Ruth Paine

[David G. Healy]

Paul Trejo - I finally figured something out. You think that you are a teacher and this is your classroom where you are clearly in charge.

Bzzzt!. Wrong again, Paul B.

I'm open and honest. This thread about Ruth Paine is to catalog objections to her story as given to the WC and consistently for the past 50 years to every interviewer afterward.

The attacks and smears on Ruth Paine are plentiful and pitiful. .

All your CIA-did-it nonsense is backing up in your brain. Your team is letting the Real Killers go scot free -- and attacking Quaker Charity Ladies with WILD theories because you have nothing better to offer.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

LMAO! WOW! Ya know Paul T., it might be better if you simply asked Ruth Paine for a contract to write the book that you think she may be seeking, hmm?

And what's this pandering nonsense, "Quaker Charity Ladies"? Capital letters and all, like it's a formal group? No such animal that I can find.

[David G. Healy]

Vietnam was not abstract Paul. Nor was Watergate.... Nor was Bebe Rebozo... Nixon smelled, still does...

Ruth Paine needs a supporting cast of characters to go on the record supporting her (and your evidently) contentions regarding her alleged Christian charity.

She may well be caught up in the broad brush cast of characters associated with the alleged assassin approach, (becoming) tainted if you will. Way too many skeletons as I'm sure some see it. But this Christian charity angle, that's simply laughable especially with what we now know of Dallas and its characters circa. 1960-64, not to mention LHO.

So, David, let's review your logic. (1) Richard Nixon was a Quaker and his politics were catastrophic; (2) Ruth Paine was a Quaker; and (3) therefore her politics were catastrophic.

Does that pretty much summarize your logic, David?

...

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

I'm going to comment only on the above question, Paul. And what I know re the above. Richard Milhous Nixon and Ruth Paine, to the best of my knowledge, have never commented on their charitable acts as "professed" Quakers. They never made a case for themselves as "Quakers" and all that means... You've now painted Ruth Paine into a category she may not appreciate, nor like.

Summary: this should suffice, Nixon was a lxxr (fact), now about Ruth...

Edited October 27, 2015 by David G. Healy

[Paul Trejo]

LMAO! WOW! Ya know Paul T., it might be better if you simply asked Ruth Paine for a contract to write the book that you think she may be seeking, hmm?

And what's this pandering nonsense, "Quaker Charity Ladies"? Capital letters and all, like it's a formal group? No such animal that I can find.

Thanks, but no thanks, David, I'm not looking for a book contract with Ruth Paine or anybody.

I want the TRUTH about the JFK Murder. I'm also tired of all the loose logic and wild speculation that gets thrown around.

One of my pet peeves about James DiEugenio, for example, is that he let's General Walker off the hook -- but he puts Ruth Paine on the hook.

That's just exactly back-assward.

LHO was framed for the JFK murder, but LHO truly did try to kill General Walker. That simple fact seems to zoom over people's heads.

Yet that simple fact is the key to solving the JFK murder. That's been my point here since 2010 when I joined -- and I never changed it.

One of the dumbest stories of the Jim Garrison and all CIA-did-it CT stories is the utter silliness that somebody got the Paines and the DeMohrenschildts and Marina to agree with General Walker to blame LHO for the Walker shooting -- and to forge Backyard Photographs and the"Walker Letter" for just that purpose.

Variations on that story get a lot of press -- even inside the work of James DiEugenio.

It's a spy-drama fiction breakthrough, but it stinks to high heaven as any sort of factual account. I don't know about Marina or Jeanne, but the Paine's didn't like Walker, and George DeM used to call him, "General Fokker".

To imagine some sort of cooperation between them is just silly. But this is the kind of silliness that makes me hang in there and seek some SANITY, finally, in the JFK community.

It's finally time to admit that y'all have NOTHING whatsoever on Ruth Paine.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited October 28, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[David G. Healy]

LMAO! WOW! Ya know Paul T., it might be better if you simply asked Ruth Paine for a contract to write the book that you think she may be seeking, hmm?

And what's this pandering nonsense, "Quaker Charity Ladies"? Capital letters and all, like it's a formal group? No such animal that I can find.

...

It's a spy-drama fiction breakthrough, but it stinks to high heaven as any sort of factual account.

...

