Jump to content
The Education Forum

Recommended Posts

To Bill:

It just should have been obvious to you, my friend, that if your neighbor asked you to drive him to his bank so he could cash a check, and while in the bank he attempted a robbery and in the process killed a guard, if there was no proof you had knowledge of his criminal intent, there is no way the law could hold you responsible for either the attempted robbery or the murder. That would of course offend all concepts of justice.

Now if the supposed comment made over the telephone to RP by MP ("we all know who is responsible") is correctly reported, to me that implies that the Paines knew that someone was directing their actions toward Oswald but they had no foreknowledge that it involved the murder of the president. By the way, when that call occured and how it was heard merits additional investigation.

I certainly do believe that the Paines even today have knowledge that would advance the investigation and it is of course inexplicable that neither were (apparently) even interviewed before the HSCA.

I think you MAY be correct that in an interrogation a police officer can threaten the interviewee with criminal prosecution even if law enforcement knows there is insufficient evidence to charge the person.

But I assume you are a civil libertarian. I think there are numerous examples where such harsh interrogation methods have produced confessions that turned out to be false.

Back to the Paines, if there ever should be a new investigation, I think they should be very high on the list and I think a threat of a perjury indictment if they did not tell the truth would be in order; as well as interviewing both simultaneously in separate rooms.

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

Top Posters In This Topic

Tim, your April 25 posts were approved by me on April 30th. Other moderators have the right to approve posts as well, when I'm off-line.

You mailbox is full; ie you can not receive any Personal Messages.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tim

I would like to reflect a little on my current thoughts and make a few corrections or advancements to a post in this thread that I made on Feb. 12, 2005:

Feb. 12, 2005, I posted:

"While Helms is more than an interesting character I do not make him out to be the "big fish." I continue to believe that the trail leads to Maxwell Taylor. The work by Jefferson Morley proves that information about Oswald was making it to the Office Richard Helms but I do not rule out the possibility that that information would also have made it to the ultimate head of Military Intelligence (the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Taylor). But the Army Intelligence file on Oswald has been destroyed....suspicious in itself.

Chester Victor Clifton, Jr.l, senior military aide to President John F. Kennedy, would be in a position to influence the motorcade. Appointed to this position by Taylor, Clifton was in the motorcade on November 22, 1963. It is also interesting to point out that Clifton's first commanding officier, upon graduation from West Point , was Edwin Walker.

The other piece of the puzzle that I believe is important, whoever planned the route past where Oswald was working would also need to be familiar with and suspect that the attempted assassination of Walker could be attributed to Oswald. I believe this narrows the focus substanially."

First: I have been corrected by Jefferson Morley that it was not his work that "proves... information was making it to the Office of Richard Helms..." The fact is that it was the work of John Newman in his book "Oswaald and the CIA" that provides the pertinent documentation that the Office of Richard Helms was the recipient of reports dealing with the actions and movements of Lee Harvey Oswald in the months preceding the assassination.

Second: John Simkin wrote:

"It was George De Mohrenschildt who brought the Oswalds into contact with Ruth Paine."

In a recent post undert the topic Whitney Shepardson, I pointed out that Demitri De Mohrenschildt was closely associated with Shepardson, Demitri of course being the older brother of George. What I did not disclose is that as a leader of the SI branch of the OSS in WWII Richard Helms came under the control of Whitney Shepardson. In June of 1959 Shepardson was involved in the collection of a great deal of information that centered on Sweden and Finland and was involved in meeting with "Dick" Helms while this effort was in progress and was apparently sharing the information that he was gathering with Helms. While not conclusive in and of itself this information does lead to a connection between Demitri De Mohrenschildt, Helms and Shepardson.

