Ruth Paine on "The Assassination & Mrs. Paine" film: "Well done, but powerfully awful"

[Joe Bauer]

I think Ruth became protective of Marina the more she was involved with her and Lee over a period of many months and even more so after having a vulnerable and pregnancy health neglected Marina move in with her in her home. Maybe even a little possessive? 

Ruth was clearly smitten with Marina the minute she met her.

Marina was an interesting person especially to someone like Ruth who was drawn to the Russian culture to the point of learning it's language to a serious degree.

So, here she meets a bright and mesmerizing blue eyed beauty young Russian girl with a fascinating story of Russian upbringing, meeting and marrying an odd duck American enigma character, then emigrating here to the states and now living in a financially and pregnancy stressed life situation with a controlling, boorish, lowest income earning husband who Ruth surely feels is a bad catch for such an attractive full of promise young woman.

Obviously Ruth is intrigued with Marina. Like so many others in the Dallas White Russian community. Marina's interesting background, youthful physical beauty and intelligence made it easier for many of them to want to get to know her and try to help her in her difficult life with Lee whom it seemed was disliked immediately by these same people, outside of George DeMohrenschildt who in his own quirky way found Lee to be interesting enough to at least talk to.

The closer Ruth became to Marina I believe the more she disliked and eventually despised Lee.

I believe she saw Lee's 11,22,1963 arrest and certain life long incarceration ending fate as a relief for Marina. The strange and selfish political activities, boorish, mistreating, poorly providing cad is gone!

I also think Ruth assumed that after Lee was out of Marina's life, Marina would continue to depend on and stay with her and Ruth could continue their close relationship which Ruth obviously enjoyed and found fulfilling.

I think Ruth was surprised at the immediate separation of Marina from her and which Marina made permanent of her own volition. I think Ruth was hurt that Marina would do this after everything Ruth had done for her and which also suggested that Marina probably didn't like her as much as Ruth thought she did.

And not even Ruth could have foreseen the huge amounts of money sent to Marina by sympathetic persons all across the country. So much, Marina was suddenly independently financially secure. In today's dollars estimates range up to half a million dollars!

I have seen young women in need ( especially with babies ) who married other young men who were obviously incapable of supporting them and sometimes even mistreated them.

When people step in to help these young mothers and see that their young husbands are like this, my observation is they often eventually try to steer these young mothers away from these ill-equipped young fathers. Especially if they are abusive to boot.

Ruth certainly was never going to be Lee Oswald's biggest defender and supporter especially after his arrest for the JFK killing.

To what extent is reasonably debatable.

 

 

Edited November 5, 2022 by Joe Bauer

[Kirk Gallaway]

17 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

My “disingenuous” comment was just an example to Jonathan of why I think it’s wrong to praise someone for their kindness and charity if they didn’t have altruistic intentions. It was not referring to Ruth’s own statements, and I think I made that clear. 

I don’t think there’s anything wrong with trying to convince someone to live with you for personal gain unless you harm them in the process, which I don’t think Ruth did, but celebrating her for it just seems weird. 

As for the word “selfish”, it honestly wasn’t meant as a pejorative, but I don’t really see the need to be delicate. I agree with Greg Parker that Ruth’s equivocal and at times blatantly evasive answers to several direct and even yes or no questions from the FBI and WC warrant a reasonable suspicion. Ruth is not an idiot, and for an intelligent, articulate person to testify the way she did on so many key topics is a bit concerning, to put it mildly. I think it’s pretty much conclusive that she was withholding information - either of her own volition or on direction from the FBI or WC counsel, etc. Also, Ruth was never deposed by the HSCA or ARRB, which is just insane, and Garrison didn’t know her testimony well enough to ask the right questions, so we’re stuck with WC testimony full of non-denial denials and evasiveness that any competent defense attorney would’ve torn shreds on cross examination - and I don’t think that’s even really debatable - and dozens of unanswered questions from a critically important witness who knew Oswald better than just about anyone.

