David G. Healy

Well, Paul, if what you say is true, then one can only wonder why Ruth hasn't sued DiEugenio by now for slander.

Hear, hear!

From a 2013 EF thread....

JIM DiEUGENIO SAID:

I am really proud of the section on the Paines in my book.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

That figures. Defamation of character is always something to be proud of, isn't it Jimbo?

None of that crap DiEugenio wrote in his last post [HERE] comes even close to showing Ruth Paine (or Michael Paine) had anything to do with a conspiracy to murder John Kennedy and/or frame Lee Oswald for that murder.

DiEugenio's pathetic attempts to trash Mrs. Paine are sickening.

I only wish I could persuade Ruth to start a slander lawsuit. She'd win, hands down. Does anybody have Ruth's phone number? Maybe I'll give her a call.

DVP

April 14, 2013

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/04/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-87.html

educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=20110

WOW DVP! And to think you've been nailed for lying in at least 30 posts on the Amazon forum today.... LYING (with examples and CITES), it's little wonder why you're deflecting onto someone else.

http://www.amazon.com/forum/history/ref=cm_cd_pg_pg99?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx33HXI3XVZDC8G&cdPage=99&cdThread=Tx2TWVIHCI1W2YB

David G. Healy,

Are you saying that David Von Pein is a "xxxx, xxxx, pants on fire"?

...

--Tommy

as the included AMAZON thread shows, Tom. Frankly, I could care less who says what to whom. Who lies to whomever.... There are trite little folks defending both sides of the debate. But when one puts themselves off as a know-all be-all when it concerns case evidence then meets an unknown on an equal, knowledgable footing basis, fur flies. And DVP has met his match, found wanting and then some... Read the thread if you have time, then you tell me... the case evidence always wins out!

Have you read Talbot's new book yet, Tommy?

Well, Paul, if what you say is true, then one can only wonder why Ruth hasn't sued DiEugenio by now for slander.

Hear, hear!

From a 2013 EF thread....

JIM DiEUGENIO SAID:

I am really proud of the section on the Paines in my book.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

That figures. Defamation of character is always something to be proud of, isn't it Jimbo?

None of that crap DiEugenio wrote in his last post [HERE] comes even close to showing Ruth Paine (or Michael Paine) had anything to do with a conspiracy to murder John Kennedy and/or frame Lee Oswald for that murder.

DiEugenio's pathetic attempts to trash Mrs. Paine are sickening.

I only wish I could persuade Ruth to start a slander lawsuit. She'd win, hands down. Does anybody have Ruth's phone number? Maybe I'll give her a call.

DVP

April 14, 2013

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/04/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-87.html

educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=20110

WOW DVP! And to think you've been nailed for lying in at least 30 posts on the Amazon forum today.... LYING (with examples and CITES), it's little wonder why you're deflecting onto someone else.

http://www.amazon.com/forum/history/ref=cm_cd_pg_pg99?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx33HXI3XVZDC8G&cdPage=99&cdThread=Tx2TWVIHCI1W2YB

The best response is to make a fact-based argument. Facts, verifiable facts, are unfortunately absent in the JFK assassination.

Careful, you might trigger the deliberately-dumb down agents of the gatekeeping idiocracy to bring up Occam's Razor with this point, even though there are many reasons Occam's Razor does not apply to the JFK assassination, the 9/11 "Continuity of Government" coup, and even concerns of quite minor impact on just the individual.

the best move WCR supporters even made was inventing the conspiracy theorist... they've been celebrating 50+ years

you still haven't posted that cite, Paul. Is it because you don't have it?

What you think about what I've read and when, is irrelevant Paul. Nor do I care what you've read. And pssssst, we're on to the lone nut nonsense and have been since the SBT. Incompetence reigns supreme back to the 60's...

Why not just simply write that book for GAWD sakes and spare us?

Why does it bug you, David? If you don't like this thread, then just go away.

I'm doing what I said I would do -- remain open for SOLID EVIDENCE against Ruth Paine to substantiate the accusations that James DiEugenio and countless other CIA-did-it CTers have been saying for years, namely:

(1) Ruth Paine set-up LHO as the shooter at General Walker

(2) Ruth Paine set-up LHO with the BYP

(3) Ruth Paine set-up LHO with a job at the TSBD

(4) Ruth Paine's mother-in-law had a friend who knew Allen Dulles, so Ruth must be a CIA agent.

Nobody has yet posted better evidence than James DiEugenio, and his evidence is as flimsy as a dandelion.

I'm still waiting for SOLID EVIDENCE. I'm also waiting for James DiEugenio's Key Source, namely, attorney Carol Hewett, in her PROBE articles from the 1990's. James swears by her.

Once I get my copy of the PROBE back-issues, I'll feel off the layers of that onion, layer by layer. We'll have a really GOOD look -- right here on this thread.

You're welcome to stay-tuned -- or just go away.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

good by Paul, I hope you and Ruth live happily ever after...

My good friend who spent years in the Federal Witness Protection Program (referenced above) and was subsequently kicked out of it (retaining all of his covers and benefits) has passed.

