Brian Baccus on Ruth Paine

[Sandy Larsen]

On 12/3/2023 at 3:58 PM, Bill Fite said:

By chance ran across this today, which might be interesting:

December 3—17, 1963, times unstated, Arlington/Dallas, Texas. Marina Oswald, a guest of the federal government in a motel before she departed to the home of Katya and Declan Ford where everyone seemed to have their eyes on the cash register, was interviewed repeatedly by FBI S/As James Hosty, James Ward, Bardwell Odum, Arthur E. Carter, Anatole Boguslav, and Wallace Heitman.

This was a “let’s check her earlier stories” series of interviews, out of which came stories of the Walker event ALONG WITH repeated denials that Marina ever saw Oswald come or go with the rifle, or take target practice with it, or, for that matter, that she never saw anything more than the bare butt of the gun as it was in the Paine-garage blanket. (Commission Exhibit 1403, 22H 765—784)

Ruth Paine was questioned first, as it was the ever-pious “St. Ruth” who, out of pure goodness, took three books that had belonged to Marina to the Irving, Texas, police station. Marina was not in contact with her, and wanted no contact, but Ruth wanted her to have the books—two of which were about raising children, in Russian, and Mrs. Paine worried that Marina would be lost without the Russian books. There then followed, quickly, a few “chain of possession” interviews regarding the books, until it is learned that there was a note in one of the books. It was exhibited to Ruth Paine and she was asked about it, but she claimed she had no knowledge of it whatsoever. “While the Secret Service agent held it up she read the first line or two but did not get to complete it. She recalls reading something to the effect that “here is the key to the post office.” Clearly, this is intended to be the “Shroud of Turin” Oswald—Walker note (if in fact, it ever was written in relation to Walker, as Sylvia Meagher put a wholly different yet possibly more plausible explanation to that document), and Ruth Paine put it right into the hands of the feds. But the Oswald-Walker note was in Russian.

Brown Ph.D, Walt. Master Chronology of JFK Assassination Book III: Disappointment . Vigliano Books. Kindle Edition. 

 

 

 

12 hours ago, Keyvan Shahrdar said:

1. Coincidental Discovery: Ruth Paine could have found the letter by coincidence in her house. This scenario suggests she was not knowingly involved in any conspiracy but became inadvertently entangled in the aftermath of the assassination.

2. Intentional Planting of the Letter: The letter could have been deliberately planted in her house for her to find, possibly by Oswald himself or by another party wishing to frame or involve him. In this case, Ruth Paine's discovery would still be coincidental, but the placement of the letter would be part of a larger conspiracy.

3. Active Involvement: A more complex theory could involve Ruth Paine being knowingly involved in the conspiracy, where she was instructed to give the fabricated letter to the FBI as part of the plot. This would imply her active participation in the conspiracy.

4. Unwitting Participant: Ruth Paine might have been manipulated by others involved in the conspiracy, not fully understanding the significance of the letter or her actions. This scenario places her as an unwitting participant, used by others without her full knowledge.

5. Misinterpretation or Misrepresentation: The letter's discovery and its contents might have been misinterpreted or misrepresented either by Ruth Paine, the FBI, or other parties involved in the investigation, leading to confusion or false leads.

 

Keyvan,

Thanks for the well-thought-out and useful list of possible explanations for how the authorities got the Oswald note indicating that he had given Marina the key to the post office... probably meaning the post office box.

This sounds like an important clue to me. Since I don't believe that things like this don't happen by chance, I believe that someone was directed to put that note in the book, and that someone was directed to "accidentally" find it.

Ruth may have been instructed to put the note in the book. Or somebody else did after the Feds had possession of it. My bet is on Ruth since 1) she took it upon herself to deliver those books to the police, and 2) she is known to have planted other things for the Feds to find or consider.

So I'm going with #3 or #4 in Keyvan's list, depending upon who directed the planting.

A logical followup question, therefore, is who got Ruth to plant the note? To answer that, we need to deternine whether the reason for the note was to serve the purposes of the assassination plotters, or the purposes of the Fed cover-up artists.

According to the plotters' or coverup artists' narrative, for what purpose would Oswald give to Marina a key to a post office box?

I'm not familiar with what is known about how Oswald was supposed to have gotten the Carcano from the post office. If someone would summarize that, that might prove useful.

BTW FWIW, I believe the Carcano story was fully fabricated after the assassination. I believe that the true assassination gun at the TSBD was the Mauser.

 

[Denny Zartman]

Was this note retained and independently translated, or are we trusting Ruth Paine's translation?

