Jump to content
The Education Forum

Ruth Paine


Paul Trejo
 Share

Recommended Posts

Paul Trejo said:

The 60's were only leftist in a relative way -- JFK spoke about letting the Vietnamese fighting their own war, but JFK also spoke about helping the South Vietnamese so that the "dominos" would stop falling. JFK was liberal, but he was also super-rich, and there was nothing socialist about JFK.

Ok,

Perhaps the word "leftist" could be misconstrued. ( Though it was a period of big government) But I didn't say Socialist, you did. Your response is neither here nor there. I'm talking about the movements of people, not about John Kennedy's personal political views.

All the movements of people in the 60's were in place before Kennedy even got elected. For example, Do you think MLK thought Kennedy was enough into Civil rights? Do you know they were at odds?

Do you really think Kennedy had anything to do with the civil rights movement? Outside of one good speech, he tried to avoid dealing with it at all costs and only confronted it when he had to. Did Kennedy have anything to do with the Free Speech movement? Understandably no. And Kennedy had already died before the anti Viet Nam war movement.

However, Nixon was elected because LBJ bowed out, thank you very much.

No Paul,...thank you. You just illustrated my point that Nixon's election was a fluke. You can extend that further, and also say if RFK hadn't been assassinated, Nixon never would have been elected.

Your view is myopic -- its focus is strictly on the USA, without considering the USSR in the equation. The Cold War was still as white-hot as the Cuban Missile Crisis. If the fight was strictly in the USA, then it could have been resolved quickly, as you suggest. However, the entire planet was involved -- with the USSR looming large.

Talk about Russian warmongering! About the only other person who would share your viewpoint on that would be Walker himself. Do you realize it was OUR military and intelligence who approached Kennedy about launching a first strike against the Russians while we still had clear missile superiority? Talk about myopic!

Is there really any doubt that the USSR would have been tempted to get involved? That the CPUSA would have made a grandstand of it? That this would have energized the Radical Right to another extreme level?

Is there really any doubt??? Is that called Bravado Paul? In one word: yes! IMO, you're world wide apocalyptic view of General Walker being brought to justice is totally bananas!

If the Left had gone after the Minutemen on the Right-wing (who were massively well armed, including military grade equipment) the FBI would have needed more help -- and the Coast Guard would have not been enough. Riots in the streets were plausible -- but this was during the Cold War!

If the left had gone after the right wing??? And what do mean by the left? Martin Luther King and his non violent protesters? There were no radical student groups before the Viet Nam War. Who specifically are you talking about in this war you were projecting?

Don't underestimate the Minutemen of the 1960's, please, Kirk.

Don't underestimate the power of the American military, Paul. The minutemen would squashed out like a toad on the road.

You also write: "Even in the South, the Civil Rights Movement was non violent." Excuse me?!

It was only a few months before JFK was murdered, that Medgar Evars was shot in the back in his driveway in Mississippi. It was only a couple more years after JFK was murdered that MLK was also murdered in cold blood. The Civil Rights Movement in the South was non-violent? Nonsense.

I think you better check you scorecard Paul. Do you understand that General Walker, the KKK and the various other White Supremacist groups are not part of the Civil Rights movement?

With all due respect Paul, I like some of your diggings. But If Caulfield's book veer into these contrived, paranoid right wing apocalyptic visions you enumerate here. I think I'll pass on it.

Kirk,

OK, those were good replies. Here’s my return:

(1) Yes, I knew JFK wasn’t moving fast enough for MLK. Yes, I knew that the Brown Decision was already big news by 1955 – long before JFK ran for POTUS.

(2) You’re making my point about the 1960’s not being “totally leftist”. JFK himself wanted to move more slowly on Civil Rights than many others.

(3) You’re right that JFK died before the Anti-Vietnam movement, so we really don’t know how he would have fared – yet JFK spoke for both sides of the issue, as any politician would. (Yet if he had entered Vietnam, I feel sure he would have done a better job than LBJ or Nixon.)

(4) I’ll grant you the Nixon point.

(5) I see no argument that you’ve made to change my mind that the US Government refused to attack the Radical Right for the murder of JFK – not because the US Government was allied with the killers; and not because the US Government was afraid of the Radical Right – but because the US Government didn’t want to air dirty laundry in PUBLIC.

(6) OK, I over-spoke when I claimed “there’s no doubt,” when clearly nothing is absolute here. Yet I maintain that if the WC had fingered General Walker and the Radical Right, then Liberals in the USA would have gone after them with fury. Professor David Wrone (U. of Wisconsin) said that after JFK was murdered, among the people he knew, men went out with axes to chop down JBS billboards “immediately”. There was real anger in the air.