The picture at the top of this blog post was taken by yours truly and is the only photo of his face in the public domain post op plastic surgery.

http://www.gossipextra.com/2015/09/29/joe-dogs-iannuzzi-dead-gambino-5250/

could sharpen up (pardon the pun) your focusing skills there Chris... An interesting fellow!

Actually Paul, that's the only book I own of Jim's. And it's a great read... And for the life of me, I simply don't see where he or anyone accused Ruth Paine of murder. In that book, or here, on this forum.

So 5,000+ questions asked of the Christian/Quaker lady, Ruth Paine? A naive do-gooder extending a hand to a young Russian mother, perhaps so she can practice her Russian language skills?

I gotta tell ya, 5000+ questions will get you a ton of mileage in an investigation and/or court proceeding, a megaton of mileage with an attorney worth his/her salt... I suspect Ruth is no longer "clueless?"

What is truly mind-boggling concerning the entire 1963-64 WC proceedings, is the sheer incompetence of the commission, staff, and its attorney's...

After merely 2000 questions, I suspect I could find something wrong with a (to use a well-used phrase) *ham sandwich,* maybe even expose one.

So, let's see, David, you say you actually read the second edition of Destiny Betrayed (2012) by James DiEugenio, and you came away believing that Ruth Paine had NOTHING to do with the JFK murder? REALLY?

I think you're putting us all on.

As for the 1963-64 WC proceedings -- they were Extremely Competent in their main goal -- to push the "Lone Nut" Oswald -- despite all the evidence against it. They did this for National Security, they said, and I have no reason to doubt them, and every reason to believe them.

That is, if the USA found out who REALLY killed JFK in 1963-1964, there would have been riots in the streets during the Cold War -- a recipe for National Disaster.

The same was true in 1968 during the Jim Garrison trials.

The same was true in 1979 for the HSCA trials.

The WC was Extremely Competent, David -- and they did their job to maintain National Security. One day the USA will see that.

George De Mohrenschildt knew far more about the Walker shooting than he ever told -- but the WC deliberately steered clear of that topic.

That way they could push their "Lone Nut" theory. The reason the WC concentrated so much on Marina Oswald and Ruth Paine, is precisely because they knew NOTHING about the political connections of LHO. That worked perfectly according to the WC plan.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

you still haven't posted that cite, Paul. Is it because you don't have it?

What you think about what I've read and when, is irrelevant Paul. Nor do I care what you've read. And pssssst, we're on to the lone nut nonsense and have been since the SBT. Incompetence reigns supreme back to the 60's...

Why not just simply write that book for GAWD sakes and spare us?

...

Mrs. De MOHRENSCHILDT. And I believe from what I remember George sat down on the sofa and started talking to Lee, and Marina was showing me the house that is why I said it looks like it was the first time, because why would she show me the house if I had been there before? Then we went to another room, and she opens the closet, and I see the gun standing there. I said, what is the gun doing over there?

...

oh-boy.... perhaps George told her to get lost for a while? "and I believe from what I remember..." what a way to start her tour of a 700 sq. foot apartment... this son is dumpster diving at its finest. lmao!

Let's see, Marina showing off the house and opens closet doors to show the Mrs DeM, WHAT? Nonsense.... pure bunk!

btw, 3 rifles were seen in the TSBD the day BEFORE the assassination... wanna duel?

oh Paul, infer? A cite, please... who accused on this forum Ruth Paine of murder? The only one raising that topic here is YOU, although you have toned it down a bit...

And of course the WCR played touchy-feely with a whole host of characters. George DeM for instance, how many questions did he answer re the WC?

Quick summary of WCR/RPaine questions please?

Say, David, have you read the second edition of Destiny Betrayed (2012) by James DiEugenio? Because it sounds like you haven't.

James DiEugenio is using every literary trick in the book to link Ruth Paine with a CIA that he is certain killed JFK. How could anybody possibly miss that? Please don't play dumb.

As for George DeMohrenschildt, he answered 1,628 questions for the WC, more than double that of Jack Ruby.

Granted -- the WC steered all questions away from conspiracy. The most visible conspiracy, however -- the one that George De Mohrenschildt held back about, was about the shooting at General Walker. We know this from his 1978 manuscript, I'm a Patsy! I'm a Patsy!, where he admitted that he goaded LHO to hate General Walker (calling him General "Fokker") early in 1963. George also names Volkmar Schmidt, who also admitted he tried to get LHO to hate Walker, and to think of him as Adolf Hitler. This never came out in the WC. BUT THE CLUE TO THE JFK MURDER IS THERE.

Yet the WC didn't want to hear anything about it. They steered questions around it.

I'm not saying that the WC promoted the Truth -- because Earl Warren himself admitted that the Truth about JFK was being withheld for 75 years. So, there *was* a Conspiracy. That means that the key WCR lie was that LHO was a "Lone Nut."

Now -- the real question is, WHO WERE LHO'S ACCOMPLICES. Rather, who made LHO a Patsy? Who got LHO's confidence so well that LHO just handed over his rifle early in the morning on 11/22/1963 -- that's the question.

The WC lied about ACCOMPLICES. But it's jumping to conclusions to imagine that the accomplices were the CIA, FBI or LBJ. The *facts* point to General Walker, over and over. But the WC let George DeMohrenschildt off that hook.

