Michael Paine

[Paul Trejo]

I tend to think of De Mohrenschildt's departure for Haiti as more related to his role as a CIA informant. April 10, 1963 was the Walker shooting; April 14th was Easter Sunday.

I think you're leaving out April 26th: http://www.defend.ht/history/articles/events/4080-april-26-1963-duvalier-s-massacre

There was a lot going on in Haiti and the Dominican Republic that day....odd time to be planning a "vacation" there: http://www.windowsonhaiti.com/windowsonhaiti/warwh.shtml

History doesn't occur in a vacuum...I tend to think that De Mohrenschildt was "assigned" to Haiti at this particular time.

Well, Mark, maybe you're correct about the motive for Haiti -- it's hard to say without more facts. In any case, what's odd about George and Jeanne, IMHO, is that they never contacted the Oswalds, "their dear friends," ever again.

So, even if they had a good excuse to move to Haiti -- what was their excuse for never calling or writing the Oswalds ever again?

They had spent months with the Oswalds -- meddling in their lives, in their marriage, with their living arrangements, with Lee's job, with baby June -- with so many aspects of their lives in Ft. Worth and Dallas -- and then -- suddenly -- out of the blue -- DEAD SILENCE?

So, you may be right, Mark, insofar as they may have been another motive for them to rush to Haiti -- however -- even that scenario cannot explain their horror at being associated with this lunatic who took their words so literally, and literally tried to murder Edwin Walker.

In this sense, Lee Harvey Oswald was a lot like Edwin Walker. The Birchers only talked about hating the Ole Miss issue -- but Edwin Walker took their political ideology and moved right into action. He did this largely on his own volition -- he was a US General, for heaven's sake. It was his DUTY to do what was right when others were too afraid to act.

The Birchers immediately announced to the world that they were just as shocked as everybody else. Some Birchers recommended stripping Walker of his JBS membership. (That didn't happen.) Yet in only a few more weeks, the Birchers published a book about Ole Miss (The Invasion of MIssissippi, by Earl Lively)-- blaming JFK for all the violence, and praising Edwin Walker as a misunderstood hero. So, they spoke out of both sides of their mouths.

It was basically the same with Lee Harvey Oswald. The young Dallas engineers only talked about hating Edwin Walker -- but Lee Harvey Oswald took their political ideology and moved right into action. Oswald did this largely on his own volition -- he was a US Marine, for heaven's sake -- it was his DUTY to do what was right when others were afraid to act.

The Dallas engineers immediately played dumb -- they never heard of such a thing, and they couldn't remember any such party. The Paines told the Warren Commission that this all came as a shock to them, when they first heard it from Marina's story to the FBI after the JFK murder. I don't believe them.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited January 31, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[David Andrews]

Walker and the JBS, no matter what their financial backing or contacts, could not control the actions of the Secret Service or control the Naval autopsy. They may have been a conduit to the Dallas police for higher conspirators. But Walker didn't get out of the assassination even as little as John Rousselot did. No political career, no reinstatement to military rank. Walker ended up forgotten after his Warren Commission appearance, a grabber of cops' jimmies in the park, arrested by the Dallas PD (twice). He was as much a tool as the Paines were...and the Paines' trail leads back, circumstantially, to Dulles. From Dulles you can backtrack to Harriman and the Rockefellers. These are the kind of higher conspirators that can get a president killed in modern times. And people at this level know that patriotism's for tools like Walker...and fools like us.

Edited January 31, 2015 by David Andrews

[Paul Trejo]

Walker and the JBS, no matter what their financial backing or contacts, could not control the actions of the Secret Service or control the Naval autopsy. They may have been a conduit to the Dallas police for higher conspirators. But Walker didn't get out of the assassination even as little as John Rousselot did. No political career, no reinstatement to military rank. Walker ended up forgotten after his Warren Commission appearance, a grabber of cops' jimmies in the park, arrested by the Dallas PD (twice). He was as much a tool as the Paines were...and the Paines' trail leads back, circumstantially, to Dulles. From Dulles you can backtrack to Harriman and the Rockefellers. These are the kind of higher conspirators that can get a president killed in modern times. And people at this level know that patriotism's for tools like Walker...and fools like us.

Well, David, I agree with the first part of your statement.

It was just as impossible for an billionaire JBS oil-man like H.L.Hunt to control the US Government actions to cover-up the JFK murder as it would have been for the Mafia to control it.

This was the reason that Jim Garrison concluded that the Mafia could not have been the main conspirators to murder JFK. The fact that the US Government moved quickly to cover it up was decisive for Jim Garrison and his followers.

However, this is where I sharply disagree with Jim Garrison -- he too quickly jumped to the conclusion that because the US Government rushed in to cover-up the facts surrounding the JFK murder -- including witnesses, photographs, ballistics evidence, medical evidence, the limo, the clothing, and on and on -- that the US Government must have been involved in the murder.

Jim Garrison was mistaken.

The real reason that the US Government rushed in to cover-up the facts regarding the JFK murder was for National Security. They needed to stop massive riots and a Civil War from occurring in all the cities of the USA.

So, it wasn't H.L. Hunt, the JBS or Edwin Walker who controlled the US Government to cover-up the facts of the JFK murder -- it was first and foremost J. Edgar Hoover (because the Lone Nut idea was his brainchild at about 4pm CST on 11/22/1963). LBJ quickly bought into it, and the FBI moved on the idea immediately. Before JFK's body was cold, the FBI began covering-up all evidence beyond one single shooter, three single shots, and one shooting location. It took months to do that.

LBJ then sold this to the leading members of the Warren Commission -- their only job was to rubber-stamp J. Edgar Hoover's story, and make it look good. Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren wept.

Edwin Walker took a gamble -- the stakes were high and the risk was low for him. If he was successful, the USA would have invaded Cuba. With JFK out of the way, the right-wing had a real chance of taking over the US Government and killing Fidel Castro and taking over Cuba. That's what Walker wanted. He would have been a secret hero, but a hero nonetheless. This is what he was hoping for.

He didn't get it.

Edwin Walker didn't get his wish with the murder of JFK, because J. Edgar Hoover saw right through him before the sun set on 22 November 1963. J. Edgar Hoover saw the game. Lee Harvey Oswald had been super-framed as a Communist.

