(PART 363)


Oswald was not dyslexic. There isn't a single example of Oswald being afflicted with dyslexia.


Walt, as usual, doesn't know what he's talking about.

Quoting from Vincent Bugliosi's book:

"The Warren Commission hired Dr. Howard P. Rome, a psychiatrist for the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, to analyze Oswald's writings and give his professional opinion. In a letter to Warren Commission assistant counsel Wesley Liebeler dated September 8, 1964, Rome concluded that Oswald was suffering from "constitutional dyslexia," [CE3134; Pg. 7] a "reading-spelling disability" that can exist, he said, "in the absence of intellectual defect or of defect of the sense organs." " -- Page 944 of "Reclaiming History" (c.2007)

I guess Walt thinks he knows more about diagnosing dyslexia than professional psychiatrist Dr. Howard Rome does. Huh, Walt?

And, once more, here we have another situation where all I had to do was turn to the comprehensive pages of Vincent Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History" in order to swiftly and easily debunk the ill-informed ramblings of a conspiracy-happy kook (Walter C.).

This same thing has happened numerous other times since May 2007 when I've been in need of readily accessible and easy-to-locate information in order to illustrate how wrong most conspiracy theorists are on virtually every single issue that surfaces associated with John F. Kennedy's murder.

I merely search the "Reclaiming History" index for the sub-topic being mangled by the conspiracy kooks...and almost every time Vince has supplied a goodly amount of conspiracy-debunking material for the sub-topic in question (like this "dyslexia" subject, for example).

I just skimmed the index of "RH" under the name "Oswald, Lee Harvey", knowing I was likely to find a sub-section there for "dyslexia of"....and, sure enough, there are several references to this subject in the book's massive 71-page index, including the quoted passage from page 944 that I cited above.

Now, in my opinion, THAT is the ultimate definition of a "reference book" -- i.e., a book you can turn to with respect to virtually ANY sub-topic when it comes to the main topic of "The Assassination of JFK", and you're very likely to find the answer there.

That is the beauty of Vincent T. Bugliosi's "RECLAIMING HISTORY: THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY" -- a book, indeed, "for the ages".

David Von Pein
November 2, 2008

(PART 362)


Resolution. The bullet that entered the back and struck no significant bony mass continued traveling in the same direction as it entered. The anatomical direction of the long axis of either the abrasion or bullet hole coincides with the tangential component of direction of travel.


That's a "resolution"?


Tell me, Herb, does the above batch of impressive-sounding highbrow
mumbo-jumbo mean that John F. Kennedy was hit by one bullet, two
bullets, three bullets, or maybe four?

And if the bullet that entered the President's upper back didn't exit
his throat, where did it go? (You never did say.)

I often wonder why obviously smart people turn a blind eye to common
sense when it comes to evaluating the JFK murder case (and the
logicality of the SBT in particular).

It boggles the (common-sense) mind.


"From the first moment that I heard that [Arlen] Specter had
come up with the single-bullet theory, it made very little sense to me
since the theory was so obvious that a child could author it.

"Since [the members of the WC staff] all knew that the bullet,
fired from Kennedy's right rear, had passed through soft tissue in
Kennedy's body on a straight line, and that Connally was seated to the
president's left front, the bullet, after emerging from Kennedy's
body, would have had to go on and hit Connally for the simple reason
it had nowhere else to go. How could it be that among many bright
lawyers earnestly focusing their minds on this issue, only Specter saw
it? ....

"When I asked [Norman Redlich on September 6, 2005] if, indeed,
Arlen Specter, was the sole author of the single-bullet theory, his
exact words were, "No, we all came to this conclusion simultaneously."
When I asked him whom he meant by "we," he said, "Arlen, myself,
Howard Willens, David Belin, and Mel Eisenberg." ....

"I don't know about you folks, but I'm inclined to take what
Redlich told me to the bank. My sense is that Redlich, who by almost
all accounts worked harder on the case than anyone else, was a team
player only interested in doing his job well. ....

"If I have done a disservice to Specter in what I have written
above, I apologize to him. But I did give him an opportunity to
respond to this issue [via a letter sent to Specter on June 24, 2005],
and he declined."
-- Vincent Bugliosi; Pages 302-304 of "Reclaiming
History" (Endnotes)(c.2007)


"The [single-bullet] theory was so obvious that a child could
author it."
-- VB

David Von Pein
November 2, 2008

(PART 361)


Would [you] mind explaining how reaming an elliptical hole changes the direction of its longer axis?


Beats me. You're apparently the "axis" authority. I really couldn't
care less about this trivial "axis" shit.

Instead, I'll rely on some good ol' CS&L [Common Sense & Logic]:

1.) A bullet went into JFK's upper back...

2.) That bullet struck nothing that could have possibly stopped its
forward progress...

3.) JFK had a bullet hole in his lower throat...

4.) JFK had no bullets or bullet fragments in his body (not counting
his head)...

Solution: The same bullet that struck him in the upper back exited his
lower throat.

And a bunch of double-talk about the "axis" of the wounds, etc., is
never going to change the above-mentioned facts, Herbert.

Now, tell me again how one bullet couldn't have gone through John
Kennedy's body. I love watching a CTer deny the obvious.


If you believe that Humes stuck [his] chubby little finger into a bullet hole
with a 4 mm diameter, then I have a bridge with your name on the bill of sale.


So, you think Humes didn't stick his "chubby little finger" into the
back wound at all then? Is that what you're saying?

Or would you like to pretend that the bullet hole seen in the picture
below was really a completely different size and/or configuration from
what is exhibited in this photograph (a picture that was determined by
the HSCA to be "unaltered in any manner")?

David Von Pein
November 1, 2008

(PART 360)


JFK conspiracy theorist James DiEugenio made a return appearance on
Len Osanic's "Black Op Radio" show on October 30, 2008 (above), with
DiEugenio spouting more of the usual anti-LN and pro-conspiracy junk
that we've heard a million times before.

DiEugenio's 10/30/08 Black Op appearance features a portion of his
lengthy review of Vincent Bugliosi's 2007 book "Reclaiming History",
with James verbally assaulting as much of VB's excellent book as he
can within the 105-minute radio show.

DiEugenio also gets in a few more jabs at me near the beginning of the
broadcast, mainly with respect to the topic of Lee Harvey Oswald's
Mannlicher-Carcano rifle (although Jim thinks I might very well be
Dave Reitzes, which always makes me smile when I hear that).

James D. continues to insist, incorrectly, that "PROOF" exists that
additional Mannlicher-Carcano Model 91/38 rifles (besides just LHO's
rifle; CE139) were stamped with serial number "C2766".

Jim actually thinks that since a conspiracy kook named Thomas H. Purvis
said that he owned a Carcano rifle with a HIGHER serial number than
C2766 (C5-something), this therefore somehow, in effect, "proves"
that a second Carcano Model 91/38 existed with the same number on
it as CE139 ("C2766").

But, of course, Purvis' nonsense regarding the higher serial number
"proves" no such thing. Purvis never saw a second Carcano 91/38 with
"C2766" stamped on it. He just assumes that since his rifle had a
"C5XXX" number, it must mean that a second 91/38 rifle (other than
CE139, that is) must have been produced with the number "C2766"
on it at that particular Carcano manufacturing plant (wherever it might
have been).


DiEugenio then goes on to repeat the incorrect information about how
Dr. John K. Lattimer once owned a rifle with the number C2766 on it.

But if DiEugenio had bothered to read a few of my recent Internet
posts regarding this matter (and I'm pretty sure that James has looked
at some of my recent posts, based on his comments about me on Black Op Radio
on both October 9 and October 30), he would have found this 10/6/08 post, wherein I repeat the information about Lattimer, which is information
that was posted in 2004 by John Canal. The Purvis/Carcano matter is
tackled in that same post, btw:

"The book ["Kennedy And Lincoln"] was printed before we noticed
the error [re. the C2766 serial number] and it was too late to correct
it." -- Dr. John K. Lattimer; April 2004

But even if James D. never saw the above post, I wonder if Jim ever
asked himself the following question---

What are the odds of Dr. Lattimer being able to actually get ahold of
a rifle exactly like Oswald's that was stamped with the EXACT SAME

Apparently, Jim must think that such an incredible occurrence is
routine and not remarkable in the least.


Footnote -- Of course, even if a second Carcano 91/38 rifle were to
suddenly drop from the heavens into a conspiracy theorist's waiting
lap, it wouldn't go very far toward debunking any of the lone-assassin-
favoring evidence that exists in the JFK murder case.

Such a heaven-sent C2766 Carcano would only go to show that at least
one other gun like Oswald's was stamped with the same serial number
that CE139 possesses.

In other words -- So what?

The likelihood of Klein's shipping OSWALD a rifle with that serial
number on it in March of 1963 (which we know that Klein's did, without
question; Waldman Exhibit No. 7 proves that fact beyond every speck of
a doubt)....and then having a DIFFERENT rifle with that exact same
serial number on it being found in the Depository after the
assassination with OSWALD'S palmprint on it (and proven by ballistics
tests to have been the rifle that fired the bullets that killed
President Kennedy)....is so remote, that even the hardline CTers of
the world should be too embarrassed to even consider it.

But, of course, they're not embarrassed at all. I guess they think
that such an incredible "Double C2766" occurrence could have easily
happened in November 1963 (or whenever). Just ask people like Thomas
H. Purvis and James DiEugenio.


Now, I know that some people reading this are probably going to think
that I just made up the following hilarious remarks made by Jim
DiEugenio on 10/30/08 -- but, hand over my heart, I'm not fabricating
this stuff from whole cloth. Honest. ....

DiEugenio actually thinks that Vincent T. Bugliosi, Esq. (or any
lawyer who would have prosecuted Lee Oswald in a court of law, had
JFK's murderer [Oswald, of course] lived to stand trial) would have
had a very difficult time getting Oswald's rifle (CE139) introduced
into evidence at a real trial.

Of course, as we know, the rifle (CE139) and the Stretcher Bullet
(CE399) WERE, in fact, introduced into evidence at a court proceeding
in 1986 in London, during the TV mock trial that Bugliosi was involved
in ["On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald"].

Now, yes, it's true that the '86 mock trial wasn't a "real" trial.
There's no denying that fact. But, as far as I am aware, REAL RULES OF
LAW were adhered to during the course of that simulated trial, and
that would certainly include (or it should!) the court rules that
pertain to the "admissibility of evidence".

Which, if true, means that both the rifle (CE139) and the Stretcher
Bullet (CE399) would not have had any trouble getting introduced into
evidence during a real trial. Because those two items (CE139 & CE399)
were mentioned countless times by numerous witnesses during the TV
trial in London in '86.

But even apart from the above reference re. that evidence being
accepted at a "mock" trial, DiEugenio's comments about Oswald's rifle
being inadmissible as evidence at a REAL trial is really, really
kooky. In fact, this type of crazy shit borders on sheer insanity.

DiEugenio thinks that due to the fact that Parkland Hospital's O.P.
Wright was not able to positively identify the Stretcher Bullet as the
bullet he was later shown (CE399), this fact ALONE(!) means that
Oswald's rifle could never be introduced into evidence at LHO's trial.

I'm not kidding....Jimmy D. actually said that.

Of course, Jim decides to STOP right there with the Wright/CE399
thing, instead of telling the radio audience (i.e., the 2 people
listening who weren't already asleep by that time; and, believe me,
the October 30 BlackOp program is a real snooze-fest, to be sure)
about all of the OTHER stuff besides CE399 that connects Rifle CE139
to John Kennedy's murder.

Things like:

1.) The two large bullet fragments found IN THE PRESIDENT'S LIMOUSINE,
which are fragments that positively came FROM THE VERY SAME RIFLE that
Mr. DiEugenio thinks could never be introduced into evidence at a real

2.) The three empty bullet shells found in the Book Depository's
Sniper's Nest, which are shells that positively came from Rifle CE139
as well.

3.) The mere fact that Oswald's rifle (CE139) was found inside the
building from where gunshots were fired at the President (regardless
of any bullets or shells being linked to it or not)! And not just
found in the same building from where shots were fired at JFK...but
the rifle was found on the very same FLOOR of that building from where
a gunman (identified by one witness as Lee H. Oswald) fired shots at
Kennedy's car!

4.) Oswald's palmprint [CE637] being found on Rifle CE139. This isn't
ballistics evidence, but it certainly ties the man who would have been
on trial (the same man IDed as the TSBD gunman by one witness) to
the rifle that was also found on that very same floor of the building
(again, regardless of ballistics/bullet evidence being introduced

In summary:

For Jim DiEugenio (or anyone) to suggest that Lee Harvey Oswald's
rifle was essentially worthless as evidence, in light of all the stuff
I just outlined above, is just flat-out idiotic.

And the list above doesn't even include Stretcher Bullet CE399, which
(of course) was definitely a bullet fired from Oswald's Carcano "to
the exclusion", and it was certainly the very same bullet that was
inside the bodies of both John Kennedy and John Connally on 11/22/63,
before it was found on Connally's stretcher at a time (prior to 2:00
PM CST) when it would have been simply stupid beyond all belief for
any plotters to even WANT to start "planting" bullets on stretchers at
Parkland, due to the lack of knowledge re. the whereabouts of ALL the
other bullets and fragments connected to the shooting at the time of
the alleged planting.

James DiEugenio, like many other CTers, believes that a "pointy-
tipped" bullet was really found on the Parkland stretcher by Darrell

Which, of course, creates a bit of a problem for most conspiracy
theorists. Because by claiming that a "pointy"-tipped bullet was
recovered at Parkland (instead of the bullet from Oswald's rifle that
was really found there, CE399), those CTers are admitting one of three
things (none of which is very appetizing to a conspiracy theorist's
palate, I'm quite sure):

1.) Either this alleged "pointy" bullet really did cause all the
damage to John Connally's body on November 22nd (and there's no
evidence of a SECOND bullet striking Governor Connally at all; so the
CTers who want to pretend he was hit by more than one bullet are only
speculating, as usual).


2.) This "pointy" bullet that CTers think existed was planted on the
stretcher by somebody prior to 2:00 PM, Dallas time, on 11/22/63.


3.) The bullet found by Tomlinson on a stretcher wasn't connected in
ANY way to the shooting of JFK & JBC on November 22nd. And is this
option a likely or reasonable alternative, especially when considering
the fact that the only other stretcher in the Parkland corridor that
the bullet could have come off of was last occupied by a young boy
(Ronnie Fuller) who was not the victim of any gunshot wounds that day?

As I said, all of the above alternative options are quite weak and
unsatisfying for almost all conspiracists.

Because, if the CT-Kooks choose #1, they are forced to admit that one
bullet COULD, indeed, have caused all of John Connally's bony injuries
and still have emerged in one piece -- and with the nose of the bullet
still "pointy", no less!! And this is something that most CTers have
always said couldn't happen in the real world in a thousand lifetimes.
(I guess the CTers who go with this option will have no choice but to
resurrect the unprovable and unsupportable "Connally Was Hit By At
Least Two Bullets" scenario.)

And if the CTers choose #2, they are forced to admit, in essence, that
the people who were "framing" Lee Harvey Oswald were so incredibly
stupid that they planted a bullet that could never be connected to the
"patsy's" rifle. And if the unknown "they" weren't really trying to
"frame" LHO, then what's the purpose of planting ANY bullet at all
inside Parkland? Just for the sport of it?

