Jump to content
The Education Forum

The Real Ruth and Michael Paine


Recommended Posts

I think those who are skeptical of Ruth Paine's testimony must somehow explain how Ruth Paine's WC testimony and Marina Oswald's WC testimony harmonize so well.

In order to doubt the one, skeptics must necessarily doubt the other. Then the skeptics have to start making stuff up.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 651
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I think those who are skeptical of Ruth Paine's testimony must somehow explain how Ruth Paine's WC testimony and Marina Oswald's WC testimony harmonize so well.

In order to doubt the one, skeptics must necessarily doubt the other. Then the skeptics have to start making stuff up.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

The problem with your approach, Paul, can be summed up in one word. YOU.

Issuing edicts about what people MUST believe and MUST do.

Ptui.

You'd have been sent to the Colonies for the theft of oxygen once upon a time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think those who are skeptical of Ruth Paine's testimony must somehow explain how Ruth Paine's WC testimony and Marina Oswald's WC testimony harmonize so well.

In order to doubt the one, skeptics must necessarily doubt the other. Then the skeptics have to start making stuff up.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

The problem with your approach, Paul, can be summed up in one word. YOU.

Issuing edicts about what people MUST believe and MUST do.

Ptui.

You'd have been sent to the Colonies for the theft of oxygen once upon a time.

In other words, Paul Trejo assumes he knows what certain people believed and did?

--Tommy :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think those who are skeptical of Ruth Paine's testimony must somehow explain how Ruth Paine's WC testimony and Marina Oswald's WC testimony harmonize so well.

In order to doubt the one, skeptics must necessarily doubt the other. Then the skeptics have to start making stuff up.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

The problem with your approach, Paul, can be summed up in one word. YOU.

Issuing edicts about what people MUST believe and MUST do.

Ptui.

You'd have been sent to the Colonies for the theft of oxygen once upon a time.

No, Greg, it's basic logic. Your material, like Carol Hewett's and James DiEugenio, invents all the material you bloody well feel like inventing.

You're smart enough to avoid the Harvey and Lee fiction, but you make up your own fiction.

In your fiction, LHO was purely a victim of some US Government plot -- and that included Ruth and Michael Paine, but also Marina Oswald, George and Jeanne DeMohrenschildt, and anybody else they knew who was cited in the Warren Report.

You don't have sworn evidence to go on -- you reject 90% of it, and use the other 10% to construct a fiction.

You're left with no alternative than to invent fictions. For you, LHO was never in Mexico City -- he was in Houston like he told Ruth Paine and Marina.

SEEMS LIKE YOU'VE NEVER READ THE LOPEZ-HARDWAY REPORT, am I right? Go on, admit it.

You're not many steps removed from "Harvey and Lee," IMHO.

Also, your harsh language and bluster don't influence my opinion in the slightest.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think those who are skeptical of Ruth Paine's testimony must somehow explain how Ruth Paine's WC testimony and Marina Oswald's WC testimony harmonize so well.

In order to doubt the one, skeptics must necessarily doubt the other. Then the skeptics have to start making stuff up.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

The problem with your approach, Paul, can be summed up in one word. YOU.

Issuing edicts about what people MUST believe and MUST do.

Ptui.

You'd have been sent to the Colonies for the theft of oxygen once upon a time.

LOL ROTF

:hotorwot

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to post
Share on other sites

Come to think of it, James DiEugenio, it seems to me that you haven't read the Lopez-Hardway Report, either.

Or, if you have, let's hear your opinion about it. Do you believe LHO was in Mexico City in September 1963?

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul, I'll save everyone the trouble if they have not already wasted several minutes with the LHR,...
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/contents/hsca/contents_hsca_lopezrpt_2003.htm
412 pages and nothing in it places LHO in Mexico City.

Oswald was not in Mexico City.




Edited by Ed LeDoux
Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul - Simpich was quite clear that after all his studying he was still not sure if Oswald was ever in MC. That should be enough to give you pause.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think those who are skeptical of Ruth Paine's testimony must somehow explain how Ruth Paine's WC testimony and Marina Oswald's WC testimony harmonize so well.

In order to doubt the one, skeptics must necessarily doubt the other. Then the skeptics have to start making stuff up.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

The problem with your approach, Paul, can be summed up in one word. YOU.

Issuing edicts about what people MUST believe and MUST do.

Ptui.

You'd have been sent to the Colonies for the theft of oxygen once upon a time.

