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

[Tom Gram]

2 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

 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!

I did see Max’s film, and I didn’t see anything wrong with Ruth’s answers, but Max did not grill her on specific aspects of her WC testimony. I’d like to see a full deposition that addresses all of Ruth’s questionable statements to the FBI and WC, but I doubt that’ll ever happen unless the case gets reopened somehow before Ruth passes away. 

It’d be great to have a legit mock trial with Ruth as a witness and an attorney who really knows the case, but I don’t think she’d ever sign up for that. 

[Matt Allison]

6 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

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. 

I don't think that had anything to do with anything.

Since Ruth Paine is still alive she could sue for slander if she is portrayed unfairly or inaccurately.

For some real answers, Max should tell us about what his lawyer advised with regard to the film's content.

[James DiEugenio]

53 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:

I did see Max’s film, and I didn’t see anything wrong with Ruth’s answers, but Max did not grill her on specific aspects of her WC testimony. I’d like to see a full deposition that addresses all of Ruth’s questionable statements to the FBI and WC, but I doubt that’ll ever happen unless the case gets reopened somehow before Ruth passes away. 

It’d be great to have a legit mock trial with Ruth as a witness and an attorney who really knows the case, but I don’t think she’d ever sign up for that. 

This is just what we asked the ARRB to do.

We petitioned the Board in its last days because we realized they were going to close their doors without an interview with the Paines either together or separate.  

We offered to fly Carol Hewett to Washington to prepare their attorneys for such an interview/deposition.  Carol would even stay in the room to pass notes to their lawyers.  They did not do it.  What irony, they did their little clown act with Fletcher Prouty, but they could not find the time or value in a serious interrogation of the Paines.  Really startling that neither the HSCA nor the ARRB thought this was important.

[James DiEugenio]

This is why I have Roe blocked.  The guy is a non stop disinfo machine:

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

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.  

Utter rubbish.  In every way.  Starting with the fact that no one ever recalled giving Oswald the rifle in a very long specifically  marked box.  Plus the fact it would have been very hard for Oswald to claim the package since it was not sent to him.  Did he actually show the attendant both of his ID's to prove he was both people?  If that had happened would not someone have recalled such an event?  Yes they would have. This is even more suspicious since Holmes, an FBI informant, was on the alert  for Oswald. And Holmes never saw that rifle box  and never heard of it being given to Oswald/Hidell? Also, when did Oswald send the money order? Every hour of his work is accounted for that morning.  Why is the money order slip so far out of whack numerically?  Etc etc.

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.

More rubbish.  The whole thing about the money order is that it would have to have been flown to Chicago, then routed through their main post office, to the more local post office to Klein's and then to their bank in less than 24 hours.  But further, there was the discrepancy between the written receipt with the wrong date.  Oh, really, its on their accounts?  What a surprise Steve. Want to tell us who was there that night with the records?

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

1. That was not the main thing he testified to.  2. Are you really saying what you did with the front strap was immutable proof?  OMG. 

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

What Hoch and Litwin did with this was at about the level of what you did with Sebastian LaTona.  They cleverly decided not to show the other Marine records that were grouped with this last quarter. Why?  Because it would have given their game away. The other records do not look like this one, they are not handwritten on.  Ben Cole figured this out just with one look. In other words, they prove the opposite of what Hoch and Litwin were trying to show and the only way they could get away with it was by deliberately not showing the others.

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? 

Uh, maybe because he defected and then threatened to give secrets of the U 2 to the Russians?  The bigger question is why he was allowed back in the USA and given money to do so.

Very smart of you to not say a word about the Betsy Wolf rigging of the Oswald file. Oswald was a CIA agent provocateur and also an FBI informant.

Now bye bye again Stevie boy.  This is why you are not worth replying to.

Edited November 2, 2022 by James DiEugenio

[Calvin Ye]

Someone need to read Ruth Paine's body language

[Tom Gram]

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

This is just what we asked the ARRB to do.

We petitioned the Board in its last days because we realized they were going to close their doors without an interview with the Paines either together or separate.  

We offered to fly Carol Hewett to Washington to prepare their attorneys for such an interview/deposition.  Carol would even stay in the room to pass notes to their lawyers.  They did not do it.  What irony, they did their little clown act with Fletcher Prouty, but they could not find the time or value in a serious interrogation of the Paines.  Really startling that neither the HSCA nor the ARRB thought this was important.

I’ve read those petition documents. It really is crazy that the ARRB decided to spend resources trying to discredit Prouty but wouldn’t even subpoena Paine, who was perhaps the most important witness never called by the HSCA. The HSCA is just flat out inexcusable. 

