The latest from Ruth Paine

[Jason Ward]

18 minutes ago, Gene Kelly said:

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

Gene, Great points and thanks for indulging me as a newbie.

I spent my most intense efforts reading and organizing the commission documents and a little less time reading the formal report.   It is my recollection that the sworn affidavits and other evidence conforms to the idea the Fraziers brought up the idea of a job - but I could be wrong.  Can I go back and look that up in the documents and get back to you?    Likewise, it is my recollection that the contacts to LHO about the airport job for Trans Texas that paid more was untimely - lho was already working at TSBD.  (btw once LHO is employed at TSBD, however he got there, I think the conspirators make sure he stays there.)  I understand your point about coincidences and I very much like that you say it doesn't tip the scales.   I think a lot of you (us?) have been living in the silo of CTs for so long that there is a kind of dogma and accepted wisdom that, looked at fresh, is really quite week and unjustifiable.   Again, there is so much more out there in need of study versus trying to read between the lines of what Paine says....IMO.  

I'll go back to the commission documents and report what I find.

thanks again,

Jason

Edited August 15, 2017 by Jason Ward

[Jason Ward]

30 minutes ago, Gene Kelly said:

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

Hi Gene, I believe the SS interview report is where I get my belief that Linnie Randle confirmed Ruth's testimony about how the TSBD job was discovered.   I'm looking for other contradictions still...do you have the link/cite showing Randle contradicts Paine?

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10490&relPageId=184&search=linnie_randle

 

BTW - how can I post larger documents - the attachment function severely limits my attachment size???

[Jason Ward]

43 minutes ago, Gene Kelly said:

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

AFAIK this is a valid source for Linnie Mae Randle's testimony, which I think confirms Ruth's story:

Mr. BALL. You and Mrs. Roberts and Mrs. Paine talked about it? 
Mrs. RANDLE. Yes. 
Mr. BALL. Was there anything said then about the Texas School Book Depository as a place he might get a job? 
Mrs. RANDLE. Well, we didn't say that he might get a job, because I didn't know there was a job open. The reason that we were being helpful, Wesley had just looked for a job, and I had helped him to try to find one. We listed several places that he might go to look for work. When you live in a place you know some places that someone with, you know, not very much of an education can find work. 
So, it was among one of the places that we mentioned. We mentioned several others, and Mrs. Paine said that well, he couldn't apply for any of the jobs that would require driving because he couldn't drive, and it was just in conversation that you might talk just any day and not think a thing on earth about it. In fact, I didn't even know that he had even tried any place that we mentioned. 
Mr. BALL. What were some of the other places mentioned? 
Mrs. RANDLE. Well, I remember two of them. Mrs. Roberts entered into the conversation and, of course, she is more familiar with the place than I am. It was Manor Bakeries which was a home delivery service. 
Then there was this Texas Gypsum which makes sheet rock and things like that, and we mentioned because Wesley had tried those places that I mentioned those. 
Mr. BALL. And then you also mentioned the Texas Book Depository? 
Mrs. RANDLE. Well, I didn't know there was a job opening over there. 
Mr. BALL. But did you mention it? 
Mrs. RANDLE. But we said he might try over there. There might be work over there because it was the busy season but I didn't have any previous knowledge that there was any job opening

 

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/randlelm.htm

[Jason Ward]

Thanks again for treating me gently as new to the forum, but in general about Ruth Paine and/or LHO's potential role as a CIA/govt operative of some kind: I sincerely feel his severe poverty should be given greater importance.  Ruth's whole raison d'être is Oswald poverty.  There are definitely places where Oswald has unaccountable money that makes us suspect a covert income of some kind.   However, from what I read about confirmed CIA operatives at every level, poverty is never part of the program.  They have never deliberately kept an important operative in poverty, so Ruth's role is not in keeping with the traditional CiA practice.  All the other CIA hires in Miami and New Orleans were well paid.   In my view, if Paine and/or LHO were a covert operative of some importance, Oswald and his wife/kids would be at a more comfortable financial level.  That is in every other CIA story I've read one of the main incentives and guarantors of loyalty - financial improvement.     It seems more likely to me that if Oswald were getting groomed for patsy-hood at least since he met Ruth Paine, there would have been somewhat more money in place.     If Ruth is a  controller with assassination in mind (or even not in mind) as claimed, the CIA by practice would have well-funded the project including good money for the Oswalds.    I'm advised that I'm venturing off Ruth Paine and should start another thread...so please join me on a new thread asking about WHEN Oswald becomes the patsy?

