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

[Sandy Larsen]

5 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Alesi responds to baseless smearing

Joe Alesi sent me two emails today and gave permission to post, which I am in full and analtered except for the boldings which are added. They contain information relevant to the topic under discussion. 

[start email #1]

"I wanted to point out a couple of things, not all that important but just for the record. I actually met Ruth Paine before Michael when she gave a talk in Sonoma in 2013. I found out sometime later that Michael Paine was also living in Sonoma County. I spoke to Ruth and I asked her if it would be OK to send some photos for his signature. I did, but they never came back so I gave him a call and to my surprise he picked up and started talking about the Kennedy assassination. Later I met with Michael and his son Chris was there also. That was before he moved to friends house in a separate apartment from Ruth of course. I knew Ruth but I wouldn’t say we were friends at first. I was actually visiting Michael more than Ruth. Anyway, over time I became more acquainted with Ruth. When Michael died she invited me to the service for him at friends house. And then of course later in 2019 the two of us traveled to Dallas two times for different events. So at this point I would definitely say we were friends.

"The other point that needs correction is about the agency I worked for, the defense investigative service. After working there for a number of years they changed the name to the defense security services but it was exactly the same job and consisted only of doing background investigations on individuals for security clearances. It never became the defense criminal investigative service. I never did any kind of criminal work and certainly not intelligence work despite what Di Eugenio would like to portray. 

"Later on the defense security services was disbanded and the operation was taken over by the office of personnel management. They called it the federal investigative services. It was no longer a function of the department of defense. Nevertheless it was the same job as always doing background investigations for Security clearances, knocking on doors asking questions checking records etc. etc. I get a kick out of Di Eugenio saying that I was doing work for Ruth. It’s absolutely nonsense and laughable. 

"Max Good has insinuated that I could be her handler. Max Good should know better. He’s pandering to his audience trying to promote his film. He knew my relationship with Ruth at the time he interviewed me and nothing has changed. I actually had no beef with Max until then because he did not misrepresent me in any way in the movie. Di Eugenio has also called me Ruth’s “aide- de-camp”. This guy is whacked out. After posting about Ruth on the Facebook group “ JFK Truth Be Told” one idiot referred to me as Ruth’s neighbor, guardian angel and disinformation specialist. It doesn’t bother me at all.

"On a final note I think I should mention that the Jack Ruby notes I have are absolutely authentic. I’m quite familiar with his hand writing and I would see no reason why they would have been forged."

[end email #1]

[start email #2]

"The other thing DiEugenio said in an interview is that I did work for Ruth going out and finding these filing boxes. Nonsense. She did ask me to see if I could find anything on the internet about CE 458 which she later gave to me. It’s all in the film. Where would I look for filing boxes? What filing boxes? There are none.

"In the same interview he says I’m wearing a hat that says Defense Intelligence Service which I take off to show Max. I’ve never owned any such hat and showed Max a plaque that says Defense Investigative Service. The guy is a real dope . You can quote me on that and anything else from my previous email." 

[end email #2] 

 

I have no idea who Joe Alesi is, but I've copied his e-mails to Greg Doudna here just in case Jim D. wants to respond.

 

[Kirk Gallaway]

On 10/16/2022 at 8:45 PM, Kirk Gallaway said:

 

The only reason this " Ruth forced Lee into a lower paying job to put him in the TSBD?" hypothesis even gets out the starting gate is Ruth's supposed choice made for a lower paying job for Lee. But there's no evidence that any wage was disclosed or why it would be! Also the job search was over!

 

It seems to me, what is  at best a 20% probability hypothesis is passed off as an almost certainty.Once something is pushed as a certainty here, its hard to dislodge it. ( like Ruth actually being the source of the lead?) And to extend on that, Jim, we're to share your belief that obviously  Ruth was being coached.

 

 And of course, extending on that, when Oswald is accused of killing the president. Wouldn't a light bulb go off in Ruth's head that she's been coached  to keep Lee in the TSBD? and why?

At that point, she has to divulge who her handlers are, or she could be seen as an accessory to the killing of a President. And you're asserting she made a conscious choice to side with her handlers.

 

I would assert according to your theory, not only is Ruth in way over her head, but you're in way over your head having adopted this theory.

To Who It May Concern             heh heh

 

So can we at least admit from what I posted above that this " Ruth forced Lee into a lower paying job to put him in the TSBD?"should either be flushed down the toilet? Because Ruth would have surely known.

 

Or... If you assert that RP is an accessory before and/or after the fact to the assassination of JFK, why don't you come out and say it?\

*******

 

 

I saw Max's film. I thought Joe Alesi comes off very credibly as a real guy in the film,  and I would certainly believe him over  Di Eugenio innuendos.

 

Max, I think it was a very good film, and a great effort you can be proud of,  and I don't in any way want to discourage you from making films in the future.

 

And considering Max's  professed strong suspicions voiced at the quarter mark. He did make a good effort to be fair and impartial.