Ruth Paine didn't have a clue in the world that LHO even had *friends* much less a posse. Ruth Paine was *clueless* about the JFK murder. But General Walker was getting revenge on both JFK and LHO on the same day. A resigned US General ruled the day in Dallas on 11/22/1963.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Actually Paul, that's the only book I own of Jim's. And it's a great read... And for the life of me, I simply don't see where he or anyone accused Ruth Paine of murder. In that book, or here, on this forum.

So 5,000+ questions asked of the Christian/Quaker lady, Ruth Paine? A naive do-gooder extending a hand to a young Russian mother, perhaps so she can practice her Russian language skills?

I gotta tell ya, 5000+ questions will get you a ton of mileage in an investigation and/or court proceeding, a megaton of mileage with an attorney worth his/her salt... I suspect Ruth is no longer "clueless?"

What is truly mind-boggling concerning the entire 1963-64 WC proceedings, is the sheer incompetence of the commission, staff, and its attorney's...

After merely 2000 questions, I suspect I could find something wrong with a (to use a well-used phrase) *ham sandwich,* maybe even expose one.

*crickets chirping in the ensuing stillness*

I've answered many of those questions in Healy's thread-starter. They were asked originally in 2007 by a rabid CTer named Ben Holmes. At that time, Holmes' list had just 21 questions on it. I answered them on January 11, 2007, here....

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/9eZqPIn8vms/Mm7iJxysuW0J

One in the same, the same guy that's chased you off the AMAZON forum recently... yep, near 10 years now and your still dancing around those questions. I witnessed the nutter undressing then and now!

Here's your problem Davey me-boy, folks now want the big picture answers, no more minutae, cut the nutter-loon responses and get down to the real facts. The undeniable facts.

Folks understand they've been had, the 1964 Warren Commission lied, even some commissioners admitted they had doubt concerning their "findings". And, one commissioner outright LIED, moving a wound placement because it made more sense...

And what do you make this Allen Dulles guy? A guy JFK canned as head of the CIA, how the hell did that guy get to be the defacto head of the Warren Commission investigating the murder of John Fitzgerald Kennedy a sitting president of the United States?? How do you explain that Von Pein? Then you can take another shot at the above questions...

*crickets chirping in the ensuing stillness*

and sometimes it roars too, Robert!

Some messages challanging Beckham's self-identification on the Trade Mart photos as reported in Joan Mellen's book exist, found on Google, sourced from a John McAdams newsgroup. I have considered the source, but even a broken clock is right twice daily:

Hi .John,

Say, this fellow is both a Doctor and a Knight? Seems a tad short on

grammatical skills for one so lofty in life, surely?

Still, while he's here, maybe you could ask him why Thomas Edward Beckham

told Joan Mellen that he is depicted in one of the stills taken from

WDSU's film of Oswald picketing the New Orleans International Trade Mart

in August 1963.

***

Hi John,

Mellen believed Beckham and published the still photo in her book, A

Farewell To Justice, noting in the caption that "Beckham confirms that

this is indeed he."

Only problem is that the person Beckham claims to be is actually a

Japanese businessman, Junichi Ehara, who ran a business out of

International Trade Mart, Kasuga & Co, in August 1963. Mention is made of

this in the WC.

This blows a terrible hole in Beckham's credibility, and Mellen's book,

for that matter, as she relies so heavily on Beckham as a source

throughout her work.

Regards,

Tim Brennan

Sydney, Australia

*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*

Hi .John,

>

> >Sure. The Japanese businessman that worked at International Trade Mart,

> >and was there that day, is referred to in Carlos Bringuier's WC testimony

> >at 10H40:

>

> >http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh10/html/WC_Vol...

>

> >He had previously been identified by the FBI and they took a 302

> >statement from him which is at CD6 Page 413:

>

> >http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=104...

>

> >There is more available evidence to show that the man in the Trade Mart

> >stills is Junichi Ehara, not Thomas Edward Beckham. Apart from the claims

> >in Mellen's book, I've never seen anything that would support Beckham's

> >claims.

>

> >BTW, she repeats his claim in the text of her book on page 78. I

> >forgot to add that before:

>

> >QUOTE ON:

>

> >A photograph survives of Thomas Edward Beckham, dressed all in black, in

> >front of the International Trade Mart as Oswald enters the building.

> >Beckham confirms that it is, indeed, he.

>

> >QUOTE OFF

>

> >Beckham isn't credible, and neither is Mellen's book, as a

> >consequence, in my view.

>

> >Regards,

>

> >Tim Brennan

> >Sydney, Australia

> >*Newsgroup(s) Commentator*

>

Old Tim *I got 25 remailers working* Brennan he's still around, eh?

Guys a shill for the .john mcadam crowd, has been for years AND a has been, too! Got the snot knocked out of him on AAJ by Ben Holmes for 3-4 years running...

I wonder if his good friends in upper Nu Yawk are still trolling the boards. tsk-tsk...

(compiled by another JFK assassination researcher)

The *real* question is why LNT'ers care about this issue. After all, Oswald's dead, right? The government has investigated, and you believe them, right?

So why do *YOU* care?