(7) I further maintain that the CPUSA would have crowed about the crime and made a grandstand of it. Further, I maintain that the USSR would have been made international headlines with it – and a propaganda coup.

(8) I further maintain that the Reds in the USA would have made a move, and this would have inspired many more Americans to join the Radical Right in general, and the Minutemen in particular.

(9) When I say, “if the left had gone after the right wing,” I don’t even mean the Far Left. I only mean the Liberal Left in the USA – but that would have tempted the Far Left – the CPUSA, and the Reds in the USA, and many others as well. (You do know that the CPUSA used to boast that the Vietnam War was ended because of their strategy, right?)

(10) I advised you not to underestimate the Minutemen, Kirk, and you advised me not to underestimate the American Military. Yet you misunderstand me. I have zero doubt that the American Military would have creamed the Minutemen in a day or two, Kirk. That’s not the point.

(11) The real point is that if the American Military was brought out to attack American Civilians, Radical Rightists though they were, that Internationally this would have looked like a Civil War. The Reds inside the USA and the Reds in the USSR and worldwide would have had a propaganda coup – at the peak of the Cold War! It would have been a propaganda disaster!

(12) You misunderstand my point, Kirk, if you think I’m advocating for the Radical Right, General Walker, KKK or White Supremacy. I’m accusing them of the JFK murder.

(13) Nor am I claiming that the US Radical Right were so powerful that the US Government was afraid of them.

(14) I’m claiming that the US Government could see that a US attack on our Radical Right would have been a propaganda disaster for the USA. We would have lost face in a tremendous way.

(15) Finally, I believe that Hoover, LBJ, Dulles and Warren all agreed – that blaming the Left or the Right for the JFK murder would start riots in the streets – riots that the FBI could not control. And if the riots got really out of hand, the USSR would have been tempted to interfere. Then the violence would have escalated to a fever pitch.

Therefore, the WC agreed, the safest route for National Security was the Lone Nut theory of LHO.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 807
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Ok Paul, that's a bit more nuanced.

Paul Trejo said,

Yet I maintain that if the WC had fingered General Walker and the Radical Right, then Liberals in the USA would have gone after them with fury. Professor David Wrone (U. of Wisconsin) said that after JFK was murdered, among the people he knew, men went out with axes to chop down JBS billboards “immediately”. There was real anger in the air.

I had never heard that anecdotal story. I assume it's only an anecdotal story, as I hadn't heard much about a liberal backlash.

The left's tactics in late 1963 were mostly non violent peaceful resistance with a few people getting thrown in jail for a day or two. Any fear that the left and right would start a civil war was completely unjustified. The left in 1963 would never have gotten in an armed insurrection with the right, because they knew it would be suicide. They weren't as well financed or prone to carry guns. Remember Paul, this isn't 1969, it's 1963 and those 2 years were worlds apart. But still 5 years later the left had 2 of it's major leaders assassinated and outside of a few short lived incidents, stood by pretty passively.

Finally, I believe that Hoover, LBJ, Dulles and Warren all agreed – that blaming the Left or the Right for the JFK murder would start riots in the streets – riots that the FBI could not control. And if the riots got really out of hand, the USSR would have been tempted to interfere. Then the violence would have escalated to a fever pitch.

I think the real reasons that Hoover, Dulles and Warren agreed to not blame the left or right was better explained in responses to Jon Tidd's recent post and not because of fear of riots in the streets. Part of the evidence of that is that many rightists still believed LHO was a communist and many leftists wondered just what he really was, and no one started a revolution about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many here trash Nixon.

As a young person, I liked Nixon.

It's easy to trash Nixon. He did not end the Vietnam war as Bobby Kennedy would have. Bobby would have ended the war immediately.

So, why wasn't I a Bobby fan?

I was broken when RFK was killed. Killed.

For me, the issue was Viet Nam.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok Paul, that's a bit more nuanced.

Paul Trejo said,

Yet I maintain that if the WC had fingered General Walker and the Radical Right, then Liberals in the USA would have gone after them with fury. Professor David Wrone (U. of Wisconsin) said that after JFK was murdered, among the people he knew, men went out with axes to chop down JBS billboards “immediately”. There was real anger in the air.

I had never heard that anecdotal story. I assume it's only an anecdotal story, as I hadn't heard much about a liberal backlash.

