Brian Baccus on Ruth Paine

[James DiEugenio]

I cannot take credit for this Ron.

This is all on Greg Parker as far as I know.

But what you are saying seems to me to be correct.

What I am saying is that if Sprague had seen those reports, he would have jumped on it.

[Sandy Larsen]

7 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

I cannot take credit for this Ron.

This is all on Greg Parker as far as I know.

But what you are saying seems to me to be correct.

What I am saying is that if Sprague had seen those reports, he would have jumped on it.

 

Jim,

I understand that the boy went with Oswald to a barber named Shasteen a couple of times, using a car that looked like the Paine's car. And then the boy went by himself, and extolled the virtues of one-world government. And that Shasteen never saw the boy again.

What is the significance of this? Other than Oswald didn't drive.

 

[James DiEugenio]

Because Hootkins was not really like that, but he was a future actor.

Therefore that performance pinned Oswald as hanging out with a commie in Texas--quite a rare bird.

The other point is also interesting.  Who took them there?

[Sandy Larsen]

 

Thanks Jim.

 

[Gene Kelly]

On 11/25/2023 at 12:23 PM, James DiEugenio said:

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.

Jim and Pat:

Recall that the HSCA originally intended to interview George deMorenschildt. In March 1977, George was visiting a family friend in Manalapan, Florida. While he was there, George agreed to conduct an interview with Edward  Epstein for a feature story in Reader’s Digest. During the interview, HSCA investigator Gaeton Fonzi paid a visit to the home and left his business card with George’s daughter, and asked if he could call him once he (George) returned. George's daughter informed her father (in Spanish) to keep the house made - and to prevent the gardener from knowing what was going on - that Fonzi had dropped by. She gave him the business card and left to go shopping. Later that afternoon, George was found dead in his upstairs bedroom with a 'self-inflicted' gunshot wound. George's family insisted that he would’ve never committed suicide.

This all occurred while Sprague was still Chief Counsel, and before Robert Blakey took over the Committee.  If Fonzi was onto deMorenschildt, its likely he would've eventually pursued the Paines (imho). As you well know, in June 1977, Chairman Louis Stokes hired Blakey as chief counsel, and he along with Cornwell and Billings took over for Sprague and Robert Tanenbaum. And as you've written previously, when Robert Blakey took over, a veil of secrecy descended over the investigation, which steered the Committee away from investigating the role of the CIA and toward a predefined organized crime conclusion.

Gene

[James DiEugenio]

I would agree with that Gene. 

And the death of the Baron came at at time when the HSCA was in a tumultuous state and they could not respond to that incident in a professional and methodical way.

When Tanenbaum did interview Oltmans, IIRC after Sprague left, its pretty clear he did not believe him.

I think we all know that the punchline to all this was what the Baron told Epstein.  He would have never contacted LHO unless Moore had instructed him to do so.

Edited November 27, 2023 by James DiEugenio

[Greg Doudna]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Jim,

I understand that the boy went with Oswald to a barber named Shasteen a couple of times, using a car that looked like the Paine's car. And then the boy went by himself, and extolled the virtues of one-world government. And that Shasteen never saw the boy again.

What is the significance of this? Other than Oswald didn't drive.

Please. Jim D's argument should be obvious. Ruth Paine, after weeks of picking up young Hootkins in Dallas through traffic ca. 30 minutes each way, two round trips, to drive him to her house in Irving in order to give him a Russian tutoring lesson and then drive him back home (instead of tutoring him in Dallas like everyone says happened), Ruth nefariously knew--knew, Sandy--that Hootkins the future actor was going to act like a one-worlder 14 year old communist kid in a barbershop to an audience of maybe as many as eight (8!) other men in that barbershop. And the young Hootkins had gone in with Oswald (?) who drove (?) him there on one or two earlier weeknights, so that one or two people in that barbershop would remember that and make the link that the 14-year old commie had been seen with Oswald! Then, that would point a finger of suspicion on Oswald, breaking the shocking news that Oswald (by association with the 14-year old young) was leftist!!!!

