"The Assassination & Mrs. Paine" comes out this month

[Greg Doudna]

3 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:

The barber shop story certainly is mysterious. I don't really know what to make of it other than that it was one of a series of impersonations or schemes to implicate Oswald ahead of time. In some aspects the barber shop story resembles the Odio incident.

The Hootkins identification for the kid only works if it really was Oswald, not an impersonator. If it was an impersonator then the kid was not Hootkins.

I have in preparation and will be writing up shortly (not on this thread) what I believe is a breakthrough in identification of that barber shop "Oswald" of Shasteen. It was not Oswald, and the car that man drove which Shasteen thought was Ruth Paine's was not Mrs. Paine's (and the kid not Hootkins)--Shasteen was mistaken. I think I can propose an identification of the vehicle, its driver, and the kid which will make sense of that episode. 

And there is no reason to suppose impersonation either. At no point is there even a claim that Shasteen's customer represented himself as Oswald. 

[Sean Coleman]

51 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

The Hootkins identification for the kid only works if it really was Oswald, not an impersonator. If it was an impersonator then the kid was not Hootkins.

I have in preparation and will be writing up shortly (not on this thread) what I believe is a breakthrough in identification of that barber shop "Oswald" of Shasteen. It was not Oswald, and the car that man drove which Shasteen thought was Ruth Paine's was not Mrs. Paine's (and the kid not Hootkins)--Shasteen was mistaken. I think I can propose an identification of the vehicle, its driver, and the kid which will make sense of that episode. 

And there is no reason to suppose impersonation either. At no point is there even a claim that Shasteen's customer represented himself as Oswald. 

Look forward to that Greg, don’t forget LHO’s Mexican silk slippers! Can’t see the future assassin of the world’s most powerful leader hanging round with kids and mincing around in comfy footwear while visiting the hairdresser….but hey ho, we’re all allowed a bit of downtime every now and then 

[James DiEugenio]

19 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:

I'd like to read that piece by Bill Simpich. I respect his work. I'm always curious to learn more about these Oswald encounters.

The barber shop story certainly is mysterious. I don't really know what to make of it other than that it was one of a series of impersonations or schemes to implicate Oswald ahead of time. In some aspects the barber shop story resembles the Odio incident.

One of the many things that caught my eye in the articles @James DiEugenio posted was the theory that the backyard photos might have been originally created to implicate Oswald in the Walker attempted shooting. Do you or James have an opinion on that?

I can't help but wonder if that might be a clue to the Mauser/Carcano mystery.

No I don't have an opinion on that one Denny.  I just don't know if that was the purpose.

[James DiEugenio]

Sean:

I don't know if you are aware of this, but GD already went back and forth on the Hootkins thing with Greg Parker.  And I mean, it went back and forth. GD actually was arguing that Lee's 14 year old friend was Wesley Frazier who happened to be 19.

If you want me to link to it I can.

Edited June 26, 2022 by James DiEugenio

[Greg Doudna]

The kid certainly was not Wesley Frazier. Nothing to do with present argument. I repudiated that conjecture long ago. No relevance to present argument.  

[Sean Coleman]

9 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Sean:

I don't know if you are aware of this, but GD already went back and forth on the Hootkins thing with Greg Parker.  And I mean, it went back and forth. GD actually was arguing that Lee's 14 year old friend was Wesley Frazier who happened to be 19.

If you want me to link to it I can.

Yes, pls provide link- many thanks 

 

[Gene Kelly]

Denny

That's an interesting thought, that the BYP were created to somehow complement the Walker shooting. To address your question about the backyard pictures, I would recommend reading the analysis done by Jeff Carter ("A new look at the enigma of the Backyard Photographs, Parts 1-3", July 2015, Kennedys and King).  The timing of all of this is certainly interesting. Marina testified that sometime after March 27, but prior to April 10th, Oswald posed for two pictures with his recently acquired rifle and pistol, a copy of the March 24, 1963, issue of the Worker, and the March 11, 1963, issue of the Militant.  And on April 13th - just three days after Oswald's alleged attempt on the life of Walker (for which the police had no suspects) - George and Jeanne de Mohrenschildt visited the Oswalds' apartment. Jeanne allegedly saw a rifle which was to be later linked with another inscribed "hunter of fascists" photo.  Shortly after the contrived Walker incident, de Mohrenschildt moved to Haiti where he remained in a lower profile for four years.  It's an involved and convoluted story, so bear with me as I lay it all out ... 

