Ruth Paine

[Greg Parker]

Greg, glad you are back.

Whenever Trejo enters a thread, his pretentious pronunciamentos, and his ingrained zealotry compel me to leave.

And he has the chutzpah to say Carol was biased?

Here is a man with no sense of irony.

He's all yours.

Can't I have Danny?

[Dawn Meredith]

Wouldn't a law suit also open Ruth Paine to 'discovery'? She would have to be squeaky clean to subject her life to the scrutiny

Exactly. Jim could depose her. Now wouldn't that be fun. So she will never sue anyone over anything regarding this case. Last I heard she is not in the best of shape anyway.

[Paul Brancato]

Thomas - your messages are full again.

[Thomas Graves]

Thomas - your messages are full again.

Well, Paul.

I'm afraid you'll chide me for not being serious enough, so I think I'll just leave it that way.

--Tommy, the Droll

[Paul Trejo]

In this case, it appears that Carol Hewett was hired to review the WC and Garrison testimony of Ruth Paine in order to construct a case to prosecute Ruth Paine -- perhaps in order to convince the ARRB to call Ruth Paine again to the witness stand.

Absolute balderdash. The ARRB was prohibited from investigating possible conspirators. It's sole job was to identify and obtain JFK assassination records.

Ordinarily, Greg, I like your posts -- but when it comes to Probe Magazine you evidently haven't read much from it -- otherwise you would have known about the countless times that Probe Magazine referred to ARRB from 1993 to 2000.

Also, at the conclusion of Carol Hewett's article, The Paines Know – Lurking in the Shadows of the Walker Shooting, she says the following:

The Walker shooting is but another example of the many reasons why the Paines may have had a closer relationship with Lee Harvey Oswald than they will admit – and a closer relationship with the DeMohrenschildts as well. It is imperative that they be forced to testify before the Review Board on this matter... (Carol Hewett, Esq., Probe, Vol. 5, No. 1, January-February-April, 1998)

Notice how Carol Hewett specifically advised that Ruth Paine testify before the ARRB -- despite your claim that this is "balderdash."

Unlike some here, Greg, I research almost every sentence I write. So, please be advised.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited December 25, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

Wouldn't a law suit also open Ruth Paine to 'discovery'? She would have to be squeaky clean to subject her life to the scrutiny

Exactly. Jim could depose her. Now wouldn't that be fun. So she will never sue anyone over anything regarding this case. Last I heard she is not in the best of shape anyway.

Not likely she would ever consider a defamation lawsuit because she is a public figure and U.S. courts have ruled for many decades that robust discussion about public figures is protected speech.

[Ernie Lazar]

In this case, it appears that Carol Hewett was hired to review the WC and Garrison testimony of Ruth Paine in order to construct a case to prosecute Ruth Paine -- perhaps in order to convince the ARRB to call Ruth Paine again to the witness stand.

Absolute balderdash. The ARRB was prohibited from investigating possible conspirators. It's sole job was to identify and obtain JFK assassination records.

Ordinarily, Greg, I like your posts -- but when it comes to Probe Magazine you evidently haven't read much from it -- otherwise you would have known about the countless times that Probe Magazine referred to ARRB from 1993 to 2000.

Also, at the conclusion of Carol Hewett's article, The Paines Know – Lurking in the Shadows of the Walker Shooting, she says the following:

The Walker shooting is but another example of the many reasons why the Paines may have had a closer relationship with Lee Harvey Oswald than they will admit – and a closer relationship with the DeMohrenschildts as well. It is imperative that they be forced to testify before the Review Board on this matter... (Carol Hewett, Esq., Probe, Vol. 5, No. 1, January-February-April, 1998)

Notice how Carol Hewett specifically advised that Ruth Paine testify before the ARRB -- despite your claim that this is "balderdash."

Unlike some here, Greg, I research almost every sentence I write. So, please be advised.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Paul -- can you cite any individual who "testified" before the ARRB? I am referring only to persons who were NOT government officials advising ARRB about the existence of pertinent assassination records created by their agency?

