Ruth Paine

[Paul Brancato]

Meanwhile no one is saying there is direct evidence that Ruth Paine was working for the CIA. But there is an awful lot of circumstantial evidence suggesting that. Her family, many of them, were in the CIA. Her mother was best friends with Alan Dulles' lifelong mistress.

It's funny how you are fond of saying that Marina was truthful to the WC, but so easily dismiss her statement to Garrison about Ruth possibly being CIA connected.

[Paul Trejo]

Meanwhile no one is saying there is direct evidence that Ruth Paine was working for the CIA. But there is an awful lot of circumstantial evidence suggesting that. Her family, many of them, were in the CIA. Her mother was best friends with Alan Dulles' lifelong mistress.

It's funny how you are fond of saying that Marina was truthful to the WC, but so easily dismiss her statement to Garrison about Ruth possibly being CIA connected.

Well, Paul B., that was already dealt with.

Marina Oswald didn't make any "statement to Garrison about Ruth being possibly CIA connected."

Instead, Jim Garrison tried to badger Marina into saying it -- and he wouldn't take no for an answer; the same with Scambira.

However, Marina *evaded* those words that Garrison and Scambria were trying to force into her mouth.

The text is very plain.

Or do we really need to review it again?

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited October 25, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

It's not evidence it's hearsay at best.

And it is senseless to think you or any of us is qualified to be able to know when Hemming was lying or telling the truth simply by how well his statements fit with our theories.

My point is, Paul B., that people aren't even producing documented HEARSAY when it comes to Ruth Paine and the CIA!

Just NOTHING!!!

=*=

As for Hemming, he was both (1) a chronic fibber; and (2) directly involved the JFK killers.

A.J. Weberman came closest to solving the JFK murder -- except that he fell into Jim Garrison's CIA-did-it trap.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited October 25, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Brancato]

How do you know Hemming was directly involved with the killers?

I did review Marina's testimony before I posted that. Again, you are choosing to characterize her testimony a certain way, spinning it as it were. That's just your reading of it.

[Paul Trejo]

How do you know Hemming was directly involved with the killers?

I didn't say I *know* it, Paul B., I said I'm *convinced* of it -- based on A.J. Weberman's ground-breaking work and his argumentation, and on lots of circumstantial evidence, e.g.:

(1) Hemming's confession to A.J. Weberman that he offered LHO twice the price of his rifle to bring it to the TSBD on 11/22/1963. This factor answers dozens of questions, e.g. how the Conspirators got their hands on LHO's rifle.

(2) The fact that Hemming's own rifle was picked up in Dallas on 11/22/1963, as placed by Loran Hall.

(3) Hemming's proximity to Loran Hall, who was also at Walker's home in 1963, and whom Harry Dean says drove LHO from NOLA to Dallas to Mexico City, and whom Hemming says was in Dallas on 11/22/1963.

(4) Hemming's proximity to General Walker, based on Walker's personal papers and their correspondence in 1963.

(5) Hemming's proximity to Guy Banister in NOLA in connection with Cuban Exile training and Interpen.

(6) Hemming's vast knowledge of nearly every detail of every participant in the JFK murder; and his vast willingness to lie to everybody and spin everybody's head around.

(7) A.J. Weberman's certainty after years of interviews that Hemming was a participant in the JFK murder.

Anybody who knows the work of A.J. Weberman with JFK research with its focus on Gerry Patrick Hemming knows these facts -- but granted, all his NODULES comprise a lot of reading.

Now, I don't agree with EVERYTHING that Weberman wrote -- for example, I think he jumped to conclusions about the CIA far too often -- following Jim Garrison.

But regarding Gerry Patrick Hemming, A.J. Weberman ran circles around Jim Garrison.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited October 26, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

I did review Marina's testimony before I posted that. Again, you are choosing to characterize her testimony a certain way, spinning it as it were. That's just your reading of it.

REALLY?? OK, let's look at it AGAIN:

--------- BEGIN EXCERPT OF GARRISON INQUISITION OF MARINA OSWALD -------

Juror: Do you still see Ruth Paine?

Mrs Porter: No, I like her and appreciate what she did. I was advised by the Secret Service not to be connected with her, seems like she was...not connected... she was sympathizing with the CIA. She wrote letters over there and they told me for my own reputation, to stay away.

Juror: The Secret Service told you this?

Mrs Porter: Yes

Mr Alcock: What did they say?

Mrs Porter: They didn't say anything personal about her, but they said it's better for me to stay away from her for a while, it seemed like she was sympathizing with CIA.