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

what with new publications and books appearing, more "facts" are on the horizon. And this Dulles thing, his associations, his flings, and this guy virtually ran the WC? WOW!

Frankly, whack job-racist Walker is nothing more than a footnote, if that... now Ruth and a "factual account," that jury hasn't deliberated yet...

Edited October 27, 2015 by David G. Healy

[Paul Trejo]

what with new publications and books appearing, more "facts" are on the horizon. And this Dulles thing, his associations, his flings, and this guy virtually ran the WC? WOW!

Frankly, whack job-racist Walker is nothing more than a footnote, if that... now Ruth and a "factual account," that jury hasn't deliberated yet...

I'm glad you're open to new facts, David. The CIA-did-it theorists are far from conclusive -- after 50 long years.

As for Allen Dulles -- one may hate him or love him -- but one should not use one's emotions to guide one's opinion of the Warren Commission.

As I see it, the Warren Commission had one great mission -- National Security. Its strategy was rigid -- LHO must be a "Lone Nut."

LHO could never be allowed to be portrayed as the "Communist FPCC leader" as promoted by General Walker, Guy Banister, Joseph Milteer, the JBS, the Minutemen, the DPD and rogue elements in official places.

LHO could never, furthermore, be allowed to be portrayed as the "Radical Rightwing provocateur" that he actually was -- and that the FBI and CIA knew that he was.

Both of those scenarios would have ignited riots in the streets, perhaps a Civil War, and perhaps World War Three.

Therefore -- the "Lone Nut" fiction became a US Government mission -- for over 50 years. Allen Dulles was not alone in pursuing that mission.

General Walker was the mastermind of the JFK murder. Not the CIA or Ruth Paine.

The CIA and the FBI did cooperate, however, in the Great Cover-up known as the Warren Commission, including the Bethesda autopsy forgeries. But that was for National Security. (Ruth Paine never had a clue what had happened under her nose.)

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited October 27, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Jon G. Tidd]

Paul Trejo,

You are correct about the CIA, in my opinion. The CIA, I believe, had no role in JFK's murder. The CIA, I believe, has important information pertaining to the murder that it conceals to this day. IMO, few here want to know that information. I could be wrong.

As for Ruth Paine, it's simple. Ruth steps forward today. Tells what she knows. The whole story. And consents to be questioned by knowledgable questioners such as DSL, James D., Greg Parker, DJ.

[Chris Newton]

General Walker was the mastermind of the JFK murder. Not the CIA or Ruth Paine.

No one has ever suggested Ruth Paine was a "mastermind" of anything. This is a figment of your over active imagination.

I just re-read Ruth Paine's New Orleans Grand Jury testimony. It is true that her dinner with the De Mohrenschildts in early 1967 does not in any way perjure her testimony before the Warren Commission but she went on to state, interesting enough that it was the first time her husband, Michael had met the De M's. This is in conflict with Michael Paine's statements to the FBI. So now there are at least two conflicting statements related to when the Paine's met the De M's. Too bad they couldn't get that "story" straight.

[David G. Healy]

what with new publications and books appearing, more "facts" are on the horizon. And this Dulles thing, his associations, his flings, and this guy virtually ran the WC? WOW!

Frankly, whack job-racist Walker is nothing more than a footnote, if that... now Ruth and a "factual account," that jury hasn't deliberated yet...

I'm glad you're open to new facts, David. The CIA-did-it theorists are far from conclusive -- after 50 long years.

As for Allen Dulles -- one may hate him or love him -- but one should not use one's emotions to guide one's opinion of the Warren Commission.

As I see it, the Warren Commission had one great mission -- National Security. Its strategy was rigid -- LHO must be a "Lone Nut."

LHO could never be allowed to be portrayed as the "Communist FPCC leader" as promoted by General Walker, Guy Banister, Joseph Milteer, the JBS, the Minutemen, the DPD and rogue elements in official places.

LHO could never, furthermore, be allowed to be portrayed as the "Radical Rightwing provocateur" that he actually was -- and that the FBI and CIA knew that he was.

Both of those scenarios would have ignited riots in the streets, perhaps a Civil War, and perhaps World War Three.

Therefore -- the "Lone Nut" fiction became a US Government mission -- for over 50 years. Allen Dulles was not alone in pursuing that mission.