But J. Edgar Hoover was well aware that Lee Harvey Oswald was no Communist. In fact, Lee Harvey Oswald was (probably) a low-paid petty informant for James Hosty in Dallas. Oswald was fully vetted, even though he was a young man and a pain in the neck.

J. Edgar Hoover immediately turned the tables on Edwin Walker by inventing the Lone Shooter theory of the JFK murder.

Here were the choices: Either (1) Oswald had Communist, left-wing accomplices; or (2) Oswald had JBS, right-wing accomplices; or (3) Oswald had no accomplices whatsoever.

Edwin Walker wanted the USA to believe #1 so that the USA would invade Cuba and kill Fidel Castro.

J. Edgar Hoover knew that if the USA believed #2, there would be riots in the streets of the USA -- during the Cold War. That was a National Security issue.

Therefore, since he could not allow options #1 or #2, J. Edgar Hoover convinced LBJ to push option #3 with all his might. No matter how difficult it would be, the Warren Commission must stick to the Lone Nut theory of Lee Harvey Oswald at all costs. They did so. It was a thankless job, but it was a patriotic duty.

(The biggest xxxx in the bunch was Senator Arlen Spector -- but after all, he was doing his patriotic duty with his Big Lie known as the Single Bullet Theory. Spector sacrificed his credibility for patriotism -- and after all these decades I finally respect him for it. No, patriotism isn't for fools. J. Edgar Hoover prevented a Civil War in the USA in our generation -- and an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. If I'm right, then Hoover is at least as worthy of thanks as Abraham Lincoln, who couldn't prevent a Civil War.)

John Rousselot didn't conspire for any other reason than Edwin Walker conspired -- it was a high-stakes, low-risk gamble. He would have enjoyed a great political career if the USA had invaded Cuba. But J. Edgar Hoover and LBJ would not let that happen.

I don't believe that Walker was a tool -- Edwin Walker was the brains behind the Dallas attacks on Adlai Stevenson and on JFK.

Edwin Walker took a gamble, and he lost. That's life.

You can't really do much with high-level people like Dulles or the Rockefellers except speculate endlessly on so-called "deep structures" like Peter Dale Scott. That approach has been useless for 50 years now. Why not get down to the street-level and start with the ground-crew for a change?

We should also get Ricky White back, and find out more about how Roscoe White had a third Backyard Photograph in his possession. Some of the Dallas Police were very loyal to Ex-General Edwin Walker. We should be interviewing their children, now.

I think that Michael Paine knows in his heart that Edwin Walker was the killer of JFK in Dallas. It would be fantastic to contact him for his opinion today.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited January 31, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Brancato]

Hoover the racist is at least as worthy of thanks as Lincoln, who unlike Hoover, failed to prevent a war. Stooping to new lows....

Hey, since Mr. Scott is not here you seem to think you can just badmouth him any old time. Without Scott's work we would have no Simpich or Newman. Scott blazed the trail. To call his endeavors useless is completely clueless and uncharitable.

[Mark Knight]

We can certainly disagree without being disrespectful here...

[Jon G. Tidd]

Paul Trejo,

I think your concept of the situation is about 90-95 percent accurate.

Given that America was, relative to today, far to the right in 1963 it's difficult for me to imagine a civil war and riots in the streets if the public came to believe the JBS had a hand in killing Kennedy.

Yes,there was widespread shock and sorrow over JFK's murder. And widespread cynicism and anger over Oswald's murder.

Americans, however, still believed in the federal government; still believed in the mainstream media; still respected authority. If it had come out that RW-ers such as the JBS had conspired to kill Kennedy, there would have been a hue and cry to string 'em up: a hue and cry from all quarters, left and right. Americans were for the most part far to the right politically, but above all else ordinary Americans were believers in following the law, in the justice system, and in voting as the way to determine who would govern. Americans did not rebel against their governments, and the Civil War, at least in the North, was long over and settled.

The movie "The Graduate" came out in 1967 or 1968 but was based on a book written in 1963. The movie reflected the politics and society of a certain slice of America in 1963, a stable politics and society in which order and continuity were bedrock.

1963 was a far cry from 1968. There were riots in the cities and on some campuses when MLK was killed. By 1968, Black Liberation had taken hold and college campuses had become populated with baby boomers, many of whom were "politically conscious." Relative to 1968, 1963 belonged to a different generation.

[Paul Trejo]

Paul Trejo,

I think your concept of the situation is about 90-95 percent accurate.

Given that America was, relative to today, far to the right in 1963 it's difficult for me to imagine a civil war and riots in the streets if the public came to believe the JBS had a hand in killing Kennedy.

Yes,there was widespread shock and sorrow over JFK's murder. And widespread cynicism and anger over Oswald's murder.

Americans, however, still believed in the federal government; still believed in the mainstream media; still respected authority. If it had come out that RW-ers such as the JBS had conspired to kill Kennedy, there would have been a hue and cry to string 'em up: a hue and cry from all quarters, left and right. Americans were for the most part far to the right politically, but above all else ordinary Americans were believers in following the law, in the justice system, and in voting as the way to determine who would govern. Americans did not rebel against their governments, and the Civil War, at least in the North, was long over and settled.

The movie "The Graduate" came out in 1967 or 1968 but was based on a book written in 1963. The movie reflected the politics and society of a certain slice of America in 1963, a stable politics and society in which order and continuity were bedrock.

1963 was a far cry from 1968. There were riots in the cities and on some campuses when MLK was killed. By 1968, Black Liberation had taken hold and college campuses had become populated with baby boomers, many of whom were "politically conscious." Relative to 1968, 1963 belonged to a different generation.

First, Jon, thanks for the vote of confidence. Yet the USA in 1963 (while it would NEVER have elected a Black American as US President) was perhaps not so far to the right from us as you seem to suspect.

Remember that most American States conformed to the Brown Decision of 1957, and racially integrated all public schools by 1958. Only a few States in the South resisted.

Remember, too, that the real fear in the USA in 1963 was "Communism," so that the John Birch Society, and the White Citizens Councils, had to try to link the Civil Rights Movement with "Communism" in order to obtain widespread American support for their politics of oppression. Otherwise, most Americans would not have supported it.