Third: I posted:

"I do not rule out the possibility that that information would also have made it to the ultimate head of Military Intelligence...Taylor"

During WWII another SI/OSS leader was a mysterious fellow named John "Frenchy" Grombach who headed an organization known as "The Pond." This super secrete organization was the creation of the War Department (which from everything I can gather up to this point would have placed "The Pond" under the guidence of John J. McCloy). Iformation about "The Pond" is currently just becomming available and I have been directed by Antii Hynoonen toward one of the few experts in this particular area of emerging research about this organization. It seems that while "The Pond" operated undercover within the OSS it was in fact controlled by Army Intelligence (General Strong) suggesting, as I have long guessed, that the military has always maintained their own intelligence organizations that can work in conjunction with other organizations such as the OSS/CIA or on a contractual basis.

Without going into my source it has been suggested to me that Oswald's entry into the Soviet Union was under the cover of an ONI operation but that the operation was in reality controlled by others outside of ONI. It is interesting to note that when the Army/ONI discussions dealing with "The Pond" became public that ONI was upset to learn that Army Intel had never shared "Pond" Intelligence with ONI.

During WWII several of my Stella Polaris (OSS Stockholm) participants have been associated or directly linked to "Pond" activities. From the information that I have recently gathered, it seems to me that "Dick" Helms (who played a major role in OSS Stockholm and was still in direct communications with identified "Pond" members in June ot 1959) would fall into the catagory of having been a "Pond" member.

Fourth: I posted:

"the Army Intelligence file on Oswald has been destroyed....suspicious in itself."

I would like to repeat, "the Army Intelligence file on Oswald has been destroyed....suspicious in itself."

If these connections hold then the introduction of the Paines to the Oswald's by De Mohrenschildt would provide a more direct link to monitor Oswald than even the FBI was providing to Helms....

That is: If the supposedly defunct "Pond" was still opperating in some form or other, well that is another thread....

Jim Root

Edited by Jim Root
Link to post
Share on other sites

Once more it is necessary to question Peter's logic.

How likely is it that if there had been a plot at the highest level to assassinate JFK, it would have been put in writing by the conspirators, and then left around sitting in the files available for someone to chance upon, until the files were destroyed some ten or fifteen years later? Not too likely, I submit. Frankly, the SBT is easier to accept than THAT scenario, and of course you know what I think of the SBT.

A far more likely scenario is that LHO was in fact working for one or more agencies of US intelligence and that is why it was necessary to destroy the files lest the official line that Oswald was not working for any agency of the US be proved to be a lie.

The crime was indeed monstrous, but the US government was certainly not involved.

Moreover, how can one say the US government was involved? Prior to his death, JFK controlled the Executive Branch. So far as I know there was never any act of Congress authorizing the assassination, nor was there an order issued by the Supreme Court directing that JFK be killed. The US consists of those three branches of government.

I don't think Helms did it, but even if he did and worked with E Howard Hunt to accomplish it, that does not translate into the Government's complicity in the monstrous crime.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Duke, Oswald's lack of employment was "general knowledge".

Mrs. RANDLE. Well, they had--
it was just general knowledge in the neighborhood
that he didn't have a job and she was expecting a baby.

Though Linnie-Mae got it direct from Ruth.

Mr. BALL. Mrs. Paine told you that Lee didn't have any work?

Mrs. RANDLE. Well, I suppose. It was just in conversation.

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?

Mr. BALL.
Did you ever meet Marina Oswald
?

Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir; I did.

Mr. BALL. When did you meet her?

Mrs. RANDLE.
The first time I met her was over at this Mrs. Roberts. I had gone up there to see Mrs. Roberts and her
. Mrs. Oswald and Mrs. Paine was over there drinking coffee, that was the first time I met her.

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?

She didn't suggest it for Oswald simply because her brother happened to work there. It was one of the places she had listed for her brother, and she provided the same list to Ruth Paine to give Oswald.

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.

Buell testified that he got the job through an Irving employment agency. That may be true, but there is no indication anywhere that the TSBD ever used an agency. But even if it did, it is my experience in the industry that a company like the TSBD hiring unskilled labor for peak periods would be unlikely to use an agency located out in the 'burbs.

