Ruth - a typewriter - 15 days

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Chris Newton said:

On 7/25/2017 at 1:55 PM, David Von Pein said:

Mr. JENNER -- Excuse me. Would you please state to the Commission why you are reasonably firm that it was the morning of November 9? What arrests your attention to that particular date?

Mrs. PAINE -- Because I remember the weekend that this note or rough draft remained on my secretary desk. He spent the weekend on it. And the weekend was close and its residence on that desk was stopped also on the evening of Sunday, the 10th, when I moved everything in the living room around; the whole arrangement of the furniture was changed, so that I am very clear in my mind as to what weekend this was.

 

Mr. Jenner is discussing the date that Oswald allegedly typed his letter and Ruth allegedly found his draft. As I read this question and answer again, I realized that a part of it that Trejo repeatedly claims is a reference to Oswald having worked on the letter all weekend is instead a direct reference to the note itself. "He spent the weekend on it", is in reference to the preceeding sentence. He (the "note or rough draft") spent the weekend on it ("my desk secretary").

So back to my question:

What part of Ruth's answer is untrue and why was it necessary to make up a story?

Chris,

Do I understand you correctly, that when Ruth said, "He spent the weekend on it," she meant "The draft spent the weekend on the desk?"

I mean, because, who talks like that? It seems like she really meant that Oswald spent the weekend working on the draft.

But then she says, "And the weekend was close and its residence on that desk was stopped also on the evening of Sunday . . ." In which case it seems that the only interpretation is that the draft's residence on the desk ended. Am I reading that correctly?

Anticipating that your response will be in the affirmative, I have another question... who talks like that? Speaking of an object as though it were a person? Is that a Pennsylvania thing?

 

[Chris Newton]

9 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I mean, because, who talks like that? It seems like she really meant that Oswald spent the weekend working on the draft.

Thanks Sandy.

He didn't spend the weekend working on it though. By her testimony he typed it between breakfast and when they left to go to the Driver's Testing Facility.

It was the draft that she claimed to see sometime that Saturday afternoon on her desk secretary.

It ("He", the note or draft) sat there until Sunday morning when she read it.

She left it there until Sunday evening when she allegedly moved the furniture around.

I know it sounds weird but no where does she say he was typing it after Saturday morning so he was not "working" on it all weekend.

I have heard that type of speech before, maybe that's what made me pick up on it. It could be a Philadelphia thing but I don't know.

 

Edited August 19, 2017 by Chris Newton

[Chris Newton]

18 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

But then she says, "And the weekend was close and its residence on that desk was stopped also on the evening of Sunday . . ." In which case it seems that the only interpretation is that the draft's residence on the desk ended. Am I reading that correctly?

Yes. "The draft's residence on the desk" ended the same way your car's residence in your driveway might end, by theft. She is speaking about the draft that she, herself, allegedly stole.

Edited August 19, 2017 by Chris Newton

[Chris Newton]

It's interesting to note what James P. Hosty told the Church Comittee, that Ruth had told him she found the draft in Marina and Lee's bedroom. I find that explanation to be a bit more believable, but if it's true why lie about it?

Edited August 19, 2017 by Chris Newton

[Sandy Larsen]

Just now, Chris Newton said:

It's interesting to note what James P. Hosty told the Church Comittee, that Ruth had told him she found the draft in Marina and Lee's bedroom. I find that explanation to be a bit more believable, but if it's true why lie about it?

My guess is either 1) Ruth is lying and can't keep her story straight, or 2) Hosty got the story wrong.

BTW I was curious about "residence" and did find in the dictionary (though sort of in the "small print") that it can be used with objects. However, I did not find that "he" can be used with objects. I suspect that they are both regional things. They sound very odd to my "out-west" ear.

Anyway, thanks. I see you are correct, that Oswald didn't work on the draft all weekend long.

[Chris Newton]

3 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

My guess is either 1) Ruth is lying and can't keep her story straight, or 2) Hosty got the story wrong.

Oswald's original draft was allegedly given to Hosty by Ruth on 11/23 during Ruth's first FBI interview. Hosty conducted that interview with another FBI Agent and they both signed the FBI 302 written afterward. Curiously that FBI 302 doesn't mention Oswald's draft. Later that day, 11/23, Ruth is interviewed again by FBI Agent Odum and another Agent and she explains the story about the draft (again?) to them. She gives Odum her copy of the Oswald draft.

