Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

Vince Salandria's 1998 Dallas COPA keynote speech is very important.

In it, he details how Ruth and Michael Paine must have been involved in placing the accused assassin in the TSBD, and called for their indictments.

Does anyone know if there is a transcript of this speech on line?

If the assassination of the President happened today, both Paines and Buel Wesley Frazier would have been indicted, even if they were unwitting assistants in the murder.

I have a hard copy of the speech but don't want to retype it if it is already on line.

Thanks,

BK

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 105
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Vince Salandria's 1998 Dallas COPA keynote speech is very important.

In it, he details how Ruth and Michael Paine must have been involved in placing the accused assassin in the TSBD, and called for their indictments.

Does anyone know if there is a transcript of this speech on line?

If the assassination of the President happened today, both Paines and Buel Wesley Frazier would have been indicted, even if they were unwitting assistants in the murder.

I have a hard copy of the speech but don't want to retype it if it is already on line.

Thanks,

BK

Bill,

I think this is it.

http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_...ue/vs_text.html

Ron W

Link to post
Share on other sites
Vince Salandria's 1998 Dallas COPA keynote speech is very important.

In it, he details how Ruth and Michael Paine must have been involved in placing the accused assassin in the TSBD, and called for their indictments.

Does anyone know if there is a transcript of this speech on line?

If the assassination of the President happened today, both Paines and Buel Wesley Frazier would have been indicted, even if they were unwitting assistants in the murder.

I have a hard copy of the speech but don't want to retype it if it is already on line.

Thanks,

BK

Bill,

I think this is it.

http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_...ue/vs_text.html

Ron W

That's It!

Many thanks Ron,

BK

Link to post
Share on other sites

That was an important time.

Vincent Salandria:

"....For any disinterested observer, the information that came to light on Oswald clearly established him as having all of the earmarks of a U.S. intelligence agent. To have described Oswald as a Marxist and not as the U.S. intelligence agent that he was, was to join with the murderers as accessories after the fact and to obstruct justice. That false Marxist garb of Oswald was utilized to exacerbate Cold War tensions. Oswald's phony Marxist trappings were a lever that could be, and I believe was used to press down the lid on possible Soviet reaction to the obvious banana-republic status of the U.S. government. The government operatives who had invented the phony Marxist cover of Oswald were the likely assassins. In publicizing without criticism this false Marxist cloak of Oswald the American press joined the criminality of our U.S. intelligence assassins as accessories after the fact."

"Oswald's family was brought to the Dallas area by Ruth Paine. Ruth Paine had been instrumental in getting Oswald a job at the Texas Book Depository. The Manlicher Carcano, the alleged murder rifle, had supposedly been stored in a garage of the Paines. Following the assassination, Ruth Paine was called by Oswald during his detention to have her obtain a lawyer for him, a task which she failed to complete much to the benefit of the assassins."

"Once a conspiracy was deemed to exist, and even our government in the House Select Committee concluded that there was a probable conspiracy, the Paines had to be viewed as having been involved in it. An assassination Gestalt with the patsy serving as a lightning rod, cannot be successfully completed unless the patsy is delivered to the scene of the killing. Ruth Paine accomplished the crucial twin assassination tasks of getting Oswald into the Dallas area and arranging to get him a job in the Texas Book Depository Building. Therefore, the Paines, albeit on a need-to-know basis, were involved in the plot."

"In whose service were the Paines? Michael Paine came from families which were in the Boston Brahmin society --- the Cabot and Forbes families. He was an heir of his maternal grandmother, Elise Cabot Forbes. He was not likely to be controlled by the Soviets, Castro or the Mafia. He had top secret clearance in his job at Bell Helicopter despite the fact that his father, George Lyman Paine, had been a Trotskyist. In Cold War United States to get such clearance when your father had been a Trotskyist, a quid pro quo had to be provided. Ruth Paine's father was William Avery Hyde, an official in the Agency for International Development, which frequently provided cover for overseas intelligence operations. According to the excellent work of Steve Jones, Barbara LaMonica and Carol Hewett, Ruth Paine's sister, Sylvia Hoke, had CIA affiliations. Ruth Paine was friendly with George DeMohrenshildt, a sophisticated White Russian exile and CIA operative who, although thirty-five years Oswald's senior, became Oswald's closest friend in Dallas. According to recent research in the 1980s Ruth Paine assisted illegal anti-socialist activity in Nicaragua. "Ruth and Michael Paine could not have been Soviet, Castro or Mafia agents. They had to be agents of the killing force, our U.S. intelligence. If they had been Soviet or Castro agents, an innocent government would have swooped down on them and seen them as clear beacons leading to the killers. Our government did not cause them any trouble. The Paines are criminal co-conspirators in the killing of President Kennedy and would and should now be prosecuted by a guiltless government......."

