Ruth Paine

[Thomas Graves]

Thomas, four out of the five policeman said they did not recall seeing it.

And it was not on the police inventory.

That is what I was referring to.

Yes, Jim, I know.

That policeman from Irving said he told the others not to pay any attention to it because, he claimed, it looked broken.

--Tommy

LOL

Jimbo,

If you could learn how to incorporate (instead of just leaving it out and hoping it will go away) seemingly harmful evidence (e.g. what the one Irving policeman said) into this argument / any argument, by showing how implausible and / or contrived such evidence really is (e.g. the IR couldn't have looked broken to him because it didn't look broken when it was finally turned in by Robert Oswald; e.g. it shouldn't have mattered to him if it was broken because it was still allegedly Oswald's camera and therefore it was still potential evidence), you will strengthen your "case."

--Tommy

Edited October 21, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[James DiEugenio]

Tommy,

It was not on the inventory list. To me, that is the key point.

If I were doing a book or an essay I would include the counter.

Edited October 22, 2015 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

BTW, in all this dither about Ruth Paine, no one has mentioned what I believe to be the most stunning piece of evidence that she was associated with.

I spent several pages on this in DB 2. Since I think its utterly fascinating.

In my book I called it "perhaps the most ignored piece of key evidence in all the literature on the JFK assassination. " (P. 204)

Does anyone know what I am speaking about?

[David Von Pein]

IN 2013, JIM DiEUGENIO SAID:

And we haven't even gotten to the most bizarre point of all: the calendar with the rifle delivery marking.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

That has been fully explained--by Ruth Paine herself--in her Warren Commission testimony. Naturally, Jimbo D. thinks this is just one more lie (among hundreds) told by "Ruthy" [as DiEugenio sarcastically calls her]....

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/04/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-87.html#Ruth-Paine-Calendar

Edited October 22, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Paul Trejo]

BTW, in all this dither about Ruth Paine, no one has mentioned what I believe to be the most stunning piece of evidence that she was associated with.

I spent several pages on this in DB 2. Since I think its utterly fascinating.

In my book I called it "perhaps the most ignored piece of key evidence in all the literature on the JFK assassination. " (P. 204)

Does anyone know what I am speaking about?

Well, James, if you mean Ruth's Paine's calendar in which she marked the date of LHO's "purchase of rifle" in March, then surely you know that the Warren Commission pointedly asked her about it, and she explained it rather well.

She explained that she added that notation *after* the JFK murder, and *after* the discussion in the news media about it.

Is this what you regard this as "stunning," James?

Ruth Paine told the Warren Commission on the morning of Saturday 21 March 1964 (WC vol. 9, p. 331) that she had heard on TV on Saturday 23 November 1963 that LHO purchased his rifle on March 20th. THIS WAS AMONG THE WORLD'S MOST IMPORTANT NEWS STORIES AT THE TIME.

So, Ruth went to her personal calendar notebook, and put a little star in the March 20 square, and then in the margins noted the star with the words, “LHO purchase of rifle.”

Then Ruth directed the WC attention to the notation next to that note, a date, "October 23rd".

Ruth explained that she figured that the FBI was going to ask her about that entry she had just made, so she wrote down the date in which she made the entry -- but it was an unusually hectic and confounding day for her, so instead of writing down, "November 23rd," she wrote down "October 23rd."

Also, Ruth learned that LHO had a middle name when she filled out the Parkland Hospital paperwork for Marina before baby Rachel was born. That's when she learned that LHO were his initials.

That, to me, James, is a perfectly reasonable explanation. The WC was correct to ask her about it, and Ruth was forthcoming in her logical answer.

Why would anybody think this was "stunning?"

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited October 22, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Glenn Nall]

BTW, in all this dither about Ruth Paine, no one has mentioned what I believe to be the most stunning piece of evidence that she was associated with.

I spent several pages on this in DB 2. Since I think its utterly fascinating.

In my book I called it "perhaps the most ignored piece of key evidence in all the literature on the JFK assassination. " (P. 204)

Does anyone know what I am speaking about?

I'm guessing something about the mention of Jack Ruby having loaned Ruth his car occasionally...?

[Glenn Nall]

BTW, in all this dither about Ruth Paine, no one has mentioned what I believe to be the most stunning piece of evidence that she was associated with.

I spent several pages on this in DB 2. Since I think its utterly fascinating.