And #3 is pretty unbelievable on the face of it. Although, this highly-
unlikely option could possibly be a CTer's best bet, considering their
only other two options on the table here.

So, CTers really don't have a leg to stand on regarding their silly
theories and unprovable plots surrounding Bullet CE399. And, as I just
explained, they really already should know why that is the case. (But
they'll never admit it to anybody.)

Thanks, Mr. DiEugenio, for today's BlackOpRadio laughs. The part about
Oswald's rifle being a hunk of metal that can be thrown right into the
trash can from any kind of "evidentiary" standpoint was certainly the
highlight of tonight's hilarity.

David Von Pein
(not Dave Reitzes; sorry to disappoint you, Jim and Len)
October 31, 2008

(PART 359)


The declination angle of the bullet that allegedly went through President Kennedy was twenty degrees.


It's only approximately 20 degrees when the 3.15-degree street grade of Elm Street is added into the equation. But when we put the limousine (and, hence, President Kennedy's body too, since he was sitting, upright, in that car when it was travelling on Elm Street, which is angled at a declination of 3.15 degrees [3 degrees, 9 minutes]) back onto level ground, without any angle of declination in the road, the angle of the bullet path through JFK's upper back and throat measures approximately 17.7 degrees.


They subtracted the three-degree decline of Elm Street from this declination angle to compensate for the stand-ins being on level ground. So the pointer with a declination angle of seventeen degrees passed through the exit wound on the stand-in for the President and the entrance wound on the stand-in for the Governor. Your failure to correct the mistaken explanation by the WC for subtracting the three-degree angle from the declination angle of the bullet does not speak well of your qualifications to mock critics of the SBT.


Why should I (or anyone) feel the need to "correct" the Warren Commission and the Commission's surveyors with respect to the angles they used?

There is no need to do that, of course, because the angles that were measured ARE WHAT THEY ARE (with a built-in "plus or minus" of potential error, of course, since the WC's 17.72-degree measurement [17 degrees, 43 minutes] through the President's upper back and throat was actually the AVERAGE angle of two separate angles that were taken from Oswald's Sniper's Nest) -- at Zapruder Frame 210 and Z225 -- since the WC determined that JFK was struck with the first bullet that hit him somewhere between those two Z-Film frames.

And even via 1964 technology, they were 100% right. JFK and JBC were struck by Oswald's CE399 bullet at Z224, which indeed falls in the bracketed range of Z-Frames estimated by the Warren Commission.

The angle from the Sniper's Nest to JFK's inshoot wound on his upper back was measured to be 21 degrees, 34 minutes at Z210 and 20 degrees, 11 minutes at Z225.

The 3.15-degree street grade of Elm Street was then factored into the measurements (and subtracted, just as it should have been), with the average angle between Z210 and Z225 (sans the 3.15-degree declination of the Elm St. pavement) coming out to 17.72 degrees "assuming that he [JFK] was sitting in a vertical position" (WCR; Pg. 106) -- which he almost certainly was, as evidenced by Z-Frame 225:


"A surveyor placed his sighting equipment at the precise point
of entry on the back of the President’s neck, assuming that the
President was struck at frame 210, and measured the angle to the end
of the muzzle of the rifle positioned where it was believed to have
been held by the assassin. That angle measured 21 degrees 34’. From
the same points of reference, the angle at frame 225 was measured at
20 degrees 11’, giving an average angle of 20 degrees 52’30” from
frame 210 to frame 225. Allowing for a downward street grade of 3
degrees 9’, the probable angle through the President’s body was
calculated at 17 degrees 43’30”, assuming that he was sitting in a
vertical position." -- WCR; PAGE 106


Mr. SPECTER. I now hand you a photograph which has been marked as
Commission Exhibit No. 903 and ask you if you know who the
photographer was?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; I took this photograph.

Mr. SPECTER. When was that photograph taken?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. It was taken Sunday afternoon, May 24, 1964.

Mr. SPECTER. Is there a white string which is apparent in the
background of that photograph?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.

Mr. SPECTER. What is the angle of declination of that string?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. That string was placed along the wall by the surveyor
at an angle of 17 degrees-43'-30".

Mr. SPECTER. Did the surveyor make that placement in your presence?


Mr. SPECTER. Were the stand-ins for President Kennedy and Governor
Connally positioned in the same relative positions as those occupied
by President Kennedy and Governor Connally depicted in the Zapruder

Mr. SHANEYFELT. Yes; these positions were approximately the position
of the President and Governor Connally in the Zapruder films in the
area around frame 225 as they go behind the signboard and as they
emerge from the signboard.

Mr. SPECTER. Was the rod which is held in that photograph positioned
at an angle as closely parallel to the white string as it could be


Mr. SPECTER. And through what positions did that rod pass?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. The rod passed through a position on the back of the
stand-in for the President at a point approximating that of the
entrance wound, exited along about the knot of the tie or the button
of the coat or button of the shirt, and the end of the rod was
inserted in the entrance hole on the back of Governor Connally's coat
which was being worn by the stand-in for Governor Connally.

Mr. SPECTER. And was Governor Connally's stand-in seated in the
position where the point of exit would have been below the right
nipple at the approximate point described by Governor Connally's

Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.

Senator COOPER. May I ask a couple of questions? Am I correct in
assuming that you have made these determinations about the degree of
the angle of the trajectory of the bullet at the time the President
was struck, locating the position of the President in the car on the
one hand, and the location of the rifle at the time the shots were

Mr. SHANEYFELT. The location of the wound, you mean the angle of the

Senator COOPER. Yes. .... You had to establish the position of the
President at the time the bullet struck him and the position of the
rifle to make a determination about the degree of the angle of the

Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct. The positions in the car, their
positions in the car, were based on the Zapruder film.

Senator COOPER. And you were able to determine what you think very
accurately the position of the President in the car by the films that
you have examined?


Senator COOPER. Then the factor then, which is not determinable
exactly, then is the location of the rifle, is that correct?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.

Senator COOPER. Upon what did you determine the location of the rifle
upon what factors?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. The rifle was positioned in the sixth floor window of
the Book Building where the cartridges were found, and was determined
from information furnished by representatives of the Commission.

Senator COOPER. Did you have information about the location of certain
boxes that were seen--were found--at the window after the shooting

Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct. Yes; we had photographs of the boxes
and we were advised, of the approximate position in the window and how
far down the window was, the fact that some observers noted the rifle
sticking out the window.

Senator COOPER. I want to ask you--you did have information from the
testimony of witnesses who said they saw the rifle protruding from the

Mr. SHANEYFELT. We had this information furnished to us by the

Senator COOPER. And those facts, those locations were made known to
you, and upon that evidence did you locate the rifle, in making these

Mr. SHANEYFELT. That was the basis for the location of the rifle in
all of our calculations.

Senator COOPER. Just one other question. Assuming that there might
have been some variation in the location of the rifle, length of the
window, the breadth of the window, or that the rifle you used was held
higher than the rifle might have been...how much variation would it have
made, in your judgement, in these calculations you made?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. I don't believe that any movement of the rifle in that
specific window would alter our calculations to any appreciable degree
if you stay within that window, because our reenactment and our
repositioning of the bodies in the car based on the photographs is
subject to some variation, too, so we have variations throughout. And
the variations from the position of the rifle at that particular
window, I feel would be negligible.

Senator COOPER. At every point where you made it, hypothetically, at
least, made the determination that at a particular point the President
was struck by a bullet, at that point the car and the President could
be seen from the window?

Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.


Every single thing about CE903 and the 5/24/64 re-creation that was performed by the FBI and Warren Commission in Dealey Plaza works out to "SBT perfection". And only someone who is totally blind (or someone who just doesn't WANT the Single-Bullet Theory to be true) could fail to see that obvious fact when examining the detailed record concerning this matter.

David Von Pein
October 30, 2008

(PART 358)


>>> "David: By the nature of your known position that Oswald acted alone, I'm amazed at your questions." <<<


Yeah, I know. Common sense often stumps a lot of you CTers. Happens

>>> "It seems you don't know your own Oswald..." <<<

Very few really did "know" Lee Oswald.

As Ruth Paine put it in 1986:

"I think Marina is the only one who really knew him well."

I do know this, though -- LHO took his own rifle to work with him on
11/22/63, with the thought in his mind of shooting the President with it.

And would he have REALLY needed to do that (i.e., use his OWN GUN) if
he really and truly had co-plotters behind him (whether they be
connected to some kind of "Cuban" plot, or otherwise)?

As I said in previous Internet exchanges, the very fact that Rifle
#C2766 was used to kill JFK at all is extremely strong evidence that
Lee Harvey Oswald was performing a solo act in Dallas, sans ANY "help"
or behind-the-scenes assistance of ANY kind.

To believe otherwise is to believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was one
REALLY stupid person. (IMO.)

>>> "...nor do you understand the Marxist Revolution as it relates to Cuba and your Oswald." <<<

Please, let's lose the "your Oswald" stuff. You make me feel like his daddy. ;)

>>> "Basically your position supports the presented Oswald Marxist Revolutionary Wanabe, (correct me if I'm wrong) yet ignores the known Marxist activities of real revolutionaries." <<<

Suffice it to say -- Lee Oswald was one goofy dude.

Who the hell knows just exactly WHAT that kook wanted out of his
miserable life? It's hard to tell.

It's fairly obvious to me, though, that he enjoyed shooting at
political leaders with guns (by himself) during the calendar year of
nineteen sixty-three. So maybe that's a clue to Lee's ambitions.

>>> "If you did a detailed comparison, chances are it would answer just about all your questions." <<<

Except maybe these pesky three questions I posed to Mr. Dale K. Myers
on October 28th, 2008.

But, like I said in that very post -- "Maybe I'm just naive as all get
-- but if I am, I guess I'm in good company....because my
favorite author and attorney, Mr. Vincent T. Bugliosi, seems to be
quite naive along these same lines as well. (Go figure that.)

>>> "IF Oswald acted completely alone, without any "direction", he would still be considered part of the "International Communist Conspiracy" of that cold war period BASED ON the way his life was presented by the Warren Commission." <<<


Nice try at MERGING the known and irrefutable facts surrounding Lee
Oswald's obviously solo acts of murder on 11/22/63 with the/an
"International Communist Conspiracy".

Can I try that tactic too? Okay, I think I will. --- John Hinckley
acted alone when he shot President Reagan in March of 1981, but he
once had lunch with a former member of the Ku Klux Klan (let's just
say this is true, for the purpose of this discussion)....therefore, I get
to MERGE these two events and pretend that the Klan was in cahoots
with Hinckley on 3/30/81.

Maybe not the perfect analogy....but since yours is silly and
ridiculous on its face, I think it's a reasonable make-believe tie-in

>>> "To understand Oswald, you study in detail the ICC as it relates to Oswald's known presented activities..." <<<

No. To understand Oswald, you need a shrink. A good one. And we can't
study the mind or the inner thoughts of a dead man. Sorry.

>>> "You can't present Oswald as a Wanabe member of a ICC and then say it's only for pretend, you just generate another "Conspiracy" that Oswald could have been part of." <<<

Who wants to present Oswald as an "ICC member"? Not even very many
hardline CTers want to do that, it would seem. Those CTers want to
present Oswald as a brain-dead dupe, who fell into the hands of the
"real plotters" who wanted JFK graveyard dead in '63.

Oswald is nothing more than a game-board chess piece for most
conspiracy theorists, i.e., a person who can be manipulated and molded
as easily as a hunk of clay. But, IMO, the CTers underestimate the
gray matter inside that hunk of clay.

Yes, Lee Oswald was as kooky as kooky can get. That couldn't be more
obvious. But he wasn't the total brain-dead moron that some
conspiracists seem to think he was (Oliver Stone comes to mind as one
such conspiracist).

David Von Pein
October 29, 2008

(PART 357)


Hi Dale [Myers],

As always, I enjoyed your latest (October 27, 2008) item in your "News" area on your website. Some very interesting Cuban stuff there.

However, along those Cuban lines, I was curious about how Mr. Russo and his co-author Mr. Molton handle three aspects of the JFK murder and aftermath in particular, within the framework of some type of "Cuban Plot":

1.) How do the "Brothers In Arms" authors explain the fact that Ruth Paine and Linnie Mae Randle were so heavily influential in getting Lee Havey Oswald his job at the TSBD just one month before the assassination?

In other words, how in the world can any outside "Cuban involvement" possibly play a part in this very important sub-topic surrounding Oswald's employment in the building from where Kennedy was murdered and the very innocuous and innocent manner in which LHO obtained that job?

2.) Why on Earth would Oswald have used his own rifle to kill the President if he was "involved" with other "higher up" people (Cuban or otherwise)?

Do Russo and Molton think Oswald was duped? Or was Lee Harvey just plain stupid (i.e., perfectly willing to shoot the President with his own gun and from his own workplace, even though he certainly would [or should!] have been given some other weapon to do the job that could never be traced via a paper trail back to him)?

This #2 item has always been a major snafu and a big question mark, IMO, whenever somebody comes forth with a theory saying, in effect, "Oswald killed JFK on behalf of a larger group of people, but he just went ahead and used his own cheap rifle anyway." *

3.) Why was LHO hung out to dry following the assassination if he was really involved with other people in a plan to murder Kennedy? Where the heck was his getaway driver via such a pre-arranged assassination scheme?

This is another thing that makes absolutely no sense to me if Lee Oswald was working in cahoots with other co-plotters.

Yes, perhaps the rug was pulled out from under Oswald's feet at the last minute. I guess that's always a possibility. Maybe the high-up Cuban forces that were "in" on the plot with Oswald decided to make him their solo "patsy", as it were.

But even if that were true, there's still that pesky #2 question above about his rifle. How could ANYONE possibly talk Oswald (or any shooter) into using his own rifle to kill the President within the context of the kind of pre-arranged-well-in-advance multi-person plot that Mr. Russo and Mr. Molton are obviously advocating in their 2008 publication? *

* Yes, I know that Oswald did, indeed, use his own gun to kill the President. That's as obvious as can be. But it only makes sense, IMO, from the standpoint of Oswald doing it ALONE, sans any outside influence....and, most importantly, sans any outside OPPORTUNITY that would have been afforded him (via his co-plotters in crime) to obtain a better assassination weapon that wouldn't have a popcorn trail a mile long leading straight back to him.

In other words -- Oswald (the lone killer, who probably didn't plan to shoot the President more than two or three days ahead of time--if that long) pretty much had no choice -- he used the only gun that was available to him...his own Carcano rifle.

But in a pre-arranged scenario, there is simply no way that Oswald would be willing to use his own rifle, IMO, given the obvious choices that would undoubtedly have been afforded him via such a multi-person plan. I don't think Oswald was THAT stupid. YMMV, however.

Were these Cubans so incredibly cheap that they couldn't afford a better rifle for their killer to use on the President of the United States?

Plus: In such a scenario, why would anyone involved in a plot with Oswald even WANT him to use such a cheap and old weapon for such a big "hit" like this one?

Maybe I'm just naive as all get out, but that just makes no sense to me whatsoever.

"The fact that Rifle C2766 was used at all on 11/22/63 (and it most certainly was used; CE567/569 prove this beyond all doubt) indicates that the assassination was practically a last-minute thought in Oswald's mind." -- DVP; May 29, 2008

Thanks for your insight, Dale....as always.