General Walker was the mastermind of the JFK murder. Not the CIA or Ruth Paine.

The CIA and the FBI did cooperate, however, in the Great Cover-up known as the Warren Commission, including the Bethesda autopsy forgeries. But that was for National Security. (Ruth Paine never had a clue what had happened under her nose.)

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Without a doubt Paul those participating in this thread are interested in "new facts." Where ever they may lay...

I'm glad you laid out the above scenario, now I know some of your reasoning regarding defense of R. Paine.

One thing escapes me, Ruth is/was very close to some of major players in and around the periphery re the murder of JFK.

Having said that, a quick question: when did Ruth Paine move to Dallas?

How the hell did she wind up in the middle of and in a pivotal position re the guilt/innocence of the alleged murderer LHO... innocence, marriage, associates, friends, naivete? What?

What's bubbling to the surface are her doings, her associates, and of course, her testimony is being challenged. That's not going away.

Edited October 27, 2015 by David G. Healy

[Chris Newton]

Question: Was Dee Dee Sharples a Quaker?

[James DiEugenio]

Trejo's post at 245 is so incredible that it almost--almost--reconciles me to the rants of DVP.

He says that Dulles' effort to get Fred Osborne to sign a declaration attesting to the good character of the Paines, and their inability to be part of any plot that killed JFK, that this means nothing.

Why?

Because everybody was accusing everybody of being a part of the conspiracy.

Oh really? In early December of 1963? With so little information out there? All that was there was what was leaked by Washington, and whatever was in the press, which was usually not very good at all. And, OMG, who was accusing the Paines at that time? And why did Dulles choose an old friend who was in on a CIA operation, which was what the Crusade for Freedom became, to vouch for them? Why not the Baron, or say Wesley Frazier? What utter nonsense.

And BTW, Dulles'attempt to cover up for the Paines, is matched by his attempt in April to conceal a motive for the crime. This is when he flew to Missouri to try and talk Truman into retracting his December 22nd editorial saying the CIA has gotten out of control. (See p. 380 of DB 2) Namely Vietnam.

But I guess that Paul will now say "Well everyone was covering up motives in April of 1964!" Oh really Paul? Who even suspected at that time that Vietnam was a reason for the murder of JFK? The first guy to do that was Jm Garrison in 1968, four years later.

But this is the kind of stuff you get when you think Allen Dulles is a great American.

Funny, Talbtot writes 640 pages of text on this, and he came to a startlingly different conclusion.

Edited October 28, 2015 by James DiEugenio

[Paul Trejo]

...As for Ruth Paine, it's simple. Ruth steps forward today. Tells what she knows. The whole story. And consents to be questioned by knowledgable questioners such as DSL, James D., Greg Parker, DJ.

Well, Jon, Ruth stepped forward 51 years ago with the WC and was called back for eight sessions. Have you read all of her WC testimony? All of it?

In all her other interviews in the past 51 years, Ruth Paine never changed her story at all.

Ruth Paine has already stepped forward. James DiEugenio's attacks on her in his book, Destiny Betrayed, are based on innuendo and guesswork. He has no solid evidence at all.

I don't need Ruth Paine to come forward anymore, after all she's already testified. Based only on her WC testimony, I can myself answer James DiEugenio's attacks on Ruth Paine with ease. I'll show this in the days ahead.

James DiEugenio has called, "open season" on Ruth Paine. Good. I like a good challenge.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited October 28, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

No one has ever suggested Ruth Paine was a "mastermind" of anything. This is a figment of your over active imagination.

I just re-read Ruth Paine's New Orleans Grand Jury testimony. It is true that her dinner with the De Mohrenschildts in early 1967 does not in any way perjure her testimony before the Warren Commission but she went on to state, interesting enough that it was the first time her husband, Michael had met the De M's. This is in conflict with Michael Paine's statements to the FBI. So now there are at least two conflicting statements related to when the Paine's met the De M's. Too bad they couldn't get that "story" straight.

You need to clarify your accusation, Chris. When people tell the truth, as Ruth Paine does, they don't need to coordinate stories.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

[James DiEugenio]

Garrison himself got Ruth to backtrack on her "only met George Once" deception.

You can read can you not Paul?

She was insisting on it at that time with JG.