And if you truly *do* care, why do you snip and run? Why are believers famous for not supporting their own words?

Why do believers run in fright from such simple questions as:

Why was the closest police eyewitness to the murder - who just coincidentally would have testified in contradiction to the SBT, never questioned by the FBI or Warren Commission prior to the release of the WCR?

Why were the NAA results buried by the WC?

Why did the Warren Commission PROVABLY lie about their own testimony? The "hidden" clipboard being one of the most obvious examples... their false description of Jack Ruby another...

Why were the test results of firing a rifle at Oak Ridge buried, and are still denied by most LNT'ers today?

Why was a ballistics expert hired by the WC fired when he refused to endorse their theory?

Why did the FBI engage in a pattern of eyewitness intimidation to get the statements they wanted?

What is the 6.5mm virtually round object that no-one saw in the AP X-ray on the night of the Autopsy... and why was everyone so blind on the night of the autopsy?

Why did Herndon so completely disregard basic lie detector procedures when testing Jack Ruby?

How can a bullet transit without breaking the spine, as has been conclusively demonstrated with CAT scans?

Why was dissection of the bullet track, and neck wound, forbidden to the prosectors? Why were they allowed to dissect the chest incisions, which were clearly *not* bullet wounds, but not allowed to dissect the bullet wounds?

Why were so many *obvious* eyewitnesses never questioned, or never called to testify? James Chaney being the most obvious answer, but a long list of others has been posted many times...

Why have photographs and X-rays disappeared out of the inventory? Only the government had control of them...

Why did the CIA have a program of harassment of CT authors, and why did they actively promote the WCR through their friendly news contacts?

How could the Warren Commission have missed exculpatory evidence, yet completely failed to miss any supporting evidence for their theory?

Why were the wounds not specified in standard measurements by the prosectors ... and why did the Warren Commission simply verbally *move* the back wound?

Why did the Secret Service remove the limo from the jurisdiction of the DPD? Perhaps an argument can be made for removing JFK's body - as Johnson needed Jackie with him to provide an aura of legitimacy, but there was *NO* valid reason to remove the scene of the crime from Dallas - or was there? Can you provide it?

Why is there no 'chain of evidence' on so much of the evidence in this case? CE399, for example, almost no-one who originally handled it will identify it.

Why did a non-medical military officer forbid the prosectors from examining the victim's clothing - a *STANDARD* autopsy protocol?

Why did the FBI seem so insistent on erasing the record of a Minox camera owned by LHO?

Why were military intelligence files on LHO never released... even to government investigators?

Why do believers constantly cite Jack Ruby's visit to Western Union as proof that the shooting of Oswald wasn't pre-planned - DESPITE his testimony to the contrary?

Why did both the WC and HSCA find it necessary to *LIE* about their own collected evidence in order to support their conclusions? In the case of the HSCA, it's not even disputable - they lied blatantly about the medical testimony... why??

Why have so many *new* "scientific" theories been developed for this case? Never before heard - such as the "jet effect" and "eyewitness unreliability" and "photographs trump eyewitnesses?"

Why does Altgens show Chaney in a position that he's *never* seen in the extant Z-film?

Why doesn't *ANY* film or photo show Chaney moving up to speak with Curry?

Why do *dozen's* of eyewitnesses agree on a slowdown or stop of the limo, yet we can't see it in the Z-film?

Why do *dozens* of eyewitnesses agree with each other on the location of the large wound on the back of JFK's head (and with the Autopsy Report), in contradiction to the BOH photo?

Why does the Autopsy Report contradict the BOH photo?

Why do believers absolutely REFUSE to state that they don't believe the Autopsy Report - despite the FACT that they don't?

Why do believers so *FREQUENTLY* post outrageous lies about the evidence and about what critics post?

And last... why will you snip these, and refuse to respond? AND.......

(I'll add one: Why are many, many *original* documents, films and photos in WCR related files missing? Copies, copies of copies?)

Frankly I've never met Jim. Although he has my admiration as an author, reviewer and investigator.

Is there any doubt as to why the WCR played touchy-feely with Ruth Paine and her association with the murder of the century accused and his family?

The above 18 points looks like an investigative road map for an intensive, all round investigative documentary (with some modifications) regarding a major player re the assassination of a sitting president of the United States... is that what your sniffing around for, Paul?

P.S. It may of escaped me Paul but I see no accusation of murder made by anyone, but I do hear what you're now turning into a *siren call* for a grand jury investigation.

Perhaps you're representing a law firm these days? AND you still failed to cite the "murder" claim

Well, David, I used to regard James DiEugenio as a valuable JFK researcher, but his performance in his more recent works has left me disappointed.

You say I fail to cite a "murder" claim, which is strange, since you yourself infer the same murder claim in your statement, and I quote: "Is there any doubt as to why the WCR played touchy-feely with Ruth Paine and her association with the murder of the century accused and his family?"

First, I don't believe the WC played "touchy-feely" with Ruth Paine in their JFK murder investigation. Ruth Paine answered more questions than any other WC witness. Walt Brown says that Ruth Paine answered 5,236 questions for the WC. By contrast, Marina Oswald with 2,615 questions, and Jack Ruby answered 760 questions for the WC.

