The Real Ruth and Michael Paine

[Sandy Larsen]

For me the big question is, what the heck were the Oswalds doing moving their stuff with a stroller if they weren't moving just that block and a half away, to Neely.

The only thing I can think of is that they moved their stuff temporarily to the Neely apartment. They were instructed to do so by Lee's handler. The purpose being to establish their residence at that address.

The problem with this scenario is the Grays/Brays might have seen them and they might have asked questions or later understood that the Oswalds actually were not the ones living above them.

On the other hand, that could explain one more reason why the FBI had little desire (actually no desire) to find and question the Grays/Brays.

But if that were the case, what would the FBI had done if the Brays/Grays had not moved out? Just ignore them?

EDIT: Clarified stroller sentence.

Edited January 25, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[Gene Kelly]

We tend to think of Marina Prusakova as an innocent in all of this. I've read some thought-provoking stuff that indicates she spoke much better English than she let on (e.g. with Robert Webster in Leningrad). As John Armstrong has pointed out, Marina's cooperation with the government and her ability to supply evidence at the most opportune times is noticeable and quite obvious.

This would throw another variable into the Neely Street equation.

[Greg Parker]

We tend to think of Marina Prusakova as an innocent in all of this. I've read some thought-provoking stuff that indicates she spoke much better English than she let on (e.g. with Robert Webster in Leningrad). As John Armstrong has pointed out, Marina's cooperation with the government and her ability to supply evidence at the most opportune times is noticeable and quite obvious.

This would throw another variable into the Neely Street equation.

As does the fact that Paine never admitted moving them in. If she did, I can't see any reason for her to deny it.

[Sandy Larsen]

We tend to think of Marina Prusakova as an innocent in all of this. I've read some thought-provoking stuff that indicates she spoke much better English than she let on (e.g. with Robert Webster in Leningrad). As John Armstrong has pointed out, Marina's cooperation with the government and her ability to supply evidence at the most opportune times is noticeable and quite obvious.

This would throw another variable into the Neely Street equation.

Do you know if Ruth spoke non-broken English with her acquaintances in Dallas, Gene?

If she didn't, then I think that that, in addition to Oswald's denials that they lived on Neely, gives us compelling reason to believe that they indeed did not live there. Plus all the other evidence that points in that direction.

[Sandy Larsen]

We tend to think of Marina Prusakova as an innocent in all of this. I've read some thought-provoking stuff that indicates she spoke much better English than she let on (e.g. with Robert Webster in Leningrad). As John Armstrong has pointed out, Marina's cooperation with the government and her ability to supply evidence at the most opportune times is noticeable and quite obvious.

This would throw another variable into the Neely Street equation.

As does the fact that Paine never admitted moving them in. If she did, I can't see any reason for her to deny it.

Ruth was telling the truth... she didn't move them in. They moved in via stroller. (As strange as that sounds.) And then moved out.

(According to the theory I posted.)

From what you say, I take it that Ruth wasn't asked about how they moved in.

[Thomas Graves]

We tend to think of Marina Prusakova as an innocent in all of this. I've read some thought-provoking stuff that indicates she spoke much better English than she let on (e.g. with Robert Webster in Leningrad). As John Armstrong has pointed out, Marina's cooperation with the government and her ability to supply evidence at the most opportune times is noticeable and quite obvious.

This would throw another variable into the Neely Street equation.

As does the fact that Paine never admitted moving them in. If she did, I can't see any reason for her to deny it.

Did she actually deny it when-and-if she was asked, or did she (possibly) just fail to mention it?

--Tommy

Edited January 24, 2016 by Thomas Graves

[Paul Trejo]

Ruth was telling the truth... she didn't move them in. They moved in via stroller. (As strange as that sounds.) And then moved out.

(According to the theory I posted.)

From what you say, I take it that Ruth wasn't asked about how they moved in.

I agree with this. Ruth Paine didn't move the Oswald's to Neely Street -- she gave a full accounting of every contact she made with the Oswalds in 1963. That was the emphasis of the more-than-five-thousand-questions the WC lawyers asked her.

Ruth Paine did move them out, however. She says this directly.

