Jump to content
The Education Forum

Did Ruth Paine incriminate Lee Harvey Oswald?


Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

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. 

There is another point here. I don't think Ruth Paine made any point of putting herself out as a Christian or even a Quaker, and I don't think she ever claimed she took in Marina as charity or selflessness or out of the goodness of her heart, etc.

Two single moms with troubled marriages headed for divorce with a language in common forming a household to share in childcare ... that's not charity or selflessness, and I do not believe Ruth ever claimed it was. I think Ruth never represented or claimed her relationship with Marina was other than mutual-advantage, with someone she had come to care about on her part, the kind that happens millions of times in America, roommate situations forming up for combined friendship/practical reasons. Happens in college towns all the time.  

These things about Ruth not being perfectly Christian, not perfectly selfless, etc and etc are straw men. If someone else (not Ruth) speaks of Ruth as generous or charity or acting as a good Quaker, etc. that brings a Pavlovian-dog response of channeling vicious sarcasm and venom directly at Ruth, as if it was she, Ruth, representing herself and making those claims for herself that way.

It happens and happens. For years and decades. Here it has happened just now in this very discussion. First Pat Speer makes a comment representing his own opinion which is somewhat sympathetic to Ruth but nuanced with a different perspective on the situation that he sees (not a description Ruth Paine herself would give). Pat offers his comment:

Pat Speer: 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.  

Then responds Denny with a vicious attack on Ruth as if Ruth had represented herself that way.

Denny Zartman: 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? 

Denny is just outraged at the idea of Ruth Paine presenting herself as "a good Christian woman". Except that isn't Ruth Paine representing herself as that. I cannot think of any time Ruth Paine represented herself in that way, claimed she was motivated in her relationship with Marina by selflessness, etc. When asked her beliefs or religion she of course answers and says she is Quaker, opposed to violence, etc. in simple one sentences. But there is not a whiff of evangelical fervor or wanting to convert others or claim of superiority or claim that she is Mother Teresa. And yet the viciousness comes on her as if she did present herself that way. That is projection. Then Denny uses the inclusive "we" as if speaking for the community at large with an excoriation of Ruth for being such a hypocrite that she fails to live up to a straw man Mother Teresa standard.

And Pat Speer when calling Ruth Paine a "good Christian woman" explained he meant that in a different way than Denny took it. Pat Speer meant it sociologically, a sociological description or type like "suburban soccer mom" or "earth mother type". Pat explained it has nothing to do with being perfect or Mother Theresa or not having flaws and shortcomings or not having the same issues that all other women and human beings deal with in navigating this vale of tears. I like Pat Speer's term "warts and all". The issue is not whether the people we encounter in life have "warts"--who among us does not?--but whether they rise to a level of significant moral evil. Is the moral evil that some in this community see in Ruth Paine evidence-based or is it projection?

Pat Speer and Kirk Gallaway are the voices of reason and insight here, capturing some of the ambiguities. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 40
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted (edited)

Marina was a special and interesting young woman to Ruth.

Ruth wanted to learn the Russian language and had studied it years before she met Marina.

Here Ruth had the opportunity to have someone directly in her life who spoke perfect Russian. Marina was vulnerable and needed major help in so many ways. Ruth offered this help and probably felt it would be a doubly good thing to have Marina and child move in with her not just to help them but for the conversational Russian.  And Ruth was lonely herself as well. 

Marina being a ravishing radiating blue-eyed young beauty also probably made it a bit more attractive situation for Ruth versus taking in some other Russian speaking woman who looked like a typical cold war era US propaganda picture of a huge boned, thick ankles and forearms with  weather beatened face and wearing a farm dirt covered babushka and pulling a plow.

I understand Ruth was extremely hurt when Marina left her home just days after 11,22,1963 and completely cut her out of her new life.  Hence, it was obvious Ruth Paine had developed feelings of affection for Marina during their time together.

If I may, you know what made the entire Lee Oswald story (including the Ruth Paine part) 10X more interesting leading up to the JFK event and after?

Marina Prusakova.

The first nationally televised interview I ever saw of Marina weeks after the JFK event was the "Marina, what do you do all day?" one?

Honestly, I was so smitten I was mesmerized. There was something so ..." intriguingly attractive ?" about her.

Her natural beauty, her innocence and vulnerability. Her eyes were wide, feminine and intelligent. She also looked like someone who was keeping some very deep thoughts, feelings and secrets inside. Very careful and reticent about every word she spoke.