The left's tactics in late 1963 were mostly non violent peaceful resistance with a few people getting thrown in jail for a day or two. Any fear that the left and right would start a civil war was completely unjustified. The left in 1963 would never have gotten in an armed insurrection with the right, because they knew it would be suicide. They weren't as well financed or prone to carry guns. Remember Paul, this isn't 1969, it's 1963 and those 2 years were worlds apart. But still 5 years later the left had 2 of it's major leaders assassinated and outside of a few short lived incidents, stood by pretty passively.

Finally, I believe that Hoover, LBJ, Dulles and Warren all agreed – that blaming the Left or the Right for the JFK murder would start riots in the streets – riots that the FBI could not control. And if the riots got really out of hand, the USSR would have been tempted to interfere. Then the violence would have escalated to a fever pitch.

I think the real reasons that Hoover, Dulles and Warren agreed to not blame the left or right was better explained in responses to Jon Tidd's recent post and not because of fear of riots in the streets. Part of the evidence of that is that many rightists still believed LHO was a communist and many leftists wondered just what he really was, and no one started a revolution about it.

OK, Kirk, as for Professor Wrone's remark, IMHO he said this as a report, as a matter of fact. The John Birch Society was repugnant to many American Liberals, but even repugnant to J. Edgar Hoover, who expressed his dismay that Robert Welch was publishing widely that FDR was a Communist, and Truman was a Communist, and even that Eisenhower was a Communist. Hoover implied that any FBI Agent who joined the JBS could turn in his badge tomorrow.

So, yes, the Right-wing was on the ropes. The KKK was all but a joke in 1963, when under President Wilson they were welcome to march, even in Washington DC. So, there was clearly a shift away from Jim Crow for most US States -- though still not in the South.

Yet the Right Wing refused to quit. We see that not only with Barry Goldwater, but also with George Wallace. General Walker attended George Wallace's kick off campaign for Democratic President -- more or less running on the Woodrow Wilson ticket, who kept Princeton U. segregated. General Walker also hoped to run on that ticket one day -- and his constituency encouraged him in his -- including Guy Banister, Pedro Del Valle, Kent Courtney and Joseph Milteer, as well as the entire JBS, the WCC, the NSRP and the Minutemen.

Walker ran for Texas Governor on a segregationist ticket and came in last place -- but that didn't slow the Left down. Kent and Phoebe Courtney called for General Walker for US President in 1962. George Wallace stepped up to the plate, right behind Barry Goldwater. The Segregationist South was not about to give up in 1963.

BTW, I think you make my point when you admit that the Left was terrified to go against the Far Right (especially in the South, but also in Los Angeles and Chicago) in 1963. There was no fear of an insurrection on the Left. So, the Right was not yet fully defeated.

IMHO, however, if the Left in late 1963 had learned that the Radical Right had murdered JFK, I think we would have seen riots break out, as we later saw when MLK was murdered five years later. It wouldn't just have been a Black backlash, but a more generic sort. The Radical Right was profoundly repugnant to millions of Americans. I think historian David Wrone reported a historical fact about his Liberal US neighborhood in Wisconsin.

The notion that LHO was a Communist is ludicrous, IMHO, but the Radical Right had produced tons of evidence -- in police reports, newspapers, radio spots, even TV. Further, the FBI and CIA had spotted LHO in Mexico City seeking a visa to Cuba, with a report under investigation that LHO had called the USSR Embassy from the Cuban Consulate, asking for wanted KGB Agent Valerie Kostikov. The sheep-dip was almost perfect.

In fact, I believe an easy 50% of journalists and US Government workers still believe LHO was a Red to this very day. Jim Garrison proved without any doubt that LHO was working with Guy Banister out of 544 Camp Street, and this completely smashes any notion that LHO was a Red. But the Radical Right worked overtime and won the day. Many still believe them. In 1963, the evidence was overwhelming.

Dr. Caufield believes that LHO was innocent, and set-up as a Patsy -- but he also admits that in 1963, if Jack Ruby had been stopped from killing LHO, the circumstantial evidence was so enormous that LHO would have probably died in a Dallas electric chair, anyway. (Dallas DA Henry Wade had said, "I've sent men to the electric chair on less evidence than this!")

The real problem is that LHO trusted the people who set him up; and he willingly handed over his rifle to them; and he refused to name them when he had the chance.

