The incredible allegation that Ruth Paine did surveillance on Castro sympathizers

[Joseph McBride]

Double posted by accident.

Edited May 24, 2022 by Joseph McBride

[Joseph McBride]

I wonder if Greg knows that the article

that principally established Ruth Paine as a kindly

Quaker do-gooder who took in a poor Russian

woman and wound up being betrayed by

the Oswald couple into a notorious situation

was published in Redbook in July 1964 as

"Prelude to Tragedy: The woman who sheltered

Lee Oswald's family tells her story." It was written

by Quaker author Jessamyn West, the author of

THE FRIENDLY PERSUASION, which was filmed

in 1956 as FRIENDLY PERSUASION. West was

a second cousin of fellow Quaker (!) Richard M. Nixon.

Redbook at the time was owned by the McCall

Corporation, whose president was Marvin Pierce.

He was the father of Barbara Pierce Bush, a descendant

of President Franklin Pierce and the wife

of the CIA-connected George H. W. Bush, whose

early CIA connections and involvement in the

assassination I established in two articles for

The Nation in 1988. Although the West article is mostly

glowing and simplistic hagiography, West does express shock over

Ruth Paine admitting in a rare moment of candor, "I

was glad" that Oswald was killed; West chides her by saying,

"There is nothing remotely saintly or even Quakerish about

being glad that one man has murdered another man."

Edited May 24, 2022 by Joseph McBride

[Sandy Larsen]

2 hours ago, Steve Roe said:

Bottom Line: DiEugenio's comments about the "Castro Sympathizers" in Ruth Paine's garage is totally true reckless, irresponsible, debunked nine ways to Sunday, and no doubt whatsoever, an unfounded vicious smear job on Ruth Paine. 

 

[James DiEugenio]

Thanks Sandy.

I am quoting Mr.Tagg.

GD is quoting the Warren Report.

 

[James DiEugenio]

BTW, I think we should recall how GD treats evidence in another aspect.

He wants us all to denounce "Garrisonism".  Recall, this is the only way he can set up his nationwide network grouping of cities and towns  in order to alter the whole face of the JFK case around Mr. Crafard.  (🤐)

Well, one way GD renounces  is by altering evidence.  In Joan Mellen's book, Our Man in Haiti, she wrote about a declassified document written by J. Kenneth McDonald of the CIA.  He was Director of Studies of Intelligence, part of the Historical Division.  He was reviewing files related to the CIA and the assassination. He wrote that he found evidence that Shaw was a highly paid and valued contract agent for the CIA.

Well, like Fred LItwin, GD did not like that. So Fred changed the memo.  GD did not like it either so he followed suit.  He now says that McDonald, who had the files in front of him, was wrong.  Fred and he--who had no files in front of them-- are right. 

Nice work if you can get it eh?  If you don't like what a document says, just change the wording and the meaning.  I guess this is what GD means by renouncing "Garrisonism".

Edited May 24, 2022 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

But GD did not realize that in his desperation to embrace "Garrisonism" and the likes of LItwin and Lifton, he did not do his homework; yes he was being irresponsible.

Because, the CIA had altered Shaw's original CIA file. And this was apparent in 1995: his Y files had already been eliminated. (Bill Davy, Let Justice be Done, p. 200) Later on, Manny Legaspi of the ARRB discovered that, in fact, Shaw's whole 201 file had been completely altered and in large part destroyed.  That ARRB internal communication was not declassified for years after the ARRB ceased functioning. But anyone can find it on the web. (ARRB memo of 11/14/1996)

This wholesale alteration of Shaw's files was predicted way back in 1977 by Gordon Novel.  In a piece of private correspondence he wrote that this internal CIA order had  gone out in 1964, and it was part of the JFK cover up. How did Gordon know that?  Well, he spent a lot of time on the phone and in written communication with Allen Dulles around the time of the Garrison inquiry. (Oh sorry, Garrisonism!)