David Von Pein
October 28, 2008

[ADDENDUM: In a return e-mail to me, Dale Myers said that all of my
questions and concerns were answered in the 2008 book "Brothers In Arms".
I purchased and read the book for myself in late 2008. I disagree with Mr.
Myers. Here's why (near bottom of post).]

(NOVEMBER 24, 1963)


(PART 87)




Who can believe these people [Ruth Paine and Michael Paine]? Both of them as phony as three dollar bills.


Mr. DiEugenio has hit a grand slam home run by posting this.



2003 interview with Ruth Paine:

More interviews:


Well, when I have [Len] Colby and DVP both gunning for me[,] I know I hit a triple.


I doubt that DiEugenio has even managed to foul off a pitch when it comes to anything he says about the JFK case, as illustrated here. He strikes out every time. It makes me wonder why Casey Stengel still puts him in the lineup every day. ~big shrug~


Dear Jimbo,

How is DVP's posting a bunch of interviews of Ruth Paine an example of his "gunning for you?"

I mean, maybe we "Conspiracy Theorists" can pick apart Ms Paine's statements and allegations!


I thought this 2003 interview with Mrs. Paine [also embedded above] might light a little more fire (and anti-Ruth invective) under Jimbo.

In that 2003 interview, Ruth is directly confronted with the silly idea that many conspiracy theorists have about her (even Marina Oswald)--i.e., that Ruth Paine was involved in a plot to assassinate JFK and frame Lee Oswald.

Ruth's simple response to such crackpottery: "That's very sad."

And she's right--it is.

I also wonder WHY Ruth would even agree to be interviewed in 2003 (or EVER), if she was really this big-time "conspirator" involved in JFK's murder?

Did the conspiracy team make Ruth Paine the "Designated Media Shill", with instructions to tell one lie after another at a moment's notice (and cry crocodile tears) in front of the cameras during her many interviews following the assassination?

"Very sad" indeed.


I am really proud of the section on the Paines in my book.


That figures. Defamation of character is always something to be proud of, isn't it Jimbo?

None of that crap DiEugenio wrote in his last post [HERE] comes even close to showing Ruth Paine (or Michael Paine) had anything to do with a conspiracy to murder John Kennedy and/or frame Lee Oswald for that murder.

DiEugenio's pathetic attempts to trash Mrs. Paine are sickening.

I only wish I could persuade Ruth to start a slander lawsuit. She'd win, hands down. Does anybody have Ruth's phone number? Maybe I'll give her a call.


Go for it. That would be hilarious, though I doubt it would shut Jimbo up :)

In On Trial: Lee Harvey Oswald, Ruth Paine came across very well. I thought she was extremely credible. An articulate and intelligent woman.

She'd wipe the floor with Jimbo :)


To Paul Baker the 24 Hour Scientist,

Ruth Paine is 80 years old, is in residential care, and has dementia.

Since 1986, when On Trial was first aired, 27 years have passed.

You do know what "time" is, don't you?


As I said, she'd wipe the floor with Jimbo. :D


If Jim [DiEugenio's] work has no "foothold in reality" and is "drivel" well then....could you, at the very least, bring up one point of his and give (if you are aware of any) a refutation of such a point?


You're trying too hard.

Have you read Destiny Betrayed? It is an abomination. It is a cringeworthy piece of trash. I bought the Kindle version. Get the paper one if you haven't already wasted your money, then you might be able to find a real use for it.

I could witter on about Jimbo, but DVP's done all the hard work, so what's the point of reinventing the wheel? Go here:


James says that Lee Harvey Oswald didn't shoot anybody, ever. What do you think about that?

Then listen to the debate between Jimbo and John McAdams on Black Op Radio:


It is a no-brainer. It really is possible for a poisoned little scumbag to murder a President.


I think Linnie Mae [Randle] told the commission the truth because, well, I just can't see any reason for her to lie about it. If Linnie May [sic] did tell the truth, it suggests that Ruth Paine may have been much more directly responsible for Oswald's getting a job in a tall building on the motorcade route than has previously been thought by many people.



Actually, if Linnie Mae Randle told the whole truth (and why in the world would anybody suspect she didn't--at any time?), it means exactly the opposite of what you're suggesting here, Tommy.

Because it means that it was really LINNIE MAE, and NOT Ruth Paine, who was the MOST responsible (albeit indirectly) for Oswald finding a job at the Book Depository. For it was LINNIE MAE, not Ruth Paine, who brought up the topic of a possible job opening at the Depository during the coffee-break get-together at Dorothy Roberts' house on 10/14/63.

In other words -- If Linnie Mae had not been there at Dorothy Roberts' house, it's a virtual certainty that Lee Oswald would have never gone to the TSBD the next day to seek out employment -- because without Linnie Mae bringing up the topic of the Depository, how could Ruth Paine (or Marina) have ever even known about the possible job opening there?

The conspiracy theorists should be going after Linnie Randle, not Ruth Paine, as much more of a "conspirator" in any silly plot to "plant" Lee Harvey Oswald in the Book Depository. Because without Linnie's presence at the coffee klatch, it's my very firm belief that John F. Kennedy doesn't get assassinated on November 22nd.



JOSEPH BALL -- "Was there anything said then about the Texas School Book Depository as a place he might get a job?"

LINNIE MAE RANDLE -- "Well, we didn't say that he might get a job, because I didn't know there was a job open. The reason that we were being helpful, Wesley had just looked for a job, and I had helped him to try to find one. We listed several places that he might go to look for work. When you live in a place you know some places that someone with, you know, not very much of an education can find work. So, it was among one of the places that we mentioned. We mentioned several others, and Mrs. Paine said that well, he couldn't apply for any of the jobs that would require driving because he couldn't drive, and it was just in conversation that you might talk just any day and not think a thing on earth about it. In fact, I didn't even know that he had even tried any place that we mentioned."

MR. BALL -- "What were some of the other places mentioned?"

MRS. RANDLE -- "Well, I remember two of them. Mrs. Roberts entered into the conversation and, of course, she is more familiar with the place than I am. It was Manor Bakeries which was a home delivery service. Then there was this Texas Gypsum which makes sheet rock and things like that, and we mentioned because Wesley had tried those places that I mentioned those."

MR. BALL -- "And then you also mentioned the Texas Book Depository?"

MRS. RANDLE -- "Well, I didn't know there was a job opening over there."

MR. BALL -- "But did you mention it?"

MRS. RANDLE -- "But we said he might try over there. There might be work over there because it was the busy season but I didn't have any previous knowledge that there was any job opening."

MR. BALL -- "Did you later learn that Lee had applied for a job?"

MRS. RANDLE -- "She told me, Mrs. Paine told me, later that he had applied for the job, and had gotten the job and she thanked us for naming the places and things like that."



MRS. PAINE -- "As best I can reconstruct it, this was while having coffee at my immediate neighbors, Mrs. Ed Roberts, and also present was Mrs. Bill Randle, and Lee had said over the weekend that he had gotten the last of the unemployment compensation checks that were due him, and that it had been smaller than the others had been, and disappointing in its smallness and he looked very discouraged when he went to look for work. ....

"And the subject of his looking for work and that he hadn't found work for a week came up while we were having coffee, the four young mothers at Mrs. Roberts' house, and Mrs. Randle mentioned that her younger brother, Wesley Frazier, thought they needed another person at the Texas School Book Depository where Wesley worked. Marina then asked me, after we had gone home, asked me if I would call...the School Book Depository to see if indeed there was the possibility of an opening, and at her request, I did telephone. ....

"I looked up the number in the book, and dialed it, was told I would need to speak to Mr. Truly, who was at the warehouse. The phone was taken to Mr. Truly, and I talked with him and said...I know of a young man whose wife was staying in my house, the wife was expecting a child, they already had a little girl and he had been out of work for a while and was very interested in getting any employment and his name, and was there a possibility of an opening there, and Mr. Truly said he didn't know whether he had an opening, that the young man should apply himself in person."


There is also this interesting tidbit taken from one of Ruth Paine's multiple Warren Commission sessions:

ALBERT JENNER -- "I heard you mention the Texas School Depository warehouse. Did you think the warehouse was at 411 Elm?"

RUTH PAINE -- "No. I had seen a sign on a building as I went along one of the limited access highways that leads into Dallas, saying "Texas School Book Depository Warehouse" and there was the only building that had registered on my consciousness as being Texas School Book Depository. I was not aware, hadn't taken in the idea of there being two buildings and that there was one on Elm, though, I copied the address from the telephone book, and could well have made that notation in my mind but I didn't. The first I realized that there was a building on Elm was when I heard on the television on the morning of the 22nd of November that a shot had been fired from such a building."


Let me replay this important quote from the lips of Mrs. Paine (which is a quote that people like James DiEugenio, et al, must think is one of hundreds of lies told by Mrs. Paine, under oath, to the Warren Commission):

"The first I realized that there was a building on Elm was when I heard on the television on the morning of the 22nd of November that a shot had been fired from such a building." -- Ruth Hyde Paine; 1964


BONUS QUOTES (Two more of Paine's lies, per DiEugenio and the "Ruth Was CIA" crowd):

"What does this man [Lee Harvey Oswald] know that would be of interest to anybody? .... He didn't know anything that the Soviets might be interested in, and I never gave it any thought of the possibility of his being employed by this Government. .... I simply cannot believe that the FBI would find it necessary to employ such a shaky and inadequate person." -- Ruth Paine; 1964

"I do think for the historical record it's important that people understand that Lee was a very ordinary person--that people can kill a President without that being something that shows on them in advance." -- Ruth Paine; July 24, 1986

More below (focusing on other aspects of the conspiracy theorists' spectacularly ridiculous theory about Oswald being "planted" in the Texas School Book Depository by evil plotters):

Was Oswald Planted In The Depository?

Was The Motorcade Route Changed?


Forgetting one more Ruthy deception, right?

Namely the Adams call for the better job that was rebuffed.

Ruthy baby tried to say that the rebuff was by LHO. Even though it was a higher paying job.


From a 2010 discussion at The Education Forum:


Why did she [Ruth Paine] not tell Oswald about the Adams call [from the
Texas Employment Commission] even though he had started at the TSBD?
Didn't Oswald have the right to know that the other job was higher paying
so he could quit the TSBD? Not only did the call come in before he took
the TSBD job, it sure looks like Ruth Paine lied about it to protect
herself. Why would she do that?


There's some confusion about the calls to the Paine home on October 15
and 16, 1963. I don't deny the confusion. Ruth Paine doesn't remember
receiving any calls herself from TEC [Texas Employment Commission].

She said she learned from LEE OSWALD about a job that LHO did not get
-- and that job was very likely the one at Solid State Electronics,
which was referred by TEC in early October, i.e., BEFORE he got the
TSBD job.


Plus: It's highly unlikely that Adams (or anyone from TEC who might have
called Ruth Paine's house in connection with Oswald's employment
possibilities) would have furnished Ruth with any of the particular
details about SALARY of any jobs. TEC would have merely said something
like: "Ask Lee Oswald to phone us please", or something along those lines.
After all, it wasn't RUTH PAINE'S job opportunity; it was Lee Oswald's.

Plus, let me also add this:

When Lee Oswald called Ruth (and Marina) on October 15 to say he had
gotten the job at the TSBD, by all accounts he was quite pleased with
the job. He liked the idea that he would be working around books.

And since it's highly unlikely that either Ruth or Marina had any
knowledge about the exact SALARY that the airline cargo-handling job
would pay--then when Ruth/Marina found out from Lee that he was hired
at a job that Lee LIKED and was fairly pleased with, then I don't see
how anything "sinister" or "conspiratorial" can be gleaned from the
fact that any information about any other job openings were not
provided by Ruth (or Marina) to Lee Oswald.

Under those circumstances I just outlined, there would really have
been no particular reason for Ruth or Marina to advise LHO that
another job was also available, because LHO had already informed Ruth
and Marina that he had been hired at the Book Depository, and Lee
seemed pretty pleased to have that particular job.

David Von Pein
August 23, 2010




"The book you're quoting claims that Adams spoke with someone at the Paine house about an offer for a permanent, higher-paying job. But if you'll look at Adams' affidavit you'll see there's no evidence that he mentioned any details about this job to Ruth. His affidavit says only that he left a message for Oswald to contact him:


My best recollection is that on that day I called [the Paines' phone number]. I learned from the person who answered the phone that Oswald was not there. I left a message with that person that Oswald should contact me at the Commission. My further recollection is that the following morning at 10:30 o'clock I again called ... and learned from the person who answered that Oswald was not there and that he had in the meantime obtained employment and was working.



Everything else was the author's [James Douglass] assumption -- or rather, the assumption of whoever first made this allegation about Ruth Paine.


Again, there's no evidence that she [Ruth Paine] ever heard these details [about how much the airline/cargo job paid], so why should she recall them?


[Robert Adams' affidavit of 8/4/64] says that on October 7 Adams left a message at the Paine house. Evidently Ruth told Oswald, because he applied for the job but wasn't hired. It would've been a permanent job paying $350 a month.

Here's the agency record showing Oswald's job referrals. "NH" in the Results column means "not hired." (Scroll down)



It's likely that Ruth took the call [from the Texas Employment Commission after Oswald was hired at the TSBD], certainly. But you're still *assuming* that she was told there was a *higher-paying job available* -- there's no evidence for that! Adams said the message was to have Oswald return his call, nothing more.

It's possible that Ruth did tell Oswald about the call, and that Oswald himself decided not to bother since he'd already started working somewhere else. Don't people usually stop looking for work after they've found a job?

Ruth apparently did pass on a lead to a different higher-paying job, mentioned above. How does that fit into her nefarious plans for Oswald, in your view? If he'd gotten that job, no 6th floor sniper's nest for him!"

-- Jean Davison; June 2008


And we haven't even gotten to the most bizarre point of all: the calendar with the rifle delivery marking.


That has been fully explained--by Ruth Paine herself--in her Warren Commission testimony. Naturally, Jimbo D. thinks this is just one more lie (among hundreds) told by "Ruthy":

ALBERT JENNER - Now, I turn to March, and I direct your attention to the upper left-hand corner of that card [Commission Exhibit No. 401; at 17 H 56], and it appears to me that in the upper left-hand corner are October 23, then a star, then "LHO" followed by the words "purchase of rifle." Would you explain those entries?

Mrs. PAINE - Yes. This was written after.

Mr. JENNER - After?

Mrs. PAINE - This was written indeed after the assassination.

Mr. JENNER - All right.

Mrs. PAINE - I heard on the television that he had purchased a rifle.

Mr. JENNER - When?

Mrs. PAINE - I heard it on November 23.

Mr. JENNER - Yes.

Mrs. PAINE - And went back to the page for March, put a little star on March 20 as being a small square, I couldn't fit in all I wanted to say. I just put in a star and then referring it to the corner of the calendar.

Mr. JENNER - That is to the entry I have read?

Mrs. PAINE - Put the star saying "LHO purchase of rifle." Then I thought someone is going to wonder about that, I had better put down the date, and did, but it was a busy day, one of the most in my life and I was off by a month as to what day it was.

Mr. JENNER - That is you made the entry October?

Mrs. PAINE - October 23 instead of November.

Mr. JENNER - It should have been November 23?

Mrs. PAINE - It should have been November 23.