And everybody knows that for Ruth to be aware of this, and to have driven Hootkins to her home for those tutoring lessons all those round trips on previous times to set this up, was definitely a crime, because everybody knows how seriously criminal it is for 14-year old kids in barbershops to talk about the world should be more fair, or mouthing some other such socialist crap.

This is what Jim D has been on about.

Of course Hootkins, Hootkins' mother, Hootkins' family, Ruth Paine, Marina, everybody on earth who was ever asked, denied that young Hootkins' Russian tutoring lessons involved two round trip drives to Irving instead of Ruth more conveniently saving all that trouble and tutoring Bill in Dallas. 

All part of the coverup. 

Hootkins' family in on it for life. To this day, won't admit Ruth was commuting young Bill Hootkins all the way to Irving and back, two round trips, to tutor him in Irving, instead of tutoring him in Dallas.

And the men in the barbershop who remembered (the 14-year old kid's own barber that day didn't recall the event) said other men had started an animated discussion about world affairs before the upstart 14-year old getting his haircut listening had piped up belatedly and joined in with his crap about the world should be more fair. A lot of planning went into that setup--good thing that was already the topic of conversation underway that day!

You just can't be too suspicious of what Ruth Paine was up to. Just ask Jim D.

[satire]

[Kirk Gallaway]

13 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

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?

I called attention to Jim's non responses and inability to have a real dialog, in this case with Jonathan.

 

Ron this is actually groundbreaking. The first I recall you guys asking for clarity in Jim's responses in an argument.. And then you Sandy, and I'm applauding you. Now take a deep breathe.

 

This is what started Jim's chain of responses. This is Jonathan's first response to Jim's opening link here with no accompanying explanation. You may disagree with Jonathan, but his message is clear. Stay with me!

 

Jonathan_ Sorry, but this yet another "such and such knew someone and they were college classmates with someone and they once went out to lunch with someone else and so that means Ruth and Michael are CIA spies." There are numerous other dubious conclusions here, including that Ruth would have been "informing on Oswald to the FBI" by giving them the "Kostin" letter, that there's something suspicious about Michael Paine attending meetings with Oswald by groups with opposing ideologies (there isn't), and, even worse, that the Paines had "very limited interactions" with Oswald (total nonsense - Ruth probably spent as much time around Oswald in 1963 as any other human being). 

 

To that Jim's response is.

Jim:Jonathan:

Can you show me any investigation into Ruth and Michael done by the HSCA?

Can you show me where Ruth was even questioned by the HSCA?

Can you show me any interview by the ARRB of Ruth Paine?

Let me know when you find this stuff.  Thanks!

 

 What kind of response is this? No response,  just an attempt to cloud the conversation with a phony attempt to put Jonathan on the defensive with a bunch of questions, that as I said lead nowhere. .

But then Jim's immediately follows up in the next post by saying this.

Jim:Greg Parker is a very underrated and relatively unknown researcher from down under.

Doudna went nutty when Parker unveiled this wonderful piece of research.

He tried to attack it, Parker beat it back.

Let me know Jonathan when you find those HSCA and ARRB inquiries.

https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1632-star-wars-trilogy-at-the-barbers

 

Jim launches into Parker's story, as if this is any kind of follow up in discussion to Jonathan. And as it turns out  neither Ron Sandy or I and I assume anyone else here knew the relevance of this story. That Hootkins was a commie? Maybe big news down under, but not here!  Which finally causes  Ron to asks Jim "what is this all about?."

 

And then evading Jomathan's question, Jim ends with this.

 

Jim- Let me know Jonathan when you find those HSCA and ARRB inquiries.

Can we admit this line is just a lot unexplained  obfuscatory phony baloney to his minions that he's actually winning an argument?!

 

And then in IMO, unjustified good faith. Jonathan asks of Jim about this series of questions to him.