The question for this thread, however, is what role the Paines had in all these politics. In the opinion of Carol Hewett and her followers, the Paines were secret FBI and CIA Agents. In my opinion, Ruth and Michael Paine were rich liberals who thought they were doing the Oswald family a favor.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, I’ll finally complete my review of Carol Hewett’s 1997 article, The Paines Know – Lurking in the Shadows of the Walker Shooting (Probe, Vol. 5, No. 1, November-December, 1997, p. 11)

We’ve seen several weak points in Carol Hewett’s arguments. Let’s wrap this up.

15.0. THE PAINES KNOW

15.1. Carol Hewett claims that Marina Oswald told the WC that both Michael and Ruth Paine also knew about the Walker shooting.

15.1.1. This is another of Carol’s errors – actually Marina told the WC that only Michael Paine knew about the Walker shooting.

15.1.2. Carol Hewett adds to her error by omitting Michael Paine’s testimony that Marina Oswald was simply mistaken in her belief that he knew about the Walker shooting.

15.1.3. The best explanation Michael Paine could offer was that LHO lied to Marina Oswald about this -- thus, Marina was not lying, she was only repeating what LHO told her. In fact, that’s exactly what Marina Oswald said.

15.1.4. Carol Hewett fails to share this important data about this topic, in order to stretch her conspiracy theory.

15.2. Carol Hewett asks, if LHO told the Paines about the Walker shooting, why would the Paines remain his friends for the rest of the year?

15.2.1. Carol Hewett presumes that LHO did tell the Paines of the Walker shooting, and she further guesses that the date the Paine’s learned about the Walker shooting was April 11, 1963, the day after, when Ruth’s calendar has Marina’s name in it.

15.2.2. Ruth testified that she didn’t see Marina on April 11th, but earlier in the month she was hoping to. But it didn’t work out.

15.2.3. Carol Hewett claims Ruth Paine is lying there, and suggests a new theory: that the Paines helped LHO shoot at Walker, and after they failed to kill Walker, they helped LHO flee to New Orleans.

15.2.4. It’s a creative guess – but it’s based on flimsy guesswork. I note, however, that General Walker himself told the WC that he believed Michael Paine was with LHO on April 10, 1963. Walker based his belief on the testimony of Michael Paine, which General Walker was able to preview. Michael had guessed that his first dinner party with Ruth Paine and the Oswalds was April 10th, but then he said he made an error, because that date was really April 2, 1963.

15.2.5. I wonder if Carol Hewett knew that her 1997 theory -- that the Paines were accomplices in the Walker shooting, actually matches General Walker’s own theory.

15.3. Carol Hewett then brings up General Walker’s testimony about the German newspaper (Deutsche Nationalzeitung) article, which on 11/29/1963 reported that RFK had sent LHO to kill General Walker. She asks if Walker first heard the theory from the German newspaper, or whether the German newspaper heard it from Walker.

15.3.1. Carol Hewett didn’t know – but this is a major flaw in her research, because FBI reports had already confirmed that a German FBI (BND) investigation proved that the German newspaper had heard it first from General Walker.

15.4. Carol Hewett also notes that the National Enquirer of May 1964 featured a similar story about RFK and LHO, and that the WC was aware of this story. Carol Hewett, like the WC, failed to recognize that General Walker was also the source of that article. The WC simply deemed it fiction. The fact that the NE article and the DN article both blamed RFK for the Walker shooting just escaped them!

16.0. MICHAEL SAW THE BACKYARD PHOTOS IN APRIL, 1963

16.1. Carol Hewett rightly dwells on the fact Michael Paine admitted to Dan Rather in 1993 that he first saw LHO’s BYP prior to the JFK murder, since he swore to the WC that he never saw LHO with any weapons, whatsoever.

16.1.1. A CBS Report entitled, Who Killed JFK – The Final Chapter, which aired November 1993, shows Michael Paine saying that LHO showed him a photograph of himself holding his rifle and Red papers during that April 2nd dinner engagement pick-up.

16.2. Carol Hewett suspects that this fact was the reason that Michael Paine trembled upon hearing the news of the JFK killing. Carol repeats: if Michael Paine knew LHO was prone to violence back in April, why did Paine stay connected with LHO for the rest of the year?

16.2.1. Worse, knowing LHO was prone to violence back in April, how dare Michael Paine let LHO stay at his wife’s house with his own children?

16.3. Carol suspects that it is impossible that Michael Paine failed to recognize that long, hard object in the blanket in his garage, which he moved several times to get it out of the way of his table saw. It was a rifle, and Michael knew it, she insists.

