Brian Baccus on Ruth Paine

[Greg Doudna]

4 hours ago, Tony Krome said:

Jenner was interviewing Murrett;

Mr. JENNER - Now, this is particularly important to us.

Jenner was trying to establish the colour of a particular bag;

Mr. JENNER - What color was it?

Mrs. MURRET - Possibly it was brown.

Mr. JENNER - Brown? 

Mrs. MURRET - I think so.

Now, according to you Greg, this bag was possibly green, correct?

I believe green is what Jenner had in mind in relation to Oswald's marine bag. I find it stunning that Mrs. Murrett did not disclose that she was colour blind. Thoughts?

I don’t know for sure that Lillian Murrett had a color-blind issue, that was just a guess as to explanation for her calling Ruth Paine’s station wagon tan or light brown, but it was an error of some kind and color blindness is more common than realized.

Edited December 1, 2023 by Greg Doudna

[Sandy Larsen]

16 hours ago, Jean Ceulemans said:

So Ruth was evasive on questions about her sister ? IMO she was fully entitled to do so, if she knew her syster had nothing to do with the case.  I would do the same, given the fact there was no connection between Ruth and her sister within the JFKA case. Garrison tried making a connection, to sketch Ruth, she defended herself rightfully so IMO

 

So you believe that Ruth Paine committed perjury in court?  I do as well.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

10 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

I do partly agree with [Jim D.] on one thing: I think [Ruth Paine] was trying to avoid if possible putting her CIA employed (but not in the least way JFK assassination involved) sister into Garrison’s [trial]...

 

So you believe that Ruth Paine committed perjury in court?  I do as well.

 

[Jean Ceulemans]

18 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

So you believe that Ruth Paine committed perjury in court?  I do as well.

 

An actual perjury ? Mmm... not so easy... IMHO.

I have to say I'm not sure about the US-laws, but usually Mens rea, Actus reus is pretty much the baseline, take that and a good lawyer....    Again, I haven't checked US-legislation but one can lie about elements if those elements do not influence the legal result (as a general rule).   Ruth could have hidden her sisters whereabouts, if  those do not influence the legal result or outcome.   

Later this evening I will check how it is in the US, or perhaps @Cory Santos can tell us about the general rules that apply in the US about that.  

So what is a perjury and what is not a perjury, could be a nice debate, thanks for picking it up 😃  I'm pretty sure also in the US a lie is not per definition a perjury...

 

Edited December 1, 2023 by Jean Ceulemans

[Sandy Larsen]

11 minutes ago, Jean Ceulemans said:

Again, I haven't checked US-legislation but one can lie about elements if those elements do not influence the legal result (as a general rule).   Ruth could have hidden her sisters whereabouts, if  those do not influence the legal result or outcome.

 

Since when can a witness decide whether or not a lie they tell under oath will influence the outcome of a trial?

That said (or rather, asked) I do believe that a person who commits perjury won't be indicted for perjury if it is determined by a judge that the lie was irrelevant to the outcome of the trial. And that knowing this, an attorney general won't bring charges against the person.

But lying under oath is still perjury.

 

[James DiEugenio]

Perjury to a grand jury?

And I love this one by Joe, its classic Ruth Paine:

Ruth testified under oath she was deeply offended and upset when she discovered Lee had used her typewriter without her permission.

LOL, the Commission was an object lesson in how to convict a dead man who did not have an attorney in absentia.

Let us not forget what Billy Kelly said, if the Patriot Act would have applied, the Paines would have been waterboarded. Remember that is Bill, not me.

Edited December 1, 2023 by James DiEugenio

[Jonathan Cohen]

37 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

LOL, the Commission was an object lesson in how to convict a dead man who did not have an attorney in absentia.

Let us not forget what Billy Kelly said, if the Patriot Act would have applied, the Paines would have been waterboarded. Remember that is Bill, not me.

Give me a break with your resurfacing of this nonsense. It does absolutely nothing to further study of the case.