However, I’m not convinced it was anything nefarious. Ruth may have just realized that anything she said would not change the outcome of the WC investigation, and decided to spare herself the embarrassment and added suspicion she’d have to deal with if she shared everything she knew on the record. My girlfriend suggested that Ruth might have had a bit of ADHD and struggled with answering direct questions because she felt like she needed to over-explain herself, which I thought was an interesting theory. Either way though, several of Ruth’s responses were woefully inadequate and at times clearly evasive, so I understand why people are skeptical. 

I agree that Ruth shouldn’t be accused of anything without evidence, but she shouldn’t be immune from scrutiny either. There’s enough shifty testimony and bizarre circumstances surrounding Ruth that I think it’s totally reasonable to question her motives - as long as we stick to the record, limit speculation, and refrain from personal insults. However, blanket censorship for the sake of being nice to a questionable assassination witness on an Internet debate forum seems a bit excessive.

Tom: Re; Ruth taking in Marina, I think you and Jonathan are both right. I think it's self interest and a bit of concern. But the question has become so loaded,even apart from alleged spying,  it breaks into speculation about  interrelationships, lesbianism, marriage breaking. Why touch it?

 

 

Tom:Also, Ruth was never deposed by the HSCA or ARRB, which is just insane, and Garrison didn’t know her testimony well enough to ask the right questions,

Yes a lot of missed opportunities. I assume you've seen the film? Max asks a lot of questions I always thought I would have asked, but  some not, which you have to expect. Like about the eventual dinner with the Paines and GDM's in 1966. I never did get an idea that RP was really evasive, but you might not be satisfied with all her answers. But I agree with you, there's nothing really nefarious here.

 

Let' recap, Since the thread is about the film. Max never answered what his goals were, but in conversation here, I think the primary goal was to preach to the converted, that Ruth is hiding a lot, which would have been fine..

I think maybe  during the course of filming he may have realized: To have any crossover appeal,It was  a Herculean task making a film that serves to incriminate a rather youthful, lucid 90 year old woman and that was probably a loser from the gitgo.  But there's enough people on this forum who will love it just because Max expresses their frustration with unanswered questions. I enjoyed it. I think Max thought at the beginning it might turn out to be more of a smoking gun, but there wasn't anything near it. Then Jim Di , who has said here, he was the biggest independent commentator on the film  ended up bailing on Max here, saying he would have made a much more incriminating film!.

Folks, this is live right here! You can't make this stuff up!

 

But then in this last page, Max bemoans and mischaracterizes "Ruth Defenders" and calls it "a curious attitude , not one I would engage with". 

Isn't that the "blanket censorship" you're talking about Tom? but of the opposite variety? I think that's been the status quo here honestly for a long time.

But the irony is Max is saying he won't engage with people  who simply recognize the film he ended up being honest enough to make! Max as a good film maker, was being taken where the film lead him!

 

Don't you wish all the research here was like that?

 

[Sandy Larsen]

7 minutes ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

But then in this last page, Max bemoans and mischaracterizes "Ruth Defenders" and calls it "a curious attitude , not one I would engage with". 

 

I think that Max was looking at me and wondering why I was wasting my time engaging with you and Matt. Which, actually, is a good question.

 

[Kirk Gallaway]

On 10/28/2022 at 10:54 AM, Max Good said:

A lot of Ruth defenders on here seem to think the suspicions around her are "simply ridiculous" or "utterly mad."  I guess the fact that she was raised in a liberal/socialist family that had a "general hostility to communism," and that her father worked for a CIA cover agency, USAID, and was "considered for use" by the agency in Vietnam, and that her sister actually did work for the CIA, is not enough to convince these people that the suspicions are anything beyond paranoid delusion.

It's a curious attitude.  Not one I would engage with.

