Ruth Paine

[Paul Trejo]

Paul, did Ruth also say the opposite?

But then, why would she say two things that are opposed to each other?

No, James, it seems I misread it. I was going by my recollection of material from the book, "MRS.PAINE'S GARAGE," evidently.

According to Ruth Paine, Mrs. Ruth Kloepfer spoke no Russian.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited December 31, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

Bottom line: you made it up that Mrs. Ruth Kloepfer spoke Russian - and then tried to bluff your way out by claiming that the information came from Ruth Paine.

I repeat - you are a disgrace and the fact that you are allowed to keep posting here is a disgrace.

No, Greg, you're simply over-reacting. Your insults are really out of place in an orderly FORUM.

But you're right -- Mrs. Ruth Kloepfer spoke no Russian, according to Ruth Paine -- only her daughters did.

Still, you should really calm down and tone down the insults. Anybody can be mistaken from time to time. Even you.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited December 31, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

Let's put all this into perspective, shall we?

Ruth Paine sought to find Russian speaking company for Marina Oswald in NOLA during her second visit there around 21 September 1963.

She found nobody among the Quakers there, but she did find Ruth Kloepfer, a Unitarian lady with two daughters studying Russian.

They made a Charity visit to Marina Oswald to keep her company and cheer her up.

That's what Ruth Paine said.

Now -- what's the big beef about whether Ruth Kloepfer spoke Russian or her daughters spoke Russian? Is it really a big deal?

Greg Parker wants to insert that her has personally interviewed Ruanne Kloepfer, one of the daughters -- which is nice -- but Greg doesn't really have anything important to add to Ruth's account, except that Ruanne claims that LHO was trying to flirt with her.

Isn't that right, Greg? So, again, what's your POINT?

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited December 31, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[James DiEugenio]

The point is that you have stated that every word you write is thought out and checked in advance.

Then you wrote this:

I was going by my recollection of material from the book, "MRS.PAINE'S GARAGE," evidently.

​This is the kind of material you use to document your posts? And you did not even reread it, but based what you wrote on memory.

​Anyone familiar at all with the Paines and with Mallon understands just who he is, and what his book was about.

Wow.

Edited December 31, 2015 by James DiEugenio

[Greg Parker]

The point is that you have stated that every word you write is thought out and checked in advance.

Then you wrote this:

I was going by my recollection of material from the book, "MRS.PAINE'S GARAGE," evidently.

​This is the kind of material you use to document your posts? And you did not even reread it, but based what you wrote on memory.

​Anyone familiar at all with the Paines and with Mallon understands just who he is, and what his book was about.

Wow.

He has consistently stated he was referring to Paine's testimony - even suggesting I must not be familiar with it - and that he had studied every single word, so he is still dissembling when he states now he was miss-remembering Mallon's book.

"I'm repeating sworn testimony by Ruth Paine. I'm familiar with all of her eight appearances before the Warren Commission. Evidently, you aren't."

"What is important, though, isn't so much whether LHO was remembered fondly by the Klopfers, but only that Ruth Paine's testimony holds up under scrutiny"

He's also trying to suggest I was conflating Ruth Paine's first visit with her second simply because I quoted some of her testimony in context of her initial contact with Mrs. K and the reason for it. He disgraces this forum every time he posts.

[Paul Trejo]

Let me raise the discussion here by returning to the topic at hand -- my review of the 1997 article by attorney Carol Hewett, namely, Ruth Paine Finds Evidence: Oswald’s Letter to the Soviet Embassy (Probe, Vol. 4, No. 3, March-April, 1997, p. 16).

This article is about LHO's famous "USSR Embassy Letter" dated November 9, 1963. It was reproduced twice as CE 15 and CE 986, and here is an online link to it: http://mcadams.posc....8/8p358ex48.gif .