James DiEugenio claims that Ruth Paine tried to frame LHO for the Walker shooting, and that she produced the BYP, and that she manipulated events to place LHO in the Texas School Book Depository building by the time JFK drove past it. This is all in Destiny Betrayed (2012). Trying to paint Ruth Paine with a role in the murder of JFK is part of James DiEugenio;s theory.

To help him make that CIA-did-it link with Ruth Paine, James DiEugenio also implicates Ruth Paine of CIA murder in Nicaragua in the 1990's, both in his book and in his current Forum thread

The 18 points given above reveal a series of lame arguments REACHING to implicate Ruth Paine in the JFK murder. James fails to present even one piece of solid evidence.

I have no connection to any law firm, David -- but I do find it morally offensive when I see a genuine Quaker Charity Lady trashed in public the way that James DiEugenio (and Carol Hewett) treat her.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

oh Paul, infer? A cite, please... who accused on this forum Ruth Paine of murder? The only one raising that topic here is YOU, although you have toned it down a bit...

And of course the WCR played touchy-feely with a whole host of characters. George DeM for instance, how many questions did he answer re the WC?

Quick summary of WCR/RPaine questions please?

I get why trying to prove the money order was somehow faked would be a great shortcut to proving fallacious evidence in the official record, but this seems to represent another pushing of the envelope on the part of CT'ers.

In Dallas, back in 1963 you could walk into any place that sold guns and buy any longarm without using an ID.

The entire charade regarding Kleins, the money order, the P.O. boxes, and the bogus murder weapon was hastily contrived to pin blame on Oswald. Without that evidence there would be essentially no case at all, it was required to prop up the Lone Nut theory

correct, Chris! It's all a sham... Even DVP's Groucho Marx alluding is simpleminded diversion... the actual WCR evidence has lone nutters terrified.

As Harold Weisberg stated to me way back when, all you need to do is just beat WCR supporters over the head with case evidence, exhibits, documents and film-photos. They have no way to escape, and no where to escape to--they're handcuffed to WCR illusion.

Brian - good point. I posted somewhere recently that it's not a question of whether all evidence against Oswald was faked, but rather whether any of it was. This particular issue may be a diversion, because knowing whether Oswald ordered a MC rifle doesn't answer the more important question what did he do with it.

E-X-A-C-T-L-Y ! ! ! ! Nutters absolutely need diversions.... the WCR and its evidence is a complete failure.

Oh I doubt anyone will forget, nor doubt your vivid imagination, Paul. Now to more important matters, will you post a cite for the below, please:

Trejo quote on:

"Remember -- y'all started it when you started accusing innocent people of murder. These people are still alive, and their children can read your accusations. Y'all owe lots of apologies."

Trejo quote off

WHO is the alleged innocent party and WHO accused said party of murder? Cite please.

Perhaps it's YOU that owes this entire forum an apology?

Well, David, I gather that you're a long-time fan of James DiEugenio.

Apparently you believe that everybody on the Forum is a big fan of James DiEugenio. This would explain why you believe that I owe "this entire forum" an apology. This is because you presume that when I criticize James DiEugenio, that I criticize everybody here.

Yet that's simply inaccurate. Not everybody on this Forum is a fan of James DiEugenio and his sloppy thinking about Ruth Paine and other matters regarding the JFK assassination.

You ask me, "WHO is the alleged innocent party and WHO accused said party of murder? Cite please."

The alleged innocent party, David, is none other than the theme of this thread, Ruth Paine. James DiEugenio accuses Ruth of participating in a material way in a CIA plot to kill JFK. Nevermind that there's no proof of such a CIA plot, nevertheless, James DiEugenio presumes that there was (on the authority of Jim Garrison) and James DiEugenio further presumes that Ruth Paine was part of that murder.

So, David, to answer your question tersely: Ruth Paine is the alleged innocent party, and James DiEugenio accused her of murder.

Evidence for my claim is found in pages 193-208 within the second edition of James DiEugenio's book, Destiny Betrayed (2012), in the section, The Baron, the Paines, and Dulles. I posted several criticisms (assorted posts from #292 to #322) of these weak arguments some weeks ago on this thread, but for the sake of brevity, I'll summarize the eighteen criticisms here:

1. James DiEugenio says that George DeMohrenschildt was a CIA Agent who “handed over” the Oswalds to the CIA Agent couple, the Paines, during a February 22nd 1963 party at Everett Glover’s apartment. DiEugenio is certain that the Paines had known the DeMohrenschildt’s for a long time, despite Ruth’s 1964 claim that she met them for the first and last time in her life, at that party. (James accused Ruth's 1964 testimony of perjury, based on the fact that she met them again in 1966!)

2. James DiEugenio insists, that Michael Paine had “hidden associations” in the CIA, namely, the elder members of his own family – a grand uncle and a cousin involved in United Fruit, and another cousin who leased land to David Atlee Phillips for Radio Swan. Oh – and Michael’s mother had a childhood friend who later became the mistress of Allen Dulles. This figures huge in James’ theory.