She's a great subject, but Max has to be given great credit to portray her many sides and presents her in a full, well rounded , character profile. But ironically, that ends up being the movies liability. Because only the most bubble headed hard core JFK conspiracy person would actually come out of this film thinking this film as having massive crossover appeal to convince of Ruth's guilt. Because she comes off real and sincere. 

But it does do a very good job of preaching to the converted. Which is cool, and depending on the subject material can be very lucrative.  Isn't that what's done in almost all films, Fiction or non fiction?

 

Max, Maybe you're a humanist more than a propagandist. at heart, and that's a good thing.

 

[Jonathan Cohen]

1 hour ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

I saw Max's film. I thought Joe Alesi comes off very credibly as a real guy in the film,  and I would certainly believe him over  Di Eugenio innuendos.

Thank you Kirk, for once again providing a voice of reason on this forum.

[James DiEugenio]

That is almost funny Jonathan.. 

Can you please point out where Kirk has done anything of notice on the Paines in the past: where it was published and when etc?

Can you also please show me how many books Kirk has published on the case?  

Can you show me in those books where he has written about the Paines?

Let me know when you find this material by Kirk. 

Without it, his comments, like above, have the weight of helium.  About as much as Alesi's do. Which I will reply to later.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 19, 2022 by James DiEugenio

[Jonathan Cohen]

28 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

That is almost funny Jonathan.. 

Can you please point out where Kirk has done anything of notice on the Paines in the past: where it was published and when etc?

Can you also please show me how many books Kirk has published on the case?  

Can you show me in those books where he has written about the Paines?

Let me know when you find this material by Kirk. 

Without it, his comments, like above, have the weight of helium.  About as much as Alesi's do. Which I will reply to later.

What an astonishing response. I guess you've at least come right out and said you don't believe anybody other than published authors such as yourself could possibly post anything here of value or substance. Now that we know your exacting standards, I guess the 99% of forum membership who aren't published authors should just bow at your feet and refrain from providing any of our own further input henceforth, simply because you've written books on the case?

[David G. Healy]

1 hour ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

What an astonishing response. I guess you've at least come right out and said you don't believe anybody other than published authors such as yourself could possibly post anything here of value or substance. Now that we know your exacting standards, I guess the 99% of forum membership who aren't published authors should just bow at your feet and refrain from providing any of our own further input henceforth, simply because you've written books on the case?

your problem young man, is your damn ego, EGO. And envy, ya just don't have the chops or the wherewithal to acquire them... becoming the argument is NOT the solution, I suspect even Galloway knows that... Give it a rest...

[Jonathan Cohen]

1 hour ago, David G. Healy said:

your problem young man, is your damn ego, EGO. And envy, ya just don't have the chops or the wherewithal to acquire them... becoming the argument is NOT the solution, I suspect even Galloway knows that... Give it a rest...

And your problem is a years-long series of incoherent jive talk postings that add nothing whatsoever to the research community.

[James DiEugenio]

7 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

What an astonishing response. I guess you've at least come right out and said you don't believe anybody other than published authors such as yourself could possibly post anything here of value or substance. Now that we know your exacting standards, I guess the 99% of forum membership who aren't published authors should just bow at your feet and refrain from providing any of our own further input henceforth, simply because you've written books on the case?

Jonathan:

Do you want me to go through the list of things I said in the film?  Really?  

Now are you saying that Kirk knows the case, and specifically the Paines, better than I do?  To the point he can refer to what I say with the slur: innuendo?

Anyone who does say that and who accepts Mr. Alesi and the state of and number of those file folders as they are, without referring at all to the original report, someone like that has an agenda. 

And this is exactly what I mean about the matter.  And I do not believe you do not know that.

Edited October 20, 2022 by James DiEugenio

[Max Good]

On 10/18/2022 at 11:16 PM, Greg Doudna said:

"Max Good has insinuated that I could be her handler. Max Good should know better. He’s pandering to his audience trying to promote his film. He knew my relationship with Ruth at the time he interviewed me and nothing has changed. I actually had no beef with Max until then because he did not misrepresent me in any way in the movie. Di Eugenio has also called me Ruth’s “aide- de-camp”. This guy is whacked out. After posting about Ruth on the Facebook group “ JFK Truth Be Told” one idiot referred to me as Ruth’s neighbor, guardian angel and disinformation specialist. It doesn’t bother me at all.

  

On 10/8/2022 at 9:14 PM, Max Good said:

Alesi seems to be Ruth's main ambassador to the JFK community at this point (some would, no doubt, use the term "handler").

I simply remarked that some would call Alesi Ruth's "handler" because some people I've spoken to have called him just that.  Joe says he had no beef with me before he read that statement, but below is what he wrote months ago about my "lies, innuendoes, and bullshit."  Joe was very open and helpful as I was making the film, and I thank him for that.

I'm fine with the film being interpreted in different ways.  Obviously, our paradigms usually define our perspectives.  I do not support the demonization of Ruth Paine. 

People arguing that she is completely innocent because there was no conspiracy are in a different category than those who believe she was used unwittingly (or those who believe there was a conspiracy but that she was not used or placed in position even unwittingly).

