More on the Paines

[David Andrews]

38 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

. Whether he was using that camera for spy purposes when he was in the army or post-army, I have no idea. But he evidently was not using his Minox for spy purposes in 1963. 

And he needed a light meter with that?  To take war souvenir snaps?

And there's the admissible possibility he was in Intelligence during the Korean conflict?

[Greg Doudna]

As I understand it any Minox owner needed an external light meter. Yes it looks to me very is possible that he could have been doing intelligence in the Korean conflict, though I am not sure that is the only possible conclusion to be drawn. It would be of interest on that question to know how Michael Paine received that camera, whether buying it on his own, given as a gift, or issued.

Edited July 18, 2020 by Greg Doudna

[Mark Stevens]

3 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

As I understand it any Minox owner needed an external light meter. Yes it looks to me very possible that he could have been doing intelligence in the Korean conflict, though I am not sure that is the only possible conclusion to be drawn. It would be of interest on that question to know how Michael Paine received that camera, whether buying it on his own, given as a gift, or issued.

My understanding of Minox cameras during this time period is that only 2 groups of people were likely to have a Minox. The first group are people with specific interests in photography. This could be an interest in specific fields, or a general interest in photography. The other group is those involved in espionage work of some kind.

Did Michael Paine have any measurable interest in photography? Did he have other cameras? It is unlikely for a person with the level of interest in photography which would cause them to purchase a Minox, would only have this camera and not have a collection of cameras. The price of even used Minox cameras during this time was prohibitive for most people to purchase them, even casual amateurs. If he was an amateur photography buff, it's reasonable to conclude he would have had more than 1-2 cameras (especially one expensive and specialized).

[Greg Doudna]

Mark Stevens--on the extent of Michael Paine's photographic interests this would not be fully clear to my knowledge because the Paines' belongings at Ruth's house never were inventoried or an object of police search or interest--apart from items belonging to the Paines taken by mistake by Dallas police collecting Oswald's things--plus Michael Paine could have had additional photographic equipment where he was living someplace else and in earlier years. However the known items returned to the Paines among those mistakenly taken in the sweeps collecting Oswald's things, seem to show interest in photography. A first clue that the Dallas police had collected some of Michael Paine's things by mistake that first weekend might be Item 374, "Ten foreign coins contained in cloth bag marked M. Paine". That was returned to the Paines and was only one number before items also returned to the Paines: 375, "Minox light meter, pedometer, compass, self-timer, sun shade with filter, 15 power telescope, stereo viewer, and pocket knife"; 376, "two binoculars, one case with filters"; 378, "Stereo Realist camera"; and 379, "ANSCO flash assembly"
(https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=145656&search=Ten_foreign+coins+paine#relPageId=3&tab=page). 

As I think on Michael Paine's Minox, I go back to the three possible means of acquisition: self-purchase, gift, and military issue. But if it was military issue I am assuming that would most commonly be retrieved or turned back in upon conclusion of service. If so that may be the least likely of the three, leaving self-purchase and gift as more likely. A Minox gift in a wealthy family might not presuppose more than only some noticeable interest in photography on the part of a youthful recipient.

I think on the basis of existing information it is simply not known why Michael Paine had a Minox. Though it could have been used in some military or non-military spycraft there is insufficient basis to assume that must be the case. It does not seem to me that Michael Paine's possession of a Minox in the early 1950s, provided it was not military issue, establishes much beyond his having been a rich kid with some interest in photography.

After his Minox became inoperable around 1959, an inexpensive camera would normally be discarded, but Michael kept the inoperable Minox, plus the light meter which was in working order though not used because the camera was inoperable. That Michael would keep an inoperable Minox seems explicable in terms of its expensive cost, in which one keeps it in hope that at some point in the future maybe it could be fixed. So that does not strike me as implausible. So my theory: it was a gift to a rich kid from a relative, he used it until it broke, and that was the end of the Minox story for him. But this is all speculation and what is the point of speculation.

 

Edited July 19, 2020 by Greg Doudna

[Greg Doudna]

Joe Bauer, getting back to you on Ruth Paine's being asked by Gerry Spence in the mock trial about disliking Oswald.

