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

[Sandy Larsen]

I wonder what Ruth's motivation was to do this film?

I want to watch the film, but I fear I'll vomit upon seeing Gerald Posner's face.

 

[Greg Doudna]

Bill Simpich already says no serious JFK researcher known to him thinks Ruth Paine was part of the plot to kill the president. As Bill Simpich says, he doesn't know anybody who thinks that. That's Simpich in the film. 

David Talbot, who wrote the JFK conspiracy book of books on Allen Dulles, concluded complete exoneration of Ruth Paine from suspicions that she was an operative. From David Talbot, The Devil's Chessboard: Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America's Secret Government (2015):

"Ruth's motives for getting tangled up in Lee and Marina's messy lives had nothing to do with Cold War strategems--her reasons were far more human than that." (p. 535)

"Ruth Paine has always scoffed at the idea that she played an intelligence role in the Oswald story. A visitor asked her point-blank if she had any contact with the CIA. 'Not that I'm aware of,' she laughed. This is true, as far as it goes. Ruth and her husband, Michael, were not the cloak-and-dagger type--they were too starry-eyed and idealistic for that. But they were the sort of people who would come to the attention of security agencies." (p. 536)

"Ruth Paine was not an operative herself, but there was a constellation of dark stars hovering all around her, even if she chose not to pay attention." (p. 537)

"Did [D. H.] Byrd and his associates in the national security field use Ruth Paine to maneuver Oswald into the Texas Book Depository by passing word of the job opening to her through her neighbor? Always looking for ways to help the distressed couple in her care, Ruth quickly tipped off Lee about the job. The earnest Quaker mght have payed a pivotal role in unknowingly sealing his fate." (p. 540)

"Appearing before the Warren Commission, Ruth and Michael Paine seemed confused and tentative when it came to assigning guilt to Oswald. They both agreed that while he was a man of headstrong convictions, he did not impress them as a dangerous sort and, like George de Mohrenschildt, they said Oswald rather liked Kennedy. 'I had never thought of him as a violent man,' Ruth testified. 'He had never said anything against President Kennedy. . . . There was nothing that I had seen about him that indicated a man with that kind of grudge or hostility.' Michael--a lean man with sensitive eyes and a soft, watery demeanor--seemed particularly at sea when he tried to make sense of Oswald. When Dulles asked him if he was convinced that Oswald was the assassin, Michael launched upon a rambling, only somewhat coherent reply winding up with this less-than-decisive conclusion: 'I never did discover--and it didn't quite make sense, but for the most part, I accept it, the common view that he did it.'" (p. 543) 

"In their immaculate innocence, the Paines played right into the hands of those who were manipulating Oswald." (p. 544)

"The Paines seemed to grow more convinced of Oswald's guilt over time but nowadays Michael is not as cocksure as Ruth. As he talked about those ancient, catastrophic days, he seemed bewildered, like someone trying to explain a conclusion he had survived long ago. He still wavered back and forth, just as he did with the Warren Commission. 'Oswald wanted to overthrow something, the enemies, capitalists, the oppressors ... he wanted action, and you had to be tough, brutal.' But then again... he liked Kennedy. 'Oh, he did! He said, "JFK is my favorite president."' Michael Paine still does not know what to think." (p. 545) 

[W. Tracy Parnell]

10 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:

It's funny that the only way people can make the statement false is by rewriting it.

The statement reads:

"Dozens of files related to the Paines remain classified."

Even if he is referring to tax files (which is improper since they cannot be released by law) the statement is false. No files are "classified." They are withheld or redacted. 

[W. Tracy Parnell]

The Assassination and Mrs. Paine-LHO Would Have Admitted Guilt? ~ W. Tracy Parnell (wtracyparnell.blogspot.com)

[Max Good]

Thanks, @Denny Zartmanand @Joseph McBride for the kind words.  I saw early on that the issue of the Paines seemed to hit a nerve with certain people.  The fact that Ruth has documented links to the CIA through her immediate family is very inconvenient for people who have an agenda to direct attention away from CIA.

