Ruth Paine

[Greg Parker]

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.

I thought they were subpoenaed to bring in "assassination 'documents" and questioned about other potential material they may know about? If they were grilled about anything else, I think you can put it down to Turnheim losing control of the ARRB to the machinations of the Lifton-Horne conspiracy. Fact is, the ARRB very specifically had no mandate to investigate anything other than the provenance of documents and media related to the assassination. There was no wiggle room there and any slide into such questioning should have invoked some sort of sanction.

In fact, have just checked Horne's bio here:

Horne worked on the staff of the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) in Washington, DC for the final 3 years of the Review Board's 4-year lifespan, from August 1995 through September 1998. He was hired as a Senior Analyst on the Military Records Team, and was later promoted to the position of Chief Analyst for Military Records (i.e., the Head of the Military Records Team).

Horne was not only involved in the location and release of US military records on Cuba and Vietnam policy from 1961 through 1964, but he played an integral role in conducting both unsworn interviews and formal depositions of witnesses to, and participants in, JFK's autopsy at Bethesda Naval Hospital, and was also involved in joint efforts between the ARRB and Kodak to both digitally preserve the photographic images of the autopsy, and to conduct an authenticity study of the Zapruder Film in the National Archives.

Lifton's unseen hand.

[Ernie Lazar]

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.

I have to respectfully disagree with your interpretation. The purpose of the ARRB was to implement The President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Act of 1992.

As that very name suggests, the ARRB was created to facilitate the release of already existing government agency records and to adjudicate agency requests to keep certain documents secret.

Consequently, all government offices were required "to identify, review, process, and transfer to NARA, all assassination records within their possession".

The JFK Act also instructed government offices which questioned whether or not a particular record or document should be considered an "assassination record" falling under the purview of the Act, to transmit those records to the ARRB for their review and their determination.

However, the ARRB had no investigative role in the sense of questioning non-government witnesses and, more importantly, it had no role with respect to drawing conclusions. As ARRB's Final Report pointed out:

"Previous assassination-related commissions and committees were established for the purpose of issuing final reports that would draw conclusions about the assassination. Congress did not, however, direct the Review Board to draw conclusions about the assassination, but to release assassination records so that the public could draw its own conclusions. Thus this Final Report does not offer conclusions about what the assassination records released did or did not prove. Rather, it identifies records that the Board released and describes the processes and standards that the Board used to release them." ...

The complete ARRB report may be seen here:

https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/review-board/report/arrb-final-report.pdf

Edited December 25, 2015 by Ernie Lazar

[Ernie Lazar]

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.

I thought they were subpoenaed to bring in "assassination 'documents" and questioned about other potential material they may know about? If they were grilled about anything else, I think you can put it down to Turnheim losing control of the ARRB to the machinations of the Lifton-Horne conspiracy. Fact is, the ARRB very specifically had no mandate to investigate anything other than the provenance of documents and media related to the assassination. There was no wiggle room there and any slide into such questioning should have invoked some sort of sanction.

In fact, have just checked Horne's bio here:

Horne worked on the staff of the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) in Washington, DC for the final 3 years of the Review Board's 4-year lifespan, from August 1995 through September 1998. He was hired as a Senior Analyst on the Military Records Team, and was later promoted to the position of Chief Analyst for Military Records (i.e., the Head of the Military Records Team).

Horne was not only involved in the location and release of US military records on Cuba and Vietnam policy from 1961 through 1964, but he played an integral role in conducting both unsworn interviews and formal depositions of witnesses to, and participants in, JFK's autopsy at Bethesda Naval Hospital, and was also involved in joint efforts between the ARRB and Kodak to both digitally preserve the photographic images of the autopsy, and to conduct an authenticity study of the Zapruder Film in the National Archives.

Lifton's unseen hand.

Hume's deposition (and the reason he was a subject of interest to ARRB) may be seen here:

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/humesa.htm

[Greg Parker]

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.

I thought they were subpoenaed to bring in "assassination 'documents" and questioned about other potential material they may know about? If they were grilled about anything else, I think you can put it down to Turnheim losing control of the ARRB to the machinations of the Lifton-Horne conspiracy. Fact is, the ARRB very specifically had no mandate to investigate anything other than the provenance of documents and media related to the assassination. There was no wiggle room there and any slide into such questioning should have invoked some sort of sanction.

In fact, have just checked Horne's bio here:

Horne worked on the staff of the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) in Washington, DC for the final 3 years of the Review Board's 4-year lifespan, from August 1995 through September 1998. He was hired as a Senior Analyst on the Military Records Team, and was later promoted to the position of Chief Analyst for Military Records (i.e., the Head of the Military Records Team).