Mr Garrison: Couldn't they say she was connected to the Central Intelligence Agency, because that's our conclusion about Ruth Paine.

Mrs Porter: I don't know if she was connected with CIA, but they told me to stay away... Seems like she had friends over there and it would be bad for me if people find out connection between me and Ruth and CIA.

Mr. Sciambra: In other words, you were left with the distinct impression that she in some way was connected with the CIA?

Mrs Porter: Yes.

--------- END EXCERPT OF GARRISON INQUISITION OF MARINA OSWALD -------

OK, here's what Marina Oswald-Porter said -- word for word about Ruth Paine:

"Seems like she was...NOT CONNECTED...she was "sympathizing" with the CIA."

So, her actual phrase was, "NOT CONNECTED." Hmm.

The context is that the Secret Service was commanding Marina Oswald to disconnect from Ruth Paine because she was, as Marina put it, "SYMPATHIZING" with the CIA.

Whatever in Hades that means.

Also, nobody bothered to ask what "SYMPATHIZING" with the CIA meant -- or why the Secret Service demanded that Marina Oswald disconnect from Ruth Paine because of it.

But Marina volunteered an answer, anyway. In her words: "She wrote letters over there and they told me for my own reputation, to stay away."

OK, let's take this slowly. "She wrote letters over there." Does anybody see the historical link -- this is about the famous WALKER LETTER that the Secret Service accused Ruth Paine of forging.

That's plain to the historian. That's not my imagination. The Secret Service, says Ruth Paine, banged on her door two days after her Care package to Marina was received by the Secret Service, and they were already ANGRY, and in Ruth Paine's face and accusing her of FORGING the WALKER LETTER. Ruth Paine always told the truth -- and she told them quickly and point blank, "I never saw that letter before in my life." But the Secret Service refused to believe her, and they kept brow-beating her. "WHY did you FORGE it?" and "What is the Secret Message you are passing to Marina Oswald?!"

Even though Ruth Paine consistently denied it for 50 years -- and even though handwriting experts proved that the WALKER LETTER was written in LHO's own hand -- that stupid Mythology that Ruth Paine FORGED the WALKER LETTER continues down to this very day.

Well, it also continued in the house-arrest in which Marina Oswald was kept -- and Marina admits that the Secret Service told her that "She wrote letters over there."

And then Marina continued about the Secret Service: "and they told me for my own reputation, to stay away."

For her own REPUTATION? REPUTATION WITH WHOM? Clearly, they meant, reputation with the Secret Service!

Obviously, the Secret Service had just botched protecting JFK, and the heat was on. They were desperate to keep everything SIMPLE, and the easiest way to do that was to ISOLATE Marina Oswald as far as possible. They couldn't kick out her Business Managers or her Family -- but they sure could kick out Ruth Paine. So they did.

Yet here is what Marina Oswald-Porter said: "They didn't say anything personal about her, but they said it's better for me to stay away from her for a while, it seemed like she was sympathizing with CIA."

Once again, notice her EXACT WORDS. It wasn't Marina's idea, it was the Secret Service idea, and besides that, they didn't say Ruth Paine was "CONNECTED" with the CIA, but they said it "SEEMED LIKE" Ruth Paine was "SYMPATHIZING" with the CIA.

Again -- the meaning of this stupid phrase was never even questioned. Instead, here are the words that Jim Garrison tried to force into Marina Oswald-Porter's mouth:

Mr. Garrison: Couldn't they say she was CONNECTED to the CIA, because that's OUR conclusion about Ruth Paine.

And there we have it. The source of the phrase, "CONNECTED" to the CIA comes from Jim Garrison. Marina had explicitly used the phrase, "NOT CONNECTED" but Jim Garrison, pushy as he was, tried to get her to reverse her own words.

And here is what Marina replied: "I don't know if she was connected with CIA, but they told me to stay away..."

So, clearly, Marina was NOT AGREEING with Jim Garrison, despite his hard push. Then Marina continued:

"Seems like she had friends over there and it would be bad for me if people find out connection between me and Ruth and CIA."

Again, Marina is explaining what the SECRET SERVICE told her, and not what SHE THOUGHT. Clearly the Secret Service was playing with her mind (not unlike Jim Garrison).

Also, notice Marina's poor English -- clearly she is still an ESL student of English.

Then, instead of accepting what Marina repeatedly said, Andrew Sciambria directly forced these weasel words into Marina's mouth"

Mr. Sciambra: In other words, you were left with the distinct impression that she IN SOME WAY was CONNECTED with the CIA?