No, Greg, it's basic logic. Your material, like Carol Hewett's and James DiEugenio, invents all the material you bloody well feel like inventing.

You're smart enough to avoid the Harvey and Lee fiction, but you make up your own fiction.

In your fiction, LHO was purely a victim of some US Government plot -- and that included Ruth and Michael Paine, but also Marina Oswald, George and Jeanne DeMohrenschildt, and anybody else they knew who was cited in the Warren Report.

You don't have sworn evidence to go on -- you reject 90% of it, and use the other 10% to construct a fiction.

You're left with no alternative than to invent fictions. For you, LHO was never in Mexico City -- he was in Houston like he told Ruth Paine and Marina.

SEEMS LIKE YOU'VE NEVER READ THE LOPEZ-HARDWAY REPORT, am I right? Go on, admit it.

You're not many steps removed from "Harvey and Lee," IMHO.

Also, your harsh language and bluster don't influence my opinion in the slightest.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Tell me what I have invented, Paul. This should be good.

In the meantime, let me explain something yet again. I follow the Golden Rule about witness statements. What is the Golden Rule? That initial statements are more reliable than latter statements - including those made under oath. That is borne out by every single study on this issue. Are there exceptions? Of course there are. But you want to make those exceptions the rule. You have no case otherwise...

An eyewitness’s account, delivered in the witness box, is not the best evidence available. From 2012 NSW Criminal Court Statistics, the median time from offence date until determination after a defended hearing was 150 days or approximately five months in the Local Court; from offence to outcome of trial was 20 months in the District Court and four years in the Supreme Court.10 The effect time has on the cognitive processes of the mind and therefore reliability of recollection is undoubted. The ALRC, in their 1985 interim report on Evidence stated:11 Psychological research confirms that there is far more value in statements in documents made while the facts were fresh in the mind of the maker or supplier. Such evidence is likely to be far less inaccurate than oral evidence at the trial … http://www.lexisnexis.com.au/media-centre/pdf/2014-07-01-Reliable-Hearsay_Searson.pdf
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think those who are skeptical of Ruth Paine's testimony must somehow explain how Ruth Paine's WC testimony and Marina Oswald's WC testimony harmonize so well.

In order to doubt the one, skeptics must necessarily doubt the other. Then the skeptics have to start making stuff up.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

The problem with your approach, Paul, can be summed up in one word. YOU.

Issuing edicts about what people MUST believe and MUST do.

Ptui.

You'd have been sent to the Colonies for the theft of oxygen once upon a time.

No, Greg, it's basic logic. Your material, like Carol Hewett's and James DiEugenio, invents all the material you bloody well feel like inventing.

You're smart enough to avoid the Harvey and Lee fiction, but you make up your own fiction.

In your fiction, LHO was purely a victim of some US Government plot -- and that included Ruth and Michael Paine, but also Marina Oswald, George and Jeanne DeMohrenschildt, and anybody else they knew who was cited in the Warren Report.

You don't have sworn evidence to go on -- you reject 90% of it, and use the other 10% to construct a fiction.

You're left with no alternative than to invent fictions. For you, LHO was never in Mexico City -- he was in Houston like he told Ruth Paine and Marina.

SEEMS LIKE YOU'VE NEVER READ THE LOPEZ-HARDWAY REPORT, am I right? Go on, admit it.

You're not many steps removed from "Harvey and Lee," IMHO.

Also, your harsh language and bluster don't influence my opinion in the slightest.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Tell me what I have invented, Paul. This should be good.

In the meantime, let me explain something yet again. I follow the Golden Rule about witness statements. What is the Golden Rule? That initial statements are more reliable than latter statements - including those made under oath. That is borne out by every single study on this issue. Are there exceptions? Of course there are. But you want to make those exceptions the rule. You have no case otherwise...

An eyewitness’s account, delivered in the witness box, is not the best evidence available. From 2012 NSW Criminal Court Statistics, the median time from offence date until determination after a defended hearing was 150 days or approximately five months in the Local Court; from offence to outcome of trial was 20 months in the District Court and four years in the Supreme Court.10 The effect time has on the cognitive processes of the mind and therefore reliability of recollection is undoubted. The ALRC, in their 1985 interim report on Evidence stated:11 Psychological research confirms that there is far more value in statements in documents made while the facts were fresh in the mind of the maker or supplier. Such evidence is likely to be far less inaccurate than oral evidence at the trial … http://www.lexisnexis.com.au/media-centre/pdf/2014-07-01-Reliable-Hearsay_Searson.pdf

Dear Greg,

I gotta agree with "W. T." Trejo on one thing here. (Heaven forbid! DiEugenio will never forgive me!)

