Jump to content
The Education Forum

Did Ruth Paine incriminate Lee Harvey Oswald?


Recommended Posts

"There are all kinds of claims and rumors about the Paines but no concrete evidence has ever directly linked them to the CIA" -- Narrator, "The Assassination & Mrs. Paine"

"I don't know anybody who thinks that they were part of the plot to kill the president" -- Bill Simpich, "The Assassination & Mrs. Paine"

 

(please think on those two statements for a moment)

 

I have struggled to understand what is going on with the scale of animosity against Ruth Paine in some quarters of this community. I have struggled to understand why.

This is a woman for whom to the present day there has not been shown hard evidence that she has ever done anything objectionable rising above what Pat Speer calls the "warts and all" of being human. Never charged or convicted of a crime. No record of violence. No record of attempting to hurt anyone.  

There is something not right here. For unsubstantiated suspicions about Ruth Paine are considered by perhaps a majority reading these words as if they are bedrock fact, not termed unsubstantiated suspicions as they ought accurately if truth in labeling matters. Are people aware of the mislabeling? 

It is like something out of the Twilight Zone. All this animosity, even venom, toward a woman with no clear information she ever did anything.

Is the “why” because Ruth is blamed for the incrimination of Oswald in the assassination? Many if not most here (I am among this number) believe Oswald was innocent of the JFK assassination. There is a sense, not only of the loss of what President Kennedy represented to America, but the passion of an injustice done to Oswald, an Innocence Project passion to vindicate a wrongful conviction of Oswald.

Time after time, like a drumbeat, in book after book, article after article, internet post after internet post, I have seen and felt a perception that Ruth Paine is responsible for that conviction of Oswald, almost a subdued rage at one perceived as playing a leading role in the incrimination of Oswald.

But what if that premise never was true?

What if all along that supposed verity—that Ruth Paine incriminated Oswald, incriminated an innocent man—has all along has been fundamentally--I mean really fundamentally--mistaken, wrong? What if Ruth Paine never incriminated Oswald of any crime in her Warren Commission testimony? What if Ruth Paine is innocent even of that?

I am not talking about she believes today the Warren Commission and Oswald did it. Half of educated America believes that. Just forget that as not the issue here. That belief has no legal significance in incrimination of someone in a crime. From Max Good's "The Assassination & Mrs. Paine": 

Narrator: Other than Marina, Ruth Paine had been history’s most important witness against Lee Harvey Oswald. Ruth and her garage provided much of the incriminating evidence, and the Walker Note wasn’t the only piece that curiously popped up after the initial police search of Ruth’s house. The infamous Backyard Photos were found in the second police search the day after the assassination. And Ruth later handed over the cameras that had supposedly been overlooked. One was matched to the Backyard Photos. The other was a miniature spy camera which has intrigued researchers for decades. Two weeks after the assassination, as doubts about Oswald’s trip to Mexico were surfacing, Ruth miraculously found several incriminating items sitting in a room where the Oswalds stayed.

This which occurs midway during the film is one of the most objectionable passages of this film. Up to that point the presentation has the overt structure of a neutral narrator, a “we report you decide” back and forth between accusations that the woman is a witch, idiomatically put, and the woman’s denials that she is a witch, idiomatically put. The words of the narrator above depart from that overt stance of neutrality and now favor the side of Ruth’s accusers. 

The manner of expression conveys the narrator’s endorsement of an accusation that Ruth Paine fabricated and/or planted physical evidence in a large-scale way for police to find for the purpose of falsely incriminating Oswald, an accusation for which, it pains me that it is necessary to repeat once again, there is no evidence. 

Three words of the narrator reveal the departure from neutrality. The first is “curiously” with reference to the finding of the Walker Note. Marina said she hid it in her book seven months earlier, then it is found in Marina's book where she said she left it. Ruth never saw it or touched it before the Secret Service found it in Marina's book. The note is in Oswald's handwriting. There is no evidence Ruth had anything to do with it. Why “curious” and if something is curious what does that have to do with Ruth? 

