Ruth Paine

[Glenn Nall]

that you call anyone's tone contemptuous.

amazing.

do you own a mirror in your house?

for the record, as much adversity as I find in a General Walker did it theory, I still think that you provide some useful content. not that it's "accidental" per se, but i have found some value in some of your opinings.

but sure, if other people's opinions make you uncomfortable - by all means, block them! (IMHO, Martin's always been one of the more gentlemanly posters in this forum. the only statement your blocking of his posts makes is one that doesn't serve your credibility too well.)

[Glenn Nall]

thank you

you realize, Martin, that this move of Paul's means he may never know the truth about General Walker's and Burl Ives' secret, and very "close," association. 'cause I'M not about to tell him.

damn. and he was so close to solving this thing.

Edited October 23, 2015 by Glenn Nall

[Glenn Nall]

Question for Paul --

when and where did Ruth and Lee first meet? i don't remember. IMHO.

[Paul Trejo]

that you call anyone's tone contemptuous.

amazing.

do you own a mirror in your house?

for the record, as much adversity as I find in a General Walker did it theory, I still think that you provide some useful content. not that it's "accidental" per se, but i have found some value in some of your opinings.

but sure, if other people's opinions make you uncomfortable - by all means, block them! (IMHO, Martin's always been one of the more gentlemanly posters in this forum. the only statement your blocking of his posts makes is one that doesn't serve your credibility too well.)

Well, Glenn, almost none of my posts are contemptuous. I maintain decorum and respect as far as possible. On the other hand, my posts are LOADED with content.

It isn't only whether Martin is a gentleman or not, but the content of his posts is rather useless. What's his point? Just to scream, "NO!"

Come to think of it, Glenn, what;s YOUR point? Your sarcasm and continual presence give an illusion of contribution, but I need to watch you now, for paucity of content.

TRY TO FOCUS PEOPLE. The purpose of this thread is to gather specific data about Ruth Paine.

I'm not taking a poll about how many people doubt her -- I gather that's everybody here except DVP -- the LN guy.

Are we really that two-valued?

Does nobody have a nuance about Ruth Paine?

Please, please, please -- if you have SPECIFIC DATA about Ruth Paine's errors or other wrongs -- PLEASE SHARE THEM.

So far, I'm getting generic suspicion -- WITH NO DATA AT ALL.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited October 23, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Glenn Nall]

Forgive me, Paul, but your clear assumption (and statement) that you know as much of this mystery as anyone else in this forum is about as contemptuous as can be. Your common opinions poorly disguised as statements of fact are contemptuous.

the fact that I just extended a modicum of recognition to your content and you reply with insult is rather contemptuous.

Have you read Richard Bartholomew's paper on the UT Rambler? It's not so much about the damn car as it is about an enormous confluence of influential people - among them the Paines, and the Paines and Bell and General Dynamics and DH Byrd and - oh, lord, this list extends ...

I'm thinking you haven't read this thing. It proposes no accusation, or theory, but a singularly well researched piece on "who knew who."

There's probably a ton of it you'll choose to not believe.

[Paul Trejo]

Forgive me, Paul, but your clear assumption (and statement) that you know as much of this mystery as anyone else in this forum is about as contemptuous as can be. Your common opinions poorly disguised as statements of fact are contemptuous.

the fact that I just extended a modicum of recognition to your content and you reply with insult is rather contemptuous...

I beg your pardon, Glenn, but my own opinion about myself -- whatever it is -- can hardly be held to express contempt about anybody else.

My opinions are hardly common -- my theory about General Walker masterminding the JFK murder was unique on this Forum since 2010, until the appearance of Jeff Caufield's new book just last month.

As for what I consider to be fact -- I regard sworn testimony that has not been contradicted to be FACT. That is also a universally accepted legal definition. I also regard material evidence to be facts.

This is what I demand from anybody who claims to assert a new fact to the JFK assassination debate. We are all entitled to our own opinions, but we are not entitled to our own "facts."

