The Paine Garage Search on Saturday: What the Fudge-and-Cookies Is Going on Here ?

[Paul Brancato]

2 hours ago, Chris Barnard said:

In an ordinary world with a well functioning law enforcement and judiciary, we could rely on this to take those to task who are guilty and exonerate those who are much maligned unjustly. 
 

I think in the JFKA we may have to reconcile the possibility that the norms we have become accustomed to do not suffice when institutional corruption exists. Whether that be on the level of the Dallas PD or the US government itself. 
 

As a side note; we do live in an era of trial by media. I don’t think that is a good thing at all. 

Agree - Trial by media isn’t good. It’s been with us a long time. I’m reminded of this whenever I read older media coverage. It’s been true throughout my lifetime. 

[Greg Doudna]

2 hours ago, John Cotter said:

Ruth Paine certainly didn't apply the presumption of innocence principle to Oswald when he was dead. Her badmouthing of him then was despicable and it destroys her self-presentation as a kind and virtuous person.

To do that to a murdered man was inexcusable. What made it even worse is that it effectively condoned the actions of the Dallas police in their facilitating Oswald's murder.

In view of Ruth Paine's behaviour in these respects alone, she cannot be considered innocent.

The issue under discussion is the belief held by lots of CT people (with zero hard evidence) that Ruth Paine was an accomplice in the assassination of President Kennedy or participation in an advance plot to frame Oswald, both serious crimes if true. That she believed the FBI, Warren Commission et al reporting after the fact that Oswald did it, or whether you consider her kind or virtuous, is irrelevant and does not make her guilty of those crimes. 

If you believed you knew for sure who killed JFK, you probably would badmouth them too. If you were mistaken in that belief, would that make you guilty of being part of a criminal conspiracy to assassinate JFK? Same logic.

[Jonathan Cohen]

45 minutes ago, John Cotter said:

Saying something is ridiculous is not a logical rebuttal. Neither is an ad hominem attack.

Thanks for the validation.

Back to "ignore" for you, laddie.

[Guest]

29 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

Agree - Trial by media isn’t good. It’s been with us a long time. I’m reminded of this whenever I read older media coverage. It’s been true throughout my lifetime. 

I don’t wish to take this thread off topic, so I’ll keep it to one comment, Paul.

I find the role of MSM particularly ominous in this sense. The eerie repeating of phrases and suggestion, that enter the public consciousness and lexicon with such ease. The way people are directed to believe a narrative and the fate of people decided before they enter a court room. We might debate Ruth Paine’s innocence or guilt but, Oswald’s is practically sealed by the words of journalists that hit the minds of a traumatised public, in the aftermath of the JFKA, when people were afraid, grieving and desperate for an answer. 
 

 

[John Cotter]

29 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Back to "ignore" for you, laddie.

Jonathan doesn't like being "attacked" by logic.

[Paul Rigby]

6 hours ago, Chris Barnard said:

I don’t wish to take this thread off topic, so I’ll keep it to one comment, Paul.

I find the role of MSM particularly ominous in this sense. The eerie repeating of phrases and suggestion, that enter the public consciousness and lexicon with such ease. The way people are directed to believe a narrative and the fate of people decided before they enter a court room. We might debate Ruth Paine’s innocence or guilt but, Oswald’s is practically sealed by the words of journalists that hit the minds of a traumatised public, in the aftermath of the JFKA, when people were afraid, grieving and desperate for an answer. 
 

 

Washington Daily News, 1^st January 1965, p.15 

Fair Trial First

Richard Starnes 

The subsidiary disgrace of Dallas, in which Lee Oswald was convicted and executed without trial, is likely to result in long-needed reforms. 

Few responsible voices in the newspaper industry refuse to concede that the press owned a share in the wretched episode in the basement of the Dallas Municipal Building. The circus atmosphere was condoned by the clodpate cops, to be sure, but it was created by the frenetic antics of the press – a term which in this instance must specifically include the noisy electronic journalists. 

