Did Ruth Paine incriminate Lee Harvey Oswald?

[Greg Doudna]

55 minutes ago, Jeff Carter said:

I personally do not think the Paines were involved in an assassination plot. However, there is enough innuendo to comfortably surmise their interactions with the Oswalds were not motivated solely by their individual interests. Their sudden appearance into the narrative just as deMohrenschildt was wrapping up his involvements is very curious. deMohrenschildt certainly had the trappings of being some kind of “handler” of Oswald (and has suffered exactly the same amount of suspicion as the Paines). Ruth Paine’s immediate and persistent engagement with Marina sticks out precisely because of this previous attention, which, according to deMohrenschildt, was encouraged by a person with Intelligence ties.

In my opinion, there was some degree of improvised subterfuge going on with the Imperial Reflex camera, of which Ruth Paine was a witting participant, and this required the sort of follow-up in subsequent investigations which did not, in fact, ever happen. Michael Paine’s claim in 1993 that Oswald showed him a Backyard Photo in April 1963 is also very sketchy and does not have an innocent purpose. To surmise that the Paines have not been forthright regarding their relationship with the Oswalds, and that they knowingly participated in the post-assassination framing of Lee Oswald, is not at all unwarranted.

That DeMohrenschildt was a babysitter for Oswald and had ongoing relationship with the CIA I think is fact, not question about that. But there is no evidence DeMohrenschildt and Ruth (or Michael) Paine knew each other before that party in Feb 1963 when Ruth met Marina (and DeMohrenschildt), and Ruth's presence at that party is well-explained on mundane, accidental grounds (invited by a friend in a madrigal singing group to meet a Russian-speaking couple returned from the USSR, a subject matter of Ruth's prior interest).

I hear it commonly said and repeated that Ruth Paine was part of the White Russian community, had been before meeting Marina. (People ask why she would want to learn Russian from Marina when she had all her White Russian community friends.) I don't think there is any evidence or basis at all that Ruth was friends with or involved with or knew the White Russian community in Dallas. 

I know the common thinking is that Lee and Marina would have had handler-continuity, DeMohrenschildt is one stage of that, he leaves for Haiti and who is next? So people look at Ruth Paine who gets to know Marina, and Ruth's father worked for USAID which might have been he was CIA though no actual evidence of that, and Ruth's sister it later turned out had a cover government job covertly employed by CIA (no evidence that Ruth would have known that at the time incidentally--did covert CIA people normally tell adult siblings living in other parts of the country of their classified covert status? is it normal for covert CIA persons for whom their CIA status is classified to tell adult siblings not living in their households? would it be OK to tell cousins too, and maybe a few close trusted friends? How does that work [maybe somebody here knows?]). 

Here is the problem I see with this basic narrative of Ruth Paine being successor-babysitter after DeMohrenschildt. Four points. First Lee and Marina went to New Orleans after DeMohrenschildt and Ruth Paine was not anywhere near or in closer touch than by letters to Marina that whole summer, not much of a babysitting relationship in New Orleans--if there is continuity in CIA handling after DeMohrenschildt would that not more logically be looked for in New Orleans? Second, all elements of Ruth's interest in Marina really are naturally explicable in terms of Ruth's prior history and interests in the Russian language, in the penpal correspondence with USSR to build bridges across Cold War tensions, and in taking the younger woman new to the country under her wing. There is nothing that obviously is not explicable in natural terms that calls for an unnatural or CIA explanation (the argument of suspicious juxtaposition of timing is not a strong argument). The third is Ruth has denied that was the case. And the fourth is there is no evidence impeaching Ruth's denial.

I question whether it is established, as distinguished from imagined, that Ruth "was a willing participant" in "improvised subterfuge going on with the Imperial Reflex camera". Is that an airtight argument? Just no other conclusion to be drawn from facts known? Or is that another of the many insubstantial reasonings by which horrible things get accused of Ruth and the allegations then come to be cited as their own evidence that the allegations are established facts? (I am willing to take that camera issue up with you as a separate dedicated topic if you wish.) 