[James DiEugenio]

👋

[Kirk Gallaway]

Wow, that's a real whopper Sandy. heh heh

So Ruth was such a die hard anti communist , she would willfully pass on false information from the CIA framing both Lee,( who she was told for the first time, was an agent who was set up by the Russians assassins as a patsy, and was innocent) and the Russians in the assassination of JFK, and they were sure that wouldn't lead to WW3?But you think Ruth thought just the opposite. You realize her actions implicated Lee with the Russians and the Cubans?

So Ruth has been lying about Lee for the last 60 years, besmirching his reputation when she was told all along Lee is actually a hero, who was trying to foil a Russian plot to kill Kennedy? 

And none of the information that has surfaced over the last 60 years has given her one doubt at all about this story? 

As you mentioned, it was shortly determined after the assassination that we didn't want to pursue the Russian angle and risk WW3.  So as it turns out, her testimony is relatively small, and her contribution copied letter was largely ignored, because  Oswald was killed before standing trial. Why wouldn't Ruth just come out and say everything she knows now, instead of incriminating someone she was at least told was a hero? She wouldn't be prosecuted now for false evidence, telling  what she knows. And to lie about it with such conviction, for 60 years?

I think we were all sort of misdirected, by your sense of conviction, considering you hold such a highly speculative theory.

Edited November 2, 2022 by Kirk Gallaway

[Sandy Larsen]

On 11/1/2022 at 11:18 PM, Kirk Gallaway said:

Wow, that's a real whopper Sandy. heh heh

So Ruth was such a die hard anti communist , she would willfully pass on false information from the CIA framing both Lee,( who she was told for the first time, was an agent who was set up by the Russians assassins as a patsy, and was innocent) and the Russians in the assassination of JFK, and they were sure that wouldn't lead to WW3?

On 11/1/2022 at 11:18 PM, Kirk Gallaway said:

But you think Ruth thought just the opposite.

 

I have no idea what Ruth thought right after the assassination. And there is no need for me to speculate on it.

 

On 11/1/2022 at 11:18 PM, Kirk Gallaway said:

You realize her actions implicated Lee with the Russians and the Cubans?

 

I didn't word that sentence well. What I meant was this: Ruth thought that her passing on evidence to authorities would ultimately expose the communist plot, and the fact that the communists had framed Oswald as a patsy.

But I just as easily could have speculated it the way you understood it. Since Oswald was dead, it didn't matter a great deal if he was wrongly implicated. And it wouldn't be Ruth's fault he was implicated... it was the communist plotters' fault.

For that matter, my speculation could have called for Ruth's handler to tell her that Oswald turned out to be a double agent and had really been involved with the communist plotters in the assassination. But I'd have to put some thought into that and see if it works.

 

On 11/1/2022 at 11:18 PM, Kirk Gallaway said:

So Ruth has been lying about Lee for the last 60 years, besmirching his reputation when she was told all along Lee is actually a hero, who was trying to foil a Russian plot to kill Kennedy?

 

I don't know about the years and decades following the assassination. But I've found the parts of Ruth's WC testimony about Oswald to be pretty fair. Not very derogatory, I didn't think.

 

On 11/1/2022 at 11:18 PM, Kirk Gallaway said:

And none of the information that has surfaced over the last 60 years has given her one doubt at all about this story?

 

I doubt that she keeps up on all the information.

 

On 11/1/2022 at 11:18 PM, Kirk Gallaway said:

Why wouldn't Ruth just come out and say everything she knows now, instead of incriminating someone she was at least told was a hero?

 

Well, recall what I said in my speculated story. After a while the CIA plotters gave up and quit giving communist-plot evidence to Ruth to hand over to authorities. After which she helped the FBI/WC to "convict" Oswald. (Though I don't know off-hand if she lied or did anything nefarious for the WC.) If she came out today and said that Oswald was really a hero, everybody would ask why she cooperated in convicting a hero.

 

On 11/1/2022 at 11:18 PM, Kirk Gallaway said:

I think we were all sort of misdirected, by your sense of conviction, considering you hold such a highly speculative theory.

 

What we're discussing here is highly speculative.

Saying that the plotters had a hand in choosing the TSBD job for Oswald is not. It's hardly even controversial. Anybody who thinks the plotters chose the assassination site also have to believe that the plotters got Oswald to work there.

 

[Jonathan Cohen]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

What we're discussing here is highly speculative.

Saying that the plotters had a hand in choosing the TSBD job for Oswald is not. It's hardly even controversial. Anybody who thinks the plotters chose the assassination site also have to believe that the plotters got Oswald to work there.