Oh come on Sandy, you posted almost exactly the same time. He wrote that before you posted. He's now going to turn off discussion on his film, just like you. Running from  answering any of my questions, but in your case, starting up new threads and now apparently hijacking the "killing floor". Was that your doing?

I stood up for your right to use conjecture for your theories,  but if they target the conjecture, you shouldn't be surprised, still it doesn't mean your theory is wrong. I gave you latitude.

I've asked about 8 questions on these threads and I've gotten answers to none of them. I assume when people don't answer direct questions, that they don't have courage of their convictions. I recently asked you a question to explain your theory. Will you please answer it now?

 

Kirk to Sandy: . And it is conjecture, but it is your theory! And your entitled to conjecture, and can reasonably expect to hear it's conjecture, which doesn't mean it's wrong..

So as I was saying. According to  your theory, After Lee is apprehended, Ruth realizes she was the one  who was instructed to put Lee in the sniper's nest. She's aware now she will be  taking on suspicion and accusation. She has 2 choices 1) to come clean and reveal  her handlers or 2) become an accessory after the fact to the murder of the POTUS, JFK who she presumably thought was a good President (OK,I thought you said that, but maybe you think it's  just BS!)

At that point , RP is no longer an "unwitting accomplice" but an accessory to the murder of JFK. Right?

She knows she's to be investigated and in all those  1000's of questions by the WC she is to be asked, she's in a desperate life struggle to save her neck and that of her handlers. Right?

[Matthew Koch]

Well Johnathan, Kirk, Matt, and Greg have convinced my that Ruth is just a "Nice person" in-fact I think we should apply this to everyone in the JFKA case for example George DeMorenschilt Just another nice person,Clay Shaw another nice guy just helping someone out, David Ferrie extra nice guy especially towards children.  (Extra scarcasm added)

Ruth was at the party with DeMorenschilt (Just another coincidence to add all of the other coincidences) at what point is your coincidence theory a pattern? 

What would it take from the doubters, Ruth and Michael Paines tax returns that Garrison couldn't get? If we took this case to civil court I think Ruth would lose based on circumstantial evidence. Especially with stuff showing up after it was searched by the police.

 

[James DiEugenio]

I give Sandy a lot of credit for this.

In looking back through this thread I noted that Jonathan said that

1. Armstrong did not prove that Oswald did not order the MC rifle and

2. That Oswald was a CIA agent is conjecture

Whew.

Concerning point number one, if John did not prove this, then when the baton was picked up by David Josephs he took it the last yard.  And if you have not read his work, then that is on you not him. In fact at at the mock trial in Houston, Brian Edwards' testimony on this  issue kind of saved the day. It is simply not possible for a money order to be sent that distance and then be deposited in Klein's bank that fast.  And that is just one  incongruity of about seven in the transaction.

As per point two, I mean please.  Why would Oswald be learning Russian in the Marines?  Why was he not being paid through them in the last quarter?  Why would he then defect to Russia through the only station in Europe where you could get a visa in 48 hours? How did he know that? But finally, why would the CIA be rigging his file as he did this?  Someone was at the first gate in the process and instructed  Mail Logistics to send his documents to the OS division. And them only. 

This is not where they should have gone. So why did someone interfere with the process that early?

This guaranteed that no 201 file would be opened on Oswald, since OS was a kind of dormant division in this regard.

So please no more of this nonsense. Its not conjecture at all today.

Edited November 1, 2022 by James DiEugenio

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

I recently asked you a question to explain your theory. Will you please answer it now?

 

Hi Kirk!

I've been wondering if you'd ever come back and read my answers to your questions. I answered them a few days ago. If you scroll way up you might see them on this very page. Better yet, why not just click the following link? It'll take you right there.

 

 

[Tom Gram]

1 hour ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

Tom: Re; Ruth taking in Marina, I think you and Jonathan are both right. I think it's self interest and a bit of concern. But the question has become so loaded,even apart from alleged spying,  it breaks into speculation about  interrelationships, lesbianism, marriage breaking. Why touch it?