The second is “supposedly” as in Ruth handing over cameras to police “supposedly” previously overlooked. The “supposedly” evokes a hint that Ruth’s action is not what it appeared to be. 

The third is “miraculously” in “Ruth miraculously found several incriminating items sitting in a drawer…” “Miraculous” is language of mockery or incredulity that the named thing can have come about through natural causes. The word suggests that the finding of that physical evidence is impossible to have come about naturally and therefore was forged and/or planted, with the insinuation being that said forgery and/or planting was done, not by the parties usually responsible for planting evidence in cases of police finding planted evidence, namely the police, but instead Ruth Paine. The hapless police and FBI in Dallas in the investigation were fooled by this woman's serial forgery/planting of physical evidence, so evil was she, so the thinking goes. 

The uses of “curiously”, “supposedly”, and “miraculously” in the narrator’s voice indicate the narrator, not simply interviewees in the film, holds to the allegations implied by the sarcasms. The voices of Ruth’s accusers have entered the voice of the narrator. 

The allegation to which the narrator has by manner of expression given credence is utterly, utterly outrageous. There is no evidence or reason to suppose Ruth Paine forged or planted physical evidence. Apart from no evidence there is very little sense to this charge. Ruth had no police or spy or military or intelligence training. She never went to forgery school or evidence-planting school. She had no prior record of framing innocent persons, no prior experience in covert operations, never forged or planted evidence in the past, no criminal history. If she had been involved in such a thing it would subject her to serious perjury issues involving risks of multiple and lengthy prison sentences if prosecuted and convicted. What citizen in their right mind would agree to that kind of thing? For what motive? How does that work, if a citizen, asked to do that, after consultation with maybe an attorney asks the government to provide indemnification in writing, a promise to compensate if they end up in the slammer for a few years through some slipup? Is there any reality to these ideas of what Ruth Paine is imagined to have been doing? And why would Ruth want to frame Lee, even posthumously? Is there anything in her life that suggests she would have any desire or willingness to do that? No.

The narrator states that Ruth Paine was, next to Marina, “history’s most important witness against Lee Harvey Oswald”. 

With the possible exception of testifying that Lee had written untrue things in the Soviet embassy letter (not sure if that is a crime, but it is not the best character reference)—with that one minor exception in her voluminous Warren Commission testimony, it is not clear that Ruth Paine gave any incriminating testimony against Oswald at all. 

She never testified to witnessing a criminal act committed by Oswald, or to having knowledge of a plan or intention on Oswald’s part to commit a criminal act. 

She had nothing to do with connecting the sixth floor rifle or any other firearm to Oswald.

She never claimed to hear Oswald express hatred for Kennedy, or any other motive to kill Kennedy.

She never claimed to have seen Oswald be violent, or threaten violence. She gave no testimony incriminating Oswald in the assassination of President Kennedy, the Walker shooting, or the Tippit killing. The characterization that Ruth Paine as the second most important witness in history against Lee Harvey Oswald is a misconstrual of reality of epic proportions. Did she ever incriminate Oswald in any crime at all?

There are those who charge Ruth with being responsible for the finding of the Warren Commission that Oswald killed Kennedy, on the grounds that Ruth’s testimony provided the raw material which the Commission used to construct a narrative to convict Oswald in the court of public opinion. That is wrong on so many levels. First of all, the narrative convicting Oswald started Friday afternoon Fri Nov 22 and was embraced by the FBI, the new President, and the major television networks before the weekend was out. Ruth did not cause that. Ruth gave no interview before Oswald's death Sunday morning Nov 24. As for her Warren Commission testimony, the only issue that matters or should matter is was Ruth truthful and accurate in answering questions asked of her, not how that testimony was used by the Commission which was not her doing and over which she had no authority. 