The FBI intercepted this typed letter to the USSR in 1963, and Hoover talks about it with LBJ on November 23, 1963. The FBI actually has three versions of this letter: (i) the typed version they intercepted; (ii) the original draft in LHO's handwriting; and (iii) Ruth Paine's hand-written copy, which she planned to give to the FBI.

According to Carol Hewett, the "Embassy letter" is important for three reasons:

(1) it is evidence that LHO appeared at both the Cuban and USSR Embassies in Mexico City to obtain visas to those nations;

(2) it suggests to Carol that LHO played games with the name of KGB agent Kostin in Mexico, because it sounds so much like KGB agent Kostikov, a known Communist assassin.

(3) Carol believes it "reveals the sneakiness of Ruth Paine in developing testimony against LHO."

When Ruth Paine secretly read this letter, it made her angry, because LHO attacks the FBI there -- and he used Ruth Paine's typewriter to do that. That's why Ruth Paine hand-copied the letter to show to the FBI. But LHO also spoke about Mexico City Embassies, the FPCC, and addressed the letter to the USSR Embassy -- and all this confused Ruth Paine.

Carol Hewett adds an original theory: she suggests that LHO had left his handwritten draft on her desk *in order to tempt Ruth* into reading it. Why? Carol Hewett doesn't know.

Carol Hewett then expressed her disbelief that Ruth was angered by this letter, because Ruth (I) failed to confront LHO about it; and (II) kept her promise to give LHO a car-parking lesson the next day. But most of us know people who go to great lengths to avoid confrontation -- so, we need not follow Carol Hewett this far.

As events unfolded, on the night of Sun10Nov63 Ruth asked Michael and Lee to help move furniture. LHO still had his hand-written letter on her desk, “out in the open,” for two full days. Carol Hewett believes that Ruth should have asked, “Lee, does this belong to you?” So, Carol was critical of Ruth for sweeping the letter into an open drawer before the men came to do lift the desk. (Ruth told the WC she wanted to show the original to the FBI the next time they visited.) While that might have been weak, it surely wasn't a crime.

Carol Hewett finds two facts suspicious about Ruth's behavior here: (1) Ruth usually recorded events in her calendar, but not this letter; and (2) Ruth wrote to her mother on Mon14Oct1963 about Veterans Day’s weekend with Lee, and never mentioned this letter.

As I noted, this was a big blunder on Carol Hewett's part, because Ruth's October letter to her mother was three weeks before Veterans Day in November. Carol complained that Ruth never mentioned the "Embassy" letter to her mother, and that this made Ruth's testimony "suspicious" -- so Carol slipped there.

Again -- anybody can make a mistake.

Then, Carol Hewett tried to guess what "really" happened, e.g. Ruth was "probably" working for the FBI, so Ruth copied LHO's letter in longhand so that the FBI could continue to maintain their secret that they were spying on the USSR Embassy -- even in open court.

Sorry, I just don't find that argument to have any force or teeth at all. Ruth's sworn testimony makes far more sense to me.

Carol Hewett finds LHO’s handwritten draft different from his typed letter in three ways: (1) one paragraph has a minor re-arrangement; (2) “Kostine” is re-spelled "Kostin;" and (3) the Cuban consular guilty of being "stupid" is changed to a “gross breach of regulations.” Based on this, Carol Hewett then guesses that Ruth herself helped LHO improve his grammar -- and if so, then perhaps she had a closer relationship with LHO than expected, like a true FBI informant.

Carol offers no evidence for her guess, however. It's just a guess. Again, I think it has no force or teeth.

Also -- since all CIA wiretap data shows that LHO used his real name in Mexico City, Carol Hewett wonders whether LHO's lie about it was really trying to manipulate Ruth or the FBI.

Or, since LHO was aware that the FBI would intercept his letter to the USSR Embassy, perhaps he was really mocking the FBI, wonders Carol; and also, since LHO was surely aware that Ruth had no clue what he really did in Mexico City, perhaps LHO was also mocking Ruth.

