The timing and content of the "we both know who was responsible" phone call of Ruth and Michael Paine

[Tony Rose]

There are aspects of Ruth's relationship with Marina that are simply not discussed.  I presume for fear of some sort of legal reprisal from Ruth.  I think those "aspects" are very important in explaining Ruth's interest in Marina's well-being, her statements after the assassination, and her attitude toward Lee.

[Greg Doudna]

Correction: only one Paines' phone call at about 1 pm. No second Paines' phone call at 2 pm.

Correction: the 2 pm "bonus loot" phone call overheard by the operator I do not believe was a Paine phone call. Explanation below.

I have given further thought to this. This represents corrections of my earlier. I believe I was mistaken and there was only one Michael and Ruth phone call, a collect long-distance phone call from Michael in Fort Worth to Ruth in Irving billed to the Irving home phone, which occurred about 1 pm.

Michael Paine in his testimony denied a second phone call. And although I had not noticed it until now, Ruth Paine explicitly testified there was no second phone call. Warren Commission:

Mr. Liebeler. Was there a telephone conversation of any kind between you and Michael between your residence and Michael's office on November 22 or November 23, 1963?

Mrs. Paine. I have testified to the fact that MIchael called--I don't know whether it was from the cafeteria where he had been eating or more likely from his office, to my home, on the 22d. He had learned of the assassination at lunchtime and called to tell me to find out if I knew it, and this was the entire substance of the conversation. I told him I did know--from watching TV.

Mr. Liebeler. Was that the only telephone conversation between those two numbers on those 2 days that you know of?

Mrs. Paine. Yes.

The second item of evidence that the operator's phone call was not a Paine phone call is the area code. The operator's statement said, 

"Then I picked up an Irving signal (Blackburn exchange) about or near 2 p.m. The radio or TV was very loud. A woman placed a call to North Richland Hills (Butler Exchange) which is a fringe office of Fort Worth. I gave her the area code (817), dialed the number on a direct Fort Worth circuit and asked for her number. She evidently did not hear me for the radio was announcing the news. The number in Fort Worth answered. Again, I asked for the number. The Irving customer said, 'Just a minute.' I thought she was talking to me, so I waited."

Although this is a phone call from an Irving exchange number to Fort Worth, the Fort Worth area code called, 817, does not match the area code of Michael Paine in Fort Worth according to the FBI document of 1/25/64 posted by Max Good. Those two numbers are given as Irving (Ruth Paine) BL3-1628 and Fort Worth (Michael Paine) CR5-5211.

The one and only long-distance phone call between Michael and Ruth that happened appears listed as:

"11/22/63 Collect call from Arlington, Texas, number CR5-5211. Mrs. Michael Paine was calling."

All testimony from Michael and Ruth says that Michael initiated the call. Evidently "Mrs. Michael Paine was calling" is garbled for the charge went on Ruth Paine's phone, a collect phone call. (The only way I can read that as an explanation for that call charged to Ruth Paine's phone.)

The "bonus loot" phone call has nothing internal to its content that identifies either of its speakers as Ruth or Michael Paine; the area code does not match; the time of the phone call does not match; and the content certainly does not match anything reported of the content of the MIchael to Ruth phone call. The 2 pm "bonus loot" overheard phone call is not a Michael and Ruth phone call at all. But it MAY have been an overheard phone call RELEVANT TO THE ASSASSINATION, entirely apart from Ruth and Michael Paine. 

Edited April 19, 2022 by Greg Doudna

[Ron Bulman]

On 4/17/2022 at 8:46 PM, Ron Bulman said:

She worked with Zapruder designing/making dresses in the 1950's.  Seems like she had a more suspicious acquaintance, friend, affiliation but I don't remember the details.  let me think about where I read this.  

Paul, it seems her dad was born in Russia, but worked in China.  Doing secret work for the United States Government, per her.  There is more to this elsewhere, not just her words.  E.G. this doesn't mention her working with Zapruder.

Jeanne de Mohrenschildt (spartacus-educational.com)

[Greg Doudna]

Analysis of the Paines' phone call at about 1 pm

The Warren Commission testimony of Michael Paine and of his coworker and friend Frank Krystinik show a focus on Michael Paine's thinking as the news broke. That testimony, especially from Kyrstinik which corroborates Michael Paine, the question of interest to the Warren Commission was when did Michael Paine first suspect Oswald may have done it.

And the answer seems to revolve around the pivotal news broadcast naming the Texas School Depository. Because Michael Paine had talked about his wife's situation with Lee and Marina to Krystinik--and Krystinik invited by Michael Paine to the ACLU meeting had gotten into an argument over politics with Oswald--Krystinik was quite familiar with Lee Oswald. Krystinik and Michael Paine and perhaps a small number of others were in an office listening to the radio.

