Brian Baccus on Ruth Paine

[Sandy Larsen]

10 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Ruth's and LHO's handlers may or may not have been one and the same, but regardless they were both under control of the plotters.

Total nonsense, as always .. and an embarrassment that you keep repeating this.

 

What I said is obviously hypothetical.

 

[Jonathan Cohen]

8 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

What I said is obviously hypothetical.

 

Oh really? Earlier in this same thread, you said, "Well of course Ruth Paine was a CIA asset. Either she was or Linnie Mae Randle was." The use of the phrase "of course" hardly indicates that you believe something to be "hypothetical."

[James DiEugenio]

PS: The HSCA had limited resources, and only gained funding under the premise they were not re-investigating the case from scratch, but double-checking and adding to the scientific testimony, and pursuing new leads involving anti-Castro Cubans, the Mafia and CIA. So only a few witnesses called before the WC were asked to testify before the HSCA (such as Connally, and Marina), and this was mostly for show. 

I don't think this is really accurate Pat.

At the beginning, under Sprague, the HSCA was going to do a top to bottom reinquiry into the case. And Sprague asked for a large budget for that time.  This included forensic experts and technical equipment.  And at the time of Sprague's guidance, Jerry Policoff told me that he saw Ruth Paine at the archives going through files.  I think it is logical to assume she was looking at her past statements.

The HSCA took testimony from scores of people in public, and many, many more in informal interviews. I will admit that the approach was likely curtailed when Blakey came in.  Then it became I think much more reliant on being a critique of or a following of the previous inquiries. For example, in the reinvestigation of the Clinton/Jackson incident, the people who were sent up there were not allowed to interview anyone that Garrison had not.

But in the end, Blakey ended up giving back something like 400,000 dollars they did not use.

Edited November 25, 2023 by James DiEugenio

[Jonathan Cohen]

5 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

And at the time of Sprague's guidance, Jerry Policoff told me that he saw Ruth Paine at the archives going through files.  I think it is logical to assume she was looking at her past statements.

And your problem with this is... what, exactly?

[James DiEugenio]

Jonathan, under Sprague there was a definite possibility she would have been called to testify. Because that is the kind of lawyer Sprague was, very experienced in homicide cases.  Check out the Jock Yablonski case.

Now with what happened to the HSCA, go ahead and show me her examination. 

 

[Jonathan Cohen]

18 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Jonathan, under Sprague there was a definite possibility she would have been called to testify. Because that is the kind of lawyer Sprague was, very experienced in homicide cases.  Check out the Jock Yablonski case.

Now with what happened to the HSCA, go ahead and show me her examination. 

 

So are you claiming that if such an examination had occurred, Ruth’s “lies” would have crumbled for all to see? I don’t get why you’re fixated on this as it pertains specifically to the Paines.

[Kirk Gallaway]

53 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

And at the time of Sprague's guidance, Jerry Policoff told me that he saw Ruth Paine at the archives going through files.  I think it is logical to assume she was looking at her past statements.

This was the jewel of RP's incrimination in Jim's post. To that Jonathan asks.

50 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

And your problem with this is... what, exactly?

This is what it's like to have a conversation with Jim. He didn't even answer his question.

Jim employs what is called in debating a gish gallop. That is, he throws everything out there but the kitchen sink, alluding to having great knowledge, but only with a mind to divert,  or stall the conversation  in endless links going nowhere.

Yes this is what Jim's got, just more innuendo.

As far as RP's actions. Any prudent person  might look into what the state has got on her.

Let's take this group RP, Randall and Frazier. And take Frazier's account of  the DP intimidation to make him confess to a crime he wasn't involved in.

This group has reason to not trust the government, at any level.

Is anybody ever concerned with government overreach here? Or does that only happen now?

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

What I said [just now] is obviously hypothetical.

1 hour ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Oh really?

Earlier in this same thread, you said, "Well of course Ruth Paine was a CIA asset. Either she was or Linnie Mae Randle was." The use of the phrase "of course" hardly indicates that you believe something to be "hypothetical."

 

That was in my earlier statement, whereas my statement currently under your scrutiny is just now... two different statements!

Regardless, as I've said multiple times before, everything in science is hypothetical. Even when it is treated and said to be fact.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

16 minutes ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

As far as RP's actions. Any prudent person  might look into what the state has got on her.

 

Kirk,

Most people who tell the truth don't go back through the records checking to see what they said earlier.

As a suspected perjurer to many JFKA researchers, Ruth Paine combing through her past statements is certainly a noteworthy observation.

As for Jim D. not giving the time of day to Jonathan, do you seriously think he deserves it? I'm surprised Jim doesn't have him on ignore.

 

[James DiEugenio]

👋

[Kirk Gallaway]

 

46 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Most people who tell the truth don't go back through the records checking to see what they said earlier.

As a suspected perjurer to many JFKA researchers, Ruth Paine combing through her past statements is certainly a noteworthy observation.