Mr. JENNER - And the entry of October 23, which should have been November 23, was an entry on your part indicating the date you wrote on the calendar the star followed by "LHO purchase of rifle" and likewise the date you made an entry?

Mrs. PAINE - On the 20th.

Mr. JENNER - This is the square having the date March 20?

Mrs. PAINE - Yes.

Mr. JENNER - Is that correct?

Mrs. PAINE - I might point out that I didn't know Lee had a middle name until I had occasion to fill out forms for Marina in Parkland Hospital.

Mr. JENNER - That is when you learned that his middle name was Harvey and his initial was H?

Mrs. PAINE - Right.


Now, regarding Ruth Paine making a note in her calendar book (CE401) about Lee Oswald's rifle purchase:

That notation made by Mrs. Paine was obviously written on that calendar page AFTER the assassination. And there are multiple reasons to know why it HAD to have been written in after November 22nd:

1.) Ruth wasn't even aware that Lee Oswald owned a rifle up until the afternoon of 11/22/63. (Naturally, Mr. DiEugenio thinks Mrs. Paine lied about that, too. Go to the 1:45 mark in the video below.)

2.) If Ruth Paine was really the vile patsy-framing vixen and conspirator that Jim DiEugenio thinks she was, then why on Earth would Ruth, PRIOR to President Kennedy's murder, have written a note on her March 1963 calendar saying "LHO purchase of rifle"?

Does Jimbo think "Ruthy" was leaving a little bread crumb of conspiratorial proof for future researchers to find, so that those researchers can scream these words with delight -- "Aha! I told you Ruth Paine was a liar!"?

Can anyone (even conspiracy mongers like Jim D.) REALLY believe Ruth would do something so utterly stupid?

Evidently Jimbo CAN believe that Mrs. Paine would be so foolish -- because it's obvious that DiEugenio DOES believe that Ruth Paine wrote the words "LHO purchase of rifle" on her calendar BEFORE the assassination ever took place.

Which, therefore, must also mean that DiEugenio believes that Ruth was privy to the "March 20th" date of Oswald's rifle purchase PRIOR to the time when Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry made that date of 3/20/63 known to the public on national television on November 23, 1963.

So, Jimbo, tell us how Ruth became aware of that "March 20" information prior to 11/23/63? Was she in cahoots with Klein's Sporting Goods too? Or did the evil FBI furnish her with that exact date? Or could it be that it was Ruth Paine HERSELF who faked and manufactured Waldman Exhibit No. 7? Maybe it was Ruth herself who wrote "3/20/63" on that Klein's document. Is that how she knew the date prior to November 23rd, Jimbo?

But, then too, James DiEugenio actually thinks Lee Harvey Oswald had NO LARGE PAPER BAG WITH HIM AT ALL when he entered Buell Wesley Frazier's car on November 22nd. So, given such absurd notions, it should be fairly obvious that this previous statement of mine concerning Jimmy's conspiratorial beliefs in the JFK case is 100% accurate:

"No theory is too outrageous or preposterous for Mr. DiEugenio's gullible palate." -- DVP; January 4, 2013


[Quoting DVP:]

"When Lee Oswald called Ruth (and Marina) on October 15 to say he had gotten the job at the TSBD, by all accounts he was quite pleased with the job."

[End DVP Quote]

Sure, that is why he told Marina that he wanted to get a job that paid more after about a week there.

Which of course, he would have had if Ruthy had told him about the Adams call.

This is one of the reasons I swore off DVP.

NO ONE, repeat, NO ONE, takes more time and space to say less.

Well, maybe one exception: the Warren Commission. But that is what he and his site is. And we all know how credible Dulles, McCloy, Ford and Hoover were. After all, Dulles got his pals the Osbornes to vouch for the Paines "religiosity, good character, and innocence in having anything to do with the assassination of President Kennedy." (Destiny Betrayed, 2nd Edition, p. 195)

This was before anyone had accused them of having anything to do with it.

But our own version of Colombo [sic], namely DVP, doesn't notice that.

Yet, his hero, Vincent Bugliosi would call this kind of thing, "consciousness of guilt."


And, of course, since you believe "Ruthy" Paine and her cohort in patsydom, Linnie Mae, "planted" Lee Harvey in the TSBD (and you really have no choice BUT to believe Linnie Mae was involved in this part of your fantasy theory too, along with Roy S. Truly, since it was Truly--not Ruthy--who actually hired the patsy named Lee), it means that Lee Harvey could not POSSIBLY have controlled his own destiny beyond the date of October 15th, 1963....right, Columbo Jimbo?

IOW -- Even though you just said that Lee wanted to get a higher-paying job, he had no will of his own, and hence he could not leave his crappy Depository job and seek out a better one since he was in "Manchurian Candidate" mode from the instant that wicked witch of Irving, Ruth Paine, took over from George DeMohrenschildt as Lee Harvey's official "handler" leading up to the assassination. Right, James D.?

What do you think Ruthy and the rest of the patsy-framing crew would have done if Marina had said "Yes" to Lee's offer to go and look for an apartment on Friday, November 22 (instead of going to work with Buell Frazier that morning)?

Talk about sending Ruthy and her band of conspirators up shit creek!

Everybody should take note of how James "I Have No Shame" DiEugenio has provided ZERO pieces of hard evidence to support his idiotic notion that Mrs. Ruth Hyde Paine played a major part in a conspiracy to frame Lee H. Oswald for JFK's murder in November of 1963.

Jimbo has nothing but his suspicions. Which is nothing new, of course.

Fortunately, however, people aren't convicted of crimes based on suspicions and unsupportable "connections" to the CIA. It takes something more than junk like that to put someone behind bars. It takes something called evidence. Wake me, Jimmy, when you've scraped up your first piece of that stuff--"evidence"--that shows that Ruth Paine was involved--in even the tiniest way--in a covert plot to kill the President and/or frame Lee Harvey Oswald.

(Looks like I'll be getting a good long nap.)


How come the shadowy, masterful manipulators didn’t have the Paines bumped off right away? It’s a good thing the putrid plotters are so patient and caring, allowing the separated/divorced couple to both live for 50 more years despite the possibility they’d reunite on FOX and tell Bill O’Reilly the truth.

Or is this just an extremely rare occurrence in which the evil-doers overlooked the key players who could blow the lid off the B.S. (big secret) and put the brilliant conspiracy crafters in jail for good? Shouldn’t they have been #2 and #3 (behind Oswald) on Penn Jones’ mysterious deaths list?



Delusional DiEugenio's pat reply to your question would probably be:

They couldn't kill Ruth and Michael Paine--because they needed them for their "media reps" (especially Ruth), to tell all their lies on radio and TV and in documentaries for decades to come.


From my perspective, the facts about the Paines are unclear. While Ruth may be the sweet Quaker she would like us to believe she is, one cannot look at her family connections without at least questioning her motives. The possibility exists, for that matter, that she was asked to keep an eye on Oswald, but knew nothing of any assassination plans--on his part or anyone else's. Perhaps you can reveal what piece of evidence, specifically, leads you to think her a total innocent.


You know the answer to this as much as I do, Pat. But apparently you (and other conspiracists) still feel obligated to entertain the idea that Ruth Paine had something to do with manipulating or molding or "keep[ing] an eye on" Oswald in order to turn him into the patsy for JFK's murder.

But the answer that you know as well as I is this one:

It was impossible, as I fully lay out here, for Ruth Paine to have "planted" Lee Oswald in the Book Depository in the manner in which many conspiracy theorists think he was "planted" there in advance.

Anyone who tries to weave a tale of patsy-creating conspiracy involving Mrs. Ruth Paine after becoming aware of the facts displayed in the article I just linked above are only fooling themselves into believing something happened that could not possibly (realistically) have happened.

And once we eliminate the idea that Ruth Paine had anything whatsoever to do with "planting" Lee Harvey Oswald in the Depository for the sole purpose of setting Oswald up as a patsy in President Kennedy's upcoming murder, then what do the CTers really have left when it comes to their theories regarding Mrs. Paine?

In other words -- Once conspiracy theorists face the reality of how Oswald got his job in the TSBD (which was via happenstance of the most ordinary and non-shady way imaginable, beyond all doubt), then how can the CTers continue to think that Mrs. Paine was trying to frame Mr. Oswald?

Because, as mentioned, there's no way Ruth "planted" Lee Harvey in that building. That just flat-out did not happen. Nor COULD it have happened (unless, among other things that many CTers also continue to ignore, both Linnie Mae Randle AND Roy Truly were part of the same nefarious plot).


Von Pein was thrown out of here years ago for just this kind of invective. And he was booted from Lancer for the same.

In other words, he was banned from two forums which both agree with about 85% of the public on this issue. That is, the normal mode as far as the JFK case goes. But yet, in his world, I am the "delusional crackpot."

He wanted to get back on here in the worst way when I first applied. And he brought Reitzes with him. They both made up BS excuses for explaining the dichotomy of not debating me on Len's show but wanting to duel with me on line. Before Simkin would let Von Pein back, he made him promise he would not do what he did before. That is, repeat his usual pattern of, after losing an argument, indulging himself in his personal smears and insults. DVP was so eager to contest me online that he agreed to do this.

Now, Von Pein agreeing not to insult the 85% of America who thinks the WC is tripe is like the CIA pledging not to run domestic operations, and not to lie in court. It's simply not possible. So DVP did break his pledge. Repeatedly. I only complained once. Since I thought it was clear he was trying to bait me into insulting him back.

So now it's "delusional crackpot."

If one recalls, what provoked Debra Conway to kick him out of Lancer was when he placed a series of books for the viewers to read, with titles like, "Dealing with your Paranoia" and "Confronting your Fears" etc. In other words, again, he was trying to maintain the image that it was really not him, but them who had problems. This is how solipsistic the world is that he inhabits. And he is allowed to go ahead and call me the deluded crackpot.

So I guess the standard is, as long as he does it to just me, that is OK?


Dear Jimbo,

Personally, I don't find DVP's "invective" any more objectionable than that of several of my CT colleagues. Perhaps you are particularly sensitive to his "invective" because he so often disagrees with you? I don't remember seeing your complaints about Fetzer's calling Robin Unger a liar (in so many words) and me a "shill" and an assassination coverup conspirator (in so many words).

In other words, Jimbo, "what's good for the goose is good for the gander."


Bingo, Thomas.

Jimbo just doesn't like the idea of his outlandish theories being challenged. And he hates it just as much when a fellow "CTer" challenges his silliness too. He wants the field to himself. So he'll occasionally kick his feet and scream and whine like a child that Simkin should kick me off this forum -- even though, as you suggested Thomas, the invective I see on almost a daily basis from the CT crowd at this forum is just as offensive and harsh in many instances than anything I post here.

And I have, indeed, been careful to watch my tongue in many posts, because I know that certain words and unflattering terms will probably be frowned upon by the moderators here. Although, perhaps, a few such terms might leak through now and then.

It's nearly impossible for something negative to not leak through when an LNer talks to a person like Jim DiEugenio, who is a person who, IMO, has not only shown a total disregard for the evidence (and Oswald's guilt) in this case, but is also a person whom I believe is 100% wrong about virtually every single thing that escapes his keyboard and mouth (such as "The Big 22").

Under those circumstances, biting my tongue becomes increasingly difficult. But I think I've managed it on this forum (for the most part). And, boy, is my tongue sore from all that biting.


Let me add something about this thread.

Dawn has a point about people like Von Pein, Baker and Colby all climbing on. Very interesting I think.

None has been able to quote my book to show where I was in error. If I was, I will cross check and admit an error.

But if I am wrong about my thesis or facts about the Paines, and their association with Dulles and the Baron, and the many questionable statements they have made which could be used to impeach them in court, then I am sure someone would show me where I made a mistake. As of today, no one has.

Carol Hewitt is a lawyer. She did more work on the Paines than anyone. She understands the rules of evidence better than anyone here. If someone can show Carol where she was wrong, please do. I will then give you her phone number. If it's anything substantive, she can then issue a retraction.

But here is the problem for the Bakers, Colbys, Von Peins etc.: Carol's work first began to appear in "Probe" [Magazine] SEVENTEEN YEARS AGO. Ruth and Michael had to have known about it since their flunky Thomas Mallon wrote a book to exonerate them--and specifically mentioned his rage at hearing this work. So did Bugliosi and he mentions it also. But he doesn't factually challenge it either.

So in nearly two decades why has no one challenged Carol or Steve or Barbara before?

(Sound of crickets in the night.)

Because I put it in my book, and Len [Osanic] produced this short video, somehow now it's being questioned?

If that is the case, it's not me, it's the fact the others have somehow been oblivious to it. Which shows more about them being dilletantes than anything else. Or maybe they thought this would all go away? Why should it? The HSCA never interviewed Ruth Paine. The ARRB never interviewed either of the Paines.

The one time she was interviewed under oath, by an actual informed DA, she lied to Garrison. Unless you want to believe she did not know where her sister worked.

See, people don't lie under oath, they don't risk perjury charges, unless there is a reason for it. Shaw lied because he did not want to open up his associations with Ferrie, Banister and Oswald. Ferrie did the same. (Destiny Betrayed, 2nd edition, pgs. 177 for Ferrie, 208-210 for Shaw.)

Ruth did because she did not want to open up the fact that it was not just her sister who worked for the CIA, but her father did also, and uniting that with her brother in law, and the files in her house, well, that would have made her maybe a bit suspicious to any objective person?

Then, when you add in her later activities with the WC, which I am very specific about, like placing Oswald in Mexico City, the camera, the Walker note--which had no prints on it of either Oswald but did have seven other prints, I mean even the Secret Service thought something was fishy with her with that one. I mean, they thought Ruth was CIA. (Destiny Betrayed, 2nd edition, pgs. 199, 203)

And my God, how can anyone ignore the wrapping paper sent to the Paines home for Oswald? Which just happened to get there on November 20th? (ibid, pgs. 204-07) McAdams went nuts on that one. (LOL)

I mean to ignore all this is to behave like ostriches with heads in the sand. That is what the WC did. To their everlasting disgrace.

Sorry, I won't go along with that. That's not what I'm about. Or what my book is about. Fifty years of lies and liars is enough.


To repeat (and I think this is very important, particularly given the chronology of events as DiEugenio sees them occurring; i.e., Jimbo obviously thinks Ruth Paine was framing Lee Oswald WELL BEFORE October 15th, 1963):

"It was impossible, as I fully lay out here, for Ruth Paine to have "planted" Lee Oswald in the Book Depository in the manner in which many conspiracy theorists think he was "planted" there in advance.

Anyone who tries to weave a tale of patsy-creating conspiracy involving Mrs. Ruth Paine after becoming aware of the facts displayed in the article I just linked above are only fooling themselves into believing something happened that could not possibly (realistically) have happened.

And once we eliminate the idea that Ruth Paine had anything whatsoever to do with "planting" Lee Harvey Oswald in the Depository for the sole purpose of setting Oswald up as a patsy in President Kennedy's upcoming murder, then what do the CTers really have left when it comes to their theories regarding Mrs. Paine?

In other words -- Once conspiracy theorists face the reality of how Oswald got his job in the TSBD (which was via happenstance of the most ordinary and non-shady way imaginable, beyond all doubt), then how can the CTers continue to think that Mrs. Paine was trying to frame Mr. Oswald?"
-- DVP


And yet Jim DiEugenio obviously believes that Ruth Paine's manipulation of Oswald began well PRIOR to LHO getting his job at the Book Depository.