So, if GD wants to renounce all of this, fine.  He can explain his whole gestalt as to why its OK to change the wording of memos, why its OK for the CIA to eliminate certain pieces of information about suspects, and why the Agency can also redesign 201 files on certain people it wishes to hide information on.  I am sure all of that is innocent right? 😃

BTW, who is going to run the national exorcism on Garrisonism GD? Paul Hoch?  The guy who is still trying to find ways to support the SBT?  And who recommended the Bringuier book Red Friday to Lisa Pease back in the nineties?

Some company to keep.

 

Edited May 25, 2022 by James DiEugenio

[Greg Doudna]

Instead of responsive to the topic at hand, DiEugenio has now turned to attack something I wrote somewhere else which has nothing to do with this thread, without, however, giving a link to what he is attacking. That link is here: https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/27770-a-five-point-road-map-to-accomplishing-a-change-of-consciousness-in-america-concerning-the-jfk-assassination/.

 

[Greg Doudna]

Also, the things on which DiEugenio is attacking me regarding a Fred Litwin interpretation of a memo referring to Clay Shaw's CIA association, have nothing to do with what I wrote on the need to repudiate Garrisonism which DiEugenio claims he is attacking. I have no particular view on the CIA memo he is talking about and whatever DiEugenio is remembering (he gives no link) I do not even remember what I said--it is no issue to me. Litwin gave an argument that there could be a typo in that memo (did Litwin claim certainty?--I don't remember, but I would check that point before believing DiEugenio uncritically on this point, in his representation of Litwin), DiEugenio disagrees, and I don't know and don't care which it was. So if there is some claim I made long ago on that (which I do not remember), I hereby drop that claim. Just to be clear that DiEugenio is beating a dead horse of even less relevance than the writing of me elsewhere he represents that he is attacking.

Be clear what is going on here. He does not like what I wrote on the metal file boxes. He has no good response to it. Therefore he is doing the logical thing any genuine truth-seeker would do, he throws the kitchen sink of irrelevancies in a tsunami of smears and guilt-by-associations and nastiness, in an attempt to discredit and distract and confuse. Is that how to have a productive discussion and learn and grow? 

Some people are interested in learning from one another including high-quality opposing critical argument. Basic thesis, antithesis, synthesis growth dynamics in thought and perception of the world. Others see things in street-fighting threat-attack mode and quasi-cult mentality terms.

Compare what was eloquently expressed by the sincere commenter (I do not mean "sincere" disparagingly but truthfully as it did come from one here who is sincere and a gentleman) who wrote:  

"it's a red flag for me that anyone would try to exonerate or defend the Paines - on any level, for any assertion..."

No specific allegation against Ruth Paine can be questioned as to its merits. None. It is improper to defend Ruth Paine "on any level, for any assertion". Doesn't matter if it is a fabrication. Doesn't matter if it isn't true. Doesn't matter how lunatic. If QAnon claimed Ruth Paine ate babies, doesn't matter. Defense of the accused witch "on any level, for any assertion"--forbidden (or you will be accused of being a witch too).

And

" It's also a big red flag for me when someone tries to discredit you"

Which means attempting to do a fact-check. Criticism of a lethal public accusation leveled by the thought-leader against Ruth Paine--forbidden. (Because that is attempting to discredit the thought-leader.)

When the above two are combined with a third empirical phenomenon, a thought-leader who never, ever, acknowledges error in response to an uninvited fact-check, no matter how clear that fact-check may be--just not something he is into doing--well, think through what it means to have these three points in combination.

Take these three points together and ask: is this a good process for arriving at truth in a community?

Can anyone imagine what these three points taken together would look like if implemented politically in a society? 

If you were Ruth Paine, would you feel confident you would receive a fair trial in this community?

Edited May 24, 2022 by Greg Doudna

[Greg Doudna]

Joseph McBride, concerning the Jessamyn West article about Ruth Paine in Redbook, I agree with you and the author that Ruth Paine was wrong to say the statement at the end concerning the death of the man she believed had killed President Kennedy. She should not have said that. Was there some point other than that that you had in mind? 