On Michael Paine and the 1993 Backyard Photo, I think the BYP's were real and Michael Paine in 1993 was truthful on the BYP claim, which means he held back on that earlier. The question would be why he held back earlier. I do not think he said that in 1993 because a handler told him there needs to be some bulking-up of the case against Oswald in public opinion so why don't you just go out there and l*ie and falsely say you saw a BYP. I don't think that is the explanation. I think the explanation is he withheld it earlier (for whatever reason) and on his own (for whatever reason) told the truth in 1993, on that BYP. That is what I think.

 

Edited May 4, 2022 by Greg Doudna

[Mark Knight]

Greg,

I had a brother-in-law whose older brother was recruited into the CIA in the 1950s [according to my brother-in-law]. My brother-in-law, who grew up a farm boy before moving to a manufacturing job in a city, told me that his entire family [parents, brothers and sisters] was trained in certain survival and escape/evasion tactics in case his brother's cover was ever blown and they were ever threatened.

Since this is second-hand information, I cannot vouch for its authenticity. My brother-in-law only told me this after his older brother had died of natural causes. But part of the training he mentioned was being taught to swim underwater for longer-than-average distances [my b-i-l never could swim on top of the water as most people do]. He was merely explaining to some of us on the family how he learned to swim as he did. And I had not cause to doubt him, as he was generally honest with me.

IF the scenario he described was typical of the CIA methods in the 1950s, I sometimes wonder if Ruth Paine is simply concealing what she might have been trained in. I trust his word at least as much as you trust Ruth Paine's word.

As a now-retired US government employee, on the day I was hired I took a lifetime oath to never reveal certain data I dealt with on my job. Perhaps, if Ruth Paine was trained similarly to my brother-in-law, she might be under such a lifetime secrecy oath. If so, to violate such an oath would also be a violation of her religious principles.

So I can only say that, based upon my own experiences, Ruth Paine might know more than she is ALLOWED to say. Or she actually may not know more than she has revealed. And we may never know which is 100% true.

[Greg Doudna]

20 hours ago, Mark Knight said:

Greg,

I had a brother-in-law whose older brother was recruited into the CIA in the 1950s [according to my brother-in-law]. My brother-in-law, who grew up a farm boy before moving to a manufacturing job in a city, told me that his entire family [parents, brothers and sisters] was trained in certain survival and escape/evasion tactics in case his brother's cover was ever blown and they were ever threatened.

Since this is second-hand information, I cannot vouch for its authenticity. My brother-in-law only told me this after his older brother had died of natural causes. But part of the training he mentioned was being taught to swim underwater for longer-than-average distances [my b-i-l never could swim on top of the water as most people do]. He was merely explaining to some of us on the family how he learned to swim as he did. And I had not cause to doubt him, as he was generally honest with me.

IF the scenario he described was typical of the CIA methods in the 1950s, I sometimes wonder if Ruth Paine is simply concealing what she might have been trained in. I trust his word at least as much as you trust Ruth Paine's word.

As a now-retired US government employee, on the day I was hired I took a lifetime oath to never reveal certain data I dealt with on my job. Perhaps, if Ruth Paine was trained similarly to my brother-in-law, she might be under such a lifetime secrecy oath. If so, to violate such an oath would also be a violation of her religious principles.

So I can only say that, based upon my own experiences, Ruth Paine might know more than she is ALLOWED to say. Or she actually may not know more than she has revealed. And we may never know which is 100% true.

Thanks Mark. Interesting anecdotes. 

On Ruth Paine having received secret training, or taken a lifetime secrecy oath et al, at least you characterize that as conjecture of possibility without claiming knowledge or that there is evidence for any of that. The fact remains that with Ruth there are strong denials and no evidence for secret training, recruitment, or secret oaths. I don't see very high plausibility of that either, even if it were not that I would take to the bank that the Ruth Paine I knew is truthful. Is there anything that signals she had secret training of anything? I sure do not know what it would be. Secret training in folk dancing? 

But never mind that, I'm not jumping on you, I appreciate your comments. Your final line is of course true at a certain level for just about everything in this world. 