Therefore, I ask Jimbo:

Do you think that "Ruthy" (as you like to call her, in your obnoxious, demeaning tone) just got LUCKY when Lee Harvey got his job along the motorcade route?*

* Oh yes, I know that Jimbo thinks Ruth actually manipulated everything (including Linnie Randle, evidently) in order to "plant" Sweet Lee in the TSBD, but I asked my above question anyway. I was really asking it more as a rhetorical question, aimed at reasonable people who can easily see (by properly evaluating the evidence and the timing of Oswald's getting hired at the Depository) that there is just simply no way to shoehorn a conspiracy plot into the manner in which Lee Harvey Oswald obtained his job at the TSBD in 1963. It cannot be done--if you're a reasonable person, that is.


More blather.

I am waiting for someone to show me where I was wrong. .... Please show me with specifics from the book.


You're wrong about everything relating to JFK's assassination, Jim. That's fairly obvious.

And I want YOU, Jimbo, to prove to me that Ruth Paine had ANYTHING whatsoever to do with "planting" Lee Harvey Oswald in the Book Depository Building as part of a pre-arranged plot to frame Oswald for the murder of John F. Kennedy.

Because as far as I can see, if THAT critical portion of your silly "Paine Framed Lee" plot collapses (as it certainly must collapse when the facts surrounding Oswald getting his TSBD job are evaluated in a reasonable manner), then the rest of your suspicions about Ruth and her sister and the DeMohrenschildts and the CIA and the camera (which is a really silly extension of your theory, since we KNOW, scientifically, that that camera DID take the backyard photos of LHO) crumbles into that foundation of mush that you've built it on in the first place.

In other words -- Jim DiEugenio has his suspicions. Nothing more.

And as we all should know by now when talking about the suspicions put forth by JFK conspiracy theorists, "suspicions" about someone do not equal "facts". Far from it, in fact. Particularly when the person who has those suspicions is James DiEugenio of Los Angeles.

I mean, come on, Jimbo thinks Linnie Mae Randle and Buell Frazier lied about Oswald having ANY BAG AT ALL on the morning of 11/22/63. That theory of Jimbo's, all by itself, should cause anyone to cast some "suspicion" on Jim DiEugenio's ability to reasonably assess ANY evidence connected with the death of JFK. (Shouldn't it?)




I'm sleepy too, Jimbo. Especially after reading your latest batch of "suspicions" in your last post.

Lurkers -- Please note how Jimbo will never be able to REASONABLY put Ruth Paine in the middle of a "Let's Frame Oswald" plot when it comes to the topic of how (and WHEN) Oswald obtained his Depository job.

Key word there -- "Reasonably".



This is the guy who tried to distract from the Adams affidavit. Until I blew that up.


Jimbo likes to think he has blown things up, when, in fact, he hasn't even lit the match.

This whole "Adams" thing goes directly to Jimbo's theory that Ruth Paine (some how, some way--even though we know it was impossible, as already proven) had a desire to PLANT Lee Oswald in the TSBD for the express purpose of framing him for JFK's murder.

Let me repeat that (just in case some people reading this don't realize the sheer craziness of such a notion; not to mention the fact that it's a disgusting and vile allegation against a woman who did NOTHING of the kind; but such allegations against innocent people don't seem to bother DiEugenio in the slightest):

James DiEugenio thinks that Ruth Paine was able to plant (and DID plant) Lee H. Oswald in the Depository for the specific purpose of being able to frame Oswald for the 11/22/63 murder of the President of the United States.


And Jimbo doesn't even BLUSH! That's remarkable.


Nightie night. How about "delusional crackpot" tomorrow Davy, Please?


Why wait until tomorrow, Jimbo? After my last statement above about your beliefs regarding Ruth Paine, now seems like a perfect time to repeat those words.


David, I'm a bit confused as to why you're limiting this to the TSBD job. It almost sounds like you concede on her participation in other areas. I know that can't be right.


It isn't right. I, of course, do not think Ruth Paine was a part of ANY plot to kill Kennedy or set up LHO, regardless of the "area" of inquiry.

But I emphasized the TSBD job specifically because that area of concern would seem to me to be the most "physical" and "hands on" (so to speak) regarding the conspiracy theorists' beliefs about Ruth Paine guiding her "patsy" into place before the assassination.

As I mentioned, it seems to me if the theory about Ruth planting Oswald in the Depository goes sliding down the tubes (as it must, after assessing all the evidence about HOW Oswald got that job), then the remainder of Jimbo's speculation and suspicions about Mrs. Paine, which are far LESS "hands on" than the theory about Oswald being planted in the building, cannot be expected to hold up under the bright light of scrutiny either.

The theories about Ruth Paine are pure mush (and poppycock). They prove nothing. And they certainly don't come close to proving (or really even strongly SUGGESTING) that Mrs. Ruth Paine would have had any motive for wanting to frame Lee Harvey Oswald. The whole idea about the Paines being conspirators has been created out of nothing but sheer speculation--built on a foundation that cannot support any of it.

But CTers like speculation more than hard facts -- such as the hard FACT that it was really Linnie Mae Randle who brought up a possible job opening at the Depository, instead of it being Ruth Paine who did so.

And we also have Ruth's testimony about her not even knowing that there was a TSBD building on Elm Street until AFTER the assassination. (But, of course, Jim D. thinks that was just another lie told by "Ruthy".)


Nevertheless, I am interested in your emphasis on "reasonably". In terms of Ruth's possible involvement in any way shape or form, in any part of any possible frame, what would you accept as "reasonable" evidence - perhaps demonstrated with one or two examples?


Well, Greg, I'll agree that a person who is involved in some kind of a conspiracy or frame-up is probably not going to leave any notes behind saying: "I just framed Lee Oswald for murder."

So, of course, proving the "negative" about Ruth Paine having no involvement whatsoever in any conspiracy plot in 1963 is virtually an impossible task for me--or anyone.

But I'll tell you one piece of physical evidence that points AWAY from the direction of Ruth's involvement in a conspiracy plot: And that's the entry that Ruth made on her March 1963 calendar (talked about earlier), where she wrote the words "LHO purchase of rifle".

In a situation where Ruth Paine would surely have every reason to believe she would be thoroughly questioned by the authorities (or at Oswald's trial, had he lived to see one), can you think of a single reasonable explanation for why Mrs. Paine, if she had been a conspirator trying to frame Oswald in the weeks and months prior to November 22, would have wanted to write that "purchase of rifle" entry on her calendar at a time (October 23, not November 23) when she has stated she had no idea that Oswald even owned a rifle? (And it's fairly obvious that DiEugenio DOES think Ruth wrote those words PRIOR to November 22; otherwise, there would be no need for him to bring up that particular item at all.)

Plus: Via such a pre-11/22 theory, WHERE did Ruth get the information about the rifle purchase in the first place? How could she have possibly known--PRIOR to 11/22--that Lee Oswald had bought a rifle on March 20th? (Which, of course, was merely the Klein's shipping date for the rifle; it wasn't the actual "purchase" date, nor was it the date he actually took possession of the rifle, which also makes it pretty clear WHEN Ruth heard about that March 20 date. She heard about it when Jesse Curry mentioned that exact date on live TV on 11/23/63.)

That "purchase of rifle" thing is just one small example of how CTers will twist the evidence in this case to suit their needs. In this instance, DiEugenio labels the calendar entry as being "the most bizarre point of all" when it comes to the topic of Ruth Paine. But he will completely disregard Ruth's own testimony about that calendar entry.

In other words, Jimbo's eager to disbelieve ANYTHING uttered by Mrs. Ruth Paine. Even though, as mentioned, placing such an entry on her calendar PRIOR to the assassination really doesn't make much sense either. In fact, it would have been utterly stupid for Mrs. Paine to have done that, because it, in effect, would expose a part of the plot -- i.e., her pre-November knowledge about a specific date--March 20th--which was not generally revealed to the public until November 23rd.

As for any other "evidence" that I would consider "reasonable" ---

Well, if you had a witness who could testify that they saw Ruth Paine looking at Oswald's rifle one day in the Paine garage. (Such a revelation would tend to make Mrs. Paine out to be a liar when she said she didn't know Lee had any gun at all.)

Or maybe a witness who saw Ruth Paine go into the Book Depository on Elm Street on, say, October 10th, 1963. And then a witness sees Ruth talking with Roy Truly. That type of a Ruth Paine "sighting" (if it was a believable and credible "sighting", that is) would set the stage for a nice juicy conspiracy plot involving both Ruth Paine and Roy Truly, with Ruth convincing Roy that he's got to hire Lee Oswald or else (as she sticks a .38 revolver in his ribs). :)

I'll also add this logical question (which I touched on earlier) that I don't think I've heard any conspiracy theorist answer:

What would have been Ruth Paine's MOTIVE for wanting to see President Kennedy murdered and for wanting to frame a man named Lee Harvey Oswald for the President's murder?

Conspiracists are always telling me this --- David, you've got NO MOTIVE WHATSOEVER for Lee Oswald wanting to kill Kennedy. Therefore, a big part of your case against him is weak or nonexistent.

Well, then, I think it's fair and reasonable to confront conspiracists with the same argument concerning Ruth Paine's motive for the evil things that some CTers say she did in 1963:

Why did Ruth want to frame Lee Oswald? And what was in it for HER?


Your previous assertion Ruth could not possibly have known about the motorcade by the time Oswald commenced work is simply wrong.


No, it is not wrong at all. Fact is, as you well know Greg, the motorcade route was announced on November 18, 1963, only four days before JFK came to Dallas.

Yes, it's possible that someone, as early as late September, could have GUESSED as to what the official motorcade route was going to be through Dallas. But nobody KNEW for certain what the exact route through the city would be until November 18th (and most people, other than perhaps a few newspaper people, couldn't have known about the specific route until the morning of November 19th, when the route was first published in the Dallas Morning News), nor did anyone know (as of September 26th) exactly WHERE the luncheon for the President would be held.

I think any reasonable person examining the topic of the motorcade route would agree that had there been any kind of willful desire to "plant" a patsy in a building in Dallas, Texas, for the specific purpose of framing that person for President Kennedy's murder, the plotters would want to be absolutely certain that any building in which they planted their patsy would be a building that would definitely be a suitable location for framing said patsy.

But as of the date when Oswald was hired at the Depository (October 15th), any plotters planning such an action had no such absolute certainty with respect to the Book Depository Building being a suitable sniper's location.

The best argument the conspiracy theorists can possibly place on the table concerning this Depository matter is: The conspirators just got lucky.

Pardon me if I chuckle at such an argument. But it's really the only halfway sensible one that conspiracists like Jim DiEugenio can use.


I made the point that you were wrong in saying Ruth Paine could not have known about the motorcade route prior to Oswald commencing work at the TSBD and provided a citation to back that up.


And, as I said, you were wrong then and you're wrong now about Ruth Paine (or anyone) KNOWING the exact route of the motorcade prior to Oswald getting hired at the TSBD. And your citation most certainly does not prove that Ruth Paine could have known for certain the exact route of the motorcade in mid-October.

As I also mentioned, she could have possibly GUESSED correctly in mid-October that the President's luncheon would be held at the Trade Mart, and she could have conceivably GUESSED correctly in October that the motorcade route would travel past the Book Depository on Elm on the way to the Trade Mart -- but she could not possibly have known for sure what the route was going to be until November 18 or 19. And that's a fact. I have no idea why you think otherwise, but you're dead wrong on this point.


I further asked what evidence you would deem reasonable evidence - good enough to demonstrate to you the likelihood that Ruth Paine assisted in the frame-up of Oswald.

In response to this, you gave two examples - one of a witness to Ruth seeing the rifle in her garage and another of a witness seeing Ruth at the TSBD and talking to Roy Truly prior to Nov 15 [sic; Greg meant Oct. 15]. You added the very wise proviso that these sightings be believable and credible. So now we need to drill down further into what you consider "believable" and "credible". Speaking for myself, I would find it hard to give such late arriving witnesses much credence without independent corroboration from other sources - but I am interested in your thoughts. Basically, I am trying to get a sense of exactly what it would take to change your mind, or at least give you pause to reconsider your hard-line stance.


Since providing my two off-the-top-of-my-head examples yesterday on this subject, I've been trying to think of other examples of "reasonable evidence" that would satisfy me in this matter. And, to be honest with you, I just don't know what those examples might be. But I am certainly not satisfied with the peripheral speculation-filled things that I've seen put on the table by Jim DiEugenio, which he and others have utilized to suggest that Ruth Paine was part of some plot to frame Oswald.

Jimbo claims that Ruth was associated with so-and-so, and therefore that indicates she was involved in a plot. And since she claimed she had no idea her sister worked for the CIA, that somehow casts a light of further suspicion on Ruth Paine in the Kennedy assassination. That type of linkage is just paper-thin and is pure bunk, IMO.

Possibly the best evidence to show that Ruth Paine was part of some plot to frame an innocent Lee Harvey Oswald would have been if Lee Oswald HIMSELF had shouted out something about Ruth's involvement to the live television cameras. But, instead, we get a quote from Oswald that's exactly the opposite -- "Don't try to drag her into this."

That quote attributed to Oswald comes solely from the lips of known liar Roger D. Craig, however. So, quite obviously, it must be taken with a grain of salt (a big grain). Because I don't think there is any corroboration from Fritz or anyone else that Oswald actually did say those words about Mrs. Paine. (But I could be wrong about that. Maybe there is some corroboration from someone else. Is there, Greg?)

There is, however, a built-in perpetual problem with Oswald revealing Paine's involvement too. And that is because we would have to ask ourselves the proverbial question: Why should we believe ANYTHING uttered by the accused murderer? And we'd have to consider the very real possibility that he was merely attempting to shift the blame to someone else, just like he tried to do with his "I'm just a patsy" whitewash. But you'll notice that in my hypothetical example above, I stressed that Mr. Oswald was, indeed, innocent of murdering the President (and, by extension, innocent of killing Officer Tippit too).

But in a situation where Ruth Paine had REALLY framed Lee Oswald and IF Oswald had been smart enough to figure out Ruth's sinister involvement after he was arrested, then any statement Oswald gave implicating Mrs. Paine would, of course, be valid.

So, I guess the trick is: Knowing WHO to believe and WHEN. A tough thing to do (sometimes).

But when it comes to the question of whether to believe Ruth Paine....well, call me a naive Warren Commission-sponsored shill if you like, but I think Mrs. Paine is telling the truth in the following video (with the first question being a particularly interesting one):


Von Pein...has always been and always will be an in your face WC fanatic. One who is eager to lower the standard of debate to personal invective since his arguments are usually false or distorted. As I have pointed out many times here.


Pot/Kettle Alert! (Again.)

Do I really need to post my link to Jimbo's "Big 22" again? Okay, I will:

The Stupid Things James DiEugenio Believes

Now, everybody take a good look at that list. And then come back in here and read Jimbo's last swipe at me. And then decide for yourself whose arguments are, in fact, "false or distorted".

I'm beginning to think that Mr. DiEugenio's middle name is "Irony". (Either that or "Kettle".)