3. James DiEugenio insists that Ruth Paine had “hidden associations” in the CIA, namely, her father, an insurance actuary, also led an organization called AID (Agency for International Development) to stimulate business in Latin America. As the CIA would often hitch a ride with USA international corporations, to seek out international crime, James concludes that AID=CIA. Ruth’s brother in law also worked there. Ruth denied knowing they were in the CIA. Ruth’s elder sister was a psychologist – who secretly worked for the CIA, and Ruth denied knowing that, too. James just accuses Ruth of lying about not knowing.

4. Dallas Sheriff’s Deputy Buddy Walthers claimed that he saw in Ruth Paine’s garage “six or seven metal filing cabinets with names of Castro sympathizers.” The fact that no other witnesses ever saw these, and they were never documented, and never photographed, doesn’t slow down James DiEugenio at all. He’s certain they prove Ruth Paine was a CIA Agent.

5. James DiEugenio accuses Ruth Paine of CIA murder in Nicaragua, because she was part of an Interfaith movement of Catholics, Quakers, Methodists and other churches in 1991 to provide Relief to women and children in the Civil War torn region. (James has an open Forum thread on just this topic.) When further deaths of Relief Workers became a great strain, the leaders of the movement asked Ruth Paine to please return to the USA because her history with Lee Harvey Oswald and the JFK assassination made too many people suspicious and afraid. Ruth understood and complied as soon as she was requested. But James accuses Ruth Paine of CIA murder in Nicaragua, which he also presumes is evidence that Ruth Paine helped the CIA murder JFK.

6. A personal friend of Ruth Paine confided to journalist Steven Jones elements of her conversations with Ruth Paine about Ruth's strained relationship with her daughter, who was into Wicca at that time. One of the statements Ruth’s daughter said was that her mother could never be free until she confronted the “evil” within her. No more detail was given, but James DiEugenio presumes that this referred to Ruth’s role in the CIA conspiracy to murder JFK.

7. Marina Oswald told the FBI in early December 1963 that LHO confessed to her on the night of 10 April 1963 that he had tried to kill General Walker at his Dallas home. According to James DiEugenio, LHO never shot at Walker, but Ruth Paine and the CIA forged evidence to make it appear so, and somehow made Marina Oswald perjure herself, and also made George and Jeanne DeMohrenschildt perjure themselves on this topic.

8. The “Walker Note,” which was verified by handwriting experts to be written by LHO, and sworn by Marina Oswald to have been left in her possession by LHO on 10 April 1963, is a set of instructions, in Russian language, telling Marina what to do in case he got arrested on that night. According to James DiEugenio, Ruth Paine forged the "Walker Note" to frame LHO for the Walker shooting.

9. James DiEugenio even recognizes the mismatch between the Walker shooting and the JFK shooting – Walker was missed; JFK was hit – Walker was a fascist, JFK was a liberal. Despite the fuzzy connection, James is comfortable blaming Ruth Paine for framing LHO for the Walker shooting so that she could also frame LHO for the JFK assassination.

10. James DiEugenio also insinuates that of the four cameras the DPD found in Ruth Paine’s house: the Cuera, the Stereo Realist, the Imperial Reflex and the miniature Minox spy camera, that the latter two really belonged to Ruth Paine, because she was the spy and the Walker photos were taken with the Imperial Reflex. That's the extent of his logic.

11. James DiEugenio denies that LHO went to Mexico City, but insists that CIA Agent Ruth Paine framed LHO as having been there by using Mexican souvenirs which were all CIA props. James’ proof is that LHO denied it, and at first Marina just denied everything to the FBI. (James prefers to believe Marina’s blanket denials to the FBI and Secret Service when she was first put under house-arrest, and wasn’t under oath – over the times when she was comfortably in her own home and was under oath.) James also omits the Lopez Report (a formerly classified CIA report that became a FOIA release in 2003) which confirms that LHO was indeed in Mexico City.

12. James DiEugenio accuses Ruth Paine or the CIA of inventing the Undelivered, Undeliverable package that was officially reported in the Irving Post Office nine days after the JFK assassination, addressed to Lee Oswald at a bogus address, which contained nothing but a paper bag. In James’ imagination, the CIA hoped that LHO would put his fingerprints on the paper bag, so they could link this paper bag with the one later found at the TSBD 6th floor. James has no explanation for the fizzling failure of this imaginary plot.

13. James DiEugenio strains to link the Undelivered, Undeliverable package (which has no date or postage on it) onto a Postage Due notice of November 20th 1963 found at Ruth Paine's house. Although the Post Office says it was fulfilled with a ‘magazine delivery,’ James insists it couldn’t have been fulfilled, because it *must have been* for the Undelivered, Undeliverable package. After the JFK assassination, claims James, the CIA or FBI put a bogus address sticker over Ruth Paine’s address to conceal this imaginary CIA plot. Sheesh.

14. James DiEugenio seizes upon a double “Postal Form” found in Ruth Paine's house, with the name and address of both George Bouhe, leader of the White Russian Community, and Lee Harvey Oswald. That *must have been* a CIA plot – somehow. Actually, since LHO was also receiving mail at Ruth Paine's house, and George Bouhe was well-known to both Marina and Lee Oswald, there is no real mystery. But James believes the White Russian Community and the Russian Orthodox Church were CIA Agents.