What makes these "weasel words" is the phrase, "IN SOME WAY," which means, "BY ANYBODY'S DEFINITION". And Sciambria KNOWS VERY WELL he is speaking with a Russian speaker with limited English skills, and that he is badgering his witness.

So, Marina simply says, "Yes," that is, SOMEBODY might interpret it as SOME SORT of a "CONNECTION."

And that's where this inquisition ends.

Marina herself CLEARLY rejected any idea that Ruth Paine was a CIA Agent. Also, the Secret Service who was pressuring her to disconnect from Ruth Paine NEVER said that Ruth Paine was a CIA Agent.

But Jim Garrison and Andrew Sciambria were CLEARLY trying to force Marina to say that Ruth Paine was a CIA Agent.

That seems obvious to me.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited October 26, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Martin Blank]

documented hearsay?

that doesn't substantiate anything

next we'll have the variable constant.

[Paul Brancato]

Marina was left with the distinct impression that Ruth Paine was in some way connected to the CIA.

[Paul Brancato]

Marina was left with the distinct impression that Ruth Paine was in some way connected to the CIA.

[Paul Trejo]

Marina was left with the distinct impression that Ruth Paine was in some way connected to the CIA.

Yes, after being badgered by heavy-hitters Jim Garrison and Andrew Sciambra, those were the words to which Marina said the word, "Yes."

But since those were weasel words, then they can also work for the Defense Team. Let's review AGAIN:

Mr. Sciambra: In other words, you were left with the distinct impression that she IN SOME WAY was CONNECTED with the CIA?

In the English language, the phrase, "IN SOME WAY," can mean virtually ANYTHING.

For example, "...the distinct impression that she *BY AN SS DEFINITION* was *CONNECTED* with the CIA?"

Yes, of course, if that's how SS defined the word, "Connected," then, yes, of course.

The facts are plain. Marina's own words were "NOT CONNECTED." Garrison and Sciambria kept badgering her until she was manipulated into saying the word "YES" to their nonsense.

And now the CIA-did-it CTers want to take *this* to the bank!

Well, it's a zero deposit, fellas! It's a wooden nickel!

Only a simple bias could claim that Marina Oswald, by this badgering, actually said the OPPOSITE of her very own words about Ruth Paine!

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited October 25, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Brancato]

Your spinning Paul. She could have said no.

[Cliff Varnell]

How do you know Hemming was directly involved with the killers?

I didn't say I *know* it, Paul B., I said I'm *convinced* of it -- based on A.J. Weberman's ground-breaking work and his argumentation, and on lots of circumstantial evidence, e.g.:

(1) Hemming's confession to A.J. Weberman that he offered LHO twice the price of his rifle to bring it to the TSBD on 11/22/1963.

Conflating the Oswald Assassination with the Kennedy Assassination is second nature in JFK research.

Another perfect example.

Hemming was involved with JFK's killers 'cause he said he interacted with Oswald?

Either one has a grasp of the principle of "compartmentalization" in intel ops -- or one does not.

[Paul Trejo]

Conflating the Oswald Assassination with the Kennedy Assassination is second nature in JFK research.

Another perfect example.

Hemming was involved with JFK's killers 'cause he said he interacted with Oswald?

Either one has a grasp of the principle of "compartmentalization" in intel ops -- or one does not.

Well, Cliff, I find your argument interesting -- and I'd like to see how it might apply to the unfounded but harsh attacks upon Ruth Paine over the years.

Let's take this question as presented by A.J. Weberman about Gerry Patrick Hemming again, please.

According to Weberman, Hemming confessed to him that he offered LHO twice the price of his rifle if LHO would bring it to the TSBD building on 11/22/1963.

Now -- in my reading, this is a conspiracy to make LHO a Patsy in the JFK killing. (And thus, makes Hemming's contacts, like General Walker and Interpen, into the Ground Crew of the JFK killing, instead of the CIA, and so removes the motive for the nonsense that Ruth Paine was in the CIA.)

Again -- Weberman's claim about Hemming's offer of twice the price of his rifle to bring it to the TSBD on 11/22/1963 is, IMHO, part of an obvious conspiracy to make LHO a Patsy in the JFK killing.

What does it mean to you?

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited October 25, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Andric Perez]

Ruth and Michael Paine share far too many coincidences and connections to be dismissed as innocent bystanders. As some researchers have asserted - given their associations with Oswald - they should have been arrested and interrogated after the murder ... but instead they become the most quoted and interviewed of all WC testimonies.

