Ruth Paine in Nicaragua: counterpoint to "The Assassination & Mrs. Paine"

[James DiEugenio]

5 hours ago, Larry Hancock said:

Jim, a very interesting comment on the Secret Service, do you have a reference or citation for their conclusion she had written it; I had never seen that they returned it and offered that opinion to anyone...like say the WC, the FBI etc. 

Destiny Betrayed, second edition, p. 203

[James DiEugenio]

On 4/25/2022 at 11:16 AM, Larry Hancock said:

Jim, a very interesting comment on the Secret Service, do you have a reference of citation for their conclusion she had written it it; I had never seen that they returned it and offered that opinion to anyone...like say the WC, the FBI etc.

Jonathan, you many conclude that the above is just suspicion.

But what do you make of the Minox camera escapade, where anyone this side of GD realize the Paines are getting rid of Oswald's  Minox. (I have seen the picture.) Or the fact that somehow Ruth was really not spying on Oswald while he used her typewriter, and she just ended up supplying a copy of a letter he wrote placing him in Mexico City at the Cuban embassy, when in fact, the evidence says he was not there. The fact that she somehow missed an opportunity to give him a lead on a job that paid him higher wages in lieu of the TSBD position; that she--along with her husband--was questioned to the tune of 7,000 questions. (Compare that to the number of questions that Jay Boswell was asked.). That in addition to that letter, she found other Mexico City exhibits that somehow the police missed. That she produced the Imperial Reflex camera that the cops also somehow missed, which was a necessity in order to lend credence to the BYP.  That Buddy Walthers found metal filing cabinets with names and addresses of suspected commies at their home.  And that these ended up being somehow missing or emptied for the WC. And  that Mike Paine was actually doing a commie symp act at a local college hangout, and he was so obvious it got back to the FBI who filed a report about it.

Finally, what was that post office notice about which arrived at her house on November 20th? Which was never picked up but which both the police and Ruth appeared to want to disguise?  It was not about magazines as she said.  In all probability, it was a piece of brown wrapping paper, turned back for postage due. Was it just a coincidence that Oswald was at the home on the 21st one day after the package arrived, and the night before the assassination? Is it also a coincidence that the package was found at the the local post office with a blatant attempt to conceal the original address in Irving. An address sticker is applied for Oswald at a non existent address. Blocking out the original hand written address.

I think we all know what would have happened if that package had arrived at the Paine household.

 

Edited April 26, 2022 by James DiEugenio

[Greg Doudna]

On 4/25/2022 at 8:51 PM, James DiEugenio said:

Jonathan, you many conclude that the above is just suspicion.

But what do you make of the Minox camera escapade, where anyone this side of GD realize the Paines are getting rid of Oswald's  Minox. (I have seen the picture.)

No you haven't. And the idea that the Paines disappeared an Oswald Minox is completely ludicrous. There never was any Oswald Minox. The Michael Paine Minox camera was elsewhere in the garage when police grabbed all of Michael Paine's Minox accessories and Minox photos. That's what the FBI found, its what the DPD evidence photo shows, and Ruth Paine had absolutely nothing to do with that DPD vs. FBI foulup or snafu dispute, in which paperwork said 1 camera and 0 light meter were being shipped, but FBI received 0 camera and 1 light meter in that shipment, in agreement with the DPD's evidence photo unknown to FBI, photo taken before DPD shipped, and there is expert testimony as to how DPD officers, who did not use Minoxes in their work, could confuse the two.

On 4/25/2022 at 8:51 PM, James DiEugenio said:

That Buddy Walthers found metal filing cabinets with names and addresses of suspected commies at their home. 

Absolutely not true. Walthers himself directly testified to the WC that he never saw any such addresses or contents of those filing cabinets, that is Walthers himself testified that what you are claiming did not happen; none of the other police officers or any other witness claimed to see what you are claiming; and once those file cabinets were taken, Dallas police then and FBI later saw fully all of the contents and found nothing at all incriminating of Ruth, so it is not as if there is any mystery on that in terms of any known evidence or witness's testimony. Ruth never is known to have attended a leftist meeting other than ACLU, had no fraternization or associations with any communists other than Lee as Marina's husband, never went to a meeting of Cubans, never was involved in a Cuban organization. Why you have no conscience about smearing Ruth Paine on the basis of a totally unverified claim by Walthers that Walthers himself explicitly repudiated under oath in his 1964 testimony ... 

Does the possibility never occur to you that you might be accusing someone innocent in what you say? Does that never trouble you or give you pause? 

In the words of the Senator McCarthy/Army hearing, have you no shame?

