Jump to content
The Education Forum

The Secret Service never told Marina that Ruth Paine was CIA--never happened


Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Pat c'mon.

Please, I know you are better than this Roe and Tracy sophistry.

The CIA for the ACLU?

Not even close.

 

 

 

Absolutely. 100%. This kind of mistake is not remotely surprising. The CIA was not nearly as well known in the early 60's as the FBI. As pointed out, she momentarily said "American Civil Liberties" or something like that while trying to explain what they told her. And besides, it makes ZERO sense that the Secret Service would know the names of CIA-affiliated people, or that they would warn Marina about them if they did. 

There is a record, moreover, of SS antagonism towards the FBI in the aftermath of the shooting. Outside of this supposed statement is there any record of SS concern about the CIA? No, none at all. They were so concerned about the CIA that they shared their copy of the Z-film with them. 

Let me share an embarrassing anecdote demonstrating that someone could confuse the ACLU and CIA. When I was attending Cal State Northridge I took this 9 unit class combining Religion, Political Science and History. Three professors. Three hours a day. Three days a week. One of the papers was an in-class paper where we were to discuss the effects of social activism on history or some such thing. As one of the teachers was always droning on about Latin American politics, I thought I'd write about Allende, his rise to power, and his overthrow by Pinochet. The problem was that Nicaragua was always in the news back then and I had an ultimate brain fart and kept calling Allende "Somoza.' BIG difference. No one could confuse Allende for Somoza. And yet somehow I did. And I was probably the best student in the class.

Let me give you another example. Vince Palamara recently posted Humes' HSCA testimony on this forum. As I had previously compared Baden's, Sturdivan's, and Canning's HSCA testimony against the transcripts of their testimony, I thought I'd do so for Humes as well. I found that there were no major changes. But there was one change made over and over. In his actual testimony, Humes, a man testifying about probably the most noteworthy day of his life, kept getting the date wrong. He said, numerous times, that he performed the autopsy on the night of the 23RD!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 57
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

12 hours ago, Allen Lowe said:

I don’t think the Paines knew about the plot, but like George Demohrenschildt they were put in place to handle Oswald, to move him according to some third-party plan. Why the hell else would Mrs.Paine drive all over the map to help out Marina? Out of the goodness of her heart? Geez you just said she had no obligation to help Oswald or Marina. Get your stories straight. 

That is about as involved as the Paine's could conceivably be. The Paine"s are a sort of a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" conspiracy honey pot. But the truth is there are people who do those things, whether it's out of the goodness of their hearts or some ideology, just as there are people who are committed to selfless acts to do relief work to relieve the suffering of others or even everyday people who work in hospitals.

Similarly, There are people who are attracted to people from different countries, or have a fascination with a particular country!. Maybe it's deliberately contrarian to a prevailing public perception of that country. Could it be she just felt sorry for Marina's terrible circumstance, and maybe her most personal goal was that she could learn more Russian from it? But with that came Lee, who by accounts was known to beat his wife. So she takes on this husband who is by all society's count  a loser, with a lot of personal problems and then when faced with the prospect that he may have killed the President. My attitude would have at first been disbelief, (as it was for both of them), and then I would have said to myself "enough of this selflessness,what the hell am I doing?, this guy could have committed an act that could even destroy my life!"

What always kills me is how everything Ruth then said about Lee that is not positive is magnified 100 times here! People jump on it like leeches in heat! As Jonathan says, they are under no obligation to do anything or say anything for Lee. Is anyone here so selfless, that they can't understand that?

There are a lot of unanswered questions about Ruth Paine, and whether she's been completely truthful doesn't rest on this..
But this whole business of Alan Dulles, career master spy organization head, in his greatest power play in his life, actually disposing of the President  of the United States, using his mistresses' best friends  family to wittingly or unwittingly take the enormous heat  and scrutiny of setting up Oswald. Does that really make sense? Considering the other means we assume  he had at his disposal? Was that really sound?
 
In some ways the pressure to condemn Ruth Paine becomes more integral if holding on to this  whole plot line.
The search for who killed JFK has become like piling up grains of sand on a bedrock, and yet the CIA/ Dulles plot is maybe considered the best in a plurality of explanations? If Ruth Paine was completely innocent, would you believe that JFK was assassinated as result of a conspiracy 1 or 2 % less?

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

That is about as involved as the Paine's could conceivably be. The Paine"s are a sort of a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" conspiracy honey pot. But the truth is there are people who do those things, whether it's out of the goodness of their hearts or some ideology, just as there are people who are committed to selfless acts to do relief work to relieve the suffering of others or even everyday people who work in hospitals.

