Chris Newton

Hi Ron. There is actually one scenario that could accommodate both Marina's testimony and the troubles imposed by the extant timeline. Marina had no opportunity to go down the street and record Hosty's license plate number on Nov. 1st. Even if she had been able to go out the back unnoticed, she would have needed to cross a fence and the concrete drainage ditch that runs parallel along it's entire length in Mrs. Paine's backyard. Of course, if that weren't enough we are also to believe that Marina would have known which car was Hosty's unmarked sedan. The Nov. 5th Hosty visit, is even more problematic. Hosty came with another Agent who stood outside in the driveway and the meeting lasted for less than 5 minutes (2-3 minutes by Hosty's testimony). Hosty claims to have not spoken to Marina but to have given her a "nod" as she stood behind Ruth. There are conflicting statements about where Hosty parked on the 5th. He says he parked in the same place down the street as he did on the first visit, (and the pretext visit), and Ruth claimed that he parked behind Michael's recently purchased second car out by the curb nearer to the front of the house. Counsel Jenner tested that theory, that Marina could see the plates of a car parked at the curb from her bedroom window, and it was determined that it was not possible. Ruth was present during this exchange and agreed. So she didn't memorize the number on Nov. 1st or Nov. 5th but she testified she did "memorize" it and that she gave it to Lee. Solution? a different day and an additional visit? PS wow. The world's laziest researcher is quoting PJM? No surprises

And then there's the "Cheese Mafia", I remember when two mobster's blew themselves up in what was then my hometown, Ambler, Pa. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/Digitization/70579NCJRS.pdf

It's been established in the testimony that she could not have seen the plate on November 1st or November 5th because Hosty parked his unmarked car down the street. When did Marina record the plate number?

Go Flyers!

Hey Gene, I have to confess about my anti-Quaker bias. I'm a direct descendant of "Quaker Sam" Morris who ironically was ex-communicated by Philadelphia's Quakers for participating in the Revolution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Morris_(soldier) In theory, the east coast blue bloods, the Chestnut Hill Set, were the same Ivy League bastards running all our intelligence services, so it would not surprise me in the least if Philadelphia Quakers were used for "cover" along with VOA, USIS & USIA.

I think I understand now why I've been confused. You didn't drop in to contribute to the "discussion" but rather to try to shut it down, am I correct? When someone labels someone else, in this case, "the CTs" , ( I know what you mean but I prefer "coincidence theorist"), it's usually meant in a derogatory way. It's kind of ironic. You mention a "very high court-room level of evidence", yet there's not even enough of that to convict anyone for either crime. I don't know what this means exactly but I am interested in your "strategic" plans. After you convince us to close up shop and we stop discussing Ruth Paine, are you going to take the show on the road and go around to all the other forums?

Jason, You're also not presenting any "evidence" to the contrary. I don't see anything in your posts, so far, that is an actual citation or reference. You make a lot of fine generalizations without ever really making a point. If you want to argue the CIA did it CT then my suggestion would be to start with anything written by Dr. John Newman who, so far, hardly mentions Ruth Paine. If you can prove him wrong, I'll be the first one to line up behind you. I don't see how you will succeed in "persuading" James DiEugenio, or myself or anyone, to "give up trying to convince us of Ruth's true motives" until you actually put some meat on your arguments. Let's try something specific that's still a mystery: How did FBI Agent James P. Hosty's license plate number get in Lee Oswald's personal notebook?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

Anonymous is a fascinating enigma. They have one faction which is heavily influenced by the alt/right and has been effusive in their commentary about Donald Trump and Wikileaks and raising an alarm about the Deep State. Another faction has taken actions against racism, against police violence and supported gender equality and civil rights. It's possible that some of these actions were performed by other players, (private or state sponsored), and falsely attributed to Anonymous but I think there is probably a right and a left faction within the larger group. Can anyone make me a Venn of the alt/right and Anonymous?

I don't know where that claim came from. Here's what I found out about the typewriter: the serial number revealed that it was a 1947 Smith Corona Sterling model, apparently given as a gift to Ruth when she started going to college. I contacted a collector of old and rare typewriters and found font samples but there is no way to guarantee a certain font on a certain typewriter. Two typewriters from that era with consecutive serial numbers could have wildly different fonts. The FBI did type a few sample pages and sent them to HQ and the FBI 302 report exists for that but the "samples" they took do not. The FBI concluded that the letter and the "samples" came from the same typewriter. If I was really paranoid I guess I could suggest that the "samples" were the letter and since the "samples" are no where to be found then one would find it difficult to disprove. I'm not saying that I just think it's interesting when more "evidence" disappears in FBI custody. I have recently acquired excellent copies of several letters typed by Ruth to WC Staff just before and after the hearings. I assume they were written on the same typewriter. Marina was in a very difficult place. I think she held up pretty well, all things considered. If we throw out all Marina's testimony because we think she may have been manipulated and coerced then I don't think it would be honest to keep Ruth Paine's considering the dishonesty we find in there. Marina claims to have never seen the letter before despite the claim by Ruth Paine that it sat out, in the open on her desk secretary in the living room for at least a day and a half. FBI Agent Hosty recounted a different story about the draft's provenance to the HSCA. A story I assume Ruth told him or Odum during their numerous visits to Irving after the assassination.

