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

[Jonathan Cohen]

32 minutes ago, Matthew Koch said:

Matt, would you say it was "Normal" in the 1960's to write letters in Russian to a Russian immigrant that you could stay at our house and we could claim you as a dependent AND.. we can even pay $10.00 a week the equivalent to $90+ dollars today to live at our house. Does that sounds like something any quaker woman would do in the 1960's?  
https://www.in2013dollars.com/us/inflation/1963?amount=10 

Your phrasing makes it sound suspicious, when in reality, given the actual circumstances for all of the involved parties, it's not suspicious at all. However difficult it may be to understand now, Ruth's invitation to Marina came from a place of kindness, not from orders given by her non-existent CIA handlers.

[Tom Gram]

1 hour ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Your phrasing makes it sound suspicious, when in reality, given the actual circumstances for all of the involved parties, it's not suspicious at all. However difficult it may be to understand now, Ruth's invitation to Marina came from a place of kindness, not from orders given by her non-existent CIA handlers.

Ruth’s own father told the FBI words to the effect that the only way in hell Ruth would ever allow Marina to stay with her was if she had an extreme interest in her. Ruth corroborated this by saying that she wanted Marina to stay with her because she found her interesting and wanted to learn Russian from a native speaker.

I don’t think kindness had anything to do with it. 

[Jonathan Cohen]

38 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:

Ruth’s own father told the FBI words to the effect that the only way in hell Ruth would ever allow Marina to stay with her was if she had an extreme interest in her. Ruth corroborated this by saying that she wanted Marina to stay with her because she found her interesting and wanted to learn Russian from a native speaker.

I don’t think kindness had anything to do with it. 

Sooo…. “Kindness” and finding someone interesting enough to want to spend time with them and help them through a difficult time can’t be one and the same?

[Tom Gram]

4 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Sooo…. “Kindness” and finding someone interesting enough to want to spend time with them and help them through a difficult time can’t be one and the same?

Sure, but if your motivation for inviting someone to live with you is totally non-altruistic then I think it’s disingenuous to say that you did it out of charity or kindness, even if the arrangement benefits the invitee. I’m not criticizing Ruth. I may be wrong but I don’t think Ruth ever claimed that she invited Marina to live with her out of charity. I just don’t think that Ruth should be praised for taking in Marina as the kind Quaker charity lady when the evidence is pretty clear, even from Ruth herself, that her motivations were selfish. 

[Kirk Gallaway]

9 hours ago, 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.

But here you are with"Ruth defenders". I was hoping this wouldn't be quite so polemical, but Isn't that what you were trying to induce Max?, or just preach to the converted? 

is not enough to convince these people that the suspicions are anything beyond paranoid delusion.

Again "These people" I'll step out of your stereotype and say the I don't think it's paranoid delusion, and the connections you list of her family and  the number of coincidences are by far, the single most impressive points to the argument of Ruth's guilt or being a "witting or unwitting accomplice". However it's no surprise, by itself , it comes to stalemate.

[Kirk Gallaway]

9 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

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.

I'll leave out the phone call. 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?

[Ron Bulman]

5 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

Ruth’s own father told the FBI words to the effect that the only way in hell Ruth would ever allow Marina to stay with her was if she had an extreme interest in her. Ruth corroborated this by saying that she wanted Marina to stay with her because she found her interesting and wanted to learn Russian from a native speaker.

I don’t think kindness had anything to do with it. 

That's pretty deep Tom.  Ruth's own daddy, employed by CIA front AID, told the FBI the only way in hell was if she had an extreme interest in her.  Improving her Russian as a graduate of college classes and teaching the subject constituted an extreme interest?  Enough to take in a pregnant stranger with a baby?  When her only income was teaching the one course?

I find your posts perceptive, and fact based.  But others may wonder where you saw the part about daddy.

Edited October 29, 2022 by Ron Bulman

[Tom Gram]

28 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

That's pretty deep Tom.  Ruth's own daddy, employed by CIA front AID, told the FBI the only way in hell was if she had an extreme interest in her.  Improving her Russian as a graduate of college classes and teaching the subject constituted an extreme interest?  Enough to take in a pregnant stranger with a baby?  When her only income was teaching the one course?

I find your posts perceptive, and fact based.  But others may wonder where you saw the part about daddy.

I just found the link. He didn’t say the word extreme, but the effect is the same. The exact quote is: 

He added Marina Oswald was apparently very interesting to his daughter or could offer her substantial comfort or his daughter would not have had anything to do with her. 

Hyde didn’t give even the slightest consideration to Ruth having anything resembling altruistic motives for taking in Marina.

Hyde also mentions that he received a letter from Ruth where she said that Marina and her daughter were a comfort to her - but it looks like Hyde still thought it was possible that Ruth took in Marina was because she found her “very interesting”. Call me crazy, but it seems to me like he didn’t think very highly of his own daughter. 

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=57708#relPageId=37

 

Edited October 29, 2022 by Tom Gram

[Greg Doudna]

15 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

Sure, but if your motivation for inviting someone to live with you is totally non-altruistic then I think it’s disingenuous to say that you did it out of charity or kindness, even if the arrangement benefits the invitee. 