When the name of the TSBD building was announced over the radio--when would that first be? maybe 1:50 pm? I don't know--, Krystinik said to Michael, isn't that where Oswald works? Michael Paine realized, yeah, it was. Krystinik to Michael (bear in mind Krystinik had had an argument with Oswald and considered him negatively as an illogical leftist)--asks Michael, "do you suppose he could have done it?" According to both Krystinik and Michael, Michael answered, no, Oswald would not have done it. Michael didn't think Oswald was that kind of person to do something like that. But, the question had been raised.

But that was the center of discussion at that point: the building had been named (TSBD); causing the connection to be made to both Krystinik and Michael Paine that that was where Oswald worked; they both had priorly talked of Oswald quite a bit informally; and the topical obvious question was, voiced by Krystinik, "could Oswald have done it?" 

Also, Krystinik tells before that--before the TSBD detail was announced on the radio--how the several coworkers in that office listening to the radio were speculating on who could have done it. They focused first and immediately on John Birchers as the most likely--the extremist right. This was before the news of the TSBD and the Oswald connection led Krystinik to ask Michael if it was possible Oswald had done it.

The point is this: this is the background to the phone call from Michael to Ruth which happened within moments or a small number of minutes after that point.

After the initial back and forth between Krystinik (at 9 H 472-474) and Michael Paine over whether Oswald could have done it (after the TSBD announcement caused Krystinik and Michael to make the connection to Oswald), Michael called Ruth.

That Michael called Ruth at this point is confirmed by Krystinik, in agreement with Ruth's estimate of about 1 pm. It is in this context of wondering whether Oswald did it--at about 12:50 pm or so or whenever the TSBD is announced--before Oswald is publicly named as a suspect, before the news of Oswald's arrest in Oak Cliff. This is the setup to Michael's call to Ruth.

All that needs to be supposed is that Michael, despite initial denials to Krystinik and a couple of other coworkers that he did not think Oswald would do something like that, reconsiders privately between that first-reaction answer, and his phone call to Ruth. By the time he talks to Ruth, he informs Ruth that either Oswald did not do it but the extreme right wing did, or maybe Oswald did do it but the ones really responsible are still the extreme right wing. Bear in mind that the overhead conversation--provided that it was an overhearing and not the wiretap that Jeff Carter argues--could be subject to error in exact wording. Even if Jeff Carter were to turn out to be right that it really was from a wiretap, the form that was reported and got into the news could be hearsay (originating from someone who knew the wiretap), so still subject to the errors that any paraphrasing of hearsay can distort.

But the key points are that Michael informs Ruth that there was a question whether Oswald maybe could have done it, hard to imagine Michael would have certainty that Oswald did it (based on the testimony of Krystinik) but Michael could well be expressing uncertainty at that point--before the rest of the world knows of Oswald Michael is talking of this to Ruth--and to be prepared for arrival of police. This explains Ruth's greeting to police when they arrive: "I've been expectng you--come right in". It was the prior phone call from Michael which accounts for that. She did expect a police arrival, after Michael's phone call.

It all is consistent with a time of the phone call of about 1 pm, a thinking that the extreme right wing had done it, but Oswald under suspicion too (prompted by Krystinik's questions to Michael raising the question of could Oswald have done it), and Ruth not surprised but welcoming to the police when they arrived, giving voluntary permission for police to search without a warrant.

Warren Commission testimony of Krystinik (complementary to parallel and fuller elaboration in Michael Paine's testimony, not posted here). The important point is that the phone call of Michael to Ruth immediately follows naturally from this context runup to that phone call:

Mr. LIEBELER. But also to the best of your recollection, you were both in the lab?
Mr. KRYSTINIK. We were both in the office portion of the lab. Michael has a stereo hi-fi that he brought to the lab for use by all of us.
Mr. LIEBELER. You were there at that time when you first heard that the President had been fired at?
Mr. KRYSTINIK. And immediately when the first report came in that the President had been fired at, three or four of us, I forget them, myself, Michael Paine, Ken Sambell, and Clarke Benham all gathered right around the radio like a bunch of ticks and stayed there. 