".......By coming to understand the true answer to the historical question of who killed President Kennedy and why, we will have developed a delicate and precisely accurate prism through which we can examine how power works in this militarized country. By understanding the nature of this monumental crime, we will become equipped to organize the struggle through which we can make this country a civilian republic in more than name only. Until we understand the nature of the Kennedy assassination, and until we express the truth openly on this vital aspect of our history, we will continue to be guilty participants in the vast amount of state criminality involved in the killing of President Kennedy and its cover up."

"We cannot consider ourselves a free and democratic people until we understand and address the evil nature of the warfare- state power which murdered President John F. Kennedy. Until then we cannot begin the vital work of ridding the world of the terror produced by our mighty war machine that crushes hopes for true substantive democracy here and elsewhere.""We can no longer afford to shield ourselves by asserting that the murder of President Kennedy is a mystery. There is no mystery regarding how, by whom, and why President Kennedy was killed. Only when we strip away our privileged cloak of denial about the truth of the killing will we be able to free ourselves for the hard global work of changing our unfair and brutal society to one that is more equitable and less violent. Thank you."

Edited by William Kelly
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 months later...

From James DiEugenio, review of JFK and the Unspeakable by James W. Douglass:

http://www.ctka.net/2008/jfk_unspeakable.html

Michael Paine did not just work at Bell Helicopter. He did not just have a security clearance there. His stepfather, Arthur Young, invented the Bell helicopter. His mother, Ruth Forbes Paine Young, was descended from the Boston Brahmin Forbes family -- one of the oldest in America. She was a close friend of Mary Bancroft. Mary Bancroft worked with Allen Dulles as a spy during World War II in Switzerland. This is where Dulles got many of his ideas on espionage, which he would incorporate as CIA Director under Eisenhower. Bancroft also became Dulles' friend and lover. She herself called Ruth Forbes, "a very good friend of mine." (p. 169) This may explain why, according to Walt Brown, the Paines were the most oft-questioned witnesses to appear before the Commission.

Ruth Paine's father was William Avery Hyde. Ruth described him before the Warren Commission as an insurance underwriter. (p. 170) But there was more to it than that. Just one month after the Warren Report was issued, Mr. Hyde received a three-year government contract from the Agency for International Development (AID). He became their regional adviser for all of Latin America. As was revealed in the seventies, AID was riddled with CIA operatives. To the point that some called it an extension of the Agency. Hyde's reports were forwarded both to the State Department and the CIA. (Ibid)

Ruth Paine's older sister was Sylvia Hyde Hoke. Sylvia was living in Falls Church, Virginia in 1963. Ruth stayed with Sylvia in September of 1963 while traveling across country. (p. 170) Falls Church adjoins Langley, which was then the new headquarters of the Central Intelligence Agency, a prized project of Allen Dulles. It was from Falls Church that Ruth Paine journeyed to New Orleans to pick up Marina Oswald, who she had been introduced to by George DeMohrenschildt. After she picked Marina up, she deposited her in her home in Irving, Texas. Thereby separating Marina from Lee at the time of the assassination.

Some later discoveries made Ruth's itinerary in September quite interesting. It turned out that John Hoke, Sylvia's husband, also worked for AID. And her sister Sylvia worked directly for the CIA itself. By the time of Ruth's visit, Sylvia had been employed by the Agency for eight years. In regards to this interestingly timed visit to her sister, Jim Garrison asked Ruth some pointed questions when she appeared before a grand jury in 1968. He first asked her if she knew her sister had a file that was classified at that time in the National Archives. Ruth replied she did not. In fact, she was not aware of any classification matter at all. When the DA asked her if she had any idea why it was being kept secret, Ruth replied that she didn't. Then Garrison asked Ruth if she knew which government agency Sylvia worked for. The uninquiring Ruth said she did not know. (p. 171) This is the same woman who was seen at the National Archives pouring through her files in 1976, when the House Select Committee was gearing up.