 

 

Tom:Also, Ruth was never deposed by the HSCA or ARRB, which is just insane, and Garrison didn’t know her testimony well enough to ask the right questions,

Yes a lot of missed opportunities. I assume you've seen the film? Max asks a lot of questions I always thought I would have asked, but  some not, which you have to expect. Like about the eventual dinner with the Paines and GDM's in 1966. I never did get an idea that RP was really evasive, but you might not be satisfied with all her answers. But I agree with you, there's nothing really nefarious here.

 

Let' recap, Since the thread is about the film. Max never answered what his goals were, but in conversation here, I think the primary goal was to preach to the converted, that Ruth is hiding a lot, which would have been fine..

I think maybe  during the course of filming he may have realized: To have any crossover appeal,It was  a Herculean task making a film that serves to incriminate a rather youthful, lucid 90 year old woman and that was probably a loser from the gitgo.  But there's enough people on this forum who will love it just because Max expresses their frustration with unanswered questions. I enjoyed it. I think Max thought at the beginning it might turn out to be more of a smoking gun, but there wasn't anything near it. Then Jim Di , who has said here, he was the biggest independent commentator on the film  ended up bailing on Max here, saying he would have made a much more incriminating film!.

Folks, this is live right here! You can't make this stuff up!

 

But then in this last page, Max bemoans and mischaracterizes "Ruth Defenders" and calls it "a curious attitude , not one I would engage with". 

Isn't that the "blanket censorship" you're talking about Tom? but of the opposite variety? I think that's been the status quo here honestly for a long time.

But the irony is Max is saying he won't engage with people  who simply recognize the film he ended up being honest enough to make! Max as a good film maker, was being taken where the film lead him!

 

Don't you wish all the research here was like that?

 

You are slightly misquoting me. I didn’t say that I believed there was nothing nefarious going on with Ruth. I’m just not convinced that there was. It’s a subtle but significant difference. 

The evasiveness is one thing I strongly disagree with you and Greg D about. I don’t see how anyone can read Ruth’s testimony and not think that she was deliberately avoiding giving answers to certain questions. For one example of many, several of which are even more egregious, when Ruth was asked by Albert Jenner why she destroyed copies of the Worker and the Militant that were in the mail for Oswald immediately after seeing the BYPs with Oswald holding those same two magazines on television on Nov. 23rd instead of informing the FBI, Ruth’s only answer was, and I quote, “Why not?”. She may have been embarrassed and knew that she screwed up and acted impulsively, or there could be something else going on, but either way there is no way in hell Ruth was that much of an idiot to not comprehend the problem with destroying critical evidence by the time of her WC testimony. To her credit she admitted it, but she deliberately avoided explaining herself under oath. When Ruth was interviewed by the FBI about this incident, she contradicted herself to the point that the FBI had to send agents back to her house for clarification. In this second FBI interview, Ruth dramatically changed her story from what she had already testified to twice to the WC. The most recent testimony was only two weeks earlier. 

I could go on, but you get the picture. This kind of witness behavior raises a few eyebrows, and if it were anyone else involved in this case they’d be scrutinized to the max, so I don’t see why Ruth should get a pass. I think it’s highly plausible that Ruth just didn’t want to make herself look bad to and did a bit of CYA, but there’s no way to know for sure. 

I agree with you that everyone should be able to share opinions and speak their mind as long as it stays cordial. Debating contentious topics can be very productive if the discussion stays on track, so I think it’s important to engage with people that hold opposing views. 

[Kirk Gallaway]

Jim welcome back!  I think Jonathan's always demanding  "evidence" is a bit obnoxious. We are spitballin' here. Ive never really heard you flesh out your theory. But now that we're on the same page. Sandy said this.

Sandy; Ruth was instructed by her CIA handler to get Oswald to apply for the TSBD job, and Oswald was instructed by his handler to do what Ruth said.