But the execution of Lee Oswald was not the sum of the outrage; almost as savagely unfair was his summary conviction by Prosecutor Henry Wade, with the news media cheerfully acting as judge and jury. Even if Oswald had survived Jack Ruby’s lunatic attack he was as good as dead, for he had no chance of a fair trial in Dallas or any other place else in the United States, once Mr. Wade and his eager helpers had got in their licks. 

Saddest of all is the fact that the Oswald case was unique only in its celebrity. The same things every day, to the extent that one could almost adopt as a rule of thumb that no defendant in any notorious criminal case ever gets a wholly fair trial. Politically ambitious prosecutors, which includes almost all of the breed, systematically leak choice morsels to news media, and by the time the veniremen are seated the atmosphere is hopelessly clouded by unfair pre-trial. 

Newspaper people do not like to talk about this. They know it is true, and they know it makes it difficult for the criminal defendant to obtain a fair trial. But the thought of some quasi-judicial bureaucracy telling them what they may and may not print runs counter to their very instinct, and they fight it. Nevertheless, it appears that some sort of code of pre-trial ethics is slowly taking shape and will someday be applied to defense, prosecution and news media alike. 

The Philadelphia Bar Association has endorsed a tentative code, altho it is voluntary and since it is bitterly opposed by news media it may never have any real effect. But the Philadelphia code is very likely the forerunner of other more effective means of insuring that criminal defendants do not go to trial with their fate already sealed by public clamor. 

The Philadelphia code seeks to enjoin lawyers from making statements regarding pending cases, to forbid them to grant interviews or to prepare statements to be issued by others. There may be many things wrong with the proposed guidelines and there are undoubtedly numerous refinements which experience would dictate. But the opposition has not been notable for reason and logic. Justice Michael A. Musmanno, for example, opposed the proposed restraints on the ground that “curbing crime news is like recommending that no one can talk about cancer on the theory that silence will somehow cause cancer to disappear.” 

This is nonsense. The point is not whether crime will be reduced or increased: the point is a man’s right to a fair trial – a right which is too often diluted by prejudgments in press and radio.

Moreover, no one has ever been able to show that undue publicity about crime has had any deterrent effect. A better case perhaps could be made for the reverse. 

In any event, there is no real issue of freedom of the press here. The press will remain free in this country as long as it is a responsible organism. It was not responsible in Dallas, as the Warren Commission properly observed, and it needs to mend its ways of dealing with accounts of crime and criminals.

[Gil Jesus]

12 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Gil she told Michael Paine late Fri night about Marguerite’s concern for Oswald having legal representation and Michael called the Dallas ACLU (I think it was) Saturday morning and was told they were on it, according to Michael.

She made one attempt late Sat at Oswald’s request to reach Abt in New York and then Oswald was dead. She tried to support Marina that weekend. She opened up her house to Marguerite, Lee’s mother, fri night. What was it her responsibility to do in Lee’ predicament that weekend, with her own life and house overturned, property hauled off, two children to care for, and above all concern for Marina, that you use the dripping sarcasm and scorn on her?

Do you ever consider applying innocent until proven guilty to Ruth Paine? 

On October 15, the day Oswald was being interviewed for the TSBD job, Robert Adams of the Texas Employment Commission called the Paine residence with a job offer from Trans Texas Airways. The job paid $310/month. He was told that Oswald was not there. Adams told the Warren Commission that he left a message for Oswald to call him. 

The next morning he called the Paine residence again and was told that Oswald was not there and that Oswald had obtained employment somewhere else. 

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh11/html/WC_Vol11_0246a.htm

Ruth Paine, when asked about this call said, “I don’t recall an offer like that being made. I have heard this rumor, but it’s certainly unknown to me.”

https://www.swtimes.com/story/lifestyle/around-town/2020/07/29/paine-answers-allegations-of-cia-connections-in-jfk-assassination-part-2/42605369/

It wasn't a rumor, it was sworn testimony.

Reading her testimony, Ruth Paine seems to have a bad memory.