Mr. LIEBELER. Was Mr. Noel there?
Mr. KRYSTINIK. Dave Noel, yes; I believe he was. I believe Dave was the one that went to dinner with Michael, if I am correct.
Mr. LIEBELER. He went to lunch with Michael?
Mr. KRYSTINIK. Yes.
Mr. LIEBELER. As best you can recall, you had not heard anything about the attempted assassination prior to the time Michael and Dave returned from lunch?
Mr. KRYSTINIK. No; we were listening on the radio and heard the report. As far as being shot at, I can't remember exactly whether Michael was there when the very, very first report came in, but he was there when the report came in. He was there when the report came in that he had died.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you and Michael have any conversations about the assassination?
Mr. KRYSTINIK. Yes; we did.
Mr. LIEBELER Tell us to the best of your recollection what he said?
Mr. KRYSTINIK. I commented, "Who in the blue-eyed world would do a thing like that?" And if I remember right, Michael didn't make any immediate comment at all about the assassination other than what a terrible thing and what in the world could he gain. We commented, first immediate impression was that possibly the John Birch people would have had a grievance against him, possibly, and we talked about that. And Michael said he didn't know. He wouldn't expect that the Communists would do it, yet at the same time he wouldn't expect the John Birch people to do it and wouldn't know. Then the first report came through that he had been fired at from Elm and Houston Streets in that area, and at that time Michael commented that, well, that is right close to the Texas School Book Depository. I did remember prior to the assassination Michael telling me that Oswald had finally gotten a job and he was working at the Texas School Book Depository, and at that particular time right then, I said, "You don't think it could be Oswald?" And he said, "No, it couldn't be him." At any rate, he had the same impression I had, that none of us could really believe it was a person they had met. It was such a big thing that a person doesn't imagine himself having met a person that could do such an act.
Mr. LIEBELER. Your first discussion with Michael on the question of Oswald's possible involvement in the assassination came after you had learned that the shots were fired in the vicinity of Elm and Houston near the Texas School Book Depository?
Mr. KRYSTINIK. Yes; he commented about Elm and Houston, and he said that is where the Texas School Book Depository is, and the next comment was I commented, "Well isn't that where Oswald works?" And he says, "That is where he works." And I said, "Do you think it could be him?" And he said, "No; he doesn't see any way in the world it could have been him." But it wasn't but just a little bit----
Mr. LIEBELER. Let me interrupt you for a moment. You were the first one to mention Oswald's name in connection with the assassination between you and Michael Paine, is that correct?
Mr. KRYSTINIK. Yes, sir; everyone was standing around.
Mr. LIEBELER. Why did you think of Oswald's name in connection with the assassination?
Mr. KRYSTINIK. I guess mainly because the first time I had heard of the Texas Book Depository was, Michael told me Oswald had gotten a job there. And when he said Texas Book, that was perhaps the second time I had ever heard the name. I don't know that I actually knew they had one. And when he said Texas Book Depository, it immediately rang right back. And I said, "That's where Oswald works." And I didn't think of Oswald shooting the President at that time. I just commented that was where he works. And then my next comment, "You don't think it could be him?" And he said, "No; of course not, it wouldn't be him." And it wasn't but just a little while later that we heard that Officer Tippit had been shot, and it wasn't very long after that that it came through that the Oswald fellow had been captured, had had a pistol with him, and Michael used some expression, I have forgotten exactly what the expression was, and then he said, "The stupid," something, I have forgotten. It wasn't a complimentary thing. He said, "He is not even supposed to have a gun." And that I can quote, "He is not even supposed to have a gun." Or, "Not even supposed to own a gun," I have forgotten. We talked about it a little bit more, about how or why or what would the reasons be behind, that he would have absolutely nothing to gain, he could hurt himself and the nation, but couldn't gain anything personal, and we discussed it. That immediately ruled out the John Birch, but why would the Communists want him dead, and Michael couldn't imagine whether it was a plot or a rash action by the man himself. He didn't know which it could be. He said he didn't know. And he called home then to Ruth.
Mr. LIEBELER. Before we get into that, you specifically remember that Michael said that Oswald was not even supposed to have a gun?
Mr. KRYSTINIK. Yes, sir; I remember that.
Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember those exact words?
Mr. KRYSTINIK. Yes. He could have said, "Oswald doesn't own a gun." That could be. That could be. The exact thing is cloudy a little bit.
Mr. LIEBELER. What is your best recollection on the point?
Mr. KRYSTINIK. My best recollection is, "He is not supposed to have a gun," or something in that vicinity. That is the best I remember right now.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you have the impression----
Mr. KRYSTINIK. Now that you mentioned to me that he isn't supposed to own that gun, it is possible that he did say that, but the way I remember is that he said "He is not supposed to have a gun."
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you get the impression at that time that Michael had any foreknowledge of Oswald's possible involvement?
Mr. KRYSTINIK. None at all. I felt it hit him as a big shock.
Mr. LIEBELER. Now you said that you were the first one to mention Oswald's name?
Mr. KRYSTINIK. Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER. The basic reason you mentioned it was because you had associated his name with the Texas School Book Depository?
Mr. KRYSTINIK. Yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER. Is there any other reason why you thought of Oswald in connection with the assassination?
Mr. KRYSTINIK. Oh, it might possibly be; I can't really tell you, it was all just everything was going that way, and it was a trying thing of oppression and worry at that particular time. It may be that he is the only Communist I have ever been introduced to, that I knew was possibly a Communist or Marxist, or whatever they are, and he was the only villain I could think of at the time, possibly. And I didn't really feel that he was a villain. I didn't really feel it was him, but he was the only person I knew connected with the Communist Party, and if the Communist Party should be associated with something, his was the name that came to my mind, possibly. I feel the correlation came through the fact that Michael had told me about him getting a job at the Texas School Depository, and when I heard the name again, I feel that was the correlation that brought his name to my mind. A lot of these things, I don't know where or how they come to mind.
Mr. LIEBELER After you heard that Oswald had been apprehended in connection with the slaying of Officer Tippit, did you and Michael Paine then associate Oswald with the assassination of the President?
Mr. KRYSTINIK. I did, and I feel that Michael did also.
Mr. LIEBELER. What did you and Michael say to each other just very shortly after the word had come through?
Mr. KRYSTINIK. I can't really remember. Michael said that he felt that he should be going home, that Ruth and Marina are both going to be muchly upset and there was going to be people at the house asking questions, and he felt he should be there to answer them. He did say, if I can answer, "I feel I should be there." 