I'll skip over Carol Hewett's narrative about the contents of LHO's CIA 201 File -- with that bogus photo -- because Bill Simpich's free eBook, State Secret: Wiretapping in Mexico City (2014) fully explains all these changes to LHO's CIA 201 File.

Carol Hewett ponders whether "comrade Kostin” really "Valery Kostikov," and then cites third party sources who claim that Kostine was a real KGB spy at one time. But what does this say, except to try to link LHO with the KGB? Carol does this, but doesn't explain where this leads.

Carol Hewett notes that LHO had written to the USSR Embassy in DC before. She notes that since Sun17Feb1963 Marina and Lee wrote them regularly, seeking visas to return to Russia.

But in this statement Carol deliberately neglects Marina's testimony that LHO had forced her to write to her letters, and that Marina said she never wanted to return to the USSR.

Carol Hewett cites former Soviet agent Nechiporenko to the effect that Marina could be of value to the FBI as a “bird of attraction” to catch KGB agents in the USA. Carol ventures a guess that Ruth Paine was an FBI agent who tried to gain control of Marina in early April 1963, to serve the FBI.

This guess, however, completely neglects Ruth's testimony that her motive was the fact that Marina had been complaining to her since March 1963 that LHO was threatening to send her and her children back to the USSR without him.

Carol Hewett even admits that Marina and Ruth both testified that LHO had been relentlessly harping and pushing Marina to move back to Russia without him, ever since March. But Carol simply ignores that testimony. To support her position, Carol Hewett cites LHO letters to the USSR Embassy dated May 5, 1963 and July 1, 1963, which say that LHO was also planning to return to Russia (though separately), and that LHO's visa application was included with Marina’s June 1963 letter to the USSR Embassy.

The flaw in Carol's logic here is again based on dates. Carol raises LHO's June 1963 letter to deny a complaint Marina made in March 1963.

Carol Hewett then notes that after Marina’s Sun17Feb1963 letter to the USSR Embassy, that James Hosty began to track Marina Oswald on Mon04Mar1963. Shortly afterwards, in early April 1963, double-agent Richard Case Nagell was sent by the USSR to track Marina Oswald.

Yet Carol Hewett fails to show how any of this USSR material this is relevant to Marina's March 1963 complaints about LHO's threat to send her back to the USSR without him.

Instead, Carol Hewett guesses that the FBI used Ruth Paine to keep Marina in the USA, or isolate her from LHO (for some unclear reason). Perhaps it was to see which KGB agent would visit either one.

Carol Hewett is indeed guessing creatively, but she fails to offer a cohesive theory of motivation for any of this behavior based on her guesswork.

Carol Hewett claims that Ruth Paine "isolated" Marina from LHO in the final two weeks of April 1963 when LHO first moved to New Orleans, and also at the end of September 1963 when Ruth moved Marina back to Texas with her.

This claim of a planned "isolation" merely extends Jim Garrison's 1967 guesswork. It goes nowhere, because it makes no sense in any scenario. Further, this claim again neglects both Marina's and Ruth's testimony that LHO was out of work in late September, and that Marina was waddling pregnant and desperately needed financial support.

Carol Hewett insists that Marina was really trying to stay with LHO and to return to the USSR with LHO, and that Ruth manipulated Marina to "isolate" her from LHO.

Yet Marina herself testified repeatedly that LHO was a poor and immature provider, and she was in serious need of help when eight months pregnant and with LHO out of work yet again. Carol simply doesn't account for the material facts.

Carol Hewett and I agree on one key point -- that the USSR Embassy letter requires much more investigation. The nonsense theories that claim that Ruth Paine forged the EMBASSY LETTER to try to frame LHO as a Communist is so ridiculous that even Carol Hewett doesn't bother with it.

Ultimately, however, I don't find a consistent theory from Carol Hewett to suspect that the EMBASSY LETTER "reveals the sneakiness of Ruth Paine in developing testimony against LHO."

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited December 31, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[James DiEugenio]

I would do a soft-shoe in large print and try to change the subject also.