As evidence I cite Harry Dean, an avid Anticommunist in 1963, and a member of the John Birch Society (JBS), as well as the Minutemen, but he himself never saw one episode of racism anywhere inside the JBS or the Minutemen. This is what he told me. He would have been outraged if he had seen that. (Robert Welch admitted that this issue divided his JBS movement 50/50, as opinions varied sharply between the Northern States and the Southern States.)

Granted -- Harry Dean had also accepted the JBS propaganda that the Civil Rights Movement was "Communist," and so -- on that basis and that basis alone -- Harry Dean did reject the Civil Rights Movement. (So did J. Edgar Hoover, for that matter.)

So, without the Southern (White Citizens Council) 1958 strategy of linking the Civil Rights Movement (and the Brown Decision) with "Communism," perhaps millions of Americans would never have supported their cause as strongly as they did.

The time was right for Black Americans to ride in the front of busses, and to eat wherever they wanted with their money, and to drink the public water wherever it was available. Most Americans in 1963, by far, accepted the fairness of the Civil Rights Movement in general.

It was Anticommunism, not racism, that motivated most of America in 1963. Granted, the South in 1963 was quite different (as it remains somewhat different even today). IMHO, it was no accident that JFK was murdered in the South, where extremist Anticommunism and racism were able to mingle more freely into a more potent poison.

The North was a far different picture. History professor David Wrone in 1997 said that in his neighborhood in 1963, the day that JFK was murdered, men that he knew "immediately" took axes and went out to chop down the JBS billboards and advertisements around their town.

In 1963, the extreme right-wing was indeed a major suspect in the murder of JFK. It could have turned violent. There were riots when MLK was killed. There would have been riots when JFK was killed, if the American people had learned with certainty that the JBS was behind the murder.

You're right, Jon, that we Americans still believed in our Government and our Mainstream Media. Yet if you think that Americans would not have rioted if the Government admitted that the rightists killed JFK, I cannot agree -- and I think J. Edgar Hoover flatly disagreed with that as well.

We Americans have our limits. Before Abraham Lincoln's Civil War started, there were already skirmishes that broke out here and there -- and riots -- and local violence. Americans were ready to fight -- and we didn't go to war reluctantly -- but Abraham Lincoln was bending to the Will of the People.

Enough is enough. Oppression of innocent people under our very noses every day of the week can only last so long -- we are only human -- we have limited patience.

Here's another example from history about American civil disobedience, Jon, that was not gentle. During the Great Depression, some dairy farmers were hard pressed due to the falling price of milk, so they made an agreement to dump milk by the ton, until the price went up. When word of this got around, American citizens -- on their own -- surrounded dairy farms all around the Dairy States with gatlin guns, and warned the farmers that they would shoot any worker dumping milk -- because Americans were starving (during the Great Depression) and this was a matter of life and death.

President FDR was spurred by that American threat to make radical changes in the American Economy -- including innovations like Food Stamps -- ensuring that farmers got a minimum price for their goods, and the American public got a minimum of food during hard times.

Americans are good people -- we agree on that. But we are also only human. Our Government must always take care to take our temperature -- and not let us lose our temper. We can, and have.

You admit that there were riots in 1968, Jon, but please don't forget the riots of 1962 -- I'm speaking of Ole Miss. And although Edwin Walker walked away from that tragedy scot-free, for the majority of Americans -- perhaps even today -- he was all washed up in politics because of his racist role in that violence.

We can be violent, Jon. It's sad to see -- but people like FBI Agents have seen it, and they continually gauge what they can handle and what they can't handle. It seems to me that J. Edgar Hoover quickly made the call -- the FBI could never handle the riots against the right-wing if the truth came out -- and the right-wing in 1963 included a heavily armed militia known as the Minutemen.

No, they were no match for the US Military -- but what a scandal if the US Military had to be called in to control riots in the streets during the Cold War!

So, J. Edgar Hoover solved this problem of National Security with the Lone Nut theory. It worked.

Yet by 1979, the US Government changed it's story. The HSCA in 1979 announced that JFK "was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy." That is now the official view of the US Government. The HSCA could not tell us more than that (probably because the Cold War was still red hot in 1979).

But the truth was already known in 1979 -- and told to the American People. J. Edgar Hoover's Lone Nut theory was completely wrong, and our Government told us this 35 years ago. (One would hardly guess this by reading much current JFK conspiracy literature.)

After the USSR fell in 1990, we Americans were finally free from the "National Security" issue that enforced the ban on JFK information. The JFK Information Act of 1992 has given us the new date: 26 October 2017 (exactly 25 years from the date that President GHW Bush signed it into law), taking 20 years off the date when Supreme Court Justice Earl Warren said we Americans could finally learn the whole truth about Lee Harvey Oswald.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited February 1, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

Would somebody please contact Michael Paine and ask him about Ex-General Edwin Walker in connection with the JFK murder?

Thanks,

--Paul Trejo

[Steven Gaal]

Would somebody please contact Michael Paine and ask him about Ex-General Edwin Walker in connection with the JFK murder?

Thanks,
--Paul Trejo

=======================

Michael would probably guess the reason for the call >> BEFORE YOU MADE IT.

THE PAINES AFTER THE COUP

THE TELEPHONE CONVERSATION

Michael Paine related the events of November 22: "When it happened I was eating lunch with

a colleague at a bowling alley. Someone told me the President had been shot and we dashed

back to lab to listen to the radio. And my colleague, Frank Krystinik, was urging me to call the

FBI and tell them that LEE worked there. Oh, no I thought. Everyone is going to be jumping on

him. The obvious target there. I couldn't see why LEE would do that. If he was a rational body

he's gonna get Johnson, but he shot Kennedy. I took Johnson to be more to the right. I've

come to realize since, I didn't take into account LEE'S close connection with Cuba, which

would have changed the complexion somewhat of what he might had felt toward Kennedy. But

he did say to me that he thought Kennedy was the best President we've had in his lifetime. He

also said that he thought change wouldn't come about, except through violence."