Mr. LIEBELER. He said that prior to the time that Oswald had been publicly connected with the assassination, is that correct?
Mr. KRYSTINIK. I just really don't know. Prior to 0swald's being apprehended, there was a description of the man on the radio, if I remember correctly, and the shot had been--it had been reported that--can we go .back Just a little bit?
Mr. LIEBELER. Sure.
Mr. KRYSTINIK. More of this is coming back.
Mr. LIEBELER. Surely.
Mr. KRYSTINIK. At the time the radio had commented that the shots had come from the vicinity of the Texas School Book Depository, and they put out a description of a young man. After I had asked Michael about the possibility of Oswald, well, he commented that that is where Oswald works. Then they put out the description of the young man, and I said that fits him pretty good, to the best of my memory. You don't thank it could have been him? They did put out the description prior to his arrest and prior to his having shot Officer Tippit.
Mr. LIEBELER. The description seemed to fit Oswald?
Mr. KRYSTINIK. The description seemed to fit Oswald, and they did at that time, if I remember, comment on him being about 25 years old. I think that was the age they gave, weighing about 160 pounds, and being sandy head, and if I remember right, they said a fair complexion. I don't remember that part of it. And shortly, just a little while after that, they commented on Officer. Tippit having been shot and Oswald having been arrested in the Texas Theatre.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did you discuss with Michael the possibility that the description given fitted 0swald?
Mr. KRYSTINIK. Yes; I did. I said it sounds like him. Do you think we should call the FBI. And he said, "Let's wait a little bit." And at that particular time he said that he didn't see, any way in the world it could be Oswald at all. Besides, the man was in Oak Cliff, and Oswald was---works in the School Book Depository. They commented on the radio there was a man fitting this description and having shot Officer Tippet in Oak Cliff, and being shot. They commented on Tippit, and they were after him, and it was after they arrested him in the Oak Cliff Theatre.
Mr. LIEBELER. The description of this individual was given out after Officer Tippit had been shot, is that correct?
Mr. KRYSTINIK. It seems that someone had seen him shoot Officer Tippit. I don't remember that for sure, the description was on the radio.
Mr. LIEBELER. What did Michael say when you suggested that he call the FBI?
Mr. KRYSTINIK. He said, "If it is him, there is nothing they could do right now. It seems they are right after him." He didn't see in any way in the world it could be him. He didn't believe that it could be him. And then just a little bit after that, I can't remember time spans, that was a pretty bad day--when I first heard about it having been Oswald, to the best of my recollection, the thing he said was that, "He is not even supposed to have a gun." He may have been meaning to the best of his knowledge, he didn't know that he owned a gun. That would have been what he meant.
Mr. LIEBELER. Did it seem strange to you at the time that Michael didn't want to advise the FBI?
Mr. KRYSTINIK. No; it didn't at all. We had talked about--Michael is a little, I couldn't call him an odd duck, but he is very different. He doesn't like to intrude on anyone's personal privacy at all, I mean, the least little bit. I can be making a telephone conversation to my wife or to the company on business, and he is very careful not to come into the office, and he will see me on the telephone and turn around and go back. He is very careful to afford to other people all the privacy that he can.  