 

Jonathan:Are you implying the absence of testimony from the Paines to post-Warren Commission official bodies is some indication of their complicity in the crime? Because it’s not …

 

To that Jim answers.

Jonathan,

I am implying little or nothing.

What I am saying is pretty simple.

Did the HSCA investigate Ruth and Michael? No.

Did the ARRB call them in for questioning? No.

Then that leaves people like Greg Parker to investigate things like the Hootkins episode, since they did not.

Recall, that incident was before the assassination.

 

??

A story none of us even understood. Do you guys understand any more now that Jim has supposed explained  it in as few words as possible? So that was a satisfactory response for you guys?? Ok, if you think it was,  what kind of response was this to Jonathan first inquiry?

  

So Jonathan, who can keep a train of thought, realizes this was no response from Jim at all. So asks again.

 

Jonathan: Again, so what? Many people connected to the assassination in one way or another were not "properly" investigated by the authorities. Does that mean they were conspirators? Or even had anything useful to say? Of course it doesn't. So, I don't know what point you are trying to make.

 

To that, Jim goes off on how things got sidelined when Sprague left, which I've heard from Jim many times before but doesn't get near addressing Jonathan's initial question! And of course , again Jim's phony cherry on top command at the end to convince his followers he's actually putting Jonathan on the defensive!.

 

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

What???

 

You guys hopefully aren't Maga. If you're going to be Jim's followers, you have to demand a higher bar of authenticity  in his dialog. You have to ask these questions!

 

No Sandy, the fact that Jim put me on ignore is the fact that I've asked him these questions that I'm asking right now of you! As I've illustrated, this dialog from Jim to Jonathan is just evasive garbage that lead nowhere! Get over your emotions!

 

Amidst this, a positive  thing happened,  Tony's questions that have lead to a thread.

 

 

 

 

[Greg Doudna]

Also, the barbershop upstart kid told Shasteen he was 14, but by fall 1963 Hootkins was 15. Shasteen said the kids hair was brown, but a Hootkins family member (or someone who knew Hootkins well enough to be one) said he was a redhead. The barbershop 14-yr old kid advocating world government was on a weeknight in Irving when Hootkins would be at home in Dallas doing his homework.

The supposed “Oswald” figure in the barbershop wore a jumpsuit and yellow shoes that nobody else ever saw on Oswald or was ever seen in the Ruth Paine garage.

And the idea of that “Oswald” driving openly to the barbershop about 0.8 miles from Ruth Paine’s house all so Ruth Paine could perjure and cover up that she lent her car that way because it was such a secret, when 0.8 miles to the barbershop could be walked and had no need for a car … 

Bottom line: that Irving barbershop “Oswald” was a mistaken identification, wasn’t Oswald (he got his hair cut in Oak Cliff not after riding to Irving with Buell Fri nights in Irving when he would rather see Marina and his kids, and his hair was cut differently and less frequently). And the 14-year old kid in that barbershop in Irving that caused Shasteen to say he wanted to smack him to knock some proper values into the kid, was not 15 yr old Hootkins far away in Dallas whom no witness ever once even claimed had ever been to Ruth’s place in Irving.

Nothing relevant to the JFK assassination or Oswald’s guilt or innocence hangs on this in the slightest. It is a created story and then Ruth is accused of lying or alternatively deceiving by telling literal misleading truth from her religious scruples, by her truthful testimony in conflict with the created story, to make Ruth out to look bad gratuitously. That’s what’s going on with this story which Jim D has been pumping.

Edited November 27, 2023 by Greg Doudna

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

Get over your emotions!

 

Get over yourself.

I don't blame anybody for choosing not to waste their time responding to Jonathan. Or to you.

 

[James DiEugenio]

Greg Parker sent me this, there is no one better on this topic.

GD: "Please. Jim D's argument should be obvious. Ruth Paine, after weeks of picking up young Hootkins in Dallas through traffic ca. 30 minutes each way, two round trips, to drive him to her house in Irving in order to give him a Russian tutoring lesson and then drive him back home (instead of tutoring him in Dallas like everyone says happened),"

Mrs. Hootkins said the lessons were at the school on Saturday afternoons.