Does this sound normal?

[Sandy Larsen]

44 minutes ago, Chris Newton said:

Oswald's original draft was allegedly given to Hosty by Ruth on 11/23 during Ruth's first FBI interview. Hosty conducted that interview with another FBI Agent and they both signed the FBI 302 written afterward. Curiously that FBI 302 doesn't mention Oswald's draft. Later that day, 11/23, Ruth is interviewed again by FBI Agent Odum and another Agent and she explains the story about the draft (again?) to them. She gives Odum her copy of the Oswald draft.

Does this sound normal?

To be honest, I'm not sure if it is normal. Because it seems to me that when agents write up a report, they have to draw the line somewhere as to how much detail to include on the report. So they have some latitude so far as that goes. It could be that Hosty didn't include as much detail as he should have.

If you (or somebody else) could figure out a logical explanation as to why Ruth would intentionally leave out Oswald's draft in the first interview, then there would be some circumstantial evidence of foul play. If not, then perhaps an innocent explanation would better describe it.

Unfortunately I got behind in my reading of these Paine threads and so I haven't had a chance to really study everything and try to piece it all together.

(BTW, I'm already convinced that Ruth was being controlled by the CIA.)

 

[Paul Trejo]

13 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

1. Oh please! The people would not have understood that General Walker and a bunch of his followers killed the president? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that.

2. How many minutemen were involved in the assassination? Tens of thousands?  You're making excuses.

3. If that is true, the FBI and Johnson Administration must have known that Walker was behind the assassination. Because if they didn't know, they wouldn't have known they needed to save face. What evidence is there that the Government knew Walker was guilty?

Sandy,

By the numbers:

1.  It's the other meaning of "understanding."   The fact that a decorated US General was involved in the JFK assassination would appear like a coup d'etat to many people.   It wasn't a coup d'etat.

1.1.  The JFK assassination was merely a Fake-out, to try to blame the Communists for the JFK assassination, so that the USA would invade Cuba.  The US Government was supposed to remain intact, but invade Cuba.  So, it wasn't a coup d'etat.

1.2.  But it would be confusing to millions.

2.  The truth is that the FBI in 1963 did not know how many Minutemen existed coast to coast in the USA.  They only knew that the Minutemen were heavily armed.

2.1.  There were not enough FBI men to go after the heavily armed and dedicated Minutemen -- even if only several hundred.

2.2.  To go after the Minutemen -- if there were several thousand -- would have required the US Military.

2.3.  Sending the US Military against US citizens during the Cold War was very, very bad politics.

2.4.  In Dallas, FBI agent James Hosty called the Minutemen, "General Walker's Minutemen"  (Assignment Oswald, 1996, Ch. 1)

3.  In my reading, Sandy, the US Government after 1963 knew with a certainty that General Walker's Minutemen and sundry Radical Right forces in Dallas were responsible for the JFK assassination, and trying to blame the Communists like mad.

3.1.  FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover found this out by 3pm EST on 11/22/1963 (cf. Prof. David Wrone, 2001)

3.1.  The initial questions of that afternoon were how to explain to the American People that their own US General had led this assassination.  The decision was clear -- blame Lee Harvey Oswald and him alone -- and let the chips fall where they may.   That's my interpretation of the history.

BOTTOM LINE: Ruth Paine played absolutely no role at all in the JFK assassination plot.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited August 19, 2017 by Paul Trejo

[Michael Clark]

4 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

(BTW, I'm already convinced that Ruth was being controlled by the CIA.)

 

I am thinking she was being used to establish the culpability of Dulles, and force him into the cover-up.

Edited August 19, 2017 by Michael Clark

[Michael Clark]

6 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Sandy,

By the numbers:

1.  It's the other meaning of "understanding."   The fact that a decorated US General was involved in the JFK assassination would appear like a coup d'etat to many people.   It wasn't a coup d'etat.

1.1.  The JFK assassination was merely a Fake-out, to try to blame the Communists for the JFK assassination, so that the USA would invade Cuba.  The US Government was supposed to remain intact, but invade Cuba.  So, it wasn't a coup d'etat.