Marina may have been prone to lying in her early statements out of fear (irrational? maybe not -- she had grown up in a police state known as Russia, and may have assumed that the same things happened here) of being deported back to The Worker's Paradise, and thence, perhaps, to a "gulag" in Siberia, or even to a certain ... basement in the Kremlin.

If so, she may have been more truthful later when she realized that that wasn't gonna happen, and especially when she was put under oath by the WC...

--Tommy :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to post
Share on other sites

I gotta agree with "W. T." Trejo on one thing here. (Heaven forbid! DiEugenio will never forgi)ve me!)

Marina may have lied in her early statements out of fear (irrational? maybe not -- she had grown up in a police state known as Russia, and may have assumed that the same things happened here) of being deported back to The Worker's Paradise, and thence, perhaps, to a "gulag" in Siberia, or even to a certain ... basement in the Kremlin.

If so, she may have been more truthful later when she realized that that wasn't gonna happen, and especially when she was put under oath by the WC...

--Tommy :sun

Those sorts of arguments work both ways. It is my contention she was not quarantined for her own protection, but to get her "mind right". According to Robert Oswald, she was threatened. There was no need for that until they got her initial statements.When those statements were not favorable to the developing government narrative...

Or are you seriously suggesting she lied in a manner that went AGAINST the government so that the government would not send her packing back to Russia? I'm glad you note how irrational that is - because it most assuredly is. That you even have to posit she was irrational to try and get this "logic" accepted says it all. You have no evidence of that - none whatsoever.

The Big Bad Government does not threaten or torture people who are already being cooperative. They're not sadists, after all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

...In the meantime, let me explain something yet again. I follow the Golden Rule about witness statements. What is the Golden Rule? That initial statements are more reliable than latter statements - including those made under oath. That is borne out by every single study on this issue. Are there exceptions? Of course there are. But you want to make those exceptions the rule. You have no case otherwise...

Common sense tells me that when the police descend upon an unsuspecting person, the first reaction of that person is to deny EVERYTHING.

To the degree that Marina Oswald was educated by LHO himself, his own behavior in the DPD was to deny EVERYTHING. He never had a package when he went to the TSBD that day (even though Wesley Buell Frazier said that LHO did have a package that morning -- when Frazier himself was ATTACHED TO A LIE DETECTOR).

Deny everything. That's a good strategy -- let the Police prove every step of their case.

Yet as Dr. Caufield observes, LHO was carrying his Alek J. Hidell card with him at the time. And he was still playing his Fake Marxist routine, by demanding John Abt from New York as his lawyer (who was well-known for sedition trials), and by speaking of his FPCC membership (which was also Fake) and claiming to be a Marxist but not a Communist (which is a tease). LHO was denying his shot anybody, but was still advertising his NOLA FPCC there at the DPD.

Marina Oswald simply denied everything -- until she was told that the American Public had sent her more than $100,000 -- which is a million dollars today, adjusted for inflation. The people who isolated her were of two kinds: (1) those mainly interested in her money -- and pushed her to be her "Business Managers," including Robert Oswald; and (2) the Secret Service and FBI, who had been humiliated after the murder of JFK, and were under pressure to isolate Marina Oswald to ease their investigative task -- the fewer the people to track, the better.

So they pushed Marina to break all contact with her friend, Ruth Paine. Ruth Paine insisted for years that Marina would never have disconnected so suddenly if she hadn't been pressured by her "Business Managers", the Oswald family (which was her only family in the USA) and the US Government. I feel sorry for Marina, as well as for Ruth Paine. They were friends before that.

Anyway, Marina simply denied everything at first -- when the whole world came crashing down upon her shoulders. But when it became obvious that she was going to be all right in the USA -- not because of the FBI or Secret Service or Warren Commission -- but because of the generosity of the American Public -- Marina got up her courage and TOOK THE OATH and TOLD THE TRUTH.

Anybody who refuses to believe Marina Oswald's testimony -- as she knew it -- is simply being stubborn. Any contradiction of Marina Oswald's testimony amounts to invented fiction, IMHO.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
Link to post
Share on other sites

Really?

Allegedly when the police descended on this unsuspecting person did she deny Oswald owned a rifle?