Your attitude towards me in this thread has been one of ridicule -- and though you do recognize the Content in some of my posts, still, that doesn't prevent you from acting as the Smart Alek here, and encouraging that attitude in others.

I'm very sincere in asking for HONEST INFORMATION about Ruth Paine. I certainly deserve more than the Smart Alek insults that you and Martin have been posting...

Also -- it does no good at all just to keep repeating that Michael Paine worked at Bell Helicopter. If you have something SPECIFIC to charge, then please do that. But the generic suspicion, all by itself, is just useless. We've heard enough of it by now.

It's not what I "choose" to believe, Glenn. It's the ACTUAL, SPECIFIC EVIDENCE that is presented. Otherwise, y'all are just taking a CT on blind faith. And that's pretty sad. And no, I don't regard that as a contemptuous remark -- because I still hold out hope for you.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited October 23, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Glenn Nall]

don't read ABOUT it. READ it. as i stated, his somewhat minor points about the damn car are well overshadowed by the very complex "interrelationships."

and i said nothing about that Michael worked at Bell. I just mentioned Bell. There's a wee bit more history there than Michael's employ.

and that's just a sampling.

you should read it. pick out the parts you like and disregard the rest.

[Glenn Nall]

Forgive me, Paul, but your clear assumption (and statement) that you know as much of this mystery as anyone else in this forum is about as contemptuous as can be. Your common opinions poorly disguised as statements of fact are contemptuous.

the fact that I just extended a modicum of recognition to your content and you reply with insult is rather contemptuous.

Have you read Richard Bartholomew's paper on the UT Rambler? It's not so much about the damn car as it is about an enormous confluence of influential people - among them the Paines, and the Paines and Bell and General Dynamics and DH Byrd and - oh, lord, this list extends ...

I'm thinking you haven't read this thing. It proposes no accusation, or theory, but a singularly well researched piece on "who knew who."

There's probably a ton of it you'll choose to not believe.

I beg your pardon, Glenn, but my own opinion about myself -- whatever it is -- can hardly be held to express contempt about anybody else.

My opinions are hardly common -- my theory about General Walker masterminding the JFK murder was unique on this Forum since 2010, until the appearance of Jeff Caufield's new book just last month.

As for what I consider to be fact -- I regard sworn testimony that has not been contradicted to be FACT. That is also a universally accepted legal definition. I also regard material facts to be facts.

This is what I demand from anybody who claims to assert a new fact to the JFK assassination debate. We are all entitled to our own opinions, but we are not entitled to our own "facts."

Your attitude towards me in this thread has been one of ridicule -- and though you do recognize the Content in my posts, still, that doesn't prevent you from acting as the Smart Alek here, and encouraging that attitude in others. I'm very sincere in asking for HONEST INFORMATION about Ruth Paine.

I certainly deserve more than the Smart Alek insults that you and Martin have been posting.

As for the UT Rambler, yes, I've read a lot about it. It's a puzzle to me because I happen to accept the testimony of Dallas Deputy Sheriff Roger Craig -- and he does mention Ruth Paine. So, I'm glad you brought that up.

It's worth a discussion. IMHO, Lee Harvey Oswald did get into a Green Rambler at the TSBD immediately after the JFK murder -- but also IMHO Lee Harvey Oswald lied to Roger Craig when he told her that the car belonged to Ruth Paine.

If somebody has better evidence one way or the other, I want to hear it.

Also -- it does no good at all just to keep repeating that Michael Paine worked at Bell Helicopter. Don't you get it? If you have something SPECIFIC to charge, then do that. But the generic suspicion is just useless. We've heard enough of it by now.