[Greg Doudna]

Or was the Paines phone call closer to 2 pm (and Ruth's timing of ca. 1 pm was mistaken)?

The only way to get to a timing of the phone call is from Ruth's estimate of 1 pm and analysis of the content of the phone call which may or may not have inaccuracies introduced via the hearsay/paraphrasing factor.

But this from Krystinik seems to be a witness saying the phone call of Michael to Ruth happened after the news on the radio of Oswald's arrest in the movie theatre carrying a pistol, and when that news came over the radio, Michael Paine now believed Oswald had killed JFK. If he called Ruth then--which is the way Krystinik says it happened--then it would make sense that Michael and Ruth's conversation could contain some back and forth discussing what to make of Oswald maybe did it or if he did or ... did it. It would make excellent sense with the timing, and the only thing that would need to be assumed is that Ruth was mistaken on the time when later asked when the phone call happened. Here is Krystinik's WC testimony again:

Mr. KRYSTINIK. I guess mainly because the first time I had heard of the Texas Book Depository was, Michael told me Oswald had gotten a job there. And when he said Texas Book, that was perhaps the second time I had ever heard the name. I don't know that I actually knew they had one. And when he said Texas Book Depository, it immediately rang right back. And I said, "That's where Oswald works." And I didn't think of Oswald shooting the President at that time. I just commented that was where he works. And then my next comment, "You don't think it could be him?". And he said, "No; of course not, it wouldn't be him." And it wasn't but just a little while later that we heard that Officer Tippit had been shot, and it wasn't very long after that that it came through that the Oswald fellow had been captured, had had a pistol with him, and Michael used some expression, I have forgotten exactly what the expression was, and then he said, "The stupid," something, I have forgotten. It wasn't a complimentary thing. He said, "He is not even supposed to have a gun." And that I can quote, "He is not even supposed to have a gun." Or, "Not even supposed to own a gun," I have forgotten. We talked about it a little bit more, about how or why or what would the reasons be behind, that he would have absolutely nothing to gain, he could hurt himself and the nation, but couldn't gain anything personal, and we discussed it. That immediately ruled out the John Birch, but why would the Communists want him dead, and Michael couldn't imagine whether it was a plot or a rash action by the man himself. He didn't know which it could be. He said he didn't know. And he called home then to Ruth.

With the timing of the phone call reset to where Krystinik has it--Krystinik being a witness who was there when Michael made the call--I think this renders that call sensible and clears up just about everything. There is no unusual meaning in what Michael or Ruth were overheard saying other than an extension of this very discussion told by Krystinik. Ruth Paine, it seems, simply got the estimated time of the call wrong. Krystinik's account makes more sense and renders it all now sensible. 

[Pat Speer]

19 hours ago, Tony Rose said:

There are aspects of Ruth's relationship with Marina that are simply not discussed.  I presume for fear of some sort of legal reprisal from Ruth.  I think those "aspects" are very important in explaining Ruth's interest in Marina's well-being, her statements after the assassination, and her attitude toward Lee.

I sense youthinks this Ruth was from some Greek Isle. 

[Jeff Carter]

2 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Or was the Paines phone call closer to 2 pm (and Ruth's timing of ca. 1 pm was mistaken)?

The only way to get to a timing of the phone call is from Ruth's estimate of 1 pm and analysis of the content of the phone call which may or may not have inaccuracies introduced via the hearsay/paraphrasing factor.

But this from Krystinik seems to be a witness saying the phone call of Michael to Ruth happened after the news on the radio of Oswald's arrest in the movie theatre carrying a pistol, and when that news came over the radio, Michael Paine now believed Oswald had killed JFK. If he called Ruth then--which is the way Krystinik says it happened--then it would make sense that Michael and Ruth's conversation could contain some back and forth discussing what to make of Oswald maybe did it or if he did or ... did it. It would make excellent sense with the timing, and the only thing that would need to be assumed is that Ruth was mistaken on the time when later asked when the phone call happened. Here is Krystinik's WC testimony again:

