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

[Cory Santos]

2 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

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.   

My opinion as to her veracity is based on taking her interviews and statements as a whole.  That is what lawyers do.   Your interpretation of my opinion is therefore your opinion of my opinion.  The difference is you are looking to defend her.  I came from a neutral position and made a conclusion.   I do not mean to defend or attack but merely state my opinion of how I see her veracity as a witness.  I could use your logic and ask why do you defend her so strongly?    I am sure you have your reasons.   But as for the phone call, your position is mere speculation.  
Consider, according to the WC, De Mohrenschildt knew about the rifle, Walker attempt and backyard photos, so did Marina.  Michael Paine knew about the weapons- and knew Oswald had his stuff in his garage near his kids.   Ruth “knew” Oswald was abusive to Marina - but let him around her kids-  which is odd for a pacifist especially since they had fights in her house.  All these facts but Ruth knew none of it?  Yet when they had this phone call, we should speculate it was innocent?   Right…..
 

[Greg Doudna]

7 hours ago, Cory Santos said:

My opinion as to her veracity is based on taking her interviews and statements as a whole.  That is what lawyers do.   Your interpretation of my opinion is therefore your opinion of my opinion.  The difference is you are looking to defend her.  I came from a neutral position and made a conclusion.   I do not mean to defend or attack but merely state my opinion of how I see her veracity as a witness.  I could use your logic and ask why do you defend her so strongly?    I am sure you have your reasons.   But as for the phone call, your position is mere speculation.  
Consider, according to the WC, De Mohrenschildt knew about the rifle, Walker attempt and backyard photos, so did Marina.  Michael Paine knew about the weapons- and knew Oswald had his stuff in his garage near his kids.   Ruth “knew” Oswald was abusive to Marina - but let him around her kids-  which is odd for a pacifist especially since they had fights in her house.  All these facts but Ruth knew none of it?  Yet when they had this phone call, we should speculate it was innocent?   Right…..

The alternative that you are suggesting, that Ruth and Michael knew immediately (in a manner no one else "knew" from simply following the news) who killed President Kennedy, means foreknowledge--isn't that what you are suggesting? I am asking you to explain how that makes sense. You are seriously suggesting both Michael and Ruth Paine knew in advance who was going to kill Kennedy, and sat on that information (how evil can one get), and kept that secret for the next half century (and no one murdered them to eliminate the risk of them talking)? 

Please say that is not what you are meaning? And you know you are talking about a hearsay report to begin with where it is not even certain we have the exact syllables or words spoken as opposed to some human informant's (such as a telephone operator at the phone company) paraphrase: "we both know who..." Isn't it more likely that it is as Ruth has always said, they were thinking, "we know it is the radical right...", than this other alternative you are asserting which is a very extreme claim and has no other corroboration to it--all from that ambiguous hearsay few words? 

The argument on that point is actually independent of whether Michael did or did not tell Ruth about having seen the Backyard Photo. 

I am sure are also aware that by affirming as your premise that Oswald did show Michael a Backyard Photo you are opposing the many here who think the photos were faked, that Oswald had no rifle, etc.

I admit the Michael Paine 1993 claim is troubling. I have noticed that Michael has invented a few things in his later tellings that fit into his mental narrative of Oswald, such that I have wondered if it is possible the 1993 story of seeing the Backyard Photograph was one more (though I don't really know that that will work).

(For example: how many times has Michael Paine said over the years, quoted and requoted, that Oswald believed change could only come through violence? This is core to Michael Paine's interpretation of Oswald. Michael insisted that from the beginning, told the Warren Commission that was what Oswald believed. How surprised I was in studying Michael Paine's Warren Commission testimony to find Michael Paine explicitly told the Commission he never actually heard Oswald say that. He believed Oswald thought that, but said he never heard Oswald actually directly say anything about the necessity of violence to accomplish political change. That is Michael Paine's own explicit testimony to the Warren Commission. Michael Paine explained why he believed Oswald thought that even though he never heard Oswald say that. Michael explained: it was because Oswald never advocated for any progressive reform activity, never would answer to Michael any roadmap for political progressives to follow to get to a better world in any peaceful or programmatic political reform way. Oswald never would answer Michael when Michael asked him how exploitation was going to end. Since Oswald never gave Michael an answer to that question, Michael concluded it was because Oswald believed violence was the only way. Michael explained to the Warren Commission that was how he knew Oswald believed that. The problem is that is not correct, if the known political writings of Oswald are considered representative of Oswald's reasoning. Oswald in his writings never advocates political violence--the thing Michael Paine believed to the core of his bones was so basic to Oswald even though he never once heard Oswald say it. Oswald in his writings never says violence by politically aware people is necessary or advocated. Instead, Oswald's view was that both Soviet and American systems were fatally flawed and corrupted and would collapse by themselves--no political activists' violence involved or playing any role in those collapses. Oswald had an idea that the politically aware people should organized to be ready to build a better world and better systems after the collapse of the unjust systems which will happen on its own. The issue isn't whether Oswald was right or wrong on that. It is that Michael Paine fundamentally got Oswald wrong, and misrepresented Oswald on something Michael Paine explicitly said in his 1964 testimony he never heard Oswald say. But in Michael Paine's later years, at the same time he introduces the Backyard Photograph story, he starts speaking of having heard Oswald say emphatically that violence was the only way for change to happen. Michael Paine so firmly had his belief of what Oswald thought--his mind-reading of Oswald--that decades later he turned that into what he believed was an actual memory of having heard Oswald say that forcefully. Is it possible Michael Paine could have done the same thing with his belated introduction of the Backyard Photo business? I don't know.)