Ruth was asked again and again -- "Did you see a rifle in any of the items you moved?"

Ruth answered consistently -- "I never saw a rifle in any of the items I ever moved for the Oswalds -- not from the 214 Neely Street apartment in Dallas, and not from the 4905 Magazine Street apartment in New Orleans.

Ruth Paine consistently testified that she had no idea in the world that LHO even had a rifle at any time that she knew him, until the afternoon of 11/22/1963.

Ruth was also asked, as a Quaker, if she would have objected if she knew LHO was keeping a rifle in her garage. She said (I paraphrase) "No, because lots of Texans have pistols and shotguns and rifles, and it's too common in Texas. It's none of my business what private property anybody has, so long as it's legal. There's nothing illegal about owning a rifle in Texas."

As for the stroller -- one only needs to visit that neighborhood in Dallas to see how easy that would be -- the Ellsbeth Street address and the Neely Street address are about one block apart. Most of the Oswald's meager possessions could have been carried by hand.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited January 24, 2016 by Paul Trejo

[James DiEugenio]

PT: Ruth was asked again and again -- "Did you see a rifle in any of the items you moved?"

Ruth answered consistently -- "I never saw a rifle in any of the items I ever moved for the Oswalds -- not from the 214 Neely Street apartment in Dallas, and not from the 4905 Magazine Street apartment in New Orleans.

Want to explain the calendar notation?

[Greg Parker]

We tend to think of Marina Prusakova as an innocent in all of this. I've read some thought-provoking stuff that indicates she spoke much better English than she let on (e.g. with Robert Webster in Leningrad). As John Armstrong has pointed out, Marina's cooperation with the government and her ability to supply evidence at the most opportune times is noticeable and quite obvious.

This would throw another variable into the Neely Street equation.

As does the fact that Paine never admitted moving them in. If she did, I can't see any reason for her to deny it.

Did she actually deny it when-and-if she was asked, or did she (possibly) just fail to mention it?

--Tommy

Tommy, she said that she was notified of the address by Marina by letter...

Mr. JENNER - They lived in Dallas, did they not?

Mrs. PAINE - That was in Dallas; yes.

Mr. JENNER - On this February 22 occasion they were then living on Neely Street in Dallas?

Mrs. PAINE - I believe they moved just in that period that I had the previous address, and as soon as I wrote, the first letter I got back gave the Neely Street address.

Mr. JENNER - You have recorded that, have you not, in your address book?

Mrs. PAINE - Yes.

Mr. JENNER - Which I will follow up in a moment. Do you have a copy of the letter that you wrote to Marina?

Mrs. PAINE - No. That initial letter asking if I could come over? I don't believe I do.

Mr. JENNER - Not having

Mrs. PAINE - I have her reply.

Mr. JENNER - You do have a reply?

Mrs. PAINE - I have her reply.

Mr. JENNER - Do you have it with you?

Mrs. PAINE - She drew a map. Yes.

Mr. JENNER - May I have it, please?

Mrs. PAINE - Do you want it right now?

Mr. JENNER - Yes.

Mrs. PAINE - All right. Wait--no; perhaps I have it at the hotel. I don't think it is here. I didn't think I would be before the Commission today at all.

Mr. JENNER - We will pass that. You can get it tonight.

Mrs. PAINE - Yes; I am certain I have it.

Mr. DULLES - That was written in Russian, I assume.

Mrs. PAINE - Oh, yes; in my letter to her, bad Russian.

[Paul Trejo]

PT: Ruth was asked again and again -- "Did you see a rifle in any of the items you moved?"

Ruth answered consistently -- "I never saw a rifle in any of the items I ever moved for the Oswalds -- not from the 214 Neely Street apartment in Dallas, and not from the 4905 Magazine Street apartment in New Orleans.

Want to explain the calendar notation?

Clearly, James, you're referring to the fact that in Ruth Paine's calendar, on the date of March 20th, 1963, there is an entry that reads, "LHO purchase of rifle," and the note is dated, October 23, 1963.

The explanation is that Ruth made that entry on November 23, 1963, after hearing on the TV news that LHO had purchased a rifle from Klein's Sporting Goods on March 20, 1963.

