The incredible allegation that Ruth Paine did surveillance on Castro sympathizers

[James DiEugenio]

Thanks Ron.

Paul, I would say two ways.  

Buddy was a pretty good detective from what I have read.

And secondly, Mike was targeting students not Cuban exiles.

 

[Greg Doudna]

Update on the Ruth Paine metal file boxes--important

Some of the comments prompted me to go back through all of the information related to these metal file boxes, and I think what I set forth below could possibly help things become clearer.

What becomes clear is that there were 7 small metal filing boxes, about 12' x 6" in size or close to that size, and all 7 were Ruth Paine's. 6 of the 7 came from Ruth's bedroom and the 7th, which had a film projector, came from a closet. None of them came from the garage and none had anything to do with Lee Oswald's things--nothing. Three of the boxes had phonograph records (folk music records) and 3 had Ruth Paine letters, correspondence, college papers, and other miscellany of Ruth written material such as an address list to send birth announcements. The contents of the 3 of Ruth's metal filing boxes with Ruth's letters and papers were examined and reported by the FBI, were seen by a WC counsel, and their contents later released as part of declassification of FBi documents and are on the Mary Ferrell Foundation site. In brief it was all Ruth Paine's metal boxes, all her papers. There were no papers of Michael Paine in them, and no papers of Oswald in them. It was Ruth's papers through and through in those metal file boxes of Ruth, taken from Ruth's bedroom. 

There were several first-day initial descriptions of Ruth's metal file boxes in the reports of officers telling of the search of Ruth's house that day on Nov 22. Only one, that of Walthers, characterized Ruth's metal boxes as having names of Cuban sympathizers. None of the other officers' reports did. Walthers' report did not refer to a separate set of seven boxes with names of Cuban sympathizers (making 14 in total, 7 Ruth Paine known ones and 7--same number-- of phantom additional ones "disappeared"). Walthers' metal file boxes of his reference both in 1963 and then in 1964 clearly were the same 7 metal file boxes that all the other officers knew, the FBI knew, the WC knew, and that Ruth Paine identified as her 7 metal file boxes and received back as hers. There was no "second 7" to which Walthers referred as if Walthers ignored telling of the first 7 of Ruth Paine's papers told by all the other officers, and Walthers spoke of a "second 7" filled with Castro sympathizer names which were disappeared and covered up in a conspiracy involving everyone including Walthers himself. No, there were only the same 7 small metal filing boxes, simply with a discrepancy in Walthers' original written description of the same 7 metal boxes described differently by other officers and the FBI and Ruth and Walthers too. There were no missing file boxes--Ruth got all 7 of them back--and it is simply an issue of difference in description by one officer of the same Ruth Paine metal file boxes Stovall (not Walthers) found and took from Ruth Paine's bedroom. 

The FBI explicitly reported going through all of Ruth Paine's papers in those metal file boxes of hers and finding no names of Cuban sympathizers. They were letters, college papers, and other miscellany papers of Ruth Paine, not names of Cuban sympathizers. The Warren Commission who saw all that material before returning it to Ruth wrote in its final report that there were no names of Cuban sympathizers in Ruth's file boxes. Stovall who originally found those metal file boxes in Ruth's bedroom never said anything about Cuban sympathizers names in them. Walthers, the only officer who did say that, said he saw nothing personally, meaning there is no attributed name to any officer who supposedly did see what Walthers' originally reported. The contents of Ruth's metal boxes did not enter into WC exhibits (because WC returned Ruth's papers to her prior to doing that) but Ruth's papers did via declassification of FBI documents come into the public domain and have been on the MFF site for years now. So the story of "seven file boxes of Cuban names" was not correct because the seven which Walthers was describing are known and they simply had things other than what Walthers described, and nothing of what Walthers described. And Walthers' description, the only source of that claim, was not speaking from firsthand knowledge, and he later said he was mistaken in that original description.

I did encounter one minor question or discrepancy: there is a discrepancy between the number of metal boxes found in Ruth Paine's home on Nov 22 in a list prepared for a combined report of DPD officers Rose, Stovall, and Adamcik (6 such listed taken), and what the FBI and WC confirmed the FBI received from DPD which was seven (7). To clarify for discussion, there were 3 metal file boxes with Ruth Paine's phonograph records--folk dance music records--that is not in dispute. And there is 1 metal box with a film projector of Ruth's in it, also not in dispute. It is the 2 (the DPD Rose-Stovall-Adamcik inventory report) or 3 (per FBI, WC, and Ruth) metal boxes of Ruth's letters and papers where there is a difference in numbering. I do not have a good explanation for this discrepancy other than that the explanation is not that the DPD found 3 and held one back and sent only 2 to FBI. The reason that is not what happened is because the FBI did get all 3 from the DPD. Therefore the simplest explanation--what appears to be the case-- is that it is a paperwork error in the Rose, Stovall, and Adamcik list, a mistaken omission of 1 of the 3 metal boxes with Ruth Paine's papers which did exist and which were found by police on Nov 22 and which were all 3 sent to and received by the FBI, but which by some mistake only 2 were listed on the Rose, Stovall, and Adamcik inventory list. I do not know a specific explanation or mechanism for that error, that is simply my default as the simplest explanation. What can be known is there definitely were 3 not 2 metal boxes with Ruth Paine papers, therefore 3 were found, and yet only 2 of those metal boxes are listed on the original officers' typed report listing.