According to Jeff Carter, whomever was responsible for the backyard photos was "known to Oswald, was known to Ruth Paine, had something to do with the Walker 'assassination attempt', and had a hand in setting up Oswald as the patsy".  In Jeff's keen analysis, all items within the photos were deliberately chosen by the forgers, including the odd inclusion on the Oswald figure of a pistol (invoking the Tippit slaying). Carter speculates that perhaps a shootout with the pistol-carrying assassin was the anticipated (planned) story in order to eliminate Oswald after the assassination. 

After the shot fired on April 10th, Walker implied to reporters that same evening that a domestic communist had done it (the “other side”) and criticized the Kennedys for downplaying the nation’s 'internal threat' responsible for the shot which had narrowly missed him. Some believe that the shot may have been a stunt with the approval of Walker (e.g., Gayle Nix Jackson, "Pieces of the Puzzle"), not the only such publicity stunt he attempted. Walker's accusations created problems for the initial DPD investigators in April, and the only unlikely suspect identified was one William Duff, a former roommate.

As the Walker story later plays out, on November 30th, Ruth Paine sent to Marina (via the police) the Russian housekeeping book. The police in turn handed it over (along with a childcare book Ruth had also found) to the Secret Service, who still had Marina in “protective custody” at that point. On December 2nd - just three days before the FBI issued their report on the assassination to AG Katzenbach - the Secret Service discovers the unsigned and undated note written in very poor Russian. When first interviewed by FBI agent James Hosty on December 2nd, Marina initially claimed to have no prior knowledge of the note (untranslated at this point), which was in a cellophane envelope tucked between the pages of a book aptly called "The Book of Useful Advice".  But her story would soon change... 

When the entire story is pieced together, it seems that the letter was needed because at the time, the ballistics evidence was not conclusive in the case against Oswald, and officials (i.e., the FBI) were relying on Marina's testimony to incriminate him. Under questioning, Marina translated the note, and subsequently confirmed (under threat of deportation) that her husband had written it ... and that Lee confessed to her (back in April) that he was the one who had made the attempt on Walker’s life. The FBI interrogators were instructed to “bear down on her” and sent an INS agent to Fort Worth to join the FBI team, to impress upon Marina the deportation threat if she didn't cooperate.

Five days after Ruth provided the damming Walker Note, she was visited by two Secret Service agents who returned the unsigned note, since they apparently thought it was from her. As pointed out in an April 2015 EF thread on the provenance of this note, it's difficult to believe that Marina, a child of the Stalinist era (and erstwhile KGB accomplice) would squirrel away such an incriminating note (penned in Russian) for safekeeping in a cookbook.

Its notable that one of the first published accounts raising a connection between Oswald and the Walker shooting came from the one and only Michael Paine, who was quoted in the Saturday November 23rd issue of the Houston Post as suggesting that Oswald may have been involved.  Carol Hewett insightfully wrote that

"Michael Paine's ESP must have been at work again considering that there were no new facts known to the public at the time the paper went to press that could remotely lead to an association between the two crimes" (see "The Paines Know: Lurking in the Shadows of the Walker Shooting” by Carol Hewett. Probe November 1997). 

Further, if you closely follow Michael Paine’s rambling WC testimony, it mentions Walker’s name quite frequently. Walker was also the subject of conversations between Oswald and Michael in both the Spring and Fall of 1963 ... Michael later (and predictably) downplayed these conversations, characterizing them as "“few in number and benign in nature”. Carol Hewett concludes that the Paines knew more about the Walker affair than they ever revealed to the authorities.

Marina later stood behind her questionable story - that her husband was responsible for the Walker shooting - during her WC testimony.  However, according to Hewett, she took the story one step further, stating that Lee had told her that both of the Paines knew that he had taken a shot at General Walker (perhaps throwing them under bus, since they had since dissociated themselves from Marina).  The Paines both denied that Lee told them of his attempt on Walker's life, but if that allegation were true, it begs the question of why they continued to associate with the Oswalds. Marina does not state when the Paines learned of Oswald's role because she was not asked this obvious follow-up question. Marina told the following story:

Mr. RANKIN Before you told the Commission about the Walker shooting, and your knowledge, did you tell anyone else about it?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, to the members of the Secret Service and the FBI.
Mr. RANKIN. Did you tell your mother-in-law?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, I also told his mother about it.
Mr. RANKIN. When did you tell his mother about the incident?
Mrs. OSWALD. After Lee was arrested, on Saturday--he was arrested on Friday. I don't remember when I met with his mother--whether it was on the same Friday--yes, Friday evening. I met her at the police station. From there we went to Ruth Paine's where I lived at that time. And she remained overnight, stayed overnight there. I had a photograph of Lee with the rifle, which I gave. At that time, I spoke very little English. I explained as best could about it. And that is why I showed her the photograph. And I told her that Lee had wanted to kill Walker.