If Buell was lying about this - and if his sister testified truthfully, then he probably was lying - what was the purpose if not to protect his sister from any hint of even mere peripheral involvement in what followed?

Who kept Buell from getting any of the other jobs he'd applied for,

We don't know how many - if any - other jobs he did apply for. My guess is that Buell couldn't get any job at that time without a fair amount of help.

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?

Buell didn't "need" to be hired first. As above, Linnie-Mae testified it was one of the places she knew about that hired unskilled labor. As for who knew what and who knew who - it's known that the Paines were well-connected. Not so well known is that the Randles likewise were well-connected. Whether those connections reached into the "right" circles remains to be seen.

As if all of that's not difficult enough to predict or pre-ordain.

You've made it sound more difficult than it may have been through misreading or misremembering testimony provided by the key players. Another example follows:

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.

That's not how it happened according to Buell. He had moved to Dallas to live with his sister - "why" was nevers stated - but my guess is it was at the invitation of Linnie-Mae in order to help her hapless brother get work. Their mother and step-father then came to visit, with the step-father taking ill a week after they arrived.

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.

Sometimes circumstances are manipulated to achieve a desired outcome. And sometimes you just take advantage of what circumstances exist.

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?

There is a news-group called "history, what if". Maybe you should pose those questions 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.

But a lot of your plot is based on your errors regarding testimony. And conspiracies historically are nearly always a result of taking advantage of coincidences and prevailing circumstances. And even plots that "take years to unfold" need to be adaptable to changing winds.

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

Only just perfect enough to work.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tim

Some thoughts about your comments:

"How likely is it that if there had been a plot at the highest level to assassinate JFK, it would have been put in writing by the conspirators, and then left around sitting in the files available for someone to chance upon, until the files were destroyed some ten or fifteen years later? Not too likely, I submit."

Perhaps you are right!

But at present there are large amounts of documents that do exist that are still not being released to the public. As long as this refusal to release documents continues we must consider that the chance remains that there is a document that may still exist that will point to a conspiracy to assassinate the President that was carried out by persons associated with the Government of the United States.

For example: Hosty's third note that was (just as his two previous notes were) sent to the State Department. We are expected to believe that the State Department forwarded the first two of these three notes to the office of Richard Helms but we are then expected to believe that the third Hosty note was not provided to Helms. We know for a fact that the third Hosty note identified exactly where Lee Harvey Oswald worked and (following the example of the two previous Hosty notes) should have made it to Helms office before the motorcade route was decided upon. This third Hosty note was not given a Commission Exhibit Number and has never turned up on Oswald's 201 File documents list althought Hosty's other two notes do show up on that list.

Now, I ask, why would this note disappear? For what reason would it be destroyed or at a minimum why has it been extracted from Oswald's file. If we are to automatically rule out the potential for any involvement in the assassination by any Government agency should we not expect those same agencys to be forthcomming with evidence as simple as the "who" had access to Hosty's third note and what happened to that note?

But of course you have pronounced;

"The crime was indeed monstrous, but the US government was certainly not involved."

And the next point you make:

"A far more likely scenario is that LHO was in fact working for one or more agencies of US intelligence and that is why it was necessary to destroy the files lest the official line that Oswald was not working for any agency of the US be proved to be a lie."

Wouldn't that be complicity in the crime? While not pretending to be an expert in the field I do believe that it is resonable to think that if a government agency destroys evidence that is pertinent to the investigation of a crime (especially the assassination of a President) then that agency and the people involved are participants in some form of criminal behavior that is associated with the crime being investigated.

Tim, isn't this what happened to Nixon after others broke into the Watergate Hotel? But then, with that group, evidence had to be destroyed to protect the highest levels of government, right? Or was it to protect National Security as was claimed at the time?

I would find it hard to believe that evidence would be destroyed by persons at a lower level of government without them being ordered to do so by someone higher in government. I would also believe that anyone higher in government that would participate in the distruction of evidence would do so only to protect themselves or as you suggest would do it in the interest of National Security.