Sandy Larsen loves to deal simultaneously in "highly speculative" nonsense about Ruth Paine's "assignments" from her CIA handlers and bald assertions about what people on this forum "have to believe." This is not how real researchers operate.

[Kirk Gallaway]

Sandy in PM , I saw it that you actually lectured me as to my foolhardiness in trying to undermine the forum authorities on this subject, who I think you were counting on for support, but you found out the case against RP has been vaulted here to almost utter certainty of RP's  guilt, at least half, on innuendo. It would never remotely stand up in court.  And yes, I do think your theory is grasping at straws. But as I said before , you at least a postulate a detailed theory which no one here or really anywhere among the "Ruth is guilty" authors has ever been really willing to do, that I know of, which should tell you something.

 

Your theory only makes it infinitely easier for Ruth to eventually come out and tell everything she knows without any legal repercussion. If it were true, I would end up hating her silence more than Jim Di and Allen, and that's a lot!

[Kirk Gallaway]

I feel I should make something clear because of Sandy's new position here. I initiated a Pm to Sandy , as another forum member I've had good relations with, who I've always thought had a degree of independence although I didn't always agree with him and I disagree with him about this matter.

Sandy gave me his opinion which in no way I interpreted as using his position  to try to stifle discussion on this forum, but just in general conversation as we had previously had on the forum.

 

[Steve Roe]

On 11/1/2022 at 8:21 PM, James DiEugenio said:

Uh, maybe because he defected and then threatened to give secrets of the U 2 to the Russians?  The bigger question is why he was allowed back in the USA and given money to do so.

Again, we see Mr. DiEugenio's serious lack of research. Oswald did attempt to renounce his US citizenship, but technically he did not. As this 1961 document shows, Oswald was still a US citizen. Synder asked Oswald to return in a couple of days (gave him a cooling off period) to formally renounce his citizenship, signing papers. As we know, Oswald did not return to the American Embassy in Moscow. So technically he was still an American citizen. 

Warren Commission Hearings, Volume XVIII (maryferrell.org)

What does that mean? It means Mr. DiEugenio that any American (with Citizenship) requesting return from another country without funds can request a loan from the State Department to travel home. The State Department routinely provided this service to stranded Americans abroad through emergency funds. 

Part of the agreement of a State Department loan is to surrender his/her passport until the Loan was paid in full. This was the case and Oswald did pay back his State Department loan in full. 

Wonder why the CIA didn't help him pay back his State Department loan? Huh?

All in the record Mr. DiEugenio.

Of course, your silly argument that Oswald was BOTH a CIA provocateur and an FBI Informant is nothing but mindless speculation. Oswald scraped together money, $200 from his brother Robert and the rest in small increments through Money Orders (Oswald didn't have a bank account in Dallas) and paid back his State Department loan. 

Then in New Orleans he applied for a new passport and was granted. 

[Paul Cummings]

3 hours ago, Steve Roe said:

Again, we see Mr. DiEugenio's serious lack of research. Oswald did attempt to renounce his US citizenship, but technically he did not. As this 1961 document shows, Oswald was still a US citizen. Synder asked Oswald to return in a couple of days (gave him a cooling off period) to formally renounce his citizenship, signing papers. As we know, Oswald did not return to the American Embassy in Moscow. So technically he was still an American citizen. 

Warren Commission Hearings, Volume XVIII (maryferrell.org)

What does that mean? It means Mr. DiEugenio that any American (with Citizenship) requesting return from another country without funds can request a loan from the State Department to travel home. The State Department routinely provided this service to stranded Americans abroad through emergency funds. 

Part of the agreement of a State Department loan is to surrender his/her passport until the Loan was paid in full. This was the case and Oswald did pay back his State Department loan in full. 

Wonder why the CIA didn't help him pay back his State Department loan? Huh?

All in the record Mr. DiEugenio.

Of course, your silly argument that Oswald was BOTH a CIA provocateur and an FBI Informant is nothing but mindless speculation. Oswald scraped together money, $200 from his brother Robert and the rest in small increments through Money Orders (Oswald didn't have a bank account in Dallas) and paid back his State Department loan. 

Then in New Orleans he applied for a new passport and was granted. 

My dad was a Judge and he often pointed out when people would say they got off on a technicality he would respond that it's called the U.S. Constitution.

Edited November 5, 2022 by Paul Cummings

[Joe Bauer]

On 11/1/2022 at 11:07 AM, Kirk Gallaway said:

On 10/31/2022 at 5:29 PM, Tom Gram said:

Expand  

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. 

 

Yes, very loaded.

 

Ruth's personal life proclivities are shaky ground.