When Marina Oswald was called before the same grand jury, a citizen asked her if she still associated with Ruth Paine. Marina replied that she didn't. When asked why not, Marina stated that it was upon the advice of the Secret Service. She then elaborated on this by explaining that they had told her it would look bad if the public found out the "connection between me and Ruth and CIA." An assistant DA then asked, "In other words, you were left with the distinct impression that she was in some way connected with the CIA?" Marina replied simply, "Yes." (p. 173)

Douglass interpolates the above with the why and how of Oswald ending up on the motorcade route on 11/22/63. Robert Adams of the Texas Employment Commission testified to having called the Paine household at about the time Oswald was referred by Ruth -- via a neighbor-- to the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD) for a position. He called and was told Oswald was not there. He left a message for Oswald to come down and see him since he had a position available as a cargo handler at a regional cargo airline. Interestingly, this job paid about 1/3 more than the job Oswald ended up with at the TSBD. He called again the next day to inquire about Oswald and the position again. He was now told that Lee had already taken a job. Ruth was questioned about the Adams call by the Warren Commission's Albert Jenner. At first she denied ever hearing of such a job offer. She said, "I do not recall that." (p. 172) She then backtracked, in a tactical way. She now said that she may have heard of the offer from Lee. This, of course, would seem to contradict both the Adams testimony and common sense. If Oswald was cognizant of the better offer, why would he take the lower paying job?

In addition to his work on the true background of the Paines, which I will return to later, Douglass' section on the aborted plot against Kennedy in Chicago is also exceptional. The difference between what Douglass does here and what was done in Ultimate Sacrifice is the difference between confusion and comprehension. After they were informed of a plot, the police arrested Thomas Vallee on a pretext. Interestingly Dan Groth, the suspicious officer in on the arrest of Vallee, was later part of the SWAT team that assassinated Black Panthers Fred Hampton and Mark Clark in 1969. (p. 204) Groth took several lengthy leaves from Chicago to Washington for special training under the auspices of the FBI and CIA. Groth never had a regular police assignment, but always worked counter-intelligence, with an early focus on the Fair Play for Cuba Committee. (Ibid)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have always found it strange that Ruth Paine was a Quaker. All the Quakers I've ever met were very involved in peace (anti-military) activities of various kinds. Most of them seem to have occupations like teaching and wood turning not working for military hardware corporations. But maybe I am stereotyping my Quakers. After all Nixon was from a Quaker family too.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I have always found it strange that Ruth Paine was a Quaker. All the Quakers I've ever met were very involved in peace (anti-military) activities of various kinds. Most of them seem to have occupations like teaching and wood turning not working for military hardware corporations. But maybe I am stereotyping my Quakers. After all Nixon was from a Quaker family too.

Maggie, Check out the late George Michael Evica's book "A Certain Arrogance," which deals with this topic.

Allen Dulles also had Quaker roots, and his agent paramour in Swiss during World War II, Mary Bancroft (See her book Autobio of a Spy), was best friends with Ruth Paine. Ruth Paine traveled with Mary Bancroft to Europe on a trip when she met the Swiss man who would become her husband.

Ruth Paine's husband Michael worked for defense contactor Bell Helicopter, courtesy of his step father, Arthur Young, also a Philadelphia Quaker and inventor of the Bell Helicopter 47A - the MASH helicopter.

Some of Ruth Paine's most intriguing exploits were her Quaker inspired activities - exchanging letters with Russian pen pals, Antioch college in Yellow Springs, Ohio, where her brother is a doctor and where Oswald reportedly attempted to enroll as a student, and even after the assassination, her sorjurn to Nicaragua, where she kept track of other Quakers activities.

As any criminal investigator knows, the best way to unravel a conspiracy is to nail one of the minor participants, and get them to testify against those at a higher level in the conspiracy.

Ruth and Micahel Paine, having provided aid and comfort, room and board and transprotation to the assassin and his family, could have been prosecuted as accessories to the crime (even if unwitting), but instead they were coddled and protected, as Gerald Ford himself takes note in his Profile of the Assassin.

If the assassination was prosecuted under post 9/11 counter-terrorism protocols, the Paines would have been waterboarded during interrogation.

BK

Link to post
Share on other sites

BK wrote:

Ruth and Micahel Paine, having provided aid and comfort, room and board and transprotation to the assassin and his family, could have been prosecuted as accessories to the crime (even if unwitting), but instead they were coddled and protected, as Gerald Ford himself takes note in his Profile of the Assassin.

There is a legal concept called mens rea. It essentially means guilty knowledge. If the Paines had no knowledge that Oswald was going to kill Kennedy (assuming of course that he did) there is no way that they could have been prosecuted as accessories even though they let him stay with Marina on the weekends or did anything else to "comfort him".

Bill has what can only be considered a very expansive interpretation of the criminal law.

And by the way, Bill, do I interpret from this post that you believe that Oswald was part of the conspiracy?