They are suspicious beyond belief ... the innocent Quaker handlers of the alleged assassin. The Paines were most accommodating to the Oswalds before November 22nd; but highly incriminating afterwards. According to Walt Brown, the Paines were the most oft-questioned witnesses to appear before the Commission. With friends like the Paines, who would need enemies?

Ruth being simply a devoted Quaker and charity worker is analogous to believing that Carlos Marcello was just a tomato salesman. Yet we are led to believe that the alleged assassin’s family being taken care of by the generosity of the Good Samaritan Ruth Paine was a coincidental accident of history.

Ruth Paine is surrounded by a family of intelligence professionals. Her father (William Avery Hyde) was described before the Warren Commission as an insurance underwriter. He was affiliated with the Agency for International Development and became their regional adviser for all of Latin America.... an agency riddled with CIA overtones. John Hoke, (Ruth’s sister Sylvia's husband) also worked for AID. And her sister Sylvia worked directly for the CIA itself. Michael Paine is another long interesting (similar) story in himself.

The Paines show up at a convenient juncture in the Oswald story... and quickly go away after the fact. They have a convenient separation and living arrangement, with a cover story of learning to speak Russian. The incriminating evidence conveniently springs out of their magical garage, including the Walker note (after the fact). Almost everything that would convict Oswald in the public mind came out of the Paine's garage. Their initial meeting at a social party ... just too many coincidences for the rational mind.

Well, Gene, you have plenty of suspicion, but very few facts to go on. The fact that Ruth's father was a leader for AID (Agency for International Development) means nothing at all, really. You don't like the politics of AID? That's your opinion.

The fact that Ruth's sister was in the CIA is also incidental -- accidental and means nothing at all.

Ruth remains a Quaker to this day. Ruth never changed her story one iota since 1963. Ruth has never dodged the Media or any interviewers, except those rabid zombies who simply scream in her face that she's a L-I-A-R without any evidence at all.

Ruth did charity work by taking care of the PREGNANT Marina Oswald when Lee Oswald was out of work (which was frequent).

To try to read something sinister in that shows that the JFK researcher is REACHING. Grasping at straws, really.

I have no dog in this fight -- If somebody has something on Ruth Paine, I'd like to see it. But just tossing around the naked speculation, as Jim Garrison once did, that Ruth Paine *must have* been guilty of *something* is just silly, isn't it?

Ruth Paine was kind enough to respond to Jim Garrison's subpoena of her, though she didn't have to, and in fact the Dallas City Hall advised her not to. Jim Garrison grilled her for hours, in his swaggering manner. He found nothing at all. He would have charged her if he had -- believe me.

At the end, Jim Garrison just gave Ruth Paine his puppy-dog eyes and begged her to help him find some clues. But Ruth Paine had already done everything she could. If the US Government couldn't solve the JFK murder -- why expect her to?

I repeat -- if Ruth Paine is withholding anything at all, it would be about her former husband, Michael Paine, and his possible role or knowledge about LHO's shooting at General Walker. Yet since this was the 1960's, the odds are very high that Michael Paine told Ruth Paine absolutely nothing about his possible role or knowledge about LHO's shooting at General Walker.

Given that, Ruth surely can't tell what she doesn't know. Also, Ruth's character clearly isn't given to spreading rumors without facts. She's an upstanding Christian in that way.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

New York Times (December 16, 2014): "As a cold war policy tool, the agency was, at times, used as a front for C.I.A. operations and operatives. Among the most infamous examples was the Office of Public Safety, a U.S.A.I.D. police training program in the Southern Cone that also trained torturers." http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/04/15/when-is-foreign-aid-meddling/secret-programs-hurt-foreign-aid-efforts

Edited October 25, 2015 by Andric Perez

[Chris Newton]

Quote

Also, you have cleared up the messiness of Jim Garrison's innuendo, when your official citation shows that George Bouhe certainly did NOT live in the same apartment complex as Jack Ruby, and so did NOT share the same swimming pool.

Yes, you could be right or the apartments on both sides of the street were part of a complex that shared a swimming pool. I'll look into it.

Following up:

Today, the Apartments, on both sides of the street, in the 4700 block of Homer St., Dallas, TX are in a complex. They are obviously of the same construction externally and appear from the outside to be similar units. The units on the west side where Ruby lived have a pool in the center courtyard. The units on Bouhe's side, #4740 have no pool but what appears to be a park or common grassy area. I see no reason to disbelieve Garrison's statement and that #4740 residents would have used the pool across the street. It actually makes me question Bouhe's statement of the cost differential of the apartments, so I'm going to check rates and rentals next.