David G. Healy Posted November 13, 2015 Share Posted November 13, 2015 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... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted November 14, 2015 Author Share Posted November 14, 2015 Solid Evidence - good one. David - just go away. Well, Paul B., you've got nothing to contribute but negativity -- so why bother? Why don't you go away, too? I wanna know. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Brancato Posted November 14, 2015 Share Posted November 14, 2015 Well Paul, I wish I knew why I cared so much. Your posts attacking DiEugenio are Ruthless. You demand facts and proof from everyone but yourself,a simple fact that everyone but you can see clearly. Would it be so hard for you to allow DiEugenio his theories without resorting to provocative posts in which you threaten to destroy his 'evidence' and his credibility as a researcher writer and reviewer? I just can't get over how hard headed you are. It's not your theories that push my buttons, it's your style. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted November 15, 2015 Author Share Posted November 15, 2015 (edited) Well, Paul B., there are actually many aspects of James DiEugenio's theories I've read over the years that I like. In retrospect, it seems that James is an echo of Jim Garrison -- and so his strengths will be Jim Garrison's strengths, just as his weaknesses will be Jim Garrison's weaknesses. James has gone "all-in" with Jim Garrison. So, maybe I was hasty in years past in thinking James was doing his own research. As for the Ruth Paine angle -- whenever I poke it with a stick, James claims that Carol Hewett is his source, and he swears by her. Well, if James' weak arguments against Ruth Paine are any reflection of the "work" done by Carol Hewett, then I don't expect much from her work, but I will review it here, as I promised. Carol Hewett is a lawyer, and lawyers have a mixed reputation amongst commoners like myself -- and mostly on the negative side. That's because we expect lawyers to push for reason and justice, but very often lawyers really only make one-sided cases to attack or to defend -- and actual reason and justice are just games for them. The best researchers are historians (now that the JFK murder is 50 years old and is officially part of history, and no longer part of politics). Lawyers and DA's don't make good historians, because they attack so viciously, or defend so blindly. English professors (like Evica, Scott and Mellen) don't make good historians, either, because cleverness is more important to them that objective history. After 25 years of JFK research, I'm more picky now than I was before. So, in summary, I still like some of what James DiEugenio wrote in the past -- but his 2012 attacks on Ruth Paine are unforgivable, in my opinion. The accusations -- that she took a deliberate role in the JFK murder -- are very harsh. With accusations so harsh, James ought to have at least one shred of real evidence -- and he doesn't. He just doesn't. I don't know yet about Carol Hewett, but in a couple weeks or so I'll know for sure. You say I don't produce evidence, Paul B., however, I really produce a lot -- not from guesswork or accusations -- but from witnesses like Harry Dean, and WC testimony that I deem reliable (which everybody disputes, because of all the fallacies in the WCR). Also, the personal papers of General Walker provide a lot of material evidence. But I don't have proof for my theory, yet. The good news for me is that I'm no longer 100% alone in my theory, since Jeff Caufield has produced a 900 page book on General Walker and the murder of JFK (2015) that just came out last September. It seems today that the only reason people blame Ruth Paine for anything to do with JFK is because they can't figure out how the Walker shooting fits into the JFK murder. They have failed for 50 years to see that the Walker shooting is the very KEY to the JFK murder and making LHO into the Patsy. It's the KEY. So they add lots of fiction to try to make it fit -- e.g. James' theory that Ruth Paine forged the Walker Note, the BYP and the Walker house photo, and that Ruth convinced Marina and the DeM's to perjure themselves about the Walker shooting. It's nonsense. Not just nonsense -- it's unforgivable nonsense, because it makes no sense at all, from any angle (e.g. WHY bother with anything like this), and because the net effect is to try to pin a role in the JFK murder on Ruth Paine. Ruth Paine is a nice, generous, Quaker Charity lady. To accuse her of evil intentions behind her charity is just Unforgivable. By the way, that's not just my opinion, but I get that from the Gospel -- from MARK 3:28-30. Jesus was doing charity and his opponents accused him of Satan worship. Jesus really let them have it. Regards, --Paul Trejo Edited November 15, 2015 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted November 15, 2015 Share Posted