You just got caught with your pants down.

[Paul Trejo]

I would do a soft-shoe in large print and try to change the subject also.

You just got caught with your pants down.

The hypocrisy here is that when Carol Hewett makes a mistake -- confusing Ruth Paine's October 14th letter to her mother with a reference to LHO's November behavior -- that's forgiven with the statement, "anybody can make a mistake."

But when I made a mistake, and said that Ruth Kloepfer, rather than her daughter, was the Russian speaker at the NOLA visit to Marian Oswald in September -- that's "getting caught with your pants down."

So, which is it, James? Did Carol Hewett get caught with her pants down?

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

[James DiEugenio]

I will be dealing with your attack on Carol at length and in depth. She is retired and out of the field.

But the difference is you were vouching for the accuracy of everything you said as being fact checked and according to Hoyle, when proven wrong, you then did a soft-shoe and tried to say you were recalling one source, while the whole time you acted as if you had Ruth Paine's testimony in front of you

Edited December 31, 2015 by James DiEugenio

[Greg Parker]

I would do a soft-shoe in large print and try to change the subject also.

You just got caught with your pants down.

The hypocrisy here is that when Carol Hewett makes a mistake -- confusing Ruth Paine's October 14th letter to her mother with a reference to LHO's November behavior -- that's forgiven with the statement, "anybody can make a mistake."

But when I made a mistake, and said that Ruth Kloepfer, rather than her daughter, was the Russian speaker at the NOLA visit to Marian Oswald in September -- that's "getting caught with your pants down."

So, which is it, James? Did Carol Hewett get caught with her pants down?

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

You were caught out sans pants not by your mistake, but by the fact that you insisted whilst making that mistake, that you were referring to testimony that you were allegedly very familiar with. Then when forced to admit your error, you suddenly claimed your source wasn't Paine's testimony, it was one of the world's worst jfk books. You were caught dissembling.

[Paul Trejo]

I will be dealing with your attack on Carol at length and in depth. She is retired and out of the field.

But the difference is you were vouching for the accuracy of everything you said as being fact checked and according to Hoyle, when proven wrong, you then did a soft-shoe and tried to say you were recalling one source, while the whole time you acted as if you had Ruth Paine's testimony in front of her.

OK, James, as long as you're not attempting to evade a careful review of Carol Hewett's PROBE magazine attacks on Ruth Paine, because that's the current theme under scrutiny.

Actually, I do have Ruth Paine's testimony on my desktop now, and I'm no longer going to rely on my memory anymore for even minor details like Mrs. Kloepfer or her daughter's skill in Russian language..

That's over five thousand questions to Ruth Paine in eight separate appearances and affidavits -- right in front of me right now.

I look forward, James, to reading your feedback on my criticisms of Carol Hewett. I've really only begun.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited December 31, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Jon G. Tidd]

Michael and Ruth Paine's marriage was falling apart by November 1963, which is understandable. But they were in sync re Marina's husband, which is also understandable.

In the wake of the JFK killing, both a appeared not to come to Marina's husband's defense, but to view him as a distant object. That's understandable too. Marina's husband meant nothing to Michael or Ruth Paine. At best, Marina was a teacher to Ruth.

If I could interview Ruth today, I'd ask her one question. Which is, if you believe Marina's husband killed JFK, why do you believe that?

[Greg Parker]

Let's put all this into perspective, shall we?

Ruth Paine sought to find Russian speaking company for Marina Oswald in NOLA during her second visit there around 21 September 1963.

She found nobody among the Quakers there, but she did find Ruth Kloepfer, a Unitarian lady with two daughters studying Russian.

They made a Charity visit to Marina Oswald to keep her company and cheer her up.

That's what Ruth Paine said.

Now -- what's the big beef about whether Ruth Kloepfer spoke Russian or her daughters spoke Russian? Is it really a big deal?