The only way this gets shadier is if she called Roy Truly AFTER she got the call from the TEC. Either way, the question becomes WHY did she not tell Oswald about the higher paying permanent job offer from the TEC ?

What happened to the "human being helping another human being" ?

The TSBD job was only temporary and paid $50/week.

Oswald could have called Truly back and said he got another job. A higher paying job. A permanent job. One that was better for his family. But then, had Oswald taken that Trans Texas Airways job, he would never have been in the downtown area at the TSBD, would he ?

You seem to forget that when it came to Marina and the kids, Ruth Paine had a heart of gold, but when it came to Oswald, nothing but hate.

Edited March 28, 2023 by Gil Jesus

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Paul Rigby said:

Washington Daily News, 1^st January 1965, p.15 

Fair Trial First

Richard Starnes 

The subsidiary disgrace of Dallas, in which Lee Oswald was convicted and executed without trial, is likely to result in long-needed reforms. 

Few responsible voices in the newspaper industry refuse to concede that the press owned a share in the wretched episode in the basement of the Dallas Municipal Building. The circus atmosphere was condoned by the clodpate cops, to be sure, but it was created by the frenetic antics of the press – a term which in this instance must specifically include the noisy electronic journalists. 

But the execution of Lee Oswald was not the sum of the outrage; almost as savagely unfair was his summary conviction by Prosecutor Henry Wade, with the news media cheerfully acting as judge and jury. Even if Oswald had survived Jack Ruby’s lunatic attack he was as good as dead, for he had no chance of a fair trial in Dallas or any other place else in the United States, once Mr. Wade and his eager helpers had got in their licks. 

Saddest of all is the fact that the Oswald case was unique only in its celebrity. The same things every day, to the extent that one could almost adopt as a rule of thumb that no defendant in any notorious criminal case ever gets a wholly fair trial. Politically ambitious prosecutors, which includes almost all of the breed, systematically leak choice morsels to news media, and by the time the veniremen are seated the atmosphere is hopelessly clouded by unfair pre-trial. 

Newspaper people do not like to talk about this. They know it is true, and they know it makes it difficult for the criminal defendant to obtain a fair trial. But the thought of some quasi-judicial bureaucracy telling them what they may and may not print runs counter to their very instinct, and they fight it. Nevertheless, it appears that some sort of code of pre-trial ethics is slowly taking shape and will someday be applied to defense, prosecution and news media alike. 

The Philadelphia Bar Association has endorsed a tentative code, altho it is voluntary and since it is bitterly opposed by news media it may never have any real effect. But the Philadelphia code is very likely the forerunner of other more effective means of insuring that criminal defendants do not go to trial with their fate already sealed by public clamor. 

The Philadelphia code seeks to enjoin lawyers from making statements regarding pending cases, to forbid them to grant interviews or to prepare statements to be issued by others. There may be many things wrong with the proposed guidelines and there are undoubtedly numerous refinements which experience would dictate. But the opposition has not been notable for reason and logic. Justice Michael A. Musmanno, for example, opposed the proposed restraints on the ground that “curbing crime news is like recommending that no one can talk about cancer on the theory that silence will somehow cause cancer to disappear.” 

This is nonsense. The point is not whether crime will be reduced or increased: the point is a man’s right to a fair trial – a right which is too often diluted by prejudgments in press and radio.

Moreover, no one has ever been able to show that undue publicity about crime has had any deterrent effect. A better case perhaps could be made for the reverse. 

In any event, there is no real issue of freedom of the press here. The press will remain free in this country as long as it is a responsible organism. It was not responsible in Dallas, as the Warren Commission properly observed, and it needs to mend its ways of dealing with accounts of crime and criminals.

Great piece, thanks, Paul. 

[John Cotter]

9 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

The issue under discussion is the belief held by lots of CT people (with zero hard evidence) that Ruth Paine was an accomplice in the assassination of President Kennedy or participation in an advance plot to frame Oswald, both serious crimes if true. That she believed the FBI, Warren Commission et al reporting after the fact that Oswald did it, or whether you consider her kind or virtuous, is irrelevant and does not make her guilty of those crimes. 