"At that time, they talked about a copy of the famous backyard photograph which was found in DeMohrenschildt's possessions after the assassination. As author Steven Jones noted: Why would Geroge invite a couple to dinner in 1966, if he had only briefly met them once three years earlier? Further, in his manuscript I'm a patsy, I'm a Patsy, George wrote that he only discussed this backyard photograph with close friends. The question then seems to be: Why did it appear that Ruth was trying to conceal the true nature of her relation ship with George DeMohrneschildt?" (pgs. 194-95 of DB 2)

That is the complete or fuller quote.

Edited October 28, 2015 by James DiEugenio

[Paul Trejo]

OK, I've read all of what James DiEugenio wrote in the second edition of his book, Destiny Betrayed (2012) and I'm ready to prepare a case for the defense for Ruth Paine, against the scathing attacks of James, who accuses Ruth of being a CIA Agent in play to frame Lee Harvey Oswald for the murder of JFK.

Let's start at the very beginning, on page 155 of James' book, when he tries to portray Ruth Paine in a close, CIA relationship with George DeMohrenschildt (DeM), despite the fact that Ruth Paine told the WC that she never met George DeM either before or after the party at Everett Glover's place on 22 February 1963, when she first met the Oswalds. (George and Jeanne DeM drove the Oswalds to that party and introduced them to the crowd there.) James writes:

Commission lawyer Wesley Liebeler...asked Ruth Paine if Marina Oswald had ever mentioned DeMohrenschildt to her. Ruth answered with: “Well, that’s how I met her.” That is, he introduced Lee and Marina to Ruth and Michael Paine.

Though Ruth Paine is speaking of that one party at Everett's where George DeM introduced the Oswalds to the whole group, James insinuates a sinister CIA hand-off. James continues:

As one reads the interactions of this White Russian community with the Oswalds, it is fairly clear that they are trying to separate Lee from Marina. And, in fact, they actually did do that, temporarily. But as we shall see later, Ruth Paine actually accomplished this for a longer interval and at a much more crucial time.

The notion seems to be from left-field, but actually James is borrowing this idea from CIA-did-it CTer Edward Jay Epstein. In his early opinion (1966) the purpose of Ruth Paine was to "separate Lee from Marina". Why? Well, it sounds cool, right? You separate them, and then, um, well, um...then you can control Oswald! Right? Um...not really.

Anyway, James DiEugenio thinks it sounds cool, too, so that will be his first accusation about Ruth Paine -- she was set up by the CIA to separate Marina and Lee. The reason why is not stated. The logic of it is unquestioned. It's mysterious and spooky -- like the CIA is supposed to be.

But it's not just Ruth Paine that gets this CIA mission to "separate Lee from Marina," instead, the whole White Russian community is part of this CIA plot. But Ruth Paine is far more adept at this mission. James continues:

Once Ruth was introduced to Marina, within two weeks she got in contact with her via a note. Then a week later she visited her in person. About a week after that, Ruth invited the Oswalds to her home for dinner. Even though she and her husband were separated, Michael Paine was also on hand for this event. In fact, it was Michael who actually picked up the Oswalds at their home that night.

This is supposed to sound spooky, too -- the fact that Michael Paine "actually picked up the Oswalds at their home that night." James means the night of April 2nd, the first time that Michael Paine ever met the Oswalds (because he had a cold on 22 February 1963, the night of Everett's party).

We are supposed to find it strange that Ruth Paine would like Marina Oswald -- another young mother with children about the same age. Ruth was educated as a pharmacist -- so both ladies had been to college. Ruth liked Marina. This is supposed to be sinister. It is supposed to sound sinister that Ruth went to visit Marina while Lee was at work -- and it is supposed to sound sinister that Ruth invited the couple over to her house for dinner.

But it is really supposed to sound sinister that Michael Paine went to pick them up (they lived about 20 minutes away by car) while Ruth was making dinner. James just does not trust these people! Why in the heck are they being nice to the Oswalds? Besides, Michael and Ruth are separated! What gives? Well, some people actually do have social dinners with their wives and children even when they are separated. I guess James thinks that's "strange." Besides, since these people were coming over to the house that Michael Paine was paying rent for, to house his own two small children, it might make sense for some people to see who's coming to dinner. But James wants us to see a CIA plot in this dinner invitation. James continues:

And then something really strange happened. Ruth had known Marina for less than a month. They had seen each other three times. Yet, on April 7th, “Ruth wrote a note to Marina (which she claims she never sent) inviting Marina to come live with her.”