Following are the documents which I think tell the story: the metal boxes had Ruth Paine's papers exclusively and solely, no papers of Michael or Lee. The Cuban sympathizers was not a description of the officer who found those boxes in Ruth Paine's bedroom, Stovall, or of any other officer who told of the findings in Ruth Paine's home that day, only Walthers. Walthers never saw what he described and Walthers said his description had been mistaken. And the FBI written description, and the FBI released documents on the MFF site with Ruth Paine's personal letters and papers now public domain, confirm that the descriptions of those 3 metal boxes by all others than the one of Walthers repudiated by Walthers, were correct. Here are the documents.

To start with, the DPD Rose-Stovall-Adamcik list of property they took from the Ruth Paine house on Fri Nov 22: https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/DPDlist22.htm. Below is an excerpted section of that list showing 6 of the 7 metal boxes. There is an anomaly in that only 2 of the actual 3 metal boxes with Ruth's papers are listed (the "1 Grey" and "1 Black and grey").

• 1 Electric bill from New Orleans
• 1 Uneployment insurance stub
• 1 Russian mag. 
• 1 Book from Sears Tower slide projector
• 1 Russian .35 mm camera and brown case
• 1 Plastic bag Russian papers and New Orleans Paper
• 1 Blue notebook with Cuba papers and other papers of Communistic nature 
• 1 Grey metal file box 12" x 6" youth pictures and literature 
• 1 Black and grey metal box 10" x 4" letters, etc. 
• 1 Box brown Keystone projector 
• 3 Brown metal boxes 12" x 4" containing phonograph records 
• 1 Blue check telephone index book (addresses) 
• 1 Bracket (Instruction for mounting)
• 1 Book white paper back (Russian)
• 1 Roll Kodak film

The Rose-Stovall-Adamcik written report gives no further description than referring to the property list (above): https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/stovallc.htm

Rose-Stovall-Adamcik: "She [Ruth Paine] invited us to make a search of her home at which time we began a methodological search of the house, for a list of the items we took from the house see the attached property list."

As brought out in his Warren Commission testimony, it was officer Richard Stovall who found the small metal filing boxes in Ruth's bedroom. Other officers present that day referred to the findings of that day including reference to the metal file boxes found by Stovall. Harry Weatherford, deputy sheriff, Nov 23, 1963, https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/jfkinfo3/reports/weatherf.htm:

Weatherford: "I stayed with Mrs. Oswald and Mrs. Payne [sic] while the rest of the men searched the house. They found some literature on Cuban Freedom affairs and some small files and a blanket which looked to have been wrapped around a rifle."

This reporting of Weatherford gives a first clue to a possible mechanism of fellow sheriff deputy Walthers' mistake: a conflation of two entirely different things: Ruth Paine's small metal file cabinets with her personal papers--letters, college papers--found in her bedroom, and Lee Oswald's things found in the garage which included Fair Play for Cuba and other Cuba pamphlets and printed material. Weatherford's above does not explicitly mix the two together but it can be seen how easily that might be misread running the two together. 

Here is deputy sheriff J.L. Oxford, in his report Nov 23, https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/jfkinfo3/reports/oxford1.htm. Here the conflation can be seen happening.

Oxford: "We found a blanket in the garage. This blanket looked like a rifle had been wrapped in it. We also found about 7 metal boxes which contained pamphlets and literature from abroad. Also, there were cameras and film found."

The only "pamphlets and literature from abroad" were in Lee's things in the garage! All 7 of those "metal boxes" were not found in the garage and had no "pamphlets and literature from abroad". Deputy sheriff Oxford has conflated the two--Oswald's printed material in the garage, and the contents of Ruth's small metal file boxes from her bedroom--when that was a confusion of two distinct things. And Oxford's conflation puts into context a similar apparent conflation by another of the deputy sheriffs who was not the one who personally found Ruth's metal file boxes, Walthers, in his Nov 23 report, https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/walther1.htm: 

Walthers 1963: "Upon searching this house we found stacks of hand bills concerning "Cuba for Freedom" advertising, seeking publicity and support for Cuba. Also found was a set of metal file cabinets containing records that appeared to be names and activities of Cuban sympathizers."

Walthers was in the garage and personally witnessed the finding of the "Freedom for Cuba" printed material. That was Oswald's, nothing to do with Ruth Paine. Walthers speaks of the metal file cabinets (Ruth's 7) as "also found" and describes them, describing those 7 metal file boxes of Ruth differently from all other descriptions including investigators who looked through carefully and reported on what was in Ruth's metal boxes. Walthers later said his description here of the contents of Ruth's file boxes was a mistake. That it was a mistake is based on all other testimony as to what was in those metal file boxes (Ruth's personal papers, nothing to do with Cuba), and that it was clearly the same file boxes referred to in all the testimonies including Walthers'. 

