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

[Greg Doudna]

 

On 6/17/2022 at 11:37 AM, James DiEugenio said:

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.

Case in point of witchhunt mentality which is a blight on the JFK research community. Ruth's only occasion visiting Sylvia at that address no doubt involved following telephoned driving instructions of which interstate exits to take to get there. Proceed now to the following evidence of Ruth's perfidy. 

Q. While you were in Washington did you go to Virginia at all?

A. If I did I was visiting my sister, but I am trying to recall where she might have been at the time [1963, five years earlier]. I do recall she lived in a kind of rented place before John got back, whether that was in '63 I don't remember.

Q. Which town in Virginia would that have been.

A. Its all sort of the fringe of Washington.

Q. Washington suburbs.

A. Yes. Whether it was Virginia, it could have been Maryland. I just don't remember.

Q. Was it Arlington, McLean, one of those towns?

A. Yes, a double name like Falls Church, or something like that. Its pretty vague.

If not remembering driving directions on a vacation stopover from five years earlier isn't enough to prove Ruth Paine’s depravity, nothing will, right?

And not even remembering what state Falls Church was in in the D.C. area from five years earlier? Well that just cinches it doesn’t it. 

This looks like a Rorschach Inkblot method of criminal investigation, where sinister meaning is seen in mundane happenings surrounding the accused, from a long line of proud inquisitors and witch hunters. 

The rest of DiEugenio’s series of accusations of Ruth Paine upon examination are about equally well founded as this one, which is to say: zero evidence that Ruth Paine committed wrongdoing or was other than who she said she was, mixed with Rorschach Inkblot interpretations collected from past articles, stir thirty minutes until done, cooked to order.

It is a travesty, a breakdown in critical reasoning faculties. 

[Joseph McBride]

We can stipulate that (1) witches do not exist (if you mean witches

with supernatural powers) and (2)

Ruth Paine therefore is not a witch.

Edited June 19, 2022 by Joseph McBride

[Greg Doudna]

Metaphor.

[James DiEugenio]

As Joe noted on Facebook, Ruth said in 1964 in an article with Jessamyn West that she was glad that Ruby shot Oswald.

Recall, Oswald never had a lawyer. 

Wade is telling the world he is guilty anyway. Whew.

 

Edited June 19, 2022 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

Here is Joe's very interesting FB posting:

What helped shape Ruth’s myth as a Quaker do-gooder was a key Redbook profile (“Prelude to Tragedy: The woman who sheltered Lee Oswald’s family tells her story," July 1964) by Jessamyn West, the fellow Quaker and prominent author of THE FRIENDLY PERSUASION (the source of the film FRIENDLY PERSUASION). West's article set the media tone for how Ruth was treated as a kindly Quaker woman motivated purely by charity (it is a precursor of Thomas Mallon’s absurd whitewash of a book, titled with inadvertent suggestiveness MRS. PAINE'S GARAGE: AND THE MURDER OF JOHN F. KENNEDY). Ruth has admitted she thought it was “simpler” that Lee was killed but that was not “really a good thought,” and she made an ever harsher comment in the West profile. West was a second cousin of fellow Quaker Richard Nixon. I found that Redbook was owned by the McCall Corporation, whose president was Marvin Pierce. He was the father of Barbara Pierce Bush, the wife of the already CIA-connected George H. W. Bush (as I revealed, along with his role in the Kennedy assassination coverup, in my 1988 Nation articles and discuss in my book INTO THE NIGHTMARE). So this profile by West could have been part of the CIA disinformation campaign to brand Oswald as the lone assassin of the president and the murderer of Officer Tippit. West offers a telling criticism of Ruth for admitting, "I was glad" Oswald was killed by Jack Ruby: West chides her by writing, "There is nothing remotely saintly or even Quakerish about being glad that one man has murdered another man."

[Paul Brancato]

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

Here is Joe's very interesting FB posting:

What helped shape Ruth’s myth as a Quaker do-gooder was a key Redbook profile (“Prelude to Tragedy: The woman who sheltered Lee Oswald’s family tells her story," July 1964) by Jessamyn West, the fellow Quaker and prominent author of THE FRIENDLY PERSUASION (the source of the film FRIENDLY PERSUASION). West's article set the media tone for how Ruth was treated as a kindly Quaker woman motivated purely by charity (it is a precursor of Thomas Mallon’s absurd whitewash of a book, titled with inadvertent suggestiveness MRS. PAINE'S GARAGE: AND THE MURDER OF JOHN F. KENNEDY). Ruth has admitted she thought it was “simpler” that Lee was killed but that was not “really a good thought,” and she made an ever harsher comment in the West profile. West was a second cousin of fellow Quaker Richard Nixon. I found that Redbook was owned by the McCall Corporation, whose president was Marvin Pierce. He was the father of Barbara Pierce Bush, the wife of the already CIA-connected George H. W. Bush (as I revealed, along with his role in the Kennedy assassination coverup, in my 1988 Nation articles and discuss in my book INTO THE NIGHTMARE). So this profile by West could have been part of the CIA disinformation campaign to brand Oswald as the lone assassin of the president and the murderer of Officer Tippit. West offers a telling criticism of Ruth for admitting, "I was glad" Oswald was killed by Jack Ruby: West chides her by writing, "There is nothing remotely saintly or even Quakerish about being glad that one man has murdered another man."