[Sandy Larsen]

11 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Ruth is now 91 and in all this time none of your allegations have been proven. What happened to “innocent until proven guilty”. 

 

It's virtually impossible to prove that a person had a low-level job as a CIA asset. You need to rely upon circumstantial evidence.

The strongest evidence of Ruth having worked for the CIA is as follows:

1. The Mexico City incident (among others) proves that CIA plotters targeted Oswald as a gunman or patsy for the assassination.
2. The CIA plotters had to get Oswald employed at their chosen sniper location, the TSBD.
3. Ruth Paine and Linnie Mae Randle admitted that they suggested Oswald take a job at the TSBD.
4. Therefore Ruth and/or Linnie Mae were CIA assets under the control of the plotters.

When one considers all the other circumstantial evidence, it becomes clear that Ruth Paine was certainly the CIA asset here. Linnie Mae might have been as well... but that is definitely uncertain. IMO it is more likely that she lied for the government coverup, and actually never suggested the TSBD for Oswald.

Q.E.D. Ruth Paine was definitely a CIA asset. The circumstantial evidence is too strong to conclude otherwise.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

20 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

57 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

LOL, the Commission was an object lesson in how to convict a dead man who did not have an attorney in absentia.

Let us not forget what Billy Kelly said, if the Patriot Act would have applied, the Paines would have been waterboarded. Remember that is Bill, not me.

20 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Give me a break with your resurfacing of this nonsense. It does absolutely nothing to further study of the case.

 

And your comments -- many like yours here -- do?

 

[Jonathan Cohen]

26 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

The strongest evidence of Ruth having worked for the CIA is as follows:

1. The Mexico City incident (among others) proves that CIA plotters targeted Oswald as a gunman or patsy for the assassination.
2. The CIA plotters had to get Oswald employed at their chosen sniper location, the TSBD.
3. Ruth Paine and Linnie Mae Randle admitted that they suggested Oswald take a job at the TSBD.
4. Therefore Ruth and/or Linnie Mae were CIA assets under the control of the plotters.

When one considers all the other circumstantial evidence, it becomes clear that Ruth Paine was certainly the CIA asset here. Linnie Mae might have been as well... but that is definitely uncertain. IMO it is more likely that she lied for the government coverup, and actually never suggested the TSBD for Oswald.

Q.E.D. Ruth Paine was definitely a CIA asset. The circumstantial evidence is too strong to conclude otherwise.

 

The faulty logic at play here is truly breathtaking.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

27 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

The faulty logic at play here is truly breathtaking.

 

Using Jonathan's own words, his comment "does absolutely nothing to further study of the case."

 

[Greg Doudna]

4 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

The strongest evidence of Ruth having worked for the CIA is as follows:

1. The Mexico City incident (among others) proves that CIA plotters targeted Oswald as a gunman or patsy for the assassination.
2. The CIA plotters had to get Oswald employed at their chosen sniper location, the TSBD.
3. Ruth Paine and Linnie Mae Randle admitted that they suggested Oswald take a job at the TSBD.
4. Therefore Ruth and/or Linnie Mae were CIA assets under the control of the plotters.

(. . .)

Q.E.D. Ruth Paine was definitely a CIA asset. 

This kind of reasoning is how innocent people have gotten railroaded. #1 is plausible though not airtight. #2 is possible but definitely not airtight. #3 is a stipulated fact. #4 in no way follows as established by the first three, as distinguished from suspicion alone. 

It is like the logical fallacy of if you helped a man in a stranded car by the side of the road change a flat tire and he then drives off and does a contract murder, that means you were part of the killing.

You are taking suspicion and calling it proof beyond reasonable doubt.

In this case that suspicion, unproven at best if viewed in isolation, has reasons not in isolation weakening it as being implausible. One is Ruth Paine’s own version is completely believable, another is the need to explain Linnie Mae’s and Truly’s cooperation to have the hypothesis work, escalating exponentially the complications required. A third is Ruth Paine did not die untimely after the assassination indirectly suggesting she had no truly sinister witness knowledge in the case of a true assassination conspiracy.

