Our Lady of the Warren Commission: Ruth Paine by Johnny Cairns

[James DiEugenio]

About a month or so after they met, Ruth wrote a letter to Marina, inviting her to live with the Paines.

She says it was not sent, but still?  Kind of weird if you ask me.

 

 

[Ron Bulman]

My earlier post was based completely on part I.  About finished with part II, I wanted to note this before I lost it.  I well may have read it and forgotten it, it is from WC testimony, but I don't remember part of this.

In a memorandum written in 1964, Norman Redlich reports that, “James H. Martin stated that (after the assassination) he had consciously attempted to create a public image of Marina Oswald as a simple, devoted housewife who had suffered at the hands of her husband and who was now filled with remorse for her husband’s actions and deeply grateful for the generosity and understanding of the American people... As Martin’s testimony indicates, there is a strong possibility that Marina Oswald is in fact a very different person— cold, calculating, avaricious, scornful of generosity, and capable of an extreme lack of sympathy in personal relationships. A wife who married him for selfish motives, degraded him in public (and) taunted him about his inadequacies…” (see this)  

Nor this:

George DeMohrenschildt.“I don't like a woman who bitches at her husband all the time, and she did, you know. She annoyed him. She bickered. She brought the worst out in him. 

She said, 'He sleeps with me just once a month, and I never get any satisfaction out of it.' A rather crude and completely straightforward thing to say in front of relative strangers, as we were." (Volume IX; p. 166-284)

[Ron Bulman]

The there is this,

Thomas Mallon. ...And the really awful part of the journey home (from New Orleans to Dallas) was you didn't know that one of the items, that was in the car, that he had packed, that was with everything... and one of the things in the car was the rifle.

Ruth Paine.“It has to have been.”

Thomas Mallon.“Yes.”

Ruth Paine.“There were two large Marine duffel bags, standing this high, he could have easily put a full-fledged rifle, it wouldn't even have to have been broken down to fit in there, so yea, looking back it has to have been in there.”

In a notable deviation from recent disclosures, Mrs. Paine had testified to the Warren Commission about Oswald’s luggage and the alleged concealment of the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle within. When probed specifically about the possibility of these bags containing a long, slim object like a rifle, Mrs. Paine firmly denied noticing anything that would suggest the presence of such an item, asserting that the bags appeared to be filled with clothes and showed no signs of concealing a weapon. (Volume II; p. 462-463)

This is funny.  Michael, Ruth, and Marina all testified to Not unloading a rifle if I remember right.  So, Lee must have brought it on the bus he told Ruth he took from N.O. to Dallas.  Along with those seven little file cabinets.

And secreted them all in the garage himself.  

Sorry, the tread title prompted me to remember this, for the first time in years, and share it. 

 

 

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Ron Bulman said:

Ruth Paine, for the Warren Commission:  Mrs. Paine firmly denied noticing anything that would suggest the presence of [a rifle], asserting that the bags appeared to be filled with clothes and showed no signs of concealing a weapon. (Volume II; p. 462-463)

1 hour ago, Ron Bulman said:

Ruth Paine for Thomas Mallon:  “There were two large Marine duffel bags, standing this high, he could have easily put a full-fledged rifle, it wouldn't even have to have been broken down to fit in there, so yea, looking back it has to have been in there.”

 

We need to recall that Ruth Paine was the one witness who was working for both sides of the coverup!

For the CIA coup plotters, Ruth was still introducing evidence of Oswald being involved in a commie plot, the purpose of which was to create a pretext for invasion of Cuba, possibly even a first nuclear strike on the Soviet Union.

In contrast, for the FBI/WC coverup artists, she was introducing evidence of Oswald being a lone gunman.

 

(To be honest, I've focused only on the former, not the latter. So I'm not sure the latter is true. I need to ask the forum members about this.)

(I see now that my comment here isn't really relevant to what I quoted above. Other than the fact that anything Ruth said should be filtered according to what I said.)

 

[Ron Bulman]

The there is this,

Thomas Mallon. ...And the really awful part of the journey home (from New Orleans to Dallas) was you didn't know that one of the items, that was in the car, that he had packed, that was with everything... and one of the things in the car was the rifle.

Ruth Paine.“It has to have been.”

Thomas Mallon.“Yes.”

Ruth Paine.“There were two large Marine duffel bags, standing this high, he could have easily put a full-fledged rifle, it wouldn't even have to have been broken down to fit in there, so yea, looking back it has to have been in there.”