I was just a young adolescent...but I instantly ached for this beautiful young Russian woman.

I think Ruth Paine saw these same qualities in Marina. 

Marina had become an attractive overnight celebrity ( albeit a dark and tragic story one ) after that interview. Yes, it was all under dark and tragic circumstances but that first nationally broadcast interview of her still captured millions of Americans like it did me. 

Even lothario Norman Mailer gushed over her after he met her in person. He said on a national TV talk show..." her eyes shone like diamonds."

Yes, beautiful young Marina Prusakova made the whole Oswald and even Ruth Paine story something much bigger, more attractive and much more interesting and intriguing than they would have been had Oswald returned from Russia with a bride who looked like say ... Ruth Buzzi?

 

 

Edited by Joe Bauer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
15 hours 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 well, isn't that right?"

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

 

Joe,

Ruth did like Lee Harvey Oswald in 1963/1964... after her initial bad impression of him. From her WC testimony:

Mrs. PAINE - I disliked him actively in the spring when I thought he just wanted to get rid of his wife and wasn't caring about her, wasn't concerned whether she would go to the doctor. I then found him much nicer, I thought, when I saw him next in New Orleans in late September, and this would be a perfectly good time to admit the rest of the pertinent part of this letter to my mother written October 14, because it shows something that I think should be part of the public record, and I am one of the few people who can give it, that presents Lee Oswald as a human person, a person really rather ordinary, not an ogre that was out to leave his wife, and be harsh and hostile to all that he knew.

But in this brief period during the times that he came out on weekends, I saw him as a person who cared for his wife and his child, tried to make himself helpful in my home, tried to make himself welcome although he really preferred to stay to himself.

He wasn't much to take up a conversation. This says, "Dear More [Mom?]," this is from Commission Exhibit No. 425, "Lee Oswald is looking for work in Dallas. Did my last letter say so? Probably not. He arrived a week and a half ago and has been looking for work since. It is a very depressing business for him, am sure. He spent last weekend and the one before with us here and was a happy addition to our expanded family. He played with Chris"--my 3-year-old, then 2-- "watched football on the TV, planed down the doors that wouldn't close, they had shifted and generally added a needed masculine flavor"----

Mr. JENNER - Wait a second.

Mrs. PAINE - [Quoting from the letter to her mother:] "From a poor first impression I have come to like him. We saw the doctor at Parkland Hospital last Friday and all seems very healthy," and this refers to Marina. "It appears that charges will be geared to their ability to pay."

 

 

Edited by Sandy Larsen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Joe,

Ruth did like Lee Harvey Oswald in 1963/1964... after her initial bad impression of him. From her WC testimony:

Mrs. PAINE - I disliked him actively in the spring when I thought he just wanted to get rid of his wife and wasn't caring about her, wasn't concerned whether she would go to the doctor. I then found him much nicer, I thought, when I saw him next in New Orleans in late September, and this would be a perfectly good time to admit the rest of the pertinent part of this letter to my mother written October 14, because it shows something that I think should be part of the public record, and I am one of the few people who can give it, that presents Lee Oswald as a human person, a person really rather ordinary, not an ogre that was out to leave his wife, and be harsh and hostile to all that he knew.

But in this brief period during the times that he came out on weekends, I saw him as a person who cared for his wife and his child, tried to make himself helpful in my home, tried to make himself welcome although he really preferred to stay to himself.

He wasn't much to take up a conversation. This says, "Dear More [Mom?]," this is from Commission Exhibit No. 425, "Lee Oswald is looking for work in Dallas. Did my last letter say so? Probably not. He arrived a week and a half ago and has been looking for work since. It is a very depressing business for him, am sure. He spent last weekend and the one before with us here and was a happy addition to our expanded family. He played with Chris"--my 3-year-old, then 2-- "watched football on the TV, planed down the doors that wouldn't close, they had shifted and generally added a needed masculine flavor"----

Mr. JENNER - Wait a second.

Mrs. PAINE - [Quoting from the letter to her mother:] "From a poor first impression I have come to like him. We saw the doctor at Parkland Hospital last Friday and all seems very healthy," and this refers to Marina. "It appears that charges will be geared to their ability to pay."

 

 

Sandy.

