The incredible allegation that Ruth Paine did surveillance on Castro sympathizers

[Jeff Carter]

Walthers’ testimony is notably imprecise on this matter. It was Liebeler’s job to ensure precision, especially as this matter would later appear as a numbered item in the Rumours and Speculation segment of the Warren Report. Liebeler does not refer to the relevant police report, which is the primary document of concern. He instead refers to a vague “story” which he received second-hand from an unnamed source. Further, if one is to rely on Liebeler’s imprecision, it appears the unknown source of Liebeler’s referred story is also the source of the claim that Walthers in fact can’t “remember seeing any of them” - a suggestion to which Walthers in turn offers an equally vague “that could have been one” (one what?) “but I didn’t see it” (see what?). This is second-hand hearsay. On top of this, the Warren Report’s brief discussion falsely attributes the file cabinet to Oswald’s rooming house. The police report - an official document in the record, written by Walthers - refers to items found at the house jointly owned by Ruth and Michael Paine, which justifies the wording of the inquiries which have you so inflamed.

[Greg Doudna]

1 hour ago, Jeff Carter said:

On top of this, the Warren Report’s brief discussion falsely attributes the file cabinet to Oswald’s rooming house. 

That is not correct. The Warren Report debunks that provenance of the metal file boxes as a false rumor. That false rumor has nothing to do with anything here. I believe you knew that and that this was just throwing more smoke on what is not complicated: that the seven metal boxes were Ruth Paine's and that the contents were Ruth Paine's phonograph records and personal papers, not Castro sympathizer surveillance records.

[Jeff Carter]

2 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

That is not correct. The Warren Report debunks that provenance of the metal file boxes as a false rumor. That false rumor has nothing to do with anything here. I believe you knew that and that this was just throwing more smoke on what is not complicated: that the seven metal boxes were Ruth Paine's and that the contents were Ruth Paine's phonograph records and personal papers, not Castro sympathizer surveillance records.

Warren Report p 666

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=946#relPageId=690

 

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

Commission finding - The Dallas police inventories of Oswald’s property taken from his room at 1026 North Beckley Avenue do not include any file boxes. 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 (f.124)

 

The footnote references an inventory list and Walthers’ testimony to Liebeler. What does not appear in the footnote, or Liebeler’s questioning, is the actual Supplementary Police Report dated 11/22/63, written by Walthers, which is the precise source of the so-called “speculation”. The omission of a reference to the actual police report is a red flag, as is the incorrect attribution to the rooming house, as is the inclusion of the number “seven” in the Warren Report’s description of the supposed “speculation” as that number nowhere appears in Walthers’ Supplementary Report.

[James DiEugenio]

This is almost funny.

GD is saying that one of the worst parts of the Commission, the Rumors and Speculations section is correct?

And he is questioning why Jeff would agree with it? 

 

 

[Greg Doudna]

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

This is almost funny.

GD is saying that one of the worst parts of the Commission, the Rumors and Speculations section is correct?

And he is questioning why Jeff would agree with it? 

Oh don't be ridiculous. It is correct that the metal boxes were not found in Oswald's room in Oak Cliff on N. Beckley. You don't claim or believe that yourself. That was my only point there.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

3 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

The Warren Report debunks that provenance of the metal file boxes as a false rumor.

It does indeed. These rumors and false statements have made up a significant part of the CT lexicon since the sixties. Many have been debunked-sometimes by other CTs. This allegation is just another one of these as Greg has shown.

For a lesson on how these get started, just look at the coverage of the Texas school shooting. I'm not going to go into details, but I can't remember the number of times me or my wife said, "they are changing their tune on that issue." The difference is, once something is corrected regarding the Texas matter, it is usually accepted. In the JFK case, once a genie is out of the bottle, it becomes a "fact" regardless. Of course, as I mentioned, this is not the case with all CTs and some (Pat Speer, Jeremy B., Greg Parker) have actively sought to clarify the record on certain issues.

[Greg Doudna]

deleted

Edited June 2, 2022 by Greg Doudna

[James DiEugenio]

This is why I have him and Tracy on ignore.

He just gave about everyone here the finger.

 

Edited June 2, 2022 by James DiEugenio

[Allen Lowe]

3 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

You are right on each of the three you name--Pat S., Jeremy B., and Greg Parker--each giants in my view--I have seen each make corrections including admitting personal error as well as error-checking other claims. That takes honesty and courage and doing the work of analytical reasoning. I have come to realize how errors in the JFK field, once begun, just are immortal, they never die, no matter what. Just by accident I got an email from someone today who is an unknown lurker reading the Education Forum:

Do you have any idea why the forum is still not accepting new members? It has been for some time for now. 

Sometimes it looks like a trench warfare,  nothing moves, too much of one versus the other and most have taken their stands. Makes me think about what Hegel said : "change occurs only when things are not isolated" (or something like that... I don't recall the exact words, but you get the picture).

A general impression is when it went wrong, it often went wrong on day 1 / or in the very first statement made on a subject. Next they start building a case on loose foundations.... and before you know it, others are building on top of that or leaning on it... Many many pages written on things that were never there in the first place.   