November 15, 2015 (edited) [..] So, in summary, I still like some of what James DiEugenio wrote in the past -- but his 2012 attacks on Ruth Paine are unforgivable, in my opinion. The accusations -- that she took a deliberate role in the JFK murder -- are very harsh. [...] Dear Paul, Well, Paul, if what you say is true, then one can only wonder why Ruth hasn't sued DiEugenio by now for slander. I suppose that would be against her Quaker principles? --Tommy Edited November 15, 2015 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted November 15, 2015 Author Share Posted November 15, 2015 [..] So, in summary, I still like some of what James DiEugenio wrote in the past -- but his 2012 attacks on Ruth Paine are unforgivable, in my opinion. The accusations -- that she took a deliberate role in the JFK murder -- are very harsh. [...] Dear Paul, Well, Paul, if what you say is true, then one can only wonder why Ruth hasn't sued DiEugenio by now for slander. I suppose that would be against her Quaker principles? --Tommy The impression I get, Tommy, is that Ruth Paine thinks of all CTers as madmen imitating Jim Garrison's trial against Clay Shaw. That is, they just blame everybody they feel like, willy-nilly, just to see if anything sticks. They don't care who they hurt in the process. So, I gather that Ruth Paine just thinks of James DiEugenio as a kook -- and probably presumes that most people (CTers aside) have the same opinion of James DiEugenio, so it doesn't bother her anymore. It used to. Maybe if somebody prevails upon Ruth Paine to sue James and Skyhorse for libel -- and continues to prod her to convince her that these defamatory statements are harming her children -- then maybe she might hire a lawyer, I don't know. But I sort of agree with you -- Ruth Paine is a Charitable person and very easy-going. A sincere, public apology would probably satisfy all her 50 years of complaints. Regards, --Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted November 15, 2015 Share Posted November 15, 2015 (edited) 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 Edited November 15, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted November 15, 2015 Share Posted November 15, 2015 (edited) [..] So, in summary, I still like some of what James DiEugenio wrote in the past -- but his 2012 attacks on Ruth Paine are unforgivable, in my opinion. The accusations -- that she took a deliberate role in the JFK murder -- are very harsh. [...] Dear Paul, Well, Paul, if what you say is true, then one can only wonder why Ruth hasn't sued DiEugenio by now for slander. I suppose that would be against her Quaker principles? --Tommy The impression I get, Tommy, is that Ruth Paine thinks of all CTers as madmen imitating Jim Garrison's trial against Clay Shaw. That is, they just blame everybody they feel like, willy-nilly, just to see if anything sticks. They don't care who they hurt in the process. So, I gather that Ruth Paine just thinks of James DiEugenio as a kook -- and probably presumes that most people (CTers aside) have the same opinion of James DiEugenio, so it doesn't bother her anymore. It used to. Maybe if somebody prevails upon Ruth Paine to sue James and Skyhorse for libel -- and continues to prod her to convince her that these defamatory statements are harming her children -- then maybe she might hire a lawyer, I don't know. But I sort of agree with you -- Ruth Paine is a Charitable person and very easy-going. A sincere, public apology would probably satisfy all her 50 years of complaints. Regards, --Paul Trejo You make it should like it would be Easy Money for Ruth! A Slam Dunk! Just think -- Then she could take in other nice-looking Russian girls who are separated from their American husbands. You know, to help them. And to ... improve her Russian! --Tommy Edited November 15, 2015 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted November 15, 2015 Share Posted November 15, 2015 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted November 15, 2015 Share Posted November 15, 2015 (edited) 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 Edited November 15, 2015 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted November 15, 2015 Share Posted November 15, 2015 (edited) 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)...~snip~... There's not a DVP "lie" in sight. And yet Healy has determined that I have lied in "at least 30 posts" at Amazon. Have at least SOME pity on a man's weak bladder, will ya, Healy! Jiminy Christmas! Edited November 15, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Von Pein Posted November 15, 2015 Share Posted November 15, 2015 (edited) Just to show the pot/kettle nature of the thinking of CTer Ben Holmes (who posts about 100 times every day at Amazon.com), I offer up this discussion from October 6 of this year (I won't go "off topic" again in this thread after I make my point here; I promise).... BEN HOLMES SCREAMS:YOU WANT TO CHERRY-PICK THE AUTOPSY REPORT!!! DAVID VON PEIN SAID:Everybody cherry-picks, Ben. LNers do it. CTers do it. Can't be helped. It's human nature and always will be. (And I already told you that same thing several times at this very forum in the past.)Plus....Ben Holmes is a HUGE hypocrite when he tosses this statement up in my face...."YOU WANT TO CHERRY-PICK THE AUTOPSY REPORT!!!"