These 1964 WC statements by Ruth Paine you quote expressing her softened and even more favorable feelings toward Lee Oswald during the times he would visit while Ruth had Marina and child under her roof seem quite hollow to me after hearing her say the things she said about Lee Oswald and her feelings toward him 22 years later in the "Trial Of Lee Harvey Oswald."

In this and under oath...she flat out stated to Lee's defending attorney Gerry Spence ..."No, I didn't like him ( Oswald ) very well." No caveats. Not one word regards the more favorable things you say she said about Lee in her WC testimony.

She was allowed to share more of her feelings and remembrances about Lee and she chose to go into the story of Lee using her typewriter without her knowledge and permission and how offended she was that he did this.

She also went into detail in expressing how upset she was when Lee started calling her at her home after he was arrested on 11,22,1963 and asking for her help in securing an attorney and also to talk to Marina ( who wasn't home ) and how "unattached" Lee seemed to be "about it all." No sympathetic take on Lee by Ruth at all in this remembrance. 

Ruth even mentioned Lee being irritated that Marina wasn't home and Gerry Spence had to present the rationality of Lee's mental state to Ruth by saying..."don't you think that someone in Lee's circumstances, being arrested for murder and being beaten by the police...might be a little short and upset sounding as Lee was when he called your home and couldn't get in touch with his wife?"

Ruth just sat there and after a long pause "kind of" agreed with Spence.

If Ruth Paine sincerely meant all the favorable things she stated about Lee Oswald to the WC back in 1964...she sure didn't express those 22 years later in her sworn oath testimony to this court and jury.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Mrs. PAINE - I disliked him actively in the spring when I thought he just wanted to get rid of his wife and wasn't caring about her, wasn't concerned whether she would go to the doctor. I then found him much nicer, I thought, when I saw him next in New Orleans in late September,

Why, it's almost as if he were two different people...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The incredible allegation that Ruth Paine had files of names of Cuban sympathizers in her garage

[I am putting on this thread some further material from the Max Good film, "The Assassination & Mrs. Paine".]

In the Max Good film, "The Assassination & Mrs. Paine":

DiEugenio: When the Dallas police went to the Paine household, one of the detectives wrote a report about taking out several filing cabinets of notations and cards and maps etcetera of Castro sympathizers. This makes a very good case, I believe, that Michael and Ruth were involved in surveillance activities of the American left. These cabinets existed until the Warren Commission. Because there are several exhibit numbers in the Warren Commission that refer to them. But the big difference is when the Warren Commission went through them, they only found something like one letter from Ruth to one of her relatives. So in other words, if the original report is accurate, somebody fiddled with the contents of those cabinets.

This is an astonishingly irresponsible allegation which is known to be untrue. It is irresponsible in that the film does not disclose to the viewer that the officer, deputy sheriff E.D. “Buddy” Walthers, in his testimony under oath to the Warren Commission, denied that he ever had personal knowledge that that earlier report was accurate—a report uncorroborated by any other officer or witness either, and that he, the sole source of the claim, repudiated it

Even in Walthers’ original report of Nov 22, 1963 in which the statement was made that DiEugenio quotes, the wording strictly construed does not claim Walthers himself ever saw such or witnessed such (“also found was a set of metal filing cabinets containing records that appeared to be names and activities of Cuban sympathizers” [19H520]). No other officer reported any such thing, and Walthers, the sole foundation for the story, made it clear to the Warren Commission that the story is baseless. Here is Walthers’ testimony to the Warren Commission in 1964: 

Mr. Liebeler. What was in these file cabinets?

Mr. Walthers. We didn't go through them at the scene. I do remember a letterhead--I can't describe it--I know we opened one of them and we seen what it was, that it was a lot of personal letters and stuff and a letterhead that this Paine fellow had told us about, and he said, "That's from the people he writes to in Russia"; he was talking about this letterhead we had pulled out and so I just pushed it all back down and shut it and took the whole works.

Mr. Liebeler. I have been advised that some story has developed that at some point that when you went out there you found seven file cabinets full of cards that had the names on them of pro-Castro sympathizers or something of that kind, but you don't remember seeing any of them?

Mr. Walthers. Well, that could have been one, but I didn't see it.

Mr. Liebeler. There certainly weren't any seven file cabinets with the stuff you got out there or anything like that?

Mr. Walthers. I picked up all of these file cabinets and what all of them contained, I don't know myself to this day.

Mr. Liebeler. As I was sitting here listening to your story, I could see where that story might have come from--you mentioned the "Fair Play for Cuba" leaflets that were in a barrel.