Yes, in case inviting people to dinner wasn't strange enough, here's something really strange: Ruth wrote a note to Marina (which she never sent) inviting Marina to come live with her. James doesn't add the details, so we're left thinking this is a CIA plot. (By the way, James is mistaken about his claim that Ruth had only seen Marina three times. But he wants it to sound spooky, so he leaves out the other times.)

But let's look at the details. During the month of March 1963, when Ruth Paine and Marina Oswald -- two young, educated mothers -- are becoming friends, Marina told Ruth that she was pregnant. Well, from one mother to another, that's significant. It's usually a cause for celebration -- but Marina is unhappy about it. That's also of interest to another mother. Why the doubts? Because, Marina continues, Lee Harvey Oswald is telling her he wants her to move back to the USSR alone. Without him. And she doesn't want to go. She likes the USA. She doesn't like the USSR. She's miserable about this.

That's pretty important detail for James Eugenio to leave out. With the true detail, we can now understand why Ruth would begin thinking about inviting Marina Oswald to come and live with her -- to save her from being sent back to the USSR alone. James probably knows this, but the story sounds so much more CIA-like if you leave it out. Anyway, James continues:

This is surprising not just because of the speed with which it was done, but also because the Paines were Quakers. But here Ruth is essentially trying to split off a wife, who she barely knew, from her husband . Two weeks after that, there was a picnic with the Oswalds.

Well, James leaves out a few key details. First, Michael Paine was not a Quaker, he was a Unitarian like Everett Glover. Michael and Everett were closer because of it. Ruth Paine preferred the Society of Friends, and she also felt a "calling" when she was in college to learn the Russian language to be of service to her local American community during the Cold War period. Everett Glover didn't give two cents about the Russian language. Nor did Michael Paine. They were busy engineers.

Also -- James raises the religion of Ruth in order to shame her -- she's a "Quaker" but she wants to "split off a wife." We're supposed to think, from James' writing here, that Ruth Paine is really a fake Quaker working a CIA plot.

But, knowing the real facts of the case -- that Ruth genuinely liked Marina -- and that Marina was complaining that Lee wanted to send her back to Russia alone (she didn't say why, but the implication was he didn't love her much, and a wife and kids were a burden to him, since he couldn't hold down a steady job in the USA) -- completely explains Ruth's emotional state.

Ruth didn't send that letter. Ruth could speak only intermediate Russian (because she had such little practice outside the classroom) and she wanted to talk about the topic with Marina in person -- so Ruth wrote the letter to help her sort out her own vocabulary and sentence grammar, so that she could talk about this when the opportunity might arise.

There's no CIA plot here. As for the White Russian community separating Lee from Marina in 1962, that was because George Bouhe was showering Marina with so many gifts that Lee Oswald became violently jealous, beating Marina and threatening George Bouhe, so George DeM separated Marina and Lee for a few weeks. That's not a CIA plot, either. We have many witnesses who saw Marina with bruises on her face. That's not a CIA plot, people. That's reality.

So -- we can expect to hear more accusations from James about Ruth "splitting Marina and Lee apart," because this is a major part of James' theory of Ruth Paine. So I wanted to clarify this first and foremost. We're still on page 155, folks. There's much more to come.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited October 28, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[James DiEugenio]

PT: One of my pet peeves about James DiEugenio, for example, is that he let's General Walker off the hook -- but he puts Ruth Paine on the hook.

That's just exactly back-assward.

LHO was framed for the JFK murder, but LHO truly did try to kill General Walker. That simple fact seems to zoom over people's heads.

Uh, Paul, I spent several pages on the Walker shooting in Destiny Betrayed, second edition (see pages 200-04) And I spent more in Reclaiming Parkland (pgs. 76-85)

How Oswald could have shot at Walker with a rifle he never ordered, with a bullet that did not fit that rifle he never ordered,all this is beyond me.

Anyone who can buy that story has an agenda. And its not based on the evidence.

With that, I will sign off on this thread.

After fifty three years,I have had enough of that kind of zealotry. Whether it comes from the Oswald did it crowd, or the conspiracy crowd.

Edited October 28, 2015 by James DiEugenio