In a notable deviation from recent disclosures, Mrs. Paine had testified to the Warren Commission about Oswald’s luggage and the alleged concealment of the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle within. When probed specifically about the possibility of these bags containing a long, slim object like a rifle, Mrs. Paine firmly denied noticing anything that would suggest the presence of such an item, asserting that the bags appeared to be filled with clothes and showed no signs of concealing a weapon. (Volume II; p. 462-463)

[Cory Santos]

14 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

The there is this,

Thomas Mallon. ...And the really awful part of the journey home (from New Orleans to Dallas) was you didn't know that one of the items, that was in the car, that he had packed, that was with everything... and one of the things in the car was the rifle.

Ruth Paine.“It has to have been.”

Thomas Mallon.“Yes.”

Ruth Paine.“There were two large Marine duffel bags, standing this high, he could have easily put a full-fledged rifle, it wouldn't even have to have been broken down to fit in there, so yea, looking back it has to have been in there.”

In a notable deviation from recent disclosures, Mrs. Paine had testified to the Warren Commission about Oswald’s luggage and the alleged concealment of the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle within. When probed specifically about the possibility of these bags containing a long, slim object like a rifle, Mrs. Paine firmly denied noticing anything that would suggest the presence of such an item, asserting that the bags appeared to be filled with clothes and showed no signs of concealing a weapon. (Volume II; p. 462-463)

This is funny.  Michael, Ruth, and Marina all testified to Not unloading a rifle if I remember right.  So, Lee must have brought it on the bus he told Ruth he took from N.O. to Dallas.  Along with those seven little file cabinets.

And secreted them all in the garage himself.  

Sorry, the tread title prompted me to remember this, for the first time in years, and share it. 

 

 

Ron you bring up good points that the cult of Ruth fails to acknowledge but I’ll add to your post by again stating that Michael knew before the assassination that Lee had a rifle and a pistol yet somehow he never told Ruth?   Oh please- in a DiEuginio voice. Additionally, Michael tells her they both know who did the shooting over the phone.  If Ruth did not know about the weapons or gee whiz even which book depository he worked at-even though she helped him get the job- well gosh, how did she know he did the shooting Michael?   You have to really ignore things to believe this stuff.  Like I said earlier, Jim is right on this one.   On Marilyn, we disagree but on this, Jim is flying high.  

[Bill Brown]

On 2/20/2024 at 12:43 PM, James DiEugenio said:

You know, I have both DVP and Parnell on ignore.  I will never take DVP off.

But I stupidly took at look at Parnell's.  What a mistake.

"Attorney General Robert Kennedy oversaw an organized assassination operation against the bearded leader."

With the declassification of the CIA's IG report, writing something like that is just pure ignorance or its a deliberate, desperate smear.

On pages 132, 133 of that report the authors ask the question: can we claim we had presidential approval for the plots?

They answer that they cannot. Since Eisenhower, Kennedy and LBJ were ignorant of them.

The only way Bobby Kennedy knew about them was through the bungled wiretap in Las Vegas that Maheu approved for Giancana to spy on his girlfriend Phyllis McGuire. When Bobby found out about it through the FBI he wanted to know why Maheu was so kind to a thug like Giancana, who Bobby was pursuing  with all he had.  It was then that  CIA briefed him on  the plots, since they had to.  They then assured him they were stopped.  This was false and the briefers knew it was false when they told RFK that.

Anyone who has not read that 145 page report which was declassified by the ARRB, should not be writing on the topic since it is the definitive document on the subject matter.  But with many of these Krazy Kid Oswald zealots--like the late John McAdams--there is a dual agenda at work.  Cover up the facts of JFK's murder, and also cover up who he really was.

 

 

 

Why do you feel the need to continually point out who you have on ignore?  Do you think even a single person cares at all?

 

[Bill Brown]

On 2/21/2024 at 9:05 AM, Greg Doudna said:

This is unjustified and an example of a recurring grievous phenomenon among some CT types who inhabit forums such as this: spreading entirely unfounded smears about innocent persons.

There is nothing whatever in the source you cite or any other source that supports "Lady Scattergood has written CIA all over her face". It is irresponsible of you to quote that soundbite which has no substantiation, where it will be picked up by some readers here who will assume because of your words that there may be something to it, which never was even alleged to my knowledge by anyone who knew her or of her. 

Margaret Scattergood had an outstanding reputation among Friends. She was almost legendary in how highly she was esteemed among Friends. She was opposed to the CIA because of the things it did in the world, demonstrated that in her words and actions from birth to death. 

