The incredible allegation that Ruth Paine did surveillance on Castro sympathizers

[W. Tracy Parnell]

8 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

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. 

A clarification is needed here. Fred changed nothing-he published the raw memo. What he did was note that the memo could be in error since it was in error about other matters. The documents that the CIA sequestered (and that McDonald and/or his staff based their review on) are available and so far, no one has produced anything that mentions "contract source."

Was Clay Shaw a "Contract Agent" for the CIA? (onthetrailofdelusion.com)

[Jeff Carter]

2 hours 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.

The “Rumour and Speculation” section of the Warren Report features a “speculation” regarding “metal file boxes filled with the names of Castro sympathizers” (WR p 666). The attached footnote references the Walthers testimony conducted by Liebeler which you cite,  as well as a DPD inventory.

Liebeler - who had made the Paine “who is responsible” phone call disappear through attributing the call to a different date (Nov 23 instead of Nov 22) allowing Michael Paine to firmly reject that he had participated in any such call on the Saturday - begins the relevant Walther testimony with an odd introduction in light of the existing contemporaneous DPD Investigation Report, authored by Walthers, which unambiguously describes  “a set of metal file cabinets containing records that appeared to be names and activities of Cuban sympathizers.” Liebeler instead says:

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? 

Liebeler should have referred to Walthers' Investigation Report, as it is not only an official police document, but it is also clearly the source of the “speculation”. Instead, Liebeler refers to a vague “story” which he received second-hand (“been advised”). Liebeler also, in successive questions, adds a specific number of file cabinets - “seven” - a number which does not appear in the Walthers Investigation Report - and which is later used by the authors of the Commission Finding attached to the “Speculation” (WR p666) to attribute to Ruth Paine the metal file boxes described by Walthers  and claim “no lists of names of Castro sympathizers were found among these effects” (i.e. Ruth Paine’s file boxes). Walthers is never asked why he put in writing a description of “metal file cabinets containing records that appeared to be names and activities of Cuban sympathizers.” It is not at all clear if the “cabinets” he refers are the same as Ruth Paine’s cabinets. That inference is entirely dependent on Liebeler.

The Warren Report’s “Speculation” features its own misdirection :

Speculation - After Oswald’s arrest, the police found in his room seven metal file boxes filled with the names of Castro sympathizers.

What speculation do they refer? Walthers' original report clearly reports the metal file boxes “filled with the names of Castro sympathizers” were found at Ruth Paine’s house, not the North Beckley rooming house. And the specific number “seven” appears again - “seven metal file boxes”. That number does not appear in the original Walther report.

[James DiEugenio]

👋    😇

 

Could not have done any better myself Jeff.

Edited May 25, 2022 by James DiEugenio

[David Lifton]

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? 

OOPS.  DELETE.  DSL

[Greg Doudna]

How the mistake may have happened

Jeff C., that Liebeler question is interesting in saying that the story Liebeler was asking Walthers about spoke of "cards that had the names on them of pro-Castro sympathizers or something of that kind."

There was nothing in Walthers' Nov 23 deputy sheriff's report that said anything about "cards". That appears to have been some secondary development of the story that Liebeler has heard.

I have wondered how Walthers' Nov 23 written report could have its statement as a mistake.

A question I have wondered, that nobody all along seems to have thought to ask, is, suppose an officer did look in one of the metal boxes taken from Ruth Paine's bedroom and saw some names and addresses. How does one know those are pro-Castro sympathizers? I mean, its not as if there is going to be a typewritten list of names and addresses, with big bold letters at the top: "Note to Dallas Police: these are PRO-CASTRO SYMPATHIZER NAMES listed below".

What does a name and address of a pro-Castro sympathizer look like anyway, different from what a name and address of an anti-Castro sympathizer, or a name and address of a folk dance group member or something else? 

How does one go from supposing an officer did see some names and addresses in one or another of those metal boxes, to --> those are pro-Castro sympathizers to --> Ruth Paine collected those by going out afternoons after getting a babysitter for the kids, to do surveillances of leftists? 

Could it be--maybe they were just names and addresses, and somebody misinterpreted what they were?

Is that possible? That a police officer could make a mistake, and have told Walthers something mistaken that first day? 

Well the fact is Ruth said one of her metal file boxes did have a list of names and addresses of people to whom Ruth sent birth announcements. So an officer could have looked and seen some names and addresses. 