Vice Principal Oviatt said the lessons were taking at place at the home of the student.

Marina was never asked. 

GD himself found a source saying that the lessons WERE at the Paine house.

During 1962 and 1963, Paine was Hootkins’ private teacher of Russian. In fact, Hootkins was her only student. They met regularly at her house and Hootkins likely met Lee Harvey and Marina Oswald a number of times,

So in sum -- the only people saying the lessons were at the school were Ruth Paine and Mrs. Hootkins - and even then, all Mrs. Hootkins knew was that Ruth was picking him up.  How would she know where they went?

The fact is that even if this was all innocent, Ruth would have, as we say here, been busting a gut to show Marina, her prize pet,  off to young Bill.  She also knew her own Russian skills were moderate at best. 

On the age factor: According another of the barbers. Shasteen had said the boy was "14 or 15". Hootkins had turned 15 in June. But for some reason, everyone settled on 14 as the age of the boy, 

 

On driving: Ruth testified that she would not allow Lee to drive her car without someone else. Again, it is a tricky answer. He was not alone. Bill Hootkins was with him. It is also possible that Ruth actually gave permission to Hootkins to drive it. In Texas now, you can get your learners permit at 15. In the 1960s, I imagine things were pretty loose so far as  age restrictions went. None of the barbers actually saw who was driving.

On the distance Yes, it was only half a mile... but whether it was Oswald or Hootkins driving, either would have been keen to get in the practice.

On Ruth denying she knew who the 14 year old was at the barber shop:   She denied knowing any 14 year old in Irving who Oswald associated with. Hootkins was 15 and did not live in Irving, so she was telling the truth, while still concealing the truth. 

Hootkins hamming it up in 1966

photo courtesy ed Ledoux

Shasteen's description of the boy in the barbershop

Mr. SHASTEEN. Well, he had on blue jeans and they fit tight and he had on an old striped shirt, I remember him just like I see a picture over there right now and he was a husky kid, he wasn't what you call fat, but he was strong--broad-shouldered--he had a real full, and when I say full, I don't mean a round fat face, he was a wide-faced kid. You know, he was a nice looking kid. I mean, if he had had the personality and the teaching and the understanding to go with his looks, he could have done anything he wanted to do, but his personality to me made him look terrible and what he thought, and naturally when somebody disagrees with you to the point you get angry with them, you don't think much of their looks, but if you bring it down to his looks, he was blue-eyed, blonde-headed--he was not a light blonde he was a dark blonde. In fact a lot of. people might call him brown-headed. But he wasn't nobody's dummy because a 14-year-old boy can't spit out--I wouldn't attempt to say just how he said everything, but the things t hat struck me when he belittled our country and our leaders as a whole I might disagree with our leaders but I'll stick up for them when it comes time down to the point

 

Mr. SHASTEEN. He just come with him. I assumed, and I'm just saying this because I haven't ever saw him before and never saw him other than with Oswald, that he doesn't live in Irving.

Mr. JENNER. He did not?

Mr. SHASTEEN. I don't believe the boy lived there, because, you know, in other words--it has been in the back of my mind and the last--and when I see school kids, I'm always kind of wondering if I'm ever going to see him again and I never, had never saw that kid since.

It was Hootkins. Without any doubt whatsoever and anyone arguing against this has an ulterior motive. The evidence speaks for itself. 
 

Three questions to ask, if it was so innocent:

Why the cover-up about it being Hootkins?

How the hell could Hosty not have known it was Hootkins?

Why was the kid never seen again after the assassination?

 

Edited November 28, 2023 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

Those are three very good questions that Greg Parker ends with.

I especially like number two.

Here is a link that confirms part of the story about Ruth and Bill.

https://www.thevintagenews.com/2018/03/03/william-hootkins/

Edited November 28, 2023 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

Here is the interview with another barber about Oswald and Hootkins.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11941#relPageId=133

Greg Parker has done non pareil work on this.  Hope it is in his next volume.