Incidentally, on Nixon the "Quaker" president, while it is true he was born into and raised in a Quaker family he had little to no claim to being Quaker in adult life in reality. In his adult life he never attended Friends Meetings, he had no involvement in Friends' organizations or activities, was not recognized by Friends as a Friend, his actions as president in southeast Asia were horrible and the antithesis of what unprogrammed Friends Meetings across the land fervently held and believed, and a last telltale detail, he swore his oath of office as president, something no real Quaker would do. This last detail may seem trivial or unimportant to the outside world but it is one of those identity markers which matter to insiders. 

The other Quaker president, in Friends' view the only real one, Herbert Hoover, was not so well remembered in history due to the Great Depression, but I can say from knowledge that Friends of that and later eras consider Hoover a real Friend. He had an honorable history of activity in Friends' organizations and famine relief in Europe before he became president, he affirmed rather than swore his oath of office as president, and attended the Wash. D.C. Friends Meeting as president. Most Friends considered Herbert Hoover as personally honorable and regarded him better than his reputation in history, considering it something of an unfortunate accident of history that he was blamed for the Great Depression which happened on his watch.

So that is my tale of two Quaker presidents, one real and one imposter! Of course in standard Gallup polling religious affiliation is usually counted on the basis of self-professed identity, and "Quaker" was the non-churched Nixon's answer when asked his religious affiliation. So it all depends on what definition one goes by.

Incidentally it was only a few years ago that I discovered a strange story that in his post-presidency years and retirement, Herbert Hoover had written a book manuscript explaining his views on World War II. Hoover passionately disliked and disagreed with FDR. Hoover set out detailed arguments why he believed the US should have stayed out of WW2 altogether; he believed against massive mainstream historians' consensus that US entry into WW2 was an avoidable mistake. Because that "isolationist" foreign policy argument was in such disfavor and so discredited following WW2 Hoover's heirs literally covered up knowledge of the existence of that manuscript (Hoover died before he could bring it to publication), until much later it came to light and is now published though it has attracted little notice except to historians who study such things. I have no opinion on the merits of the mss itself, but just add this as a little-known footnote to the Herbert Hoover story.  

[James DiEugenio]

Can't you see it.

Dark stage, giant picture of Ruth Paine comes up with klieg lights on it. Subtitle: A GD Production.

On the stage, Paul Hoch emerges from darkness to center stage.  GD is off to stage left.

Hoch is dressed like Max Von Sydow in The Exorcist.  He is carrying a staff, with a bronze container of holy water at his feet.  

He begins his incantation. 

"Do you renounce Satan!"

"Do you renounce Lucifer!"

"Do you renounce Garrison and all be believed in?"

OS: "Well wait" someone pipes up from Chicago: (OS means off screen in film lingo)

"Didn't Clay Shaw lie on national TV about his association with the CIA?"

Hoch:"Innocent explanation for that, he was just a businessman."

 OS: "But wait, that has turned out to be false. Shaw had a covert security clearance for a project called QKENCHANT."

OS: from New York: "And what about the contract agent document?"

Hoch: "We decided the guy who wrote that was wrong. "

OS from New York: "But wait, how do you know he was wrong?  He was in the CIA."

GD says: "We just know alright!"

OS from Chicago: "No its not.  Ferrie lied to the FBI about knowing Oswald in the days after Kennedy's murder.  That is perjury and obstruction of justice.  And why didn't the FBI ask Banister about Oswald? They knew he was there."

GD: "Look we will continue with this exorcism and we will honor and apologize to Ruth Paine."

OS from Chicago: "But wait you want to exorcise people who's suspects we can prove broke the law under oath; and you want to honor someone who incriminated Oswald repeatedly, all the way up to the nineties and beyond?"

"Count me out."

GD: "But I met her and she was nice."

One by one all the zoom conferences begin to go out.

Hoch: "But wait, we must continue to exorcise Garrisonism!"

OS  San Francisco: "You were still trying to salvage the SBT in the nineties Hoch! Oswald did it AND the SBT? I am out  of here."