Edited December 25, 2015 by Ernie Lazar

[Paul Trejo]

Paul -- can you cite any individual who "testified" before the ARRB? I am referring only to persons who were NOT government officials advising ARRB about the existence of pertinent assassination records created by their agency?

Well, Ernie, that wasn't my point. My point was that Carol Hewett in Probe Magazine openly called for Ruth Paine to testify before the ARRB.

It might be a ludicrous idea, but it isn't my idea, it's Carol Hewett's idea.

I pointed out that she said this, and then Greg Parker called my statement "balderdash."

Well, I then proved that my statement is true and correct -- Carol Hewett certainly said that. Carol's demand might be balderdash, but not my reporting of what she said.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

[Greg Parker]

In this case, it appears that Carol Hewett was hired to review the WC and Garrison testimony of Ruth Paine in order to construct a case to prosecute Ruth Paine -- perhaps in order to convince the ARRB to call Ruth Paine again to the witness stand.

Absolute balderdash. The ARRB was prohibited from investigating possible conspirators. It's sole job was to identify and obtain JFK assassination records.

Ordinarily, Greg, I like your posts -- but when it comes to Probe Magazine you evidently haven't read much from it -- otherwise you would have known about the countless times that Probe Magazine referred to ARRB from 1993 to 2000.

Also, at the conclusion of Carol Hewett's article, The Paines Know – Lurking in the Shadows of the Walker Shooting, she says the following:

The Walker shooting is but another example of the many reasons why the Paines may have had a closer relationship with Lee Harvey Oswald than they will admit – and a closer relationship with the DeMohrenschildts as well. It is imperative that they be forced to testify before the Review Board on this matter... (Carol Hewett, Esq., Probe, Vol. 5, No. 1, January-February-April, 1998)

Notice how Carol Hewett specifically advised that Ruth Paine testify before the ARRB -- despite your claim that this is "balderdash."

Unlike some here, Greg, I research almost every sentence I write. So, please be advised.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

It was balderdash then and it's balderdash now. The ARRB had no investigative mandate and therefore could not force anyone to testify about past relationships. If that is all Ms Hewett got wrong, you really haven't got much to complain about.

[Paul Trejo]

It was balderdash then and it's balderdash now. The ARRB had no investigative mandate and therefore could not force anyone to testify about past relationships. If that is all Ms Hewett got wrong, you really haven't got much to complain about.

I'm glad you clarified, Greg, that it was Carol Hewett's balderdash, and not mine.

OK, now, you wonder if that's all Carol Hewett got wrong. I've gone over her material with a fine-toothed comb, and I can assure you that there is more to come.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

[Greg Parker]

Paul -- can you cite any individual who "testified" before the ARRB? I am referring only to persons who were NOT government officials advising ARRB about the existence of pertinent assassination records created by their agency?

Well, Ernie, that wasn't my point. My point was that Carol Hewett in Probe Magazine openly called for Ruth Paine to testify before the ARRB.

It might be a ludicrous idea, but it isn't my idea, it's Carol Hewett's idea.

I pointed out that she said this, and then Greg Parker called my statement "balderdash."

Well, I then proved that my statement is true and correct -- Carol Hewett certainly said that. Carol's demand might be balderdash, but not my reporting of what she said.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Here is what what you said:

In this case, it appears that Carol Hewett was hired to review the WC and Garrison testimony of Ruth Paine in order to construct a case to prosecute Ruth Paine -- perhaps in order to convince the ARRB to call Ruth Paine again to the witness stand.

Here is what I replied:

Absolute balderdash. The ARRB was prohibited from investigating possible conspirators. It's sole job was to identify and obtain JFK assassination records.

You did NOT specify what Hewett said. You indicated that you thought she was hired to construct a prosecution case against Ruth Paine and then piled on further speculation that it had the aim of trying to convince the ARRB to get her on the witness stand.