There is no moral obligation to like every person. In a marriage with some conflicts and arguments, as was the case with Marina and Lee, women will talk to women and agree that the man is behaving badly; nothing new there. But in her behavior Ruth treated Oswald well and I see no justification for describing her as "hating" Oswald, or having or showing "extreme" dislike. I just don't see that.

Lee and Marina were poor and Marina was expecting a baby. Ruth offered a place for Marina to live while she had the baby, and Lee would find work and could visit as often as he liked. From all accounts Lee appreciated and was grateful to Ruth for this. Ruth welcomed Lee to visit Marina and his baby daughters on weekends, Ruth opened up her home to Lee to stay weekends at her place, made him welcome, sat watching TV with him, shared meals with him, did not freeze him out, did not get into fights with him or accuse him of this or that ... helped him with a driving lesson, never came across as coming between him and Marina. 

There is no sign that Ruth sought to prevent or would have sought to prevent if and when Marina chose or was ready to resume living with Oswald. The evidence that Ruth treated Oswald well is that Oswald spoke favorably of Ruth. When Oswald misunderstood something said by Capt. Fritz at the Dallas police station and thought reference was being made to Ruth Oswald said, "you leave her out of this", attempting to defend Ruth. Ruth treated Oswald well, Oswald appreciated what Ruth was doing for Marina, and Oswald did not have a problem with Ruth.

Is that the demeanor and behavior of a woman who "hated" Lee, or had "extreme" dislike? No. 

But what about Ruth admitting, when asked directly by Gerry Spence, that she disliked Oswald? Like probably fifty million women in America who discuss with each other the men in their lives, Ruth reflected and sympathized more with Marina's side or point of view of the Lee-Marina relationship. When Gerry Spence asked Ruth, "did you like Lee?" she has no option to defer or deflect the question with a diplomatic non-answer. You can see her thinking for a moment, then answering, no, she hadn't really liked him. Again, there is no moral obligation to like everyone in life, only not to behave badly toward anyone.   

Ruth did not in words or action display "hatred" toward Lee. She did not scheme to harm him. There is no sign that she sought to undermine or undercut him to Marina. We do not know the conversations Marina and Ruth had but there is just nothing to show actual malevolence, attempt to turn Marina against Lee, gossip against Lee, incite Marina to view Lee more negatively than she otherwise would, destroy their marriage, anything of that nature. 

Edited July 19, 2020 by Greg Doudna

[David G. Healy]

15 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

[...]

After his Minox became inoperable around 1959, an inexpensive camera would normally be discarded, but Michael kept the inoperable Minox, plus the light meter which was in working order though not used because the camera was inoperable. That Michael would keep an inoperable Minox seems explicable in terms of its expensive cost, in which one keeps it in hope that at some point in the future maybe it could be fixed. So that does not strike me as implausible. So my theory: it was a gift to a rich kid from a relative, he used it until it broke, and that was the end of the Minox story for him. But this is all speculation and what is the point of speculation.

 

and here are a few facts dealing with the actual camera itself (and various versions of same). This camera was NOT created for the casual photo buff. It appears the inventor had very specific purpose-use in mind.

https://www.cryptomuseum.com/covert/camera/minox/index.htm

Find the "chain" attachment and it "use" interesting.

You can find these cameras on ebay today. Prices vary from $50 bucks up to $700.Have no idea where you might find film cartridges for it, or where to get the film developed...

[Kirk Gallaway]

First off, my exposure to Quakers has been very little in my life. Both Joseph Mc Bride and Joe Bauer ask a similar question of Greg. How Greg, as a Quaker can rationalize Ruth's statement that she was glad when Oswald was murdered.

Joe B.In looking for your post showing Ruth in the mock trial.  I notice in just 3 posts  here a long list of very negative phrases  you wrote.

"her vengeful non-Quaker eye-for-an-eye "glad" feelings statement"

"her shockingly non-quakerish vengeance proclamation"

"her extreme personal hostility toward Lee Oswald. "

"she sure didn't sound any less Oswald hating 23 years after the JFK event."