The Warren Commission had been given authority from Congress to subpoena witnesses and compel testimony. Just as with other witnesses, Ruth did not get to decide which questions she wished to answer, how many, whether she wished to testify. She had no control over what the Warren Commission did with her compelled testimony. The only issue should be was her testimony truthful and accurate. I have heard people blame Ruth, not on issues of what was true or false, but as if Ruth was responsible for how her testimony itself (true or false) was used by the Warren Commission, as if she was personally culpable for the Warren Commission's uses of her testimony, even though her testimony itself never incriminated Oswald. From the film:

DiEugenio: Almost from the beginning of this case, Ruth and Michael are always there to discredit Oswald, to caricature Oswald, to say he wanted to be a big man in history, which of course makes no sense at all. Because if that’s what Oswald was doing then he would have admitted that he did it, OK, but he never did. In fact he said just the opposite, that I’m just a patsy.

I think it should be considered that the post-assassination comments of Ruth were colored by a belief that he had killed her president. Ruth’s post-assassination descriptions of Oswald, colored by that belief, seem moderate under the circumstances. Michael's were harsher but Michael is not my focus of attention here. 

And so to the opening question. If Ruth Paine's deepest crime is incrimination of Oswald, where is the incrimination? Where did she? Where in her Warren Commission testimony did she give evidence that, if delivered in court in a trial of Oswald, would have incriminated Oswald of a crime? 

Some might cite her testimony that she saw a light on Fri morning Nov 22 that had not been on when she went to bed the night before. She concluded from that, though she did not claim to witness it directly, that Oswald may have gone into the garage. That's it. That's what Ruth testified. Was that incriminating? No, because the garage is where Oswald's belongings, his things, were. There could be a hundred reasons why someone would do that, even if the Warren Commission construed that as the time when Oswald retrieved his rifle to take to the TSBD the next morning.

Was Ruth a witness "against" Oswald in the sense of incriminating him in anything? Or is that another myth that should be deconstructed? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 40
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted (edited)

Ruth Paine hated Lee Harvey Oswald. 

When asked by the famous attorney Gerry Spence "Mrs. Paine, you didn't like Lee Oswald very well, isn't that right?"

She responded (under oath)  "No, I did not like him very well."

Lee was very hard to like by most people he encountered and interacted with for many well documented reasons.

Buell Frazier was an exception. He didn't mind Lee's almost extreme anti-social lack of verbal engagement.

He simply described Lee as "a quiet feller."  and "He liked chilren and they liked him."

Even so, my guess is that penny pinching Lee never once offered even a nickel to Frazier to help with gas costs despite Frazier so often taking him back to Ruth Paine's home after work? Yet, big hearted Buell never once complained or said this bothered him. In public anyway.

Getting back to RP and her dislike of Lee, I sense that it was so deep that she eventually despised him.

I think she may have even seen Oswald's arrest as a big relief for Marina in finally being rid of him.

Despite her immense dislike of Lee, Ruth Paine still helped Lee personally from time to time. Letting him drive her car to maybe help him get a driver's license? She helped find him employment. She let him visit and even spend the night in her home while visiting Marina and Junie. And, I've never once read that she ever dinged Lee to reimburse her "something" in regards to the expenses she took on in housing, feeding and in other ways caring for his wife and child, and even himself.

Maybe some of this tolerance of Lee was born out of her Quaker moral teaching mindset?

Yet, what struck me about Ruth's "true" deep despising feelings toward Lee back in 1963 though was how palpable Ruth Paine's dislike for Lee was publicly expressed even so many years later.

She didn't hold back in her court room testimony during the "Trial Of Lee Harvey Oswald" when asked by Gerry Spence how much she felt this toward Lee back in those days when she was involved with Marina and Lee.

At one point in her testimony during this "Trial Of Lee Harvey Oswald" she really lost it in saying how offended she was with Lee Oswald using her personal typewriter without her knowledge or permission! "that offended me very much!"

The gall! The absolute GALL! Her facial expression while saying this as freshly angered and agitated as if it happened a week before!

Ruth held that particular incident resentment toward Lee for decades. Probably still seethes about it even 59 years later!