As I understand it, she lived with a woman companion, her lifelong friend, in a mansion inherited from her ancestors. The CIA wanted her property upon which to build or expand their headquarters, and threatened to take it by eminent domain. This was not of Margaret Scattergood's wish or doing and she fought it. It was eventually settled in court to where she agreed to sell the estate (this sale was under duress), provided she and her companion were allowed to remain in the mansion and on the grounds which they lovingly tended for the remainder of their lives, which she did--living another forty years until age 92, before the CIA could take possession of her land of that forced sale.

Here is a more accurate picture of Margaret Scattergood. Chuck Fager, "Margaret Scattergood: In Memorium": https://www.friendsjournal.org/wp-content/uploads/1987/04/margaret-scattergood-in-memorium.pdf. 

Please, be more careful about spreading smearing of innocent persons. 

 

Greg, I respect your defense of Ruth but don't you do the same thing with Larry Crafard?

 

[Bill Brown]

On 2/22/2024 at 3:42 PM, Joe Bauer said:

Oswald's true mental state back then is one of the biggest mysteries of the entire event.

If one is not a trained killer for hire or ordered to kill by authorities such as military and Mafia ... it takes a certain mind set to go over the line and kill someone and not in self-defense.

Killing another human being using your own hands is one of the most deeply effecting experiences any person can ever go through. Veterans of military conflict combat often have lifetime PTSD and even nightmares about killing others in battle.

A murderous mind set is explainable however in times of passion and especially enhanced by alcohol. Like Mac Wallace shooting his sexual love triangle rival Doug Kinser in broad daylight and in front of nearby witnesses.

Delusional mental illness is also a common trait of people who kill others without a rational reason. Serial killers also have deep mental illness.

But Oswald seems to have been none of the above! 

Yet, he allegedly plans and carries out a shooting of General Walker? He missed but his intent was to blow Walker's head off? He justifies this insane extreme action to his upset wife Marina by asking her if killing Hitler wouldn't have also been a good thing?

Then, again allegedly, Oswald not just kills officer Tippit but does so in an extremely brutal way. 3 body shots topped off with a coup de grace shot in his head? 3 body shots weren't enough? Mafia hit men go that far to send a message of fear to anyone else who may threaten their bosses.

The shots into JFK on Elm street were just as brutal. Sadistically brutal. Blow his head apart and into a showering cloud of bloody spray ... inches from his wife's face?

If Oswald was the shooter of JFK and Connally...he had to have been seriously mentally ill. His doing so was not just an act of extreme brutality but also an act of suicidal insanity.

He knew his position was extremely visible and exposed with fully illuminating mid-day sun light to hundreds below. He knew the booming loudness of his shots would draw attention to his location.

And he then believes he can just walk down some stairs afterwards and walk away? He has no help in escaping? He is so poor he has to use the cheapest form of transportation to get away - a city bus?  There's something so irrational there that it begs total doubt and suspicion. 

But it's the brutality of his killings that throws me. If Oswald was hate filled to the point of rage then "maybe" one can understand his blasting these three people's heads off. 

If Oswald did what he allegedly did there seems to be no other psychological explanation that fits his motives. Just pure deep rage?

 

 

"Then, again allegedly, Oswald not just kills officer Tippit but does so in an extremely brutal way. 3 body shots topped off with a coup de grace shot in his head? 3 body shots weren't enough? Mafia hit men go that far to send a message of fear to anyone else who may threaten their bosses."

 

No.

 

Consider the idea that there was no "coup de grace" shot to Tippit's head and instead, that Oswald fired that shot from across the hood of the patrol car like the other three bullets which hit Tippit.

 

Other than Jack Tatum, not one witness describes a final shot separated from the original outburst of shots.  In fact, Domingo Benavides, the closest to the shooting, specifically stated that after firing the shots from across the hood, the killer backed up onto the sidewalk and took off for the corner.

 

Edited February 28 by Bill Brown

[Bill Brown]

On 2/23/2024 at 12:31 AM, James DiEugenio said:

Ron:

Thanks so much for this.

Johnny is a much undervalued researcher on the JFK case. He does not get the credit he deserves in my view.

His six part series on the 60th is simply excellent all the way through.

He was a contributor to a book called JFK: Case not Closed with Dave Obrien.

And now this fine work on Ruthie.  BTW, not to toot my own horn, but did anyone else cover this event?