Where do I start with a worm on a hook?

You NEVER POINTED OUT that she said anything in particular. That is a falsehood, pure and simple. Your "reporting" was just you "supposing" lots of stuff.

You obviously had no idea that what Hewitt said was in error UNTIL I POINTED IT OUT TO YOU - otherwise it was rather slipshod of you NOT to address that error in your original post

Edited December 25, 2015 by Greg Parker

[Greg Parker]

It was balderdash then and it's balderdash now. The ARRB had no investigative mandate and therefore could not force anyone to testify about past relationships. If that is all Ms Hewett got wrong, you really haven't got much to complain about.

I'm glad you clarified, Greg, that it was Carol Hewett's balderdash, and not mine.

OK, now, you wonder if that's all Carol Hewett got wrong. I've gone over her material with a fine-toothed comb, and I can assure you that there is more to come.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Will it be as good as this "reportage"?

[Paul Trejo]

Will it be as good as this "reportage"?

Well, Greg, you're forcing my hand, so I'll offer a preview of coming attractions:

In her article, Ruth Paine Finds Evidence: Oswald’s Letter to the Soviet Embassy, Carol Hewett criticizes Ruth Paine for complaining to the Warren Commission about finding Oswald's November 9th Letter to the Soviet Embassy in her house, which Oswald wrote during the Veteran's Day holiday weekend.

To criticize Ruth Paine for this, Carol Hewett writes:

...Ruth wrote a very touching letter to her mother dated October 14, 1963 describing the Veterans Day’s weekend with Lee. She mentions what a good father he was, how much he helped with repairs and generally provided a welcome masculine presence to the household. Not a word to her mother about the Embassy letter which so upset Ruth that she reasoned to a rude invasion of her guest’s privacy. These omissions, coupled with her willingness to give Lee a driving lesson following her reading of the disturbing letter, render Ruth’s testimony suspect. (Carol Hewett, PROBE, Vol. 4, No. 3, March-April, 1997, p. 16)

The obvious error in Carol Hewett's "research" is that Ruth Paine's letter to her mother dated October 14, 1963, WAS WRITTEN NEARLY ONE MONTH BEFORE OSWALD'S LETTER TO THE SOVIET EMBASSY. Nothing about Veteran's Day appeared in this letter from Ruth Paine to her mother!

How could Carol Hewett miss that? This is just a preview of what's coming.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited December 25, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Ernie Lazar]

Paul -- can you cite any individual who "testified" before the ARRB? I am referring only to persons who were NOT government officials advising ARRB about the existence of pertinent assassination records created by their agency?

Well, Ernie, that wasn't my point. My point was that Carol Hewett in Probe Magazine openly called for Ruth Paine to testify before the ARRB.

It might be a ludicrous idea, but it isn't my idea, it's Carol Hewett's idea.

I pointed out that she said this, and then Greg Parker called my statement "balderdash."

Well, I then proved that my statement is true and correct -- Carol Hewett certainly said that. Carol's demand might be balderdash, but not my reporting of what she said.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

It appeared to me that you were asserting that the ARRB had investigative powers because you wrote "perhaps in order to convince the ARRB to call Ruth Paine again to the witness stand."

Why would ARRB ever contact Ruth Paine? She did not create or preserve or serve as a source of government documents.

[Jon G. Tidd]

As I understand, the ARRB on paper had no investigative charter; but surely when it interviewed Humes and Boswell under oath it was functioning as an investigative body.

I believe the ARRB had the power, and should have exercised the power, to compel Ruth Paine to testify under oath about the backyard photos and other key matters constituting documents or other physical items relating to the JFK assassination.

Tunheim was worthless. Doug Horne did the best he could.

I'm grateful to the ARRB for one thing: uncovering that there was harmony between the Bethesda and the Parkland medical witnesses; and exposing the HSCA fraud as to medical facts.

If I had my way, this Christmas day, Robert Blakey would be in federal prison.

Peace to all here.