Yes, but.  Were the Paines doing that out of good Quaker principles, or were they working for a government intelligence agency?  I vote CIA.  And, in the case of CIA or ACLU, I vote CIA.  I vote the cameras were Oswald's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, John Butler said:

Yes, but.  Were the Paines doing that out of good Quaker principles, or were they working for a government intelligence agency?  I vote CIA.  And, in the case of CIA or ACLU, I vote CIA.  I vote the cameras were Oswald's.

Agreed.  And how did the Paine's "good Quaker principles" work out for Bell Helicopter profit margins after 11/22/63? 

Honestly, DiEugenio has the patience of Job to repeatedly take the time to debunk all of the incessant gibberish posted on this forum by the resident Lone Nutter "cognitive infiltration" tag team.  Basta per Dio...

IMO, anyone who claims that Ruth Paine wasn't working for the Company is living on Planet Posner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Planet Posner?  👋

Nice one William.

But let me add something here that maybe will shine some light on the issue.

Most researchers tend to romanticize the first generation critics e.g. Meagher, Weisberg, Lane, Popkin, Epstein.  But as time went on, I began to look at the things they left untouched. The more I looked at this part of the equation, the more the romance dissipated.  Why?  Because these were key issues, in some cases, they were of prime importance.

What were they? 

How about Mexico City for one.

How about 544 Camp Street for another.

What about the rifle transaction for one more.

And then of course there was Ruth and Michael Paine.  

In fact, even  the second generation more of less ignored the Good Samaritan couple.  Its not really until you get to Carol Hewitt, Barbara La Monica and Steve Jones, that you get any real systematic inquiry into who they  were. In that light, its so unfortunate that Carol got cancer when she did.  She was really on a roll.  And Probe was willing to publish her as long as she wanted to.  Then after those treatments, I think she kind of lost her mojo.  But man was she good.

So that is one explanation for this reluctance.  And it explains the Roe Consulting/ Weisberg dalliance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

Absolutely. 100%. This kind of mistake is not remotely surprising. The CIA was not nearly as well known in the early 60's as the FBI. As pointed out, she momentarily said "American Civil Liberties" or something like that while trying to explain what they told her. And besides, it makes ZERO sense that the Secret Service would know the names of CIA-affiliated people, or that they would warn Marina about them if they did. 

There is a record, moreover, of SS antagonism towards the FBI in the aftermath of the shooting. Outside of this supposed statement is there any record of SS concern about the CIA? No, none at all. They were so concerned about the CIA that they shared their copy of the Z-film with them. 

Let me share an embarrassing anecdote demonstrating that someone could confuse the ACLU and CIA. When I was attending Cal State Northridge I took this 9 unit class combining Religion, Political Science and History. Three professors. Three hours a day. Three days a week. One of the papers was an in-class paper where we were to discuss the effects of social activism on history or some such thing. As one of the teachers was always droning on about Latin American politics, I thought I'd write about Allende, his rise to power, and his overthrow by Pinochet. The problem was that Nicaragua was always in the news back then and I had an ultimate brain fart and kept calling Allende "Somoza.' BIG difference. No one could confuse Allende for Somoza. And yet somehow I did. And I was probably the best student in the class.

Let me give you another example. Vince Palamara recently posted Humes' HSCA testimony on this forum. As I had previously compared Baden's, Sturdivan's, and Canning's HSCA testimony against the transcripts of their testimony, I thought I'd do so for Humes as well. I found that there were no major changes. But there was one change made over and over. In his actual testimony, Humes, a man testifying about probably the most noteworthy day of his life, kept getting the date wrong. He said, numerous times, that he performed the autopsy on the night of the 23RD!

Where is the documented evidence that Marina actually meant the ACLU?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Allen Lowe said:

Where is the documented evidence that Marina actually meant the ACLU?

It was in Greg's initial post. When discussing the Secret Service's warning about Ruth Paine she asked the lawyer 

Marina: "What is CIA?"

She then tried to explain what she thought the CIA was...

Marina: "I had the impression ... American Civil Liberties Union, I don't know"

 

It seems clear from this she thought CIA was an acronym for the American Civil Liberties Union. 

But even if one fights that logical conclusion one is stuck with the ridiculous idea that the Secret Service would warn the wife of a presumed presidential assassin that she shouldn't hang out with her friends because they might be working for an American intelligence agency. Hubba...wha??? That doesn't pass a smell test. At least not for anyone with a nose... 

And yes, people make ridiculous mistakes. This forum is filled with nonsense where someone takes one statement from one person and blows it up to be a window into "what really happened." As pointed out in an earlier post...Humes repeatedly told the HSCA in televised testimony he performed the autopsy on the 23rd... This was then changed to the 22nd in the transcript of his testimony. Hmmm... What were they hiding? That the autopsy took place on the 23rd? Or that Humes had a brain fart?