If you believed you knew for sure who killed JFK, you probably would badmouth them too. If you were mistaken in that belief, would that make you guilty of being part of a criminal conspiracy to assassinate JFK? Same logic.

No, Greg, unlike Ruth Paine, I subscribe to the presumption of innocence, due process and natural justice principles.

I don’t badmouth murder victims, let alone those who have been further violated by the denial of their right to fair procedures as alluded to above, and I don’t condone the actions of a corrupt police force which facilitated the murder of Oswald and the denial of his right to justice.

That’s because I try to be a decent human being – which Ruth Paine obviously was not. She wasn’t the kind, virtuous housewife that you claim she was.

And notwithstanding your straw manning, I didn’t argue that the foregoing alone proves that Ruth Paine was a JFKA conspirator. However, I have argued elsewhere and others have cogently argued here that there is more than enough evidence to show that she was implicated in the plot, at least unwittingly.

Edited March 28, 2023 by John Cotter

[Michael Griffith]

On 3/25/2023 at 7:28 AM, Gil Jesus said:

During the search of the Paine residence on Saturday 11/23, Mr. and Mrs. Paine, along with Marina Oswald and all the kids were absent from the property while the police searched their garage. The official version is that the Paines were getting ready to go shopping when the police showed up with a search warrant and they simply told them to "help themselves" and left.

This account sounds ridiculous to me for two reasons:

First of all, if I'm the property owner and the police show up with a search warrant to search my property, I'm not leaving, especially if someone else's property is mixed in with mine. If they're after the other party, I want to make sure that they don't "confiscate" any property of mine. Whatever else I had planned, including "Shopping", can wait.

Second, if I'm the police officer in charge of the search, I'M NOT LETTING ANYONE LEAVE THE PROPERTY UNTIL THE SEARCH IS COMPLETED. I'll have them sit on the couch in the living room and assign an officer to them to make sure they don't move. I can't take a chance that someone will go for a weapon or destroy evidence, so their mobility is restricted until the search is complete.

How do you know you're not going to find something during the search that is going to implicate either one of the Paines, Marina Oswald or all three in the crime ? You just let them leave ? Just like that ? Why, because they SAID they were going shopping ? How do you know they're not on their way to Redbird Airport to jump on a private plane out of the country ?

Letting them leave the property like that is a no-no.

At best, there seems to be an abnormal amount of trust being displayed by both the property owners and the police.

At worst, it looks like collusion.

Very good points. I agree that all of this sounds extremely odd and smacks of collusion.

We should keep in mind, too, that multiple waves of DPD officers and FBI agents searched Ruth Paine’s residence hours after the assassination and did not find any backyard rifle photos. 

[Greg Doudna]

2 hours ago, Gil Jesus said:

Ruth Paine, when asked about this call said, “I don’t recall an offer like that being made. I have heard this rumor, but it’s certainly unknown to me.”

https://www.swtimes.com/story/lifestyle/around-town/2020/07/29/paine-answers-allegations-of-cia-connections-in-jfk-assassination-part-2/42605369/

It wasn't a rumor, it was sworn testimony.

No, it is sworn testimony that the job paid better. But there is no sworn testimony that Ruth ever was told or knew that. This has been discussed before. The notion that Ruth purposely acted to keep Oswald from a better job for himself and his family is one of the baseless slurs that has an indefinite life, believed and believed and believed and believed, when there is no sound basis to suppose it is true.

You are aware that Ruth received a call from the Texas Employment Commission prior to the TSBD job, a message for Lee, for a very good job offer, and Ruth passed it on to Lee, and Lee did go and apply but was turned down at that place? If Ruth was so dead set against Lee getting a good job other than TSBD, why did she pass on that call to Lee? 