Eric Tagg, Brush With History (1998), pp. 26-27, echoes the same Walthers 1963 report (https://ia801001.us.archive.org/14/items/brushwithhistory--adayinthelifeofdeputye.r.waltherserictagg1998/Brush with History—A Day in the Life of Deputy E. R. Walthers%2C Eric Tagg (1998).pdf

"Walthers and the officers also found six or seven metal filing cabinets full of letters, maps, records, and index cards with names of pro-Castro sympathizers. All the evidence found was put into the trunk of Walthers car and taken back to the Sheriff's Office."   

Despite the date of this book--1998--Tagg simply restates Walthers' 1963 report without notice of Walthers' repudiation of it in 1964 in is Warren Commission testimony. There is no evidence at all that that reflects Walthers reverting post-1964 to what he said in 1963, after he had repudiated it in 1964. Instead, it appears Tagg simply drew from sources, in this case a source reflecting Walthers 1963 and not Walthers 1964. Therefore there is no independent weight to be attached to this Tagg statement published in 1998. It is simply repeating Walthers 1963 and, as such, is obsolete, superceded by Walthers 1964.

Walthers in his 1964 Warren Commission testimony, https://www.jfk-assassination.eu/warren/wch/vol7/page548.php:

Walthers: "we went into the garage there and found this--I believe it was one of these things like soap comes in, a big pasteboard barrel and it had a lot of these little leaflets in it, 'Freedom for Cuba'" 

The "Freedom for Cuba" leaflets are Lee's, in the garage. Nothing to do with the metal file boxes taken from Ruth's bedroom. 

Those were the deputy sheriff reports. The Dallas Police officer who actually found Ruth Paine's metal file boxes in Ruth's bedroom, Stovall, said nothing about their contents being Cuban sympathizers' names in the original Rose-Stovall-Adamcik report (above). In his Warren Commission testimony, https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/stovall.htm, Stovall runs through the Rose-Stovall-Adamcik property list (above) and comments on the items, which apparently at this secion he, Stovall, had written of that list concerning the items he found:

Mr. STOVALL. I've got listed "one grey metal file box, which is 12 inches by 6 inches; youth pictures and literature." I've got, "One black and gray metal box 10 inches by 4 inches, letters, etc., one box brown Keystone projector." Let's stop just a minute and let me tell you about this. These two metal boxes came out of Ruth Paine's bedroom. This Keystone projector came out of the closet in the hall. Then, I have listed, "Three brown metal boxes 12 inches by 4 inches containing phonograph records." They came out of Ruth Paine's bedroom.   

That pretty clearly without much ambiguity explains whose metal file boxes those all were: Ruth's.

Walthers corrected his mistaken description in his 1963 report (above), in his testimony to the Warren Commission in 1964, https://www.jfk-assassination.net/russ/testimony/walthers.htm:

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.  

The contents of Ruth Paine's file boxes--her personal papers in those boxes--were searched by the FBI, and this is what they reported https://www.maryferrell.org/archive/docs/145/145598/images/img_145598_4_300.png:

"It should further be noted that several metal cases of correspondence of Ruth Paine's were inadvertently taken by the Dallas Police Department on November 22, 1963, under the mistaken impression that they were correspondence of Lee Oswald's. This correspondence was examined by Special Agents Ronald E. Brinkley, Ben S. Harrison, and Leland D. Stephens. This correspondence was examined again on December 5, 1963, by Special Agents James P. Hosty, Jr., and Warren C. De Brueys at the Dallas Police Property Room. This correspondence reflected that Mrs. Ruth Hyde Paine is apparently a sincere Quaker and believes in God. Mrs. Paine, in one letter, made a statement that we should help Latin America to prevent Latin America from becoming Communist controlled. This correspondence also showed that Ruth Paine was concerned with aiding persons less fortunate than herself." 

And the Warren Report, which had physical possession of and saw the contents of all three of Ruth Paine's metal boxes with her papers and letters and college papers in them, reported, Appendix XII, p. 666, https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=946#relPageId=690:

"A number of small file boxes listed in the inventory as having been taken from the Paine residence in Irving contained letters, pictures, books and literature, most of which belonged to Ruth Paine, not to Oswald. No lists of names of Castro sympathizers were found among these effects." 

Ruth Paine herself, who knew about as well as anyone what was in her metal boxes, had this to say about the Castro sympathizer names story, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rBImscsJZ0, starting at 40:14:

Ruth Paine: "I learned a lot about what's written isn't always true in newspapers and magazines. They were--one magazine said the police took out seven file boxes of Cuba sympathizer 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 my 16 millimeter camera. Those were the seven boxes of Cuban names." 

And here is Ruth Paine asked about her three metal file boxes of her papers by the Warren Commission:

Mr. Jenner. Now, I have, which I will mark only for identification, three file cases of correspondence of your themes or writings in college. You might be better able to describe what is in these boxes than I in the way of general summary. Would you do so?

Mrs. Paine. It also includes information helpful to me in recreation leadership, games, something of songs. It includes a list of the people to whom I sent birth announcements, things of that nature. 

Mr. Jenner. It covers a span of years going back to your college days?

Mrs. Paine. And a few papers prior to college.