[Ron Bulman]

I know this thread is about Ruth and Johnny's article on her.  As Michael has been brought up, I thought I'd mention this here as it's relevant, instead of starting another Paine thread.  I did mention it in another thread from memory yesterday, but this is actual WC testimony.  Of Dallas Sherrif's Deputy Buddy Walthers, the search of the garage, seven small file cabinets and what they contained, and, his "conversation over the ironing board" with Michael Paine.  Who tries to frame Lee from the get-go.

Mr. Walthers.

You could tell it from the way it was tied and the impression of where that barrel went up in it where it was tied, that a rifle had been tied in it, but what kind---you couldn't tell, but you could tell a rifle had been wrapped up in it, and then we found some little metal file cabinets---I don't know what kind you would call them---they would carry an 8 by 10 folder, all right, but with a single handle on top of it and the handle moves.

Mr. Liebeler.

About how many of them would you think there were?

Mr. Walthers.

There were six or seven, I believe, and I put them all in the trunk of my car . . .                                                                                                                                

Mr. Liebeler.

What did he say?

Mr. Walthers.

I didn't ask him, of course, if he knew he had been arrested. I asked him if he knew Oswald and he said, "Yes"; he had known him. We were standing, I remember, on each side of the ironing board when I talked to him and he said "Yes," he had known him and I said, "How does the guy think, what is he, what does he do?" He said, "He's a Communist. He is very communistic minded. He believes in it." And he says, "He used to try to convince me it was a good thing," and he says, "I don't believe in it." And our conversation didn't go too far. It was just a matter of talk about Oswald and what he had to say about him being a Communist.
They were all put in the cars and we took them to Capt. Will Fritz' office along with the stuff we had confiscated, the files and the blanket and the other stuff, and I turned them over to Captain Fritz and left them and went back to my station.

Mr. Liebeler.

What was in these file cabinets?

Mr. Walthers.

We didn't go through them at the scene. I do remember a letterhead--I can't describe it--I know we opened one of them and we seen what it was, that it was a lot of personal letters and stuff and a letterhead that this Paine fellow had told us about, and he said, "That's from the people he writes to in Russia"; he was talking about this letterhead we had pulled out and so I just pushed it all back down and shut it and took the whole works.

Mr. Liebeler.

I have been advised that some story has developed that at some point that when you went out there you found seven file cabinets full of cards that had the names on them of pro-Castro sympathizers or something of that kind, but you don't remember seeing any of them?

Mr. Walthers.

Well, that could have been one, but I didn't see it.

Mr. Liebeler.

There certainly weren't any seven file cabinets with the stuff you got out there or anything like that?  

Mr. Walthers.

I picked up all of these file cabinets and what all of them contained, I don't know myself to this day.

Mr. Liebeler.

As I was sitting here listening to your story, I could see where that story might have come from--you mentioned the "Fair Play for Cuba" leaflets that were in a barrel.

Mr. Walthers.

That's right--we got a stack of them out of that barrel, but things get all twisted around.                                                                                                         

[Karl Kinaski]

BTW. Walker himself concluded that Oswald did not shoot at him. 

Quote, Jim Marrs (In the Afterword of Judyth Bakers book ME AND LEE

Quote

 

"In  the  fall  of  1964,  just  a  month  after  the  release  of  the  Warren
Commission Report, I  (Jim Marrs) interviewed retired Army General Edwin Walker in
his Dallas home where he told me that Oswald knew Jack Ruby and that the
Warren Commission would have to start over on that one fact alone. Walker
also said that the bullet fired through his window on April 10, 1963 was a
30.06 caliber and could not have come from Oswald’s 6.5 mm rifle.

 

close quote

And ole Ruth is still telling her audience that Oswald shot at Walker. 

Edited March 11 by Karl Kinaski

[Joe Bauer]

Ruth was smitten with the young, beautiful and mysterious Russian born and raised Marina. Starting from the first night she laid eyes on her.

Sparked of course by Ruth's Russian culture and language interests and being able to interact directly with a native born Russian citizen, but eventually evolving to the point of physical attraction and caring protectiveness...and eventually possessiveness.

She felt the opposite toward Lee Oswald.

"He ( Lee ) used my typewriter without asking...and that offended me deeply!" RP.

Edited March 11 by Joe Bauer

[Joe Bauer]

Were Ruth's living expenses totally covered by her estranged husband's salary?