Hoch:  "Well Greg, I think the picture of Ruth overdid it. Next time let us forget that and maybe try someone else besides Crafard."

They both turn around and exit right. Lights dim. The board is dark.

GD: "There's always next year."

 

 

 

Edited May 25, 2022 by James DiEugenio

[Jeff Carter]

21 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

The issue is that film--either DiEugenio failed to tell Good, or DiEugenio did tell Good and Good failed to put it in the film, whichever it was--misrepresents to the viewer by leaving out that the claim was retracted by the only officer who made it. And this was no minor detail in the film. It was one of the key accusations of Ruth Paine in the closing interview with Ruth Paine in the film.

You are arguing that Jim DiEugenio/the new film engaged in some form of misconduct for not sharing or referring to an item in the Warren Report’s “Rumour and Speculation” section. When did the “Rumour and Speculation section of the WR become the Final Word?

Two things are notable in Walther’s testimony: 1) Walther is not directly asked why the sentence about the file cabinets with records of Cuban sympathizers appeared in his report. Liebeler offers a speculation but it is left at that.  2) Liebeler introduces and repeats the number seven ( “seven file cabinets”), but the number seven does not appear in Walther’s original report - Walther describes “a set of metal filing cabinets”. One could say that Liebeler is engaged in conflating the metal cabinets found in the garage with the metal cabinets belonging to Ruth Paine which appear in the DPD evidence list. (Liebeler was the WC staff lawyer who made the Paine’s “we know who’s responsible” phone call go away by attributing a different date).

[James DiEugenio]

Nice one Jeff.

BTW. I wrote the Oliver Stone films.  We do not deal with the Paines.

I had nothing to do with the making of Max Good's film.  I was only an interview subject.

 

[Greg Doudna]

2 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

You are arguing that Jim DiEugenio/the new film engaged in some form of misconduct for not sharing or referring to an item in the Warren Report’s “Rumour and Speculation” section. When did the “Rumour and Speculation section of the WR become the Final Word?

Two things are notable in Walther’s testimony: 1) Walther is not directly asked why the sentence about the file cabinets with records of Cuban sympathizers appeared in his report. Liebeler offers a speculation but it is left at that.  2) Liebeler introduces and repeats the number seven ( “seven file cabinets”), but the number seven does not appear in Walther’s original report - Walther describes “a set of metal filing cabinets”. One could say that Liebeler is engaged in conflating the metal cabinets found in the garage with the metal cabinets belonging to Ruth Paine which appear in the DPD evidence list. (Liebeler was the WC staff lawyer who made the Paine’s “we know who’s responsible” phone call go away by attributing a different date).

No I am not Jeff Carter. The failure to disclose was the 1964 testimony of the sole witness, Walthers. You and/or DiEugenio are making a serious and slippery misrepresentation here, trying to make it sound like the issue is not quoting "Rumour and Speculation".

This below--this--is what was misconduct for not being disclosed in the Max Good film, following the airing of DiEugenio's charge that Walthers' 1963 report "makes a very good case" that Ruth Paine was involved in surveillance activities of the American left.

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. 

It is true that it was not established in that testimony how Walthers came to write what he is now testifying he never saw and had no personal knowledge of. (Maybe something got garbled and confused and he wrote it?) That is immaterial to the fact that honest journalism would disclose to the viewer what the central and only witness claimed to support one of the central charges against Ruth Paine sympathetically reported in that film, said above.

Don't try to call Walthers' testimony, which is what I have always been talking about, some appendix titled "rumors and speculation". That's not honest.

Also, you are trying to make it out that the metal filing cabinets loaded into Walthers' car trunk of Walthers 1963 report are different from the metal filing cabinets belonging to Ruth taken that day by officer Stovall from Ruth's bedroom, and loaded into the trunk of Walthers' car trunk, referred to by Walthers' fellow deputy sheriffs and police officers in their reports.

The metal filing cabinets of Walthers' 1963 report are obviously the same metal filing cabinets as the metal filing cabinets of his fellow deputy sheriffs, and of the inventory list of what was taken from Ruth Paine's house, the same metal filing cabinets Walthers said he delivered to the Dallas Police. All of the police and sheriff's deputies, including Walthers, spoke of a single set of metal filing boxes, Ruth's 7, not two sets.