Oswald, obviously, could be gulled - but it's hard to fathom that he wasn't sharp enough to understand that the Paines were fellow spooks, or wasn't informed by his own handlers. .... I suspect that Oswald's blurted defense of Ruth to Will Fritz, when the Rambler wagon was brought up, was meant either to protect her spook status, or alternately to incriminate her because Oswald was feeling set-up by that time.


But if Lee had gotten wise and suddenly realized that Ruth Paine had set him up as a fall guy, then why on Earth would Lee have called Ruth on the phone after his arrest to ask Ruth to help him get a lawyer?

Does a person usually call up his enemy for HELP?


Yes, David -- she could have guessed. But she also could have known [the motorcade route prior to Nov. '63].


No, she couldn't. And you know it. But for some reason, you continue to say she could have KNOWN the route before the Secret Service even knew it. You're wrong.

The Trade Mart wasn't even confirmed as the lunch site until November 13th or 14th. So the SS and police didn't even KNOW the route until November 13 or 14 (at the earliest). And yet Ruth "Super Spy" Paine was somehow able to KNOW the route way back on Oct. 14th?? Amazing woman indeed.


With even the most rudimentary knowledge of previous Dallas motorcades, Ruth would have known that the parade route would take the president through Dealey Plaza, regardless whether the Trade Mart or the Women's Building was chosen.


Are you suggesting that those two sites were the ONLY choices for the President's luncheon? No other location was possible within the entire city of Dallas and surrounding suburbs (as of October 14th, that is, which is the key date here)?

In plain English -- Since we know that Kenneth O'Donnell did not officially confirm the Trade Mart as the luncheon site until November 13 or 14 [WR; p.31], how could anyone (including Ruth Paine) have KNOWN with so much certainty on October 14, 1963, where the luncheon was going to be held in Dallas? And, hence, how could she have possibly known for sure what route of travel the President would be following on the streets of Dallas to get to that luncheon site?

An additional question for Michael Griffin:

Do you, Michael, really think Ruth Paine was telling a big fat lie when she said the following to the Warren Commission?:

"The first I realized that there was a building on Elm was when I heard on the television on the morning of the 22nd of November that a shot had been fired from such a building." -- Ruth Paine; 1964

I'll repeat the following statement once again, which contains logic and common sense that I doubt even a hardened conspiracy theorist can deny:

"I think any reasonable person examining the topic of the motorcade route would agree that had there been any kind of willful desire to "plant" a patsy in a building in Dallas, Texas, for the specific purpose of framing that person for President Kennedy's murder, the plotters would want to be absolutely certain that any building in which they planted their patsy would be a building that would definitely be a suitable location for framing said patsy." -- DVP; 4/18/2013

Or do the CTers think it was BETTER for Ruth and her cohorts to not know for sure, on October 14th, if the TSBD would ultimately be a good location to plant their patsy? Did the plotters like the idea of flying by the seats of their pants?

Or was Ruth Paine so slick and devious and perfect that she deliberately planted Oswald in the TSBD in what could be considered a reckless and haphazard fashion (with, incredibly, the UNWITTING assistance of Linnie Mae Randle!) just so people like me would later say exactly what we are saying: Ruth couldn't have known on October 14 if the Depository would be a viable location to plant a patsy named Lee Harvey Oswald?

In other words, as emphasized previously, Ruth and her fellow patsy-framers just got lucky when the Depository turned out to be a perfect place for an assassin to shoot at the President with a rifle from an upper floor.

Can any conspiracy theorist who wants to point an accusing finger of guilt at Mrs. Ruth Paine honestly say that their theory fits the evidence in this case (particularly with respect to the facts surrounding Lee Oswald getting hired at the Book Depository)?

If anyone answers "Yes" to my last question, they must be living (along with Jim DiEugenio) on another planet--a planet where solving crimes in a topsy-turvy way is the norm.


David, please. You're digging a bigger hole for yourself.

Ruth Paine (who never lies and so we must take her at her word when she said she wanted a divorce because "Michael Paine commenced a course of unkind, harsh and tyrannical treatment and conduct toward [her] of such a nature as to render their future living together unsupportable") also had this exchange with Jenner:

Mr. JENNER - Directing your attention to your address book, you have an entry in your address book of the Texas School Depository, do you not? Would you turn to that page?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes; I have it here.
Mr. JENNER - Is there an entry of address of the Texas School Depository on that page?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes; which I believe I made after he gained employment there.
Mr. JENNER - Rather than at the time that you advised him of this possibility?
Mrs. PAINE - Indeed.
Mr. JENNER - Have you made an entry of the telephone number of the Texas School Book Depository on that date?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes; I have and of the address.
Mr. JENNER - And that is the telephone number and the address of the Texas School Depository Building where--
Mrs. PAINE - On Elm Street.

So the day of the assassination was not the first she realized Oswald worked on Elm St. She had the damn address written in her book.


Now let's take a look at what Greg Parker has (intentionally?) left out of Ruth Paine's Warren Commission testimony that he cited above. Let's start with the very next question that was asked by Albert Jenner:

Mr. JENNER - I heard you mention the Texas School Depository warehouse. Did you think the warehouse was at 411 Elm?

Mrs. PAINE - No. I had seen a sign on a building as I went along one of the limited access highways that leads into Dallas, saying "Texas School Book Depository Warehouse" and there was the only building that had registered on my consciousness as being Texas School Book Depository. I was not aware, hadn't taken in the idea of there being two buildings and that there was one on Elm, though I copied the address from the telephone book, and could well have made that notation in my mind, but I didn't. The first I realized that there was a building on Elm was when I heard on the television on the morning of the 22nd of November that a shot had been fired from such a building.

Mr. JENNER - For the purpose of this record then I would like to emphasize you were under the impression then, were you, that Lee Harvey Oswald was employed...?

Mrs. PAINE - At the warehouse.

Mr. JENNER - Other than at 411, a place at 411 Elm?

Mrs. PAINE - I thought he worked at the warehouse. I had, in fact, pointed out the building to my children going into Dallas later after he had gained employment.

Mr. JENNER - Did you ever discuss with Lee Harvey Oswald where he actually was employed, that is the location of the building?

Mrs. PAINE - No; I didn't.

Mr. JENNER - Did he ever mention it?

Mrs. PAINE - No.

Mr. JENNER - There never was any discussion between you and, say, young Mr. Frazier or Mrs. Randle or anyone in the neighborhood as to where the place of employment is located?

Mrs. PAINE - No.


It's all explained in what I would consider a reasonable way by Mrs. Paine above. She thought Oswald worked in the "warehouse" building. She didn't think he worked at the TSBD Building located at 411 Elm Street, even though she wrote that address down in her address book (probably in October).

Conspiracy theorists like Jim DiEugenio undoubtedly think that Ruth's testimony printed above is just downright silly--and merely a lie that "Ruthy" felt at the time she was FORCED to tell, in order to keep the lid on part of the conspiracy.

But, in actuality, let's examine this particular so-called "lie" a little deeper:

Ruth writes the phone number and the address of the Elm Street Depository Building in her own address book. She then, in 1964, says that she didn't "realize" there was a TSBD Building on Elm Street until the "morning of the 22nd of November" (and the "morning" portion of that statement must be an additional lie [right?], because we know that JFK was not shot in the "morning" [Dallas time], he was shot in the afternoon, at 12:30 PM Dallas time; but perhaps CTers like DiEugenio will give Ruth a break on that slip of the tongue; eh, Jim?).

But think about how silly it would have been if Ruth had lied about the Elm Street topic (if she really had planted Oswald in the Elm Street building in October, that is). Just WHY would she think a lie would be necessary there? She had already admitted to writing the 411 Elm address in her address book. So, RIGHT THERE, rests the proof that she must have known that a Depository Building was located on ELM STREET (vs. some other street). So why would she lie when she really didn't need to in that instance? And why would she want to risk LYING in that instance? Does the "lie" somehow ERASE the "411 Elm Street" notation that appears in her address book?

Some conspiracy theorists will be more than happy (and eager) to label Mrs. Paine's above testimony a "lie". And they will do so with virtually all witnesses who say something that seems inexplicable or contradictory to other statements that same witness may have made.

But, IMO, Mrs. Paine's testimony is perfectly believable, reasonable, and 100% truthful.

String me up by the oak tree in front of the Depository for believing that Ruth Paine told the truth, if you so desire. It won't be the first time I've been figuratively hung by a conspiracy theorist's rope. Nor, undoubtedly, the last.

And to compare what Mrs. Paine said regarding the JFK murder case to any of the things she might have said in the over-the-top "legalistic" terms that always accompany a divorce hearing and/or paperwork is just plain ridiculous, and it only goes to further demonstrate the complete and utter desperation that has been reached by the conspiracists who continue to want to pretend that Ruth Paine had anything whatsoever to do with a conspiracy in John F. Kennedy's assassination.

The "divorce" analogy can only elicit chuckles. At least it does from this writer. :)


Um. No David. I actually posted what you omitted and are now trying to explain away in the most convoluted and agonisingly limp excuse I've come across here in quite a while.


You must never read anything written by the conspiracy theorists then.

There was nothing unreasonable about Ruth's explanation to the Warren Commission about the "Elm Street" topic. You're just looking for a reason (any reason) to call Ruth a liar.

And you apparently also think she was stupid enough to write down the address of Oswald's place of employment in her address book even though she had to know full well that at some point in the future (after the President was murdered via her crafty handiwork) she would have to lie and say she didn't realize there was any Depository Building on Elm Street at all.

That's the way it usually is with those conspirators that you CTers have imagined -- they're brilliant one minute and cement heads the next. Such as with Ruth Paine: She's smart and cunning enough to actually plant Oswald in a building that she cannot possibly know for certain (on October 14) would even be a halfway decent spot to place one of her assassins/patsies, but she's stupid enough to write down the address of the TSBD in her own address book (when there's no really good reason for her to want or need to do that at all; can you think of one?), even though she knows she'll have to lie her ass off a few months later at Oswald's trial or in front of the Commission assigned to investigate the murder she helped commit. Lovely plan.


Good God. Are you for real? It wasn't an analogy. It was a statement of fact. Was Ruth "I cannot-Tell-A-Lie" Paine treated in a cruel, harsh and tyrannical manner as she asserted in her divorce papers, or was she giving false information in legal papers?


How should I know? I didn't live with Ruth and Michael. I don't know how he treated (or mistreated) her. And, btw, neither do you. What makes you think Michael DIDN'T occasionally smack Ruth around a little bit? How do you know for sure she was even lying in those divorce papers?

And, btw, when have I ever made the silly claim that Ruth Paine never told a lie in her entire life (as you and other conspiracy theorists seem to be suggesting)?

I'll answer that one for you: I never have.


On what grounds do you find that amusing?


For the exact reason I gave earlier. Because court/divorce papers are routinely spiced up with such silly heavy-handed language -- e.g., "cruel and unusual punishment", etc. How many people who sign such papers are actually subjected to "cruel punishment" by their spouses? Any idea?

To compare that type of "divorce papers lying" with the JFK investigation and Ruth Paine's detailed testimony about dozens of things connected with Lee and Marina Oswald is unfair, far-fetched, and, as I mentioned, only shows how desperate you are to put a "lie" in the mouth of a woman named Ruth.


Seems the only reason is attempted bravado because you have no answer that can possibly rescue them. She is either a liar - and has no qualms about lying in legal documents - or he was a wife abuser.


Maybe he was a wife abuser. Again--how do you know whether he was or he wasn't?


Why is it important she knows where the building is?


Via a non-conspiratorial scenario, it isn't important at all. But to conspiracy theorists who think Ruth Paine DID plant Oswald in the Depository, it becomes very important. Isn't that obvious?

Do you think Ruth was trying to place Oswald in a building along the motorcade route, and yet she really DIDN'T know exactly where that building was located? That explanation sounds really screwy (even for CTers).

Or perhaps the CTers would like to shift some of the "planting" activity to OTHER people who were better informed than Mrs. Paine. Was Ruth just the "middle [wo]man" in the scheme to get Oswald into that building? And she really had no idea where in Dallas the TSBD was located, and was merely following orders from "higher up" on the CIA ladder when she steered Lee Harvey to the building at 411 Elm? Is that what happened?


Your witness has severe credibility issues if she has made false statements in the past on legal documents.


You're funny, Greg.

Your continued "connection" between divorce papers (which contain obviously over-the-top language that were written by lawyers and not by the person filing for the divorce) and the JFK investigation is simply laughable. They aren't even close to being parallel or similar in nature at all.

You're just looking for a reason to dismiss many of the things Ruth Paine told the truth about in 1963 and 1964.

But if you're a sensible person at all, there's no way you can believe for an instant that Ruth Paine would have had the slightest desire or motive for wanting to become involved in a plot to murder JFK and/or frame Lee Oswald.

BTW, I never have received an answer (from anyone) to my very good earlier question:

Why did Ruth want to frame Lee Oswald? And what was in it for HER?


Michael [Griffin],

What makes you think Ruth Paine was made aware of how much the Trans-Texas Airways job paid? Why would R.L. Adams have mentioned the pay rate to Mrs. Paine over the phone? Adams merely left a message for Lee Oswald to call him back. And at one point, after LHO was hired at the TSBD, Ruth told Adams that Oswald had already secured a job. Adams then closed his file on Oswald.

No devious plot on Ruth's behalf. And no lies to anyone. Ruth's recollection of the whole thing was hazy. That's all. Some people think Ruth deliberately withheld the info about the airline job from Lee. But there's no proof she did any such thing.

It could be that LHO never got the message about the higher-paying job. But it's also just as possible that Lee did get that message, but decided not to apply for the airline job and stay at the TSBD where he was just hired.

As for Ruth not knowing exactly who her sister worked for: I don't consider that to be all that unusual, and I can tell you why (based on my own experience). My older sister lives in the western United States, and her job has always seemed pretty vague to me. I've never been too clear on exactly what she does or who exactly she works for. (I don't think she's employed by the CIA, however.) :)

So it's certainly not an impossibility for someone to be uncertain as to who their relative is employed by.


Ruth had visited her sister that fateful summer of 1963. Right before she picked up Marina. She stayed with her for several days. We are to somehow buy the idea that during that stay, and in all the years previous, and the years afterwards, she never ever asked where she went to work.


Well, my sister stayed with me at my house for several days in 2008 and again in 2010. And, as I recall, the topic of her work never once came up.

Now, would you like to call me a liar too, Jimbo?

As a footnote to this whole discussion about Ruth Paine being a conspirator, let me add this basic fact, which is a fact that pretty much destroys the notion that anyone planted an innocent Oswald in the TSBD for the purpose of framing him for JFK's murder:

Lee Harvey Oswald shot and killed John F. Kennedy.

I know that the above statement elicits gasps of horror from the Anybody But Oswald conspiracy theorists like James DiEugenio, but, nonetheless, it's a statement that has all of the physical evidence supporting it and a bunch of circumstantial evidence to boot, not the least of which were Lee Oswald's own actions both before and after the assassination, including Oswald's blatant lie that he told (twice) to Buell Wesley Frazier about the "curtain rods".

Naturally, DiEugenio doesn't think that Oswald's tale about wanting to go out to Irving to get "curtain rods" is the slightest bit suspicious at all. Or, as an alternative (which is almost certainly what Jimbo says he does believe), the "curtain rod" story of Oswald's is just one more lie that people framing Oswald utilized in order to set him up as the patsy. Which would mean, of course, that Wesley Frazier was part of the "Let's Frame Oswald" crew too. Or the evil cops FORCED Frazier to tell the lie about the curtain rods. Right, Jimmy?