A fourth is the lack of necessity of a Ruth Paine phone call to get Oswald hired there if there was such an operation, or how her phone call could be supposed to be a reliable mechanism to have ensured the desired outcome. A fifth is the question of whether Oswald was witting in the scenario; if not, then no guarantee he would take the job or remain there, but if he was witting then who needs Ruth Paine to get him there. A sixth is (I hate to mention him because I am certain he is no less innocent) it is not well known but Buell Frazier asked Shelley if there was an opening for Oswald prior to Ruth’s call, and he did that because Linnie Mae had heard the previous week through the neighborhood grapevine of Lee’s need for work, husband of Marina who was expecting, before the known coffee klatch. Linnie Mae certainly and to a lesser extent Buell too downplayed that timeline for understandable reasons, with the effect of leaving Ruth in the limelight when Ruth was (in the analogy) more like the second or third car passing by stopping to assist the stranded man who needed help by the side of the road, not the first who stopped, before the man thanked them and then drove off to do a murder, which none of the ones who stopped to help him had anything to do with.

In a witchhunt mentality, any coincidence or detail is regarded as incriminating, and the gap between unsubstantiated suspicion and conclusion is short-circuited. Fortunately Innocence Project type lawyers work to push back on a few of the convictions of innocent persons that have happened countless times in history with the kind of logic you are setting forth here.

Lynching someone innocent or disliked makes villages feel better and purged in the face of unexplained trauma in cases where real causes are a mystery, a phenomenon wired deep into human tribal behavior going back into prehistory, according to the work of Renee Girard and others. The CT community is the village and the JFK assassination is the unresolved trauma.

I think Ruth Paine’s unforgiveable sin to the witchhunters is that she in good faith believed Oswald did it, believed what a government investigation found, the Warren Commission, and sought from start to finish to assist that investigation by truthfully telling what she knew. 

None of her testimony incriminated Oswald in any crime, or in the assassination, for she never knew of nor ever claimed to know of incriminating  evidence of Oswald personally. But she believed the investigators who concluded that Oswald did it on grounds other than Ruth’s testimony, principally Marina and physical evidence grounds.

A moment’s reflection should bring to the surface the illogic of reasoning that belief in the correctness of the Warren Commission’s conclusion means Ruth Paine therefore was guilty of witting complicity with the ones carrying out of that assassination.

Yet that is what I suspect is the deepest psychological reasoning of what has been going on with the views toward Ruth Paine.

Ruth Paine loved president Kennedy. She voted for him. She supported him on civil rights. She with Marina lit candles and mourned as first reaction to the news of the assassination. She tried in her best lights to assist the authorities in bringing to resolution the facts of what had happened. She surely had human flaws as do any of us if one drills down close enough. But none of the major suspicions and allegations against her stand. 

And making that phone call to Truly to ask if he would possibly consider interviewing a young man with a pregnant wife who needed a job?

You are going to condemn her for that small compassionate act of kindness?

Burt Griffin was right when he told me re Ruth Paine: “no good deed goes unpunished”.

Edited December 2, 2023 by Greg Doudna

[Sandy Larsen]

@Greg Doudna

I never said, nor do I believe, that Ruth Pain knew anything about the plot to assassinate Kennedy. She was a CIA asset who followed orders. (As was Oswald.) This is proven by the fact that Oswald was indeed placed where the plotters need him to be. The plotters surely wouldn't have left that up to chance.

How do you think the CIA plotters got Oswald into the building they needed him to be?

 

[Jonathan Cohen]

11 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

How do you think the CIA plotters got Oswald into the building they needed him to be?

Nobody "got" Oswald anywhere other than himself, by going to the job interview.

[Sandy Larsen]

16 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

28 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

How do you think the CIA plotters got Oswald into the building they needed him to be?

Nobody "got" Oswald anywhere other than himself, by going to the job interview.

 

So Jonathan believes that the CIA planned an assassination involving Oswald, but merely hoped that he would get a job at a place where he or someone could shoot the president.

Yeah, right.