Ruth is a public figure and a figure of historical significance.  She has chosen to continue doing interviews for nearly 60 years.  She is well aware of the suspicions and she is strong enough to handle it all.  Many people have remarked that the film treats Ruth with respect and allows her to respond effectively to the allegations.  I have even received excellent responses from thoughtful and honest people in the lone nut camp.

Some people would like to spread the idea my film is baseless, irresponsible character assassination.  Honest and rational people can tell that is not the case.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

50 minutes ago, Max Good said:

The fact that Ruth has documented links to the CIA through her immediate family is very inconvenient for people who have an agenda to direct attention away from CIA.

Here is a question for you. If my father worked for Ford Motor Company and my sister worked for Chrysler, does that prove that I worked for any car company? Also, if Ruth worked for the CIA, then they obviously made her paperwork disappear. Why didn't they do the same for her father and sister? Why let people like you come along and find it?

55 minutes ago, Max Good said:

Some people would like to spread the idea my film is baseless, irresponsible character assassination. 

I don't know if you are referring to me or not, but I am not saying that you are doing that. You are letting others in the film do it for you such as Sue Wheaton who you identify as a "peace activist" even though she is a conspiracy theorist and has authored articles against Ruth. 

My problems with the film will become apparent as my article series continues. But let me start with these. You say you are objective. But the book that "inspired" you was by Douglass. That is not an objective book by any measure and McAdams destroyed it BTW:

Washington Decoded: Unspeakably Awful

You say the film is objective but the LN argument is primarily carried by Ruth herself, Holland and McMillan. Of course, the whole point of the film is that Ruth is CIA so the attacks on her are evident. But after letting them comment for over an hour, you begin the silly process of trying to tie Holland and McMillan to the CIA and thereby diminish everything they have said up to that point. That is objectivity? I will have a blog post on this later.

Get this through your mind. PJM did not-I repeat, did not work for the CIA. If I remember correctly, she reported to the Domestic Contact Division-so did thousands and thousands of others-so what?  Regarding other conversations she had with certain individuals, as she mentioned to Summers, she had no way of knowing who was in the CIA and who wasn't. You provide no context for the claim that "she would write what the CIA wanted." You isolate that quote and ignore this one from the same document-"It would be important to avoid making her think that she was being used as a propaganda tool and expected to write what she is told. I don't think she would go along with that idea at all"

And similarly, you provide no context for the period she was moving in-late fifties to early sixties when everyone was an anti-communist. She very likely knew certain people could be CIA and undoubtedly cooperated with them as long as it didn't color her work and there is no real evidence that she wrote anything at their behest beyond the out of context statement you used.

Now, you say in interviews that it is "reasonable" to listen to the claims made in your film. Isn't it then just as "reasonable" to listen to the LN side and not belittle it with petty tricks as you do in the film?

I will give you credit for one thing. You let Ruth speak and when she does, she takes you apart. Amazing what common sense will do.

[Greg Doudna]

9 hours ago, Max Good said:

Thanks, @Denny Zartmanand @Joseph McBride for the kind words.  I saw early on that the issue of the Paines seemed to hit a nerve with certain people.  The fact that Ruth has documented links to the CIA through her immediate family is very inconvenient for people who have an agenda to direct attention away from CIA.

Ruth is a public figure and a figure of historical significance.  She has chosen to continue doing interviews for nearly 60 years.  She is well aware of the suspicions and she is strong enough to handle it all.  Many people have remarked that the film treats Ruth with respect and allows her to respond effectively to the allegations.  I have even received excellent responses from thoughtful and honest people in the lone nut camp.

Some people would like to spread the idea my film is baseless, irresponsible character assassination.  Honest and rational people can tell that is not the case.

Your bolded statement that "Ruth has documented links to the CIA" is simply not true, as you yourself said in the film:

"There are all kinds of claims and rumors about the Paines but no concrete evidence has ever directly linked them to the CIA. Most of the suspicions revolve around their immediate family."