I know that the actual evidence in this murder case means absolutely NOTHING to a conspiracy hound like Mr. DiEugenio. To him, the evidence has ALL been faked and manufactured. In the real world, however, crimes are actually solved by using the EVIDENCE connected to the case. In DiEugenio's world, though, I'm expected to throw out and disregard every last piece of evidence that points to the guilt of Mr. Oswald. But that's something that no reasonable and sensible person can possibly do after seeing and evaluating the huge pile of stuff that all leads to the inevitable conclusion that Lee Oswald killed not just one man on 11/22/63--but TWO! (Did Ruth Paine have something to do with framing Oswald for J.D. Tippit's murder too, Jimbo?)


The overriding question remains. Why was Ruth so willing to go out of her way (i.e., the phone call to Mr. Truly) to help land Lee a job at the TSBD, and why did she seem so unhelpful when it came to this other job opportunity? For the sake of discussion, let’s conjecture that Ruth had no idea about the salary of the airport job. Still, wouldn’t passing the information about the job referral along to Lee be the appropriate thing for a helpful person to do? Certainly, if apprised of the job opportunity, Lee could have phoned or visited Trans Texas Airways (which we have no record of ever having happened) and made up his own mind. But Ruth didn’t seem to want to put that choice in front of Lee.


Well, Michael, this whole topic of the Trans-Texas Airways job is quite muddled and unclear to begin with. Below, I've copied the relevant quotes from Ruth Paine's 1964 Warren Commission testimony concerning the Trans-Texas job opportunity, and as can easily be seen, Mrs. Paine's memory about the whole thing was very hazy. (Do you think she was being "hazy" on purpose? And do you think she was putting on an act for the Commission below? As you probably can guess, I don't think she is.)

I think a key portion of the testimony below are the words I have highlighted in bold text -- "while he was yet unemployed" -- which I think we can all agree means: Ruth Paine's hazy recollection of this event was such that she was of the opinion that Lee was STILL UNEMPLOYED when she heard anything about this other job opportunity.

Which means that Ruth very likely was remembering some OTHER job that Lee had applied for prior to October 15th. Although, granted, the timeline is tight in that regard, because we can see from Robert Adams' records at the Texas Employment Commission that Adams did call the Paine house on October 15, the exact day that Lee was hired at the TSBD, with a follow-up call from Adams taking place on October 16. Per Adams, someone at the Paine house (probably Ruth, since Marina spoke very little English) told Adams on October 16 that Lee had already secured a job elsewhere.

"My best recollection is that on that day I called [the Paines' phone number]. I learned from the person who answered the phone that Oswald was not there. I left a message with that person that Oswald should contact me at the Commission. My further recollection is that the following morning at 10:30 o'clock I again called ... and learned from the person who answered that Oswald was not there and that he had in the meantime obtained employment and was working." -- R.L. Adams

The whole matter and its exact chronology of who knew what and when is certainly far from crystal-clear, but I don't see any definitive signs of deception on the part of Ruth Paine here. She is merely attempting, as best she could, to recall an incident that took place several months earlier. I'm sure many of us would be hard-pressed to recall the exact details of something like this if we were called upon to try and remember those specific details many months after they occurred:

ALBERT E. JENNER - Did you ever hear anything by way of discussion or otherwise by Marina or Lee of the possibility of his having been tendered or at least suggested to him a job at Trans-Texas, as a cargo handler at $310 per month?

RUTH PAINE - No; in Dallas?

Mr. JENNER - Yes.

Mrs. PAINE - I do not recall that. $310 a month?

Mr. JENNER - Yes. This was right at the time that he obtained employment at the Texas School Book Depository.

Mrs. PAINE - And he was definitely offered such a job?

Mr. JENNER - Well, I won't say it was offered--that he might have been able to secure a job through the Texas Employment Commission as a cargo handler at $310 per month.

Mrs. PAINE - I do recall some reference of that sort, which fell through--that there was not that possibility.

Mr. JENNER - Tell us what you know about that. Did you hear of it at the time?

Mrs. PAINE - Yes.

Mr. JENNER - Now, would you please relate that to me?

Mrs. PAINE - I recall some reference to----

Mr. JENNER - How did it come about?

Mrs. PAINE - From Lee, as I recall.

Mr. JENNER - And was it at the time, or just right----

Mrs. PAINE - It was at the time, while he was yet unemployed.

Mr. JENNER - And about the time he obtained employment at the Texas School Book Depository?

Mrs. PAINE - It seemed to me he went into town with some hopes raised by the employment agency--whether a public or private employment agency I don't know--but then reported that the job had been filled and not available to him.

Mr. JENNER - But that was----

Mrs. PAINE - That is my best recollection.

Mr. JENNER - Of his report to you and Marina?

Mrs. PAINE - Yes.

Mr. JENNER - But you do recall his discussing it.

Mrs. PAINE - I recall something of that nature. I do not recall the job itself.


If one has a sibling living in a different town who works for a business that we have no personal familiarity with or understanding of, then I can easily see how one could forget the name of their sibling’s employer. But the CIA? Who in America, over the age of 12, is unfamiliar with it?



Can you provide some more information on the type of "CIA" job that Ruth Paine's sister had? You stated earlier that Ruth's sister was a "staff psychologist". I'm just wondering if my hunch on this could possibly be true--and that hunch is: The conspiracy theorists might be making a much bigger "CIA" deal out of Ruth's sister's job than it deserves.

In other words -- just exactly how closely associated or "connected" to the CIA was Ruth Paine's sister?

I did find this 1957 FBI document on "Sylvia Ludlow Hyde Hoke" at the Mary Ferrell website.


Do you find it a bit odd that a curious, knowledgeable, you could say JFK Assassination scholar, David von Pein [sic], has not a single question or comment in response to Hugh Aynesworth's Newsweek boss Osborn Elliott being the brother-in-law of the Dulles cousin whose sibling was the last person to see Priscilla Johnson's father alive...?


Yeah! You're right, Tom! That's a good solid "connection" to a JFK conspiracy for sure!

And if you would have travelled much further down that sinister path, I imagine that my name would have popped up as a "brother-in-law", "boss", "sibling", or "cousin" of an accused would-be assassination conspirator too. And Michael Griffin's name too. Mike knows a man whose mother knew the first cousin of the next-door neighbor of Jack Ruby's barber in 1949. That should be investigated closely too, I think. :)

And since we're talking about the "six degrees of separation" nonsense, let's not forget that I, myself--DVP of the Hoosier State--have, indeed, already been fingered as a possible conspirator in the JFK case, in conjunction with my cohort in Patsy Plots, Mrs. Ruth Hyde Paine of Irving. Here's what "Dealey Joe" of Wim Dankbaar's conspiracy-laden forum said in 2010 (and, no, I'm not making this up just to make conspiracy theorists look like crackpots):

"Do not be fooled by this guy [DVP]. His education is what he has
always kept covered up. Hiding his real identity has thrown everyone
for a loop, his plan exactly. According to my findings, he is very well
educated. One university he likely either attended or taught, maybe
both, was a Quaker college, Guilford. Remember he was from the town
that Ruth Paine visited on her trip to pick up Marina -- Richmond, Indiana,
a strong Quaker town. Von Pein would only have been a couple years old
in '63, but he had family. Although I can't prove it, I think his family
knew Ruth Paine. He may have set [sic] on her lap? Now since he is
found out, he has decided to come out of the closet as far as his
picture. We already knew what he looked like. He thrives on controversy
because it keeps everyone off guard. I suspect he is a disinfo agent."

-- "Dealey Joe"; August 3, 2010

Thank goodness there are crackerjack investigators like "Dealey Joe" on the scene to solve this crime. My cover has been blown to bits. I'm calling Chief Curry and Captain Fritz right now to confess.


How fitting that in addition to Ruth’s & Sylvia’s father, William Avery Hyde, Sylvia’s husband, John Hoke, also worked for AID. Some, I suppose, will contend that it’s just another in a very long line of innocent coincidences.

This all reminds me of John Judge's line, "I don't mind you calling me a conspiracy theorist as long as you don't mind me calling you a coincidence theorist!"


But, Michael, you must remember this important fact:

Lee Harvey Oswald DID kill John F. Kennedy. (And surely, Mike, you aren't one of those Anybody-But-Oswald CTers. Are you?)

Anyway, since we know that Oswald shot Kennedy, what does that do to the "Ruth Paine Planted LHO In The TSBD" theory?

Answer: It destroys it.

Unless, of course, you'd like to believe that Ruth Paine and Lee Harvey Oswald were working TOGETHER in a plot to murder JFK. Because since Oswald DID kill Kennedy, it's fairly obvious he wasn't planted in the Depository in order to be framed for a murder he DIDN'T commit (which is what almost all of the "Ruth Is A Plotter" CTers believe).

EDIT --- Oh wait! I just thought of a dandy additional "Ruth Is A Plotter" option for the conspiracy theorists:

Ruth Paine plants Lee Oswald in the Depository in mid-October 1963 (with the help of neighbor Linnie Mae Randle, which means Linnie's a plotter too, of course). And then the unwitting patsy named Lee, on his own and without consulting Ruth Paine, decides he wants to kill Kennedy too. And so Lee takes his rifle to work on November 22 and does the job.

That way, you can still have a theory that has these two elements present and accounted for:

1.) Ruth is a planter of Oswald.

2.) Lee is a shooter.

Anybody want to try that theory on for size? You might as well give it a try, because the option of "Lee Harvey Oswald Didn't Shoot Anybody On November 22, 1963" is not available (due to the fact, of course, that the evidence in the case makes that particular option downright ludicrous).


So that's it. At the end of the day, after all of the tired old arguments have been dredged up, regurgitated, & exhausted; after logic has been thrown out the window and replaced by blind faith...


You've just described the "Anybody But Oswald" conspiracy theorists perfectly, Michael. Thank you.

Because it's the "Oswald Never Fired A Shot" conspiracy believers who have tossed logic out the nearest window--not the LNers. It's those particular CTers who are operating solely on "blind faith" -- blind faith that ALL of the evidence that hangs Oswald has been faked, manufactured, switched, and planted. Because they certainly haven't come close to proving that any of the evidence has really been faked, manufactured, switched, or planted.

And would you be willing to agree with me, Michael, that if even a TINY PORTION of that evidence against Oswald ISN'T fake or phony, then it's extremely likely that Lee Harvey Oswald killed President Kennedy (and Officer Tippit)?

How can any sensible person possibly answer "No" to my last question?


...it all comes back to: It's true because the Warren Commission said it's true.


No. It's true (Oswald's guilt) because the evidence says it's true. Not because "the Warren Commission" says it's true. The Warren Commission didn't place all of that "Oswald Did It" stuff into evidence. OSWALD, in effect, did that--by killing Kennedy (and Tippit).

And, of course, the HSCA said Oswald was guilty too. So if you believe that Oswald was not a gunman, you've got to actually believe that TWO official Government committees (comprised of totally different people, 14 years apart) got it all wrong.

I wonder what the Vegas odds would be of Oswald not killing Kennedy, and yet having BOTH official investigative organizations concluding that he did? Any idea?


Robert Adams was an FBI informer, Dallas T-15.


Ruth Paine...is up to her eyeballs in intelligence connections, steering LHO into a job at the TSBD. Meanwhile, we have an FBI informant working at the Texas Employment Commission, Robert Adams, seeming to steer LHO toward a job at Love Field. While one job (Love Field) is guaranteed to be along the motorcade route, the other job (TSBD) is virtually guaranteed to be along the motorcade route. Sounds like the patsy is surrounded by intelligence assets.


You conspiracy theorists are amazing. You've got "connections" and "assets" around every corner and under everybody's bed -- all the while totally ignoring the ironclad fact (based on a little thing called "the evidence in the case") that Lee Harvey Oswald, your supposed innocent "patsy", killed John Kennedy AND J.D. Tippit. Hence, regardless of anything that Ruth Paine and Robert Adams might have done, they did not and could not have "planted" Lee Oswald anywhere along the motorcade route for the express purpose of framing him for JFK's murder.

Next suspect for the CTers: Dorothy Roberts (who hosted the coffee klatch at her house on October 14, 1963, which is where the conspiracy theorists think a lot of patsy-framing cloak-and-dagger stuff was occurring between the three suburban housewives--Ruth Paine, Linnie Mae Randle, and Marina Oswald).

The conspiracy crowd can surely dig up some dirt on Dorothy, right? If not, just turn to her husband, Ed. And then go to Linnie Mae's husband, Bill. He's GOT to have at least a few "intelligence" ties, right? After all, everybody who is even remotely connected to this murder case does. Don't they? Even me.


I'm not going to waste a lot of time on this. Your "points" are ludicrous and wrong. I suppose to people like you nobody was ever framed by law enforcement. Or could be.


Oh, good! Now Marrion Baker is on the ever-growing list of people who were out to frame the poor sap named Oswald.

And probably Roy Truly too. Right, Richard?

When a person has to add one plotter on top of another, until the list grows to absurd and outlandish proportions, isn't it just time to admit that Oswald is probably guilty?

After all, how likely is it that the 1,358 suspects that appear in all of the conspiracy theorists' books are actually ALL guilty of framing that snow-white Communist sympathizer named Oswald?

Or, to put it another way, here are some excellent quotes that I've culled from the alt.conspiracy.jfk Usenet Newsgroup over the last several years (all written by a very astute LNer named Bud). He's hit the nail right squarely on the head too:

"[It was] either Oswald alone, or thousands working to make it look like Oz did it alone." -- Bud; January 19, 2007

"Keep heaping those witnesses on. A cast of thousands, cutting across all walks of life, all working against the poor patsy, all quiet to this day. Just because it can't happen won't stop kooks from insisting it did." -- Bud; August 11, 2007

"When you are desperate enough, and you scour the evidence thinking real hard how each thing could be fishy or suspicious, you will come to the conclusion that everything you look at is fishy and suspicious. It's inevitable." -- Bud; June 21, 2010

"To kooks, all the Dallas Police are suspects in the conspiracy also. The world vs. the patsy." -- Bud; April 27, 2006


Repeat after me. This man seen by Baker, Brennan and Rowland was not Oswald. Too old, too much hair, too heavy, wrong clothing, too not on the 6th floor.



You REALLY want to be on the record saying Marrion Baker did NOT see Lee Harvey Oswald in the lunchroom on 11/22/63?? Really?? Geesh.

Repeat after me -- That's absolute craziness.

The man Baker saw in the TSBD was positively Oswald. There's not even a shred of a doubt about that fact. Roy Truly is the proof. (Is Truly another plotter/liar, Greg? That suspects list is getting longer.)

And it doesn't matter one bit that Baker didn't finger Oswald at City Hall. The fact remains that the man Baker encountered in the lunchroom was, in fact, Lee Oswald, because LHO was identified DURING THE ENCOUNTER by Roy S. Truly.**

** I don't mean that Truly said to Baker: "That man is Lee Oswald." I mean Truly told Baker that the man was an employee of the building, with Truly, of course, later verifying in his official statements that the man WAS Oswald. As early as his 11/23/63 affidavit, Roy Truly IDed the man in the lunchroom as OSWALD when Truly wrote these words in that affidavit -- "Lee Oswald was in there [lunchroom]. The officer had his gun on Oswald and asked me if he was an employee."