15. James DiEugenio harps on Ruth’s marking in her calendar on the day after the JFK assassination that LHO bought a rifle back in March. Ruth explained it as a result of the pressure of this news hitting everybody from all sides on 11/23/1963, when she made the entry. James finds her explanation, “bewildering.”

16. James DiEugenio then claims that Ruth Paine couldn’t have wanted to improve her Russian conversational skills by having Marina Oswald live with her, because Ruth was already fluent enough, in James DiEugenio’s opinion. She could teach small boys Russian grammar – so what more could she possibly want?

17. James DiEugenio is "surprised" that Ruth Paine could be offended by the way LHO treated her from jail –- phoning her, cool and calm, and bossing her like a personal secretary to call attorney Abt for him – and keep calling until she got him. I think most people would be offended. I know I would have.

18. James DiEugenio expresses outrage at a report that Michael Paine told the Houston Post on November 23 that Oswald may have been involved in the Walker shooting. But the only source James cites for this is PROBE magazine – his pal’s journal. (Somebody told the Houston Post, but nobody knows who. Robert Allen Surrey is a better guess, IMHO; or Walker himself as he told the Deutsche Nationalzeitung less than 18 hours after JFK was killed.)

Anyway, there it is. Based on this “careful research” James DiEugenio claims that “the Paines should be on the short list to be sworn before a grand jury.” (DB2, p. 208) It’s “open season” on the Paines, announced James DiEugenio. The 18 points above are examples of his marksmanship.

Regards,

Paul Trejo

Frankly I've never met Jim. Although he has my admiration as an author, reviewer and investigator.

Is there any doubt as to why the WCR played touchy-feely with Ruth Paine and her association with the murder of the century accused and his family?

The above 18 points looks like an investigative road map for an intensive, all round investigative documentary (with some modifications) regarding a major player re the assassination of a sitting president of the United States... is that what your sniffing around for, Paul?

P.S. It may of escaped me Paul but I see no accusation of murder made by anyone, but I do hear what you're now turning into a *siren call* for a grand jury investigation.

Perhaps you're representing a law firm these days? AND you still failed to cite the "murder" claim

even today bud, to some cross country location Fedex overnight service is in reality 2 day service. Cross country 1st class *air mail* service circa 1963 was at least 3 day service.

So the man who told Groucho Marx on the "You Bet Your Life" radio show in January 1952 that a letter could be delivered overnight from California to New York was just lying through his teeth. Is that what you think, DGH?

Maybe "they" were already starting to frame Oswald way back in '52, huh?

I love it! Groucho and DVP. The dynamic DUO! Boy, those cartoon guys at ROKC would have a field day with you and Groucho thrashing out the fifty + year farce called the WCR...

Perhaps Captain America (Alan Dulles) played a role in WC deliberations too, ya think, eh?

FWIW hon, Kennedy certainly did "bet his life," didn't he toots? And the best you can post to the International Ed Forum is foolish nonsense about "overnight mail," which, btw, in '52 at the very best, took 72 hours from west coast drop box to east coast mailbox... Get a grip laddie.

Perhaps it time for you to get back to what originally brought you to the internet, old time radio and tv programs, remember those good old days when you were a conspiracy theorist? Dave Stager, Dave Von Pein and Dave Reitzes sitting at the feet of your worship .John and Melvin? <sigh>

interesting sidebar, from another forum: "how did the Warren Commission tie a money order allegedly from Oswald from March 12, 1963 - to a deposit slip dated Feb 15?"

Paul,

I have had my own web site on the JFK case for about 12 years.

I previously published a journal on the case for about 7 years.

I have written or co edited four books.

I daresay I have developed a reputation already. As to what I think of the case, about JFK, and others in the field.

In contrast to that, you have written no books, published no journals and have no web site on this case.

Its you who are now under the microscope.

Well, you're mistaken, James, that just having several decades in JFK research makes you an authority.

Actually, nobody in a half-century of JFK research has solved the JFK murder.

But y'all keep looking in the same places, and repeating the same old, tired arguments. Total crocks.

Just because you've been around the block, James, doesn't mean a thing -- if you don't have the solution.

Reputation among WHOM? Your fan base? But not everybody is part of your fan base, are they, James?

In fact, you probably have more detractors than fans -- and that's what's making you defensive.

First you said you were going to boycott this thread on Ruth Paine -- and now here you are back on it. Hmm.

Well -- your ideas have already taken a whoopin' by my posts from two weeks ago, and you haven't been able to read them, have you?

You sure have no response for them.

You now say you base your claims on Carol Hewett. Well, in just a few more days we're going to put CAROL HEWETT UNDER A MICROSCOPE.

Right here on this thread.

Remember -- y'all started it when you started accusing innocent people of murder. These people are still alive, and their children can read your accusations. Y'all owe lots of apologies.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Oh I doubt anyone will forget, nor doubt your vivid imagination, Paul. Now to more important matters, will you post a cite for the below, please:

Trejo quote on:

"Remember -- y'all started it when you started accusing innocent people of murder. These people are still alive, and their children can read your accusations. Y'all owe lots of apologies."

Trejo quote off

WHO is the alleged innocent party and WHO accused said party of murder? Cite please.