Frank Krystinik had a slightly different version of events: "On November 22, 1963, Krystinik

and Paine were in the office of the Bell Helicopter Company laboratory when they heard the

news that the President had been shot. There was some discussion about the exact location of

where the shooting had occurred, so they looked it up in the Dallas City map. Paine said with

surprise "That is right next to the Texas School Book Depository Building." Krystinik then said,

"Well isn't that where LEE OSWALD works?" Paine said, "Yes, but he does not even own a

gun." [WCD75 p724]

THE TELEPHONE CONVERSATION

"On November 26, 1963, Dallas Confidential FBI Informant T-4, advised that he had received

information that a male voice was overheard in a conversation which took place between

telephone number CR-5-5211, Arlington, Texas, and telephone number BL-3-1628 [Michael

Paine's home telephone number], Irving, Texas, on November 23, 1963. Informant advised the

exact time of this conversation was not available, and that it was not known from which of the

telephone numbers the call originated. Informant advised that the male voice was heard to

comment that he felt sure LEE HARVEY OSWALD had killed the President, but he did not feel

OSWALD was responsible, and further stated: 'We both know who is responsible.'" [WCD 206

p66; FBI DL 100-10461 RPG;gmf]

http://ajweberman.com/nodules2/nodulec24.htm(31 of 43) [4/26/2009 1:20:14 PM]

NODULE 24

The FBI reported: "It should be noted that the only telephone call between telephone number

CR-5-5211, Arlington, Texas, and telephone number BL-3-1628, Irving, Texas, during the

period November 22, 1963, to November 26, 1963, was the one call on November 22, 1963,

which, according to the telephone company records, indicates that Mrs. Michael Paine was

calling collect from CR-5-5211, the place of employment of her husband. Previous information,

furnished by Captain Paul Barger, Irving, Texas, Police Department, to the effect that he had

received information from individual he could not recall concerning a telephone conversation

which took place on November 23, 1963, between telephone numbers CR-5-5211, Arlington,

Texas and BL-3-1623, Irving, Texas, has been reported. Mrs. Ruth Paine, 2515 West 5th

Street, Irving, Texas, has previously stated that on November 22, 1963, at about 1:00 p.m., her

husband telephoned from his place of business, and advised her that the President had just

been shot. Mrs. Paine denied having any conversation with her husband at his place of

employment on November 23, 1963." The telephone records of Michael Paine, BL-3-1628

indicated that on November 22, 1963, a collect call was placed "from Arlington, Texas, number

CR-5-5211. Mrs. Michael Paine was calling." [FBI DL 100-10461 1.23.64 Robert Lish]

Wesley Liebler questioned Ruth Paine about this telephone conversation:

Liebler: You have previously been questioned about a supposed telephone call that was

supposed to have been made from Michael Paine's office to your home shortly after the

assassination, and I do not represent that I have knowledge of such a call, that such a call was

ever made, but as you know, there were rumors to the effect that this man and woman

together in the conversation - that one of them said he really wasn't responsible for the

assassination, and they both knew who was and I think both of you and Michael have testified

about this before and have denied there was any such telephone conversation between you

and anyone. Was there a telephone conversation of any kind between you and Michael

between your residence and Michael's office on November 22, 1963, or November 23, 1963?

Paine: I have testified to the fact that Michael called. I don't know whether it was from the

cafeteria where he had been eating, or more likely from his office, to my home, on November

22, 1963.

Liebler: Was that the only telephone conversation between those two numbers on those two

days that you know of?

Paine: Yes.

Ruth Paine commented told this researcher, "It rings no bells for me. I must say I am not

impressed with the quality of FBI reporting." Michael Paine stated: "I've heard that a couple of

times, way back, for many years. When I first heard that said, I thought that they must have

overheard me talking to my father very shortly after the evening or the next day of the

assassination. In this conversation I said to him rather emphatically 'We know how he got that

http://ajweberman.com/nodules2/nodulec24.htm(32 of 43) [4/26/2009 1:20:14 PM]

NODULE 24

job at the Depository.' Which we did. Immediately after the assassination, I assumed the phone

was tapped."

ANALYSIS

Frontline reporter Scott Malone reported "T-4" has not been identified. It has been suggested

that "T-4" was an illegal wiretap put on Michael Paine's telephone after the assassination. Note

how Barger placed the date of the tap later in time. By November 23, 1963, he had received

permission to tap Michael Paine's telephone from the courts. The telephone records, which are

generally fairly accurate - they are used as evidence in court - placed the call on November 22,

1963. Note how Barger had also forgotten the source of this information.

The telephone records indicated that Ruth Paine placed a collect call to Michael Paine from his

office to his home yet no one at Bell Helicopter testified that they saw Ruth Paine at the facility

that day. Marina Oswald testified that Ruth Paine was not absent any time during that entire

day.

Yet telephone records indicated that some time on November 22, 1963, probably shortly after

the Kennedy assassination, Ruth Paine went to Michael Paine's office. Marina could have

watched the children. Michael Paine was not there, so she called him at his house. Perhaps

Michael Paine went to Ruth Paine's home, and finding that she was not there he drove home,

where he received a telephone call from his wife calling collect from his office. Not realizing his

telephone would be tapped in so short a time, Michael Paine commented that he felt sure LEE

HARVEY OSWALD had killed the President, but he did not feel OSWALD was responsible,

and further stated: 'We both know who is responsible.' They both thought that the CIA was

responsible, because people connected with the CIA had told them to befriend OSWALD.

WHEN DID RUTH PAINE KNOW OSWALD WAS A SUSPECT

Ruth Paine testified that after she heard that President Kennedy had been shot in the vicinity

of the Texas School Book Depository, she thought that "LEE might be able to say somewhat

about what happened, had been close to the event. This was my thought, that we would know

somebody who would be able to give or possibly give a first hand - I never thought of him as a

violent man. He never said anything against President Kennedy, nor anything about President

Kennedy. I had no idea that he had a gun." She said she told Marina what had happened.

During one part of Ruth Paine's testimony before the Warren Commission she was asked:

McCloy: You said you were sitting on the sofa. While you were listening or looking at the

television, was there any announcement over the television of a suspicion being cast on LEE?

Paine: It had been announced that they had caught someone in a theater, but there was no

http://ajweberman.com/nodules2/nodulec24.htm(33 of 43) [4/26/2009 1:20:14 PM]

NODULE 24

name given.

