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

[Jeff Carter]

Some thoughts after watching the film:

Like it or not, the Paines are and will continue to be controversial figures in the assassination story. This is the subject of the film - a controversial historic figure - and the filmmaker does a very good job of balancing the opposing viewpoints of suspicion and alibi. The controversy will never be resolved, and so the viewer is left in the slightly uncomfortable space between Salandria’s position (“impossible for them not to have been involved”) and Ruth Paine’s (“it was entirely coincidental”). That’s tricky territory for a filmmaker because some form of resolution is expected from most narratives. The Paine partisans, it seems to me, regarding this film, continue to “protest too much”.

also:

1)  the “we know who’s responsible” phone call: did Oswald’s name come up during this call? It does appear in the official summary. Ruth Paine infers the call was only about the local radical right, and states she never considered LO until discovery of the empty blanket after the police contingent arrived. This point too seems contradicted by official police report which has her greeting the officers with “we were expecting you”.

2)  Paine says met deMohrenschildts only once (Magnolia party). but she and Michael had dinner with them in 1967, shortly after the return from Haiti and following the discovery of the “deMohrenschildt BYP” in their stored possessions. Was it not the Paines who controlled that locker after Glover scooted away?

3) it’s difficult to understand where the “little guy who wanted to be a big guy” analysis comes from, and so quickly as this was being expressed by the Paines on Nov 25.

4) why would Oswald furtively type up the embassy letter, then leave it in the typewriter and not try to retrieve it before heading back to work?

5) If the blanket allegedly holding the rifle could limply flop over the arm of the police officer, how could it hold the alleged “form” of the rifle when discovered (as stated in police reports). Why did Ruth never notice that “form” before? Who loaded it into her vehicle in New Orleans? Michael Paine’s bizarre insistence that he thought it was camping equipment when handling it remains a question too.

Edited January 4, 2023 by Jeff Carter

[John Cotter]

1 hour ago, Jeff Carter said:

Some thoughts after watching the film:

Like it or not, the Paines are and will continue to be controversial figures in the assassination story. This is the subject of the film - a controversial historic figure - and the filmmaker does a very good job of balancing the opposing viewpoints of suspicion and alibi. The controversy will never be resolved, and so the viewer is left in the slightly uncomfortable space between Salandria’s position (“impossible for them not to have been involved”) and Ruth Paine’s (“it was entirely coincidental”). That’s tricky territory for a filmmaker because some form of resolution is expected from most narratives. The Paine partisans, it seems to me, regarding this film, continue to “protest too much”.

also:

1)  the “we know who’s responsible” phone call: did Oswald’s name come up during this call? It does appear in the official summary. Ruth Paine infers the call was only about the local radical right, and states she never considered LO until discovery of the empty blanket after the police contingent arrived. This point too seems contradicted by official police report which has her greeting the officers with “we were expecting you”.

2)  Paine says met deMohrenschildts only once (Magnolia party). but she and Michael had dinner with them in 1968, shortly after the return from Haiti and following the discovery of the “deMohrenschildt BYP” in their stored possessions. Was it not the Paines who controlled that locker after Glover scooted away?

3) it’s difficult to understand where the “little guy who wanted to be a big guy” analysis comes from, and so quickly as this was being expressed by the Paines on Nov 25.

4) why would Oswald furtively type up the embassy letter, then leave it in the typewriter and not try to retrieve it before heading back to work?

5) If the blanket allegedly holding the rifle could limply flop over the arm of the police officer, how could it hold the alleged “form” of the rifle when discovered (as stated in police reports). Why did Ruth never notice that “form” before? Who loaded it into her vehicle in New Orleans? Michael Paine’s bizarre insistence that he thought it was camping equipment when handling it remains a question too.

Excellent points.

[Ron Bulman]

On 10/8/2022 at 11:14 PM, Max Good said:

This is interesting.  Last I heard, was this post below from Joe Alesi that someone re-posted on another forum a while back.  From what I understand, the Facebook group "JFK Truth Be Told" is a private group mostly dominated by official story supporters.

Ruth made it clear to me that she didn't want to be involved in the project anymore in 2019.  Since then, I have left her alone, out of respect.  Alesi seems to be Ruth's main ambassador to the JFK community at this point (some would, no doubt, use the term "handler").  You may remember him from my film--he was the one who got one of those infamous filing cabinets from Ruth after striking up a friendship with her.  He also had binders full of autographed photos from the Paines, and a box full of FOIA documents that Ruth gave to him after requesting all of her files from the FBI.  Alesi is a JFK memorabilia collector and a former employee of the Defense Investigative Service, where he worked on validating people for security clearances.  He was quite open with me about this when I interviewed him.  He even held up his placard for the camera.

Joe Alesi escorted Ruth to Dallas when she made a couple appearances there in 2019 and it looks from his message like he plans to do the same in 2023.

It's not a bad endorsement: "Well done, but powerfully awful."  I thought Ruth might actually appreciate the film if she gave it a chance.

Handler is the correct term imho Max.  As Jim and Joseph mention, a most telling moment and "awful" thing, for Ruth.  No other video I'm aware of has ever presented any alternative aspects to her story, to her to speak of.  You at least confronted her somewhat with some of the questions.  

I'd still love to hear her questioned in depth about her desk secretary / couch and the files in her garage on Cuban sympathizers.  And of course, the limp blanket, the letter she copied.  She might fear that it's awful a can of worms might be opened here.  Congratulations.  Again.