Mr. KRYSTINIK. I guess mainly because the first time I had heard of the Texas Book Depository was, Michael told me Oswald had gotten a job there. And when he said Texas Book, that was perhaps the second time I had ever heard the name. I don't know that I actually knew they had one. And when he said Texas Book Depository, it immediately rang right back. And I said, "That's where Oswald works." And I didn't think of Oswald shooting the President at that time. I just commented that was where he works. And then my next comment, "You don't think it could be him?". And he said, "No; of course not, it wouldn't be him." And it wasn't but just a little while later that we heard that Officer Tippit had been shot, and it wasn't very long after that that it came through that the Oswald fellow had been captured, had had a pistol with him, and Michael used some expression, I have forgotten exactly what the expression was, and then he said, "The stupid," something, I have forgotten. It wasn't a complimentary thing. He said, "He is not even supposed to have a gun." And that I can quote, "He is not even supposed to have a gun." Or, "Not even supposed to own a gun," I have forgotten. We talked about it a little bit more, about how or why or what would the reasons be behind, that he would have absolutely nothing to gain, he could hurt himself and the nation, but couldn't gain anything personal, and we discussed it. That immediately ruled out the John Birch, but why would the Communists want him dead, and Michael couldn't imagine whether it was a plot or a rash action by the man himself. He didn't know which it could be. He said he didn't know. And he called home then to Ruth.

With the timing of the phone call reset to where Krystinik has it--Krystinik being a witness who was there when Michael made the call--I think this renders that call sensible and clears up just about everything. There is no unusual meaning in what Michael or Ruth were overheard saying other than an extension of this very discussion told by Krystinik. Ruth Paine, it seems, simply got the estimated time of the call wrong. Krystinik's account makes more sense and renders it all now sensible. 

Not sure about that timing, as the Krystinik-Paine conversation re: Oswald was triggered by the first reports mentioning the TSBD, not Oswald’s arrest. So that is more in keeping with 1 PM.

Even so, there is a causal logic to the 1PM phone call, cued by Krystinik. What stands out in this matter then, is the official effort expended to make the call go away altogether. The misattributed date allows the call to be dismissed at the Warren Commission as a sort of rumour. Then years later an unconvincing story involving a phone company employee is pushed as a cover. What is being covered up? - that the Paines held such discussion at 1 PM? or the presence of a wiretap on the household? I presume the latter due to the FBI’s language on the confidential source, and also presume the tap was directed at Marina Oswald ( it has been established that wiretaps were placed at her living quarters in aftermath of assassination). An acknowledgment of a wiretap on the Paine home would likely damage the story of kindly Quaker charity and the association with the below-the-radar lone nut.

Just a point of interest: reading between the lines of Michael Paine’s WC testimony regarding the introduction of Oswald-Krystinik at the ACLU meeting - this seems to have been arranged by Michael Paine, as he told Krystinik all about Oswald’s leftwing bonafides ahead of time. Paine recounts the meet-up of the two from the position of observer, noting the reactions of both men. Primarily interested in how Oswald reacts to Krystinik, or how Krystinik reacts to Oswald? The testimony is intriguing. (Michael Paine  WCH IX )

[Joe Bauer]

3 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

I sense you thinks this Ruth was from some Greek Isle. 

?????

[Pat Speer]

1 hour ago, Joe Bauer said:

?????

I was trying to be PC and clever at the same time. I think Tony was alluding to the possibility Ruth was in love with Marina. The word Lesbian derives from the Greek Isle of Lesbos. 

[Ron Bulman]

22 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

Paul, it seems her dad was born in Russia, but worked in China.  Doing secret work for the United States Government, per her.  There is more to this elsewhere, not just her words.  E.G. this doesn't mention her working with Zapruder.

Jeanne de Mohrenschildt (spartacus-educational.com)

I've only read a couple of pages of this and thought I'd park it here and come back to it, or Paul or anyone else interested might want to peruse it.  I know it's off the thread topic Sandy but the Paine's and de Mohrenschild's are intertwined.  So, given Paul's question ...  I wonder how much Ruth and Jeanne conversed before and after the Paine's met the Oswald's?  Michael and Lee?  What they talked about, said.

Warren Commission, Volume IX: Jeanne De Mohrenschildt (aarclibrary.org)   

Edited April 20, 2022 by Ron Bulman

[Paul Brancato]

4 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

I've only read a couple of pages of this and thought I'd park it here and come back to it, or Paul or anyone else interested might want to peruse it.  I know it's off the thread topic Sandy but the Paine's and de Mohrenschild's are intertwined.  So, given Paul's question ...  I wonder how much Ruth and Jeanne conversed before and after the Paine's met the Oswald's?  Michael and Lee?  What they talked about, said.

Warren Commission, Volume IX: Jeanne De Mohrenschildt (aarclibrary.org)   

That’s an interesting question. 

