters in this drama are anywhere near standard 9 to 5 guys, white picket fence, 2.3 kids, suburbanites.   I really suggest reading Ressler, Douglas or any of the big investigators because they tell you a lot about the players in any crime because like it or not, we all fit into a known pattern that they've studied and identified  Another thing these modern FBI guys would say is that there's no way Oswald could pull of an organized, efficient crime.  He's too young, he's too inexperienced, he's broke, he's got marriage issues, and many more aspects of his personality alone indicate LHO couldn't kill anyone.  In the cases when young men vaguely similar to Oswald kill people, they do it in terribly disorganized, inefficient ways and could not pull off anything like what LHO did (or what they say he did afterwards).  If he had killed someone; he would be panic stricken, nearly incoherent, pissing himself, fingerprints everywhere, etc...  So, from my "learning" of modern FBI investigative techniques, all you have to do is study Oswald's personality and habits and conclude: This is not a killer.  Of course, he is probably lots of other things...

I'll try to address a few of your points:

1. If you think the Paines moving to Dallas in 1959 implies suspicion - then you are implying a multi-year, highly thought-out and operationally intensive plan that is as out there as those who say there were 2 Oswalds groomed since they were boys.   It is just way way too speculative to rationally mean anything without some kind of documentary, testimonial evidence.   

2.  Same as 1.

3. Again, there's no doubt that Oswalds-Paines-DeMohrenschildts are about as far from run of the mill people as we're likely to find.   But we have some decent documented evidence about the deMohrenschildts, and we even know Oswald was studied and monitored by the FBI/CIA for years.....but again, without SOME evidence, you are in the land of hypothetical by attaching significance to a "hand-off" from George to the Paines.   I don't read the history as a hand-off, btw.   I read the history of Oswalds in pre-Assn Dallas as a pair of almost-homeless oddballs with small children who desperately attach to anyone they can because they're unable to cope on their own.   They would have moved in with you or me.  Have you ever had anyone in your family who is a n'er do well, always needing money, sometimes kicked out of their apartment, chronically losing jobs, etc?   Thats the Oswalds to me.   I think Oswald was probably low level cannon fodder in the Cold War who blundered into getting framed as a patsy - but don't discount his own blundering that was the key to his appeal all along.

4. same as 3

5. Again, the Paines are odd.   Maybe Ruth is a lesbian, but even if not she is certainly unconventional.   Their marriage seems typical of the type to me, unless documented otherwise

8.  I definitely agree Oswald's odd choice of getting a separate room on Beckley smells of acting on orders; but as for Ruth and Michael - same answer as 5.

9.  The whole issue of the rifle in the garage is a big cloudy unknown from what I can see.   One thing I don't discount, btw, is that Ruth may have been strongly encouraged to go-along with certain parts of the narrative, perhaps under threat of ....whatever.   This does not make her an accomplice, but more like another victim - and again I don't think the long and conflicting story of this rifle (starting from its alleged purchase to it's current condition today) does much to show us anything.  Remember too that no one is 100% accurate in testimony.   She can and almost certainly did make mistakes.   She may have heard things on TV and added that to her memory, whatever.   We shouldn't take this attitude that Paine is 100% correct or she's a conspirator; I think its more reasonable to think she is a human and is retelling her memory, subject to all kinds of influences and of course being involved in the biggest crime in US history.   Without lying and without deception, Paine can be wrong in some details; and I'm sure she must be wrong here and there in such a large testimony.

+++++10+++++  This is the coup de' grace for those who think Paine is CIA.   In fact, I think this is 95% of the reason anyone goes after the Paines as conspirators.   YES, the job at the TSBD is either one hell of a good piece of luck for the conspirators or Paine is somehow complicit in ways she doesn't admit.  I've studied Wes Frazier and talked to him once in the late 90s.   There is no way you, me, Clay Shaw, LBJ, Gen. Walker, Richard Helms, or anyone of a certain level of education and conspiratorial capability would employ this man for anything.   I don't think he's capable of lying because he's disorganized, alcoholic, ill-spoken and anyway his story is consistent through the years.   So, while I fully admit it is a winning-the-lotttery-level of good luck for the conspirators, my only belief is that all the evidence points to LHO getting the TSBD as described....because Frazier was a neighbor and because Paine wanted LHO to get a job.  This is definitely the strongest unlikely coincidence for anyone who defends Ruth Paine, but Truly, Paine, Fraziers would have to be in on it --- I don't buy it, but will change my mind at any evidence documented or testified.