My point is ( I guess ) is that Ruth Paine had to really fight and push herself to do anything for Lee's personal benefit while he was alive. If it wasn't for her wanting to bring Marina into her life she would have did her best to keep that boorish, wife beating low life Lee Oswald as far away from her as possible.

When it came to all the post 11/22/1963 agencies asking her about Lee and anything that may have incriminated him or not, one would assume she wasn't his biggest defender. Same with her husband Michael.

 

 

Edited by Joe Bauer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Joe Bauer said:

Ruth Paine hated Lee Harvey Oswald. 

When asked by the famous attorney Gerry Spence "Mrs. Paine, you didn't like Lee Oswald very much, isn't that right?"

She responded (under oath)  "No, I did not."

Lee was very hard to like by most people he encountered and interacted with for many well documented reasons.

Buell Frazier was an exception. He didn't mind Lee's almost extreme anti-social lack of verbal engagement.

He simply described Lee as "a quiet feller."  and "He liked chilren and they liked him."

Even so, my guess is that penny pinching Lee never once offered even a nickel to Frazier to help with gas costs despite Frazier so often taking him back to Ruth Paine's home after work? Yet, big hearted Buell never once complained or said this bothered him. In public anyway.

Getting back to RP and her dislike of Lee, I sense that it was so deep that she eventually despised him.

I think she may have even seen Oswald's arrest as a big relief for Marina in finally being rid of him.

Despite her immense dislike of Lee, Ruth Paine still helped Lee personally from time to time. Letting him drive her car to maybe help him get a driver's license? She helped find him employment. She let him visit and even spend the night in her home while visiting Marina and Junie. And, I've never once read that she ever dinged Lee to reimburse her "something" in regards to the expenses she took on in housing, feeding and in other ways caring for his wife and child, and even himself.

Maybe some of this tolerance of Lee was born out of her Quaker moral teaching mindset?

Yet, what struck me about Ruth's "true" deep despising feelings toward Lee back in 1963 though was how palpable Ruth Paine's dislike for Lee was publicly expressed even so many years later.

She didn't hold back in her court room testimony during the "Trial Of Lee Harvey Oswald" when asked by Gerry Spence how much she felt this toward Lee back in those days when she was involved with Marina and Lee.

At one point in her testimony during this "Trial Of Lee Harvey Oswald" she really lost it in saying how offended she was with Lee Oswald using her personal typewriter without her knowledge or permission! "that offended me very much!"

The gall! The absolute GALL! Her facial expression while saying this as freshly angered and agitated as if it happened a week before!

Ruth held that particular incident resentment toward Lee for decades. Probably still seethes about it even 59 years later!

My point is ( I guess ) is that Ruth Paine had to really fight and push herself to do anything for Lee's personal benefit while he was alive. If it wasn't for her wanting to bring Marina into her life she would have did her best to keep that boorish, wife beating low life Lee Oswald as far away from her as possible.

When it came to all the post 11/22/1963 agencies asking her about Lee and anything that may have incriminated him or not, one would assume she wasn't his biggest defender. Same with her husband Michael.

 

 

THIS ^^^^^ is the valid counterpoint to the first post. 

OK, maybe it's impossible, in theory, for a Quaker to actually "hate." Or maybe it isn't.

But it's quite obvious, in Ruth Paine's own words, to see that Ruth Payne had the strongest possible dislike for Lee Oswald.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Joe Bauer said:

Ruth Paine hated Lee Harvey Oswald. 

When asked by the famous attorney Gerry Spence "Mrs. Paine, you didn't like Lee Oswald very much, isn't that right?"

She responded (under oath)  "No, I did not."

Lee was very hard to like by most people he encountered and interacted with for many well documented reasons.

Buell Frazier was an exception. He didn't mind Lee's almost extreme anti-social lack of verbal engagement.

He simply described Lee as "a quiet feller."  and "He liked chilren and they liked him."