You seem to accept this position of National Security..... so I ask, How does the destruction or disappearance of the third Hosty note, the one that identified exactly where Oswald was working, become necessary for the protection of National Security? How would it lead to the knowledge of Oswald having been an agent or asset of US Intelligence?

Is it not possible that the destruction or disappearence of the third Hosty note was designed to protect the identities of those who had access to the knowledge of where Oswald was working prior to the motorcade route being finalized? What would motivate those persons to eliminate Hosty's third note from public scrutiny?

And, once again, how does the destruction or disappearance of Hosty's third note protect National Security?

Jim Root

Link to post
Share on other sites
"in the interest of national security" is a euphemism for "CYA"...which I am prohibited from defining

because it violates the forum rules of proper words...Cover Your Axx".

Jack

Jack,

Now we have to flip the National Security excuse back at them.

It is now vital to our national security to determine exactly what happened at Dealey Plaza so it can never happen again.

Towards that end, and in the name of our national security, all government records related to the assassination must be released to the public.

Our national security is now threatened by any and all records that are being with held.

BK

Link to post
Share on other sites
Here are a couple more elements which I haven't seen fully explored (apologies if I've missed them).

The first is the background of Michael Paine's father:

"There is even a growing body of evidence that Michael Paine's father - George Lyman Paine, who was a Trotskyite leader in California - had intelligence connections that led straight back to William Buckley Jr and E Howard Hunt, through one James Burnham, who was George Paine's colleague in the Trotskyite party to which they both belonged, and who was also a consultant to the CIA..."

Sinister Forces: Vol 1, p267, Levenda

The second element is the presence of both Arthur Young and Ruth Forbes Paine (Young) in Andrija Puharich's occult-intelligence grouping known as The Nine (which I believe I mentioned in another thread). What I didn't mention is that according to both Levenda and Picknett & Prince in "The Stargate Conspiracy", Arthur Young joined Puharich and Peter Hurkos on a 1956 trip to Mexico described primarily as archaeological, but which might also have involved plant-gathering with local shamans. It may indeed have been purely archaeological/anthropological. However, as everyone from George DeMohrenschildt to Carletoon Coon has demonstrated, field trips of this nature are excellent cover. Plus Puharich is actively involved in Bluebird/MK-ULTRA-type research during this period.

Hi Jan,

I've met and interviewed Arthur Young estensively, and while I didn't know about his 1956 trip to Mexico, I don't believe Young was a covert operator, though his research into the paranormal was certainly of interest to the CIA's special interests section.

Young, despite being the primary inventor of the Bell Helicopter 47A (ala MASH), was also a Quaker and pacifist who was dismayed at the militarization of his invention in Vietnam.

DeMohrenschildt's walking trip though Guatemala and Nicaragua at the time of the Bay of Pigs invasion is certainly worth zooming in on, and his film of this adventure has gone missing, despite having at least two Dallas showings, one which included Lee Harvey Oswald, and the other J. Walton Moore, the resident Dallas CIA DCD chief.

There is a lot going on in the area of Art Young, but I'm quite confident that he was not a covert operative of any nature, other than getting his son in law, Michael, a job at the Dallas Bell Hell plant.

Bill Kelly

Link to post
Share on other sites
It is entirely possible that, throughout his life, Arthur Young was a Pacifist and a good Quaker, and always acted as such.

Jan and Bill,

I am far from convinced that this person is an unimpeachable source, nevertheless, he had known Arthur and other member of the family since around 1920:

From Apr 6, 1964 FBI interview with Lieutenant Commander Frederick Fraley, Jr: He never had the impression that the Young's were pacifists

http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/...mp;relPageId=16

In fact, Ruth Paine cannot be labeled a pacifist

Jenner: I think I have asked you this, but I want to make sure it is in the record. You are a pacifist?

Paine: I consider myself such. I don't like to consider myself as adhering to any particular doctrine. I believe in appraising a

situation and determining my own action in terms of that particular situation, and not making a rigid or blanket philosophy dictate my behavior.