 

[Mark Ulrik]

18 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

No, it is sworn testimony that the job paid better. But there is no sworn testimony that Ruth ever was told or knew that. This has been discussed before. The notion that Ruth purposely acted to keep Oswald from a better job for himself and his family is one of the baseless slurs that has an indefinite life, believed and believed and believed and believed, when there is no sound basis to suppose it is true.

You are aware that Ruth received a call from the Texas Employment Commission prior to the TSBD job, a message for Lee, for a very good job offer, and Ruth passed it on to Lee, and Lee did go and apply but was turned down at that place? If Ruth was so dead set against Lee getting a good job other than TSBD, why did she pass on that call to Lee? 

You have to stop bring so logical, Greg. Heads might explode.

[Tom Gram]

1 hour ago, Michael Griffith said:

Very good points. I agree that all of this sounds extremely odd and smacks of collusion.

We should keep in mind, too, that multiple waves of DPD officers and FBI agents searched Ruth Paine’s residence hours after the assassination and did not find any backyard rifle photos. 

I’ve harped on this before, but according to the DPD reports and inventory sheets, the BYPs were discovered in Paine’s garage on Saturday in a “dull black envelope”. That envelope was never tested for fingerprints, its source was never investigated, and as far as I know it just straight-up disappeared and was never entered into evidence. 

On the TEC job issue, I’ll refer readers to my comments in that thread linked by Greg. There’s no proof of anything nefarious, but it’s hardly a settled issue and the argument that Ruth was prevaricating in her testimony has some legitimate evidentiary support. Even if she did though, that doesn’t automatically mean that she conspired to get Oswald in the TSBD. A reasonable interpretation of the evidence IMO is that Ruth didn’t think it was important to pass on the TEC info because Oswald already had a job; she subsequently did some CYA out of embarrassment and guilt, and the sympathetic WC let her get away with it. 

[Greg Doudna]

8 hours ago, Gil Jesus said:

You seem to forget that when it came to Marina and the kids, Ruth Paine had a heart of gold, but when it came to Oswald, nothing but hate.

Ruth Paine’s behavior toward Oswald before Nov 22 was not hateful. You are misrepresenting. She welcomed him on weekends when he visited. She took him for driving lessons to try to help him get a drivers license. She gave him rides, gave him a map, made a birthday cake for him. There is no sign or testimony that she badmouthed him to Marina. Ruth’s letters to her family members in 1963 pre-Nov 22 do not show hate for Lee but concern for his as well as Marina’s wellbeing. The “hate” is simply not in evidence in heart or behavior prior to Nov 22. 

I agree she viewed him negatively after Nov 22, believed and believes to this day that he killed jfk, and by December she further believed he had attempted premeditated murder of walker eight months earlier proving in her mind he had the heart to do premeditated murder of a president too. Pretty horrifying to believe that coming out about someone who had been in your home and you didn’t see that coming. But you are reading that backwards pre-nov 22. 

[John Cotter]

4 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

I’ve harped on this before, but according to the DPD reports and inventory sheets, the BYPs were discovered in Paine’s garage on Saturday in a “dull black envelope”. That envelope was never tested for fingerprints, its source was never investigated, and as far as I know it just straight-up disappeared and was never entered into evidence. 

On the TEC job issue, I’ll refer readers to my comments in that thread linked by Greg. There’s no proof of anything nefarious, but it’s hardly a settled issue and the argument that Ruth was prevaricating in her testimony has some legitimate evidentiary support. Even if she did though, that doesn’t automatically mean that she conspired to get Oswald in the TSBD. A reasonable interpretation of the evidence IMO is that Ruth didn’t think it was important to pass on the TEC info because Oswald already had a job; she subsequently did some CYA out of embarrassment and guilt, and the sympathetic WC let her get away with it. 

As in the allegory of the blind men and the elephant, one piece of the jigsaw – to mix a metaphor – viewed in isolation from the big picture can be interpreted to mean just about anything.

@Denny Zartman indicated on page three of this thread what the big picture here is. That context renders a benign interpretation of Ruth Paine’s role in getting Oswald the job in the TSBD untenable.

Edited March 28, 2023 by John Cotter