Ruth was being questioned left and right by news media during that weekend, so she thought she had better write that down in her notebook/calendar. After she wrote it, she thought (as she testified) that somebody is going to ask her about that, so she wrote down the day's date next to it. However, the days were so chaotic that weekend, that she wrote down October 23, 1963, instead of November 23, 1963.

Don't take my word for it, read Ruth's own testimony to Albert Jenner:

-------- BEGIN EXTRACT OF RUTH PAINE WC TESTIMONY 21 MARCH 1964 WC vol. 9 p. 331 -------

Mr. JENNER. Now, I turn to March, and I direct your attention to the upper left-hand corner of that card, and it appears to me that in the upper left-hand corner are October 23, then a star, then “LHO” followed by the words “purchase of rifle.” Would you explain those entries?

Mrs. PAINE. Yes. This was written after.

Mr. JENNER. After?

Mrs. PAINE. This was written indeed after the assassination...I heard on the television that he had purchased a rifle.

Mr. JENNER. When?

Mrs. PAINE. I heard it on November 23.

Mr. JENNER. Yes.

Mrs. PAINE. And went back to the page for March, put a little star on March 20 as being a small square, I couldn’t fit in all I wanted to say. I just put in a star and then referring it to the corner of the calendar...saying “LHO purchase of rifle.” Then I thought someone is going to wonder about that, I had better put down the date, and did, but it was a busy day, one of the most in my life and I was off by a month as to what day it was.

Mr. JENNER. That is you made the entry October?

Mrs. PAINE. October 23 instead of November...It should have been November 23.

Mr. JENNER. And the entry of October 23, which should have been November 23, was an entry on your part indicating the date you wrote on the calendar the star followed by “LHO purchase of rifle” and likewise the date you made an entry?

Mrs. PAINE. On the 20th.

Mr. JENNER. This is the square having the date March 20?

Mrs. PAINE. Yes.

-------- END EXTRACT OF RUTH PAINE WC TESTIMONY 21 MARCH 1964 WC vol. 9 p. 331 -------

That's a logical, believable explanation to me,

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited January 24, 2016 by Paul Trejo

[Greg Parker]

Note that move to Neely comes hot on the heels of meeting the Paines on Feb 22... and that it was Michael Paine who first gives the cops that address...

[Greg Parker]

Ruth was being questioned left and right by news media during that weekend, so she thought she had better write that down in her notebook/calendar. After she wrote it, she thought (as she testified) that somebody is going to ask her about that, so she wrote down the day's date next to it. However, the days were so chaotic that weekend, that she wrote down October 23, 1963, instead of November 23, 1963.

What an absolute crock.

She heard through the media that LHO had bought the rifle on March 20 so she needed to write that down... in case the very same media asked what date he purchased it?

Like I said, you will say anything - any drivel whatsoever if you think you can get away with it.

[James DiEugenio]

What an absolute crock.

Edited January 24, 2016 by James DiEugenio

[Paul Trejo]

Ruth was being questioned left and right by news media during that weekend, so she thought she had better write that down in her notebook/calendar. After she wrote it, she thought (as she testified) that somebody is going to ask her about that, so she wrote down the day's date next to it. However, the days were so chaotic that weekend, that she wrote down October 23, 1963, instead of November 23, 1963.

What an absolute crock.

She heard through the media that LHO had bought the rifle on March 20 so she needed to write that down... in case the very same media asked what date he purchased it?

Like I said, you will say anything - any drivel whatsoever if you think you can get away with it.

Greg, your insulting manner doesn't really strengthen your case -- but weakens it.

It isn't my argument, anyway, it's Ruth Paine's own WC testimony. Deal with it.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

[Jon G. Tidd]

Greg, Jim, and Paul:

Let's imagine a forum in which Ruth Paine can be examined (by her representative, Paul Trejo) and cross-examined (by Greg and Jim).

Paul, what would you want to elicit from Ruth?

Greg and Jim, what would be your questions on cross?

These are serious questions. You guys are the experts.

Please let onlookers like I know how to focus our thinking about Ruth Paine.

I believe she's a lying sack of ****. But I'm willing to put that belief aside in considering the examination and cross-examination I propose.