Mr. Jenner. I have marked these boxes for identification numbers 457, 458, and 459. During my meeting with you Wednesday morning, I exhibited the contents of those boxes to you, and are the materials in the boxes other than material which is printed or is obviously from some other source that which purports to be in your handwriting, actually in your handwriting?

Mrs. Paine. Yes.

Mr. Jenner. And those pieces of correspondence which purport to be letters from your mother, your father, your brother, and your sister are likewise the originals of those letters?

Mrs. Paine. Yes.

Mr. Jenner. And the copies of letters which purport to be letters from you to your mother, father, sister, and brother, and in some instances others are copies of letters that you dispatched?

Mrs. Paine. That is right.

(Discussion off record)

I hope this makes things clearer. No names of Cuban sympathizers existed in Ruth Paine's small metal file boxes. And there was no second set of small metal file boxes referred to by Walthers--it was only Ruth Paine's boxes. Nothing of Michael or Lee in Ruth Paine's metal file boxes. No metal file boxes went missing (the FBI had them all and all were returned to Ruth Paine). And recall that Ruth had nothing to do with Cubans or Castro groups or persons--nothing. Nor is there any evidence Michael did either. That idea not only has no basis in a reasonable assessment of Ruth Paine's 7 metal file boxes, but also supposes activity and interest--Castro Cubans, surveillance of leftists--that is not supported in anything known of Ruth or Michael.

To keep citing that claim of Walthers 1963 (or its echo in Tagg 1998 which adds nothing) against all the other officers of that first day, a claim which has been explicitly excluded not only by the FBI and Ruth Paine but by Walthers himself in 1964 (forget Tagg 1998 who simply repeated Walthers 1963 made irrelevant by Walthers 1964!), as a basis for incriminating Ruth Paine, or Michael Paine who had nothing to do with any of those metal boxes of Ruth, citing that Walthers' 1963 story as claimed evidence that one or both of the Paines were doing surveillance on the American left, is just absurd and wrong. 

Jim DiEugenio, it gives me no joy in this, and if you would only acknowledge a mistake has been made here, I would be the first to honor and respect that, and oppose anyone who would attempt to clobber or humiliate you for acknowledging an error. It raises my respect when someone acknowledges an error. That is what should happen (when there is error).

The alternative in this case is to persist in something which, no offense intended, is just stupid.  

[Jeff Carter]

Greg - as pertains what many believe to be a yet unsolved or unacknowledged mystery, the application of deductive reasoning is not, as you seem to suggest, unseemly or out-of-bounds. The question of “who were the Paines?” Is really just a sub-section of the overarching important question “who was Oswald?”.

In general terms there have been three answers to the latter question:  1) Oswald was a psychologically disturbed loner  2) Oswald was an agent for Communist interests. 3) Oswald had some form of affiliation with US intelligence.  Notable in this case is that answer #1 is not just the Official Solution, but its premise is not supported by the assembled evidence. Answer #2 is supported by evidence, but only on a surface or “face value” level. Answer #3 relies largely on circumstantial evidence, at best, but actually fully fits with the record and answers many of the outstanding questions.  What you are doing here is sharply criticizing individuals for following the deductive reasoning approach related to answer #3, and you do so by applying an insistence on surface and “face value”. As well, you grossly overstate the application of the logic I.e. the Paines are somehow being “incriminated” (and therefore their presence or influence must be considered as a matter of “guilt” or “innocence”). But the presence of index cards has nothing to do with illegality, and acting as an informant for the state has never been considered criminal. The presence or non-presence of such cards is certainly open to clarification, but as a data point it was entirely consistent with the acknowledged activity of Michael Paine chatting up students on politics. A coincidence? - maybe so, but, deductively, it can also be considered alongside the “coincidence” that Ruth Paine’s discovery of specific evidence in the weeks following the assassination seemed to miraculously bolster evidentiary holes in the developing investigation. (Or her “note-taking” in Nicaragua, coincident with later revealed state-sponsored programs of assembling “dissident lists”). This is what I mean by “protesting too much”.

Nevertheless, on the surface or “face value” level, the Paines transported and placed in Ruth’s garage a box full of “Freedom for Cuba” pamphlets and a rolled blanket which trained police officers later described as holding the distinct shape of a rifle. 

[Greg Doudna]

Jeff Carter--you make a few points which go afield from the specific issue of whether Ruth Paine's small metal file boxes and their contents justifies an accusation that Ruth Paine was surveilling the American left. That is the topic here.

Do you think so? 

14 minutes ago, Jeff Carter said:

“innocence”). But the presence of index cards has nothing to do with illegality, and acting as an informant for the state has never been considered criminal. The presence or non-presence of such cards is certainly open to clarification, but as a data point it was entirely consistent with the acknowledged activity of Michael Paine

Well, since that is the sole basis even claimed for an open, public, accusation that Ruth Paine was surveilling American leftists, where do you stand on that? On the one hand, there is no name of even a single officer or person who ever claimed to see such cards.

And all investigators who looked through Ruth Paine's metal boxes said there was nothing there of that kind.

And the only one who ever said there was (who said he had not seen them himself) said in 1964, as clearly and as under oath as can be, never mind, that was a mistake.