This suggests an entire new line of inquiry ... that the Paines were somehow complicit in the Walker shooting, getting Oswald out of Dallas following the shooting.  Ruth had just gotten Marina under her wing, perhaps in anticipation of Oswald's arrest for the Walker attempt.  Carol Hewett points out Ruth's prescient assertion on April 7th - that she feared Marina was to be forced back to Russia - which showed "amazing foresight", considering that Oswald apparently feared that he would be arrested on April 10th or shortly thereafter (per the unsigned Russian note).  Carol suggests that Ruth shared the same capacity for ESP that her husband Michael had.

The Warren Commission later had problems with this unsigned/undated letter and the Walker story in general. WC General Counsel Rankin wrote Hoover a 6-page letter complaining that Marina's testimony on the Walker shooting was full of contradictions and was giving the lawyers "fits".  Rankin laid out six areas that needed clarification and asked that Marina be requestioned. Apparently, all parties were trying to get the cover story to be consistent.  However, an internal FBI memo stated that the FBI could not establish whether Oswald made an attempt on Walker's life. The story gets even better, as Carol Hewett's article points out, where the Warren Commission almost forgot to question Ruth about this damming note.  But Ruth didn't let that happen. Towards the end of her lengthy testimony on March 21, 1964, she points out to Albert Jenner:

RUTH: You have not yet asked me if I had seen anything of a note purported to be written by Lee at the time of the attempt on Walker. And I might just recount that for you if it is of any importance.  

JENNER: Yes, l wish you would.

I have posted previously that the entire Walker story comes across as a stage act, designed to divert attention towards Oswald. It also put radical right factions on their heels, by drawing them into the milieu of suspects.  The April 10th event appears theatrical, and Walker strikes one as a pathetic figure ... certainly not a plotter, but rather a marker that leads to the plot. However, what is intriguing is the connectivity of Ruth and Michael Paine to Walker. The so called "Walker note", the surveillance photo of Walker's house, and their frequent references in various statements to General Walker ... all derive from Ruth and Michael Paine. As one researcher wrote: "the entire put-upon Quaker charity, Good Samaritan act wears thin in the face of such coincidences".

One of Oswald's suspect biographers (Edward Epstein) paints a misleading picture of Oswald by attributing the unsuccessful shot at Walker and the murder of Kennedy to Lee and characterizing him as a sociopath. According to John Armstrong, Epstein (an Angleton acolyte) "propagates and embellishes the legend of the Walker shooting and the celebrated backyard photograph of Oswald ... the one with a date and handwriting (in Cyrillic) on the back". Further, following George's de Mohrenschildt's coincidental 'suicide' (as the HSCA investigation was closing in), Epstein conveniently employed a handwriting expert who:

“... immediately identified both the dating and the inscription as Oswald's writing concluded the Russian printing on reverse side was consistent with Marina's handwriting”. 

Oswald’s 7-week residency at Neely St. (starting on March 2nd) was mythicized as the "crucial phase in the history of his alleged penchant for political assassination".  This is a period of time when, purportedly, he acquired a rifle and a pistol, posed with the weapons for the infamous backyard photos, attempted to kill Walker, and even thought of making an attempt on the life of Richard Nixon ... and then hastily moved to New Orleans to allegedly (according to Ruth Paine) avoid prosecution. Per researcher William Turner, the individuals behind this faux shooting (Volkmar Schmidt and Company) also had a hand in the "Wanted for Treason" posters that became prominent in Dallas (another overt head fake designed to focus attention on radical militant groups, and away from the true sponsors). The Walker shooting therefore smacks of misdirection, orchestrated by people associated with Michael and Ruth Paine, and George de Mohrenschildt.

The timing of all of this is particularly fascinating, if one has the patience to pull it altogether.  Lee is fired from his job at Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall on April 1st, allegedly takes a pot shot at Walker on April 10th, files for unemployment on April 12, then decides to move to New Orleans (Ruth drives him to the bus station on April 24th). Meanwhile, George de Mohrenschildt leaves Dallas on April 19th, travelling first to New York and Philadelphia, making preparations for his trip to Haiti. On March 13, 1963, he had concluded a questionable contract with the Haitian Government, which guaranteed $285,000 for a "survey" … $20 thousand in cash, with the remainder to be paid out in a 10-year concession on a sisal plantation.  There were at least two cover stories for this venture: a Haitian-approved “geological survey” and a contemplated exploration of sisal and hemp plantation purchases or leases.