Mr. Walthers. That's right--we got a stack of them out of that barrel, but things get all twisted around.

In an article published on the Kennedys and King site, “Oswald’s Intelligence Connections”, July 29, 2017, DiEugenio claimed of the original sentence in the Nov 22, 1963 report, fifty-four years after its author and sole proponent, Walthers, repudiated the error on July 23, 1964:

This cinches the case that the Paines were domestic surveillance agents” (https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/oswald-s-intelligence-connections-how-richard-schweiker-clashes-with-fake-history). (emphasis added)

Talk about "hanging judge" logic! Would you want that man on your jury?

One is left speechless at this, in which any unverified claim put into print even one time, no matter how much contradicted by other evidence and later published corrections, retains its currency undiminished in sectors of JFK assassination conspiracy-believer circles fifty-four years later and is considered to “cinch” a case against Ruth Paine. 

The contents of those cabinets were Ruth Paine’s personal property and should never have been taken by Dallas police or sheriff's deputies. Neither police nor the FBI nor the Warren Commission had any right to Ruth’s personal papers without her permission or a search warrant. But never mind that—the important point here is that the contents of those file boxes were examined, reviewed, and known to the Dallas police and FBI and there was no surveillance of leftists in them or anything else of the sort, nor anything incriminating of Ruth of anything, all perfectly mundane personal papers. It is not as if there is some mystery over what was in that property of Ruth Paine's. What DiEugenio calls "fiddl[ing]" reflects the return of Ruth’s property, a citizen's property, to her.

Nor is there any indication that Ruth or Michael were involved in surveillance of leftists independently of what was not found in those seven file boxes.

Apart from attendance at a Dallas Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) meeting, a respected mainstream civil liberties advocacy organization of which Michael and Ruth Paine were members, there is no known attendance of Ruth or Michael at any left-wing meeting in Dallas. No known association of either Michael or Ruth with leftists other than Lee as Marina’s husband. No document ever indicating Ruth or Michael were involved in “surveillance of the American left”. Neither Ruth nor Michael are known to have attended a meeting concerning Cuba or Castro sympathizers.

There is also an issue of plausibility. Ruth was functioning as a single mom of two toddlers demanding pretty much full-time attention. Just in practical terms how would she surveil leftists. There is no trace of evidence of such and DiEugenio's representations of Ruth Paine in this way in this film without the producer doing elementary fact-checking before airing this is nothing other than a gratuitous and shameful smear of Ruth Paine pure and simple.

From the film:

Ruth Paine (a film clip speaking to an audience): I learned a lot about what is written isn’t always true, in newspapers and magazines. One magazine said the police took out seven file boxes of Cuban sympathizers’ names. Well, there were my three boxes of folk dance records [audience laughter], my three little file boxes of my college papers, and a projector for a 16 mm camera. Those were the seven boxes of Cuban names.

Max Good (displaying a metal file holder to Atesi): This is one of the so-called filing cabinets that contains—there’s a report that they contained names and info on Cuban sympathizers.

Joe Atesi (shaking head): Yeah I think that’s nonsense. This is who I used to work for years ago. [shows plexiglass embossed seal of “Defense Investigative Services, United States of America”]. I was a Special Agent, did background investigations for the government, and—just, you know, for security clearances—so I’ve got a natural curiosity. In 2013 I found out that Ruth Paine was living right here in Santa Rosa and a friendship developed, we’re not best of friends, but, you know, she knows me well and she likes me enough that she’s given me some very interesting items. This entire album here [showing album] is relating to the Paines and the many things they’ve assigned to me. This [showing cardboard box] is Ruth’s texts of FBI investigative reports that she obtained under the Freedom of Information Act. She’s read books, she’s got a collection, her notes are on here. And certainly I’m sure she went through all of this and read all of it. She’s an avid student of the assassination herself. This is Ruth speaking to me in August 2017 [holds letter]. She says “Thanks for all the work investigating what was available on the internet.” She wanted me to find out about this particular Warren Commission exhibit [a different metal filing box than the one Good showed but the same kind]. It says “Commission Exhibit No. 458”. [Continuing to read] “There is certainly a lot of misinformation traveling around the internet. All the things the police took were taken without my permission.”

Narrator: When the issue of the contents of the file cabinets came up Ruth’s testimony was taken off the record, and the exhibit numbers were omitted without explanation. [Camera closeup of Warren Commission testimony showing going off the record.]