[Pat Speer]

23 hours ago, Mark Knight said:

Greg,

I had a brother-in-law whose older brother was recruited into the CIA in the 1950s [according to my brother-in-law]. My brother-in-law, who grew up a farm boy before moving to a manufacturing job in a city, told me that his entire family [parents, brothers and sisters] was trained in certain survival and escape/evasion tactics in case his brother's cover was ever blown and they were ever threatened.

Since this is second-hand information, I cannot vouch for its authenticity. My brother-in-law only told me this after his older brother had died of natural causes. But part of the training he mentioned was being taught to swim underwater for longer-than-average distances [my b-i-l never could swim on top of the water as most people do]. He was merely explaining to some of us on the family how he learned to swim as he did. And I had not cause to doubt him, as he was generally honest with me.

IF the scenario he described was typical of the CIA methods in the 1950s, I sometimes wonder if Ruth Paine is simply concealing what she might have been trained in. I trust his word at least as much as you trust Ruth Paine's word.

As a now-retired US government employee, on the day I was hired I took a lifetime oath to never reveal certain data I dealt with on my job. Perhaps, if Ruth Paine was trained similarly to my brother-in-law, she might be under such a lifetime secrecy oath. If so, to violate such an oath would also be a violation of her religious principles.

So I can only say that, based upon my own experiences, Ruth Paine might know more than she is ALLOWED to say. Or she actually may not know more than she has revealed. And we may never know which is 100% true.

You are correct, Mark, in that people take their oaths very seriously. My Step-dad worked in the shop at Skunkworks--where Lockheed created the Stealth Fighter and other top secret planes. And my ex-girlfriend's dad was one of the top engineers at Lockheed, who'd help develop stealth technology. I had many a meal with these men. They never talked about their work. What you got instead were vague comments like "See that model plane of a Stealth Fighter? I know for a fact that it doesn't look anything like that!" 

[Ron Bulman]

On 5/4/2022 at 9:36 PM, Mark Knight said:

Greg,

I had a brother-in-law whose older brother was recruited into the CIA in the 1950s [according to my brother-in-law]. My brother-in-law, who grew up a farm boy before moving to a manufacturing job in a city, told me that his entire family [parents, brothers and sisters] was trained in certain survival and escape/evasion tactics in case his brother's cover was ever blown and they were ever threatened.

Since this is second-hand information, I cannot vouch for its authenticity. My brother-in-law only told me this after his older brother had died of natural causes. But part of the training he mentioned was being taught to swim underwater for longer-than-average distances [my b-i-l never could swim on top of the water as most people do]. He was merely explaining to some of us on the family how he learned to swim as he did. And I had not cause to doubt him, as he was generally honest with me.

IF the scenario he described was typical of the CIA methods in the 1950s, I sometimes wonder if Ruth Paine is simply concealing what she might have been trained in. I trust his word at least as much as you trust Ruth Paine's word.

As a now-retired US government employee, on the day I was hired I took a lifetime oath to never reveal certain data I dealt with on my job. Perhaps, if Ruth Paine was trained similarly to my brother-in-law, she might be under such a lifetime secrecy oath. If so, to violate such an oath would also be a violation of her religious principles.

So I can only say that, based upon my own experiences, Ruth Paine might know more than she is ALLOWED to say. Or she actually may not know more than she has revealed. And we may never know which is 100% true.

 

Given Ruth's Dad worked for CIA front AID as director of Latin American operations, her sister worked for the CIA in relation to U2 electronics team recruitment, and her brother in law worked for AID, her husbands family history how a reasonable person not be suspect of her possible affiliation with the agency? 

[Greg Doudna]

Nothing wrong with the question. What is the evidence-based answer as concerns Ruth is what matters. The problem is this structure of logic: "reasonable question" --> therefore proves --> dogmatic conclusion. 

Edited May 6, 2022 by Greg Doudna

[Denny Zartman]

1 hour ago, Ron Bulman said:

 

Given Ruth's Dad worked for CIA front AID as director of Latin American operations, her sister worked for the CIA in relation to U2 electronics team recruitment, and her brother in law worked for AID, her husbands family history how a reasonable person not be suspect of her possible affiliation with the agency? 