The only documented link of a family member of Ruth to the CIA is her older sister, Sylvia Hoke, living in the Washington, D.C. area, who had some CIA overt employment which she apparently did not disclose to Ruth, and Sylvia's husband who although no evidence he ever was employed by CIA was a liaison to CIA with clearance in his non-CIA job. It is very likely Sylvia's overt CIA employment was in her field of human resources/personnel aptitude testing, nothing remotely related to assassination of a president or any other domestic operation. From what I have read on Quora, CIA employment was considered desirable employment, good on a credit application, etc. for people living in the Washington, D.C. area. That Sylvia's employment was overt, as is the majority of CIA employment from what I have read, and not covert, is indicated from one thing: the way this became known is because Sylvia was listed in 1961 as a CIA employee in the Falls Church, Virginia city directory!

I did some research in how city directories of that era got their information. It was from door-to-door canvassing, and if information could not be obtained that way, then was filled in sometimes from what neighbors reported. It can be safely assumed that if Sylvia's employment had been covert, she would not have told a door-to-door city directory canvasser or next-door neighbor who told the city directory people that, whichever it was. Then the question becomes did Ruth know of her sister's (overt) CIA employment. Ruth indicated she did not know (several times and occasions). I have read that it was common for CIA employees in the D.C. area, including overt ones (with no legal requirement to keep such employment secret) would "disguise" or "hide" such employment to outsiders simply because of reactions. My wife worked for a period of time for TSA as an airport screener. A lot of people did not like TSA security screening such that informally, she and colleagues would not tell people if asked that they worked for TSA. (Because of all the reactions and embarrassment, etc.) They would say some euphemism for government work, I forget exactly what, but it was a truthful but non-informative way of not saying "TSA". That appears to be the best explanation of Ruth not knowing of older sister Sylvia's overt CIA employment in the D.C. area, because Sylvia did not volunteer it to her pacifist Quaker younger sister from a different state. 

That's it for documented connections to CIA in Ruth's family--her sister employed in some overt capacity in the D.C. area, nothing to do with dirty ops. There is no documented link to CIA for Ruth at all, contrary to your wording. And her sister's employment with CIA was in all likelihood innocuous, and not even known to Ruth.

Her father worked for AID setting up insurance cooperatives and there is no evidence he was working for CIA in that, although certainty is not possible on that point, any more than for someone who was a Latter-day Saints missionary or served in the Peace Corps overseas. With thanks to a discussion with Robert Reynolds on this point, I believe simple odds and numbers favor Ruth's father not having been covert CIA contracted. In any case you cannot legitimately claim her father had a documented CIA connection since there is no evidence known or documentation for that.

That Ruth's mother-in-law's best friend was Allen Dulles' lover--Ruth never met Dulles or the lover--is pure coincidence, six-degrees-of-separation genre.   

It is therefore misrepresentation to claim Ruth Paine has documented links to the CIA when there is no evidence of any personal link to CIA work for Ruth, and the older sister employment--the only known immediate family member of Ruth who was employed by CIA is not something Ruth can reasonably be held responsible for as if Ruth is somehow suspicious by her sister taking sought-after employment in the D.C. area that Ruth likely did not even know. 

Instead of error-checking weak allegations against Ruth Paine, you present yourself as neutral but take sides against Ruth Paine. You refuse to answer the most legitimate question a documentary filmmaker could be asked--what is your source for your closing claim of dozens of classified files about the Paines being withheld by President Biden. You smear Ruth with that closing claim, the claim has been questioned, no one has been able to confirm what you are talking about there, and yet you will not say your source, apparently under any circumstances, to anyone.

[Kirk Gallaway]

But you have to understand Greg, your response while plausible, will be met with some skepticism, because it is rather weak. Typically, one would know where one's sister is employed. But a point made on the other hand, is that her sister's employment was never a secret. I have no figures on it, but the CIA is a huge organization, that I'd assume a relatively small number work in a covert capacity.

Of course, then you have to ask. Why would CIA asset, RP risk exposure and  lie about something that was public knowledge? Even if you think RP was lying about her family ties to the CIA, whatever side you're on, your arguments are weak.

Edited June 16, 2022 by Kirk Gallaway

[Greg Doudna]

17 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

But you have to understand Greg, your response while plausible, will be met with some skepticism, because it is rather weak. Typically, one would know where one's sister is employed. But a point made on the other hand, is that her sister's employment was never a secret. I have no figures on it, but the CIA is a huge organization, that I'd assume a relatively small number work in a covert capacity.