McCloy: So up to this point there was no suggestion that LEE was involved.

Paine: No, not until the officers came to the door. [Paine Test. To WC p70] (REALLY ?? GAAL)

Ruth Paine testified that Michael Paine arrived at her home in the mid-afternoon. She was

asked:

Jenner: Now would you please tell me exactly to the best of your recollection the words of your

husband as he walked in the door.

Paine: I don't recall his saying anything.

Jenner: Now his words if any with respect to why he had come.

Paine: I asked him before he volunteered. I said something to the effect of "How did you know

to come?"

Jenner: What did he say.

Paine: He said he heard on the radio at work that OSWALD was in custody, and he came

immediately to the house.

Jenner: And that is what you recall he said.

Paine: That is right...I might interject one recollection if you want of Michael having telephoned

to me after the assassination. He wanted to know if I heard.

Jenner: Did he call you before he arrived at your home?

Paine: He called, he knew about the assassination. He had been told by a waitress at lunch

time. [Paine WC test. P110]

ANALYSIS

Ruth Paine was lying about the events of the day. First she testified that she did not know that

OSWALD was a suspect until Dallas Police Officers came to her door. Later she said she

heard it from Michael Paine.

HOSTY, ODUM, HOWE AND DeBRUEYS

http://ajweberman.com/nodules2/nodulec24.htm(34 of 43) [4/26/2009 1:20:14 PM]

NODULE 24

The FBI reported that on November 26, 1963, material of various types which had been

recovered by the Dallas Police Department from OSWALD'S and Ruth Paine's residence were

turned over to Howe, Hosty and DeBRUEYS. [WCE 2077 p139] The post-assassination

investigation of the Paine family was conducted and directed by FBI Agents Bardwell Odum,

Kenneth Howe, WARREN C. DeBRUEYS and James P. Hosty. S.A. Hosty questioned the

Paines 15 times. Ruth Paine believed OSWALD was guilty because of "massive circumstantial

evidence that surrounds his relationship, or where he was, what he had, at the time of the

assassination." Michael Paine did not believe that OSWALD could have been a provocation:

"You can weave any kind of a plot you want, but he was not a provocation. I don't see that.

When the assassination occurred I didn't suppose that he had done it. I didn't think he could,

because it didn't fit with my understanding of what his objectives would be. The only way I

could figure a reason for him doing this was his convoluted argument that you get in Johnson

and Johnson being more to the right, would have angered the left more. It struck me as a spur

of the moment action which wasn't the result of much advance planning. And it struck me that

he must have done that after he had seen the motorcade route published a day before his visit.

He saw it was going to go right by his building there. Get himself on the map. What's he gonna

take his rifle for, if he wasn't going to assassinate the President? OSWALD was not an

instrument of the right. He was a bona fide leftist, no question of his sincerity...." Michael Paine

was asked, "You have no CIA-connection?" He responded, "No connection with that. The

closest connection I have had, that I knew of, was I took a trip with the Presbyterian Church

Choir. We went to Germany and we had an FBI person who was a choir member. He couldn't

dare go into East Germany. We took a little tourist trip there." Michael Paine was asked if he

believed the CIA was involved with overseas assassinations. He said, "Yes, I do. I think it is

bad for us. I think they're clumsy. Well, not just clumsy..." He was asked if he believed the CIA

might have been involved in any domestic assassinations. "I don't speculate a lot" Michael

Paine said, "but if there was going to be a conspiracy in which OSWALD was involved, then it

would have been with some other little buddies who loved Cuba, and were still incensed at

Kennedy for the Bay of Pigs. I have no idea what motivated RUBY, and why he felt so

outraged as to deprive the nation of a trial of this person. I don't know about RUBY'S organized

crime connections." The Kennedy assassination reunited the Paines; Michael Paine moved in

with his wife and child.

THE MISSING MINOX WDE

When journalist Earl Goltz interviewed Dallas Police Detective Gus Rose, one of the officers

who searched the Ruth Paine's home after the assassination, Gus Rose remembered having

found a "small German camera and black case on a chain and film." Gus Rose inventoried the

evidence and turned it over to FBI Agent WARREN C. DeBRUEYS, who identified the Minox

camera as a Minox light meter. Michael Paine stated: "I did have a light meter for a Minox. I

kind of forgotten that I had a light meter. And it looked like a half-size version of a Minox

camera. It had the same leather case and flexible metal chain. They didn't get it at the same

time. They got the camera later."

http://ajweberman.com/nodules2/nodulec24.htm(35 of 43) [4/26/2009 1:20:14 PM]

NODULE 24

If a Minox light meter was found among OSWALD'S possessions, was there a camera that

accompanied it? Michael Paine, who stored his possessions in the same garage as OSWALD,

was questioned about this. He said "He owns a Minox camera and that camera is at his home

in Irving, Texas. Several years ago he dropped this camera in salt water off the coast of Cape

Cod, Massachusetts, and after retrieving it, soaking it in kerosine and cleaning same, it

appeared to be in good working condition. Thereafter, someone bent the shutter by pulling the

lens out too far, and, to the best of his knowledge, it is not now in working condition. He stated

that he did have some cans of film, and that some of them were probably exposed film, but

that the pictures made on this film were at least five years old. He stated that he had a case for

the camera and other accessories including a light meter. He stated that when the police came

to his house on November 22, 1963, they took the entire contents on a drawer containing

photographic equipment which included the items mentioned above with the exception of the

camera. He stated that this camera was in his garage at that time and that although he

mentioned the camera to the police, they did not seem interested in it. He stated that he is sure

LEE HARVEY OSWALD never used this camera, and he is of the opinion that it is not in

working condition at the present time. Mr. Paine stated he had no knowledge of a 'no

admittance' sign which was picked-up by the police at his residence. He stated this sign is not

his and he has never seen it before." [FBI DL 100-10461 1.31.64 Bardwell Odum] On February

1, 1964, Ruth Paine gave FBI SA Bardwell Odum a Minox III camera, serial number 27259.

THE THREE UNDEVELOPED ROLLS OF FILM

The Dallas Police Department found three undeveloped rolls of Minox film in Michael Paine's

garage. "Two Minox cassettes, one containing film; two containers with unexposed Minox film."