[Bill Simpich]

I wanted to revive this thread because my research led me to conclude that the report that Michael Paine said to Ruth on 11/22 that "we both know who is responsible" was made up by an intelligence operative who then passed it on to Irving police chief Paul Barger.   Did anyone ever ask Barger for the final word on this story?  Is Barger still alive?  I can't find an obit for him, he would be well in his 90s today. - Bill Simpich

From:  https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Oswald_Legend_Epilogue.html

The Twelve Who Built the Oswald Legend

Epilogue

...There has been much discussion of a report by a third party that Michael Paine said to Ruth over the phone that Lee killed JFK but "we both know who is responsible." I don't think this story came from a wiretap - rather, I think that this story was entirely made up by an intelligence operative. This operative - who either was a telephone repairman or gave the story to the repairman - passed on this planted story to Irving police chief Paul Barger with the hope of linking Oswald to the Communist menace and instigating an attack on Cuba. When LBJ and his team made it clear to the Dallas district attorney Henry Wade, Chief Justice Earl Warren, and others that rumors about Communist involvement had to be squelched, efforts were made to bury Barger's report.

Ruth initially denied such a statement was made to her in her conversation on 11/22/63 with Michael in the first hour of the assassination - a conversation that is shown in her phone log, below. (A curious anomaly is that the phone log shows that she initiated the call from Michael's office, which both of them deny. It may have been a simple phone company mistake.) By the seventies, Ruth was saying that the initial conversation referred to the American right wing forces that were creating a hostile environment prior to JFK's death.

Jim Hosty in his book Assignment Oswald says that the phone call happened on the night of November 22, and was between Lyman Paine and his son Michael. They didn't take it too seriously because they assumed that Lyman, a Trotskyist, was blaming the powers that be - reminding Michael how Stalin's people killed Trotsky. Hosty offers no documentary evidence of his claim.

Call log showing 11/22 collect call from "Mrs. Michael Paine"

Irving PD chief Paul Barger said it was between Ruth's phone and Michael's work phone on 11/23/63 overheard by a "telephone repairman" - however, there is a phone log for Ruth's phone showing the 11/22 call - there is no phone call logged for 11/23 between these two numbers. A later memo shows Barger admitting that the call could have been on 11/22 as well as 11/23 - and that he believed the information came from "telephone company sources".

Both Michael and Ruth Paine told the Warren Commission, several times, that a phone call between themselves, from the same locations, occurred on November 22, 1963 at about one pm. Michael said he called Ruth immediately upon returning to the lab from lunch. Both Michael and Ruth said that no details were discussed other than that the assassination had happened, because they didn't know any details at that early point. Michael's co-worker Frank Krystinik implicitly supported this story with his testimony that he and Michael discussed Oswald's possible involvement once they heard that shots came from the book depository, but that Michael refused to take it seriously until Oswald's arrest at the theater. It makes sense that the call would have been made immediately after the shooting - making that kind of call is what most people do in a moment of crisis. They don't wait. Furthermore, even if the call was made after Oswald's identity was announced at 3 pm that day, there is no way that Michael Paine was any more "sure" that the shooter was Oswald at 3 pm than he was at 1 pm. Given Oswald's fraught relationship with the FBI, Oswald's arrest didn't give Paine any more reason to be sure about Oswald's involvement - much less for him to say that "we both know who is responsible".

Special Agent Robert Lish reports about his interview with Chief Barger, who had "received information that a male voice was overheard in a conversation," during a telephone call held on "November 23". "Captain BARGER advised that the male voice was heard to comment that he felt sure LEE HARVEY OSWALD had killed the President, but did not feel OSWALD was responsible, and further stated, 'We both know who is responsible.'" Barger does not identify the source of his information.

Gemberling Report on "We both know who is responsible" call

We see this language verbatim in the FBI Gemberling Report of January 7, 1964, but instead of naming Paul Barger, the source is identified as Confidential Informant Dallas T-4...

...In a 1976 Dallas Times Herald article written to refute the allegations of a wiretap on the Paine's residential line, Hugh Aynesworth interviewed Paul Barger, then working for the Irving Independent School District. Barger claimed the source of his original report was known to him after all, and was a telephone repairman who by chance, "due to some mechanical difficulties ... he was checking out the line" and inadvertently listened in on the conversation. Barger, supposedly, did not identify the man back in 1963 over concerns of reprimand. Barger added he "did not believe the FBI had any wiretap on the Paine house, 'If they did,' he said, 'they wouldn’t have been asking me for what happened.'" (FBI 62-109060 JFK HQ File, Section A28, p. 71-72). The phone call itself, and its content, are not denied. But Barger claimed that he - himself - was T-4.