Of course, then you have to ask. Why would CIA asset, RP risk exposure and  lie about something that was public knowledge? Even if you think RP was lying about her family ties to the CIA, whatever side you're on, your arguments are weak.

Sylvia I think was ten years older than Ruth, not close in age. I have always been close to my brother but he does not tell me everything about his life; he's just his own private person and I respect that. I do not know whether Sylvia told Ruth of her CIA employment but is is not implausible to me that she might not. To suppose Sylvia did tell Ruth and Ruth dissembled to Garrison under oath is I suppose possible but Ruth is not known to have testified falsely under oath otherwise, and I do not see exactly why she would in this case if she knew. Michael Paine also seemed not to know of any CIA employment of Sylvia. In any case my point was Sylvia's employment in D.C. is like my sister-in-law is career Air Force (nurse). It does not mean I am connected to the Air Force. Same with Ruth Paine's older sister taking overt CIA employment in D.C. What I find disheartening is a witchhunt mentality when it comes to Ruth Paine, in which unsubstantiated allegations are considered evidence that something must be amiss with her above the level of normal human frailties, instead of maybe the reason none of the allegations have been substantiated is because they never were true to begin with.

[Cory Santos]

I have not seen it yet but has anyone asked her why she did not disclose her sister’s status?

Edited June 17, 2022 by Cory Santos

[Greg Doudna]

14 minutes ago, Cory Santos said:

I have not seen it yet but has anyone asked her why she did not disclose her sister’s status?

Cory I think the answer to that is she did not disclose Sylvia's CIA employment because she says she was not aware of a CIA employment of Sylvia to disclose. Here is Ruth asked about Sylvia in the film.

Good: This is some sort of CIA declassified document about your sister? (hands Ruth paper) (Ruth reading it)

Ruth: Yeah, OK, its possible.

Narrator: Researchers have determined that Ruth’s sister, Sylvia Hoke, worked as a psychologist for the CIA, likely beginning in 1954. The document indicates that she was still working there as of 1961.

Ruth: She had studied psychology I guess, and she was helping to develop tests of intelligence that didn’t involve language. Because they wanted to get bright people working in the oil fields. So that’s all I know about what she did.

There is a misstatement of fact in the above: the claim that Sylvia Hoke worked for the CIA since 1954. In fairness to Max Good this is not an error he invented but is reflected in published sources. But there is no evidence Sylvia Hoke worked for CIA since 1954 and there is also no evidence Sylvia Hoke ever was employed in a covert status with CIA. Statements that appear in books that Sylvia had a "covert CIA" position since 1954 with a "cover" employment in the Placement and Employee Relations Division, US Air Force, are wrong--that employment was simply US Air Force as it stands and had nothing to do with being covert CIA. The reason the 1954 date entered JFK researcher discourse is because of a document, a CIA memo instructing a CIA file to be newly opened on Sylvia Hoke. An NARA typed cover sheet says that CIA memo is dated 6/15/55 (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=13103#relPageId=1). However that date is not correct. 

The document itself--the memo--I have studied it and I am certain the handwritten date reads "6/15/59" and was misread by NARA, the final "9' misread as "5" by mistake, by some data entry person who prepared the NARA cover sheet (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=13103#relPageId=2). To my knowledge this date error has gone unnoticed and uncorrected until now. 

From what I have read application for employment with CIA is notoriously a lengthy process, typically involving a year of background checks and investigation before a decision is received on an application for employment. I believe the CIA opening of the file on Sylvia Hoke in 1959 was related to an application for employment. I interpret the timeline as she expressed interest in CIA employment (overt, D.C. area) in 1959, and after the ca. 1-year background checking the employment itself would have begun ca. 1960, in time for reference to that employment to appear in the 1961 Falls Church, Va., city directory.

After opening its file on Sylvia Hoke in 1959, CIA obtained (as part of its background checking for the employment application) FBI documents of an FBI security investigation of 1956-57 that had involved Sylvia Hoke (over allegations that Sylvia's mother-in-law was a communist and was Sylvia too?), which in turn prompted an investigation by the Air Force (OSI) of its employee Sylvia. Those documents from those two investigations are from earlier than 1959, but copies of those documents came into the CIA file on Sylvia after the CIA file was opened in 1959. 