She wasn't working all the time she knew and interacted with Marina...was she?

Did Michael Paine receive monthly family wealth endowment monies besides his employment salary?

[Bill Brown]

On 2/28/2024 at 4:26 PM, Bill Brown said:

 

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.

 

 

Isn't anyone bothered by the hypocrisy of Johnny Cairns which I point out above?

He's simply an attention-seeker; nothing more.

 

[Paul Cummings]

 

 

14 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

 

Isn't anyone bothered by the hypocrisy of Johnny Cairns which I point out above?

He's simply an attention-seeker; nothing more.

 

No. I'm more interested in what car you drove.

Edited March 14 by Paul Cummings

[Bill Brown]

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.

 

@Johnny Cairns

[Robert Morrow]

On 2/20/2024 at 11:43 AM, 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.

 

 

Who cares what the CIA's IG report says about the Kennedys and supposedly how they were not authorizing assassinations against Fidel Castro. Since when would the CIA even internally admit that a president was trying (or had tried) to murder a foreign leader? It seems like something the CIA is congenitally unable to admit.

From my vantage point the Kennedys, at some point, were trying to kill/murder Fidel Castro. I believe the CIA guys who said they were. If you were an enemy of Robert Kennedy, you stayed an enemy of his for life (see Lyndon Johnson).

This does not mean that JFK, at the same time through Jean Daniel, could not have been trying to reconcile with Castro. Because he was definitely doing that.

 

[Robert Morrow]

On 3/10/2024 at 2:46 PM, Joe Bauer said:

Ruth was smitten with the young, beautiful and mysterious Russian born and raised Marina. Starting from the first night she laid eyes on her.

Sparked of course by Ruth's Russian culture and language interests and being able to interact directly with a native born Russian citizen, but eventually evolving to the point of physical attraction and caring protectiveness...and eventually possessiveness.

She felt the opposite toward Lee Oswald.

"He ( Lee ) used my typewriter without asking...and that offended me deeply!" RP.

Braggard Hugh Aynesworth told Shirley Martin in 1964 that Ruth Paine and Marina Oswald were lesbian lovers. And he told me circa 2011 that Marina Oswald was having sex with her bodyguards. 

So yes I can see that.

[Greg Doudna]

19 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

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

@Johnny Cairns

You are better than this Bill. This is about the third or fourth time you have raised this entirely irrelevant point. I do not agree with everything Cairns says in his piece, I continue to think Ruth Paine has been mistreated by this community. But in fairness, Cairns standing in line for a signature or to meet for a moment his person of interest does not strike me as hypocritical or comical, and I do not know what you are on about on that. 

Better to stick to being responsive to the substance of what Cairns writes, not these ad hominem attempts and name-callings. 

[Bill Brown]

1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:

You are better than this Bill. This is about the third or fourth time you have raised this entirely irrelevant point. I do not agree with everything Cairns says in his piece, I continue to think Ruth Paine has been mistreated by this community. But in fairness, Cairns standing in line for a signature or to meet for a moment his person of interest does not strike me as hypocritical or comical, and I do not know what you are on about on that. 

Better to stick to being responsive to the substance of what Cairns writes, not these ad hominem attempts and name-callings. 

 

It shows the hypocrisy of Cairns.  The fact that he stood in a line for 45 minutes to meet Ruth Paine tells me that he doesn't really believe the nonsense he posts about her in his poor article and that he's simply seeking attention.

My opinion.

 

(And I didn't call anyone any name)

 

 

Edited April 4 by Bill Brown

[Tom Gram]

3 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

 

It shows the hypocrisy of Cairns.  The fact that he stood in a line for 45 minutes to meet Ruth Paine tells me that he doesn't really believe the nonsense he posts about her in his poor article and that he's simply seeking attention.

My opinion.

 

(And I didn't call anyone any name)

 

 

Greg is right. Paine is very old, a key witness and a historical figure in the JFK case. Cairns is from the UK and obviously interested in the assassination. It may be the only chance he ever gets to meet her. Hell I’m pretty critical of Paine on certain issues and would’ve done the same thing. 

This is one of the dumbest and most irrelevant things I’ve seen anyone write on this forum, which is saying a lot. 

[Bill Brown]

15 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:

Greg is right. Paine is very old, a key witness and a historical figure in the JFK case. Cairns is from the UK and obviously interested in the assassination. It may be the only chance he ever gets to meet her. Hell I’m pretty critical of Paine on certain issues and would’ve done the same thing. 

This is one of the dumbest and most irrelevant things I’ve seen anyone write on this forum, which is saying a lot. 

This past November 22nd, for the 60th, I was in Dealey Plaza (with Ruth) and I saw James Files across the street (he was standing on the infield between Elm and Main).  I didn't make it a point to go talk to him.  If the guy is telling the truth, he's a murderer.  If he's not telling the truth, then he's simply a liar.  Either way, I don't hold him in high regard and had no desire to go meet him.  On top of that, there was no line at all; I could have walked right up to him.

Johnny Cairns is being hypocritical.