Horne was not only involved in the location and release of US military records on Cuba and Vietnam policy from 1961 through 1964, but he played an integral role in conducting both unsworn interviews and formal depositions of witnesses to, and participants in, JFK's autopsy at Bethesda Naval Hospital, and was also involved in joint efforts between the ARRB and Kodak to both digitally preserve the photographic images of the autopsy, and to conduct an authenticity study of the Zapruder Film in the National Archives.

Lifton's unseen hand.

Hume's deposition (and the reason he was a subject of interest to ARRB) may be seen here:

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/humesa.htm

"Seated next to me is Douglas Horne, who works with me on medical evidence in the case." So Horne assisted with ALL medical evidence in he case - despite that having nothing to do with what he was hired for, In my opinion, Lifton had a hand in making that happen for the sole purpose of having his theories given an aura of official approval by a government body not authorized to do so.

[David G. Healy]

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.

I thought they were subpoenaed to bring in "assassination 'documents" and questioned about other potential material they may know about? If they were grilled about anything else, I think you can put it down to Turnheim losing control of the ARRB to the machinations of the Lifton-Horne conspiracy. Fact is, the ARRB very specifically had no mandate to investigate anything other than the provenance of documents and media related to the assassination. There was no wiggle room there and any slide into such questioning should have invoked some sort of sanction.

In fact, have just checked Horne's bio here:

Horne worked on the staff of the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) in Washington, DC for the final 3 years of the Review Board's 4-year lifespan, from August 1995 through September 1998. He was hired as a Senior Analyst on the Military Records Team, and was later promoted to the position of Chief Analyst for Military Records (i.e., the Head of the Military Records Team).

Horne was not only involved in the location and release of US military records on Cuba and Vietnam policy from 1961 through 1964, but he played an integral role in conducting both unsworn interviews and formal depositions of witnesses to, and participants in, JFK's autopsy at Bethesda Naval Hospital, and was also involved in joint efforts between the ARRB and Kodak to both digitally preserve the photographic images of the autopsy, and to conduct an authenticity study of the Zapruder Film in the National Archives.

Lifton's unseen hand.

Hume's deposition (and the reason he was a subject of interest to ARRB) may be seen here:

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/humesa.htm

"Seated next to me is Douglas Horne, who works with me on medical evidence in the case." So Horne assisted with ALL medical evidence in he case - despite that having nothing to do with what he was hired for, In my opinion, Lifton had a hand in making that happen for the sole purpose of having his theories given an aura of official approval by a government body not authorized to do so.

if you want start a thread about a Lifton-Horne conspiracy (tsk-tsk) fine... Ruth Paine is this threads subject.

Edited December 26, 2015 by David G. Healy

[Greg Parker]

if you want start a thread about a Lifton-Horne conspiracy (tsk-tsk) fine... Ruth Paine is this threads subject.

"No one has proprietary ownership of threads" Jack White to me in 2010 after I complained of his continual hijacking of my threads. I know you wouldn't want to argue with Jack about anything.

Besides... who gives a fig about this thread? We all know where it's heading. We all know the defense team's arguments. Mr. P won't come up with anything that hasn't been debated ad infinitum already. Do you like arguing round and round in circles? I certainly don't give a toss for it. RP won't know what hit her when my third book comes out.

[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

BUMPED.

Carol Hewett showed pure bias in her attacks on Ruth Paine in PROBE Magazine 1993-2000.

This hasn't been debated ad infinitum. Nobody has taken Carol Hewett to task before the appearance of this thread.

I just showed a major blunder on the part of Carol Hewett -- and I notice that James and Greg have carefully evaded comment.

Oddly -- I've heard no comment about Carol Hewett's blunder from anybody yet. I'm waiting.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited December 26, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[James DiEugenio]

Don't worry, I will be taking this up in another thread.

As I refuse to enter into any thread with Mr. Biased Bumper, PT. (Oh, was it not a glorious day when he was reinstated. Are we not all better persons for it? )

We will then see who is biased.

Carol, or the guy who once called Allen Dulles a great American. LOL ROTF

Anyone who has read Talbot's book will realize the complete absurdity of that statement. And only an agenda driven zealot who has values that are completely upside down, both about America and this case, could possibly write something that inexcusable.

Edited December 26, 2015 by James DiEugenio

[Paul Trejo]

Don't worry, I will be taking this up in another thread.

As I refuse to enter into any thread with Mr. Biased Bumper, PT. (Oh, was it not a glorious day when he was reinstated. Are we not all better persons for it? )

We will then see who is biased.

Carol, or the guy who once called Allen Dulles a great American. LOL ROTF

Anyone who has read Talbot's book will realize the complete absurdity of that statement. And only an agenda driven zealot who has values that are completely upside down, both about America and this case, could possibly write something that inexcusable.