 

what did Oswald ever do that Ruth Paine was aware of that made her hate him to this murder cheering degree? 

 

"Ruth's extreme personal hostility toward Lee Oswald "

 

Ruth Paine "hated" Oswald to a degree that was unreasonably extreme and illogical

 

Reveals a level of hate deeper than most others felt who knew him I would assume. Especially a Quaker.

 

She couldn't "Christian love" balance her hate for Oswald

 

"how much do I chastise thee, let me count the ways".I hate to key on you Joe, but we also know by now  your antipathy of Ruth as well. We get the picture  Do you ever think of streamlining your  rebukes  from 10 to maybe 4, or maybe at the most, 2 per post??

 

Joe said: Ruth describing him so negatively with hardly any compassionate balancing of this one sided view.  She described him being a poor provider, deluded with his own self-importance, unpleasant to be around, bristling with anger, not demonstratively appreciative among another half dozen awful disparaging traits.

 

Yeah, and what if it's all true? What if he is a poor provider, deluded with self importance, unpleasant to be around,bristling with anger, not appreciative.

Though I seldom hear anyone say this here. Just because Oswald was a patsy,  does that preclude him from being an as-hole? I think Oswald could be a very hard person to be around.

 

Joe, you should have been a priest. As I recall, Weren't you raised Catholic like me?

Of course, Catholics are the single biggest Christian denomination in the world. In my experience the priests are very self righteous, but the rank and file Catholics in the world are rather passionate, and have little problem in admitting resentment such as Ruth does.

 

 

For purely the sake of this discussion.We're assuming Ruth was not a completely  witting party to the plot  to kill JFKA.

 

If I gave temporary shelter or help out a couple where the husband a was generally a pain in the ass who ends up killing a popular President of the United States and leader of the Free World that I liked, leaving me forever a sorry footnote of history. I wouldn't feel favorable toward Lee. I'd be glad when I heard Oswald died too. It's called being merely human. And Joe, I bet you would as well. You probably just have to think about it a little bit.

 

So Greg has take to the mantle, as a Quaker continually  defending Ruth's statement about being glad to hear of Oswald's murder.

What's the significance? Does it  really add any evidence to whether or what degree of complicity she may have had in the JFKA? If Ruth was complicit, would that really be the smartest thing to say? When you really think about it.

 

As far as Ruth Paine's performance in the mock trial, a lot of the worthy criticism of that mock trial here, still ignores one thing. It was supposed to be more entertaining than really probative. Still none of her reactions seemed abnormal under the circumstances, and nothing she said shed any real light on the central question of her complicity,  though you can read in it anything you want.

 

 

 

 

[Joe Bauer]

3 hours ago, David G. Healy said:

So my theory: it was a gift to a rich kid from a relative, he used it until it broke, and that was the end of the Minox story for him. But this is all speculation and what is the point of speculation.

Question:

What relative of anyone would think to gift them with a camera that is so toy like small in size ( fits in the palm of one's hand and perhaps hard to use and feed in this way ) and specifically narrow in it's well known general use ( espionage ) let alone it's extremely high cost?

If this relative thought Micheal Paine was into photography, why not get him any number of popular normal sized cameras and a really good and expensive one to boot? Instead of this well known espionage one no bigger than a double pack of chewing gum?

Or, did this relative think that Michael Paine was actually into the spy/espionage thing of hobby interest? 

Just a common sense question that I believe is worthy of asking.

Although I do feel Ruth Paine deserves praise for the real physical and emotional support help she provided for Marina and her young daughter and unborn child by taking them into her home and probably paying for everything they needed out of her own pocket.

There, how's that for some balance in the Ruth Paine area of discussion?

 

Edited July 19, 2020 by Joe Bauer

[Joe Bauer]

35 minutes ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

First off, my exposure to Quakers has been very little in my life. Both Joseph Mc Bride and Joe Bauer ask a similar question of Greg. How Greg, as a Quaker can rationalize Ruth's statement that she was glad when Oswald was murdered.

Joe B.In looking for your post showing Ruth in the mock trial.  I notice in just 3 posts  here a long list of very negative phrases  you wrote.