And, the officers saw (and no doubt were taken aback by seeing, since it is not an everyday find) all that pro-Cuba, pro-Castro literature of Oswald's in the garage. The officers don't know what is going on, at this point. This is just after the assassination. The lone-gunman theory has not been developed yet. They don't know who did what at this point. The officers don't yet know what is going on, and suspect Ruth and Michael Paine may be communists.

Ruth told of being asked by the officers in the car as they drove her to the police station that evening, asking if she was a communist. She told them no. That was the question on those officers' minds though. 

Then combine that police suspicion that the people of the house, where Oswald has his belongings, might be involved in Oswald's pro-Castro literature activities (after all, they're in the same house) . . . the police know there is pro-Castro literature in that house because they found a treasure trove of Oswald's pro-Castro pamphlets in the garage . . . and they suspect maybe Ruth and Michael Paine could be pro-Castro communists too. Ruth and Michael of course were not pro-Castro communists, but how would police at that point know that? . . . its not too hard to imagine in that context how Walthers could write in his report something drawn from an officer who saw some addresses in one of the metal boxes and drew a conclusion, which happened to be a wrong conclusion. 

Again, how would an officer that day know, by looking, that some names and addresses are "pro-Castro sympathizers"? As opposed to some other interpretation of what those names and addresses were? Could you tell just by looking at some names and addresses that they were "pro-Castro sympathizers"? And even Walthers' original report did not claim certainty, but is itself phrased as really a guess, from the getgo: "appeared to be names and activities of Cuban sympathizers" (Walthers Nov 23).

Is it just possible that what initially "appeared to be" (Walthers' wording) might--I know this is shocking to consider so please sit down--be police being mistaken?   

Walthers' description on Nov 23 was mistaken not only because Walthers wrote that based on nothing he knew or saw personally (so he said), but because there never was any confirmation that any pro-Castro sympathizer names were in any of those metal boxes. So as in so much else in the JFK case, that mere total lack of evidence doesn't matter--people can propose elaborate theories of mysterious intentional disappearing of sensational evidence that no officer present that day will admit to having seen, that Walthers was coerced behind closed doors, forced to recant under oath and cover up . . . and on and on, just make up the stories for which there is not a shred of evidence. And use those totally made-up stories (because like so many made-up stories, it could have happened!!!), and logically conclude some human being, in this case Ruth Paine, is now incriminated! Because: made-up story incriminating that person could have happened! Perfect logic for declaring publicly someone is incriminated! The Queen in Alice in Wonderland logic. 

These false accusations that persist beyond any reason in the minds of people sure burn up a lot of energy don't they. And by DiEugenio and Max Good not making clear that there is just nothing to it in terms of anything substantial, they will keep going.  

But who cares. After all, Ruth Paine is guilty of so much else who cares whether this one is true? That seems to be the unspoken ethos. 

An ethos that is defending, by this tacit means, one of the most horrible practices in human history--the reckless making of baseless accusations against other persons that damage those persons.

And there is an ethos that dehumanizes some people such that they are considered beyond the pale of normal human civil rights and protections. One of which is not to have baseless charges smeared on one, as has happened in this specific case in the Max Good film from DiEugenio recklessly smearing Ruth Paine.

Without conscience, without apology, continuing to the present moment. 

Edited May 25, 2022 by Greg Doudna

[James DiEugenio]

BTW, the following is one of the most egregious instances of consciousness of guilt in this case by the CIA:

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.

Off the top of my head, I can only think of two other examples that would rank with it :  Betsy Wolf's HSCA discoveries about the routing of Oswald's CIA files, which not only did not get into the volumes, they were never made into formal memoranda;  and the burying of the Mexico City report. 

Edited May 25, 2022 by James DiEugenio

[Greg Doudna]

5 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

BTW, the following is one of the most egregious instances of consciousness of guilt in this case by the CIA:

Jim DiEugenio, that is an interesting subject but it has nothing to do with the topic here. Would it be possible for you to discuss that somewhere else and stick to the topic here? 

[Ron Bulman]

There is no topic here.  No one has alluded to Ruth doing surveillance on Cuban sympathizers but you.  Her job was to surveil Marina.  Michael likely the same on Lee.  If, as Walthers reported in writing on 11/22/63 the files they confiscated that night contained info on such that was also likely the work of Mike.  He was the guy trying to pin it on Ozzie over the ironing board.