Perhaps it's YOU that owes this entire forum an apology?

I just go where the evidence leads me, David. The money order wasn't processed, and probably wasn't even deposited in the bank.

Okay, Sandy. Believe what you want. But I disagree.

But can you give me your opinion as to why the alleged plotters were so incompetent when it came to pretty much everything relating to the alleged "phony" rifle purchase?

E.G.,

Wrong paper stock used for the money order.

No bank stamps.

The rifle order and money order go from Dallas to Chicago in 24 hours, which is an impossibility if we're to believe the conspiracy theorists.*

They "shipped" the WRONG RIFLE, per DiEugenio and other CTers (sending "Hidell" a 40-inch Carcano instead of the 36-incher that "Hidell" ordered via the American Rifleman magazine ad). Why did they manufacture that little piece of confusion if the ENTIRE rifle transaction is nothing but a fantasy from the ground up---including ALL of the paperwork?

They forgot the proper legal forms for the rifle (which CTers insist should have been included with the rifle shipment; although Jean Davison in the past has made it quite clear, via documentation, that such a legal requirement only applied to HANDGUNS in 1963, not rifles).

* Incredibly, however, a letter that was mailed in January 1952 could go all the way across the country overnight--from California to New York. (Audio below.)

NEXT-DAY AIR MAIL SERVICE -- IN 1952!

even today bud, to some cross country location Fedex overnight service is in reality 2 day service. Cross country 1st class *air mail* service circa 1963 was at least 3 day service.

I'm still just waiting for evidence of this supposed need for a bank stamp on the back of a post office money order.

Surely something that exposes the conspiracy would not be just an assumption on everyone's part, would it?

Evidence?

Anyone?

Hank

here's a fact, Hank. You're stuck with the findings of the 1964 WCR. YOU own it. As does DVP (who I might add is proud of owning it)

It's YOU that needs to post corroborating evidence that supports those 1964 findings when and if one posts NEW evidence or theories undermining any specific WCR finding.

Damage control seems the correct term. Shall we expect mel Ayton next, perhaps .John McAdams? The SBT, LHO did it all by his lonesome fantasy is heading for the ash heap and you can't stop it.

So what does she [Jean Davison] do with this half baked observation instead? She passes it on to DVP...

Totally untrue. I merely saw Jean's post at the McAdams forum and decided to re-post it here. Jean wasn't "passing" anything on to ME specifically at all.

Jean, in fact, is a current member of this forum and she can post here anytime she wants. She's been a member since August 22, 2004, as we can see here in her profile....

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showuser=1129

So she certainly doesn't need me (or anyone else) to serve as a go-between when it comes to posting at this forum.

Time for DiEugenio to wipe a little egg off of his face now. I had to do that yesterday when I fully admitted I was wrong about the "punch holes" topic. Will Jim do likewise now and retract his wholly inaccurate quote cited above?

perhaps Jean felt you needed some assistance since your back-slide yesterday?

And now, old Henry shows up here on the Ed Forum. Actually, I can understand that turn of event, what with the continued drubbing you and Henry are undergoing by Ben Holmes and friends at AMAZON. It's a darn shame old Hank can't deal with posted case evidence at AMAZON, so he flees to assist you here...

As far as I am aware, the FBI saw and examined the ORIGINAL money order---not a Xerox copy of a microfilm. Klein's never even had a microfilmed record of the money order at all.

We know via CD87 that the original M.O. was recovered from the Federal Records Center at Alexandria, Virginia.

http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10490#relPageId=118

So why would the FBI and the Treasury Dept. (Alwyn Cole) experts use a copy when the original was readily available? The same thing with the HSCA handwriting experts. It makes no sense at all to do that.

there's a whole hell of a lot of photos that are in WCR files that are NOT originals, too! In fact all of them. And for very good reason, too! Any discrepancy or validity of ANY case related image the WC has to explain...oh-my...

So why not a little ole money order, too?

[...]

If these conspirators were so good and so thorough that they could perfectly fake Lee Harvey Oswald's handwriting on CE788 (the money order) so that it would fool some of the nation's top handwriting analysts (who had the ORIGINAL money order for comparison, not just a photocopy of same)....then how come those very same conspirators were so stupid and careless as to not place on the phony money order a single bank stamp that would indicate the document had been properly processed? After all, according to CTers, those plotters were able to fake the Klein's endorsement stamp on the back of the money order. And yet they failed to fake any bank stamps whatsoever. I wonder why?

Sandy,

Don't you agree with me that the question I just asked above is a reasonable one? And don't YOU too wonder how those super-skilled evidence manipulators could be so perfect one minute and yet so amazingly inept and bumbling the next?

as Ben Holmes told you, David Von Pein, on that very same AMAZON forum:

--quote on --

Even if banks did use punch holes for endorsements at the time, so what? The Hidell money order has no such holes punched.

And after receiving your Masters Degree in "Keypunch Hole Evaluation" just a few hours ago after your one-day crash course at Keypunch School, you actually feel confident enough to make the statement you just made about the Hidell money order having "no such holes punched" in it?

Amazing.

you been hittin' that Colonel S's deep fat frying oil again?