Jenner: But you are opposed to violence?

Paine: I am...I consider violence to be always harmful to the values I believe in, and just reserve the right to, as I have said, appraise each situation in the light of that initial belief.

In other words, "I don't believe in violence, but...."

It is a misconception that all Quakers are pacifists:

"For Weddle, Quaker nonviolence represented a positive and personal spiritual choice, not a desperate last resort. At the same time, Weddle rejects the naïve assumption that Quakers monolithically adhered to uniform rules of nonviolence, showing instead that Quaker communities and individuals creatively balanced, and often reconciled, their religious principles with military or defensive needs.

The American Historical Review

Eminent Harvard Professor Henry Murray created the profiling techniques used by the OSS and CIA, and probably helped Leary get his Agency LSD. As you probably know, Murray then conducted and filmed extreme stress testing on Harvard's brightest and best, including a certain Ted Kasczynski. The Unabomber's test results are still classified and the footage of his reaction to the testing (interrogation) has never been released.

Jan, I've come across the Kasczynski claim before but was uncertain of its veracity. How certain are you?

Do you know much about Michael Maccoby who worked at the The Department of Social Relations at Harvard? I believe this coincided with Murray's time there as Chair of that dept. Possible links to Lyman Paine - among other points of interest concerning him.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Jan,

I've met and interviewed Arthur Young estensively, and while I didn't know about his 1956 trip to Mexico, I don't believe Young was a covert operator, though his research into the paranormal was certainly of interest to the CIA's special interests section.

Young, despite being the primary inventor of the Bell Helicopter 47A (ala MASH), was also a Quaker and pacifist who was dismayed at the militarization of his invention in Vietnam.

DeMohrenschildt's walking trip though Guatemala and Nicaragua at the time of the Bay of Pigs invasion is certainly worth zooming in on, and his film of this adventure has gone missing, despite having at least two Dallas showings, one which included Lee Harvey Oswald, and the other J. Walton Moore, the resident Dallas CIA DCD chief.

There is a lot going on in the area of Art Young, but I'm quite confident that he was not a covert operative of any nature, other than getting his son in law, Michael, a job at the Dallas Bell Hell plant.

Bill Kelly

Hi Bill - many thanks for your comments. It's always good to learn of first-hand experience of meeting and interviewing important figures. Is any of your Arthur Young research available?

Hey Jan, Here's a link to some Arthur Young material I wrote sometime ago. I also revived the thread if anybody wants to continue commenting on it without diverting this one.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...mp;#entry145361

Peter Levenda has drawn together some very interesting material about Arthur Young, Ruth Forbes Paine (Young), and Michael & Ruth Paine. Much of it is circumstantial, such as the claim that Allen Dulles may have known Ruth Paine's original Russian language tutor, Mrs Dorothy Gravitis. And that Michael's mother, Ruth Forbes Paine, was a close friend and confidant of Mary Bancroft, Dulles' mistress.

The relationship between Ruth Forbes Paine and Mary Bancroft and Bancroft's work for Dulles in Swiss are detailed in Bancroft's "Autobiography of a Spy." Bancroft lived into the 1990s, as I obtained he Manhattan phone number and talked with her nurse maid a couple of times but didn't get a chance to visit her before she died.

It is entirely possible that, throughout his life, Arthur Young was a Pacifist and a good Quaker, and always acted as such.

I read the report by the military guy that Greg posted, which doubts the veracity of Young's Quaker beliefs, but I don't. He came across very sincere to me, was proud of the use of his helicopter in Korea with the MASH units saving lives, and was disapointed in the adaption of the attack helicopter in Vietnam.

While Art Young's excentric experiments with ESP/etc. certainly would have been of interest to the CIA unit that was also doing the, LSD, Remote Viewing, etc., Young explained to me that had to establish more than one non-profit foundation for his research after he lost some control to the government.

I think one was the Center for the Study of Consciousness, which was based in California.