It's not what I "choose" to believe, Glenn. It's the ACTUAL, SPECIFIC EVIDENCE that is presented. Otherwise, y'all are just taking a CT on blind faith. And that's pretty sad. And no, I don't regard that as a contemptuous remark -- because I still hold out hope for you.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

I'll ask you to forgive me and I'll behave better. I told Martin that i had no control over ignoring some of your contemptuous statements (contempt doesn't require intent - it can arrive in the form of sanctimony, superioritive inflection, or presenting opinion as fact.), but of course I do. without blocking you, even.

in any case, my apologies - I'll behave. which means I'll have to ignore quite a lot of your "content."

[Paul Trejo]

I'll ask you to forgive me and I'll behave better. I told Martin that i had no control over ignoring some of your contemptuous statements (contempt doesn't require intent - it can arrive in the form of sanctimony, superioritive inflection, or presenting opinion as fact.), but of course I do. without blocking you, even.

in any case, my apologies - I'll behave. which means I'll have to ignore quite a lot of your "content."

Thanks, Glenn, for the adjustment. You represent many CTers, I believe, and you can share interesting content. I hope we can share SPECIFIC DATA about Ruth Paine.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited October 23, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

bump

Edited October 23, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Martin Blank]

As for what I consider to be fact -- I regard sworn testimony that has not been contradicted to be FACT. That is also a universally accepted legal definition. I also regard material facts to be facts.

legal definition of fact:

A thing done; an action performed or an Incident transpiring; an event or circumstance; an actual occurrence. In the earlier days of the law “fact” was used almost exclusively in the sense of “action”or “deed;” but, although this usage survives, in some such phrases as “accessary before the fact,” it lias now acquired the broader meaning given above.A fact is either a state of things, that is, an existence, or a motion, that is, an event.1 Benth. Jud. Ev. 48.In the law of evidence. A circumstance, event or occurrence as it actually takes or took place; a physical object or appearance, as it actually exists or existed. An actual and absolute reality, as distinguished from mere supposition or opinion; a truth, as distinguished from fiction or error. Burrill, Circ. Ev. 218.”Fact” is very frequently used in opposition or contrast to “law.” Thus, questions offact are for the jury ; questions of law for the court. So an attorney at laic is an officer of the courts of justice; an attorney in fact is appointed by the written authorization of a principal to manage business affairs usually not professional. Fraud in fact consists in an actual intention to defraud, carried into effect; while fraud imputed by law arises from the man’s conduct in its necessary relations and consequences.The word is much used in phrases which contrast it with law. Law is a principle; factis an event Law is conceived; fact is actual. Law is a rule of duty; fact is that which has been according to or in contravention of the rule. The distinction is well illustrated in the rule that the existence of foreign laws is matter of fact. Within the territory of its jurisdiction, law operates as an obligatory rule which judges must recognize and enforce; but, in a tribunal outside that jurisdiction, it loses its obligatory force and its claim to judicial notice. The fact that it exists, if important to the rights of parties, must be alleged and proved the same as the actual existence of any other institution. Abbott. The terms “fact” and “truth” are often used in common parlance as synonymous,but as employed in reference to pleading, they are widely different. A fact in pleading is a circumstance, act, event, or incident; a truth Is the legal principle which declares or governs the facts and their operative effect. Admitting the facts stated in a complaint the truth may be that the plaintiff is not entitled, upon the face of his complaint to what the claims. The mode in which a defendant sets up that truth for his protection is a demurrer. Drake v. Cockroft, 4 E. D. Smith (N. Y.) 37.

fact: noun

1.

something that actually exists; reality; truth:

Your fears have no basis in fact.

2.

something known to exist or to have happened:

Space travel is now a fact.

3.

a truth known by actual experience or observation; something knownto be true:

Scientists gather facts about plant growth.

4.

something said to be true or supposed to have happened:

The facts given by the witness are highly questionable.

5.

Law.. Often, facts. an actual or alleged event or circumstance, asdistinguished from its legal effect or consequence.

Compare question of fact, question of law.

sso a fact doesn't necessarily have to be true, i take from this: something said to be true or supposed to have happened:

The facts given by the witness are highly questionable.

universally accepted? do we know if all legal systems accept this? at the present time we don't

just subjecting your facts to close scrutiny. i made no ad hominem attacks.