Link to post
Share on other sites
LNers like to argue that the way Oswald got a job at the TSBD is further proof of no conspiracy. Oswald wouldn't have been working there, we are supposed to believe, if Mrs. Randle had not mentioned to Ruth Paine that Oswald might get a job there.

Let's suppose for a moment that Ruth Paine wanted an excuse to refer Oswald to the TSBD. Someone could have told her, for example, to get Oswald a job at the TSBD, but to make it look like it wasn't her idea, it was someone else's and thus purely coincidental to the subsequent turn of events.

All Ruth Paine had to do in such a case was get in a conversation with Mrs. Randle and the others about where Oswald might find work. They gave her a list of places, and the TSBD was bound to be included sooner or later, particularly since Mrs. Randle knew that Wesley Frazier had recently been hired there. (Ruth Paine even put a restriction on which places could be mentioned, as it couldn't be a place that would require Oswald driving to work.) All Ruth Paine had to do was sit there until the TSBD was mentioned, and her mission was accomplished. ...

All well and good as far as it goes ... but you end up with an "all-knowing conspiracy" in which every possible angle has been considered and executed with exactitude. Is such a thing even possible outside of fiction?

Let's go along with the possibility of RP manipulating the conversation, limiting the possible answers, even suggesting the desired outcome. How did it come to pass that the conversation came up at all? We can have Ruth getting Marina to stick her head out into the yard at a good moment - good enough for her to remark, for example, about (big sigh) "poor Marina's husband" needing a job, and hoping the other women would pick it up and run with it.

How, though, do we get Linnie Mae Randle to drop by the neighbor's house at an opportune time, more than a month before Lee supposedly "had" to be working there? By what chance does it turn out that Ruth's neighbor happened to be friendly with Linnie Mae?

Who planned for Ruth's neighbor's friend's brother to just happen to get a job at TSBD so that Linnie Mae could even suggest it? Who kept Buell from getting any of the other jobs he'd applied for, and how did the folks at TSBD know that young Frazier lived with his sister, who was friends with the neighbor of the woman who was boarding the soon-to-be patsy's wife, and thus "needed" to be hired so that his sister could mention it and Ruth would have an excuse to bring it up in a conversation that nobody could have known at the time would take place? Or did they?

As if all of that's not difficult enough to predict or pre-ordain, we must also account for Buell's decision to move from Huntsville to Dallas, or for his father to become so ill that he needed to be treated in Dallas (and not Houston, which is closer to Huntsville) and his mother to likewise move to be with Dad, and all of them move into the little bungalow - mother, son, daughter, husband and two kids in under 1500 square feet and two bedrooms - so that this seemingly chance encounter could take place.

Of course, we haven't yet accounted for why Ruth and Michael Paine decided to pick that particular house, next to that particular neighbor, in that particular neighborhood in the first place, well in advance of Ruth's ever knowing of the Oswalds' existence, while Lee was still cavorting in Minsk, and may not even have met the Russian-speaking girl who would be his wife ... and Ruth Paine's excuse for bringing them into her household.

What if Ruth and Michael had chosen a house across the street such that she and Linnie Mae's friend would never gossip across the back fence? What if Lee had found a different job (and all of his other potential employers hadn't been forewarned not to hire him)? What if Linnie Mae's family had decided only weeks before that the really did need a bigger house what with all those people living there?

Robert Ludlum is a master at describing the plots that take years to unfold so perfectly. While some in the real world may well be as perfect, it truly stretches the imagination that one including all of the particular people we've mentioned - not to even consider the anomaly of Michael and Ruth being pacifists, his being part of the ACLU, and neither of those qualities probably being endearing to Roy Truly whose cooperation was without question needed - being a part of so grand and successful a scheme as this.

... And of course, someone conveniently decided not to depose the neighbor-lady! How perfect can it get? :o

Link to post
Share on other sites
BK wrote:

Ruth and Micahel Paine, having provided aid and comfort, room and board and transprotation to the assassin and his family, could have been prosecuted as accessories to the crime (even if unwitting), but instead they were coddled and protected, as Gerald Ford himself takes note in his Profile of the Assassin.

There is a legal concept called mens rea. It essentially means guilty knowledge. If the Paines had no knowledge that Oswald was going to kill Kennedy (assuming of course that he did) there is no way that they could have been prosecuted as accessories even though they let him stay with Marina on the weekends or did anything else to "comfort him".

Bill has what can only be considered a very expansive interpretation of the criminal law.

And by the way, Bill, do I interpret from this post that you believe that Oswald was part of the conspiracy?