Well, James DiEugenio, you've failed to address the blunder that was made by Carol Hewett.

Your attempt to inject humor into the thread here falls flat because readers can see that a legitimate challenge was posed to you.

And you dodged it.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

[James DiEugenio]

Paul does not read well does he? Even when he quotes a comment directly above his own.

That is how biased he is, at a fundamental level.

(BTW, what was humorous about my comment? Sarcasm is not necessarily humorous. But, I mean who on earth would think Allen Dulles a great American, especially after Talbot's book? Does Trejo think it would have been a good idea to preserve the Reich with Himmler at the helm instead of Hitler?)

Edited December 26, 2015 by James DiEugenio

[Paul Brancato]

Paul T - disagree with your statement that a legitimate challenge was made and dodged. Researchers are not perfect. People make mistakes. So what? What does that prove?

Jim is right - you are hopelessly biased. Even when you read Caulfield and summarize for us you are looking at what jibes with your theory and what doesn't. If you think A Dulles, J Hoover and C LeMay were heroes you cannot possibly understand the history of the 20th century, nor the world we live in today. You cannot see what might have been and apparently don't yearn for it either. Which is why I question why you give a hoot about JFK? He would have been the first to tell you what a snake in the grass Dulles was.

[Paul Trejo]

Paul does not read well does he? Even when he quotes a comment directly above his own.

That is how biased he is, at a fundamental level.

(BTW, what was humorous about my comment? Sarcasm is not necessarily humorous. But, I mean who on earth would think Allen Dulles a great American, especially after Talbot's book? Does Trejo think it would have been a good idea to preserve the Reich with Himmler at the helm instead of Hitler?)

James, you're still dodging the challenge.

Carol Hewett claimed that Ruth Paine's October letter to her mother is suspect because Ruth didn't complain about her Veterans Day huff with LHO over the letter that LHO wrote to the USSR Embassy that week, using her typewriter.

But Veterans Day is in November. So, Carol Hewett simply made a blunder. Why not admit it?

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

[James DiEugenio]

LOL

Paul, please read what I wrote. OK. Or have your reading comprehension checked.

Meanwhile keep on telling us how Allen Dulles is a great American. The guy who wanted to replace Hitler with Himmler in order to preserve the Reich.

That is a genuinely revealing comment. Perhaps too revealing. To me it undermines everything you have ever written.

Edited December 26, 2015 by James DiEugenio

[Paul Trejo]

LOL

Paul, please read what I wrote. OK. Or have your reading comprehension checked.

Meanwhile keep on telling us how Allen Dulles is a great American. The guy who wanted to replace Hitler with Himmler in order to preserve the Reich.

That is a genuinely revealing comment. Perhaps too revealing. To me it undermines everything you have ever written.

Again, James, you're dodging the challenge. Now you're trying to change the topic to Allen Dulles.

Stick to one challenge at a time, sir.

I posted a very simple and clear challenge (one of forty in my inventory) to all advocates of Carol Hewett, showing a specific blunder on her part. In her article, Ruth Paine Finds Evidence: Oswald’s Letter to the Soviet Embassy, Carol Hewett criticizes Ruth Paine regarding LHO's November 9th letter to the USSR Embassy, which he wrote in her house, on her typewriter, during the Veteran's Day holiday weekend. Carol 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)

With her very first sentence Carol drops the ball. It's impossible to write a letter on October 14th about a Veterans Day weekend experience, since Veterans day doesn't occur for another three weeks!

In fact, Ruth Paine testified to the WC that before that Veterans Day snag, she was developing a very positive opinion about LHO -- just as she told her mother in October.

However, Carol Hewett made a clear mistake -- not just in thinking, but in writing. She calls this an "omission" from Ruth's letter to her mother. Based on this, says Carol Hewett, she finds Ruth Paine's testimony to be "suspect."

Actually, Carol Hewett's logic is "suspect," for all unbiased readers. But you, James DiEugenio, are clearly biased in favor of Carol Hewett and against Ruth Paine.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited December 27, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Greg Parker]

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

BUMPED.

Carol Hewett showed pure bias in her attacks on Ruth Paine in PROBE Magazine 1993-2000.

This hasn't been debated ad infinitum. Nobody has taken Carol Hewett to task before the appearance of this thread.

I just showed a major blunder on the part of Carol Hewett -- and I notice that James and Greg have carefully evaded comment.

Oddly -- I've heard no comment about Carol Hewett's blunder from anybody yet. I'm waiting.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

If you want to pick an argument over someone's work, you need to provide links to their material as well as links to the material you are relying on to debunk it. Otherwise you're saying, I'll give you both sides of the argument - you don't need no steenkin references, trust me, amigos! I'm not doing your work for you.