Nonsense! Sandy, Believe me, if you were there and heard what was going on  to Frazier, you'd be a fool to not watch your butt too.

 

47 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

As for Jim D. not giving the time of day to Jonathan, do you seriously think he deserves it? I'm surprised Jim doesn't have him on ignore.

 

The answer is "yes". Almost everyone deserves the time of day. You're just playing into a low bar Jim has established.

This is just the kind of hero worship thinking we've got to stop.

 

Sandy, Jim has half the world on ignore including me for just asking direct questions he can't answer, and he actually brags about it, to get support.  (And now you get rewarded with a Jim emoji!, heh heh)  Which, in his position  establishes a bad precedent for any serious research.

There are crazy people who come here from time to time that are better off being ignored. I haven't personally seen that with Jonathan, though his attitude can seem terse. He simply disagrees with you.

But I can't speak to all of Jonathan's responses. But are any of these current question Jim is ducking unfair? You're just responding negatively for being challenged.

2 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Well of course Ruth Paine was a CIA asset. Either she was or Linnie Mae Randle was." The use of the phrase "of course" hardly indicates that you believe something to be "hypothetical."

Ok, this is a small matter Sandy. You made this statement.

Sandy:Well of course Ruth Paine was a CIA asset. Either she was or Linnie Mae Randle was.

The use of the phrase "of course" is 180 degrees from later calling it "hypothetical."

These things need to be straightened out. You're not allowed unlimited license to make an incriminating  statement, and later call it hypothetical.  You should expect to be called on that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Sandy Larsen]

5 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

7 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Most people who tell the truth don't go back through the records checking to see what they said earlier.

Nonsense!

 

Oh come on Kirk! Name a few HSCA witnesses who went back over their old statements and testimony before testifying for the HSCA. What percentage of them do you think did that? Those who did probably had something to hide.

 

5 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

7 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

As for Jim D. not giving the time of day to Jonathan, do you seriously think he deserves it? I'm surprised Jim doesn't have him on ignore.

5 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

The answer is "yes". Almost everyone deserves the time of day. You're just playing into a low bar Jim has established.

 

That's bull. Jonathan is often disrespectful and has a tendency to mock those he disagrees with. He's been given several warnings for doing so.

 

5 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

This is just the kind of hero worship thinking we've got to stop.

 

If you're accusing me of worshiping Jim DiEugenio, you can take that and shove it in a place I can't say.

 

5 hours ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

Sandy: Well of course Ruth Paine was a CIA asset. Either she was or Linnie Mae Randle was.

The use of the phrase "of course" is 180 degrees from later calling it "hypothetical."

These things need to be straightened out. You're not allowed unlimited license to make an incriminating  statement, and later call it hypothetical. 

 

Go back through the posts Kirk. I NEVER said that that statement was hypothetical. First Jonathan accused me of saying so, and now you're doing the same. You are both wrong. (It was a entirely different statement that I said was hypothetical.)

If you want to call me out on something, fine. But don't say I'm ducking the question when in fact I'm not. Or that I'm contradicted myself when in fact I didn't. (Whichever the case may be.)

(BTW I suspect that you do this same sort of thing to Jim D., and that may be the reason he has you blocked.)

 

[Greg Doudna]

On 11/24/2023 at 10:27 PM, Miles Massicotte said:

Greg having read your paper I find this fascinating, because for what it is worth my own initial gut response was: I was convinced by your argument that the Irving Sports Shop encounter was not fabricated, but I wasn't personally convinced about Oswald borrowing Michael Paine's car. So Ruth Paine's own response somewhat corroborates this. I am wondering if perhaps they were brought there by a third party, but that is pure speculation. I know that Greg Parker thinks Dial Ryder fabricated the whole encounter, but I'm not as convinced about that. 

In any case, if Marina was hiding something post-assassination, as I think she was, it doesn't actually hinge on whether or not she concealed borrowing the Paine automobile. If she concealed anything at all from Ruth, for example knowing or being complicit in Lee's activities in some way (like accompanying him to a sports shop to have his scope fitted), it would be cause enough for her to feel guilty, considering how generously she was treated by the Paines, who really had nothing to gain by helping her. Unless of course you believe that Ruth was a CIA handler of some kind and was compelled to help her. Which I don't (although I know many above do)....for reasons I will outline in my Oswald paper which may or may not debut in the next fifty years...

My point for now is simply that Marina had ample reason not to want to reconnect with Ruth even if she didn't conceal the borrowing of their car.

Miles thanks for this. But could I ask a question, not as disagreement or argument but as simple curiosity: when you say even though you thought Oswald in the Sport Shop rang true and was not fabricated, "I wasn't personally convinced  about Oswald borrowing Michael Paine's car ... I am wondering if perhaps they were brought there by a third party, but that is pure speculation."

Could you elaborate on what caused you caution, or reluctance, or however you want to term it, for the borrowing of Michael Paine's car detail?