Edited December 3, 2023 by Greg Doudna

[W. Tracy Parnell]

14 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

That's baloney. Spying in the U.S. is traditionally very low-tech. The information is freely available in most cases. Just need to take notes or pictures

 

It could be low-tech, but do spies generally try to conceal their activity or not?

[James DiEugenio]

I have TP and GD on ignore, for good reasons.

My reply to anything they say is to echo what Bill Kelly said about this 'Good Samaritan" couple: 

If this case had the rules applied to it that applied after 9-11, the Paines would have been waterboarded.

[Sandy Larsen]

On 4/26/2022 at 7:48 AM, W. Tracy Parnell said:

It could be low-tech, but do spies generally try to conceal their activity or not?

 

I Imagine it depends on what they're doing. But if they are CAUGHT hiding what they're doing, that would certainly raise a lot of suspicion. It's probably better not to hide some things.

 

[Greg Doudna]

On 4/25/2022 at 10:20 AM, James DiEugenio said:

That would have paralleled what the Secret Service told Marina Oswald about why they did not want her associating with Ruth anymore.  It would look too much like she was in league with the CIA. 

For anyone reading this thread I have addressed this allegation in a separate topic: "The Secret Service never told Marina that Ruth was CIA--never happened" at https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/27734-the-secret-service-never-told-marina-that-ruth-paine-was-cia-never-happened/. 

 

[Jon Pickering]

20 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

For anyone reading this thread I have addressed this allegation in a separate topic: "The Secret Service never told Marina that Ruth was CIA--never happened" at https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/27734-the-secret-service-never-told-marina-that-ruth-paine-was-cia-never-happened/. 

 

The secondary assertion in your report - that Ruth recommended the ACLU to Marina Oswald - recalls the time the ACLU pressured Vincent Salandria into resigning from the organization one or two years into his revelatory writings on the central role the national security apparatus' had in Kennedy's murder. Unless there were two ACLUs at large at the time, that wasn't very friendly advice. In other words; kind of like what an agent would say, when the perception of the ACLU was still praiseworthy, to gain the trust of a vulnerable pigeon.

[Greg Doudna]

15 hours ago, Jon Pickering said:

The secondary assertion in your report - that Ruth recommended the ACLU to Marina Oswald - recalls the time the ACLU pressured Vincent Salandria into resigning from the organization one or two years into his revelatory writings on the central role the national security apparatus' had in Kennedy's murder. Unless there were two ACLUs at large at the time, that wasn't very friendly advice. In other words; kind of like what an agent would say, when the perception of the ACLU was still praiseworthy, to gain the trust of a vulnerable pigeon.

I do not agree that the ACLU is or was in 1963 a bad organization (no matter what happened with Salandria years later) but no matter: your question implies you accept that it was an ACLU issue of Ruth Paine's association that the Secret Service told Marina, not CIA, so that is at least some progress. 

[Allen Lowe]

Except that all the actual evidence indicates she said and MEANT CIA.

[Greg Doudna]

(Deleted because of erroneous attribution of a quotation)

Edited May 1, 2022 by Greg Doudna

[Ken Martinson]

On 4/26/2022 at 3:59 PM, James DiEugenio said:

I have TP and GD on ignore, for good reasons.

My reply to anything they say is to echo what Bill Kelly said about this 'Good Samaritan" couple: 

If this case had the rules applied to it that applied after 9-11, the Paines would have been waterboarded.

I think all of this evidence should be fed into AI, and then we should see what it concludes on the matter.

I'm not sure what state-of-the-art is in AI, but I think it is getting close to a thorough analysis of the facts on JFK.

[Sandy Larsen]

10 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

22 hours ago, Allen Lowe said:

Except that all the actual evidence indicates she said and MEANT CIA.

10 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

OK then your original question or charge that Ruth Paine was acting with ill intent in speaking to Marguerite of ACLU assistance (you're a hard one for Ruth Paine to please Mr. Lowe) was disingenuous. You made an accusation against Ruth Paine's character ("that wasn't very friendly advice" on Ruth's part) based on citing something as a fact which you did not believe was true in the first place.

To your present point, how do you interpret Marina midway during that questioning asking "What is CIA?"

 

Greg,

I believe you are conflating the guy with the big beard (Allen Lowe) with the guy with the small beard (Jon Pickering).

[Greg Doudna]

On 4/30/2022 at 6:38 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

Greg,

I believe you are conflating the guy with the big beard (Allen Lowe) with the guy with the small beard (Jon Pickering).

Sandy you are right. Apologies Allen Lowe.

Edited July 1, 2022 by Greg Doudna

[W. Tracy Parnell]

The Assassination and Mrs. Paine-Ruth Spied in Nicaragua? ~ W. Tracy Parnell (wtracyparnell.blogspot.com)