So this is not conjecture? Do you subscribe to this as well? Then if you could, answer me this. .

 

After Lee is apprehended, Ruth realizes she was the one  who was instructed to put Lee in the sniper's nest. She's aware now she will be  taking on suspicion and accusation. She has 2 choices 1) to come clean and reveal  her handlers or 2) become an accessory after the fact to the murder of the POTUS, JFK who she presumably thought was a good President (OK,I thought you said that, but maybe you think it's  just BS!)

At that point , RP is no longer an "unwitting accomplice" but an accessory to the murder of JFK. Right?

She knows she's to be investigated and in all those  1000's of questions by the WC she is to be asked, she's in a desperate life struggle to save her neck and that of her handlers. Right?

 

If so, I've always assumed from your inferences that RP is up to her eyeballs in guilt. If you feel that way. Do you want to come out and say it?

Or whatever insights you can provide as to what Ruth knew or was coached before the assassination, or what she knew or was possibly coached after the assassination, would be appreciated..

Thanks

Thank You

[Sandy Larsen]

3 minutes ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

Sandy; Ruth was instructed by her CIA handler to get Oswald to apply for the TSBD job, and Oswald was instructed by his handler to do what Ruth said.

So this is not conjecture?

 

Now hold on there Kirk...

Just so there is no misunderstanding, I specifically said that I was speculating.

Of course it is conjecture. I don't have one of those magic spy rings.

 

[Kirk Gallaway]

57 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:

You are slightly misquoting me. I didn’t say that I believed there was nothing nefarious going on with Ruth. I’m just not convinced that there was. It’s a subtle but significant difference. 

The evasiveness is one thing I strongly disagree with you and Greg D about. I don’t see how anyone can read Ruth’s testimony and not think that she was deliberately avoiding giving answers to certain questions. For one example of many, several of which are even more egregious, when Ruth was asked by Albert Jenner why she destroyed copies of the Worker and the Militant that were in the mail for Oswald immediately after seeing the BYPs with Oswald holding those same two magazines on television on Nov. 23rd instead of informing the FBI, Ruth’s only answer was, and I quote, “Why not?”. She may have been embarrassed and knew that she screwed up and acted impulsively, or there could be something else going on, but either way there is no way in hell Ruth was that much of an idiot to not comprehend the problem with destroying critical evidence by the time of her WC testimony. To her credit she admitted it, but she deliberately avoided explaining herself under oath. When Ruth was interviewed by the FBI about this incident, she contradicted herself to the point that the FBI had to send agents back to her house for clarification. In this second FBI interview, Ruth dramatically changed her story from what she had already testified to twice to the WC. The most recent testimony was only two weeks earlier. 

I could go on, but you get the picture. This kind of witness behavior raises a few eyebrows, and if it were anyone else involved in this case they’d be scrutinized to the max, so I don’t see why Ruth should get a pass. I think it’s highly plausible that Ruth just didn’t want to make herself look bad to and did a bit of CYA, but there’s no way to know for sure. 

I agree with you that everyone should be able to share opinions and speak their mind as long as it stays cordial. Debating contentious topics can be very productive if the discussion stays on track, so I think it’s important to engage with people that hold opposing views. 

 I do get the picture Tom. I thought a number of Ruth's answers seem evasive in her testimony. But I was asking you specifically if you had seen Max's film? And if you thought her answers were evasive there?. I must confess, I wish I could see it again with my super critical Ruth glasses!

Damn, I'm finishing this post and I open a second post from Sandy and come back and have to start the post again! I hate that!

Edited November 1, 2022 by Kirk Gallaway

[Matthew Koch]

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

I give Sandy a lot of credit for this.

In looking back through this thread I noted that Jonathan said that

1. Armstrong did not prove that Oswald did not order the MC rifle and

2. That Oswald was a CIA agent is conjecture

Whew.