Even so, my guess is that penny pinching Lee never once offered even a nickel to Frazier to help with gas costs despite Frazier so often taking him back to Ruth Paine's home after work? Yet, big hearted Buell never once complained or said this bothered him. In public anyway.

Getting back to RP and her dislike of Lee, I sense that it was so deep that she eventually despised him.

I think she may have even seen Oswald's arrest as a big relief for Marina in finally being rid of him.

Despite her immense dislike of Lee, Ruth Paine still helped Lee personally from time to time. Letting him drive her car to maybe help him get a driver's license? She helped find him employment. She let him visit and even spend the night in her home while visiting Marina and Junie. And, I've never once read that she ever dinged Lee to reimburse her "something" in regards to the expenses she took on in housing, feeding and in other ways caring for his wife and child, and even himself.

Maybe some of this tolerance of Lee was born out of her Quaker moral teaching mindset?

Yet, what struck me about Ruth's "true" deep despising feelings toward Lee back in 1963 though was how palpable Ruth Paine's dislike for Lee was publicly expressed even so many years later.

She didn't hold back in her court room testimony during the "Trial Of Lee Harvey Oswald" when asked by Gerry Spence how much she felt this toward Lee back in those days when she was involved with Marina and Lee.

At one point in her testimony during this "Trial Of Lee Harvey Oswald" she really lost it in saying how offended she was with Lee Oswald using her personal typewriter without her knowledge or permission! "that offended me very much!"

The gall! The absolute GALL! Her facial expression while saying this as freshly angered and agitated as if it happened a week before!

Ruth held that particular incident resentment toward Lee for decades. Probably still seethes about it even 59 years later!

My point is ( I guess ) is that Ruth Paine had to really fight and push herself to do anything for Lee's personal benefit while he was alive. If it wasn't for her wanting to bring Marina into her life she would have did her best to keep that boorish, wife beating low life Lee Oswald as far away from her as possible.

When it came to all the post 11/22/1963 agencies asking her about Lee and anything that may have incriminated him or not, one would assume she wasn't his biggest defender. Same with her husband Michael.

 

 

Here's another example of Ruth's overt disgust for Lee. When asked whether or not Lee could have taken curtain rods from the garage on the morning of the 22nd, she repeatedly said "He never asked me if he could take curtain rods" or some such thing. She was outraged by the thought he might help himself to some unused curtain rods in her garage, and thereby rejected it. When the reality was that there may have been some curtain rods missing from the garage...

The thought occurs, moreover, that Greg should start a list of opportunities given Ruth to bury Lee, where she refused to comply. I'll start the list.

1. While the commission desperately sought evidence linking Lee to the rifle found in the depository, they could not establish that this rifle had been at the Paine's house let alone in Oswald's possession for weeks and weeks prior to the assassination. Ruth could have said "Yeah, I tripped over the blanket in the garage the night before the shooting, and there was definitely something solid in it" but she did not. In fact, she gave the commission no evidence supporting that the rifle had ever been at her house.

2. While the commission desperately sought evidence Lee was in the garage on the night of the 21st or morning of the 22nd, Ruth admitted she did not see him go in there and that she had deduced he'd been in there by a light's being on. That's it. Well, someone else could have turned on the light, and then left it on, perhaps even Ruth herself. 

3. While the commission desperately sought evidence no curtain rods had been removed from the Paine's garage on the 22nd, Ruth admitted that she did not check her garage to see if curtain rods were missing prior to doing so with Albert Jenner, months and months later.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Mark Knight said:

THIS ^^^^^ is the valid counterpoint to the first post. 

OK, maybe it's impossible, in theory, for a Quaker to actually "hate." Or maybe it isn't.

But it's quite obvious, in Ruth Paine's own words, to see that Ruth Payne had the strongest possible dislike for Lee Oswald.

I believe that's the point. Her dislike/hatred was personal. IF she was part of a plot to set up Oswald it would not have been so personal. She would also have buried him a hundred times over where she did not. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She found him a job... because she hated him.

She tried to him driving lessons... because she hated him.