In my book I called it "perhaps the most ignored piece of key evidence in all the literature on the JFK assassination. " (P. 204)

Does anyone know what I am speaking about?

Well, James, if you mean Ruth's Paine's calendar in which she marked the date of LHO's "purchase of rifle" in March, then surely you know that the Warren Commission pointedly asked her about it, and she explained it rather well.

She explained that she added that notation *after* the JFK murder, and *after* the discussion in the news media about it.

Is this what you regard this as "stunning," James?

Ruth Paine told the Warren Commission on the morning of Saturday 21 March 1964 (WC vol. 9, p. 331) that she had heard on TV on Saturday 23 November 1963 1963 that LHO purchased his rifle on March 20th. THIS WAS AMONG THE WORLD'S MOST IMPORTANT NEWS STORIES AT THE TIME.

So, Ruth went to her personal calendar notebook, and put a little star in the March 20 square, and then in the margins noted the star with the words, “LHO purchase of rifle.”

Then Ruth directed the WC attention to the notation next to that note, a date, "October 23rd".

Ruth explained that she figured that the FBI was going to ask her about that entry she had just made, so she wrote down the date in which she made the entry -- but it was an unusually hectic and confounding day for her, so instead of writing down, "November 23rd," she wrote down "October 23rd."

Also, Ruth learned that LHO had a middle name when she filled out the Parkland Hospital paperwork for Marina before baby Rachel was born. That's when she learned that LHO were his initials.

That, to me, James, is a perfectly reasonable explanation. The WC was correct to ask her about it, and Ruth was forthcoming in her logical answer.

Why would anybody think this was "stunning?"

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

you're something else, Paul. wow.

[James DiEugenio]

(Just remember, DVP and PT are reverse barometers. And its clear neither one read my book.)

"On November 23, 1963 mailman H. W. Reed was at Powells' Waffle Shop in Irving, Texas for his morning cup of coffee. He was sitting with two colleagues named C. E. Vaughn and Ray Roddy, and they were talk ing about the assassination. As Roddy got up to pay the cashier, Reed overheard her say something to him about a package being held for Oswald.

This turned out to be true. But it is necessary to note that between the day Reed first heard about it versus the day he signed his affidavit constitutes a span of nine days. This may be important. Because if one looks at this package today, there is something odd about it. Actually it may be unexplaindble. At the bottom of the address, written directly on the parcel are the words Irvin, Texas. Yet,right above this--obliterating the rest of the Irving address--is a mail address sticker. The sticker reads as follows:

Lee Oswald, 601 West Nassau St. Dallas, Texas

And here begins the mystery. For that particular address does not exist in Dallas. Now, what makes this doubly odd is that it would only appear logical that underneath the sticker with the new address, a legitimate address in Irving does exist. And this could be read, if the new address sticker was removed. Therefore, why did the FBI not apply a chemical to peel the adhesive off the back of the sticker, thereby cleanly exposing any address below? There is no evidence this was done, or even contemplated. Because it was not done, we do not know when the new address sticker was attached . It could have been attached afterwards in order to blot out the name and address of the person it was mailed to . But because this new sticker with a non-existent address is on the package, it eventually ended up in the "Nixie section" of the post office--the place where undeliverable mail ends up."

(Destiny Betrayed, second edition, pgs. 204-05)

Edited October 22, 2015 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

"As noted, it was nine days between when Reed first heard about this package and when he signed a legal affidavit concerning it. Therefore on the 23rd, at least four people had already heard about the package. And very likely more, since the cashier at the restaurant knew about it and was spreading the word about it that morning. Yet, it was not until another ten days after Reed's affidavit, on December 12, that the post office turned over the parcel to the FBI. Again, no explanation, is given as to why it took three weeks for the Bureau to get custody of the evidence. Especiaily since many people were talking about it both inside and outside the post office.

When the FBI did get hold of the parcel, it was through Post Office Inspector Harry Holmes, who picked it up from the postmaster in Irving. As many authors have noted, Holmes was a prized FBI informant inside the post office who cooperated mightily with the Bureau in more than one way to help make the case against Oswald.

Now, according to the FBI, Postmaster Twilley told Holmes the parcel was discovered in Irving on December 4th. In light of the fact that the cashier at Reed's restaurant had heard about it on November 23, this makes now sense. It boggles the imagination that a parcel with the name of Kennedy's alleged kiIler could lay around the pos office unnoticed for 12 days. This is at the same time tat Oswald's name was being broadcast on TV and radio throughout each and every day in that two week interval.. But the fact that it was not in custody for twenty days , and it was given to Holmes at that time, allows us to question when the sticker was applied."