Coming full circle - consistent with the social networking theory six degrees of separation - the HSCA later questioned a possible association between George De Mohrenschildt and William Avery Hyde (Ruth's father). The two performed similar work for the State Department, and both Hyde and De Mohrenschildt traveled on assignments abroad as consultants, gathering information and reports passed on to the CIA. Contracts for both the International Cooperative Alliance (CLUSA in the states) and the International Cooperative Administration (ICA) were coordinated through AID in the State Department. Both men developed an expertise in Latin America. (see “William Avery Hyde” by Barbara LaMonica, November 1997, The Fourth Decade).  Fourteen years after the assassination, the HSCA interviewed Marina. Notably, before she agreed to the interview, Marina insisted on a grant of immunity. Her testimony was full of contradictions, and the Committe wrote: 

"When combined with the other testimony linking Oswald to the shooting (whose testimony has all the weight of a handful of chicken feathers), we regretfully refuse to accept the judgment of the Commission in regard to the Walker shooting, hoping that its prides and prejudices were a result of error and not expedience."

Last (and not least), what convinces me of Ruth Paine's complicity is an interesting observation by those who have spoken to her in past years. Whenever she meets with individuals who wish to talk to her about the assassination, she first asks for their position on the Walker shooting. ... she apparently will only talk seriously with those who accept that Lee tried to kill General Walker. You just can't make this type of story up ... as Mark Twain once said:

“Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't.”

Gene

PS. Here are references to investigative work associated with this Walker story: 

1. Bill Simpich, The JFK Case: The Twelve Who Built the Oswald Legend (Part 11: The Paines Carry the Weight)
2. Linda Minor, who published a multi-part series on the Paines in 2014
3. Cited articles by Carol Hewett, Barbara Lamonica, Jeff Carter
4. Books authored by George Michael Evica, Jim DiEugenio and Jim Douglass, 

 

Edited June 26, 2022 by Gene Kelly

[W. Tracy Parnell]

The Assassination and Mrs. Paine-JFK and Vietnam ~ W. Tracy Parnell (wtracyparnell.blogspot.com)

[Stephanie Goldberg]

Hi!  It's been awhile since I've been here, but I was sure that there would be a discussion thread on this film.  I actually came over here to post my belated response to watching the film, but then I found myself caught up in reading all of the posts in this thread.

So, first and foremost, I wish to congratulate the maker(s) of this film.  Great job!  I don't think I've seen anything that deals with Ms. Paine in such detail.  I definitely haven't seen anything that does such a good job of giving both sides of the story.  I also think this film does a great job of presenting the material for people who aren't as familiar with every detail of the existing research.  Even my husband - and his eyes tend to glaze over when I start discussing history - paid attention  from start to finish.

To briefly touch on some of the comments in this thread about the film, I honestly had to go back and rewatch the film before I posted here just to make sure we were discussing the same material.  I cannot see how this film is in any way critical of Ruth Paine.  For better or for worse, she is permanently attached to the JFK assassination story.  In the context of this historical event, Ruth Paine is a semi-public personality.  She has made numerous public appearances over the years in this context.  She has not made herself a private figure in this saga. 

Any thinking person would see that there are a plethora of coincidences which revolve around the Paine household while she was in contact with Marina and Lee.  I believe she says something very similar in this film, so I'm not sure how it can be seen as any way derogatory to her or her version of events.  The film even seems to go out of its way to emphasize that she should not be considered a person of interest in the assassination itself. 

Regardless of opinion of her involvement - or lack thereof - in those events, the film is very fair and balanced.  Again, congratulations to the filmmaker and his team!

 

 

 

[W. Tracy Parnell]

10 hours ago, Stephanie Goldberg said:

I cannot see how this film is in any way critical of Ruth Paine.

I don't think you have read "all" the posts here.

The Assassination and Mrs. Paine-LN Experts Diminished? ~ W. Tracy Parnell (wtracyparnell.blogspot.com)

Max Good himself is careful not to criticize Ruth-he lets the others do it for him. Then, he accuses her defenders of being "CIA." Of course, the whole point of the film is that she is in the CIA or at least an asset.