Basically, I think all of your 15 points are worthy of some level of personal suspicion, but I think a rational person answers these points with some variation of my answers above.   As I hope is a recurring theme, isn't it better to say, "After 50+ years there is no document nor testimony linking Paine to the conspiracy, but let's try to find something that DOES flush out the conspiracy" (and if you're correct - it would flush out the Paines)  Plenty of people still alive not as smart or careful as Ruth Paine to look at.  If you guys are right that Ruth Paine is handling Oswald, then you guys are going after the strongest most clever operative I've seen in fact or fiction - why not tackle low hanging fruit????

thanks again for the kind welcome!

 

Jason

 

Edited by Jason Ward

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael:

I consider Walt Brown is a reliable source and good writer, and he obviously studied and analyzed WC testimony carefully.  While the number of questions asked may be a bit imprecise and misleading, the number of days in the witness chair is perhaps a better gage.  I'm not sure how anyone has the patience and attention to detail to count questions from a court reporter's record; more than likely, they were estimating the numbered lines in the margins of such reports.  Nonetheless, Ruth and Michael were questioned over a period of nine days ... in comparison, George de Morenschildt was questioned over two days (April 22-23, 1964) by Albert Jenner.    

In reading through some (but not all) of the Paine testimony, what also stands out in contrast to de Morenschildt's interrogation is that not only counselors Wesley Liebeler and Albert Jenner but also Commissioners Gerald Ford and (notably) Allen Dulles participated in the questioning than began around March 20, 1964. Furthermore, some of Ruth's testimony was conducted in Washington DC and the remainder was conducted at her residence in Irving.

I'd consult the Brown book for more detail, but the Paines received extensive questioning by the Commission, by any measure.  

Gene

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Jason Ward said:

Ok, Paul, you have your strictly-by-the-legal-rules-of-evidence-approach

Welcome Jason,

The above quote is simply not the case with Trejo. And that's the problem. But you sound very aware of the situation so I won't belabor it here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jason Ward said:

Of course she should be investigated and of course we should say things like, "she smells like CIA to me," but really without primary sources this kind of arguing and speculation does more harm than good for all involved.   There is just a ton of stuff in the documented primary sources that is totally un-investigated.   If you think Paine is CIA or FBI, fine.    But can you agree that it might be better to leave this point as "inconclusive" and focus more on the evidence (lots) still out there that is unexplored?

 

Hey Jason, that's exactly what I'm doing.

I began taking a really hard look at the last letter Oswald ever sent. In it he mentions his trip to Mexico and completing some business with Comrade Kostin.  So quite naturally, I'm interested in the provenance of this letter and as it turns out, Ruth Paine provides that story. I have no animus for Ruth Paine but her story does not stand up to scrutiny. I don't know why an untrue story was told. I'm open to suggestions but I'm going to keep turning over rocks and poking around until I get answers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Gene Kelly said:

Michael:

I consider Walt Brown is a reliable source and good writer, and he obviously studied and analyzed WC testimony carefully.  While the number of questions asked may be a bit imprecise and misleading, the number of days in the witness chair is perhaps a better gage.  I'm not sure how anyone has the patience and attention to detail to count questions from a court reporter's record; more than likely, they were estimating the numbered lines in the margins of such reports.  Nonetheless, Ruth and Michael were questioned over a period of nine days ... in comparison, George de Morenschildt was questioned over two days (April 22-23, 1964) by Albert Jenner.    

In reading through some (but not all) of the Paine testimony, what also stands out in contrast to de Morenschildt's interrogation is that not only counselors Wesley Liebeler and Albert Jenner but also Commissioners Gerald Ford and (notably) Allen Dulles participated in the questioning than began around March 20, 1964. Furthermore, some of Ruth's testimony was conducted in Washington DC and the remainder was conducted at her residence in Irving.

I'd consult the Brown book for more detail, but the Paines received extensive questioning by the Commission, by any measure.  