Also among Art Young's proteges was Ira Einhorn, currently incarcarted in a Pennsylvania penitentary for the murder of his Texas cheerleader girlfriend, and the guy who bends spoons.

Nor do I doubt your assertion that Young was close to Puharich, and was entwined with the MKULTRA crowd. It's just that I don't think Arthur Young was a covert mastermind of anything.

Now his wife, Michael's mom, is certainly more suspicious. She was the one who was married to the Trotskite (Michael's dad) when she first met Dulles' agent and paramour Mary Bancroft, and it was Ruth Forbes Paine Young who chaired the Main Line Charity Balls for Cord Meyer's United Federalists, and she was the one who started the Peace Academy at the UN with the general.

In any case, I'll try to dig up the original transcript of my 2-3 hour recorded interview/conversation with Arthur Young.

Bill Kelly

However, in the immediate post-WW2 years, with the slaughter of tens of millions and the spectre of Hiroshima dominant in people's minds, with patriotism and paranoia inextricably linked, many highly intelligent people became involved in work that we now regard as grossly unethical.

Anyone who digs deeply into the Artichoke/Bluebird/Paperclip/MK-ULTRA nexus finds evidence of intellectual leaders in scientific and medical fields involved in attempts to "perfect" the human race, particularly certain types of humans - such as soldiers and spies. And looking for means of creating millions of happy, efficient workers incapable of independent or subversive thought.

Nuremberg medical tribunal member and President of the World Psychiatric Assocation, Dr Ewen Cameron, is simply the tip of the iceberg. Dr Laurence Layton, a Methodist from a Quaker family, was in charge of all US Army Chemical Warfare at a time when extreme experiments were being conducted, and Dr Hubertus Strughold (who should have swung at Nuremberg for his lethal aviation medicine experiments) & his crew of Paperclip Nazis were running "research" programmes at Randolph Airforce Base. Eminent Harvard Professor Henry Murray created the profiling techniques used by the OSS and CIA, and probably helped Leary get his Agency LSD. As you probably know, Murray then conducted and filmed extreme stress testing on Harvard's brightest and best, including a certain Ted Kaczynski. The Unabomber's test results are still classified and the footage of his reaction to the testing (interrogation) has never been released.

After examining the declassified documents with regard to the Kelly/Donaldson/Dmitrov proposed Artichoke experimentation (in the MK-ULTRA & the assassination thread), I did a little research on the Dr Ecke named there, and found an intriguing obituary.

Immediately after World War II , while still in the Army, he [Dr Robert Skidmore Ecke] served as a consultant to SHAEF and subsequently was honorably discharged as a lieutenant colonel. Following the war , he briefly served as medical director for Notre Dame Memorial Hospital. He left after a short term there and took on special projects with the CIA. He continued to work for the CIA until 1964. His official comment on this portion of his career was always No comment..

http://www.zoominfo.com/Search/PersonDetai...rsonID=76467548

Meanwhile, Dr Frank Olson, having probably personally participated in Artichoke/Bluebird/Paperclip research programmes, appears to have been murdered by the CIA because of his grave ethical concerns over secret programmes he had either personally witnessed or knew about. There's a five-part German documentary covering Eric Olson's search for the truth about his father, with Part One here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MlFajrqKDc

Bill - I raise all of this not because it is proof of Young's real motivations. It isn't. Once again, Arthur Young may have been a lifelong pacifist and Quaker, and these philosophies may have prevented him from so much as killing a fly. However, as we scratch at the official, surface, history of the second half of the C20th, we find again and again that some of our intellectual leaders had secret lives. Andrija Puharich's known involvement in Bluebird and MK-ULTRA, and his closeness to Arthur Young and Ruth Forbes Paine, continues to ring alarm bells for me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
To Bill:

It just should have been obvious to you, my friend, that if your neighbor asked you to drive him to his bank so he could cash a check, and while in the bank he attempted a robbery and in the process killed a guard, if there was no proof you had knowledge of his criminal intent, there is no way the law could hold you responsible for either the attempted robbery or the murder. That would of course offend all concepts of justice.