There are lots of “off the record”’s in the Warren Commission witness testimony transcripts. In the absence of knowledge of what was discussed, this is no basis for assuming something untoward was discussed and yet this is presented in the film as if that is being insinuated. The physical metal file boxes were returned to Ruth because they were her property. The Warren Commission had no right to the personal property of a citizen who was not under investigation and without a search warrant. That the Warren Commission left intact exhibit numbers which originally may have been occupied by Ruth’s metal file holders, without explanation in the Warren Report, is none of Ruth’s concern nor does it have anything to do with anything.

Is Ruth Paine due an apology from Max Good for airing this completely bogus accusation that "Ruth Paine had files of names of Cuban sympathizers in her garage", for not doing the most basic fact-checking of that claim of DiEugenio before airing it?

Where is the justice for Ruth Paine?

Edited by Greg Doudna
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

The incredible allegation that Ruth Paine had files of names of Cuban sympathizers in her garage

[I am putting on this thread some further material from the Max Good film, "The Assassination & Mrs. Paine".]

In the Max Good film, "The Assassination & Mrs. Paine":

DiEugenio: When the Dallas police went to the Paine household, one of the detectives wrote a report about taking out several filing cabinets of notations and cards and maps etcetera of Castro sympathizers. This makes a very good case, I believe, that Michael and Ruth were involved in surveillance activities of the American left. These cabinets existed until the Warren Commission. Because there are several exhibit numbers in the Warren Commission that refer to them. But the big difference is when the Warren Commission went through them, they only found something like one letter from Ruth to one of her relatives. So in other words, if the original report is accurate, somebody fiddled with the contents of those cabinets.

This is an astonishingly irresponsible allegation which is known to be untrue. It is irresponsible in that the film does not disclose to the viewer that the officer, deputy sheriff E.D. “Buddy” Walthers, in his testimony under oath to the Warren Commission, denied that he ever had personal knowledge that that earlier report was accurate—a report uncorroborated by any other officer or witness either, and which the sole source of the claim repudiated.

Even in Walthers’ original report of Nov 22, 1963 in which the statement was made that DiEugenio quotes, the wording strictly construed does not claim Walthers himself ever saw such or witnessed such (“also found was a set of metal filing cabinets containing records that appeared to be names and activities of Cuban sympathizers” [19H520]). No other officer reported any such thing, and Walthers, the sole foundation for the story, made it clear to the Warren Commission that the story is baseless.

In an article published on the Kennedys and King site, “Oswald’s Intelligence Connections”, July 29, 2017, DiEugenio claimed of that sentence in that Nov 22, 1963 report, fifty-four years after its author and sole proponent, Walthers, repudiated the error on July 23, 1964:

This cinches the case that the Paines were domestic surveillance agents” (https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/oswald-s-intelligence-connections-how-richard-schweiker-clashes-with-fake-history). (emphasis added)

Talk about "hanging judge" logic! Would you want that man on your jury?

One is left speechless at this, in which any unverified claim put into print even one time, no matter how much contradicted by other evidence and later published corrections, retains its currency undiminished in sectors of JFK assassination conspiracy-believer circles fifty-four years later and is considered to “cinch” a case against Ruth Paine. Here is Walthers’ testimony to the Warren Commission in 1964: 

Mr. Liebeler. What was in these file cabinets?

Mr. Walthers. We didn't go through them at the scene. I do remember a letterhead--I can't describe it--I know we opened one of them and we seen what it was, that it was a lot of personal letters and stuff and a letterhead that this Paine fellow had told us about, and he said, "That's from the people he writes to in Russia"; he was talking about this letterhead we had pulled out and so I just pushed it all back down and shut it and took the whole works.

Mr. Liebeler. I have been advised that some story has developed that at some point that when you went out there you found seven file cabinets full of cards that had the names on them of pro-Castro sympathizers or something of that kind, but you don't remember seeing any of them?

Mr. Walthers. Well, that could have been one, but I didn't see it.

Mr. Liebeler. There certainly weren't any seven file cabinets with the stuff you got out there or anything like that?

Mr. Walthers. I picked up all of these file cabinets and what all of them contained, I don't know myself to this day.

Mr. Liebeler. As I was sitting here listening to your story, I could see where that story might have come from--you mentioned the "Fair Play for Cuba" leaflets that were in a barrel.