He had a brain fart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unlike some on this forum, I'm not willing to confer sainthood on either Ruth or Michael Paine. 

But I'm also not ready to issue them horns and pitchforks and pointy tails, either.

George Bouhe was collecting information on certain people. Perhaps others in the White Russian community were in on the information gathering. DeMohrenschildt has CIA written all over him, and while he was in Dallas he was part of this group. Ruth Paine was connected in some way to this group as well, with her desire to learn Russian from a native. I think Ruth Paine was USED by the group, perhaps as a way to keep an eye on Marina because, if they knew Marina's background/recent ancestry, red flags would have popped up everywhere for Bouhe and the others.

Whether Ruth Paine was used WITTINGLY or UNWITTINGLY seems to be the question we're debating here. And right now, trying to be as objective as I possibly can be, I don't think we can determine whether Ruth Paine was being played, or whether she was in on the game. The data we have available is too contradictory.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

It was in Greg's initial post. When discussing the Secret Service's warning about Ruth Paine she asked the lawyer 

Marina: "What is CIA?"

She then tried to explain what she thought the CIA was...

Marina: "I had the impression ... American Civil Liberties Union, I don't know"

 

It seems clear from this she thought CIA was an acronym for the American Civil Liberties Union. 

But even if one fights that logical conclusion one is stuck with the ridiculous idea that the Secret Service would warn the wife of a presumed presidential assassin that she shouldn't hang out with her friends because they might be working for an American intelligence agency. Hubba...wha??? That doesn't pass a smell test. At least not for anyone with a nose... 

And yes, people make ridiculous mistakes. This forum is filled with nonsense where someone takes one statement from one person and blows it up to be a window into "what really happened." As pointed out in an earlier post...Humes repeatedly told the HSCA in televised testimony he performed the autopsy on the 23rd... This was then changed to the 22nd in the transcript of his testimony. Hmmm... What were they hiding? That the autopsy took place on the 23rd? Or that Humes had a brain fart?

He had a brain fart.

That’s pretty weak. If you’re saying she was incorrect and thought The ACL was the CIA, she could just as likely be confused in the other direction. I’m sorry but all this is much ado about nothing. She meant the CIA because she SAID CIA,  and all evidence points to that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  1. The incident in Mexico City proves that the CIA was behind the plot to kill Kennedy, and was setting up Oswald, Cuba, and Russia to take the blame.
  2. The CIA had to put Oswald in the TSBD at the right time to accomplish their plan.
  3. Whoever it was who got Oswald to apply for the job at the TSBD, certainly had been instructed by the CIA to do so.
  4. Therefore if Ruth Paine got Oswald to apply at the TSBD, she must have been working for the CIA.

It doesn't matter whether Marina meant CIA or ACLU in her testimony. Either way we know that Ruth Paine must have been CIA.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/29/2022 at 12:41 AM, Greg Doudna said:

 However, [Assistant District Attorney Jim] Alcock told me later that by the way she answered – ‘that organization you join...’ it was evident she meant something other than the CIA, namely the ACLU.”—Tom Bethel, Garrison staff, diary

This is hogwash.  Using Bethels diary as a source is ludicrous.  He was likely a CIA asset himself.

"Since Garrison had designated him as his chief archivist, he had access to and control of both Garrison's files and his most recent witness list. . . .

Secretly he met with Sal Panzeca, one of Shaw's attorneys. and gave him a witness list he had prepared , with the summaries of each witness expected testimony for the prosecution.  . . .

Years later . . . Then there was an inquiry as to how it happened.  When all the evidence pointed to Bethel as the culprit, then and only then, did he weepingly admit what he had done." 23.  Pg. 290, Destiny Betrayed, Second Edition.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

This is a direct quotation from Marina on the stand.

"They didn't say anything personal about her, but they said its better for me to stay away from her for awhile, it seemed like she was sympathizing with CIA."

How could it be any more clear than that?  Why would the Secret Service want Marina to stay away from an ACLU member?  The Secret Service was already suspicious of Ruth anyway, because they returned some of her evidence.

 

And Ron, this is one reason I have GD on ignore.  Anyone who would quote Tom Bethell about Garrison, that is playing dirty pool. And if GD does not know that, it makes it even worse.

Edited by James DiEugenio
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

This on ReopenKennedyCase (ROKC) (https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/f1-jfk). I was stunned to see this. I have disagreed in the past with Greg Parker on some things but he is honest and very sharp with facts and evidence and when he is on his game and right, unbeatable. (Thanks Greg P.)