16.4. Carol Hewett also insists that Michael Paine was also the one who unloaded this bulky blanket package after Ruth moved Marina and the Oswalds’ meager possessions back to Texas from New Orleans in late September 1963.

16.4.1. Is Carol jumping to conclusions? Ruth testified that she unpacked the contents of her station wagon after returning from New Orleans – expect for the two Marine duffel bags. Michael got those. There was no blanket – no rifle.

16.4.2. A more likely scenario is that LHO didn’t travel to Mexico alone or by bus after he left New Orleans, but had accomplices with automobiles, and kept his rifle in his blanket in the trunk of their car. Carol Hewett, however, picks and chooses what WC testimony to accept and what to twist.

16.4.3. A more likely scenario is that LHO brought his rifle-in-a-blanket to Ruth Paine’s house after October 4th, 1963, shortly after he arrived in Irving Texas.

16.4.5. Carol Hewett prefers to write that Michael and Ruth Paine were secretly managing LHO’s rifle, and lying to the WC about it. In other words, she’s making stuff up.

16.5. Carol asks why Michael failed to tell the WC about his April sighting of LHO’s BYP. She jumps to the conclusion that the Paines were accomplices of the Walker shooting as well as the JFK shooting.

16.5.1. The answer is fairly straightforward: Michael Paine didn’t actually see LHO with weapons – Paine saw a photograph of LHO with weapons. There could be many explanations, including: (i) fake weapons; (ii) a fake photograph; or (iii) both. Even though he saw the BYP, Michael Paine could still say, without perjury, that he never saw LHO with weapons.

16.5.2. The WC attorneys pressed this, because the WC failed to obtain a motive for LHO shooting JFK – and everybody knew this. Why would Michael Paine involve himself in the national paranoia? Technically speaking, Michael Paine didn’t actually see weapons.

17.0. HUNTER OF FASCISTS INSIDE A RECORD ALBUM

17.1. On May 11, Ruth Paine drove Marina and baby June Oswald to New Orleans to join LHO who had found a job at Reilly Coffee Company and an apartment on 4907 Magazine Street.

17.1.1. Reilly Coffee is also on Magazine Street; and its bus gave LHO a straight line to work each day. Reilly Coffee was also directly across the street from 544 Camp Street in those days. Today, 544 Camp Street has been turned into a paved picnic area.

17.2. Before she left, Ruth instructed Michael Paine to return some items that Marina had borrowed from the DeMohrenschildts long before Ruth ever met Marina, namely, a record player and some English language instruction records.

17.2.1. So, Michael Paine returned these items to his longtime Unitarian friend, Everett Glover, who was a friend of the DeMohrenschildts and was now living in their old house, since the DeMohrenschildts had been living in Haiti since April 1963.

17.2.2. Everett had a place in the garage for their stuff, and he placed the items there. Everett recognized the items, because George DeMohrenschildt asked him to deliver it to Marina in the first place, long before Ruth ever met Marina.

17.2.3. Unknown to Everett (and possibly unknown to Michael) inside one of the English records jacket was a BYP, signed by LHO himself, and dated back in April, 1963.

17.2.4. George DeMohrenschildt, a full four years later, discovered this BYP and turned it over to the press. Carol Hewett jumped to the conclusion that George DeMohrenschildt had long planned to “incriminate” LHO for the JFK murder, and even in 1967 hammered in another nail.

17.2.5. Carol Hewett jumps to another conclusion. She says, “this record player incident certainly means that the two couples were quite aware of one another.” Excuse me? It was Everett Glover who returned the record player to the DeMohrenschildts. There’s no hint of evidence Ruth Paine knew the BYP was inside the record jacket cover.

17.2.6. Carol Hewett strains to forge a theory that the Paines knew the DeMohrenschildts very well before they met the Oswalds, from CIA connections – as Jim Garrison himself had strained (and failed) to prove in 1968.

17.3. On 11/25/1963 Ruth had told the FBI that Everett Glover was living at George DeMohrenschildts’s old house. Carol Hewett exclaims that this is proof that the Paines were close to the DeMohrenschildts; otherwise, how would they know this?

17.3.1. The obvious connection between the Paines and the DeMohrenschildt’s was Marina Oswald, but Carol Hewett prefers to ignore this simple fact. Ruth testified in 1964 that she saw the DeMohrenschildt’s only once in her entire life – and anything that she knew about them she was told by Marina Oswald, who knew them very well. Carol just ignores this simple fact.