Mr. Walthers. That's right--we got a stack of them out of that barrel, but things get all twisted around.

The contents of those cabinets were Ruth Paine’s personal property and should never have been taken by Dallas police or sheriff's deputies. Neither police nor the FBI nor the Warren Commission had any right to Ruth’s personal papers without her permission or a search warrant. But never mind that—the important point here is that the contents of those file boxes were examined, reviewed, and known to the Dallas police and FBI and there was no surveillance of leftists in them or anything else of the sort, nor anything incriminating of Ruth of anything, all perfectly mundane personal papers. It is not as if there is some mystery over what was in that property of Ruth Paine's. What DiEugenio calls "fiddl[ing]" reflects the return of Ruth’s property, a citizen's property, to her.

Nor is there any indication that Ruth or Michael were involved in surveillance of leftists independently of what was not found in those seven file boxes.

Apart from attendance at a Dallas Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) meeting, a respected mainstream civil liberties advocacy organization of which Michael and Ruth Paine were members, there is no known attendance of Ruth or Michael at any left-wing meeting in Dallas. No known association of either Michael or Ruth with leftists other than Lee as Marina’s husband. No document ever indicating Ruth or Michael were involved in “surveillance of the American left”. Neither Ruth nor Michael are known to have attended a meeting concerning Cuba or Castro sympathizers.

There is also an issue of plausibility. Ruth was functioning as a single mom of two toddlers demanding pretty much full-time attention. Just in practical terms how would she surveil leftists. There is no trace of evidence of such and DiEugenio's representations of Ruth Paine in this way in this film without the producer doing elementary fact-checking before airing this is nothing other than a gratuitous and shameful smear of Ruth Paine pure and simple.

From the film:

Ruth Paine (a film clip speaking to an audience): I learned a lot about what is written isn’t always true, in newspapers and magazines. One magazine said the police took out seven file boxes of Cuban sympathizers’ names. Well, there were my three boxes of folk dance records [audience laughter], my three little file boxes of my college papers, and a projector for a 16 mm camera. Those were the seven boxes of Cuban names.

Max Good (displaying a metal file holder to Atesi): This is one of the so-called filing cabinets that contains—there’s a report that they contained names and info on Cuban sympathizers.

Joe Atesi (shaking head): Yeah I think that’s nonsense. This is who I used to work for years ago. [shows plexiglass embossed seal of “Defense Investigative Services, United States of America”]. I was a Special Agent, did background investigations for the government, and—just, you know, for security clearances—so I’ve got a natural curiosity. In 2013 I found out that Ruth Paine was living right here in Santa Rosa and a friendship developed, we’re not best of friends, but, you know, she knows me well and she likes me enough that she’s given me some very interesting items. This entire album here [showing album] is relating to the Paines and the many things they’ve assigned to me. This [showing cardboard box] is Ruth’s texts of FBI investigative reports that she obtained under the Freedom of Information Act. She’s read books, she’s got a collection, her notes are on here. And certainly I’m sure she went through all of this and read all of it. She’s an avid student of the assassination herself. This is Ruth speaking to me in August 2017 [holds letter]. She says “Thanks for all the work investigating what was available on the internet.” She wanted me to find out about this particular Warren Commission exhibit [a different metal filing box than the one Good showed but the same kind]. It says “Commission Exhibit No. 458”. [Continuing to read] “There is certainly a lot of misinformation traveling around the internet. All the things the police took were taken without my permission.”

Narrator: When the issue of the contents of the file cabinets came up Ruth’s testimony was taken off the record, and the exhibit numbers were omitted without explanation. [Camera closeup of Warren Commission testimony showing going off the record.]

There are lots of “off the record”’s in the Warren Commission witness testimony transcripts. In the absence of knowledge of what was discussed, this is no basis for assuming something untoward was discussed and yet this is presented in the film as if that is being insinuated. The physical metal file boxes were returned to Ruth because they were her property. The Warren Commission had no right to the personal property of a citizen who was not under investigation and without a search warrant. That the Warren Commission left intact exhibit numbers which originally may have been occupied by Ruth’s metal file holders, without explanation in the Warren Report, is none of Ruth’s concern nor does it have anything to do with anything.

Is Ruth Paine due an apology from Max Good for airing this completely bogus accusation that "Ruth Paine had files of names of Cuban sympathizers in her garage", for not doing the most basic fact-checking of that claim of DiEugenio before airing it?

Where is the justice for Ruth Paine?