Later, did she deny taking a photo of him holding a weapon?

The ONLY person making stuff up is YOU.

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

Common sense tells you. This coming from You? Very scientific. :dis

Edited by Greg Parker
Link to post
Share on other sites

I gotta agree with "W. T." Trejo on one thing here. (Heaven forbid! DiEugenio will never forgi)ve me!)

Marina may have lied in her early statements out of fear (irrational? maybe not -- she had grown up in a police state known as Russia, and may have assumed that the same things happened here) of being deported back to The Worker's Paradise, and thence, perhaps, to a "gulag" in Siberia, or even to a certain ... basement in the Kremlin.

If so, she may have been more truthful later when she realized that that wasn't gonna happen, and especially when she was put under oath by the WC...

--Tommy :sun

Those sorts of arguments work both ways. It is my contention she was not quarantined for her own protection, but to get her "mind right". According to Robert Oswald, she was threatened. There was no need for that until they got her initial statements.When those statements were not favorable to the developing government narrative...

Or are you seriously suggesting she lied in a manner that went AGAINST the government so that the government would not send her packing back to Russia? I'm glad you note how irrational that is - because it most assuredly is. That you even have to posit she was irrational to try and get this "logic" accepted says it all. You have no evidence of that - none whatsoever.

The Big Bad Government does not threaten or torture people who are already being cooperative. They're not sadists, after all.

Dear Greg,

Please fill me in. Did Marina's early statements tend to help or hurt the US Government's (i.e., the FBI's and CIA's) position on her dead husband's alleged role in the assassination of JFK? If I remember correctly, they didn't help it very much, or did they?

Regardless, I would imagine that those early statements were made according to what she believed was in the best interest of her and her babies' well-being and safety. Maybe she believed, irrationally by our standards, there was a good chance she and her babies would be deported back to Russia if she said "the wrong thing," whatever that was, or, conversely, made statements which she thought could somehow make her look complicit in the assassination of the most powerful (and perhaps the most popular) man in the world.

--Tommy :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to post
Share on other sites

I gotta agree with "W. T." Trejo on one thing here. (Heaven forbid! DiEugenio will never forgi)ve me!)

Marina may have lied in her early statements out of fear (irrational? maybe not -- she had grown up in a police state known as Russia, and may have assumed that the same things happened here) of being deported back to The Worker's Paradise, and thence, perhaps, to a "gulag" in Siberia, or even to a certain ... basement in the Kremlin.

If so, she may have been more truthful later when she realized that that wasn't gonna happen, and especially when she was put under oath by the WC...

--Tommy :sun

Those sorts of arguments work both ways. It is my contention she was not quarantined for her own protection, but to get her "mind right". According to Robert Oswald, she was threatened. There was no need for that until they got her initial statements.When those statements were not favorable to the developing government narrative...

Or are you seriously suggesting she lied in a manner that went AGAINST the government so that the government would not send her packing back to Russia? I'm glad you note how irrational that is - because it most assuredly is. That you even have to posit she was irrational to try and get this "logic" accepted says it all. You have no evidence of that - none whatsoever.

The Big Bad Government does not threaten or torture people who are already being cooperative. They're not sadists, after all.

Dear Greg,

Please fill me in. Did Marina's early statements tend to help or hurt the US Government's (i.e., the FBI's and CIA's) position on her dead husband's alleged role in the assassination of JFK? If I remember correctly, they didn't help it very much, or did they?

Regardless, I would imagine that those early statements were made according to what she believed was in the best interest of her and her babies' well-being and safety. Maybe she believed, irrationally by our standards, there was a good chance she and her babies would be deported back to Russia if she said "the wrong thing," whatever that was, or, conversely, made statements which she thought could somehow make her look complicit in the assassination of the most powerful (and perhaps the most popular) man in the world.

--Tommy :sun

You're simply forcing the rationale. Her very first statement HELPED the government. "Yes, he owns a rifle. Come, I show you". This alone makes a mockery of Paul's claim.

Later when interviewed in depth, suddenly she was not being helpful. No he didn't go to Mexico. No, he good man. etc etc... so she was held until they got her straightened out for her star turn before the Malignant Seven.

By the way... I don't buy that she admitted the rifle... I think that was all retrospective. But she's your witness, so I'll run with the rifle story just for you pair.

I wouldn't make that concession for just anyone, Tommy. Paul is special. In a very special way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...