[Paul Trejo]

(Just remember, DVP and PT are reverse barometers. And its clear neither one read my book.)

"On November 23, 1963 mailman H. W. Reed was at Powells' Waffle Shop in Irving, Texas for his morning cup of coffee. He was sitting with two colleagues named C. E. Vaughn and Ray Roddy, and they were talk ing about the assassination. As Roddy got up to pay the cashier, Reed overheard her say something to him about a package being held for Oswald.

This turned out to be true. But it is necessary to note that between the day Reed first heard about it versus the day he signed his affidavit constitutes a span of nine days. This may be important. Because if one looks at this package today, there is something odd about it. Actually it may be unexplaindble. At the bottom of the address, written directly on the parcel are the words Irvin, Texas. Yet,right above this--obliterating the rest of the Irving address--is a mail address sticker. The sticker reads as follows:

Lee Oswald, 601 West Nassau St. Dallas, Texas

And here begins the mystery. For that particular address does not exist in Dallas. Now, what makes this doubly odd is that it would only appear logical that underneath the sticker with the new address, a legitimate address in Irving does exist. And this could be read, if the new address sticker was removed. Therefore, why did the FBI not apply a chemical to peel the adhesive off the back of the sticker, thereby cleanly exposing any address below? There is no evidence this was done, or even contemplated. Because it was not done, we do not know when the new address sticker was attached . It could have been attached afterwards in order to blot out the name and address of the person it was mailed to . But because this new sticker with a non-existent address is on the package, it eventually ended up in the "Nixie section" of the post office--the place where undeliverable mail ends up."

(Destiny Betrayed, second edition, pgs. 204-05)

Well, James, the 2nd edition of DB is on its way from amazon.com to me. Should be here soon.

As for the 'mysterious, undelivered package,' have you seen the theory by Tom Humes of this Forum?

Tom Humes (who will correct me if I misspeak here) claims that LHO's connection with Richard Case Nagell is the clue to the puzzle -- because the bogus address is really a CIA *code*.

Tom has come up with a few solutions to this code. Now, I happen to believe that LHO was in contact with Nagell, up until the MC trip -- so Tom's theory bears some weight with me.

Yet is was Nagell who was the CIA officer, and it was Nagell who was the code-breaker and the code-maker.

Yet -- is this the "stunning" news you had in mind about Ruth Paine? Anybody who knew LHO in October and November 1963 knew LHO was spending his weekends at her Irving address.

Again, what makes Ruth vulnerable in these scenarios is simply her naivete as a Quaker Church lady.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited October 22, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[James DiEugenio]

"In an FBi AIrtel of December 13, the Bureau says there is no indication the parcel was ever mailed. This is not really accurate. There is postmark on the package, in which the date is not quite decipherable. There is no postage visible on the one side of the package we can see in photos.

In the airtel, the Bureau says something else which is hard to swallow. It says that Twilley questioned numerous persons at the Irving Post Office and could not find out any information about the parcel. Are we really to believe that no one recalled handling the package? Even after the assassination? Why didn't the FBI itself do the questioning about this important piece of evidence? Furhter, Holmes said that when he got the package it had already been parlty opened. Could someone really have forgotten partly opening a parcel with Oswlad's name on it?

Inside the parcel was found a sheet of brown wrapping paper. Although the FBI called it a bag, it was described as being open at each end. Which would more closely resemble wrapping paper. In the FBI photo exhibits there is no tape measure next to the paper. Further, attorney Carol Hewett, who has actually handled the package states that it is actually cut off at one end, making it harder to reconstruct how long both the envelope and the paper inside was. The Bureau tells us that the wrap in 18 inches long. It generally recalls the brown paper discovered in the Texas School Book Depository that the police accused Oswlad of using to form a sack to bring his Mannliche rCarcano rifle to the Depsoitory on November 22, 1963.

One last point to make about this parcel. Not any part of it, the parcel itself, the paper inside, not the corrugation, none of it bore any latent fingerprints."

Edited October 22, 2015 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

"How does this all relate to Ruth Paine? On November 20, a package was sent form the Irving Post Office to Lee Oswald at 2515 W. Fifth Street, Irving Texas. This is the address of Ruth and Michael Paine. It was not delivered at that time since there was postage due on it.