[Miles Massicotte]

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

BTW FWIW, I believe the Carcano story was fully fabricated after the assassination. I believe that the true assassination gun at the TSBD was the Mauser.

How do you explain the Alyea film?

[Jonathan Cohen]

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Since I don't believe that things like this don't happen by chance, I believe that someone was directed to put that note in the book, and that someone was directed to "accidentally" find it.

This is not how real research is conducted, on this or any other subject. You don't just decide that you "don't believe" in coincidence or Occam's razor, which is certainly the explanation for any bogus anomalies you are raising about the Oswald note in question.

Edited December 28, 2023 by Jonathan Cohen

[Sandy Larsen]

7 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Since I don't believe that things like this don't happen by chance, I believe that someone was directed to put that note in the book, and that someone was directed to "accidentally" find it.

7 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

This is not how real research is conducted, on this or any other subject. You don't just decide that you "don't believe" in coincidence or Occam's razor.

 

The key phrase I used, which you apparently missed, is "things like this."

But keep up the good work of pettifoggery.

 

[Jonathan Cohen]

7 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

The key phrase I used, which you apparently missed, is "things like this."

I didn't "miss" anything. Everything I said is valid about your beliefs.

[Sandy Larsen]

12 minutes ago, Miles Massicotte said:

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

BTW FWIW, I believe the Carcano story was fully fabricated after the assassination. I believe that the true assassination gun at the TSBD was the Mauser.

12 minutes ago, Miles Massicotte said:

How do you explain the Alyea film?

 

I explain it by admitting that I misremembered my belief.

What I believe is that both the Carcano and the Mauser were TSBD assassination rifles. The Mauser was removed to hide a sign of conspiracy. It was the story of the Carcano's background that was fully fabricated after the assassination.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

6 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

I didn't "miss" anything. Everything I said is valid about your beliefs.

 

LOL, double-downing on your pettifoggery. Good job!

 

[Jonathan Cohen]

21 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

LOL, double-downing on your pettifoggery. Good job!

And you, double-downing on your fancy new, meaningless term. There are perfectly logical and acceptable explanations for this particular piece of evidence. You just refuse to accept them because you conveniently wave off and dismiss any innocent rationale for Ruth Paine's behavior.

[James DiEugenio]

Jonathan:

I cannot understand your reliance on Occam's Razor, because to proclaim  that you have to array all the facts in evidence.

1. The DPD spent the better part of two days rummaging through the Paine home, which was rather small. But they missed this note allegedly inside a book. And the note was in Russian?

2. Why was it so necessary for Ruth to convey the book, which was called Book of Helpful Instructions.  She said it was because Marina used it each day. Oh really, while she was in detention and under 24 hour watch by the FBI and Secret Service?

3. The note was not dated and did not have Oswald's latent fingerprints on it.  Even though it took up almost one side of the paper. In fact, seven prints were on it, but none matched Lee or Marina.

4. The Secret Service returned the note to Ruth because they thought she wrote it. (Destiny Betrayed, second edition, pp. 200-03)

Edited December 28, 2023 by James DiEugenio

[Jonathan Cohen]

17 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Jonathan:

I cannot understand your reliance on Occam's Razor, because to proclaim  that you have to array all the facts in evidence.

1. The DPD spent the better part of two days rummaging through the Paine home, which was rather small. But they missed this note allegedly inside a book. And the note was in Russian?

2. Why was it so necessary for Ruth to convey the book, which was called Book of Helpful Instructions.  She said it was because Marina used it each day. Oh really, while she was in detention and under 24 hour watch by the FBI and Secret Service?

3. The note was not dated and did not have Oswald's latent fingerprints on it.  Even though it took up almost one side of the paper. In fact, seven prints were on it, but none matched Lee or Marina.

4. The Secret Service returned the note to Ruth because they thought she wrote it. (Destiny Betrayed, second edition, pp. 200-03)

None of these points require conspiratorial intent on Ruth's part or mean that she engaged in any such behavior.

[Leslie Sharp]

On 12/3/2023 at 3:08 PM, Greg Doudna said:

That’s a hard one to refute. A first problem with that is that what Ruth is suspected of and accused of, is all over the map with no consensus on definition of what you say is self evident guilt without need for evidence. 

And how self-evident is it? You act like it is a settled question long ago that is astonishing and disruptive to CT truth to question. 

Well, a sinister Ruth Paine is not found that I have ever seen in the extensive published work of John Newman or David Talbot or Larry Hancock.

