DiEugenio, Cranor, and the mole (my mole) - 3/31/20

[Denny Zartman]

I'll try to re-create my post here in more detail.

I also have never heard of this second phone conversation between Ruth and Michael Paine that was allegedly overheard by an operator and the details released only after the operator's passing.

It seems strange to me if it were faked to implicate the Paines. For success, this fake conversation would rely on the operator overhearing the conversation and then doing something about it. Basically relying on hope alone to do the job. It just doesn't ring true. And even if reported, the plan then relies on the authorities to continue on down the line, and for what? To motivate the Paines to cooperate lest they be falsely implicated in JFK's murder?

It just seems 1. there would be more direct ways to do such a thing and with physical manufactured evidence like a letter or a recording of the conversation, 2. I don't see the Paine's acting very reluctant to join in the cover up, 3. By getting Oswald his job at the TSBD and having his family and alleged weapon at their home, the Paine's are already kinda sorta mixed up and would be primary subjects of interest if and when any authorities suspected a conspiracy and proceeded to investigate.

Time was of the essence and the participation of the Paine's would be vital to the conspirators. To try and influence the Paine's by faking an incriminating phone conversation and then just hoping that it would somehow be overheard and acted on by both the operator and the authorities seems odd. It might have taken days or weeks, if it was acted on at all. We have numerous examples of the authorities actively discouraging witnesses from saying anything that conflicts with the lone nut theory.  Why would we expect them to suddenly change course and act on this overheard conversation?

[Sandy Larsen]

23 minutes ago, Denny Zartman said:

We have numerous examples of the authorities actively discouraging witnesses from saying anything that conflicts with the lone nut theory.  Why would we expect them to suddenly change course and act on this overheard conversation?

 

Denny,

This telephone conversation* was meant to implicate the Paines in the CIA's false-flag plot against the Cubans and Russians, just like much of the Mexico City goings on was meant to implicate Oswald. Had the FBI fallen for the Mexico City deceptions, then they would have fallen for the Paine phone-call deception too. BUT... the FBI was instructed early on to ignore evidence that pointed to a conspiracy. So the FBI ignored the Mexico City deceptions, and likewise ignored the Paine phone-call deception.* There was no "changing course" for the phone conversation.

 

*This statement assumes that the phone call between the Paines did indeed occur and was discovered by the FBI. The FBI would have ignored it, just like they ignored the Mexico City deceptions that pointed to conspiracy.

 

[James DiEugenio]

Sandy and Denny:

Should we trust the evidence in this case?   Do we even know the woman's name?  Is there any way to cross check her story?

[Sandy Larsen]

 

When Greg first introduced the story of the operator overhearing the conversation, I was under the impression that he had confirmed that the call was between Ruth and Michael Paine. As a result I took that for granted.

Greg just made another post saying that he made a mistake. He (we) don't really know that the phone call was between the Paines after all.

I just checked the woman's story again and see that she doesn't have the two phone numbers. She tried to get them from her employer, but they refused.

It is interesting that the call locations -- which she did recall -- do match those of the Paines' home and Michael's job. The woman (Ruth?) placed the collect call from Irving, and the man (Michael) took the call in Fort Worth.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

32 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Sandy and Denny:

Should we trust the evidence in this case?   Do we even know the woman's name?  Is there any way to cross check her story?

 

Jim,

This is what is written just before the article:

Larry Howard was given this testament
by the son of the author after her death.
Their names remain anonymous in this
article. The original manuscript is on file
at the Center's Archives.

So Larry Howard, whoever that is, might have a record of the woman's name. The original manuscript does have her name. That document is located in the archives of the JFK Assassination Information Center. Which is probably defunct. So who knows where that material went.

BUT... given that we don't even know if the phone call was between the Paines, it probably doesn't matter anyway. It's probably not worth pursuing.

[James DiEugenio]

IIRC, the Larry Howard center did go out of business.

And I have no idea where that archives is located at.

 

[Greg Doudna]

34 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

BUT... given that we don't even know if the phone call was between the Paines, it probably doesn't matter anyway. It's probably not worth pursuing.

Except that it could be an overheard conversation of persons involved in the assassination on the day of the assassination (possibly). Apart from that, nothing of interest.