While I was reading this my first thought was ‘who owned Redbook in 1964? Thanks for answering the question!

[Sandy Larsen]

[duplicate deleted]

 

Edited June 20, 2022 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

18 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

As Joe noted on Facebook, Ruth said in 1964 in an article with Jessamyn West that she was glad that Ruby shot Oswald.

 

Hmm... Maybe Ruth wasn't as good a person I assumed she was.

 

[Jonathan Cohen]

16 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Hmm... Maybe Ruth wasn't as good a person I assumed she was.

 

Do you know how many MILLIONS of people around the world were "glad" that Ruby shot Oswald in the wake of the assassination, because for whatever reason they had decided Oswald must be guilty? Truly, who cares? Are we really going to get into a debate about this, 59 years later?

[W. Tracy Parnell]

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

[Sandy Larsen]

2 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Do you know how many MILLIONS of people around the world were "glad" that Ruby shot Oswald in the wake of the assassination, because for whatever reason they had decided Oswald must be guilty? Truly, who cares? Are we really going to get into a debate about this, 59 years later?

 

Gee Jonathan, you seem a little miffed. Was it something I said?

 

[Denny Zartman]

@Sandy Larsen you do good work on the forum.

3 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Do you know how many MILLIONS of people around the world were "glad" that Ruby shot Oswald in the wake of the assassination, because for whatever reason they had decided Oswald must be guilty? Truly, who cares? Are we really going to get into a debate about this, 59 years later?

Except millions of people didn't know Oswald personally, and millions of people didn't know first hand that Oswald expressed no antipathy toward JFK, and millions of people didn't know Oswald denied all the crimes, and millions of people didn't know Oswald never had one single second of legal representation after being accused of double murder, and millions of people aren't being held up as saints because of their Quaker religion, and millions of people don't have defenders 59 years after the fact who are claiming that they were so devoted to the ACLU that they could be considered dangerous despite doing nothing to help Oswald get a lawyer even after specifically being asked...

...but Ruth Paine did.

[Denny Zartman]

How can anyone possibly consider Ruth Paine as being exactly the same as millions of people who had zero personal connections to the accused assassin and the investigation?

[James DiEugenio]

Here is part of the review that should be noted more.  I think its really fascinating:

There is one other example of this possible activity that could have been used. Cliff Shasteen was a barber who cut Oswald’s hair a few times in the fall of 1963. Cliff said that Oswald was accompanied twice by a 14 year old boy who did not get his hair cut or say anything. But strangely, this boy appeared by himself a few days before the assassination. Once there, he began to rant about the benefits of one world government and the plight of “have nots” in society. Shasteen was taken aback, because he knew he was not a local kid. The youth never returned. (Click here for details)

Greg Parker did a fine job of inquiring into this odd, but notable occurrence. Greg deduced that the description fit future actor Bill Hootkins perfectly. Who had access to both Hootkins and Oswald? Ruth Paine tutored Hootkins in Russian that fall. Bill’s mother told the Bureau that Ruth would pick her son up and take him to St. Mark’s—an upper class, private school where Ruth worked at—for lessons. Hootkins’ contact information was in Ruth’s address book. Did Ruth take young Bill to Irving instead?

[Sandy Larsen]

 

Good example of critical thinking:

36 minutes ago, Denny Zartman said:

Except millions of people didn't know Oswald personally, and millions of people didn't know first hand that Oswald expressed no antipathy toward JFK, and millions of people didn't know Oswald denied all the crimes, and millions of people didn't know Oswald never had one single second of legal representation after being accused of double murder, and millions of people aren't being held up as saints because of their Quaker religion, and millions of people don't have defenders 59 years after the fact who are claiming that they were so devoted to the ACLU that they could be considered dangerous despite doing nothing to help Oswald get a lawyer even after specifically being asked...

...but Ruth Paine did.

 

Good example of being spitefully critical:

4 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Do you know how many MILLIONS of people around the world were "glad" that Ruby shot Oswald in the wake of the assassination, because for whatever reason they had decided Oswald must be guilty? Truly, who cares? Are we really going to get into a debate about this, 59 years later?