Everyone in the JFK CT community knows that 90% of what is said by CTs is wrong, with the only dispute being over which 90% is wrong and which 10% is right. So when LNers debunk 100% of CT arguments they are actually doing CTs a service on 90% of that, if one thinks about it, because the 90% of what is said by CT's that is wrong is no good for anyone.

Knowledgeable, civil LNers such as Tracy Parnell and Steve Roe on this forum should be preserved and protected as an endangered species for this reason. If there is no honest opposition, no informed cross-examination of theories, then things go haywire, into cult-feedback directions.  

As a result of my writings on Ruth Paine, some prominent LNers have come in contact with me, mainly through the networking of Paul Hoch, who to me is about as strong on documents and critical reasoning as there is. I do not agree with the LN interpretation of the JFK assassination. But it is ironic that it is almost a relief to read these leading LNers who discuss facts knowledgeably and civilly, so different from some levels of discourse of CTs I have experienced on this forum.

Let honest opponents always be valued and let productive discussions result in learning and growth.

Greg you are one of the worst offenders in this respect. The way you countered the claims about the Dean Andrews call, or Marina’s reference to Ruth as being in the CIA, was fantastically dishonest. You took speculation that was contradicted by actual testimony, and then tried to pass it off as truth. I honestly can’t read your work anymore, it is so ponderously  inaccurate. So please spare me a response to even this. I can’t get through your writing anymore. 

Edited June 2, 2022 by Allen Lowe

[Greg Doudna]

deleted

Edited June 2, 2022 by Greg Doudna

[James DiEugenio]

 Quoting GD:

1. Steve Roe should be preserved and protected because he is part of the honest opposition.

2. Paul Hoch is as strong on documents and critical reasoning as there is.

1. The last word I would use to describe what  Steve Roe did to Sebastian LaTona's testimony is "honest". Roe also fell for GD's attempt to undermine Stone's film by saying that Todd's initials were on CE 399. When even GD had to admit that was wrong, Roe would not let up.  He then presented a post saying that the chain of custody of CE 399 had actually been verified!  

That was and is impossible due to the testimony of Wright, and the fact that the FBI made 3 misrepresentations about the bullet.  First with Odum's recantation about identification, about Todd's initials, and about the time of its arrival.

After these two faux pas, Roe then tried to say that somehow LaTona's testimony did not say what he did actually say.  Namely that he went through the rifle, CE139, and attempted to attain prints of value.  He did all he could, even calling in his own photographer and doing all kinds of lighting techniques.  He could not find any. (WC V0l. 4, pp. 20-21) And contrary to what Frontline said, La Tona did have photos from the DPD. LaTona would have been a good witness for Oswald at trial.  Roe had one purpose in mind: to use so much spin as to distort his testimony almost beyond recognition. This is honest?  And let us not forget: steveroeconsulting?

2. I have no idea what GD is saying when he talks about Hoch and documents.  To my knowledge, Paul Hoch has not done any significant work on the JFK case in over three decades. That is important since the ARRB declassified piles of documents in that time period. I know since I read many of them; they were quite important. The only significant work I know of that Paul did on documents is an instance where he was wrong: that is about the Rubinstein memo to congress. (http://coverthistory.blogspot.com/2006/12/many-researchers-believe-that-document.html)  But the idea of placing Hoch as an archivist researcher with the likes of Malcolm Blunt, Peter Vea, or John Newman, that is simply ludicrous.  😂

As per critical reasoning: Paul Hoch was actually defending the work of Tom Canning, and he was doing it in the new millenium! Canning has been utterly demolished by many people, including Don Thomas and Pat Speer.  Canning was simply dishonest in his presentation of facts, like the location of the back wound in JFK. But this is how much Hoch wants to salvage the BS around CE 399. The question then becomes: Why? Especially in this day and age when the ARRB did so much to unearth things of genuine evidentiary value which alter the calculus of this case.

That is a question only Paul Hoch can answer.  And he is silent on the issue.

GD is really getting out there.

 

 

Edited June 2, 2022 by James DiEugenio

[Sandy Larsen]

2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

But the idea of placing Hoch as an archivist researcher with the likes of Malcolm Blunt, Peter Vea, or John Newman, that is simply ludicrous.

 

Jim,

I think that if a chicken accidentally typed out something agreeing with Greg Doudna's position, he'd place the chicken up there with the likes of Malcolm Blunt, Peter Vea, and John Newman.  😋

 

Edited June 2, 2022 by Sandy Larsen

[James DiEugenio]

😇

 

Or maybe a turkey?

[Kirk Gallaway]

There are questions that will never be satisfactorily answered about the Paines.

 

What started out years ago, at least by innuendo as a rush to judgment that the Paine's were in on a plot to murder the President has been backed off, and not one author has positively come out and said, in this case, Ruth Paine was in on a plot to kill the President. Now she's an unwilling accomplice, but that's  ambiguous.