On November 23rd, the Dallas Police searched Ruth's house for a second time and found the postage due notice with instructions to pick up and sign for the parcel. A deputy was dispatched to the Irving post office. According to Officer Gus Rose's HSCA deposition, the deputy was told the parcel had been picked up. As we have seen from the H. W. Reed affidavit, this was false. And it began the cover up about this potentially crucial piece of evidence. In February of 1964, in an interview with postal inspector Roy Armstrong, Ruth Paine tried to imply that this notice was for magazines. Which it was not." (p. 206)

[James DiEugenio]

"On November 26th, something startling happened. On the Property Clerk's Invoice for the search of Ruth Paine's home on the 23rd, the following item appears, "Postal Form, label bearing name George A. Bouhe, 4740 Homer St,. Dallas, Tex, Postal Form bearing name Lee Oswald dated 11/20/63."

This perhaps means that the form for Oswald was then attached to one for Bouhe. But what on earth would a postage due from for Bouhe be doing at Ruth Paine's? And who would attach it to the form due for Oswald's mystery package? And why? Bouhe is the man who's name spaced in Marina Oswlald's testimony to Garrison's grand jury in an odd way. Marina mentioned him as one of her English tutors in Dallas. Garrison asked if she knew that Bouhe lived a door down from Jack Ruby; that they knew each other, and shared a common swimming pool. Marina said she did know that. Because right after the assassination Bouhe came to visit her. He told her that it was all just a coincidence that he happened to live next to to her husband's killer.

Bouhe was the "organization man" who kept the files for the White Russian community."

Edited October 22, 2015 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

"It is important to recall that the first attempt to mail the parcel was on Wednesday the 20th. It failed for postage due.

But Oswald was at the Paine home on Thursday the 21st, the night before the assassination. If the mailing had been successful, Oswald likely would have opened the package, and then handled the paper. He probably would have discarded it. If he had, one of two things would likely have followed:

1.) The police would have found the discarded wrapping paper.Or

2.) Ruth Paine would have found it. Either way, the police now would have fresh fingerprints on wrapping paper resembling the sack allegedly used by Oswald to carry a rifle into the Texas School Book Depository.

This is crucial because the official story states that Oswald stored the Mannlicher Carcano murder rifle in the Paine garage. To have Oswlald's prints, and only his prints, on a sheet of discarded wrapping paper would have been strong evidence that the alleged assassin had wrapped the murder weapon the night before.

The incredible thing about the above case against the Paines is this: this does not even come close to exhausting it." (p. 207)

As Sylvia Meagher wrote many years ago, it appears that someone knew where Oswald would be the night before the assassination, and what he would be accused of the day of the murder.

But beyond that, these person(s) also knew that a paper bag would become a key piece of evidence against the suspect, who was accused of acting alone. (Sylvia Meagher, Accessories After the Fact, p.64)

Edited October 22, 2015 by James DiEugenio

[Karl Kinaski]

2.) Ruth Paine would have found it.

Ruth Paine "found" a lot of things which weren't in her garage or at her home on the 22.23.24.11.63. When Ruth "found" something, one could be sure, that it was planted.

As Sylvia Meagher wrote many years ago, it appears that someone knew where Oswald would be the night before the assassination, and what he would be accused of the day of the murder.

It was important (for the stage-directors)that Oswald was sometimes at the Paines home (including the night before the assassination). It would have been a farce to put all that bogus evidence ( cameras, Rifles, wrapping paper, incriminating pics of all sorts, incriminating concepts for letters , bus-tickets)into Earlene Roberts tiny little room). On the other side: now you have a lone nut throwing around incriminating evidence like confetti at a home of a person (Ruth Paine) who he hardly knew.

All the "so called evidence" out of the Paines-home is planted garbage. And Ruth know it.

KK

PS That throwing around of incriminating evidence reminds me of all the spy-stuff which Powers had with him, when he was found in Russia, after his U2 plane crashed. U2 flights over Russia normally were sterile, with foreign pilots in the cockpit. In the Powers case it was like he was wearing a T-Shirt with the words: I AM AN AMERICAN. AND I AM A SPY.

There was no big big difference between Hollywood and the executive branch in Langley...

Edited October 22, 2015 by Karl Kinaski