For some people there will never be enough circumstantial evidence.

I'm sure that Ruth and Michael saw service to the CIA as their patriotic duty. They were keeping tabs on subversives and Communists. I think a good number of people involved in the conspiracy felt the same way: that what they were doing was ultimately to protect and defend the country.

[Sandy Larsen]

In one of these Ruth-Paine-is-a-saint threads, the metal filing cabinets were being discussed. I'm pretty sure that somebody mentioned that there wasn't much in the cabinets.

Well close to a year ago, Bill Simpich claimed that there were about 10,000 pages of Ruth Paine documents in those files, which is quite a few more than "wasn't much." And Simpich cites the document saying so.

I just want everybody to know the truth.

Here is Simpich's post:

 

 

[Greg Doudna]

Sandy, the issue is not that Ruth Paine is a saint but that Ruth Paine is innocent of things people have accused her. Of being party to the assassination of President Kennedy. Of forgery and fabrication of physical evidence for the purpose of framing a dead man. Of accusations that she was a CIA spy and operative. All nonsense and rubbish. All without a speck of evidence.

You cite Simpich citing a document saying that there were 10,000 pages of documents of Ruth Paine. Here is the document to which you refer: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=57758#relPageId=132 

Edited May 7, 2022 by Greg Doudna

[Sandy Larsen]

3 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Sandy, the issue is not that Ruth Paine is a saint but that Ruth Paine is innocent of things people have accused her.

 

Relax Greg... I was making a joke. Remember, I'm the one who agrees with you, that people are being too harsh with Ruth. (Though I still think she was CIA, because the circumstantial evidence strongly indicates so.)

 

[Greg Doudna]

OK Sandy.

Edited May 10, 2022 by Greg Doudna

[W. Tracy Parnell]

The Assassination and Mrs. Paine-Part One Did Ruth Incriminate LHO? ~ W. Tracy Parnell (wtracyparnell.blogspot.com)

[Guest]

On 5/6/2022 at 7:20 AM, Greg Doudna said:

Nothing wrong with the question. What is the evidence-based answer as concerns Ruth is what matters. The problem is this structure of logic: "reasonable question" --> therefore proves --> dogmatic conclusion. 

Indeed, I will never follow the "her family was, so she is" line of thinking, doesn't go anyware.

I tend to compare this with stuff I have heard many times from my mother's experiances during WWII.  Quite a number of families shredded due "political" issues.  E.g. one family (that were once neighbours of ours), the mother and son very pro-German, the son got killed by the resistance at the end of the war, the mother got convicted to jail.  But the father, nor the daughter, ever wanted anything to do with it.... 

Family ties often don't mean a thing when it comes to this stuff or politics or jobs or whatever, even at 50/50 you can not conclude anything based on family only, really nothing.

I think G. de Möhrenshildt once stated he heard of William Avery Hyde but could not recollect the circumstances  (his statement would be during his WC test. Vol ix, for what is was worth....), other than that they both worked for ICA I believe (I do not know if that even was at the same time).  ICA o/c had CIA written all over it.  But all of this doesn't say anything about Ruth. 

[David McLean]

To my mind the case against the Paines lies more in their absolute conviction of LHOs solitary guilt, especially Ruth’s failure to engage  with the multitudinous evidence of conspiracy, beginning with the Walker event. And talk about detached…virtually no emotion whatsoever, just a “Friendly”smile and  smirking at mildly challenging questions. 
Of course this proves nothing like knowing complicity to frame Lee, but but then there is her  acceptance of  a relative stranger’s guilt coupled with utter nativity of her family connections…

On the other hand, there are other examples of Quakerly outreach that have had disastrous wholly unintended consequences, and Ruth’s may yet be one of them. This observation does NOT preclude the very real possibility that that outreach and the consequences were intended by a third party, be it the CIA or something closer to what Mr Albarelli portrayed.
 

 

 

[David McLean]

For nativity, read naivety…