But Tom--since Ruth never claimed she was having Marina live with her out of kindness or charity, why hammer her for the red herring. Two women with small children each headed for divorce sharing a household meeting mutual needs is nothing to be condemned. I've known a number of single moms and it isn't easy. What was Ruth doing that was "disingenuous" in taking in Marina as a compatible person to live with her?

15 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

I’m not criticizing Ruth. I may be wrong but I don’t think Ruth ever claimed that she invited Marina to live with her out of charity.

Correct, Ruth never claimed it was charity.  

15 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

I just don’t think that Ruth should be praised for taking in Marina as the kind Quaker charity lady when the evidence is pretty clear, even from Ruth herself, that her motivations were selfish. 

Again you cite the red herring, never claimed by Ruth (so why bring it up?), and after saying you're not criticizing Ruth, you call her "selfish" which is generally considered a pejorative term, generally considered a criticism. Just curious: think of the people you have known who live in housemate situations who benefit from shared interests and companionship--do you call all of your friends in such situations "selfish" persons with "selfish" motivations? 

Why are you calling Ruth "selfish"? Why? 

Have you ever been in a functional housemate situation? Would you appreciate being called "selfish" because the relationship benefits you and your housemates?

[David G. Healy]

6 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

[...]

Have you ever been in a functional housemate situation? Would you appreciate being called "selfish" because the relationship benefits you and your housemates?

Ahh, no... and I doubt, Ms. Paine considered herself selfish either...

But, one may have been asked to keep an eye on a young Russian women (with certain KGB/NKVD connections?) with child (tug those old heart strings), and also the wife of a future, alleged, presidential assassin (murdered) -- Someone - Someplace dropped the damn ball, BIGTIME!

If Ruth is a victim, it's of her own belief system...

Edited October 29, 2022 by David G. Healy

[Joe Bauer]

On 10/28/2022 at 3:59 PM, Tom Gram said:

Ruth’s own father told the FBI words to the effect that the only way in hell Ruth would ever allow Marina to stay with her was if she had an extreme interest in her. Ruth corroborated this by saying that she wanted Marina to stay with her because she found her interesting and wanted to learn Russian from a native speaker.

I don’t think kindness had anything to do with it. 

I also think Marina's youthful radiating blue eyes physical beauty made such an offer more attractive for Ruth.

If Marina looked like a typical big raw boned, weather beaten, farm overalls wearing, plow pushing Russian woman we used to see on 1950's and 60's propaganda posters...Ruth may have had a "well...I, uh..." hesitation moment imo.

Edited October 30, 2022 by Joe Bauer

[Sandy Larsen]

On 10/28/2022 at 12:59 PM, Jonathan Cohen said:

On 10/28/2022 at 11:52 AM, Sandy Larsen said:

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 regarding the telephone tap, when Michael heard that a shooter at the TSBD had shot Kennedy, he guessed right away that that was the reason Ruth was told to get Oswald to work there. So he told Ruth he was sure Oswald had shot Kennedy. But then he added that they both knew who was responsible, because they figured that the CIA had put Oswald up to it. And so the CIA was responsible.

 

Expand  

On 10/28/2022 at 12:59 PM, Jonathan Cohen said:

Every single point you’ve listed is pure conjecture and is unsupported by actual hard evidence. Give it up already!

 

There is a great deal of circumstantial evidence that Oswald was a low-level CIA agent and that Ruth Paine was a CIA asset. The remainder of what I said is my hypothesis explaining what Michael said to Ruth in their intercepted telephone conversation.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

On 10/28/2022 at 9:59 PM, Kirk Gallaway said:

I'll leave out the phone call. 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!)

 

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.

 

On 10/28/2022 at 9:59 PM, 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.

 

On 10/28/2022 at 9:59 PM, 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.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

On 10/28/2022 at 11:01 PM, Tom Gram said:

[Ruth Paine's father] added Marina Oswald was apparently very interesting to his daughter or could offer her substantial comfort or his daughter would not have had anything to do with her. 

 

Wow. I'll have to re-think my belief that Ruth Paine was a real Quaker. Maybe that was a CIA cover.

 

[Tom Gram]

On 10/29/2022 at 11:35 AM, Greg Doudna said:

But Tom--since Ruth never claimed she was having Marina live with her out of kindness or charity, why hammer her for the red herring. Two women with small children each headed for divorce sharing a household meeting mutual needs is nothing to be condemned. I've known a number of single moms and it isn't easy. What was Ruth doing that was "disingenuous" in taking in Marina as a compatible person to live with her?

Correct, Ruth never claimed it was charity.  

Again you cite the red herring, never claimed by Ruth (so why bring it up?), and after saying you're not criticizing Ruth, you call her "selfish" which is generally considered a pejorative term, generally considered a criticism. Just curious: think of the people you have known who live in housemate situations who benefit from shared interests and companionship--do you call all of your friends in such situations "selfish" persons with "selfish" motivations? 

Why are you calling Ruth "selfish"? Why? 

Have you ever been in a functional housemate situation? Would you appreciate being called "selfish" because the relationship benefits you and your housemates?

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.

Edited November 1, 2022 by Tom Gram