She let him store his stuff in her garage even though he had his own place... because she hated him.

You really think this makes sense?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I count FIVE CONCURRENT THREADS, all begun by Greg Doudna, addressing the innocence of Ruth Paine in her treatment of Lee Oswald and her associations relating to the JFK assassination. 

If I was to believe every word uttered in defense of Ruth Paine, it would make Mother Teresa seem like a gutter slut in comparison.

I don't personally know Ruth Paine. I have no reason to believe she's guilty as sin of every accusation ever leveled against her. But I also have no reason to believe that she has become the most perfect human who has ever walked the Earth, either.

Perhaps we need to start a sub-forum on Ruth Paine...?...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ruth Paine, the dangerous ACLU fanatic who did nothing when someone she knew needed legal representation.

Ruth Paine, the good Christian woman who hates and judged Oswald guilty before he ever had a chance to defend himself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Denny Zartman said:

She found him a job... because she hated him.

She tried to him driving lessons... because she hated him.

She let him store his stuff in her garage even though he had his own place... because she hated him.

You really think this makes sense?

Absolutely. Not remotely surprising. She was trying to help Marina, and Marina was married to Lee. She would not have come right out and said "I won't help Lee because I'm secretly hoping Marina will dump him and the two of us can live happily ever after." That wasn't the way she was built. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Mark Knight said:

I count FIVE CONCURRENT THREADS, all begun by Greg Doudna, addressing the innocence of Ruth Paine in her treatment of Lee Oswald and her associations relating to the JFK assassination. 

If I was to believe every word uttered in defense of Ruth Paine, it would make Mother Teresa seem like a gutter slut in comparison.

I don't personally know Ruth Paine. I have no reason to believe she's guilty as sin of every accusation ever leveled against her. But I also have no reason to believe that she has become the most perfect human who has ever walked the Earth, either.

Perhaps we need to start a sub-forum on Ruth Paine...?...

 

Actually, including this thread, it's SEVEN since April 10th.

Is there or is there not a Minox camera in this DPD evidence photo?

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/27703-is-there-or-is-there-not-a-minox-camera-in-this-dpd-evidence-photo/

April 10, 2022

-

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

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/27706-the-timing-and-content-of-the-we-both-know-who-was-responsible-phone-call-of-ruth-and-michael-paine/

April 16, 2022

-

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

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/27720-ruth-paine-in-nicaragua-counterpoint-to-the-assassination-mrs-paine/

April 23, 2022

-

An unjust accusation: Ruth Paine and the TSBD job of Oswald

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/27730-an-unjust-accusation-ruth-paine-and-the-tsbd-job-of-oswald/

April 27, 2022

-

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

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

April 29, 2022

-

An appeal to end the unjust abuse of Ruth Paine over the "Walker Note"

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/27738-an-appeal-to-end-the-unjust-abuse-of-ruth-paine-over-the-walker-note/

May 1, 2022

-

Did Ruth Paine incriminate Lee Harvey Oswald?

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/27742-did-ruth-paine-incriminate-lee-harvey-oswald/

May 2, 2022

- - -

Why is Greg working so feverishly to defend Ruth Paine? According to him, it's out of a sense of personal friendship.

 

Quote
“And as to why, consider it sticking up for a friend. If you saw a friend smeared and wrongly accused, I think you would do the same”

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/27733-is-this-the-warm-up-for-the-60th/?do=findComment&comment=458901
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Pat Speer said:

Absolutely. Not remotely surprising. She was trying to help Marina, and Marina was married to Lee. She would not have come right out and said "I won't help Lee because I'm secretly hoping Marina will dump him and the two of us can live happily ever after." That wasn't the way she was built. 

Ah, so Ruth was coveting her neighbor's wife too, another sin on the pile. And are we still expected to believe that she is a "good Christian woman?" Can we at least put that ridiculous notion to bed once and for all?