Gratz hasn't got to the law book section on the Pinkerton Doctrine, which holds that, as an example, if someone is killed in the course of the bank robbery, the getaway car driver is as guilty of the murder as the assailant who pulled the trigger, even if the driver didn't know they were robbing the bank or committing the crime.

This was explained to me by an assistant federal prosecutor who uses the RICO Act to prosecute the bad guys.

Of course those who assist terrorists today are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law even though they didn't know the person they were assisting was a terrorits.

As for Oswald, his role, if any, in the Dallas operation, has yet to be clearly defined.

,

BK

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bill's post remninds me of the old adage that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

I pointed out to him that because of the doctrine of "means rea", The full Latin term is "actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea", which (per Wikipedia) "means that 'the act does not make a person guilty unless the mind is also guilty'. Thus, in jurisdictions with due process, there must be an actus reus accompanied by some level of mens rea to constitute the crime with which the defendant is charged (see the technical requirement of concurrence).

Bill had suggested that the Paines could have been prosecuted as accessories for giving aid and comfort to Oswald even if they were "unwitting" which means they had no knowledge that LHO was going to commit the crime (if he did).

I am convinced that BK is absolutely wrong that a person can be convicted of murder if he commits an act in furtherance of a criminal action without knowing it. I am convinced he misunderstood what the assistant federal prosecutor told him.

I will add more in a subsequent post.

Link to post
Share on other sites

From Wikipedia on "the Pinkerton doctrine":

The Supreme Court took a different view. It noted the facts showed a continuous conspiracy with no evidence that Daniel attempted to withdraw from it. Therefore, he continued to offend. So long as the partnership in crime continues, the partners act for each other in carrying it forward, and an overt act of one partner may be the act of all without any new agreement specifically directed to that act. The criminal intent to do an illegal act by one of the conspirators in furtherance of the unlawful project is established by the formation of the conspiracy. Each conspirator instigates the commission of the crime. The unlawful agreement contemplated what was done in the substantive acts, the substantive crimes were performed in the execution of the enterprise.

Similar to the rule of aiding and abetting, the overt acts of one partner in a conspiracy is attributable to all partners. The court concluded that if an overt act, which is an essential ingredient to a conspiracy, can be supplied by one conspirator, then likewise the same or other acts in furtherance of the conspiracy should be attributable to the others for the purpose of holding them responsible for the substantive offense(s).

Daniel agreed to enter a criminal conspiracy and there was no evidence he ever attempted to withdraw from it.

Clearly the Pinkerton Doctrine does not stand for the proposition for which Bill contended. He owes me an apology.

Here is where he is confused. What the Pinkerton Doctrine has been used for is to indict for instance the getaway driver, obviously a witting member of a conspiracy to rob a bank, for the murder of a teller or customer committed in the course of the robber or attempted robbery even if the driver argues that the plan never contemplated the commission of a murder. When the driver wittingly entered the conspiracy, he can be held vicariously liable for whatever other felonious acts may be committed by his fellow conspirators, even if he did not agree to them.

Unless the Paines knew LHO was going to commit a criminal act, they could never have been indicted for ANYTHING, Bill. Sorry to disabuse you. Perhaps in the future before you post your legal theories you ought to at least check them in Wikipedia.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tim,

You would have never made it through law school quoting Wiki as a source.

My apology? I almost wrote that I'm sorry that you're such a dim witted, conservative, reactionary punk. That's being descriptive here, not critical, and in jest.

What's to appologize for again? That you proved me wrong about the possible application of the Pinkerton Doctrine to the Paines?

If a recently returned defector was the suspect in a terrorist attack in the USA today, you can bet XXXXXX that the person who drove him to the scene of the crime, the persons who provided him with shelter, the person who allowed him to use his address to get a post office box would all be rounded up, charged with being accessories and threatened with indictments if they didn't cooperate and spill the beans on everything.

The purpose of threatening to charge the Paines with a crime isn't to get the conviction of such a mid to low level operative in the network, or someone whose actions unknowingly facilitated the crime, but to get them to talk, come clean, provide useful investigative information and assist in the prosecution of those who planned and executed the crime.

That's why Oswald had to die, and I don't think he was guilty of anything more than the Paines. And Oswald's death certainly kept everybody else in line.

Had he not been killed, would Oswald have been a stand up guy, like an Mafia omerta, and not ratted on who set him up?

Now you can scream all you want to defend the civil rights of the Paines, but if the president is killed by a terrorist today, I think that the assassin's driver, his landlord and his brother are all going to be immediately arrested and seriously interrogated.

Now its your turn to appologize.

BK

Post edited due to language.

Edited by Antti Hynonen
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
×
×
  • Create New...