[Greg Doudna]

On 5/25/2022 at 7:01 PM, Ron Bulman said:

There is no topic here.  No one has alluded to Ruth doing surveillance on Cuban sympathizers but you.  Her job was 

Ron I know you see that Ruth never did surveillance on Cuban sympathizers, but Max Good's new film has that as one of its most central accusations against Ruth Paine in that film, that she was surveilling the American left, which he got from Jim DiEugenio saying that in the film. (See the opening post of this thread for the quotes.) And neither of them are willing to acknowledge error no matter how plain the facts may be on this matter. So even though you may know there is nothing to it, get used to the notion being around for ever and ever and ever and ever in the JFK assassination research community.

Incidentally, on the size of Ruth Paine's phonograph records issue that you mentioned earlier, I have found that according to Ruth Paine they were the old 78s from the 1950s, not 45s or 33s.

"While I went to get a baby-sitter, they filled the trunks of two cars with things out of my house. Every scrap of paper the Oswalds had, and my filing cases of old correspondence and 78 rpm phonograph records." (17 H 194)

78s were 10 inches in diameter. From the filming of two of Ruth's metal file boxes in the Max Good film, those metal file boxes were 12" wide and look over 10" deep. 

[Jeff Carter]

There is a difference between saying “Ruth Paine surveilled  Cuban sympathizers” versus “Ruth Paine surveilled the American left”. Your complaint alleges the film proposes the former construct, but this is not supported by the pertinent excerpts provided. That is, an “allegation that Ruth Paine did surveillance on Castro sympathizers” is your wording and your construct. 

According to the excerpts, the film states that file boxes with information on ‘Cuban sympathizers” was found in the Paine garage in the immediate aftermath of the assassination. There is a document in the official record which says that. The film states that Ruth Paine was observed “taking notes” while interacting years later with “Nicaraguan sympathizers”. That seems to be the case, and this information was published back in the 1990s. According to the excerpts, in the film Ruth Paine is given the space to dismiss this information and she does so.

A “smear” is an attempt to “damage the reputation of (someone) by false accusations.”  The presumed accusations here have long been in the record, and might be considered disputed or controversial - but they are not “false”.

[Greg Doudna]

Jeff Carter, this is beginning to sound like gaslighting, in which first Ron, and now you, claim the title of this thread is imagined. I do not know why you are doing this. You say

1 hour ago, Jeff Carter said:

There is a difference between saying “Ruth Paine surveilled Cuban sympathizers” versus “Ruth Paine surveilled the American left”. Your complaint alleges the film proposes the former construct, but this is not supported by the pertinent excerpts provided. That is, an “allegation that Ruth Paine did surveillance on Castro sympathizers” is your wording and your construct. 

DiEugenio, in the Max Good film:

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.

The closing allegation of the Max Good film, referring to 1963:

Good: Their thing is that you and Michael were involved in surveillance activities of the radical left. 

Ruth (look of disbelief): What?

Good: That you and Michael were involved in surveillance activities of the radical left. Uh, and that—

Ruth: Who would be the radical left? 

Good: Cuban sympathizers.

Ruth: Oh.

Edited May 31, 2022 by Greg Doudna

[Jeff Carter]

1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:

Jeff Carter, this is beginning to sound like gaslighting, in which first Ron, and now you, claim the title of this thread is imagined. I do not know why you are doing this. You say

DiEugenio, in the Max Good film:

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.

The closing allegation of the Max Good film, referring to 1963:

Good: Their thing is that you and Michael were involved in surveillance activities of the radical left. 

Ruth (look of disbelief): What?

Good: That you and Michael were involved in surveillance activities of the radical left. Uh, and that—

Ruth: Who would be the radical left? 

Good: Cuban sympathizers.

Ruth: Oh.

Your argument relies on stripping Michael Paine's name from the quotes you use, which creates a stricter allegation , at least in your formulation, than what is in fact being inferred.

[Greg Doudna]

32 minutes ago, Jeff Carter said:

Your argument relies on stripping Michael Paine's name from the quotes you use, which creates a stricter allegation , at least in your formulation, than what is in fact being inferred.