Edited October 23, 2015 by Martin Blank

[Paul Trejo]

...Have you read Richard Bartholomew's paper on the UT Rambler? It's not so much about the damn car as it is about an enormous confluence of influential people - among them the Paines, and the Paines and Bell and General Dynamics and DH Byrd and - oh, lord, this list extends ...

I'm thinking you haven't read this thing. It proposes no accusation, or theory, but a singularly well researched piece on "who knew who."

There's probably a ton of it you'll choose to not believe.

As for the UT Rambler, Glenn, yes, I've read a lot about it. It's a puzzle to me because I happen to accept the testimony of Dallas Deputy Sheriff Roger Craig -- and he does mention Ruth Paine. So, I'm glad you brought that up.

It's worth a discussion. IMHO, Lee Harvey Oswald did get into a Green Rambler at the TSBD immediately after the JFK murder -- but also IMHO Lee Harvey Oswald lied to Roger Craig when he told Craig in the presence of Captain Will Fritz that the car belonged to Ruth Paine.

For one thing, Ruth Paine only had one station wagon, and she and Marina were at home when the JFK murder occurred, and her car was in her driveway at the time. Ruth had recently come back from taking her own baby girl to a medical appointment that morning, and the car stayed in her driveway and was still there when the DPD came rushing into her home to search it after LHO's arrest.

If somebody has better evidence one way or the other, I want to hear it.

I maintain that LHO had ACCOMPLICES in everything political that he did -- and that his accomplices had automobiles (though LHO himself didn't). But c'mon, people, how many Green Rambler station wagons were there in Dallas in November 1963; has anybody counted?

I maintain that the FBI and Will Fritz and the WC chose to SHUT DOWN the true testimony of Deputy Sheriff Roger Craig because his testimony (like that of Sylvia Odio) was evidence that LHO had ACCOMPLICES -- and the dogma of the WC was that LHO was a "Lone Nut."

That's the only reason that Roger Craig was shut down.

But at that point Roger Craig didn't know who his friends were anymore -- and there was no investigation into LHO's claim that the car he got into at the TSBD belonged to Ruth Paine or somebody else -- instead, EVERYTHING that Roger Craig said was presumed to be a Big Fat Lie.

I truly feel sorry for Roger Craig and his family. This ruined his life.

Roger Craig told the Truth as he knew it -- but part of that truth was that LHO told him that the car belonged to Ruth Paine. Roger Craig was in no position -- all by himself and in opposition to the WC -- to investigate that claim. That's the tragedy of the UT Rambler story, IMHO.

If somebody has better evidence one way or the other, I want to hear it.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited October 23, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Martin Blank]

It's worth a discussion. IMHO, Lee Harvey Oswald did get into a Green Rambler at the TSBD immediately after the JFK murder -- but also IMHO Lee Harvey Oswald lied to Roger Craig when he told her that the car belonged to Ruth Paine.

If somebody has better evidence one way or the other, I want to hear it.

i see no evidence here under the legal definition:

In law, various things presented in court for the purpose of proving or disproving a question under inquiry. Includes testimony, documents, photographs, maps and video tapes.

Trial evidence consists of:

1. The sworn testimony of witnesses, on both direct and cross-examination, regardless of who called the witness; 2. The exhibits which have been received into evidence; and Any facts to which all the lawyers have agreed or stipulated.

Arguments and statements by lawyers are not evidence. The lawyers are not witnesses. What they say in their opening statements, closing arguments, and at other times is intended to help you interpret the evidence, but it is not evidence; Questions and objections by lawyers are not evidence. Attorneys have a duty to their clients to object when they believe a question is improper under the rules of evidence; Testimony that has been excluded or stricken, or that the jurors have been instructed to disregard, is not evidence and must not be considered.