The most infuriating part of all of this is that we're all just forgetting that Paine cold-called Truly and got Lee his job at the TSBD. Ruth Paine did not get Lee Harvey Oswald his job at the TSBD because she wanted to jump Marina's bones. 1. That's ridiculous, and 2. It reduces the conspiracy to kill JFK to a Rube Goldbergesque random chain of events more akin to a "Final Destination" horror movie than reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Denny Zartman said:

Ah, so Ruth was coveting her neighbor's wife too, another sin on the pile. And are we still expected to believe that she is a "good Christian woman?" Can we at least put that ridiculous notion to bed once and for all?

The most infuriating part of all of this is that we're all just forgetting that Paine cold-called Truly and got Lee his job at the TSBD. Ruth Paine did not get Lee Harvey Oswald his job at the TSBD because she wanted to jump Marina's bones. 1. That's ridiculous, and 2. It reduces the conspiracy to kill JFK to a Rube Goldbergesque random chain of events more akin to a "Final Destination" horror movie than reality.

Let me explain what I mean by a "good Christian" woman, Denny. I mean that she tries to live that way, and sees herself that way.

But does she fall short? Of course. The vast majority of "good Christian" women fall short. 

Let's not forget that the vast majority of "good Christian women" voted for Trump in 2016. 

It should be noted, moreover, that you're kinda demonstrating my point. People hate Ruth because they see her as a phony who failed to live up to her Christian ideals. They just hate her. And this hate fuels their fervent belief she is not what she would appear to be, and is really some sort of spook. 

I have come to believe this is incorrect. As pointed out in earlier posts, if her "job" was to implicate Oswald in the murder of Kennedy she sure did a lousy job of it. I mean, she failed to see the gun, failed to see Oswald go into or come out of the garage, failed to notice the curtain rods in the garage when she was told Oswald had taken them, etc. 

If I was Oswald's defense attorney, and she wasn't called by the prosecution, I would have called her to the stand. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

s pointed out in earlier posts, if her "job" was to implicate Oswald in the murder of Kennedy she sure did a lousy job of it. I mean, she failed to see the gun, failed to see Oswald go into or come out of the garage, failed to notice the curtain rods in the garage when she was told Oswald had taken them, etc. 

This is what I was about to say. Ruth did a very poor job of incriminating Oswald. She missed every opportunity!

Do we really have to marvel at the idea that some religious people don't live up to their ideals in the U.S.?

I do see in the  examination from Spence  that she definitely developed  something in her craw about being taken advantage of with numerous things including the typewriter.  . She did sort of bristle at Pence, but  Pence was trying to fool her and trip her up with words.. 

Has anybody had to house a person, (maybe even your kids! heh heh!) who rather than express gratitude just seemed to settle in and assume to use facilities? Some people do have a thing with there typewriters! or possessions.!  This is where I see so little middle ground here. Just because Lee didn't kill the President. Does that mean he wasn't an asshole and a hard guy to be around? This is the sort of situation that people can find themselves in their lives in their 20's, or maybe later if straining to live up to a religious ideal.

It definitely arouses emotions here, But is reacting out of anger for things unrelated to the actual charges against Oswald necessarily that effective in swaying a jury? Particularly as Pat says, when she seems sort of AWOL about every substantive issue to the assassination that she could have hung the noose around Oswald?

That was a nice collage Vince! I'm reminded again of Michael Paine's likeness to Oswald! That sort of articulation about Oswald is not as deliberate as a spy, or he's a damn good spy! I'm sure many believe the later! There's no question he had thought about what he was going to say. But people who are trying to incriminate others don't go off on wonkish, ideological raps, as it seems both him and Lee are prone. I suppose some would look at it back then as being incriminating in that Lee was a superficial dumbsh-t Communist! But the heaviest word he used to depict Lee was "scorn'. Which sounds pretty accurate. But he made it a point to say he was completely surprised at the prospect of Lee killing JFK. He could have cunningly accounted that it all seemed to come together. But he chose to articulate why it didn't and how later he came to accept it. Another silly missed spy opportunity.

 

Edited by Kirk Gallaway
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...