OK, you can STILL imagine they existed and that 100% of the testimony of those in a position to know the truth of this were l-ying, a gigantic coverup of the real truth for which there exists not a single on-the-record witness.

Yes, you can imagine that. Its conceivable, in the world of all possibilities.

But do you consider that sufficient grounds to ACCUSE someone publicly of something, in a manner that causes 50% of hearers (Max Good's estimate of how many who see his film are persuaded the charges against Ruth Paine are true, of which this is one of the main ones)?

How much threshold do you think is a sound threshold before making a public and incendiary specific accusation toward another human being?

[James DiEugenio]

Thanks Jeff.

Yes, I agree.  The reports would indicate that Michael was garnering information.  There would not be anything criminal about that.

They would only serve as a way to gain information about who he was.  Which is why I think they disappeared.

 

Edited May 22, 2022 by James DiEugenio

[Greg Doudna]

 

On 5/21/2022 at 9:59 AM, Paul Brancato said:

Every time the subject of 7 small filing cabinet boxes comes up I find myself amazed that no one ever asks the more interesting question. Were these boxes, the contents of which we apparently have no documentation for other that Ruth saying they were hers and did not contain a list of Castro sympathizers, really hers? Maybe they were Oswalds. If there is no independent verification of what was in them because they disappeared before they were examined in detail, how do we know they were Ruth’s? It’s one thing to say that Ruth was innocent of being involved in the crime of the century, and quite another to suggest she may have been enlisted in the coverup that everyone else from DPD to WC was engaged in. That happens to be my personal take. The only thing that might move the needle for me would be to see that DP examined and detailed the contents. So am I mistaken that there is nothing like that in evidence? 

Paul I think the documentation I have posted (after you wrote the above) should make it clear that the 7 metal filing cabinets under discussion were all Ruth's and none were missing, all returned to Ruth, and that all discussion saying any other than that is just needless static. As noted in my longer preceding above, officer Stovall who testified he personally found all of those metal boxes testified he found all of them in Ruth's bedroom (the 1 with a projector in it in a closet in Ruth's bedroom). Multiple other documents show the FBI and DPD returning all 7 of the metal boxes to Ruth, stating that all 7 were her property, which is why they were returning them to her. You mention "contents of which we apparently have no documentation for" and "no independent verification of what was in them". Below, in a document I have not referred to or posted before, I believe you will see that is not correct: it is an FBI report as early as Nov 26 of an examination by FBI at the Dallas Police offices of the contents of the 3 of those 7 which had papers. (The other 4 did not have papers, identified as 3 having phonograph records of folk music and 1 having the projector.) This document came to me today, hat tip to Jean Paul Ceulemans-Peeters who found it in DPD archives (I am not sure that this is on the Mary Ferrell site; I had not seen it before). Note at the end no material of Oswald in them. I hope this is helpful to the questions you raised.  

 

 

[Ron Bulman]

44 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

 

Paul I think the documentation I have posted (after you wrote the above) should make it clear that the 7 metal filing cabinets under discussion were all Ruth's and none were missing, all returned to Ruth, and that all discussion saying any other than that is just needless static. As noted in my longer preceding above, officer Stovall who testified he personally found all of those metal boxes testified he found all of them in Ruth's bedroom (the 1 with a projector in it in a closet in Ruth's bedroom). Multiple other documents show the FBI and DPD returning all 7 of the metal boxes to Ruth, stating that all 7 were her property, which is why they were returning them to her. You mention "contents of which we apparently have no documentation for" and "no independent verification of what was in them". Below, in a document I have not referred to or posted before, I believe you will see that is not correct: it is an FBI report as early as Nov 26 of an examination by FBI at the Dallas Police offices of the contents of the 3 of those 7 which had papers. (The other 4 did not have papers, identified as 3 having phonograph records of folk music and 1 having the projector.) This document came to me today, hat tip to Jean Paul Ceulemans-Peeters who found it in DPD archives (I am not sure that this is on the Mary Ferrell site; I had not seen it before). Note at the end no material of Oswald in them. I hope this is helpful to the questions you raised.  

 

 

Hooey.  What happened to the other 3 - 4 reported by the Sheriff's deputies?  Were they the ones containing files on Cubans reported by Walthers On 11/22?  This is C.Y.A. four days later, two days after they had the case wrapped up.  If you trust anything from Hoover or his FBI then, the Warren Commission would have loved you.  You are the one who brought up the word stupid.  I don't believe you are, nor are you naive.  Yet you keep treating the Paine's like the WC did in there far more extensive questioning than any other witness.  Why were these three stored in the office of this Lieutenant for four days instead of the property room?  In a case involving the assassination of the president of the United States. 

If you look at pictures of the type files posted by me, Max Good and others here and in The Paine Files you will see they are designed to hold and transport 8 1/2" X 11" sheets of paper.  Say they are 9" X !2".  Regarding them holding phonograph records, LP's are 12", all the way around.  This round hole doesn't fit the rectangular peg.  Even 78's, popular in the 50's are 10" (I measured one).