Did you mention the Paine Files?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The way paradigm level thinking works is no matter what individual fact is fact-checked, people will think well that's only that one, what about all the others which are still true. This is how paradigm thinking works, and why so few minds are changed by fact-checking on matters of politics or religion.

Ron Bulman, what hypothetically would it take for you to be convinced that Ruth Paine and Michael Paine never had files of Cuban sympathizers in their garage? The fact that the only officer who claimed that in his 1963 police report, explicitly repudiated that claim in 1964 in sworn testimony under oath? The fact that there never was at any time a single firsthand witness who claimed to have seen any such files personally?

What would it take for you? 

Edited by Greg Doudna
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

More Rorschach Inkblot projection interpretation

From the Max Good film, "The Assassination & Mrs. Paine":

Bill Simpich: Michael liked to pose, provoking students to talk about their Cuba beliefs, portraying himself as a pro-Cuban guy, which he certainly was not. Very weird and suspicious activity. That’s what you do when you’re trying to smoke somebody out. 

This arises solely out of an account of two students who met Michael Paine on a Sunday after his Unitarian church at a particular Luby’s buffet restaurant, in which Michael struck up a conversation with two students standing next to him in line, then they took their trays and ate together and continued the conversation, which was about politics and Cuba. Michael told the FBI he enjoyed talking with students about politics. That is the sum total factual basis underlying the accusation above (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=96443#relPageId=9 ).

There is no basis whatsoever for saying Michael was ever duplicitous in expression of his views on Cuba to anyone, whether on this occasion or any other.

The only reason this students’ account of meeting Michael Paine came to the attention of the FBI and there was FBI followup at all was because the FBI was investigating a report that according to one of those students Michael Paine had said something about Texas School Book Depository employment which conflicted with known information, but that turned out to have been a mistake on the part of the student.

It is not clear that the activity of Michael Paine at Luby's that day is different from the kind of thing that happens in coffee shops and cafes all the time the world over.

To the present day, this single incident, this one right here, is widely considered by some JFK assassination conspiracy believers, as bedrock, in-their-bones evidence that Michael Paine was spying on students, keeping files, surveilling.

The evidence? 

He enjoyed discussing politics with students at a Luby's!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Is there a possibility that somebody could get falsely accused by this kind of logic?

Edited by Greg Doudna
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Do you have a link to the statements of the students?

Yes, start from this page and a few pages following: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=96443#relPageId=4 .

(I see why you asked the question, the original link I gave was not working but I have fixed that now above.)

 

Edited by Greg Doudna
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

More Rorschach Inkblot projection interpretation

From the Max Good film, "The Assassination & Mrs. Paine":

Bill Simpich: Michael liked to pose, provoking students to talk about their Cuba beliefs, portraying himself as a pro-Cuban guy, which he certainly was not. Very weird and suspicious activity. That’s what you do when you’re trying to smoke somebody out. 

This arises solely out of an account of two students who met Michael Paine on a Sunday after his Unitarian church at a particular Luby’s buffet restaurant, in which Michael struck up a conversation with two students standing next to him in line, then they took their trays and ate together and continued the conversation, which was about politics and Cuba. Michael told the FBI he enjoyed talking with students about politics. That is the sum total factual basis underlying the accusation above (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=96443#relPageId=9 ).

There is no basis whatsoever for saying Michael was ever duplicitous in expression of his views on Cuba to anyone, whether on this occasion or any other.

The only reason this students’ account of meeting Michael Paine came to the attention of the FBI and there was FBI followup at all was because the FBI was investigating a report that according to one of those students Michael Paine had said something about Texas School Book Depository employment which conflicted with known information, but that turned out to have been a mistake on the part of the student.

It is not clear that the activity of Michael Paine at Luby's that day is different from the kind of thing that happens in coffee shops and cafes all the time the world over.

To the present day, this single incident, this one right here, is widely considered by some JFK assassination conspiracy believers, as bedrock, in-their-bones evidence that Michael Paine was spying on students, keeping files, surveilling.

The evidence? 

He enjoyed discussing politics with students at a Luby's!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Is there a possibility that somebody could get falsely accused by this kind of logic?

The Luby’s engagement occurred more than once. Paine told the FBI he was in the habit of eating lunch on Sundays at Luby’s, and would engage in “intellectual conversations or debates concerning world affairs with various SMU students …”  (CD 1245, p. 196)

Michael Paine also attended right-wing meetings, such as a John Birch Society meet the night following Walker’s United States Day rally which Oswald attended (Oct 23-24, 1963). In turn the following night (Friday Oct 25), Paine took Oswald to the ACLU meeting.

