Perjury or not ?

[Jean Ceulemans]

1) the thing is, in that topic on Ruth, I noticed the term perjury a few times

2) I find that a very serious allegation that should be used carefully

3) so I opened this topic to see what it is all about, and perhaps it has a different meaning in US legislation versus the legal system in Belgium (that I know a little better)

4) I used the address thing as an example, but have seen those accusations in other topics as well by others

5) I may not have expressed myself correctly, but that is what I wanted to learn about

6) I myself have said she was evasive in times (on the curtain rods at the Irving hearing e.g., but there I had a feeling she was put in a spot by the FBI)

7) But perjury ?  So far, I do not see it IMHO.  So please explain and /or elaborate with excerpts where/when it is a perjury please ?

8 ) And if it was (I AM willing to learn or admit I'm wrong believe it or not), why wasn't she convicted like Dean Andrews Jr. ?  

 

Edited December 7, 2023 by Jean Ceulemans

[Kirk Gallaway]

14 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Jean, if you rely on Kirk, you are lost.  He will say almost anything just to disagree with me. Which is why I have him blocked.

Now go back and look at the actual dialogue.

The town they lived in did not have two names. 

And it was in the wrong state.

Now if you find that credible, God bless you.

I do not.

Recall, Garrison said he was having trouble finding out the location and her occupation.

Ruth made sure it would stay that way.

I wonder why?

Maybe the same reason she messed up the info on Hootkins?

Maybe the same reason she cooperated with Odum and Hoover on deep sixing Oswald's Minox?

Maybe the same reason she was so outraged about Oswald using her typewriter to write something about a place he was likely never at? Or maybe why she then produced 'evidence" in addition to that letter saying he was there?

I could go on and on, but if you are buds with Kirk, its no use.

 

 Oh, so this is about me?, I didn't start the previous thread on RP. You did.

Jim, You're much more evasive than Ruth! The answer is no perjury.

I've actually been told to politically  back off here asking serious questions of you on these matters.

I'm left to think it's too disrupting to the forum status quo.

[Jonathan Cohen]

3 minutes ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

I've actually been told to politically  back off here asking serious questions of you on these matters.

I'm left to think it's too disrupting to the forum status quo.

Please don't back off! The status quo here is in dire need of disruption.

[Sandy Larsen]

7 hours ago, Jean Ceulemans said:

16 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Jean,

I've never said a word about the things you say I did.

7 hours ago, Jean Ceulemans said:

In the same topic, about the way Ruth answered to her sisters employment I believe it was

 

What? You are arguing with me about whether I said something or not?

I repeat, I've never said a word about the things you said I did in your first post.

Since you insist on arguing with me, I demand that you retract what you said. Either put up or shut up.

 

 

[Jonathan Cohen]

12 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

What? You are arguing with me about whether I said something or not?

I repeat, I've never said a word about the things you said I did in your first post.

Since you insist on arguing with me, I demand that you retract what you said. Either put up or shut up.

Your wild speculation in the "Brian Bacchus / Ruth Paine" thread includes: "She kept secrets for the CIA because that is what CIA employees do. She kept secrets for the government coverup because she was told that there was evidence that the assassination was an international plot, and the government was doing whatever the could to prevent a war from occurring because of that evidence." Is that not tantamount to saying she lied to investigators when testifying about those very matters?

[Jean Ceulemans]

On 12/7/2023 at 6:12 PM, Sandy Larsen said:

 

What? You are arguing with me about whether I said something or not?

I repeat, I've never said a word about the things you said I did in your first post.

Since you insist on arguing with me, I demand that you retract what you said. Either put up or shut up.

 

 

If I made a mistake I will apologize, it was about another matter I see, but it was about Ruth and a perjury.

As I am curious, in what matter did you state the excerpt attached below, was that about Ruth statements on Sylvia's job ?

No reason to use foul language... come on... really ?

 

Edited June 1 by Jean Ceulemans

[Greg Doudna]

20 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I repeat, I've never said a word about the things you said I did in your first post.

Since you insist on arguing with me, I demand that you retract what you said. Either put up or shut up.

In the "Brian Baccus on Ruth Paine Thread, p. 15, Fri Dec 1, 10:10 am, you quoted Jean Ceulemans who had written: "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".