Detective Gus Rose said he found one roll in OSWALD'S sea bag. This researcher applied for

these photographs under the Freedom of Information Act. The FBI stated: "In as much as the

material you requested is of great historical interest, these pages are being released to you

without excisions." [ltr. Allen H. McCreight FBI 6.12.78] The FBI Laboratory Report on the

exposed film stated that two of the rolls had been exposed in Michael Paine's camera but the

other was not:

FBI LABORATORY

FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION WASHINGTON D.C.

Bureau request November 25, 1963

Request comparison of Minox film recovered from possessions of LEE HARVEY OSWALD in

the assassination of President Kennedy, November 22, 1963, Dallas, Texas, case with

specimen Q5.

http://ajweberman.com/nodules2/nodulec24.htm(36 of 43) [4/26/2009 1:20:14 PM]

NODULE 24

Result of examination:

It has been determined that the questioned Minox film designated as specimen Q5 in this case

was not exposed in the same camera as Minox film recovered from the possessions of LEE

HARVEY OSWALD (Item 377) in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, November

22, 1963, Dallas, Texas, case. [FBI 62-109060-NR 12.2.63 #174]

Michael Paine was contacted in July 1993. He said, "All the ones that I've seen copies of prints

of, have been taken by me, yes. I took a camera with me. I bought the camera originally

because I wanted something I could carry in my pocket all the time. I was hoping you could

make good pictures with that camera, but it was very tricky, everything had to be right. So it

didn't have any use, I thought." It was pointed out to Michael Paine that the Minox is most often

used for photographing documents. He agreed, "It was noted for that purpose, yeah. It was, of

course, good for, it could take pictures up close. When I got to Korea I took along a little

developing tumbler about the size of a glass. But the water we had was out of the rice paddies,

and I thought it would leave little specks of dirt, so I never tried developing the things I did in

Korea. I guess I never used it again. I used a different camera, stereoscopic. It's news to me

that there should be a roll mixed-in with mine. That seems very odd."

THE PHOTOGRAPHS

The two rolls of Minox film that were taken with Michael Paine's Minox camera contained

photos of a trip to Europe. The roll that was not taken with Michael Paine's camera seem to

have been photographed in either Qemoy or Matsu. The photographs depicted several

Marines horsing around on a large military vessel; a shot a tanker and LST-845P, shots of an

island from offshore; shots entering a harbor; Asian children walking past a heavily fortified

military base; a Chinese funeral passing the perimeter of the base, and a photo of OSWALD

with an M-16. Click HERE. to see one of these photographs.

ANALYSIS

OSWALD possessed a Minox camera while he was in the Marines. JFK CIA document

1993.06.18.16:24:34:590000 is a piece of an envelope from SR/CI/R listing contents as "One

folder XAAZ-22448 May 5, 1965, State Department Files 1963. 2) Paine photos removed and

attached to DBA 64420, from which they had been taken."

RUTH PAINE POST COUP

On September 17, 1965, Ruth Paine asked Mr. Maceo Smith of the Federal Housing

Administration for the names of Negro families interested in purchasing houses in Irving,

Texas, and asked for help in furthering her efforts in this regard: "Mr. Smith advised that Mrs.

Paine obtained his name by contacting a principal of an Irving, Texas, school and asking for

http://ajweberman.com/nodules2/nodulec24.htm(37 of 43) [4/26/2009 1:20:14 PM]

NODULE 24

the name of a Negro who might be able to help her in her integration efforts." Ruth Paine's

request was transmitted to E. J. Dee, Director, Federal Housing Administration Insuring Office,

Dallas, Texas: "Mr. Dee stated he is of the opinion some Negro people of the Irving, Texas,

area have been contacted by Mrs. Paine, but they, the Negroes, do not want anything to do

with her. He said he arrived at this opinion as he, Dee, was contacted by a leader of the Negro

community of Bear Creek near Irving, Texas, who told him they did not want to have anything

to do with Ruth Paine, and asked Mr. Dee if he could keep her away from them." In June 1976

Ruth Paine was living on a yacht in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. In 1991 she became U.S.

Coordinator of Pro-Nica, a project of the southeastern yearly meeting of the American Friends

Service Committee. In this capacity she had dealings with the Sandinistas. When questioned

by the Warren Commission in 1964 Paine was asked:

Jenner: What is your personal attitude towards the Castro regime?

Paine: I have very few opinions about it. I suspect that the press is correct, that it is used for a

jumping off ground for people, for Communist deputies going to Central American countries,

trying to stir up trouble. That I object to strenuously. That the people of Cuba have Castro as a

leader is not of any particular offense to me. I do think he has more popular support than his

predecessor.

In 1991 Ruth Paine put out a newsletter about Nicaragua, describing it as "a roller coaster of

ups and downs, a kaleidoscope of progress and decay...Unemployment is estimated at 50%.

The central government is broke. The AID funds account for about one third of the

Government of Nicaragua's budget. Nicaraguan men and women have discovered what a free

society can mean to them, and they are not likely to forget it."

As of 1992 Ruth Paine was living in Managua, Nicaragua, and St. Petersburg, Florida. This

interviewer spoke with Ruth Paine during the Summer of 1993 and pointed out some of the

facts contained in this book. She stated, "Mostly I don't like to do interviews much. But anyway,

you're an interesting guy though."

"Can you see why I am convinced that there was a conspiracy involved?"

"I certainly see that, yes. From the vantage point I had, it didn't look that way. Because here he

was, already a very strange guy. He had a rifle, and he was doing clandestine things, like

having an assumed name. Made him look a little strange. He was a very unstable kind of guy."

In December 1994 Ruth Paine was living in St. Augustine, Florida, and working in Tampa,

Florida as a school psychologist and still did volunteer work for the Quakers. [Xmas card

12.30.94]

Edited May 15, 2015 by Steven Gaal

[Steven Gaal]

Would somebody please contact Michael Paine and ask him about Ex-General Edwin Walker in connection with the JFK murder?

Thanks,
--Paul Trejo

================

what about his wife ?? Should not she get a call ?? BTW I don't recall you talking about Ruth's sister ,ever.