"her vengeful non-Quaker eye-for-an-eye "glad" feelings statement"

"her shockingly non-quakerish vengeance proclamation"

"her extreme personal hostility toward Lee Oswald. "

"she sure didn't sound any less Oswald hating 23 years after the JFK event."

 

what did Oswald ever do that Ruth Paine was aware of that made her hate him to this murder cheering degree? 

 

"Ruth's extreme personal hostility toward Lee Oswald "

 

Ruth Paine "hated" Oswald to a degree that was unreasonably extreme and illogical

 

Reveals a level of hate deeper than most others felt who knew him I would assume. Especially a Quaker.

 

She couldn't "Christian love" balance her hate for Oswald

 

"how much do I chastise thee, let me count the ways".I hate to key on you Joe, but we also know by now  your antipathy of Ruth as well. We get the picture  Do you ever think of streamlining your  rebukes  from 10 to maybe 4, or maybe at the most, 2 per post??

 

Joe said: Ruth describing him so negatively with hardly any compassionate balancing of this one sided view.  She described him being a poor provider, deluded with his own self-importance, unpleasant to be around, bristling with anger, not demonstratively appreciative among another half dozen awful disparaging traits.

 

Yeah, and what if it's all true? What if he is a poor provider, deluded with self importance, unpleasant to be around,bristling with anger, not appreciative.

Though I seldom hear anyone say this here. Just because Oswald was a patsy,  does that preclude him from being an as-hole? I think Oswald could be a very hard person to be around.

 

Joe, you should have been a priest. As I recall, Weren't you raised Catholic like me?

Of course, Catholics are the single biggest Christian denomination in the world. In my experience the priests are very self righteous, but the rank and file Catholics in the world are rather passionate, and have little problem in admitting resentment such as Ruth does.

 

 

For purely the sake of this discussion.We're assuming Ruth was not a completely  witting party to the plot  to kill JFKA.

 

If I gave temporary shelter or help out a couple where the husband a was generally a pain in the ass who ends up killing a popular President of the United States and leader of the Free World that I liked, leaving me forever a sorry footnote of history. I wouldn't feel favorable toward Lee. I'd be glad when I heard Oswald died too. It's called being merely human. And Joe, I bet you would as well. You probably just have to think about it a little bit.

 

So Greg has take to the mantle, as a Quaker continually  defending Ruth's statement about being glad to hear of Oswald's murder.

What's the significance? Does it  really add any evidence to whether or what degree of complicity she may have had in the JFKA? If Ruth was complicit, would that really be the smartest thing to say? When you really think about it.

 

As far as Ruth Paine's performance in the mock trial, a lot of the worthy criticism of that mock trial here, still ignores one thing. It was supposed to be more entertaining than really probative. Still none of her reactions seemed abnormal under the circumstances, and nothing she said shed any real light on the central question of her complicity,  though you can read in it anything you want.

 

 

 

 

Kirk, most every negative thing Ruth says about Oswald that I list are documented quotes from her alone.

There are so many, because she said so many!

I find that noteworthy. 

Ruth was the most outspoken disparager of Lee Harvey Oswald than anyone I can recall...by far.

If you feel I am overdoing it by requoting them here, sorry.

My point is that if anyone is or was overdoing it in this area , it was Ruth Paine herself.

Ruth's long list of extremely disparaging publicly stated Oswald comments are important to note in trying to understand her extreme bias towards Oswald. Important because her actions and words given to investigative agencies did not help Oswald, but certainly hurt him in a suspect guilt sense.

I do "over-write" at times on certain subject threads here I admit. I don't resent being reminded of that from time to time. This reminding actually helps me in posting my thoughts and comments in a more coherent and less redundant way. 

I was not raised Catholic. I was raised welfare non-denominational. Single Mom never went to church. 

Ironically, we were raised in a small town with about 15 churches!

The town was started as a "Methodist" retreat back in the late 1800's.

Ours was the last town in California to allow any retail sales of alcohol!

And the town had a law on the books until the 1950's that you had to keep your street facing window curtains open at all times! I kid you not!