Greg Parker wants to insert that her has personally interviewed Ruanne Kloepfer, one of the daughters -- which is nice -- but Greg doesn't really have anything important to add to Ruth's account, except that Ruanne claims that LHO was trying to flirt with her.

Isn't that right, Greg? So, again, what's your POINT?

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

And you STILL can't get your facts straight.

Ruth K was a Quaker - not Unitarian.

And for the second or third time - only ONE daughter was studying Russian.

Anything important? Depends if you prefer facts or not. The elder women were in another room, so Ruth Paine's assessment of Oswald is meaningless - much like the rest of her BS.

Edited December 31, 2015 by Greg Parker

[Paul Trejo]

Michael and Ruth Paine's marriage was falling apart by November 1963, which is understandable. But they were in sync re Marina's husband, which is also understandable.

In the wake of the JFK killing, both a appeared not to come to Marina's husband's defense, but to view him as a distant object. That's understandable too. Marina's husband meant nothing to Michael or Ruth Paine. At best, Marina was a teacher to Ruth.

If I could interview Ruth today, I'd ask her one question. Which is, if you believe Marina's husband killed JFK, why do you believe that?

Jon, why do you say that it's "understandable" that Michael and Ruth Paine were in "sync" regarding LHO (Marina's husband)?

In the aftermath of the JFK murder, Michael Paine vanished into the woodwork -- since he really didn't care a great deal for either Marina or LHO. This appears clear in his WC testimony.

But Ruth Paine continued to feel very friendly toward Marina Oswald. Before that time, Ruth Paine was ambivalent towards LHO -- running sometimes cold and sometimes warm. But the hassle that LHO brought into her usually peaceful life was always a bother to Ruth Paine. Also, while he was in the Dallas jail, he called Ruth Paine and basically "ordered" her to make telephone calls to Attorney Abt in NYC for him. She did this, but it irked her that LHO was acting all calm and cool and nonchalant, when the whole world was gazing him with icy cold suspicion.

So, I agree with you, that LHO meant very little to Michael and Ruth Paine.

It's not quite accurate to say that "at best, Marina was a teacher to Ruth." In fact, the Russian lessons were secondary -- and Ruth's concern with Marina Oswald was that Marina was a young mother, and college educated, and suffering from a rocky marriage -- and that was exactly what Ruth herself held herself to be suffering. They could commiserate. Ruth thought that they were much closer friends than Marina thought.

Ruth was concerned for Marina's welfare. It started when Marina began by complaining in March 1963 that LHO was threatening to send her and her kids back to the USSR without him. That got Ruth Paine motivated to take up Marina's cause.

If you would read Ruth's WC testimony, Jon, you wouldn't have to ask her the question you stated above. You would know the following:

(1) Ruth Paine told the WC multiple times that she didn't believe that LHO killed JFK. She didn't see the motive. She never saw LHO behave violently.

(2) Ruth Paine and Michael Paine "both knew" that the real killers of JFK were the ones who published the WANTED: JFK handbill, and the WELCOME MR. KENNEDY advertisement -- whoever they turned out to be.

(3) Ruth Paine only came to accept that LHO was the JFK killer at the same time that Robert Oswald came to accept it -- at the end of the WC hearings -- because of the "overwhelming circumstantial evidence." Even Robert Oswald said that the "circumstantial evidence" was so strong, that he would consider his brother innocent of the JFK murder only if somebody could convincingly explain to him all the "circumstantial evidence."

In the book, Mrs. Paine's Garage (2002), Ruth Paine expresses that she always kept an open mind about LHO's possible innocence, and she read numerous CT theories -- but none of them made sense to her. Her mind is still open, but it has been more than 50 years and no CT makes sense to her so far.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited December 31, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[James DiEugenio]

So that is his source for all this, the Mallon book.

OMG.

That book was directly inspired by the work of Hewett, Lamonica and Jones.

Just as the book Case Closed was inspired by Oliver Stone's film JFK.

Edited December 31, 2015 by James DiEugenio