It was a white over blue two-tone sedan older American car, and at the Furniture Mart Lee was seen pulling in and parking, then leaving again, driving a white over blue two-tone sedan older American car. Lee was seen driving in a car matching the description of Michael Paine's car which was parked at Ruth's house and, provided Lee and Marina found where Ruth kept her key to that car in a drawer somewhere, was means and opportunity.

Is it skepticism that Lee had sufficient driving skill or ability to drive local city blocks? But Lee was capable of doing that, even Ruth herself I believe said at one point that she believed Lee was capable of passing a driving test if he had taken it, he could drive well enough to that level. And to get to the Furniture Mart and nearby Sport Shop at all that morning of Nov 11, plus with a rifle, during the hours Ruth was gone definitely required a car, and Lee was seen driving with no other driver and no one else in the car (which looked like Michael Paine's car) other than Lee, Marina, 2-year old June, and the baby. 

Is it because you think Lee and Marina would not collude in lying to Ruth in that way, to borrow a car without telling her, had not done that kind of thing before, would not do that? Is it the driving ability of Lee issue? Is it the minor mismatches of make and model of the blue-over-white car remembered by the two women witnesses who saw Lee driving that car even though they got the colors right?

From my point of view it is a perfect explanation that explains everything, the borrowing of Michael Paine's car, then returning and parking it where it was before, locking it back up, returning the key to whatever drawer of Ruth's in the house they had obtained it, Ruth returns home later in the afternoon none the wiser, they don't tell her ... what about that, if you are willing to say, still nagged at you as not sold on the idea? (Not seeking to change your mind, but curious simply to know.) Thanks--

Also, I don't think it was the borrowing of Michael's car without telling Ruth, in itself, which would explain why Marina never reconnected with Ruth. That in itself would be an easy one to later confess and patch up, not a major big deal. My thinking has been that it was the purpose of the trip, not the mechanism of getting there, which was the real issue: the rifle. For Marina to reconnect with Ruth would necessarily require either actually confessing in full and being truthful about that (and that could not help but become public, with repercussions), or continuing living a lie to Ruth after reconnection about that rather major thing, and I can imagine someone like Marina preferring to stay disconnected without explanation rather than the psychological discomfort of either of those alternatives. That was my line of thinking on that.

[James DiEugenio]

SL: (BTW I suspect that you do this same sort of thing to Jim D., and that may be the reason he has you blocked.)

That is correct Sandy.

I think most people here understand the sea change that took place once Sprague left the HSCA.  Sprague was a very experienced homicide prosecutor and had a record of something like 72-2 in felony cases.  If you read Bob Tanenbaum's new book Coal Country Killing, which I would guess no one here has or even knows about, you will see how Sprague investigated the Yablonski murders after he was appointed special prosecutor in that murder conspiracy case, and how he worked his way up the ladder through something liked a series of five trials to convict the top conspirator in the case.

So what I am saying is that I think Sprague would have done a much more complete and comprehensive job in the investigating part than what later happened. For the HSCA to have never done any inquiry or investigation into the Paines, and for the ARRB to have done the same, that in just incomprehensible to me. The Hootkins affair before the assassination, and the Minox camera caper after would have been prime reasons to do so.  And that is just for starters.  And BTW neither of those is in Max Good's film, which I like, but I do not think went far enough.

 

[Ron Bulman]

On 11/25/2023 at 9:20 AM, James DiEugenio said:

Nice work Max.

If anything his film did not go far enough.

Let me repost something about the whole Hootkins affair, the FBI and Ruth's non denial denial.

According to Greg there is not one thing about Ruth or Michael that anyone should ever question. If you want to read a perfect example  of this, take a look at his argument with Greg Parker at ROKC over Bill Hootkins.  That one was a real doozy.  Consider what Parker does with Ruth's non denial denial in order to keep her student Hootkins away from Oswald:

"I will end with another classic RP non-denial denial - this time about the identity of the boy. 

"Mrs Paine 2515 West 5th Street, Irving, Texas advised that she has no child even as old as school age and knows of no boy of about 14 with whom Oswald was ever associated in the neighborhood."

Key phrase "in the neighborhood". Hootkins lived in Dallas, not Irving. Which is why Shasteen did not recognize him. If she had said she knew of no 14 year old with whom Oswald ever associated... it would have been a lie. "In the neighborhood" made it technically true. And that was the only reason that bit was added.

The FBI by the way, knew Ruth was tutoring Hootkins. They knew he was 14. They knew what he looked like because they interviewed his mother in his presence regarding the Russian lessons. They had Shasteen's description which was Hootkins to the nth degree. Yet with all of that, they never connected the dots? More bullshit. The FBI knew."

Please tell me if I understand this right Jim.  The FBI knew about Hootkins taking Russian lessons from Ruth before the assassination.   Yet they ignored him in the barbershop with Oswald, before the assassination, after the assassination?