Now if the supposed comment made over the telephone to RP by MP ("we all know who is responsible") is correctly reported, to me that implies that the Paines knew that someone was directing their actions toward Oswald but they had no foreknowledge that it involved the murder of the president. By the way, when that call occured and how it was heard merits additional investigation.

I certainly do believe that the Paines even today have knowledge that would advance the investigation and it is of course inexplicable that neither were (apparently) even interviewed before the HSCA.

I think you MAY be correct that in an interrogation a police officer can threaten the interviewee with criminal prosecution even if law enforcement knows there is insufficient evidence to charge the person.

But I assume you are a civil libertarian. I think there are numerous examples where such harsh interrogation methods have produced confessions that turned out to be false.

Back to the Paines, if there ever should be a new investigation, I think they should be very high on the list and I think a threat of a perjury indictment if they did not tell the truth would be in order; as well as interviewing both simultaneously in separate rooms.

Thinking of the difference between how Mrs. Paine was treated by investigators and Mary Surratt, who owned a rooming house in DC (now a Chinese restaurant Wok & Roll),

and how she was hung for conspiracy in the Lincoln assassination.

http://www.surratt.org/su_hist.html

BK

Link to post
Share on other sites
Some interesting tidbits on the Paine's, early on, in book Praise From a Future Generation. It was noted by some who spoke to Michael that he knew all about Oswald - more than he told the WC and also, significantly, that he was infiltrating right-wing groups.

One of the most peculiar aspects of the Paines is the document that quotes them talking on the phone, shortly after the assassination, Michael at Bell Hell and Ruth at home, though some say the transcript is a conversation between Michael and his father, (founder of the Trotsky Party in USA), which I don't believe.

The transcript, said to be either overheard by a window washer at Bell Hell or more likely a wiretap, quotes them saying that they knew Oswald wasn't responsible and they knew who actually was behind it all.

While Ruth and Michael Paine were questioned extensively by the Warren Commission, they were unaccountably never questioned at all by the HSCA or ARRB, and remain ripe for further interrogation, though I don't think waterboarding will be necessary.

BK

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey guys,

Ruth Paine did not have to have Linnie Randle to tell her where OZ could find a job.

It was convient that she did, " if " she did.

But Ruth could have said she met someone in the post office who mentioned where a young man with a child on the way could obtain employment. She wouldn't have remembered that person's name , however. And it would seem just as much a fluke as what she testified to.

If you are going to play baseball youv'e got to get the players to the stadium. It does't really matter how they get there. By bus or cab or on a bike the players have to get there and get some practice in so that the game can start on time.

Ruth probably wouldn't have known any of the other bad guys she just did her part and was probably coached and encouraged by Mikey.

jim

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey guys,

Ruth Paine did not have to have Linnie Randle to tell her where OZ could find a job.

It was convient that she did, " if " she did.

But Ruth could have said she met someone in the post office who mentioned where a young man with a child on the way could obtain employment. She wouldn't have remembered that person's name , however. And it would seem just as much a fluke as what she testified to.

If you are going to play baseball youv'e got to get the players to the stadium. It does't really matter how they get there. By bus or cab or on a bike the players have to get there and get some practice in so that the game can start on time.

Ruth probably wouldn't have known any of the other bad guys she just did her part and was probably coached and encouraged by Mikey.

jim

Jim,

There are a few incidents that appear, at first glance, to be haphazzard, off the wall, coincidental events, like the Oswalds meeting the Paines at a party, how Oswald got the Magazine Street apartment in New Orleans, and how Oswald got the job at the TSBD.

But what if the party was prearranged for the Oswalds to meet the Paines, and it was prearranged for Oswald to get the Mag St. apt. in NO months beforehand, and it was similarly prearranged for Oswald to get the job at the TSBD, but it still matters how it all came about.

In fact, determining how such arrangements were made gets to the heart of things, doesn't it?

Bill Kelly

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...