"As one of Greg Doudna's biggest critics re Ruth Paine... I am now coming to his defense"

Greg Parker

Greg is absolutely wrong that Marina got the CIA and ACLU confused. 

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/27734-the-secret-service-never-told-marina-that-ruth-paine-was-cia-never-happened/

What he should have said is that she got the initials of the two orgs confused.

He is being taken to task on the grounds that no one could confuse the CIA with the ACLU. And that is true. One is a secretive intel agency and the other is a group formed to defend the constitutional rights of citizens.

But someone - particularly a foreigner - could certainly confuse the initials by which the two orgs are known.  That is not the same as confusing the nature and work of either. 

But the possibility of confusion by Marina is not enough to swing it that way. Was does swing it that way is that Greg Olds of the DCLU (the local ACLU affiliate) had tried to contact Marina by phone more than once to make sure she was being properly represented and had due access to legal advice. She initally wanted to do this, but was talked out of it.

Mr. REDLICH. And you also related the Ruth Paine, second Ruth Paine, visit to your home to something which you referred to as the American Civil Liberties Union business.
Mr. MARTIN. It was right after--these incidents happened rather closely. The letter from the Civil Liberties Union--well, first we received a telephone call from the Civil Liberties Union wanting to see Marina Oswald.
Representative FORD. Telephone call from Dallas or New York, or what?
Mr. MARTIN. From Richardson, the same person who wrote the letter which you have there. Do you have that?
Mr. REDLICH. We do have. We are inventorying many of these documents of which the American Civil Liberties letter is one and we will introduce it at an appropriate time.
Mr. MARTIN. Richardson is a suburb of Dallas.
This gentleman called, what was his name?
Mr. LEECH. I can't remember it.
Mr. REDLICH. Would it refresh your recollection if I mentioned the name Olds?
Mr. MARTIN. Yes, Greg Olds. He called on the phone and wanted to see Marina Oswald, wanted to. make sure she was being properly represented, that she knew her rights, and so on and so forth. John Thorne talked to him, and told him that he represented Marina Oswald, and that he was definitely sure that all her rights were being observed. Then I think there was another phone call from them still wanting to see Marina Oswald, and I talked to Marina and she said well, she would talk to him. So they arranged a meeting with a third party, I can't remember his name, who was a minister of some kind, and then Marina changed her mind and said no, she didn't want to go at all, she didn't want to talk to any of them. So then they wrote the letter. They wrote a letter to her in Russian and sent one to me in English, one to John Thorne in English, and I believe one to the Secret Service and one to the FBI.

When Greg Olds was called to testify, he volunteered what had happened in regard to this. 

Mr. STERN. Mr. Olds, I think that covers the matters that I am interested in. Is there anything further that you would like to tell us? Anything that you----
Mr. OLDS. Possibly later after this matter was disposed of, we became interested in the legal status of Oswald's wife, Marina, and a story in the New York Times, I believe December 19, said something to the effect that perhaps she was being held incommunicado and in some way illegally detained. Anyway, her status was not clear as far as the reporter was concerned, and our national office in New York City got a number of inquiries both by phone and personal calls and letters, telegrams, and they asked us in turn then, to see what we could find out about it. After a certain amount of negotiations with the Secret Service and FBI and so on, we sent a letter to Mrs. Oswald and she later wrote us that 'she was content with her situation, and was very happy with her status, in fact, it was for her interest.

Edited by Greg Doudna
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

This is a direct quotation from Marina on the stand.

"They didn't ay anything personal about her, but they said its better for me to stay away from her for awhile, it seemed like she was sympathizing with CIA."

How could it be any more clear than that?  Why would the Secret Service want Marina to stay away from an ACLU member?  The Secret Service was already suspicious of Ruth anyway, because they returned some of her evidence.

 

And Ron, this is one reason I have GD on ignore.  Anyone who would quote Tom Bethell about Garrison, that is playing dirty pool. And if GD does not know that, it makes it even worse.

Yes, Marina said Ruth was "sympathizing with CIA." How was that a problem for the Secret Service? Or for Marina--who was desperate to prove her sympathy with the CIA and FBI etc... else she be accused of being a spy and/or sent back to Russia?

It's clear she was thinking of the ACLU (or some other leftist organization.)

Let me add to the list of things said in testimony that were obviously wrong. Marguerite said Lee was left-handed. It's obvious she was thinking of Robert. 

And, oh yeah, there's Hoover telling Johnson the gun was found on the fifth floor, that the bullet striking Kennedy in the head went on to wound Connally, etc... 

And then there's the early reporting of most of the media that an SS agent was shot, when it was a DPD officer who'd been shot, etc...

People have brain farts... All the time... And this needs to be recognized before one can get anywhere near the truth...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...