Concerning point number one, if John did not prove this, then when the baton was picked up by David Josephs he took it the last yard.  And if you have not read his work, then that is on you not him. In fact at at the mock trial in Houston, Brian Edwards' testimony on this  issue kind of saved the day. It is simply not possible for a money order to be sent that distance and then be deposited in Klein's bank that fast.  And that is just one  incongruity of about seven in the transaction.

As per point two, I mean please.  Why would Oswald be learning Russian in the Marines?  Why was he not being paid through them in the last quarter?  Why would he then defect to Russia through the only station in Europe where you could get a visa in 48 hours? How did he know that? But finally, why would the CIA be rigging his file as he did this?  Someone was at the first gate in the process and instructed  Mail Logistics to send his documents to the OS division. And them only. 

This is not where they should have gone. So why did someone interfere with the process that early?

This guaranteed that no 201 file would be opened on Oswald, since OS was a kind of dormant division in this regard.

So please no more of this nonsense. Its not conjecture at all today.

The guys who handled order form and the rifle must just be extra helpful like Ruth Paine. It was extra nice of them to mount the scope for a left handed person like FBI says which Silvia Meagher wanted to know why a company would do that without a request.. They apparently they were alot better at customer service in the 1960's 

Edited November 1, 2022 by Matthew Koch

[Steve Roe]

58 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

I give Sandy a lot of credit for this.

In looking back through this thread I noted that Jonathan said that

1. Armstrong did not prove that Oswald did not order the MC rifle and

2. That Oswald was a CIA agent is conjecture

Whew.

Concerning point number one, if John did not prove this, then when the baton was picked up by David Josephs he took it the last yard.  And if you have not read his work, then that is on you not him. In fact at at the mock trial in Houston, Brian Edwards' testimony on this  issue kind of saved the day. It is simply not possible for a money order to be sent that distance and then be deposited in Klein's bank that fast.  And that is just one  incongruity of about seven in the transaction.

As per point two, I mean please.  Why would Oswald be learning Russian in the Marines?  Why was he not being paid through them in the last quarter?  Why would he then defect to Russia through the only station in Europe where you could get a visa in 48 hours? How did he know that? But finally, why would the CIA be rigging his file as he did this?  Someone was at the first gate in the process and instructed  Mail Logistics to send his documents to the OS division. And them only. 

This is not where they should have gone. So why did someone interfere with the process that early?

This guaranteed that no 201 file would be opened on Oswald, since OS was a kind of dormant division in this regard.

So please no more of this nonsense. Its not conjecture at all today.

I have to hand it to DiEugenio, he is very entertaining with these old, debunked claims. It's laughable. 

1. Armstrong and Josephs did not prove the Klein's rifle purchase was faked. It's a sheer fantasy mixed up with the crazy two Oswald's and two Marguerites fairy tale.  

2. Your Klein's money order could not have been processed in 24 hours is also a big embarrassing claim. DiEugenio, you remember that right? You said it couldn't reach Chicago in one day, and then back peddled trying to cover up your goof on overnight mail. And Mr. DiEugenio, Oswald's Klein's money order purchase was on the Klein's Cash Register (Accounts Receivable run sheet), yes, the very next day.

3. Brian Edward's claim of the wrong rifle strap D-Rings was also debunked. 

4. Oswald was paid for the 3rd Quarter by the USMC Mr. DiEugenio. It was paid in cash, and it's documented. 

5. Oswald a CIA asset? Really? 100% baloney. Maybe you can explain to everyone here why the "Patsy CIA Asset, Witting Defector" had to fight to get his Undesirable Discharge from the Marine Corp overturned.......while in Russia! Is that how CIA Assets are treated? 

Bottom line, Jonathan Cohen is 100% correct and you are pushing old worn-out debunked nonsense. I know you don't like it, but Jonathan is using common sense, something very rare on this forum.

But hey, business as usual, right Mr. DiEugenio?