He was there live.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by "cover" but I drove Ruth to the event.

In the article, Johnny Cairns states:

"Mrs. Paine & Mr. Mallon’s narrative is a rehash of the weary, well-worn trope that the Warren Commission clung to in their attempts to explain Oswald's hypothetical motives in the assassination of President Kennedy."

I find it comical that I personally saw Cairns stand in a line that was forty-five minutes long to get their autographs.

 

Edited February 28 by Bill Brown

[Greg Doudna]

3 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

Greg, I respect your defense of Ruth but don't you do the same thing with Larry Crafard?

That's a fair question Bill and one I have asked myself. But I think I can answer it. It is the difference between making an accusation of someone in a village based on nothing more substantial than pure suspicion, and the equivalent of a grand jury indictment in which a threshold of evidence and probable grounds supports an indictment.

With Craford, I see significant grounds to consider him a suspect in Tippit if a prior conclusion is accepted that there are reasonable grounds for doubt that Oswald did it. Unlike Ruth Paine, who has no track record of any known crime, Craford confessed (even though it was later in life) to having engaged in hitman activity for a California mob figure in 1962. Craford's brother believed Craford's confession on that point. Ruth Paine never confessed to having done any of the fabrications of material evidence or wilful framings of Oswald that people accuse her of.

I believe Craford was heard by a witness discussing a contract murder on the night of Oct 4, 1963 in the Carousel Club. Ruth Paine was never overheard discussing forging or planting evidence or how to perjure someone innocent to implicate them in a crime.

Earlier in the summer of 1963 I believe Craford was the identity of Odell Estes' "Oswald" figure whom he saw at the Carousel Club in July-Aug 1963 (the figure certainly was not Oswald, yet I do not believe Odell Estes, knowing he was dying, was inventing his story to the FBI after a brief lifetime of fear and flight, before he died). Estes told of witnessing Craford (he did not realize he was Craford; that identity is from argument) present with mob-appearing types, and Estes told of driving Craford to the airport to take a flight somewhere for a couple of days for which he, Craford, received a huge sum of cash (https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/29006-decipherment-of-the-james-odell-estes-story-carousel-club-july-aug-1963/). That and the Oct 4 witnessing of who I believe to have been Craford supports Craford's later self-confessed hitman expertise and experience had not ended in 1962 but continued in 1963 rendering plausible the time frame of Nov 22.

Craford matches the physical description of the Tippit killer; Craford was photographed a week later by the FBI wearing a similar though not identical jacket of exactly the same color and almost exactly same style as CE 162, the jacket abandoned by the Tippit killer; the Tippit killing took place very close to Ruby's apartment and Craford was seen at 3 a.m. the night before in the company of Ruby who was driving him home (Ruby could have driven him to his apartment from which Craford would have an easy walk to the location of the Tippit killing, which on independent grounds per argument was a luring of Tippit to a location where he was executed as a professional execution). Craford's alibi is weak for his whereabouts at the time of the Tippit killing, and Craford fled Dallas unexpectedly for Michigan within less than 24 hours.

Craford worked for the mobbed-up nightclub owner who I and many others are convinced carried out a premeditated mob hit on Oswald.

I believe the above makes Craford a suspect in Tippit. 

With Ruth Paine, no criminal record, no record of forgery or evidence-planting or perjury-framing training, no proof Ruth ever did any such thing in her life. The claims of proof of such, such as the Minox camera and so on, are controverted by the most basic evidence considerations to which some of Ruth Paine's critics seem impervious (in the case of the Minox camera, a DPD physical evidence photograph published by Savage in First Day Evidence which shows no Minox camera, only an empty Minox camera case and a Minox light meter, before those items were sent to the FBI lab mislabeled, and are mislabeled in the book First Day Evidence itself which, contrary to its own photograph, tells the reader, just as some continue to claim today, that there is a Minox camera in that photo when anyone can look for themselves and there is not--it is truly surreal). 

The point being, with Ruth there is nothing stronger than unsubstantiated suspicion for all sorts of horrible accusations made of her, yet which a huge body of people just believe as certainly true in their bones as if with bedrock certainty. 

So I do not regard the two cases as equivalent or comparable.

That said, your question remains a sober caution in any discussion of Craford or any other named person. The ancient common law jurors' oath was to convict the guilty and acquit the innocent, and that is what is to be striven for, to the best of our abilities, on the basis of critical thinking and evidence. May God forgive us for unintended convictions of innocent persons, if so, despite best efforts. Yet to go through the task of a human life one has to make judgments in the moment, every day, about persons on less that perfect information. And sometimes will get it wrong about innocent people. I don't know the full solution to this.  