Here is the ARRB staff notes from the meeting with Nurse Bell: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=715#relPageId=1&tab=page She says there were fragments (plural) and they were more numerous and larger than ones depicted in WC CE #842

Mikey Trivia: Husband Mikey had a rather large trust fund that he dipped into, the equivalent of $2 .5 M in today's money. He also refused to take the Oath that servicemen and women take when they join the armed forces of the United States. The "apartment" he moved into that when he separated from Ruth was a dump, basically a motel room. The room, as far as I can tell, was never searched. He admitted his "hobby" was going out and listening at meetings of the far right and, presumably the left. He spent less time at the Paine residence than Lee did during October and November 1963. He thought the Oswald Embassy letter started with "Dear Kathy" and acted surprised when told it was sent to the Russian Embassy.

Robert, I don't know the gist of this issue well enough to comment on the events or the questioning of the witnesses. I 'll read up on it sometime soon. My comment about the lower right edge of the receipt/memo is still valid though. How does the edge of a document intersect a label and simultaneously appear both on top and below the label? That edge and the little label that says HSCA RC-233 do not look right.

Thanks Ron, Did Oswald ever really use Ruth's typewriter? Her word only. Not exactly. Marina testified that she saw Lee retype the envelope about 10 times. Marina can't vouch for what he wrote because she didn't read English at that time but it's clear he used Ruth's typewriter for "something". I worked with a typewriter collector to track down the specs and the history of Ruth's typewriter and the font on Oswald's alleged letter seems to be a match of a font that may have been on that typewriter. I also have samples of letters we assume Ruth wrote in the months after Nov. 22 that also seem to use that same font set. Sister was a CIA Psychologist for years before the assassination. Yes. Daddy was OSS WWII, AID, she admitted to CIA later (?). I am unclear at this time if she denied that he worked for USIS (or USAID) which can be a cover for CIA. They are the "white propaganda" element that was formerly OWI. It was probably OWI (not OSS) that he worked for, part of which got re-assigned to the State Dept. and part of which went to the COI after WW2. Husband Mikey as a non graduate of Harvard held a security clearance at Bell Helicopter which his step dad invented where he worked with German Dorenberger, imported after WWII by Allen Dulles via Operation Paperclip (google it) As far as I know, yes. Mike's Momma was reportedly BFF with Dulles WWII spy/Lover Mary Bancroft. Cabot, Lodge... Yes. Oswald never lived to see the letter or comment on it. Yes, unless he wrote it. He never had an opportunity to comment on it, correct again. I don't know, yet, If he wrote that letter or another letter. I think I've already proven that Ruth Paine's story about the letter's provenance is untrue. I want to learn why she had to create a story around this event. There is something important that is being covered up. They had to essentially accuse all the Detectives that initially showed up at the Oswald residence of being mistaken about their testimonies. They made a floorplan as a WC exhibit that is not an accurate depiction of the home.

That may have been what I saw and falsely attributed it as being to Earle. You are correct about the user friendliness. There is a seating diagram from a dinner at the Alibi club that I found there once and I have never been able to re-locate. I'm suspicious that it may have been withdrawn.

Unfortunately the search engine only finds items that are in the title of each PDF and not what is contained inside. It's a really horrible system that forces me to read each page of each PDF to find items. That is also the reason that I wasn't able to offer a specific location for the documents. I'd try looking at the corresponding "C" category and maybe in the WC related documents. If my memory is correct, there is correspondence related to Dulles' speech in Dallas and his visit there shortly before the assassination. It might be filed under that organization's folder - was that the World Federalists or something like that?

On further reading she may not have heard the name BEFORE Oswald's call. So I'm OK with that statement. The whole issue of Oswald's guilt or innocence and Ruth's characterization of this issue does not jive with my own experiences interacting with members of the ACLU.

I'd have to study it but my immediate reaction is that this is fundamentally dishonest. It goes right to the heart of whether or not Ruth was really an ACLU "believer". Lee Harvey Oswald asked Ruth Paine, he was calling from the jail after his arrest, to contact John Abt and gave her his number. It is not totally clear if she ever attempted to do this, maybe she made one call. She says she did but the purpose of the call (to Ruth), in context, is that Oswald did not have the luxury of making repeated calls to Abt because of his incarceration and he was trying to contact Abt for legal representation.

The text along the right side seems to say "Reference Copy CIA Collection HSCA (RC 233)". A search on MFF for "RC 233" returns a lot of document hits but not this one so far. Maybe the orientation of the text prevented the ocr capture? Then again why would it be in the HSCA CIA collection? I notice that the text noted above is strangely being intersected by what appears to be the black margin of the document. Which gives me the impression that it is a composite.

Ron, I agree that it's important to provide a balanced argument. But there's a limit to my goodwill and patience and it's gotten to a point where I think it suppresses more of the conversation than it creates. Some researchers here have presented brilliant arguments that have persuaded me to think about issues in a whole new light. On the other hand , if you allowed me to describe what other people were thinking and feeling, I could present dozens of scenarios and justify whatever the conspiracy "du jour" was. Would that be honest? No. I'm not interested in creating a fiction around this testimony. I am interested in understanding the questions that were asked, the responses, the misdirection, the subtle control of the subject matter that is being presented. I'm not a lawyer and I'm not providing a legal opinion, I'm just providing an experienced ear.