Edited August 15, 2017 by Jason Ward

[Chris Newton]

8 minutes ago, Jason Ward said:

Thanks again for treating me gently as new to the forum, but in general about Ruth Paine and/or LHO's potential role as a CIA/govt operative of some kind: I sincerely feel his severe poverty should be given greater importance.

Hi Jason, Thanks for the rundown. I think most of the rest of this post belongs in it's own thread. You are absolutely encouraged to share with us your assassination theory but this particular thread is "the latest from Ruth Paine" and if we start on your post we'll be way off this "Paine" track.

[Jason Ward]

2 minutes ago, Chris Newton said:

Hi Jason, Thanks for the rundown. I think most of the rest of this post belongs in it's own thread. You are absolutely encouraged to share with us your assassination theory but this particular thread is "the latest from Ruth Paine" and if we start on your post we'll be way off this "Paine" track.

Understood, I will try to do a new thread. thanks

[Paul Trejo]

8 hours ago, Gene Kelly said:

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...

Gene,

I find utterly no evidence for this claim.  It's not the first I've heard of it, of course, but if you're going to repeat this serious charge, you should at least produce some primary document about it, right?

More later...

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

[Michael Clark]

8 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Gene,

I find utterly no evidence for this claim.  It's not the first I've heard of it, of course, but if you're going to repeat this serious charge, you should at least produce some primary document about it, right?

More later...

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Says the guy who seldom provides quotes and citations for the myths that he perpetuates.

[Paul Trejo]

4 hours ago, Chris Newton said:

Hi Jason, Thanks for the rundown. I think most of the rest of this post belongs in it's own thread. You are absolutely encouraged to share with us your assassination theory but this particular thread is "the latest from Ruth Paine" and if we start on your post we'll be way off this "Paine" track.

Jason is right on the money of the "Paine" track.   You can't defend your arguments, and you can't take new arguments -- so you send him off this thread.  What a crock.

Jason's points challenge the weak case that James DIEugenio and all of his followers here have perpetuated against Ruth Paine in the past 25 years.  Admit it.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

9 hours ago, Gene Kelly said:

 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

Gene,

Your 15 points are really just taken from Probe Magazine articles in the 1990's.  These are the secondary sources that Jason writes about. 

These arguments are all weak as wet noodles.

Insofar as the key evidence against Lee Harvey Oswald came from Ruth Paine's garage, the crucial question would be if Marina Oswald denied any of it.  She didn't.  Marina Oswald admitted it was all Oswald's  property. 

As for point 14, you show you don't really understand the wealthy Unitarians or Quakers from the East Coast.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited August 15, 2017 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

9 hours 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.

Chris,

It's not my count.   I said over 5,000 questions, not 6,000.  The actual number is 5,236 questions.

It's still not my own count -- I believe Walt Brown was the first to count  them. 

The next most questions asked were to Marina Oswald, at 2,615.  So, really, nobody else was even close.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited August 15, 2017 by Paul Trejo

[Michael Clark]

11 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Chris,

It's not my count.   I said over 5,000 questions, not 6,000.  The actual number is 5,236 questions.

It's still not my own count -- I believe Walt Brown was the first to count  them. 

The next most questions asked were to Marina Oswald, at 2,615.  So, really, nobody else was even close.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Paul, incorrect, Larry Crafard comes in second to Ruth Paine.