I only went to the two or three close by church Sunday schools ( within a three block area right next to our house) in my early elementary school age because they always served cookies and kool aid which I couldn't get enough of.

 

Edited July 19, 2020 by Joe Bauer

[Joe Bauer]

Kirk, I certainly don't want to get into a personal back and forth with any member on this esteemed forum.

You may not have noticed, but in my years of posting I have purposely and firmly avoided saying anything to any other poster that may bring this about.

Your criticism of me above is not upsetting me to any strong degree except to comment fairly and thoughtfully on it.

It is valid criticism and nothing personal than I can see.

I see your points. I understand their context.

I clearly did go off on Ruth Paine beyond what was needed to make my point about her own personal bias toward Oswald and how extreme it was imo.

Again, my tendency to over-write. An embarassing flaw I admit.

Still, most of Ruth's very strong personal disliking attitude toward Oswald was formed before 11,22,1963.

I don't give her the ( reasonable "glad he was dead" hate of Oswald pass because she thought he had something to do with killing her beloved President) that others do.

Rereading my original posts I do see I was quite "preachy" in my comments about Ruth Paine and my own bias of her as being hypocritical to her faith in some ways.

I could go back and edit those out. But, being shown their drawbacks in my point making and agreeing that they are, I think it's more important to learn to recognize when I may be doing this again in a post.

After all Kirk, you and I are both Northern California Boys.  A budship bond worthy of keeping intact, right ?

Edited July 20, 2020 by Joe Bauer

[Kirk Gallaway]

Joe said: Kirk, most every negative thing Ruth says about Oswald that I list are documented quotes from her alone.

No, you show no documented quotes, you just keep offering your same opinions over and over again.

Joe said: There are so many, because she said so many!

She said so many because she's most interviewed person in the assassination. She was asked direct questions. I know you've  said you  saw TMWKK.  Do you recall her making such conclusions there? She said what was unusual about Lee was that he was so normal, loved  watch football Etc.. She fell in perfectly with Nigel Turners story line of "Oswald the Patsy". She wasn't so eager to get the word out about Oswald that a little money couldn't cure it.

Ok, sorry  I thought one time I heard you say you were also Catholic.

Kirk said:If I gave temporary shelter or help out a couple where the husband a was generally a pain in the ass who ends up killing a popular President of the United States and leader of the Free World that I liked, leaving me forever a sorry footnote of history. I wouldn't feel favorable toward Lee. I'd be glad when I heard Oswald died too.

Do you see at all what I'm saying here? You're certainly not above disdain, you write a lot of disdain, just like in these examples. ("hate"  5 times , hostility 2 times, sorry!) If you were up a couple of nights thinking about how much this guy has transformed your life, and did the unthinkable, and let's  for the conspiracy theory sake, which you subscribe to,  Ruth could be trying to put some things together and   thinking about the tightrope she's  going  to have to  walk in the coming weeks and months.

And you're telling me, you wouldn't resent Oswald? Of course you would, probably even more so.

 

 

 

 

 

[Kirk Gallaway]

Joe, I didn't see your most recent post and was merely answering your first post. I'm glad you see where she does have some good grounds for resentment.

Yes we are NoCal buds!😀

[Joe Bauer]

I do mention Ruth's disdain for Oswald 5 times.

She gives a dozen accounts of it throughout some of her interviews and especially in the "Trial Of Lee Harvey Oswald" mock trial.  A meaningless entertainment show perhaps but she was under legal truth telling oath.

When you state you are glad someone has been brutally murdered, I think that qualifies as extreme hate, don't you?

I would resent and hate Oswald myself?  Resent at times yes. Especially if I believed he was actually physically abusing his wife Marina.

That is my tolerance turning achilles heel.

I grew up watching this and it effected me greatly.

[Greg Doudna]

Thanks for your comments Kirk. 

Edited July 20, 2020 by Greg Doudna

[Greg Doudna]

On 7/17/2020 at 11:57 AM, Bill Simpich said:

I feel like the Paines' defense attorney - I'm still researching them, see Parts 11 & 12 of my book on the Oswald legend, which I'm rewriting.  I think they got wrapped up in something they didn't fully understand.  Like you, I do not think that Ruth and Michael are bad people.   I think they're like most of us - complicated.

