Lifton and Ruth Paine

[Nancy Weiford]

Listening to David Lifton's more recent comments on Ruth Paine and Lee Oswald, I am wondering if anyone knows specifically how he handled the 11/9/63 letter to the Russian Embassy in Washington DC which includes comments on the recent alleged visit to Mexico City. In coming to conclusions about role playing by Oswald, did David ultimately believe that the letter was genuine and authentically written by Oswald? Any details on his explanation?

[James DiEugenio]

I don't know Nancy.

I wish I did.

Is that what it sounded like?  That he thought Oswald wrote it?

[Nancy Weiford]

11 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

I don't know Nancy.

I wish I did.

Is that what it sounded like?  That he thought Oswald wrote it?

I'm not sure. There are three versions of the handwritten document at Swarthmore College in the Ruth Hyde Papers there. I saw them myself when I visited in 1997-98. More recently, Max Good has confirmed they still exist in that archive. We know the typed version of the letter as CE15. As I understand David's final landing place on the Paines, he believed they were not part of any big plot, not co-conspirators, not handlers, but instead unwitting hosts based on a request from, most likely, Ruth Forbes Young, Michael's mother. Given that, I am curious how David dealt with that 11/9/63 letter that was eventually intercepted by the FBI informant on 11/18, very likely the USPS. Also, was the typed version examined by the FBI Lab to determine that it was typed on Ruth Paine's typewriter, to the exclusion of all other typewriters?

Your thoughts would be appreciated.

[James DiEugenio]

I think you are correct on what LIfton thought about this issue.

Which is different than what he thought about most other issues in this case.

And that is a good question about the typewriter. Which I do not know the answer to.

 

[Nancy Weiford]

Jim - I must say that David and I talked/debated about Ruth and Michael Paine for over two decades. He had interviewed Michael and I had interviewed Ruth (both in the late 90's) and we compared notes and ideas relentlessly. My beliefs are that Ruth and Michael are very different people and require study independently. Neither one is responsible for the thoughts and actions of the other. Looking at them this way helps to define the relationship each had with Lee and Marina. The embassy letter authorship and genesis is not yet resolved in my mind; as such, it is a continued topic in my on-going research. I plan to pursue the typewriter testing issue and will advise findings.

[James DiEugenio]

Godspeed on the typewriter.

But just remember, "  He was lying on MY TYPEWRITER!"

Carol Hewett once said that Ruth told this story about three different ways as to explain why she swiped the letter and copied it.

 

 

[James DiEugenio]

Just in case:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24kLiDw84Js

 

[James DiEugenio]

Another example of Nancy's work:

https://www.amazon.com/Faux-Baron-George-Mohrenschildt-1911-1963-ebook/dp/B00GLJ7M3C/ref=sr_1_3?keywords=nancy+Weiford&qid=1671488733&sr=8-3

[Nancy Weiford]

On 12/19/2022 at 2:26 PM, James DiEugenio said:

Another example of Nancy's work:

https://www.amazon.com/Faux-Baron-George-Mohrenschildt-1911-1963-ebook/dp/B00GLJ7M3C/ref=sr_1_3?keywords=nancy+Weiford&qid=1671488733&sr=8-3

Although I do have the Kindle versions (in two volumes due to size limits) available, they do not have the total content of the Print single volume which also has almost 600 extensive endnotes. The source citations and endnotes provide much historical content without disrupting the narrative flow in the book. 

Nancy

The Faux Baron: George de Mohrenschildt: An Aristocrat's Journey from the Russian Revolution to the Assassination of John F. Kennedy: Weiford, Nancy Wertz: 9781501021497: Amazon.com: Books