[James DiEugenio]

Jason, I would venture that nothing in your experience with Scott even comes close to the situations i listed with Ruth and Michael Paine.  And if you can come up with one, that does not match the five I listed.  If you want to ignore all those for whatever reason, then fine.  That is your choice.  But those instances all happened.  They are not secondary sources, they are drawn from primary sources that are all in the record.

Also surprising is that you find nothing at all curious about the fact that when the Secret Service returned the Walker note to Ruth because they thought she wrote it, she then told them the following:  I forgot to give you this stuff I just found about Oswald being in Mexico City.  Thereby placing him in MC.  Which is  a place Marina had told them he had never been. Again, that is not from a secondary source.  Its from the Secret Service report.

Gene's point was not that Randle did not mention the TSBD but she told her there was no job opening there.  But of the places Ruth listed, she zeroed in on that one as the first place to call.  And the Adams call came in not when Oswald was working at the TSBD but the day before he started. (Douglass,  JFK and the Unspeakable, p. 171)   And if you read Jim's summary of this episode I don't know how anyone cannot come to the conclusion that Ruth deliberately kept the info from Oswald.  Again, if for whatever reason, you don't want to conclude that, then fine. That is your choice.  But again, that info is not from secondary sources.  Its from primary sources.  So you cannot use that pretext in avoiding it.

 

Edited August 15, 2017 by James DiEugenio

[Jason Ward]

11 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Jason, I would venture that nothing in your experience with Scott even comes close to the situations i listed with Ruth and Michael Paine.  And if you can come up with one, that does not match the five I listed.  If you want to ignore all those for whatever reason, then fine.  That is your choice.  But those instances all happened.  They are not secondary sources, they are drawn from primary sources that are all in the record.

Also surprising is that you find nothing at all curious about the fact that when the Secret Service returned the Walker note to Ruth because they thought she wrote it, she then told them the following:  I forgot to give you this stuff I just found about Oswald being in Mexico City.  Thereby placing him in MC.  Which is  place Marina had told them he had never been. Again, that is not from a secondary source.  Its from the Secret Service report.

Gene's point was not that Randle did not mention the TSBD but she told her there was no job opening there.  But of the places Ruth listed, she zeroed in on that one as the first place to call.  And the Adams call came in not when Oswald was working at the TSBD but the day before he started. (Douglass,  JFK and the Unspeakable, p. 171)   And if you read Jim's summary of this episode I don't know how anyone cannot come to the conclusion that Ruth deliberately kept the info from Oswald.  Again, if for whatever reason, you don't want to conclude that, then fine. That is your choice.  But again, that info is not from secondary sources.  Its from primary sources.  So you cannot use that pretext in avoiding it.

 

Jim, thanks for your response.

Douglas is a secondary source.  Citing him is the same as citing yourself.  I see no primary sources in anything you've claimed.  Even if you do cite a primary source for us, none of this is evidence that Paine is a CIA/FBI operative if the sources say what you suggest.   You will happily discount government claims when they don't match your preferred narrative, yet you invoke the truthfulness of government claims when they support your cherished belief that Paine is in on the conspiracy.  Sure, plenty of things are curious in what Paine and everyone else in this story does, but you are demanding we make the leap from curious to conspirator.  Btw, no there's nothing curious about Paine mentioning Mexico City in my view ... because it doesn't matter if she did or not, either way nothing changes.

It doesn't seem that you're open to other opinions, and you have done a lot of work, so perhaps you are justified in rejecting different points of view.  If you don't want to hear disagreements, I understand.  In any event, perhaps I can persuade you to give up trying to convince us of Ruth's true motives and concentrate on pivotal or unexplored clues?

thanks again,

Jason

[James DiEugenio]

Jason, now please.

This means you did not read Jim's book.  Which kind of surprises me.

Jim uses two main sources to argue his point.  They are Ruth Paine's WC testimony which he quotes at length and the Adams affidavit.  I gave you the page numbers.  The footnotes are on page 424.