I have been reading your Parts 11 and 12 (I like your method of footnoting). Here I will offer some comments on Part 11.

-- on the move of Michael and Ruth to Irving in 1959 during the same week that Oswald came to visit his mother in Irving before he left for the USSR. The idea is that Oswald could be expected to return from the Soviet Union to the Dallas-Fort Worth area at some point, and Ruth and Michael would be in place for some keeping an eye on them. In thinking about this, I think this is coincidence, a "false positive". First, they moved there because that is where Bell Helicopter was where his stepfather, Arthur Young inventor of the Bell Helicopter, got him the job. Therefore Michael and Ruth's arrival there is fully explained without recourse to influence of Oswald's movements. And second, plausibility--did the US government fund major moves of assets or operatives years in advance in anticipation of a defector's return? It seems a little far-fetched.

-- on witnesses seeing a man looking like Oswald escaping from the TSBD in a vehicle looking like Ruth Paine's as a warning to the Paines to shut up and let the Oswald-lone-gunman story go forward. Can't see this one. The car was not Ruth's (Ruth was at home and would have noticed if her car was gone that morning), and it is not clear the Paines even heard the witness reports to which you refer. This wasn't planned as a warning to anyone of anything. The witness reports suggest an escaping assassin (in a car that was not Ruth's--the mistaken ID was Oswald's own as I recall, and was not larger than Oswald's momentary remark), but no need to see planned choreography for messaging purposes. Plausibility--who hires the driver, who hires the fleeing person from the TSBD, who provides the auto, solely for a choreography/messaging purpose. 

-- on the Paines as baby-sitters (so to speak) for Lee and Marina after George de Mohrenschildt left for Haiti in April. While I can understand that is an intriguing theory or reconstruction, it lacks positive confirmation and, in my opinion, suffers from an objection: Ruth has denied that. (I thought I heard that toward the end of the Sixth Floor Museum interview but cannot seem to locate it quickly; I can keep looking if you would like the reference). Ruth's denial has weight with me, since she has high credibility for truthfulness with me.

-- on MIchael Paine's responsibility in getting Lee to join the ACLU which weakened his most powerful advocate. This seems to misunderstand certain things. First, it is unknown that Michael urged that as opposed to Lee deciding that on his own. Michael took Lee to an ACLU meeting but I think the purpose, from Michael's point of view, was for the fun of it (I am being serious on that--he got his kicks out of attending controversial political events--I am tempted to make a quip: "its a Unitarian thing"). Of course Michael believed in the ACLU himself, but so would Lee. There is no necessity to invoke Michael either proactively suggesting to Lee, or taking Lee to the ACLU meeting with that purpose in mind, to explain Lee's seeking membership. Second, Lee's joining ACLU may have done slight damage to ACLU's reputation after the assassination but I don't think much--most people in America understand that large membership organizations are not responsible for crazy acts (as Oswald was regarded) by someone who just joined. I just don't think apart from an initial awkward moment or two in addressing the point, that it was much of a big deal. On conflict of interest, I do not see how Lee's membership in ACLU would introduce an obstacle to his getting legal services from ACLU attorneys. Since I cannot see any downside in terms of legal representation for Lee in joining ACLU, and since I see no real reason to suppose Michael had intention for Lee to join ACLU in the first place, I do not see a point here. On the ACLU quote about LHO being denied a fair trial because of media pressure, I do not see LHO being a member would make much of a difference if LHO had lived and ACLU had vigorously defended his legal rights. If ACLU had done that it would have been controversial enough in any case--whether LHO was a member seems to me not a major factor or variable. So I cannot see "Oswald's ties to the ACLU smeared the organization and injured its credibility in its attempts to defend Oswald after his death". (Also on this last sentence, did ACLU attempt to defend Oswald after his death? After the first few days it does not seem like anyone was apart from his mother--though questions did start arising before long, but I am not aware of a particular leading role of ACLU in defending Oswald after his death.)

I hope some of this may be worthwhile and I will continue in further posts.  

Edited July 20, 2020 by Greg Doudna