[Greg Doudna]

On 5/21/2022 at 3:37 PM, Jeff Carter said:

In proper context, Nicaragua was a geopolitical flashpoint in the 1980s much as Cuba had been a quarter century earlier. The Reagan administration placed high priority on both destabilizing the Sandinista government and orchestrating an information and narrative management campaign around its Latin America policies. So anyone involved with identifying and taking notes on Americans sympathetic to the Sandinistas in Nicaragua would come under suspicion of serving a purpose related to such priorities. This observation gains further traction when it fits a familial pattern established twenty years earlier in the Cuban context. So the insistence that there is “nothing to see here”, or that suspicion merely reflects a defective logic, doesn’t hold up.

I understand your point Jeff and actually agree. In a sense you are going after a straw man and not my issue. I have been in such circumstances and on a certain level everyone is suspected, including that quiet young man over there who is new and not taking any notes but sure seems like he is awfully interested in things, or that young woman over there who looks so sweet and innocent but her father is rumored to be an executive for a defense contractor, and on and on and on. The issue isn't that. The issue is equating uncertainty or suspicion with conclusion, when that isn't known, and that is what has been done in the case of Ruth Paine in Nicaragua. I am also influenced by both experience and reading formal studies on the subject that humans just are not very good at detecting deception in other humans, no matter what people like to think. A combination of rational suspicion in some of these contexts (such as Nicaragua for the reasons you name) combined with poor human ability at detecting deception means a lot of innocent people in history have been falsely suspected and incriminated. I am also influenced by reading in two high-profile cases, the American Indian Movement (AIM) at Wounded Knee, and the IRA in Northern Ireland, the respective officers in each of those organizations tasked with finding the snitches in their midst turned out themselves to be have been police informants. 

These suspicion dynamics work no differently than the anti-communist hysteria whipped up by Hoover in the early 60s, the Muslim sleeper cell hysteria post-911, and on and on. In all of these cases there are typically small numbers of cases of truth to the suspicions among a huge amount of false positives and innocent persons being damaged.

In the case of Ruth Paine, I saw claims of certainty that Ruth Paine was a CIA spy in Nicaragua and looked very carefully to see what evidence was there, if any, and what basis for the suspicion. It came down to nothing substantial in terms of any published information, simply her notetaking and the books which said because Ruth Paine had a father who worked for AID and a sister whom we know but which Ruth did not know (true) was employed by CIA (in some probably innocuous overt non-secret employment with CIA in D.C.), therefore the case was closed on Ruth being a CIA spy in Nicaragua. And I think no, its not closed any more than the Dreyfus case, or the ones accused by the House Un-American Activities Committee and Joseph McCarthy of the 1950s, or the innocent people I have seen falsely suspected in activist movements in contexts of long-term justified low-level paranoia. 

[Greg Doudna]

10 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

If you look at pictures of the type files posted by me, Max Good and others here and in The Paine Files you will see they are designed to hold and transport 8 1/2" X 11" sheets of paper.  Say they are 9" X !2".  Regarding them holding phonograph records, LP's are 12", all the way around.  This round hole doesn't fit the rectangular peg.  Even 78's, popular in the 50's are 10" (I measured one).

Dallas Police officer Stovall who found them reported: "3 Brown metal boxes 12" x 4" containing phonograph records". That's in the inventory list for Nov 22. Stovall wrote that in handwritten notes at the time, before that was typed up in the report the next day.

You are citing measurements for 33 LP's (12") or 78's (10"). But 45 RPM's, the most common for popular music, were most commonly 7" diameter: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HizfulrTvDI. So there would be no problem with 45's fitting. I am not aware of a photo verified to be one of the three metal boxes which held Ruth's phonograph records, and the depths in inches of those metal boxes are not stated in Stovall's inventory list. In the absence of that information it is not certain to me that 10" 78's would be excluded either.

I remember DJ's would spin 45's, one after another with commentary in between. Ruth Paine said her records were for folk dancing. The contra dances I used to go to would have a caller, analogous to a DJ. If there was not live music 45's would make sense, one song per side.   

Edited May 23, 2022 by Greg Doudna

[Gene Kelly]

Greg

Are we then left with this?

"It should further be noted that several metal cases of correspondence of Ruth Paine's were inadvertently taken by the Dallas Police Department on November 22, 1963, under the mistaken impression that they were correspondence of Lee Oswald's. This correspondence was examined by Special Agents Ronald E. Brinkley, Ben S. Harrison, and Leland D. Stephens. This correspondence was examined again on December 5, 1963, by Special Agents James P. Hosty, Jr., and Warren C. De Brueys at the Dallas Police Property Room. This correspondence reflected that Mrs. Ruth Hyde Paine is apparently a sincere Quaker and believes in God. Mrs. Paine, in one letter, made a statement that we should help Latin America to prevent Latin America from becoming Communist controlled. This correspondence also showed that Ruth Paine was concerned with aiding persons less fortunate than herself." 