[Kirk Gallaway]

Sandy:I believe that:

1. Oswald was a CIA agent.
2. Ruth and Michael Paine were CIA assets.
3. Ruth was probably baby sitting Marina for the CIA.
4. Oswald wasn't told that Ruth was CIA, and Ruth wasn't told that Oswald was CIA. But they probably all suspected that that was the case.
5. Ruth was instructed by her CIA handler to get Oswald to apply for the TSBD job, and Oswald was instructed by his handler to do what Ruth said.

So in your first post, I tried opening it, but since I couldn't, from what I read. Am I to assume   it's a disclaimer that all this is conjecture?

Then in your last post , you're saying #5 about Ruth's handlers actions was specifically conjecture. Ok

But that doesn't preclude my pointing out flaws in your #5 and asking you questions about them. For the 4th time. Do you have an answer?

*****

After Lee is apprehended, Ruth realizes she was the one  who was instructed to put Lee in the sniper's nest. She's aware now she will be  taking on suspicion and accusation. She has 2 choices 1) to come clean and reveal  her handlers or 2) become an accessory after the fact to the murder of the POTUS, JFK who she presumably thought was a good President (OK,I thought you said that, but maybe you think it's  just BS!)

At that point , RP is no longer an "unwitting accomplice" but an accessory to the murder of JFK. Right?

She knows she's to be investigated and in all those  1000's of questions by the WC she is to be asked, she's in a desperate life struggle to save her neck and that of her handlers. Right?

[Sandy Larsen]

 

I'm copying my answers to your questions here Kirk:

 

1 hour ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

After Lee is apprehended, Ruth realizes she was the one  who was instructed to put Lee in the sniper's nest. She's aware now she will be  taking on suspicion and accusation. She has 2 choices 1) to come clean and reveal  her handlers or 2) become an accessory after the fact to the murder of the POTUS, JFK who she presumably thought was a good President (OK,I thought you said that, but maybe you think it's  just BS!)

 

The only thing I can do to answer your question, Kirk, is to speculate. So that is what I'll do. (I could do a better job if I were an expert on Ruth, and on the evidence she provided the FBI/WC. But I am not.)

The following is speculation based on logic, common sense, and a little bit of evidence:

After the assassination, it immediately looked to Michael Paine like the CIA had gotten Ruth to get a job for Oswald in order for him to shoot the president. Ruth may have thought the same.

Ruth's handler got in touch with her after the assassination and informed her that the assassination was a suspected communist plot. Her handler lied to her, explaining that the CIA had sent Oswald to the TSBD because of intelligence chatter involving that building, and they wanted Oswald to snoop around and see what was going on. Her handler told Ruth that apparently Oswald had been found out by the (fake) communist plotters and had used him as a patsy in their (fake) plot to kill Kennedy.

(I will summarize what Ruth Paine understood at this point, just so there is no misunderstanding: Ruth understood that the CIA had sent Oswald to the TSBD to check up on some chatter. Communist plotters discovered Oswald was CIA, and decided to set him up as patsy in their plot to kill Kennedy.)

The CIA asked Ruth to plant some evidence for them, since giving evidence directly to the FBI might reveal their relationship with Oswald. Ruth agreed. She planted (fake) evidence of Oswald working with the Russians to assassinate Kennedy.

Later on, the CIA gave up trying to link Oswald with the (fake) Russian plotters. And Ruth instead assisted the WC on setting the blame on Oswald. She did this according to President Johnson's wishes to avoid WW3.

 

1 hour ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

At that point , RP is no longer an "unwitting accomplice" but an accessory to the murder of JFK. Right?

 

Nope. Ruth is still an unwitting accomplice.

 

1 hour ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

She knows she's to be investigated and in all those  1000's of questions by the WC she is to be asked, she's in a desperate life struggle to save her neck and that of her handlers. Right?

 

Nope. All  that Ruth knows is that Oswald would have saved JFK's life had he succeeded in his mission. And that she helped a little in preventing WW3.