No my argument does not require that at all. The allegation of DiEugenio, relayed by Max Good to Ruth Paine, that Ruth Paine surveilled Castro sympathizers is a subset of the allegation that Michael and Ruth surveilled Castro sympathizers, which DiEugenio derived, as he said he did, from Walthers' first-day claim which Walthers said was mistaken. Instead of continuing to throw up this smoke which is simply gaslighting, you should ask why DiEugenio not only refuses to retract his baseless allegation against Ruth Paine, but has responded to me in nasty ways.

Of the hundreds of mistakes and confusions in reporting in the first hours and days of that weekend of the assassination by both police and reporters, for DiEugenio to fixate upon one single such that the author himself explained was mistaken, and just rely and rely and rely and insist and insist on police inerrancy in that one case and reject the officer's own correction of the error . . . as the basis for accusation of Ruth Paine on this point . . . and to wilfully refuse to retract or apologize but respond instead with nastiness and abuse. . . that is the moral wrong here. Toward Ruth Paine (and Michael Paine too).  

[Jeff Carter]

43 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

No my argument does not require that at all. The allegation of DiEugenio, relayed by Max Good to Ruth Paine, that Ruth Paine surveilled Castro sympathizers is a subset of the allegation that Michael and Ruth surveilled Castro sympathizers, which DiEugenio derived, as he said he did, from Walthers' first-day claim which Walthers said was mistaken. Instead of continuing to throw up this smoke which is simply gaslighting, you should ask why DiEugenio not only refuses to retract his baseless allegation against Ruth Paine, but has responded to me in nasty ways.

Of the hundreds of mistakes and confusions in reporting in the first hours and days of that weekend of the assassination by both police and reporters, for DiEugenio to fixate upon one single such that the author himself explained was mistaken, and just rely and rely and rely and insist and insist on police inerrancy in that one case and reject the officer's own correction of the error . . . as the basis for accusation of Ruth Paine on this point . . . and to wilfully refuse to retract or apologize but respond instead with nastiness and abuse. . . that is the moral wrong here. Toward Ruth Paine (and Michael Paine too).  

Walthers’ testimony never directly addresses the claim in his 11/22/63 Report, and most relevant he never says he was “mistaken”. The inference is created by Liebeler.

There are corresponding data points to the idea of surveillance activity: 1) Michael Paine at Luby’s  2) Ruth Paine later in Nicaragua.

This is simply investigative journalism or reporting. The types of questions you have reacted to are asked on programs like 60 Minutes all the time. Ruth Paine is given a platform to respond, and she does and her response appears in the film.

You are the one who started the thread with terms such as:  “irresponsible”, “shameful smear”, “utterly baseless”, and “malicious”.

[Greg Doudna]

19 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

This is simply investigative journalism or reporting. The types of questions you have reacted to are asked on programs like 60 Minutes all the time. Ruth Paine is given a platform to respond, and she does and her response appears in the film.

There is no equivalence. That is nonsense. 60 Minutes would not air in prime time a highly damaging allegation against someone based on an unsubstantiated claim of a single source who it turned out never saw the thing himself, without identification of even that source's claim of origin for his hearsay, i.e. no production or naming of anyone who anyone even said ever claimed to have seen or had personal knowledge of the thing alleged. That is not something 60 Minutes would run with for a prime time story.

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. 

And 60 Minutes also would not fail to disclose the above--from the sole origin of the allegation to begin with--if 60 Minutes did run the story. 

Do you not see the risk that innocent people could be falsely smeared and damaged by the kind of journalistic tactic you are defending--to air a totally uncorroborated and refuted allegation, and fail to disclose the above exculpatory testimony from the only teller of the allegation who ever did exist in the entire universe?

No, I don't think you do see that. 

The original allegation of Walthers concerning the contents of those metal file boxes was refuted in the evidence that came forth later as to the contents of those metal file boxes, showing the original of Walthers was uncorroborated and mistaken, no different from a thousand other law enforcement human errors that first weekend.

It is so unbelievable that you and others defend the continuation of a smearing allegation of this nature while claiming to be interested in truth. 

There just does not seem to be any concern if Ruth Paine is accused of something on a nonexistent basis. Just does not seem to bother many people here. Just doesn't matter.  

How do people, who just have no problem with this, expect to be taken seriously by the sector of the thinking American public to whom the phenomenon of making unsubstantiated damaging allegations does matter and is offensive because of some old-fashioned idea that that practice is simply wrong?  

Edited June 1, 2022 by Greg Doudna