Suely, you don't believe this simple but misleading FBI characterization.  The Paines were certainly not a coincidental accident of history ... I see nothing coincidental whatsoever about them.  As Vincent Salandria once remarked, they are "beacons" that light the way to the people behind the murder of John Kennedy. And they were very predicably used by Allen Dulles and his cabal:  

"Once one recognizes the Kennedy assassination as a conspiracy, one must conclude that the Paines had been carefully selected by the U.S. intelligence services to fulfill their important functions. Probability theory, a branch of mathematics, dictates that the invaluable work of the Paines, which served to incriminate Oswald as the assassin, and to frame him, could not have been left by the conspirators to happenstance. One cannot rationally attribute to happenstance the cause of the series of actions of the Paines, which served to impute guilt to Oswald. Such a conclusion defies the axioms and logic of probability theory. So, the Paines were a necessary part of the conspiracy to kill Kennedy and to frame Oswald. It also necessarily follows that since the Paines had been assigned their roles by the assassins, the Paines could serve as beacons showing the way to identify the conspirators who had selected them.  If there was true justice in this case, Ruth and Michael Paine would be indicted rather than treated as victims, and truth, if not justice, will be better served”.

I've posted on this topic previously, mostly in response to the diatribes of Paul Trejo.  Your long posts and logic seem to follow a similar pattern. Here are ten reasons not to proceed with Ruth's beatification: 

1. The Paines moved from Pennsylvania to Irving Texas (where Marguerite lived) the same September 1959 week that Oswald left his mother and defected. When Oswald returned to Dallas in 1962, the Paines were still there ... as though they were waiting for him.
2. Lee and Marina randomly meet the Paines at the Glover White Russian party. When the enigmatic George de Mohrenschildt left for Haiti, Ruth and Michael stepped-in as his "benefactors" ... almost as a hand-off to the Paines. The Oswalds move in with them for nothing more than Russian language tutoring - to better learn Russian - in order to teach at St. Mark's School to one lone sign-up student.
3. Both the Paines and the Oswalds maintain separate residences from their respective spouses ... serving to obfuscate any future examination of links or associations. Michael and Ruth conveniently separate (ostensibly for cruel treatment) but remain amicable; Mike watching over Lee, while Ruth watches over Marina.  ut the assassination somehow reunited the Paines, and Michael moved back in with Ruth. Two babysitters whose marriage ends in 1971. 
4. Ruth appears on the scene to whisk Marina away whenever Oswald has somewhere important to go (e.g., New Orleans, Mexico City).  Ruth's visits to the Neely Street apartment coincide with the same days the rifle and revolver are ordered/shipped. Obtaining the critical/timely job for Oswald at the TSBD via a random conversation with a neighbor.
5. Marina Oswald was cut off from Ruth Paine within days of the assassination ... advised by the Secret Service to stay away from Ruth because “she was sympathizing with the CIA.”  In her New Orleans grand jury testimony, Marina stated: “Seems like she (Ruth) had friends over there and it would be bad for me if people find out a connection between me and Ruth and CIA.”
6. Damming evidence against Oswald flowing exclusively from the Paine garage (e.g., backyard photographs, Kleins order, radical magazines, Mexican bus ticket). Their incredulous lack of knowledge of a rifle (early on) followed by their certain knowledge of its storage/discovery in their garage.  The incriminating Walker shooting note found in a book sent to Marina (after the assassination).  Ruth later claimed that she gave a great deal of thought to Oswald's alleged plot to kill Walker - how he had cased and photographed Walker's house while planning the murder - which to her, was proof that Oswald acted alone, and that he had shown he had the means and the desire to kill a public figure. 
7. The mysterious Minox camera, which the FBI changed the property invoice description as a "Minox light meter".  Two months later, the FBI allegedly picked up a Minox camera from Michael Paine described as rusty and inoperable. Paine said in a television interview that the camera had been returned to him by the FBI in the summer of 1964; and that his apartment was burglarized and all of his camera equipment, including his Minox camera, was subsequently lost.
8. No one was more instrumental in making the ersatz case against Oswald than the Paines.  The Paines are the most quoted testimony in the Warren Commission record (over 6,000 questions) ... no one is even a close second (in the witness chair for a combined nine days). They were the "darlings" of the Warren Commission.  And Allen Dulles was 'helpful' to Ruth Paine's testimony on more than one occasion. Each time her Russian language tutor is mentioned, Dulles headed off the line of questioning by asking something else before Ruth can answer.  When the Commission finally did get around to asking Ruth Paine about her Russian language tutor, Dulles was conveniently absent from the hearings that day.
9. They are characterized as an average middle-class religious couple who just happened to associate with a Marxist assassin and his Russian wife. most accommodating to the Oswalds before November 22nd; but highly incriminating for Lee afterwards.  A virtuous Quaker -Unitarian couple who belonged to the ACLU (ideologically liberal) but did nothing to help Oswald with legal assistance after the assassination.  To the contrary, they performed skillful/scripted character assassination of the alleged lone-nut assassin.  
10. For the following 30 years, they remain untouched (i.e., HSCA, ARRB), untainted (albeit with income tax returns classified) and under-investigated 

I hesitate to wade into this thread, but any absolution of the Paines is a hot button for me.  Frankly, it insults my intelligence.  I could've added more facts and examples, but ten seemed enough.  And to quote Ian Fleming, once is happenstance, twice is coincidence ... three times is enemy action. 