Or in any of the HSCA investigation, or the Warren Commission or FBI or Secret Service or any other investigation before HSCA, save the sole and lone exception, the evidence-free and demagogic suspicions of Garrison’s Grand Jury in New Orleans.

And even Garrison wasn’t willing to do what Salandria seriously at the time pressed him to do, which was indict and charge Ruth Paine for conspiracy to assassinate JFK, which Garrisons staff regarded as lunatic on Salandria’s part given that there was not a shred of evidence for it.

Weisburg, first generation and to this day one of the strongest and most credible WC critics, didn’t accuse Ruth Paine. Most of the best CT works written, counting both statistically by numbers and by aggregate weight of reputation, have not. Oliver Stone’s recent JFK Revisited doesn’t, and that surely was an overruling over DiEugenio on that point who has long been the leading attack dog pushing unbelievable allegations against Ruth.

The well-presented, comprehensive, and eloquent presentation of the sober and serious Johnny Cairns just put up yesterday or today on Kennedy and Kings doesn’t. 

Jeff Meek, a journalist and serious CT writer, articles which can be found online and a book, interviewed Ruth Paine and reported on those interviews.

Meek robustly concluded she is clean on all counts right down the line.

Meek concluded no different than me on that, and others similarly.

' . . . [Ruth Paine] felt comfortable enough with “Bob” to visit Marina Oswald’s bedroom alone with SA Odum, who was at the Irving home to pick up Lee’s wedding ring for Marina.  From Ruth’s testimony:

 

Ruth Paine. “I gave it (the ring) to Mr. Odum who was in the room with me—Mr. Odum went with me to the bedroom.” (3H111-112)

 

On another occasion, Ruth and Bardwell examined the content of Marina’s [dresser] drawers.  From testimony:

 

Ruth Paine. . . . I think she must have known that Lee had been to Mexico, judging from the materials I have already described were picked up by Mr. Odum and myself from the dresser drawer. (9H385)

 

Ruth also had a conversation with “Bard” about the General Walker shooting before there was reason to believe that Lee was involved.  From testimony:

Ruth Paine. I don’t know whether your accounts of what the FBI has it down of their conversation with me include one meeting with Bardwell Odum, right after the newspapers had indicated something of a shot at Walker, before there was any corroborative details such as the contents of a note. (9H387)

Ruth Paine. Agent Odum has been out a great deal. (9H106)

Ruth Paine. I would guess that I report to Mr. Odum other things about— ... I talked with him a great deal. (3H10-7) 

— Raymond Gallagher, The Fourth Decade

 

https://www.maryferrell.org/archive/docs/048/48706/images/img_48706_20_200.png

 

 

'Since Ruth mentioned the Walker shooting: whatever happened to the recovered slub from General's house?

From testimony:'

 

Mr. Belin. Do you know whether or not any balistic identification was made of this slug with regard to any rifle it may have been fired from"

Lt. Day. No sir, I released it to the FBI Agent B.D. Odum on December 2, 1963, at 4:10 pm. 

Mr. Belin.  Has that ever been back in your possession since that time?

Lt. Day. Not since that time. (10H271)

— Raymond Gallagher, The Fourth Decade

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1138#relPageId=766&search=Odum

 

 

see also: 
' . . . Also, on May 28, 1964, Dallas Police Lieutenant J. C. Day advised an FBI Agent that on April 25, 1963, ". . . he took the bullet from the CSSS, marked it for identification . . . " and then personally took it to the City-County Criminal Investigation Laboratory (CCCIL), Parkland Memorial Hospital, Dallas, Texas, where he gave it to F. T. Alexander and Louie L. Anderson.  Lieutenant Day also advised that he retrieved the Walker bullet from the CCCIL on December 2, 1963, and gave it to FBI Special Agent Bardwell D. Odu7m on the same date. 

Special Agent Odum forwarded the Walker bullet to FBI Laboratory where it arrived for examination on December 4, 1963.' 

 

ADMIN FOLDER-O1: HSCA ADMINISTRATIVE FOLDER, HSC-A TICKLER VOLUME VI, pg 9

 

RIF#: 124-10371-10117   (07/10/79)    FBI#: 62-117290-ADMIN FOLDER-O1 

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10040#relPageId=7&search=cccil

Oswald Tied to Shot at Walker

NYTimes

March 20, 1964
https://www.nytimes.com/1964/03/20/archives/oswald-is-linked-to-shot-at-walker.html

Edited February 10 by Leslie Sharp