=========================================================================================

Buddy Walthers took part in the search of the home of Ruth Paine. Walthers told Eric Tagg that they "found six or seven metal filing cabinets full of letters, maps, records and index cards with names of pro-Castro sympathizers." James DiEugenio has argued that this "cinches the case that the Paines were domestic surveillance agents in the Cold War against communism."
=================

Ruth Paine in the 1990s
The final speaker to address the issue of the Paines was researcher Carol Hewett, who read a paper that she said had been prepared by fellow researcher Barbara Lamonica.
"This concerns Ruth's activities in the 1990s," Hewett said. "We see that Ruth was a political activist in the 1960s; she spent a great deal of time trying to learn Russian. I guess she failed at this, and decided it was time to learn Spanish instead, because in the 1990s we find her in Nicaragua, of all places.

"During the ensuing decades following the assassination the focus of U.S. intelligence activities shifted away from Cuba to Central America, culminating in the Reagan Administration's efforts to destabilize and overthrow Nicaragua's Sandinista government through a CIA proxy war. In the early Sixties the CIA molded anti-Castro Cuban refugees into paramilitary mercenary gangs dubbed the 'Liberation Brigade,' just as in the eighties they would bankroll former Samoza national guardsmen into the mercenary army dubbed the 'Freedom Fighters.' Several illuminai from the Bay of Pigs rogue's gallery materialized to train the Contras," including Felix Rodriquez and Theodore Shackley.

"In third world countries the CIA routinely utilizes religious organizations to undermine the social movements of indigenous peoples, and to advance the goals of U.S. policy. This was also a clarion call to the CIA to increase funding to the missionary and relief efforts of more conservative and fundamentalist groups who supported the Contras. It was also believed that the more progressive relief groups were heavily infiltrated."

Hewett then told the story of Sue Wheaton, an assassination researcher who also works with the Office of Aging in Washington D.C. In 1991, she and her husband, an Episcopalian priest, were part of the progressive relief effort in Nicaragua. In the course of this work, Wheaton chanced to meet Ruth Paine at a Quaker group. After confirming that she was the same Ruth Paine from the assassination saga---a fact that she admitted only reluctantly---Ruth told Sue Wheaton that the Quaker group was funded primarily by six wealthy conservative individuals from the Southeast...

"It was curious to Wheaton that conservative individuals would want to support humanitarian aid to Nicaragua, especially during the previous Contra war. Ruth's particular group also ran a sawmill [?] project on the eastern coast of Nicaragua, a Contra holdout and a nexus of CIA-based activity. Recall the Lake Pontchartrain gang outside of New Orleans, whose cover was operating a lumber mill as well.

"Ruth Paine showed up at one of Sue Wheaton's council meetings of the anti-Contra group, of which pro-NICA was a part. According to Sue Wheaton---and this is quoting Sue directly, from some correspondence she shared with us---

I myself did think that Ruth was taking down information about Americans in Nicaragua, who opposed U.S. policies there. She constantly wrote down the names of individuals and organizations. Her project---that is, Ruth's project---sent a letter to all of the U.S. peace organizations which visited Nicaragua, encouraging them to stay at the Quaker hospitality house. Someone told me that Ruth studied the bulletin board there, copying down everything that was on it. Also, Ruth made reference to people she knew in the U.S. embassy. Most of us---[that is, people that Sue associated with]---did not know any people in the embassy, as we associated it with policies we abhorred.

"Sue Wheaton goes on to recount how Ruth and an associate of Ruth's by the name of John [Reese?] attended several meetings of a Solidarity Committee...while there, Ruth took copious notes, and another friend of Ruth's, by the name of Sean Miller, made several tape recordings and took photographs. Ruth claimed that the photographs were being taken for the Nicaraguan Network in Washington, D.C. Later, when a friend of Sue Wheaton's checked with the Nicaraguan Network, the network claimed that they had not commissioned anyone to take pictures in Nicaragua. Thus the explanation given by Ruth Paine as to why her associate was taking pictures of members of the U.S. community in Nicaragua was false." "Ruth is now living in St. Petersberg, Florida," Hewett said. "She's been divorced from Michael for quite some time. She's active with a Quaker group there in St. Petersberg.

Edited May 15, 2015 by Steven Gaal

[Paul Trejo]

Steven,

Thanks for responding to my plea for somebody to contact Michael Paine and ask him about Ex-General Edwin Walker in the context of the JFK murder mystery.

Thanks also for including WC testimony from Michael and Ruth Paine. I don't see blatant lies -- but I get a strong impression that the Paines were being deliberately incomplete in their answers to the WC. IMHO they held back details that they believed were personal, irrelevant, and might tend to incriminate them in some way. They were safe, I think, but not fully honest. (I am tempted to grant that they may have lied by omission, just as the WC itself often did.)

I disagree with Jim Di Eugenio that the filing cabinets of names of Castro sympathizers found in Ruth Paine's garage, proved that the Paines were right-wing activists.

That jumps to a conclusion, IMHO. It seems to me that those filing cabinets came from Guy Banisters office, via Lee Harvey Oswald, in the context of a plot to murder Fidel Castro. Guy Banister operated the Anticommunist League of the Caribbean at 544 Camp Street, where Oswald operated. Jim Garrison demonstrated that fully, IMHO.

The main thing the Paines hid, IMHO, was their role in the deliberate brainwashing of Lee Harvey Oswald to hate and despise Ex-General Edwin Walker. They watched as Volkmar Schmidt, encouraged by George De Mohrenschildt, worked on Oswald steadily in this regard -- perhaps for several weeks.

In February 1963, the Paines attended a party of yuppie Dallas engineers in which Volkmar (an oil engineer) showed off his talent for "psychological processing" on Lee Harvey Oswald. In that intensive session that "lasted for hours," Volkmar allegedly "transferred" Oswald's rage over the Bay of Pigs to rage over Edwin Walker's race riot at Ole Miss (only six months before) and Walker's recent acquittal by an all-white Mississippi Grand Jury (only one month before the party).