And that was a summary of a longer post from Jean on the same topic. To which you responded:

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

Maybe you're the one who ought to retract, if you don't think that accurately represents you. Jean Ceulemans is calling you out on the perjury accusation toward Ruth, and rather than respond substantively, you deny saying what you said, which just confuses things. 

[Sandy Larsen]

12 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Your wild speculation in the "Brian Bacchus / Ruth Paine" thread includes: "She kept secrets for the CIA because that is what CIA employees do. She kept secrets for the government coverup because she was told that there was evidence that the assassination was an international plot, and the government was doing whatever the could to prevent a war from occurring because of that evidence." Is that not tantamount to saying she lied to investigators when testifying about those very matters?

 

Read the initial post made by Jean. He claims I said things that I never said.

I understand that people make mistakes. My response was merely to correct what he said. What pisses me off is the gall he had to argue with my correction when he has absolutely nothing to prove him right. (I know he hasn't anything because I never said what he clams I did.)

If Jean thinks he's right in spite of my correction, then he should say just that... that he THINKS I said it.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

17 minutes ago, Jean Ceulemans said:

No reason to use foul language... come on... really ?

    

What foul language?

  

[Sandy Larsen]

10 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

In the "Brian Baccus on Ruth Paine Thread, p. 15, Fri Dec 1, 10:10 am, you quoted Jean Ceulemans who had written: "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".

And that was a summary of a longer post from Jean on the same topic. To which you responded:

 

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

Maybe you're the one who ought to retract, if you don't think that accurately represents you. Jean Ceulemans is calling you out on the perjury accusation toward Ruth, and rather than respond substantively, you deny saying what you said, which just confuses things. 

 

Yes, I did say, "So you believe that Ruth Paine committed perjury in court?  I do as well."  I DO believe Ruth committed perjury.

But I didn't specify in my statement that Ruth's perjury was regarding her sister. I've literally said nothing about the things Jean said I did in his initial post.

As I said, I understand that Jean merely made a mistake. After which I corrected him.

It was his arguing with my correction that I really have a problem with. I mean, that was really offensive. It was akin to saying I'm lying IMO.

 

[Jean Ceulemans]

Sandy, this was my first reaction -  in this topic - to you when you asked about what I had written :

 

I quote myself :      "In the same topic, about the way Ruth answered to her sisters employment I believe it was.  IMHO she answered to those questions pretty much in the same way she answered the questions about the place her sister lived.   I did not add the excerpts on the Q and A about the work she did.  But perhaps you were talking about a perjury in an other part, or perhaps even another hearing ?       Please give me some references to that so I can find where she committed perjury there,  or copy the exerpts as I did with the address discussion,   I'm really only trying to learn ya know !"      End quote.

That was my very first response, I never had any intention of calling you a xxxx, if it sounded to you that way I will say I am sorry

I asked the above questions precisely because I wasn't sure anymore about that quote.

That's all there is to it, and that's all I had in my mind when writing that.

 

 

 

Edited December 7, 2023 by Jean Ceulemans

[James DiEugenio]

1 hour ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Please don't back off! The status quo here is in dire need of disruption.

What is in need of disruption Jonathan?

Don't tell me that ridiculous Kirkian charge that somehow the overthrow of Goulart was a JFK/LBJ operation?

When in fact, both Kai Bird and A. J. Langguth said it was not.

If JFK had been part of the club, he would not have gotten killed.  Its that simple.  LBJ was part of the club, e.g. David Rockefeller's, and this is why he went along with the Kennedy cover up and had David in his office to discuss McCloy being the point man on the coup.

Edited December 7, 2023 by James DiEugenio

[Jonathan Cohen]

18 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

What is in need of disruption Jonathan?

Don't tell me that ridiculous Kirkian charge that somehow the overthrow of Goulart was a JFK/LBJ operation?

When in fact, both Kai Bird and A. J. Langguth said it was not.

If JFK had been part of the club, he would not have gotten killed.  Its that simple.  LBJ was part of the club, e.g. David Rockefeller's, and this is why he went along with the Kennedy cover up and had David in his office to discuss McCloy being the point man on the coup.