Gene

[Greg Doudna]

Gene your points, however interesting and meritorious they may be, are off-topic and a diversion from the present issue which is the claim that the metal file boxes prove Ruth Paine was doing surveillance on leftists. The quotation to which you are responding is an FBI document quoted with information relevant to the topic of FBI examination and description of the contents of Ruth Paine's papers, and is not my writing. You quote that last line of the FBI document and riff off of it as if I wrote it and am responsible for it and as if that is the issue here. 

Before getting into these other issues you raise, do you have a comment or opinion on the specific allegation under discussion, the topic of this thread? Does absolution of the Paines on this--this--allegation "insult your intelligence"?

Yes? No? Straight answer please?

[Paul Brancato]

13 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

Gene your points, however interesting and meritorious they may be, are off-topic and a diversion from the present issue which is the claim that the metal file boxes prove Ruth Paine was doing surveillance on leftists. The quotation to which you are responding is an FBI document quoted with information relevant to the topic of FBI examination and description of the contents of Ruth Paine's papers, and is not my writing. You quote that last line of the FBI document and riff off of it as if I wrote it and am responsible for it and as if that is the issue here. 

Before getting into these other issues you raise, do you have a comment or opinion on the specific allegation under discussion, the topic of this thread? Does absolution of the Paines on this--this--allegation "insult your intelligence"?

Yes? No? Straight answer please?

Hold on Greg. You are correct in this instance, but since you have started multiple threads on the Paines seeking to exonerate them, I think Gene’s response might just as well be here as in any of the other threads. And Gene did start with a quote that relates directly to this thread. 
do you honestly think that if the DPD had taken files showing either Paine or LHO had files of Cubans that they would have been put into evidence? All your logic is good, but it relies on belief that the DPD and FBI were honestly trying to solve the riddle, whereas as Ron points out, they certainly were not doing so - they were focussed on incriminating Oswald. 

[Gene Kelly]

Greg

I don't have a position (or interest) in whether Ruth was performing surveillance of "leftists" (i.e., Cuban sympathizers).  More to the point, during his March 1964 Warren testimony, Michael Paine made a comment to Commission Counsel Wesley Liebeler that Oswald had a certain “business to do” keeping track of various groups.  It's unclear from his statement whether this was a slip of the truth or if he was fabricating to incriminate Oswald.  However, Liebeler didn't follow up on this curious comment.  So, it's possible that the metal file cabinets (and what was inside of them) was simply one more piece of incriminating evidence against Oswald.  Or maybe it was Michael who was surveilling 

Mr. LIEBELER - Were you at the house on Saturday? November 9th?
Mr. PAINE - I was at the house probably on Saturday and certainly on Sunday. I think that weekend I remember stepping over him as he sat in front of the TV, stepping past, one of these things laying on the floor and thinking to myself for a person who has a business to do he certainly can waste the time. By business I mean some kind of activity and keeping track of right-wing causes and left-wing causes or something. I supposed that he spent his time as I would be inclined to spend more of my time if I had it, trying to sense the pulse of various groups in the Dallas area.

Hoover appears to have been annoyed by Ruth's frankness. After certain comments she made to the press complaining about leaks of her testimony, Hoover sent a memo to the FBI Dallas Field Office urging them to reprimand her.  Michael Paine appears to be an "actor" and disingenuous ... an avowed pacifist, who worked for Bell Helicopter.  You provided information labelled as "Update on the Ruth Paine metal file boxes-- important" (emphasis added) that included the FBI comment that Ruth was a sincere Quaker who believed in God.  I do not think that has anything to do with what was in those filing cabinets, who was compiling it, and what it was being used for. 

I am not interested in cross-examining Jim DiEugenio ...  nor being cross-examined by you. 

Gene

 

[James DiEugenio]

Nice one Gene.

 

Greg's post above is another of his red herrings.

We are talking about file boxes that were located by Buddy W and taken to the Sheriff's office in his car.

Those boxes were  full of material relating to pro Castro sympathizers and which Jeff and I showed were, in all probability, not Oswald's.   The contents of which disappeared into the ether.

GD can bloviate with any DPD BS excuse he wants to.  They have about as much weight as what the police manufactured for the Speculations and Rumors section of the Warren Report.

Edited May 23, 2022 by James DiEugenio

[Gene Kelly]

Jim

I try to avoid acrimonious debates with other posters and want to give Greg (and others) the benefit of the doubt, plus learn what I can from their posts.  That said, it's a red flag for me that anyone would try to exonerate or defend the Paines - on any level, for any assertion - as they stand out to me as treasonous and criminal, just as they stood put to Vincent Salandria. 

I am a Philly guy, and Vince Salandria is one of the true heroes of the search for truth in Kennedy's murder.  The Paines have Philadelphia roots and backstories that hit close to home for me.  Michael and Ruth were married in Philadelphia in 1957, and they lived in Paoli (nearby where I attended college).  Ruth moved in with Michael at the Arthur Young farm in Paoli, where the couple remained until the summer of 1959.  Ruth later took a job as the Principal of the Greene Street Friends School. in the Germantown section of Philadelphia. Whenever I drive past these familiar locations, I can't help but think about these two evil individuals, which still chills me to this day. 

 It's also a big red flag for me when someone tries to discredit you, as I very much respect your work and opinions.

Gene