I also disagree sharply with A.J. Weberman (NODULE 24) regarding that most important statement in the illegally tapped phone call between Michael's workplace and Ruth at home, sometime on 11/23/1963, as follows:

THE TELEPHONE CONVERSATION ...Informant advised that the male voice was heard to comment that he felt sure LEE HARVEY OSWALD had killed the President, but he did not feel OSWALD was responsible, and further stated: 'We both know who is responsible.'" [WCD 206 p66; FBI DL 100-10461 RPG;gmf]

A.J. Weberman jumped to the conclusion that Michael Paine meant that "the CIA was responsible." That was too hasty. IMHO, what Michael Paine really meant was, "Ex-General Edwin Walker was responsible."

When WC attorneys grilled Michael Paine about Edwin Walker, and his discussions with Lee Harvey Oswald about Edwin Walker, we get a tiny fraction of the truth, IMHO. This would have been the most incriminating aspect, that linked Paine with the Walker shooting back in April.

If the truth came out, that the Paines had been "accomplices," however unwilling, in the Walker shooting in April, then emotional public opinion would have quickly linked them with the JFK shooting on 11/22/1963. I think that they strongly feared that possibility, and they did whatever they could to distance themselves from crashing on that reef.

But the controversy remains large, IMHO. Edwin Walker might have been the most consistent topic of conversation between Michael Paine and Lee Harvey Oswald in the early months of 1963. It all came to an end on 10 April 1963, of course, when (as Marina testified) Lee Oswald decided to try to kill Walker at his Dallas home (possibly to please his new, rich, liberal friends).

After that point, everybody avoided Lee Oswald -- Schmidt, the De Mohrenschildts, the Paines, all Dallas yuppies at the party. Yet every one of those who attended that party -- including the Paines -- were guilty because they did not rush to the Dallas Police (or the FBI) to report what they knew about that party.

That was what the Paines held back from the Warren Commission. That was the secret that they had to live with for the rest of their lives.

Granted -- the WC was dismissing accounts of "accomplices" in the JFK murder, and they probably told all their interviewees that they would not tolerate any talk of "conspiracy" of any kind. Thus, Walker was being "protected" anyway -- so that any confessions about Walker would have likely been made "off the record," or just censored. Maybe the Paines did confess this, but the WC chose to clip it out. We don't know.

In any case, the Walker shooting was the end of the road for Oswald in Dallas. He had already lost his job at Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall, weeks before the shooting. He no longer had any social contacts. Oswald had little choice but to move out of Dallas. So, he moved to New Orleans, into the arms of Guy Banister and David Ferrie.

According to Dick Russell (TMWKTM, 1993), the FBI received a report from Mrs. Igor Voshinin on 4/14/1963 that Lee Harvey Oswald had been Edwin Walker's shooter on 4/10/1963. She got this data from George De Mohrenschildt, she told Russell.

If so, then the FBI has an Easter Sunday record of her call, and I regard this as Top Secret data, held back by the Warren Commission -- because it would lead to the Truth that Hoover, LBJ and Warren had chosen to hide from the American People for 75 years -- namely, WHO REALLY KILLED JFK.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited May 16, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Steven Gaal]

I disagree with Jim Di Eugenio that the filing cabinets of names of Castro sympathizers found in Ruth Paine's garage, proved that the Paines were right-wing activists......It seems to me that those filing cabinets came from Guy Banisters office, via Lee Harvey Oswald, in the context of a plot to murder Fidel Castro // Trejo

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Posted more than once this forum >>>>>>>>>>> Ruth Paine, extreme copious note taker: WHEN NARA FIRST OPENED UP JFK material and in CENTRAL AMERICA. They are her filing cabinets. YOU NEVER MENTION RUTH PAINES SYSTER,why ?.....?

Edited May 16, 2015 by Steven Gaal

[Paul Trejo]

Steven,

I never mention Ruth Paine's sister, or any of her family, because it's hugely irrelevant that Paine's family had CIA employment.

Ruth Paine herself did not have CIA employment.

I've been fighting this battle almost alone for nearly four years on this Forum -- the CIA hasn't been proven guilty of the JFK murder, no matter how many hundreds of books are printed to show "once again" that the CIA did it.

If you need yet another book to prove it, then you should finally admit that all your accusations have wound up with nothing.

Read Bill Simpich's STATE SECRET (2014) to learn that the CIA was divided internally on the topic of Lee Harvey Oswald.

The fact that Ruth Paine's natal family had CIA employment is irrelevant on two levels: First, the CIA didn't kill JFK. Secondly, Ruth Paine herself was a Quaker mother -- not a CIA officer.

Therefore, Ruth Paine's sister is irrelevant in the JFK murder mystery.

Get over it.

--Paul Trejo

Edited May 16, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Steven Gaal]

Ruth Paine herself was a Quaker mother -- not a CIA officer.// TREJO

In third world countries the CIA routinely utilizes religious organizations to undermine the social movements of indigenous peoples, and to advance the goals of U.S. policy FROM POST #115 above

------------------------------

A Certain Arrogance: U.S. Intelligence's Manipulation of Religious Groups and Individuals in Two World Wars and the Cold War -and the Sacrificing of Lee Harvey Oswald Paperback – June 13, 2006

-----------------------------

by
George Michael Evica (Author)
In "A Certain Arrogance" (Iron Sights Press, 2006), Professor Evica reveals the history of the recruitment and indoctrination of US intelligence assets (spies/assassins) for OSS and CIA beginning during World War II when, through the work of OSS members Wild Bill Donovan and Allan Dulles, religious institutions, particularly, the Unitarian Church and the Quaker movement, were used as "fronts" in the selection and culling of candidates for espionage and special operations by America's intelligences services, OSS and CIA, domestically and abroad.
=
also see
http://www.ctka.net/reviews/certain_arrogance.html

=====

Does God work for the CIA?

-see

http://rt.com/op-edge/north-korea-usa-cia-639/

=====
http://www.finalcall.com/perspectives/sudan_cia05-15-2001.htm
http://watch.pair.com/antipas.html
http://proframanathan.blogspot.com/2015/01/the-religious-crusades-of-cia.html

Edited May 16, 2015 by Steven Gaal

[Mark Knight]

Now, if Oswald left New Orleans via bus....and Ruth Payne had a station wagon full of Oswald's possessions when she took Marina back to Dallas...

HOW in BLUE BLAZES did GUY BANISTER'S files, including the filing cabinets, get into Mrs. Payne's garage?