There is no information known to me of duration of that employment for Sylvia. It is not even clear that when Ruth Paine visited Sylvia and John Hoke in the summer of 1963 that Sylvia was employed by CIA at the time Ruth visited her. She may have been, but not known for certain.

The city directory information indicates Sylvia was so employed in 1961 (overt, D.C. area) but is not so listed in the next issue of that directory in 1963. I verified the city directory information. There are only several libraries in the US which have copies of that particular directory, one of which is the Library of Virginia in Richmond. About a month ago I phoned that library and through the kindness of a reference librarian verified this information (I asked her to look up 1961 and the next one published in 1963):

Dear Mr. Doudna, 

The Hill's Falls Church (Fairfax County, VA) City Directory for 1961 includes the following entries for the surname Hoke:

 

Hoke, Carroll C (Janet L) carrier P O h414 S Virginia av

Hoke, Hubert H (Ruth J) slsmn Gordon Realty h2030 Annandale rd (Adale)

Hoke, John (Sylvia) emp US Govt h523 Monticello dr (Fax Co)

Hoke, Sylvia Mrs emp CIA r523 Monticello dr (Fax Co)

 

The  Hill's Falls Church (Fairfax County, VA) City Directory for 1963 includes only one entry for the surname Hoke:

 

Hoke, Carroll C (Janet L) carrier P O h414 S Virginia 

 

Lisa Wehrmann

Library Reference Services

Library of Virginia 

Ruth Paine would have known nothing of the 1961 city directory listing. Unless Sylvia or John Hoke volunteered to Ruth or other family members that Sylvia was employed by CIA--as opposed to telling of Sylvia's employment in some form that did not involve the initials "CIA"--Ruth could very well not have known. In the absence of information to the contrary, I take Ruth and Michael at their word that they were unaware of Sylvia's CIA employment, based on this from Alan Weberman:

"Sylvia Hyde Hoke was contacted on November 22, 1993. She was asked if she had ever worked for the CIA: 'No, I'm not going to answer any questions. I refuse to give interviews.' Ruth Paine was questioned about her sister: 'I would doubt it seriously. When I asked her if she worked for the government she said she did statistical work for the Air Force. It's very unlikely and something I never heard from her. It's unknown to me.'

"Michael Paine was asked about Sylvia Hyde Hoke's connection to the CIA. Michael Paine: 'I don't believe it. It is not true. I don't remember what her occupation was. I had no idea this was the case. Ask Ruth, what does she say? If it was true, it had no bearing on the Kennedy assassination.'" (Weberman, The Oswald Code [2014], 245)

[Joseph McBride]

I thought Greg considered it unimportant whether

Sylvia worked for the CIA or not. I guess he

does think it's an important issue.

[Greg Doudna]

For so long, going all the way back to Garrison, Ruth Paine has been pilloried by members of this community on the allegation that she has family connections to the CIA with the logic that that makes her suspicious and therefore q.e.d. guilty. That core logic is the most central thesis and underpinning in the film of what Max Good calls the conspiratorial persuasion concerning Ruth Paine which he favors in the film. I am not the one who did this whole history and reality internal to this community of McCarthyism-logic allegations against Ruth Paine which in the end have as their one documented fact her older sister's employment choice in D.C., hardly different from anyone with an older sibling with a life of their own enlisting in one of the branches of the armed forces to be employed in the bureaucracy. Ruth had nothing to do with that and it appears did not even know. Sylvia's employment has no obvious importance with respect to Ruth but the problem is some people think so.

Edited June 17, 2022 by Greg Doudna

[W. Tracy Parnell]

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

[James DiEugenio]

If you want to see something really off kilter, take a look at this Sylvia Hyde Hoke issue while reading Ruth's testimony before the New Orleans grand jury.

It is really something to read.  We are to believe that Ruth did not know what her sister did for a living, and in fact, did not even know where she lived.

IMO, it is difficult to explain this exchange benignly.  Worse case scenario is she simply did not want Garrison to locate her.