1.2.  But it would be confusing to millions.

2.  The truth is that the FBI in 1963 did not know how many Minutemen existed coast to coast in the USA.  They only knew that the Minutemen were heavily armed.

2.1.  There were not enough FBI men to go after the heavily armed and dedicated Minutemen -- even if only several hundred.

2.2.  To go after the Minutemen -- if there were several thousand -- would have required the US Military.

2.3.  Sending the US Military against US citizens during the Cold War was very, very bad politics.

2.4.  In Dallas, FBI agent James Hosty called the Minutemen, "General Walker's Minutemen"  (Assignment Oswald, 1996, Ch. 1)

3.  In my reading, Sandy, the US Government after 1963 knew with a certainty that General Walker's Minutemen and sundry Radical Right forces in Dallas were responsible for the JFK assassination, and trying to blame the Communists like mad.

3.1.  FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover found this out by 3pm EST on 11/22/1963 (cf. Prof. David Wrone, 2001)

3.1.  The initial questions of that afternoon were how to explain to the American People that their own US General had led this assassination.  The decision was clear -- blame Lee Harvey Oswald and him alone -- and let the chips fall where they may.   That's my interpretation of the history.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

A pile of Paul Trejo's Hegelian-dialectic nonsense.

[Mark Knight]

34 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Sandy,

By the numbers:

1.  It's the other meaning of "understanding."   The fact that a decorated US General was involved in the JFK assassination would appear like a coup d'etat to many people.   It wasn't a coup d'etat.

1.1.  The JFK assassination was merely a Fake-out, to try to blame the Communists for the JFK assassination, so that the USA would invade Cuba.  The US Government was supposed to remain intact, but invade Cuba.  So, it wasn't a coup d'etat.

1.2.  But it would be confusing to millions.

2.  The truth is that the FBI in 1963 did not know how many Minutemen existed coast to coast in the USA.  They only knew that the Minutemen were heavily armed.

2.1.  There were not enough FBI men to go after the heavily armed and dedicated Minutemen -- even if only several hundred.

2.2.  To go after the Minutemen -- if there were several thousand -- would have required the US Military.

2.3.  Sending the US Military against US citizens during the Cold War was very, very bad politics.

2.4.  In Dallas, FBI agent James Hosty called the Minutemen, "General Walker's Minutemen"  (Assignment Oswald, 1996, Ch. 1)

3.  In my reading, Sandy, the US Government after 1963 knew with a certainty that General Walker's Minutemen and sundry Radical Right forces in Dallas were responsible for the JFK assassination, and trying to blame the Communists like mad.

3.1.  FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover found this out by 3pm EST on 11/22/1963 (cf. Prof. David Wrone, 2001)

3.1.  The initial questions of that afternoon were how to explain to the American People that their own US General had led this assassination.  The decision was clear -- blame Lee Harvey Oswald and him alone -- and let the chips fall where they may.   That's my interpretation of the history.

BOTTOM LINE: Ruth Paine played absolutely no role at all in the JFK assassination plot.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Problem is... Walker was an EX-GENERAL from the date of his resignation forward. Like being the EX-president of General Motors, you don't blame GM for what he did after he left that office. And the US citizens have ALWAYS been intelligent enough to understand the difference. America in 1963 was NEVER as stupid as your theory tries to paint them.

[Chris Newton]

Quote

BOTTOM LINE: Ruth Paine played absolutely no role at all in the JFK assassination plot.

 

Then...

Why was she compelled to perjure herself at least three times?

If you had nothing to do with an assassination what could possibly motivate you to make up a story around your involvement with the perpetrator?

Was she simply doing a "favor" for her good friend and frequent house guest, Hosty, to cover up something?

 

 

[Paul Trejo]

3 hours ago, Mark Knight said:

Problem is... Walker was an EX-GENERAL from the date of his resignation forward. Like being the EX-president of General Motors, you don't blame GM for what he did after he left that office. And the US citizens have ALWAYS been intelligent enough to understand the difference. America in 1963 was NEVER as stupid as your theory tries to paint them.

Mark,

I have been saying for five years on this Forum that Ex-General Edwin Walker was a great man when he served in uniform from World War Two through the Korean War, until 1959, when he first submitted his resignation (not retirement, but resignation) to President Eisenhower, citing "Conspiracy" as his reason.