Trying to make those into two sets is just egregious special pleading. Because Walthers knows of no second set of metal filing cabinets than the ones in his report, and none of the other officers and deputy sheriff reports know of a second set of metal filing cabinets than the ones they know in their reports.

The basic problem is that if the Max Good film had told viewers of the existence of Walthers' testimony in 1964 about his 1963 report, that central allegation against Ruth Paine in that film by DiEugenio would have been seen for what it is, insubstantial.

Please represent this point accurately going forward.

Edited May 25, 2022 by Greg Doudna

[David Lifton]

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

Nice one Jeff.

BTW. I wrote the Oliver Stone films.  We do not deal with the Paines.

I had nothing to do with the making of Max Good's film.  I was only an interview subject.

 

Question to Jim DiEugenio: If the evidence (against the Paines, or either one) was as substantial as you imply (via innuendo, if nothing else), then why didn't Oliver Stone "deal with the Paines"?   You write (see above): "I wrote the Oliver Stone films."  All very well.  But if the "evidence against the Paines" (my quotes) was as credible as you imply, Why didn't you write about them?  Were you (perhaps) under instructions --from Stone --not to do so?  (Or perhaps advised by legal counsel not to do so?)   Was Oliver Stone not exactly a "profile in courage" when it came to the Paines?  Or was he --someone of substantial assets-- possibly afraid of a lawsuit he was likely to lose? (Especially since there was zero evidence that either Michael Paine or Ruth Paine were involved in JFK's murder).  Inquiring minds want to know!  (DSL, 5/24/22 - 6:40 PM PDT)

[David Lifton]

25 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

No I am not Jeff Carter. The failure to disclose was the 1964 testimony of the sole witness, Walthers. You and/or DiEugenio are making a serious and slippery misrepresentation here, trying to make it sound like the issue is not quoting "Rumour and Speculation".

This below--this--is what was misconduct for not being disclosed in the Max Good film, following the airing of DiEugenio's charge that Walthers' 1963 report "makes a very good case" that Ruth Paine was involved in surveillance activities of the American left.

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. 

It is true that it was not established in that testimony how Walthers came to write what he is now testifying he never saw and had no personal knowledge of. (Maybe something got garbled and confused and he wrote it?) That is immaterial to the fact that honest journalism would disclose to the viewer what the central and only witness claimed to support one of the central charges against Ruth Paine sympathetically reported in that film, said above.

Don't try to call Walthers' testimony, which is what I have always been talking about, some appendix titled "rumors and speculation". That's not honest.

Also, you are trying to make it out that the metal filing cabinets loaded into Walthers' car trunk of Walthers 1963 report are different from the metal filing cabinets belonging to Ruth taken that day by officer Stovall from Ruth's bedroom, and loaded into the trunk of Walthers' car trunk, referred to by Walthers' fellow deputy sheriffs and police officers in their reports.

The metal filing cabinets of Walthers' 1963 report are obviously the same metal filing cabinets as the metal filing cabinets of his fellow deputy sheriffs, and of the inventory list of what was taken from Ruth Paine's house, the same metal filing cabinets Walthers said he delivered to the Dallas Police. All of the police and sheriff's deputies, including Walthers, spoke of a single set of metal filing boxes, Ruth's 7, not two sets.

Trying to make those into two sets is just egregious special pleading. Because Walthers knows of no second set of metal filing cabinets than the ones in his report, and none of the other officers and deputy sheriff reports know of a second set of metal filing cabinets than the ones they know in their reports.

The basic problem is that if the Max Good film had told viewers of the existence of Walthers' testimony in 1964 about his 1963 report, that central allegation against Ruth Paine in that film by DiEugenio would have been seen for what it is, insubstantial.

Please represent this point accurately going forward.

To:  Greg:  I think you were trying to reach me.  You can email me at dlifton@gmail.com    DSL