[Glenn Nall]

just sayin':

sworn testimony that has not been contradicted IS ONLY sworn testimony that has not been contradicted.; it is not necessarily fact

in the strict definition of the word, idea, concept, "Fact," uncontested sworn testimony can either contain or not contain fact. i'm sure you would agree that you know of examples of witnesses lying under oath who were never challenged or proven to have lied. this would constitute sworn testimony uncontradicted. but it was still unfactual.

if you can't think of any, I can help.

[Glenn Nall]

As for what I consider to be fact -- I regard sworn testimony that has not been contradicted to be FACT. That is also a universally accepted legal definition. I also regard material facts to be facts.

legal definition of fact:

A thing done; an action performed or an Incident transpiring; an event or circumstance; an actual occurrence. In the earlier days of the law “fact” was used almost exclusively in the sense of “action”or “deed;” but, although this usage survives, in some such phrases as “accessary before the fact,” it lias now acquired the broader meaning given above.A fact is either a state of things, that is, an existence, or a motion, that is, an event.1 Benth. Jud. Ev. 48.In the law of evidence. A circumstance, event or occurrence as it actually takes or took place; a physical object or appearance, as it actually exists or existed. An actual and absolute reality, as distinguished from mere supposition or opinion; a truth, as distinguished from fiction or error. Burrill, Circ. Ev. 218.”Fact” is very frequently used in opposition or contrast to “law.” Thus, questions offact are for the jury ; questions of law for the court. So an attorney at laic is an officer of the courts of justice; an attorney in fact is appointed by the written authorization of a principal to manage business affairs usually not professional. Fraud in fact consists in an actual intention to defraud, carried into effect; while fraud imputed by law arises from the man’s conduct in its necessary relations and consequences.The word is much used in phrases which contrast it with law. Law is a principle; factis an event Law is conceived; fact is actual. Law is a rule of duty; fact is that which has been according to or in contravention of the rule. The distinction is well illustrated in the rule that the existence of foreign laws is matter of fact. Within the territory of its jurisdiction, law operates as an obligatory rule which judges must recognize and enforce; but, in a tribunal outside that jurisdiction, it loses its obligatory force and its claim to judicial notice. The fact that it exists, if important to the rights of parties, must be alleged and proved the same as the actual existence of any other institution. Abbott. The terms “fact” and “truth” are often used in common parlance as synonymous,but as employed in reference to pleading, they are widely different. A fact in pleading is a circumstance, act, event, or incident; a truth Is the legal principle which declares or governs the facts and their operative effect. Admitting the facts stated in a complaint the truth may be that the plaintiff is not entitled, upon the face of his complaint to what the claims. The mode in which a defendant sets up that truth for his protection is a demurrer. Drake v. Cockroft, 4 E. D. Smith (N. Y.) 37.

fact: noun

1.

something that actually exists; reality; truth:

Your fears have no basis in fact.

2.

something known to exist or to have happened:

Space travel is now a fact.

3.

a truth known by actual experience or observation; something knownto be true:

Scientists gather facts about plant growth.

4.

something said to be true or supposed to have happened:

The facts given by the witness are highly questionable.

5.

Law.. Often, facts. an actual or alleged event or circumstance, asdistinguished from its legal effect or consequence.

Compare question of fact, question of law.

sso a fact doesn't necessarily have to be true, i take from this: something said to be true or supposed to have happened:

The facts given by the witness are highly questionable.

universally accepted? do we know if all legal systems accept this? at the present time we don't

just subjecting your facts to close scrutiny. i made no ad hominem attacks.

with this one thing i have to disagree:

sso a fact doesn't necessarily have to be true, [actually, it does] i take from this: something said to be true or supposed to have happened:

The facts given by the witness are highly questionable.

I believe the use of the word "facts" in this instance is more of a euphemism for a broader term like "statement" or "testimony," which imply neither truth or untruth. I still hold to the idea that the word "fact" by definition refers only to something which is known truth.