17.4. The DeMohrenschildts found this BYP in their record albums in 1967. For Carol, However, the Garrison investigation had just become public in 1967, and Garrison was publicly claiming that the BYP was a hoax. Carol suspects that DeMohrenschildt was sent by the CIA to make Jim Garrison look bad.

17.5. But Carol Hewett confuses two separate issues: (i) that the BYP are obvious Fakes; and (ii) that LHO created the BYP. Carol thinks that DeMohrenschildt was trying to prove that the BYP were not Fakes. (She also claims that Michael Paine in 1993 was also trying to prove that the BYP were not Fakes.) But that’s not the case. In fact, the BYP could be total Fakes on the one hand, and still created by LHO at Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall on the other hand.

17.6. Carol guesses that perhaps the BYPs were made before the Walker shooting, Fakes which were intended to brand LHO as a left-wing revolutionary. On this point I agree with Carol, except for one thing – I say that LHO himself was trying to brand himself as left-wing, as he did again in NOLA by publicly handing out FPCC fliers.

17.7. The back of the George’s BYP was signed, “to my friend George,” and dated “5/IV/63”, which is Russian (Cyrillic) for April 5, 1963. FBI experts said the handwriting was LHO’s.

17.8. In a different handwriting, but not Marina’s, is another comment: “Hunter of Fascists, Ha! Ha!” Carol and I agree that this is a reference to the General Walker shooting; and according to the date on it, it predated the Walker shooting by five days.

17.9. Marina told the HSCA that it wasn’t her handwriting, though she also admitted that he often used, “Ha! Ha!” in her remarks, and so whoever wrote that comment obviously knew Marina personally. Experts agree that the handwriting isn’t Marina’s. Also, the “fascist” comment is written over a fainter hand-writing that was erased underneath.

17.9.1. Carol Hewett believes that both the Paines and the DeMohrenschildts had plausible access to the photo, so any of them could have forged it. Ruth denied knowledge of the BYP. Michael admitted seeing a BYP in April, 1963, but only in April. George and Jeanne didn’t’ comment on their role in the BYP.

17.10. Even though Ruth Paine testified in 1964 that she met the DeMohrenschildts one time in her life, Carol Hewett is skeptical. For example, the two couples had dinner in 1966 to discuss the JFK murder and the newly found BYP. George DeMohrenschildt said in his 1978 manuscript, I’m a Patsy! I’m a Patsy! that he spoke of this photo only with close friends.

17.10.1. Carol uses this remark to conclude that the Paines ‘must have been’ close friends of George and Jeanne DeMohrenschildt before Ruth met Marina.

17.10.2. This is clearly weak evidence to draw such a serious allegation.

17.11. Carol then raises the question of cameras. Although the BYP reveal LHO’s Imperial Reflex camera aspects, they also reveal Michael Paine’s Minox camera aspects, i.e. a 15mm camera lens, according to a WC expert.

17.11.1. Carol, however, ignores the fact that cameras at Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall also has 15mm camera lenses.

18.0. RUTH AND THE GARRISON INQUIRY

18.1. That the Paines and the DeMohrenschildts had dinner in 1966 and spoke about the BYP, was admitted by Ruth to Jim Garrison in her 1967 Grand Jury testimony.

18.2. Carol Hewett believes that George’s new BYP reinforced Ruth’s views that LHO was the Lone Nut assassin who deserved to die.

18.2.1. It never occurs to Carol Hewett that the Walker shooting has nothing to do with the JFK shooting.

18.2.2. It never occurs to Carol Hewett that nothing in the BYP exists to lead Ruth to believe that LHO shot at either Walker or JFK.

18.3. Carol Hewett wishes to accuse Ruth Paine, whom she calls, “this pious Quaker,” told journalist Jessmyn Westin the summer of 1964 that she was “glad” that LHO was killed by Jack Ruby.

18.3.1. Ruth’s explanation was that LHO’s death spared Marina the trauma of a grueling trial, and, whether innocent or not, the likelihood that LHO would have been executed by an electric chair in Dallas – based only on the overwhelming circumstantial evidence that the FBI pushed as hard as they could.

18.3.2. Carol Hewett believes this is a totally Un-Christian attitude on the part of Ruth Paine, and so, Ruth could not really be a “pious Quaker,” but instead a CIA agent who plotted to murder JFK and blame LHO, as Jim Garrison had tried to prove.