Here are six main categories (maybe there are more):

1. Ruth Paine wittingly participated in a conspiracy to kill JFK.

2. Ruth was used wittingly in some intelligence capacity but with no knowledge of the plot to kill JFK.

3. Ruth was used unwittingly but became aware of her role after the assassination and has lied about this since.

4. Ruth was used completely unwittingly (she had no knowledge, before or after, that she had been put in a position as part of the plot).

5. There was no conspiracy in the assassination and therefore Ruth Paine could not have been part of any plot.

6. There was a conspiracy but Ruth Paine came to befriend the Oswalds by pure chance and had no role in it, before or after.

[James DiEugenio]

Let me now reply to Mr Alesi.

Whatever one wants to term him, he is clearly in Ruth's camp and is helping and aiding her--in one way by smearing me.  In another way by doing some leg work for her.  After all, he says she is getting up there. I mean how is that not being an aide de camp?

He obviously has it out for me since I was the probably the most frequent talking head in the film. Well since Max was at my place for six hours, and at three different locations in the area, I guess I should have been.

I want to make a point about the film and about me on this issue.  This final cut of the film is much better now than the one I saw in LA, when Max had a screening and invited me.  But if it had been me writing and directing, and in an ideal world, it would be a much different film.

1. I would not have been in it at all.  The leading talking head would have been Carol Hewett.  Carol graduated from the U of Texas law school and was a practicing lawyer in Florida for 20 years. IMO, the whole renewed interest in the Paines is owed to her pioneering work on them.  Which goes back to the nineties.  And I think this is where Jim Douglass got the idea to make them a part of JFK and the Unspeakable.   

2.) Unfortunately for us all, Carol was stricken  with cancer in the late nineties.  She had to undergo chemo and radiation treatments.  It was really bad.  And this was one of the causes of her gradually dropping out of the critical community and eventually retiring her law practice.  But if this had not occurred and it was my film, she would have been the most prevalent speaker, with all of her lawyerly documents flashed on the screen.

3.) I would have cut much of the other side, especially Hoch and Holland.  To me they are basically pretentious gas bags.  

4.) In their place I would have included:

a.) The Minox camera caper, which Carol pioneered and mastered

b.) Greg Parker's work on Hootkins, Shasteen and Oswald and Ruth

c.) Chris Newton's work on the Mexico City letter. In all of its ramifications.

 

Mr Alesi would have been screaming bloody murder over that film. As would have Hoch.  What a badge of honor. 

Edited October 21, 2022 by James DiEugenio

[Kirk Gallaway]

7 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Let me now reply to Mr Alesi.

 Whatever one wants to term him, he is clearly in Ruth's camp and is helping and aiding her, in one way by smearing me. In another way by doing some leg work for her.  After all, he says she is getting up there.

He obviously has it out for me since I was the probably the most frequent talking head in the film.

Jim, I've been waiting for your promised response about Alesi.

Jim: Whatever one wants to term him, he is clearly in Ruth's camp and is helping and aiding her, in one way by smearing me.

Oh so you're the victim now? Isn't the issue that he's fighting back because you first smeared him?

And what do you have on him, Jim? That he performed security work for a government agency? What else?

Unlike you, Max has met him and Max earlier reaffirmed a trust in Alesi, saying that he would be a good  person to ask about the Paine's inter relationship! It appears he has a different attitude about Alesi than you do. But as you said. It would have been a much different film if you made it.

 

Jim:he is clearly in Ruth's camp and is helping and aiding her by doing some leg work for her.in one way by smearing me.  After all, he says she is getting up there.

Yes, a middle aged man aiding, supporting and helping a 90 year old woman. How suspicious? Though I'm sure there was mutual advantage to that. How shameful!

Ok,ok,a joke.  But the bottom line is: What do you got on Alesi?

[W. Tracy Parnell]

6 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

I would have cut much of the other side, especially Hoch and Holland.

Hoch was not in the film as released. All his footage was cut.

[Greg Doudna]

Alesi reports what Ruth Paine thinks of DiEugenio

From Alesi who approved this message:

"Just saw it on the forum. The guy [DiEugenio] is a dope and I hope he reads what I wrote. He gets the most basic details wrong.  He has just seen Max’s film and is commenting on it. I obviously have no hat and the plaque says Defense Investigative Service, NOT Intelligence Service, but of course that misrepresentation better suits his narrative.

"Does he know that Ruth has never heard his name? She told me that after we saw the film."

[James DiEugenio]

One last point: if the above film I outlined would have been made, the reaction would have been much different.  It would not have been: what an interesting subject or person. Or: what was their real relation to the case?

It would have been something like: what a piece of crap the Warren Report was, and why did the Commission and FBI not refer the Paines to the Justice Department?

Edited October 21, 2022 by James DiEugenio

[Jonathan Cohen]

57 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

... and why did the Commission and FBI not refer the Paines to the Justice Department?

On what grounds? What would you like them to have been charged with?