 

But what Di Eugenio has at least alleged, is that  Ruth Paine found herself in an unwitting plot to assassinate the President and then chose to plant evidence for the plotters. If a person when confronted with that dilemma, was given the choice, then chose to go and aid the conspirators, they would then become an accessory after the fact to the killing of a U.S President. That's not an unwitting accomplice. That's a very conscious choice, and a very serious allegation. These elements of the research community seem to have settled in a safe position that's greatly ambiguous. There's a lot of ground between someone under some pressure and maybe not telling everything they know and consciously aiding the plotters. You better be sure you know what you're talking about.

 

But here I'll just take this "unwitting accomplice" narrative and merge it with the story RP's alleged spy work in Nicaragua which is a story that has been recycled for the maybe hundreds of times here in the past. 

 

To believe this story, you're supposing that Ruth retains her position as a CIA asset, even after you allege her being   an unwitting asset in what many believe here is the greatest coup ever engineered in the history of the U.S. If you really think RP was a spy. Do you have any idea what being that entails? It's actually a clandestine life style. Are you familiar with the term, "spycraft"?" Is the CIA wise to use such an asset with such a blown cover in their escapades to forward the Contra War in Nicaragua? If RP was somehow exposed in that role, as an asset of U.S. Intelligence, wouldn't it just a beeline to her involvement in the JFKA case, and open up that whole mess?

 

A mess that people, including Di Eugenio here are claiming the CIA brought down a U.S. President over? Causing the first President in the history to resign because of his alleged knowledge of the JFKA? Why in the world would they take  a chance of letting Ruth Paine run amuck in Nicaragua? Would such an agent really be out in the open writing copious notes, particularly with her previous exposure? Or would she probably do so in her own private moments before she went to bed for example. What kind of spy does that? Doesn't that strike you as a little phony?

 

So you think they were smart enough to a engineer coup to kill the POTUS? and stupid enough to let this accessory to the fact do this?  Is there any evidence from any previous statement that RP or MP or LHO would wanted JFK dead? You're alleging she's been framed into being an accomplice to the murdering of a President. If she found herself in such a circumstance to be an accessory to the assassination of JFK would she even choose to continue her involvement with the CIA?

 

But why would the CIA ask her? RP would have been told to lead as quiet a life as possible. Don't make waves. But in order to make this story plausible, we have to portray RP as some ideological zealot,who would ignore any sound clandestine protocols and inject herself into ongoing JFKA controversy again and again. Does it really  make sense?

 

What kind of devil daring person have you projected on RP to proceed with such bravado to be actively involved in confronting naysayers? What spy would do that?  How foolish would she be to go participate in the televised mock trial only to have people here chime in and castigate RP for "not liking LHO" as if that means anything. No matter what you think of RP, whether it''s a traitor, a spy, or a woman taking on a room mate. Who in the CIA or "Deep state" would advise her to do that?

 

 

So for those who believe Ruth Paine found herself an unwitting co conspirator in the Kennedy assassination, and peddle her as being an asset for the American backed Contra forces in Nicaragua. I’m just wondering, how was that done? Did the dialog go something like this?

 

"Deep state" To Ruth Paine: First off, Re: operation Camelot. We apologize We understood your surprise. It was touch and go for awhile, But you stood up very admirably for the agency and unflinchingly behind your mission to incriminate Lee Harvey Oswald despite pressures that even we couldn’t foresee, and your country owes you a debt they will never be able to repay.

 

Ruth Paine: Well...I ...did like President Kennedy, ...but I suppose it was the right thing to do to save the world from communism!

 

Deep State to Ruth Paine: Good girl! Though it’s been a number of years, we have another unique mission for someone of your specific background. As you know our anti government forces of liberty are now embroiled in a critical fight against the Communist Sandinista Nicaraguan government forces. The mission Ruth, should you choose to take it involves your usual cover as a Quaker relief worker into the remote Nicaraguan  jungle villages and gauging the communist government troop movements and whatever local knowledge you can garner and report back to the agency.

 

Ruth Paine: Well I...suppose.

 

Hey maybe Greg's proposals don't completely pan out either. But have you really given serious thought to what your Nicaragua story entails?

 

 

 

I would say for any "Buddy" in Dallas in 1963. I probably wouldn't believe a word he says.

heh heh

Edited June 2, 2022 by Kirk Gallaway

[Denny Zartman]

Kirk, Ruth Paine wasn't a spy, she was an asset. Theres a difference. An asset can live a regular life and be pressed into service when needed.

And there is nothing "greatly ambiguous" about the fact that she cold-called Truly and got Oswald his job at the TSBD. If you believe the conspirators just got lucky when placing Oswald in the building, that's your right, but few people are going to take you seriously. 

We have to sit through Greg's hogwash about Oswald requesting a job in a tall office building. Gee whiz, it sure makes sense then that he applied to be a baggage handler at an airport, since we all know baggage handlers work in tall buildings.

5 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

If RP was somehow exposed in that role, as an asset of U.S. Intelligence, wouldn't it just a beeline to her involvement in the JFKA case, and open up that whole mess?

Now you understand why she wasn't questioned by the HSCA and the ARRB.