[Greg Doudna]

Speaking of Greg Parker, though I disagree on the Shasteen Hootkins thing, never mind that, people can read those arguments and judge for themselves at the link on ROKC that Jim D. gives above. 

Greg P. has announced he is giving up the ROKC site (https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net), putting it down in the coming weeks in terms of any new activity, though leaving the site up online as an archive. A lot of solid details and documents research there among the things people variously disagree with. But underneath that, there is something about the passion for Oswald's innocence, and Greg Parker saying that after these years at it the site's purpose--to reopen the Kennedy case--he realizes he gave it his best with that site but faces reality that he fell short in accomplishing its purpose (the Kennedy case is not reopened) ... there is something about that ... that whatever else one agrees or disagrees, that passion comes through, an Innocence Project type passion parallel to or reminiscent of the lifetime spent by Eric Olsen, son of Frank Olsen, in trying to get to the bottom of his father's death.

Or like that scene in "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" in which the Jack Nicholson character (who is in an asylum by mistake and isn't crazy) challenges the other inmates in the asylum (whom he is "waking up" in the larger undertones of the film) ... to move some massive iron piece of furniture or something that is humanly impossible to move it is so heavy. Everybody knows its impossible. Nicholson insists he can, bets them he can pick it up and throw it. In disbelief, the other inmates reluctantly but with interest one by one take him up on his bet, putting their skin in the game in interest in the outcome.

The scene proceeds. Nicholson rolls up his sleeves, with mighty effort reaches and strains ... strains ... to lift it. Everyone watching. Nicholson (as only Nicholson can do) shows all the effort and tension as he struggles to do the impossible.

Turns out, he can't budge it. (Counter to expectations of the viewer built up by the filmmaker who by this point half-expects a surprising triumph.)

He loses his bets. But he tells them (and this was the point he wanted to make to them): "but I tried (you guys are sitting in lethargy not doing anything)". (In a satisfying cinematic final touch, in the closing scene the big strong Indian, who could hear all along and only pretended to be dumb and silent, with a mighty heave does pick it up and heaves it through a window making possible freedom.)

Greg Parker is a little like that Jack Nicholson figure.  

Speaking metaphorically here not literally, but my vision of heaven is it is populated not by perfect people, but by raw human beings, warts and all, whose defining moments come through on the things that matter.

There is some untold story to the JFK assassination, and there is a case for Oswald having been set up that day, a case that there is more to that story. Some day, conceivably, such may become known with better clarity. or maybe not, maybe ultimately never better than now in the minds of most reasonable persons judging dispassionately. 

But if--if--such does later emerge, not simply to the passionate few talking to each other among this community, but to the wider world of general recognition, forensic specialist types, law enforcement types, military and Cold War historians, academic specialists, and across the spectrum of the literate and informed reading lay public ... then Greg Parker, despite any criticisms, I think will have his place in heaven.

And I have found him decent in private on a personal level. And he is a better debater and writer than me.

So I will continue to be on the other side of the Shasteen Hootkins debate. But just wanted to get this said.

[James DiEugenio]

GP replies to Doudna:

GD's comments on clothing of Oswald at the barber shop. Shasteen testified that they looked like army coveralls with the sleeves cut off and were way too big.  I believe they were army issue belonging to Mike Paine who was a few inches taller than Lee. I think he probably kept them in the garage to wear while tinkering to protect his clothing and Lee probably had the same thought in wearing them to then barbershop - save getting covered in hair.  The yellow house shoes I think were probably purchased in "LIttle Mexico" in Dallas or Houston. Dallas Little Mexico was a short walk from the TSBD and did have several shoe stores. What happened to them, I have no idea. 
 

Let me add, this is what the great Malcolm Blunt thinks also. That Oswald bought these in Little Mexico.  They were made to disappear after to mar Shasteen.