Paine: “I have been to a number of rightist meetings and seminars in Texas.” (WCH II, p 389)   “I gathered he (Oswald) was doing more or less the same thing ... I didn’t inquire how he spent his free time but I supposed he was going around to right wing groups ... familiarizing himself for whatever his purposes were as I was.” (WCH II, p. 403)

What was Michael Paine’s “purpose” in attending disparate political meetings and engaging students in political conversation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
41 minutes ago, Jeff Carter said:

The Luby’s engagement occurred more than once. Paine told the FBI he was in the habit of eating lunch on Sundays at Luby’s, and would engage in “intellectual conversations or debates concerning world affairs with various SMU students …”  (CD 1245, p. 196)

Michael Paine also attended right-wing meetings, such as a John Birch Society meet the night following Walker’s United States Day rally which Oswald attended (Oct 23-24, 1963). In turn the following night (Friday Oct 25), Paine took Oswald to the ACLU meeting.

Paine: “I have been to a number of rightist meetings and seminars in Texas.” (WCH II, p 389)   “I gathered he (Oswald) was doing more or less the same thing ... I didn’t inquire how he spent his free time but I supposed he was going around to right wing groups ... familiarizing himself for whatever his purposes were as I was.” (WCH II, p. 403)

What was Michael Paine’s “purpose” in attending disparate political meetings and engaging students in political conversation?

He could have been spying on right-wing groups. I agree that looks a little unusual. Michael's stated reason for attending was to bring about better understanding between left and right. However Michael is not known to have written an article, given a public talk, engaged in discussion, attempted to dialogue with, the extreme right-wingers whose meetings he attended ... If someone was attending meetings of "the other side" politically for ecumenical or better-understanding dialogue purposes, those are the kind of things that might be expected.

So in that light that is a point, it does give a perception spilling over into questioning the Lubys student conversations. However in the only known instance of a Lubys political conversation, those students were not radical right by any indication. How do you know Michael just wasn't one of those kind of people who like to discuss and debate politics with whoever is nearby? He was a Unitarian. I have known Unitarians. They are cerebral, liberal, like to discuss politics, if I were to describe Unitarian subculture. 

People are quirky. Some people attend for their own interest meetings of the "crazies" on the other side whom they oppose. I believe Ruth said Michael was that type, she did not think he was doing so as an informant. I have met the type. One can see the online equivalent when one checks in on some website repeatedly that is "crazy" on the other side just to see the latest whackadoo they are up to, get that good morning jolt of reconfirmation of the decline of Western civilization to start the day--better than caffeine. I myself, totally opposed to Trump, for a while there in the past would google "Trump" on Google News every morning just to see what jaw-dropper Trump had done in the past 24 hours (wouldn't want to miss out on knowing). 

Edited by Greg Doudna
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

He could have been spying on right-wing groups. I agree that looks a little unusual. Michael's stated reason for attending was to bring about better understanding between left and right. However Michael is not known to have written an article, given a public talk, engaged in discussion, attempted to dialogue with, the extreme right-wingers whose meetings he attended ... If someone was attending meetings of "the other side" politically for ecumenical or better-understanding dialogue purposes, those are the kind of things that might be expected.

So in that light that is a point, it does give a perception spilling over into questioning the Lubys student conversations. However in the only known instance of a Lubys political conversation, those students were not radical right by any indication. How do you know Michael just wasn't one of those kind of people who like to discuss and debate politics with whoever is nearby? He was a Unitarian. I have known Unitarians. They are cerebral, liberal, like to discuss politics, if I were to describe Unitarian subculture. 

People are quirky. Some people attend for their own interest meetings of the "crazies" on the other side whom they oppose. I believe Ruth said Michael was that type, she did not think he was doing so as an informant. I have met the type. One can see the online equivalent when one checks in on some website repeatedly that is "crazy" on the other side just to see the latest whackadoo they are up to, get that good morning jolt of reconfirmation of the decline of Western civilization to start the day--better than caffeine. I myself, totally opposed to Trump, for a while there in the past would google "Trump" on Google News every morning just to see what jaw-dropper Trump had done in the past 24 hours (wouldn't want to miss out on knowing). 

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.

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...