18.3.3. But I don’t think many people agree with Carol Hewett on this, and many people can sympathize with Ruth Paine’s feelings her, especially since Ruth was always more concerned for Marina’s feelings than for LHO’s feelings. Marina had started this scenario when, in March 1963, she confided to Ruth that she was pregnant, and LHO was threatening to send her back to the USSR without him. Ruth always kept LHO at arm’s length after that – even during the better times.

18.4. Carol Hewett was puzzled by Ruth’s gushing letter to Jim Garrison in April 1968, praising his courage and offering to help if she could. Carol concluded that Ruth was cold-blooded.

18.5. Carol Hewett said that Garrison remained convinced that the Paines were somehow involved in the JFK murder. Carol is simply wrong here.

18.5.1. Ruth Paine faced Jim Garrison’s investigation before his Grand Jury, and Garrison found N-O-T-H-I-N-G to indict. This impressed Jim Garrison. After Ruth’s testimony, Jim Garrison warmly greeted Ruth Garrison and emotionally begged for her help in solving the JFK murder.

19.0. CONCLUSION

19.1. Carol Hewett concludes that the Walker shooting shows a closer relationship between LHO and Michael Paine than usually considered.

19.1.1. On the point I agree with Carol. It seems to me that the WC, Jim Garrison and the HSCA failed to ask Michael Paine sufficiently about this. The fact that Micheal Paine had seen a BYP in April 1963 is riveting.

19.1.2. That fact that Michael Paine was closer to Volkmar Schmidt, and Volkmar Schmidt admitted to “programming” LHO to shoot at General Walker, raises many questions in my mind. I don’t fault Carol Hewett for these speculations.

19.2. Carol Hewett concludes that the Walker shooting links the DeMohrenschildts and the Paines.

19.2.1. This is major error on Carol’s part, because she fails to provide a scrap of valid evidence to support such a connection. She pretends their meeting about the BYP in 1966 is proof of their connection as far back as 1962. Such evidence is obviously dandelion flimsy.

19.3. Carol Hewett concludes that Ruth and Michael Paine should be forced to testify before the ARRB on the assassination of JFK.

19.3.1. Even if the ARRB did take witnesses (which they didn’t) The weak evidence that Carol Hewett provided to try to prove that the Paines were involved in the General Walker shooting makes her final conclusion simply backfire.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kirk - good try. Don't let trejo get you down. He is delusional. His views on history are warped by his myopic and segmented views, not nuanced at all. You are of course right, as am I.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whatever the truth of politics may be -- the issue at hand is Ruth Paine.

More specifically, the issue is Carol Hewett's flawed review of Ruth's role with LHO as given in Probe Magazine in the 1990's, which has influenced the global CT dialogue about Ruth Paine, including the 2012 edition of James DiEugenio's Destiny Betrayed.

That's the issue.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, that's his problem.

Maybe he will get someone to think Oswald was really a neo Nazi who infiltrated the integrationist movement for Leander Perez.

As far back as 1957, while he was in the service, and working on his Russian.

Caufield's book is so bizarre that its a little scary.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In fact, Dr. Jeff Caufield's new book, General Walker and the Murder of President Kennedy: The Extensive New Evidence of a Radical Right Conspiracy (2015) has received many positive reviews. Even Larry Hancock has said some positive things about it.

Caufield's book is 900 pages long, with hundreds of citations. It's a very well-researched book, including direct interviews.

Your work on Ruth Paine, by contrast James, is based on Carol Hewett's pitiful research and guesswork. Those are your citations.

No wonder you want to shift attention away from your own work on Ruth Paine. But you publicly attacked an innocent lady based on flimsy evidence, James, and I'm not going to let you get away with it.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BUMP. See Post #711

I received a complaint that this post was too long -- 20 pages. So, I've deleted this post, and summarized it into only 10 pages. I've posted the summary in Post #711.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Paul T

Have you ever interviewed Ruth or Michael Paine. If not have you interviewed anyone who has interviewed the Paines?

Well, Tom, I didn't want to volunteer this information, but since you asked me directly, I'll confess it all.

Last year, some people remember, I was banned from the Forum for more than a month. As readers here know, I really like to write about the JFK Murder Conspiracy, but I was only waiting around to get re-instated.

Well, long story short, last year I decided to try harder to contact Ruth Paine, because somebody on another JFK web site had recently done so.

I was delighted that Ruth Paine agreed to speak with me. We conversed over the telephone and also over E-mail.

Although she did answer a few of my questions, her real value was how quickly she showed me how little I knew about her testimony. After my very first question to her, she showed it had already been asked by Albert Jenner, and I simply didn't know that!