Jim, I have no idea what you're talking about and as such was certainly not implying anything about that vis-a-vis "disruption." The point I intended to make is that, in my opinion, there is far too much discussion here about idiotic, long-debunked theories. I am hoping many of the regular posters at Greg Parker's forum, where many aspects of the case are actively researched anew, will join here once Greg winds things down.

[Joe Bauer]

A few observations and speculations about this thread topic and Ruth Paine.

Ruth was very intelligent, well educated ( masters in child psychology? ) well read and quite well spoken ... agreed?

She was social causes engaged ( civil rights) even before the Oswalds. She had done quite a bit of traveling in her life. Much of this related to her social cause missions.

I find her driving all around a good size part of the U.S. on her Summer of 1963 vacation "alone" with her two young children ( thousands of miles of driving ) quite confident even courageous.

On her way back from her months long Summer of 1963 driving adventure she even swung all the way down to New Orleans to pick up the pregnant Marina and her baby June to go back and live with her in Irving.

Ruth Paine quote " I love you Marina and want to live with you."

My point is that Ruth was obviously a smart, quick minded, multiple interests curious person. Verbally inclined. Easy to talk to per FBI agent James Hosty's reports. She liked to engage with others as did her husband Michael.

In the Trial Of Lee Harvey Oswald documentary piece Gerry Spence questioned Ruth Paine about many things including her sister and her sister's occupation in Virginia or wherever.

Ruth had a very good memory about Oswald related subjects including her personal engagements with him. She quoted him even though there wasn't much discussion on his part. She remembered many details about such things as Oswald using her typewriter without asking.

Spence really got under RP's skin. She was rattled and lost her composure at times.

He got Ruth to admit she didn't like Lee Oswald. An understatement. Lee "deeply offended" Ruth.  So obvious she could not stand the guy.

And when it came time to ask Ruth about these same questions on this thread regards her sister Silvia in Virginia and her possible ties to who knows who, Ruth came up with the same vague answers to his questions. 

Ruth didn't know hardy anything about her sister's possible secret agency position and duties.

IMO I just don't see Ruth not asking her sister anything about her work and position.

Ruth was an inquisitive person. A talkative person. Not a shy demurring person.

Actually kind of aggressively so especially in her humanitarian work efforts.

I don't buy her " I just never asked her about it" answers to questions regarding her sister. And she seemed purposely hesitant, vague and even uncomfortable in dealing with these questions.

If I am visiting a sibling I am close to and see only every few years, and staying with them for days, I am going to ask a lot of questions about their life including their jobs.

It's just what people do.

I could see RP's sister telling Ruth..."I can't talk about it." And leave it at that. Which Ruth would have known would have ramped up even more suspicion about her sister's line of work if she repeated that to her questioners.

So, just keep it vague. Play the "I'm not sure" and "I don't remember game" if you will.

Ruth's sister clearly did something in her work that begged more curiosity than being a waitress at a Denny's restaurant.

 

 

 

 

Edited December 8, 2023 by Joe Bauer

[Sandy Larsen]

50 minutes ago, Jean Ceulemans said:

Sandy, this was my first reaction -  in this topic - to you when you asked about what I had written :

 

I quote myself :      "In the same topic, about the way Ruth answered to her sisters employment I believe it was.  IMHO she answered to those questions pretty much in the same way she answered the questions about the place her sister lived.   I did not add the excerpts on the Q and A about the work she did.  But perhaps you were talking about a perjury in an other part, or perhaps even another hearing ?       Please give me some references to that so I can find where she committed perjury there,  or copy the exerpts as I did with the address discussion,   I'm really only trying to learn ya know !"      End quote.

That was my very first response, I never had any intention of calling you a xxxx, if it sounded to you that way I will say I am sorry

I asked the above questions precisely because I wasn't sure anymore about that quote.

That's all there is to it, and that's all I had in my mind when writing that.

 

Fair enough Jean.

It would have been helpful had you began your response accepting my correction-for-the-record. I had a bit of trouble following what you said. But I now see where you accept the possibility that my claim  of perjury on Ruth's part was regarding issues other than those listed in your first post.

BTW, "put up or shut up" is an informal American idiom that means to justify yourself or remain silent. It is used when one is offended by something untrue that somebody says, and is indeed somewhat abrasive. However, it can also be used unabrasively in light-hearted exchanges.