[Ron Bulman]

5 hours ago, Cory Santos said:

Ron you bring up good points that the cult of Ruth fails to acknowledge but I’ll add to your post by again stating that Michael knew before the assassination that Lee had a rifle and a pistol yet somehow he never told Ruth?   Oh please- in a DiEuginio voice. Additionally, Michael tells her they both know who did the shooting over the phone.  If Ruth did not know about the weapons or gee whiz even which book depository he worked at-even though she helped him get the job- well gosh, how did she know he did the shooting Michael?   You have to really ignore things to believe this stuff.  Like I said earlier, Jim is right on this one.   On Marilyn, we disagree but on this, Jim is flying high.  

Cory, I made no comment, that whole section I quoted was Johnny Carins from part two of his article at K & K.  I found it interesting that either in 1964 to the WC or recently to Mallon one she lied about the rifle possibly being in the duffel bag.  Or at her age maybe it was just a lapse in memory.

In 1964 to the WC she said:

In a notable deviation from recent disclosures, Mrs. Paine had testified to the Warren Commission about Oswald’s luggage and the alleged concealment of the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle within. When probed specifically about the possibility of these bags containing a long, slim object like a rifle, Mrs. Paine firmly denied noticing anything that would suggest the presence of such an item, asserting that the bags appeared to be filled with clothes and showed no signs of concealing a weapon. (Volume II; p. 462-463)  

Recently to Mallon she said:

Ruth Paine.“There were two large Marine duffel bags, standing this high, he could have easily put a full-fledged rifle, it wouldn't even have to have been broken down to fit in there, so yea, looking back it has to have been in there.”

A bit of a contradiction?  I guess Bill didn't notice that in his idol worship of her.

 

 

[Mark Ulrik]

2 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

A bit of a contradiction?  I guess Bill didn't notice that in his idol worship of her.

How silly. There is no contradiction. Her later inferences are obviously based on more than direct observations and impressions at the time. The WC only queried her about the latter. Perhaps Cairns and others are blinded by their own biases.

[Ron Bulman]

46 minutes ago, Mark Ulrik said:

How silly. There is no contradiction. Her later inferences are obviously based on more than direct observations and impressions at the time. The WC only queried her about the latter. Perhaps Cairns and others are blinded by their own biases.

Maybe it's time to backtrack a bit on Paine discussions.  Read this and get back to me.  Next, we'll do Ruth's couch.

 

[Greg Doudna]

11 hours ago, Cory Santos said:

Ron you bring up good points that the cult of Ruth fails to acknowledge but I’ll add to your post by again stating that Michael knew before the assassination that Lee had a rifle and a pistol yet somehow he never told Ruth?   Oh please- in a DiEuginio voice. Additionally, Michael tells her they both know who did the shooting over the phone.  If Ruth did not know about the weapons or gee whiz even which book depository he worked at-even though she helped him get the job- well gosh, how did she know he did the shooting Michael?   You have to really ignore things to believe this stuff.  Like I said earlier, Jim is right on this one.   On Marilyn, we disagree but on this, Jim is flying high.  

Cory, if Michael did see a Backyard Photograph on April 2, 1963, he concealed that not only from the Warren Commission but from Ruth as well. Ruth's distaste for guns around children reads as real. Michael's 30-year-later disclosure that he had seen a BYP does not establish that Ruth knew or lied about not knowing. 

On "we both know" who shot Kennedy in that phone call, Ruth has said that was a reference to the radical right, widely believed at first by most of Dallas. Its very plausible that is what that kind of language meant in Dallas in the first hour after the assassination. On the other hand its not very plausible that Michael or Ruth actually knew who had just killed Kennedy. That they had foreknowledge of who killed Kennedy makes no sense. (Do you really believe so?) Why be so dead set on seeing something incriminating in "we both know who" instead of giving the benefit of the doubt to a person in the direction that is overwhelmingly the most plausible as to the meaning, is that person's own explanation, and is not contradicted by other evidence? (https://www.swtimes.com/story/news/2020/09/20/paine-interview-raises-more-jfk-assassination-questions-part-ii/42668757/). Why insist on construing something ambiguous someone says in a sinister way? Witchhunt logic. Where someone is publicly condemned based on suspicion regarded as its own evidence for itself.   

Edited February 29 by Greg Doudna