Good is now selling his full interview with Salandria for an additional fee. Perhaps he will include interviews with Posner, Holland and McMillan as well as Ruth so we can see what they really told him?

[Max Good]

Thanks, Stephanie!  I'm so glad you and your husband appreciated the film.  My aim was to reach an audience beyond those of us who are already steeped in the research, so I'm especially happy that your husband found it interesting enough to stay engaged.

Your conclusion that the film is fair and factual seems to be shared by the vast majority of viewers.  And you are right, when I asked Ruth, "Do you see why people take these connections as being suspicious?" her response was, "Sure.  Yeah."

One can argue that the suspicious facts around Ruth don't amount to a convincing case against her forthrightness, but to say that there are no suspicious facts surrounding the Paines or that every one can easily be "debunked" is "beyond the pale," as Peter Jennings would say.

I would also venture to say that giving a full airing of these suspicions and allowing Ruth to respond is a more respectful tribute to the complexity of her experience with the assassination than to ignore them or laugh them off as the paranoid delusions of a few wacky conspiracy theorists.

[Tom Gram]

3 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

I don't think you have read "all" the posts here.

The Assassination and Mrs. Paine-LN Experts Diminished? ~ W. Tracy Parnell (wtracyparnell.blogspot.com)

Max Good himself is careful not to criticize Ruth-he lets the others do it for him. Then, he accuses her defenders of being "CIA." Of course, the whole point of the film is that she is in the CIA or at least an asset.

Good is now selling his full interview with Salandria for an additional fee. Perhaps he will include interviews with Posner, Holland and McMillan as well as Ruth so we can see what they really told him?

Hi Tracy. Why do you think that Good was unfair with Holland? He let Holland bring up and explain that the CIA thing was just him entering and winning a writing contest, and that was that. I just don’t see where you are getting that Good implied that Holland “will write whatever the CIA wants if they pay him enough.” 

The most effective “criticism” of Holland came from Holland himself stating that a coup etc. couldn’t happen in America, which made him look like a naive polemicist instead of a journalist. Good could have ran with that, and displayed some of Holland’s more unfortunate statements on the assassination, e.g. “passing controversy over the President's autopsy..had been fairly easily resolved”, but he didn’t.  

Good let Holland speak for himself and did nothing to impugn his credibility. I’m not sure what else you expected. He did not accuse Holland of being CIA, and Holland was pretty effective in addressing the accusations of others. If Holland still came across as a government apologist that’s his own fault, IMO. 

[W. Tracy Parnell]

1 hour ago, Tom Gram said:

Hi Tracy. Why do you think that Good was unfair with Holland? He let Holland bring up and explain that the CIA thing was just him entering and winning a writing contest, and that was that. I just don’t see where you are getting that Good implied that Holland “will write whatever the CIA wants if they pay him enough.” 

First, he is unfair to Holland and McMillan by letting them operate as experts for most of the film and then tearing them down with the CIA accusations (which I refer to as a diminishment). He does let Holland reply but he says "I took the money because it was $1000." That implies (to me anyway) that Holland will work for the CIA for money. And the accusations against McMillan and Ruth make it clear that he doesn't believe any of them regarding their alleged CIA connections. He also shows Holland getting his gun out (presumably a Carcano) as if he might be a part-time assassin.

That is Good's genius IMO, everything he does is subtle and whenever possible he lets others do the outright accusing (and there are many who are willing). He is always saying things like "some people say..." but it is clear if you listen to his current promotional interviews as I have done that he is one of those people. But I will admit, it is very cleverly done. Of course, all of this is just my opinion.

[Joseph McBride]

"He does let Holland reply but he says 'I took the money because it was $1000.' That implies (to me anyway) that Holland will work for the CIA for money."

Um, yeah, you could draw that inference. It's like the old joke:

"We've established what you are. We're just haggling over the price."

Keep the laughs a-comin', W. Tracy.

There is more on Holland and the CIA that could have

been included in the film, but you just deny everything, even

if someone admits it.

Edited June 28, 2022 by Joseph McBride

[Paul Cummings]

Well I bought the film and watched it twice and thought it was solid. Ruth Paine hasn't changed much over the years on what she has told various media. It's been consistent and that's amazing considering how old she is today. There's several areas where I felt like she was giving as much information as she could based up until November 22, 1963. I think she and her husband after November 22, 1963 where able to connect the rest of the dots about how they were potentially used.  As for the interviewer one of the questions I would have asked Ruth did you provide any income in the 1963 calendar year to your household.