Ruth Paine is the single most interviewed person in the Warren Commission, having answered more than five thousands questions. Had I read all eight of her presentations before the Warren Commission? No I hadn't. So she waited patiently for weeks until I read hundreds of pages of WC testimony, and kept notes, and drew a timeline, and did all the homework that I SHOULD have done before contacting her.

Ruth Paine told me personally that she is still open to a CT, but she has never seen one that was convincing -- people are still reaching, and jumping to conclusions.

Ruth Paine told me that in her WC testimony, she had said multiple times that she doubted LHO was JFK's killer, although she had no answer to the FBI's preponderance of circumstantial evidence.

Ruth Paine told me that she had been to one and only one party of the Dallas Engineers, and that was on 22 February 1963. She said the same thing to Albert Jenner.

Ruth Paine told me that she never saw the DeMohrenschildt's before in her life until 22 February 1963, and then never again in 1963 or 1964. She had said the same thing to Albert Jenner.

Why didn't Ruth and Michael share more information about LHO? Because they were SEPARATED, that's why. Why did Michael Paine visit her twice a week? Because they had CHILDREN, that's why.

Why was Ruth Paine so obsessive about Marina Oswald? Because Marina was profoundly NEEDY, that's why. What normal person could say NO to a woman eight months waddling pregnant, whose husband just lost his job and they were moving out of their roach infested apartment? Ruth Paine could afford it, so she let Marina stay with her for a couple months. Ruth didn't expect LHO to take advantage of the situation -- come over on weekends and eat free, and never chip in for ANYTHING for the entire time, and also send his expensive Russian magazine subscriptions to HER address without asking.

Yet all of this was already told to Albert Jenner in the WC hearings and exhibits.

Also, Ruth Paine told me that she never turned down an interview, because her closest and most educated advisors told her that it's better to get it over with than to create suspicion that never goes away. So she asked me to look her up on Youtube and magazines and all other media, and recognize the DOZENS of times that she appears.

By the way, Ruth Paine personally advocates the book, Mrs. Paine's Garage (2002) by Thomas Mallon. He interviewed her best, she said.

Over time she's learned to turn people away -- the ones who scream in her face; or the ones who softly and calmly accuse her of murdering JFK, blaming LHO and skillfully avoiding the electric chair; or the ones who just begin by calling her a L-I-A-R, when they haven't read even half of her WC testimony.

I did look up Ruth Paine on Youtube and other sites. There are HOURS of videos featuring Ruth Paine. I watched them ALL. I can say without hesitation that Ruth Paine *never* contradicted herself. After more than a half-century her account remains exactly the same as what she told Albert Jenner and the WC in 1964.

So, yes, Tom. I have interviewed Ruth Paine -- slightly. Mostly, though, I just did what she told me -- I actually turned to the SOURCES and got ALL of the facts. Ruth Paine honestly has nothing to add more than she has already repeated a hundred times. It's a bit boring to her now; giving interviews.

She asked me if I'd read Reclaiming History (2007) by Vincent Bugliosi, and I told her that I had. This impressed her mainly because the book is so enormous (1,500 pages). She asked me what books I recommend, and I told her my favorite is still David Lifton's, Best Evidence (1992), because I said that the ARRB has recently confirmed the historical truth of Lifton's account. She said she would look into it.

Also, she said she had a friend, Max Holland, who is currently writing a book on the JFK murder, and she is interested in his work.

So,Tom, in short, yes I have interviewed Ruth Paine. Yet I've learned less from those interviews than from simply taking her advice and finally buckling down to read the hundreds of pages of WC testimony that she offered in 1964 -- which she never changed.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So,Tom, in short, yes I have interviewed Ruth Paine. Yet I've learned less from those interviews than from simply taking her advice and finally buckling down to read the hundreds of pages of WC testimony that she offered in 1964 -- which she never changed.

Never changed. Kinda like your times tables, eh Paul? Once LEARNED, it can't be unlearned. Pity human memory doesn't work like that.

Witness veracity is tested in a number of ways.

Is it supported by other evidence?

Is it consistent (as opposed to inconsistent or rote)?

Has the witness faced cross-examination?

Does the testimony pass the smell test (e.g. does it advance personal agendas or is it in any other way, self-serving?

-----------------------------------

Ruth's testimony fails on a number of indicators.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

-----------------------------------

Ruth's testimony fails on a number of indicators.

That's easy to say, Greg -- but I notice you aren't putting anything up for consideration.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...