Gene

Thanks for that Gene,

I think Ruth gave lengthy answers. I'll venteure to say that Crafard was quite the opposite (I have read it closely, and re read a lot of it, but I am going by memory here)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

Welcome Jason,

The above quote is simply not the case with Trejo. And that's the problem. But you sound very aware of the situation so I won't belabor it here.

Fair enough, I respect your opinion

In my perception on the Paine issue(s) - Paul Trejo has for years been asking people to stick to documented facts.   Sure, he has his own biased ideas and interjects them as we all do, but basically my take is he wants courtroom level evidence to convict Paine of conspiratorial involvement.   Everyone else seems to say 1+1+1 = 5; there is always a missing step or two in linking Paine to the CIA or FBI or conspiracy.   I really think the smart people here should move on - lots of you think Paine is on it, Paul doesn't, and I would say its inconclusive.   No reason to argue for literally years on this, imo.

thanks for the kind reply

Jason

Share this post


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

 

Hey Jason, that's exactly what I'm doing.

I began taking a really hard look at the last letter Oswald ever sent. In it he mentions his trip to Mexico and completing some business with Comrade Kostin.  So quite naturally, I'm interested in the provenance of this letter and as it turns out, Ruth Paine provides that story. I have no animus for Ruth Paine but her story does not stand up to scrutiny. I don't know why an untrue story was told. I'm open to suggestions but I'm going to keep turning over rocks and poking around until I get answers.

Ok, I hear you and respect your dedication and personal approach with the letter and Ruth.  I hope you find some good answers!   If it's not too boring, I hope you can read a few of my other responses this evening.  Paine is not perfect, and she's definitely an oddball.   She could have adjusted her story to fit the desired narrative under pressure, or just to fit in without rocking the boat, or because she was mistaken in memory, or because she incorporated other inputs into her recollection besides real memories.    If I asked you to give many days worth of testimony on virtually anything in your past, wouldn't you invariably say some things that were a little off, even though you weren't intending to deceive?  I know I would.   In big cases, 50 years on, nothing is ever going to add up perfectly and there's going to be plenty of lose ends forever, I think.   Some things are just going to stick out as not true, but it's kind of like Bush and the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.  I for one believe Bush believed they were there.   Does this make him a xxxx?   In the complicated story here, Paine making incongruent statements about details like what day a letter was mailed/received/written, etc. does not mean much to the big picture, in my view.  In any event, wouldn't it be better to say, argue a point for a month, and then move on?   This Paine controversy has gone on for literally years and there is virtually no difference between what the same people were saying in 2013 and what they are saying today...

thanks for your kind conversation,

Jason

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jason:

You pose good challenges that stimulate discussion.  if you study the TSBD job story closely, you'll find that the neighbor (Ms. Randle) did not suggest a job opening, as commonly understood. The Warren Report claimed that on October 14, 1963:

“At the suggestion of a neighbor, Mrs. Paine phoned the School Book Depository and was told that there was a job opening. She informed Oswald who was interviewed the following day... and he started to work there on October 16, 1963.”

What the Warren Commission didn't report was that the neighbor whom Mrs. Paine claimed had informed her of the job opening (Linnie May Randle) contradicted Ruth's testimony. Randle swore before the Commission, “I didn't know there was a job opening over there.” Just as suspiciously, as the Commission also knew, Ruth Paine had withheld from Oswald information that may have led to a better, higher paid job.  So, there appears to be a lot more to the employment anecdote ... the devil's in the details. Moreover, this one point about the TSBD (alone) doesn't tip the scales for me ... but the preponderance of coincidence surrounding the Paines does.  And I wouldn't simply characterize the Paines as institutionally CIA or even FBI, as some suspect, but rather as puppets used unwittingly (or perhaps not) to nurture, harbor and indict the patsy ... puppets manipulated by larger more powerful forces.   

Gene

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael:

Regarding the level of detail in her testimony , Bill Simpich offered that "Ruth Paine’s interviews - her precise answers and details – seem scripted".

Gene

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Jason Ward said:

She could have adjusted her story to fit the desired narrative under pressure, or just to fit in without rocking the boat, or because she was mistaken in memory, or because she incorporated other inputs into her recollection besides real memories.

 

I agree, somewhat, that memories can be fickle but Ruth was a young woman and her Warren Commission testimony was only four months after the assassination. 

 

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

×