President Eisenhower tore up that resignation, and instead sent General Walker to Augsburg Germany in late 1959, to command 10,000 troops and their families in Germany, to defend the Berlin Wall.

In 1961, General Walker submitted his resignation the second time, again citing Conspiracy, and this time President Kennedy accepted the resignation (after first offering General Walker another post in Hawaii, and General Walker turned that down).

In late 1961 and early 1962, Ex-General Walker built up a reputation as a Radical Right speaker, and he ran for Texas Governor's seat in 1962, funded by oil billionaire HL Hunt.   Walker came in last place.   Walker then testified before the Senate Subcommittee on Assassinations in May, 1962, and made a damn fool of himself, spouting Communist Conspiracy theories, and even blaming the Pentagon.   (No US Generals came to his aid in those hearings.)

In the Fall of 1962, and during the Cuban Missile Crisis, Ex-General Walker made headlines again, by stirring up a racial riot on the Ole Miss campus, in which hundreds were wounded and two were killed.  

JFK and RFK sent Walker to an insane asylum on October 1, 1962.  Walker was released by the ACLU (and others) by October 4, 1962.

In December, 1962, Ex-General Edwin Walker went to trial for his role in the Ole Miss riots.   In January, 1963, Ex-General Edwin Walker was fully acquitted of those charges, and released.  A free man, Walker began to sue every newspaper in America that said bad things about him, and he restarted his career as a Radical Right speaker -- this time along with the segregationist Reverent Billy James Hargis.

After a long speaking tour with Hargis, Ex-General Edwin Walker came home on April 9, 1963, and the next night somebody tried to shoot him in his home.   According to Walker himself, he found out that Lee Harvey Oswald was the shooter only a few days later.  Here's Walker's letter to Frank Church in 1975:

http://www.pet880.com/images/19750623_EAW_to_Frank_Church.pdf

I'm not saying anybody was STUPID, Mark -- what I'm saying is that most Americans still remain ignorant of the history of Ex-General Edwin Walker.  There is so much more than this.

In conclusion: Ruth Paine had absolutely nothing to do with any of this -- or with the "Russian Embassy Letter" or with the "Walker Letter" or with the JFK assassination -- at all.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited August 19, 2017 by Paul Trejo

[Chris Newton]

Let's review for a minute why it is that I keep insisting that Ruth Paine told a story that was untrue.

Her story is (per her sworn testimony):

1. Oswald asked if he could use her typewriter. The only table in the house was in the dining area so that is where he used it to type a paper and a corresponding envelope.

2. While Ruth was putting her child in a nearby high chair,  Lee covered and obscured the "draft" that he was typing from Ruth's view.

3. This act of hiding his "draft" raised Ruth's suspicions about what Lee was doing. She did not observe either the draft or the typed document at that time.

4. Sometime after everyone, Ruth, Marina, Lee and their children, returned home from shopping on Saturday Nov. 9th, Ruth noticed a paper folded in half resting on the corner of her desk secretary in the living room.

5. The paper remained there untouched until Sunday morning Nov. 10th when Ruth awoke before the rest of the household and read the paper.

6. The first line she knew to be untrue.

7. At some point she made a copy of the paper.

8. She left the paper where it "resided" on her little desk secretary all day Sunday.

9. Sunday evening she decided to re-arrange furniture in the living room and asked Lee and Michael to help do so.

10. Just before Lee and Michael entered the room, she concealed the paper she had found earlier inside the little desk secretary.

11. Lee and Michael swapped the locations of the little desk secretary and the living room sofa.

12. The sofa was then located, (after the move), along the north wall of the living room and the little desk secretary was next to the east wall.

13. The arrangement would remain that way from Sunday evening, Nov. 10 through Ruth's WC testimony 4 months later.

 

Any Objections to this?

Edited August 19, 2017 by Chris Newton
grammar

[Michael Clark]

1 hour ago, Paul Trejo said:

Mark,

I have been saying for five years on this Forum that Ex-General Edwin Walker was a great man when he served in uniform...

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

General Walker was derided by his colleagues. His military brass peers held him as suspect. He did not have the respect of his peers or subordinates. He was kept around as a useful idiot, and later used as a tool in the Kennedy plot. He twice quit the service of his country.

He was repeatedly arrested for sexual crimes, in public and with children.

General Walker is Paul Trejo's hero.