....because YOU, Benny, will forever "cherry pick" the autopsy report. You LIKE the "somewhat into the occipital" verbiage (which is obviously inaccurate as far as an "absence of scalp and bone" is concerned, as the photos and X-rays AND Zapruder Film readily confirm for all time)....but you sure as heck HATE these THREE parts of that VERY SAME autopsy report, don't you Mr. Kettle?....."It is our opinion that the deceased died as a result of two perforating gunshot wounds inflicted by high velocity projectiles fired by a person or persons unknown. The projectiles were fired from a point behind and somewhat above the level of the deceased."and...."The fatal missile entered the skull above and to the right of the external occipital protuberance."and...."The other missile...made its exit through the anterior surface of the neck."So, as we can easily see via the above examples of things that Ben will completely disregard (or label as "lies"), Hypocrite Ben Holmes is a much more blatant and brazen "cherry picker" of JFK's autopsy report than I have ever been. http://www.amazon.com/forum/history/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx33HXI3XVZDC8G&cdMsgID=Mx2TE33G766I1KP&cdMsgNo=7589&cdPage=304&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx3S6UAIF5802TL#Mx2TE33G766I1KP Edited November 15, 2015 by David Von Pein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David G. Healy Posted November 15, 2015 Share Posted November 15, 2015 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted November 15, 2015 Share Posted November 15, 2015 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? Amazon. Is that something like YELP? --Tommy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernie Lazar Posted November 15, 2015 Share Posted November 15, 2015 (edited) [..] So, in summary, I still like some of what James DiEugenio wrote in the past -- but his 2012 attacks on Ruth Paine are unforgivable, in my opinion. The accusations -- that she took a deliberate role in the JFK murder -- are very harsh. [...] Dear Paul, Well, Paul, if what you say is true, then one can only wonder why Ruth hasn't sued DiEugenio by now for slander. I suppose that would be against her Quaker principles? --Tommy I think you meant sue for libel (printed word) rather than slander (spoken word). However, not much chance Ruth could prevail given the requirements of American libel law -- unless she could prove malice (i.e. reckless disregard for truth). The Elmer Gertz lawsuit against Robert Welch, Inc. would be the most relevant precedent. The key question which would need to be answered is: Should Ruth Paine be considered a public figure by virtue of her involvement in the JFK murder narrative and her testimony before the WC? If the answer is "yes" -- then American courts have repeatedly ruled that robust public discussions about public figures (and, yes, even highly derogatory references to them) are protected. The other consideration (even if Ms. Paine had some legitimate potential defamation case) is: does she have the resources to pursue this matter to its final conclusion? In the Gertz case, for example, Elmer Gertz was involved in litigation for 14 years (!) before he finally prevailed. There were two jury trials, multiple appeals, and review by the U.S. Supreme Court. Ultimately, this all gets back to several first-principles questions which I have discussed before in my many exchanges with Paul Trejo: 1. Do all parties recognize and accept an agreed upon standard for what constitutes factual evidence? 2. Do all parties recognize and agree to use standard rules of evidence and logic? 3. Do all parties understand the difference between primary and secondary sources of evidence along with the inherent differences in the quality of those forms of evidence? 4. Do all parties understand and acknowledge that "eyewitness" testimony is not always the most reliable? 5. Do all parties utilize the same methodology for separating fact from fiction? If there is not universal agreement regarding the answers to these sorts of questions -- then, obviously, no resolution of anything in dispute is possible. Addendum: Incidentally, I would be interested in your answers to these questions: 1. Has there ever been a major event in U.S. history that did NOT produce a conspiracy theory? 2. Is there any example from all previous conspiracy theories during our history, where one side capitulated and said: "OK, you're right and I was wrong" ?? Edited November 15, 2015 by Ernie Lazar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now