What I find fascinating is that when the FBI examined the records for Michael's office phone number CR 5-5211, it was initially described on 11/26/63 as an unpublished number for Bell Helicopter in Hurst, Texas. It's odd, because Michael worked in the Research Laboratory in Arlington, ten miles from Hurst, and was one of the few employees with a key to the lab.

On 12/10/63, a different FBI agent received a different story, describing CR 5-5211 as the number for "Bell Helicopter Plant, Great Southwest Development Center, 3006 Avenue East, Arlington, Texas. Mike Paine and George Johnson give access to the plant to telephone company employees."

To me, that indicates that "Mike Paine" had been assigned by Bell Helicopter to be its liaison to the telephone company - and that the operatives at the phone company had a personal relationship with Paine. This may have been who was supposedly listening into the phone call between "Mike Paine" and Ruth. Telephone company operatives have a close-knit relationship with intelligence operatives. I believe that the Paines told someone - maybe Mike's mother, maybe Mary Bancroft herself - that they would keep an eye on the Oswalds - and I believe they got in way over their head.

Furthermore, I think the whole story that the Paines "knew who was responsible" was made up, and was part of a plan to point the assassination on Castro's Cubans. This story was a "spare part" - linking Oswald to a larger Communist plot - that in the end was not used. Shortly after the assassination, the new Johnson Administration settled on the story that Oswald acted alone. LBJ made it clear to his friend Richard Russell on 11/29/63 that "we've got to take this out of the arena where they're testifying that Khrushchev and Castro did this and did that and kick us into a war that can kill 40 million Americans in an hour."

Former Irving police chief Paul Barger is still alive and in the immediate area at the age of 95. Michael Paine passed away in 2018.

 

[Tony Krome]

59 minutes ago, Bill Simpich said:

"knew who was responsible"

Paine interview raises more JFK assassination questions;

And there is the matter of phones being tapped and the hearing of a Ruth – Michael conversation in which one of them said they knew who was responsible for shooting Kennedy. Allegedly Irving Police Chief Paul Barger knew about this. Have you talked to Barger about the assassination? “Not that I recall. I don’t recall the name either,” she said. What about your phone being tapped? “That’s an interesting question. I’ve tried to figure out where that report came about, Michael and I talking to each other and being heard by somebody. We talked on the phone after Kennedy was shot, but before we knew Oswald was involved. We both were thinking it was the far right, which had been very prominent in their hostility toward Kennedy. We were both assuming that’s who it was (that shot the President). I’m wondering if someone in Michael’s office heard him say it, (that) we know who was to blame for shooting the President, rather than it being tapped.”

[Richard Booth]

21 hours ago, Bill Simpich said:

I think the whole story that the Paines "knew who was responsible" was made up, and was part of a plan to point the assassination on Castro's Cubans. This story was a "spare part" - linking Oswald to a larger Communist plot - that in the end was not used.

Very interesting - and you see these threads woven in the Mexico City visit, in David Phillips wanting Veciana's cousin to say he saw Oswald getting money from Communists, other areas.  Because it wasn't used these threads were just ignored, but it's quite clear they were there and that D.R.E. was pushing this narrative to friendly media outlets on 11/22/63 at the direction of their CIA superiors. Morley's book Scorpion's Dance has some good stuff about that.

[Max Good]

Quote

I believe that the Paines told someone - maybe Mike's mother, maybe Mary Bancroft herself - that they would keep an eye on the Oswalds - and I believe they got in way over their head.

Furthermore, I think the whole story that the Paines "knew who was responsible" was made up, and was part of a plan to point the assassination on Castro's Cubans. This story was a "spare part" - linking Oswald to a larger Communist plot - that in the end was not used.

Good to see you still working on this, Bill.  I have also also surmised that the Paines, with their plethora of communist/socialist family connections could easily have been tied up in a communist plot storyline.  We have reports on Ruth Forbes Young, Arthur Young and Carol Hyde (Ruth's mother) where they were all suspected of being communists, let alone the famous Trotskyist, Lyman Paine.  The report on Ruth Forbes Young and Arthur Young was triggered by someone who they met at a party in 1950 and supposedly told that they were communists.  William Avery Hyde was a presumed socialist, supporting Norman Thomas.  That's all the parents right there.

So, whether or not all these people were actually working for the government and were die-hard capitalist Americans, we have a paper trail that could easily be seen as incriminating in a communist plot story.  So, it would have been an open option to either tie the Paines up in such a story or to lean on them with the implied or explicit threat of doing so.

 

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=145799#relPageId=5&search=arthur_young communist

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11184#relPageId=14&search=arthur_young ruth communism

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=58982#relPageId=15&search=carol_hyde communist