So, is this affidavit a lie too, Greg?

Unless Truly is yet another conspirator and a liar, it was Oswald that Baker saw. Period.


Howard Brennan's 11/22 affidavit ends with the confident assertion --- "I believe that I could identify this man if I ever saw him again."

Well, Mr. Brennan did see an individual by the name of Lee Oswald later that day and refused point-blank to identify him as the man he had seen firing from the sixth floor window.

It's also most probable that Brennan would have seen Oswald exiting the TSBD by the front entrance just minutes after the assassination. Again, no identification.

If I were as naive as David von Pein [sic], these simple facts would not trouble me.


And if I were an Anybody-But-Oz CTer, the tons of evidence that proves Brennan DID see Oswald in that window wouldn't bother me at all. I'd just say that Brennan had bad eyesight on 11/22 (which he didn't) and I'd simply say that all of the evidence was faked to frame Oswald. Done deal.

And if I were a conspiracy theorist, I wouldn't wonder why the fingerprints of Oswald were all over the place where Kennedy's killer was located, which just happened to be the exact same window where Howard Brennan says he saw Oswald.

Meh. Just more fake stuff. And a lying witness named Howard. Right?

Regarding the quotes from Mike Griffith that James DiEugenio mentioned:

Typical conspiracy monger's approach -- Instead of casting ANY suspicion whatsoever on Lee Oswald, whose prints WERE on two of the boxes that were DEEP WITHIN the sixth-floor Sniper's Nest (exactly where the killer of President Kennedy must have been located, per Brennan, Couch, Jackson, and Euins) -- the conspiracy monger instead wants to know why MORE of Oswald's prints weren't on the boxes.

That backward approach to the known evidence is kind of like asking this:

Why in the world was Officer Tippit only shot FOUR times by Lee Harvey Oswald on Tenth Street? He had 11 more rounds of ammunition with him when the shooting occurred, so why didn't he plug Tippit with still more bullets?

IOW -- Even though the evidence against Oswald is very powerful (and the fingerprint evidence on those boxes IS powerful, even though the conspiracy theorists treat that evidence like it EXONERATES Oswald instead of incriminates him in any way), what the conspiracists require is still MORE evidence to even BEGIN to suspect that Lee H. Oswald was anywhere near the 11/22/63 crime scenes on the sixth floor AND on Tenth Street. Pa-thet-ic.


I just got through watching this vomit-inducing video [no longer available at YouTube] featuring JFK conspiracy theorist Richard Belzer. And I realized while watching it that Belzer would feel perfectly at home here on this Anybody-But-Ozzie forum [The Education Forum], with Belzer belching out one false conspiracy myth after another -- from Oswald not having enough time to get to the lunchroom after the shooting....to the myth that refuses to die about Oswald drinking a Coke in the lunchroom during the Baker/Truly encounter....to the myth about the Mauser....to the myth about JFK being shot twice in the head simultaneously....and on and on. In short, Belzer believes ANYTHING--as long as he doesn't have to come within a country mile of accusing Lee Harvey Oswald of any wrong-doing. In short (again), Belzer is "Dead Wrong".


David, are you claiming that when Brennan stated on the record within hours of the assassination that he could not positively identify this man Lee Oswald as the shooter, he was actually telling the truth? If not, then you're calling him a liar.


Sean, you're being silly. Brennan explained his "fears". That's why he did not I.D. Oswald. And I'm guessing that his fears grew and grew between the time he signed that affidavit and the time he went down to I.D. Oswald.

Now, tell me why that reasonable explanation is not even remotely possible in your CT world?

As for the above inquiry about Brennan being able to determine the approx. height and weight of Oswald:

Brennan saw Oswald in the window PRIOR to the shooting too---

"I saw this one man on the sixth floor which left the window to my knowledge a couple of times." -- H.L. Brennan; Warren Commission Testimony

Brennan could have estimated LHO's height and weight at those earlier times.

Plus: The CTers have nowhere to go with that argument anyway -- because the fact remains that Brennan DID estimate the sniper's weight and age and "slender" status (but not his height) on November 22nd. It's right there in his 11/22/63 affidavit.

Do CTers think the cops FORCED those descriptions into Brennan's mouth and, hence, into his sworn and signed affidavit on November 22nd? More fakery? Did the cops EVER stop faking stuff?


David, you're being defensive. Your position is that Brennan went on the record with a statement that he knew not to be true. In other words, he lied. A lying witness named Howard.


Why are you playing defense lawyer, Sean? We're not in a courtroom. Don't you care about WHY Brennan did a flip-flop? Doesn't his explanation seem the slightest bit reasonable under the circumstances?

If not, please explain why not.


Did Brennan lie on 11/22 or not, David? Simple question.


Yes. Of course he did. But it's not the type of "lie" you think it was. Yes, Brennan lied when he refused to I.D. Oswald, even when he COULD have positively identified him. That's the "lie" he told. But, as mentioned, Brennan had what I consider to be a good reason for telling that falsehood.

How can I be confident enough to make the above statement, you might ask?

Mainly because the physical evidence left behind by the person Brennan saw on the sixth floor fully corroborates the theory that it was Oswald (and nobody else) who was firing shots at JFK from the Depository's sixth floor.

Hence, Howard Brennan almost certainly did see Lee H. Oswald in that window--even though Brennan would not positively I.D. him on Nov. 22, due to the fears he had for his own safety at that time, and the safety of his family.

Now, Sean, can you provide for me a more reasonable and more logical explanation than the one I just provided above?

IOW -- Is it truly MORE reasonable for me to believe that Howard Brennan saw somebody else OTHER than Lee Oswald firing at the President--even though ALL of the physical evidence left behind by the real sniper had "OSWALD WAS HERE" practically stamped all over it (shells, prints, paper bag with LHO's prints, fibers in bag matching blanket, and the rifle itself)?

If that latter option is supposedly more rational and reasonable than my explanation, I'd like to know why? (And the standard "Everything Was Planted" response doesn't hold much weight in my house. So maybe you could try another tack.)


If Brennan lied, how is that different from your views on Roger Craig?


The difference in the lies is considerable, because I, of course, believe that Brennan REALLY DID see Oswald in that window. And the evidence on the sixth floor backs up my belief.

So we really have a kind of REVERSE lie being told by Brennan -- i.e., he lied (at the police line-up) about not being able to do something that he almost certainly COULD have done--I.D. Oswald.

But in Roger Craig's case, he lied about being able to identify something (the rifle) when we know he really COULDN'T identify it at all. And, in fact, Craig himself told us he had no idea what kind of rifle he saw on the sixth floor--in his 1968 newspaper interview.


In summary, looking at the two testimonies [of Ruth Paine and Linnie Mae Randle], who seems to be having trouble recalling things? Who seems evasive? Conversely, who seems to be able to recall things and provide straightforward answers? Not only does Ruth’s testimony conflict with the testimony of Linnie May Randle [sic]; Ruth’s testimony is fraught with its own intrinsic contradictions. To believe this woman’s implausible narrative requires an enormous leap of faith that not many would be willing to take.

But surely, David, the circular logic that - LHO murdered JFK because the WC said so, and the WC said so because LHO murdered JFK - will once again explain it all away for you!


Well, Michael, I think you're going to have to find a way to involve Marina Oswald in some kind of a plot to plant LHO in the Depository too, because we find this exchange in Ruth Paine's Warren Commission testimony (as you noted previously):

ALBERT JENNER -- While you were still in the Roberts' home was there any discussion at all of the subject mentioned by you or by Mrs. Randle or Mrs. Roberts or anyone else, of calls to be made, or that might be made, to the Texas School Book Depository in this connection?

RUTH PAINE -- I don't recall this discussion. As I recall it was a suggestion made by Marina to me after we got home, but I may be wrong.

MR. JENNER -- But that is your best recollection that you are now testifying?

MRS. PAINE -- Yes.

MR. JENNER -- Is that correct?

MRS. PAINE -- Yes.

MR. JENNER -- You reached home and Marina suggested that "Would you please call the Texas School Depository?"

MRS. PAINE -- Yes.

Now, I'm sure you probably think that the above testimony is worthless, because it's Ruth HERSELF who is saying that it was MARINA (and not Ruth) who really suggested that a call be made to the Book Depository. But, nonetheless, the official record is indicating that it was very likely MARINA OSWALD who asked Ruth Paine to specifically call the Book Depository on October 14, 1963.

Was Marina trying to frame her own husband? Or was Ruth just lying (again)?

BTW, I've checked out all of Marina Oswald's testimony (WC, HSCA, and Clay Shaw Trial), and there's nothing in her statements that really help to clear up this matter concerning which woman (Ruth or Marina) really initiated the call to the Depository in mid-October.

But I did find this part of Marina's Warren Commission testimony interesting (because it totally contradicts what Linnie Mae Randle has said). Is Marina lying here too, Michael? Or could it be--just possibly--a case of someone not quite remembering exactly what was said during a casual get-together at a neighbor's house several months earlier?:

MARINA OSWALD -- Her first name is Dorothy. And there was another woman there, another neighbor, who said that her brother worked at the depository, and that as far as she knew, there was a vacancy there.

And I'll also throw in this segment of Marina's 1964 WC testimony, but it really doesn't help answer any of the questions raised by the always-suspicious conspiracy theorists:

J. LEE RANKIN -- Did Mrs. Paine have anything to do with your husband getting this job at the depository?

MRS. OSWALD -- She had no direct connection with it, but an indirect connection, of course. I lived with her and she talked to a neighbor and mentioned that Lee was out of work.

MR. RANKIN -- Was it Mrs. Paine that found out about the job, then?

MRS. OSWALD -- Yes. And she telephoned there and asked whether they had a job available. They didn't say anything specific but they asked that Lee come there on the following day.

Overall, I see nothing in the Paine/Randle testimony you have copied that would indicate Ruth Paine was a liar with respect to the way things played out regarding Lee Oswald getting his Depository job. Ruth's memory might have been a little hazy as to other possible job opportunities that were brought up at the coffee klatch at Mrs. Roberts' house on October 14th, but I see nothing in that testimony that leaps out at me and makes me want to shout -- "Aha! Ruth Paine is lying her ass off right there!"

And the logical reason, in my view, for Mrs. Paine's memory being so much clearer about the suggestion of the Texas School Book Depository being a possible job source for Lee Oswald is because it was THAT exact job that Oswald ended up getting. Therefore, any other references to other jobs that Oswald ended up NOT obtaining are references that would not be nearly as likely to stick in Ruth Paine's mind when compared to the place where Oswald actually did gain employment--the Book Depository.

That's my $0.02. Toss it aside if you wish, and continue to believe that Ruth Paine could have been involved in some plot to place Oswald in the TSBD. But I'm going to need a lot more than what I've seen in this thread so far in order to even begin to think that Mrs. Ruth Hyde Paine played a part (no matter how small) in a conspiracy to murder John F. Kennedy or to frame Lee Harvey Oswald for that murder.


The EBRPM (Everybody-but-Ruth-Paine-Mob) is at it again.

Ruth didn't bring up the TSBD as a possibility - Linnie Mae did.

Ruth didn't ring Truly on her own initiative. She did it because Marina suggested it (Marina's logic: "Hmmm my husband loves reading. He therefore will love being a porter").

Ruth never greeted the cops with "I've been expecting you". The cops - who were honest as the day is long when it came to evidence collection - were nevertheless nefarious when it came to putting words in the mouths of innocent witnesses not under any suspicion, and did so in a random fashion for no discernible reason.

Ruth - unable to let a lie pass her lips by her very saintly nature and religious leanings - nevertheless apparently lied on a legal document when she claimed her estranged husband was tyrannical and had treated her unkindly, cruelly, harshly.

Ruth, whose memory was as sharp as a tack, nevertheless had memory failure on the things of most import to any open and honest inquiry.


Maybe Ruth remembered it because it [the Depository] was the ONLY one she phoned?

He was unlikely to get any of the OTHER jobs was he not, because he was NEVER told about them and Ruth didn't follow up on any of them.



And, of course, since Lee "Patsy For All Occasions" Oswald had absolutely no initiative of his own (since he was being "controlled" at all times by Ruth Paine, George DeMohrenschildt, Clay Shaw, David Ferrie, and the Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders), it means that Lee HIMSELF couldn't have possibly gone out and looked for a job ON HIS OWN, sans the help of Ruthy and her merry band of patsy-framers.

Right, Greg?

Sheesh is right.


I imagine being controlled by the Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders wouldn't be too hard to take....

But otherwise you've gone right off the deep end in your search for a safe port.

This has nought to do with Oswald's own initiative.

It is about the selective initiative and selective memory of Ruth "Cold Warrior" Paine.


It most certainly does have to do with Oswald's own initiative, if Oswald -- ON HIS OWN -- had decided to get a job somewhere else. Which, of course, was very very possible. But apparently the CTers think that possibility was beyond Oswald's capacity.

Was Oswald totally INCAPABLE of doing anything without the aid of Ruth & Company?

Get real. You're reaching deep into the pit of absurdity regarding Ruth Paine and you know it. And yet it's me who is being accused of going "off the deep end".

Time for another one of these (as is usually the case after talking with Greg Parker or any of the other conspiracy kooks):



Only someone absolutely determined to avoid the bleedin' obvious would attempt to turn a conversation about Ruth Paine's initiative - which has NOTHING to do with whether Oswald was a lazy bastard or a workaholic - into a debate about Oswald's job seeking skills.

Address the real issues, David, or drown in that deep end you're occupying.

Alternatively, try and explain what Oswald's job seeking skills have to do with Ruth phoning Truly and blaming everyone else for it.


I mentioned Oswald's OWN initiative in seeking out a possible job because it would seem as if many conspiracy theorists want to believe that Oswald had NO CHOICE at all when it came to the Depository job.

Yes, Oswald did apply at the TSBD and was hired, but Lee could very well have continued to look for jobs on his own, without the aid of Ruth Paine or anyone else. And he also could have possibly decided he wanted to quit his TSBD job after starting there and go find another job somewhere else.

What would Ruth and her merry band of patsy-framers have done then? Would they then have switched "patsies"? Or would they have continued to try and manipulate Oswald into taking another job along the motorcade route? Or would they have possibly forced Oswald--at the point of a gun--to keep his job at the Depository until after JFK's visit to Dallas? Or maybe Ruth's gang was so influential that it wouldn't have mattered WHERE Oswald worked--the framers would somehow manipulate the motorcade to GO TO LEE, no matter what (or where)?

Conspiracy theorists always do this -- they treat Oswald like a weak-minded puppet who would dutifully do whatever the "plotters" wanted him to do.

Take this job in the Depository, Lee.

Take this package into the building, Lee. (And don't ask any questions about what's inside that bag.)

Hang out on the first or second floor (by the phone) at 12:30 on November 22nd, Lee. (Per Oliver Stone's movie of disinformation.)

Marry that Russian girl, Lee. (That's Marguerite Oswald's theory. Marguerite was convinced that Lee "was told to marry the Russian girl". In other words, Lee probably didn't have any say-so in that decision at all. He was merely following orders. Marguerite also said: "I think my son was sent to Russia".)

So, the portrait of Lee Harvey Oswald, as painted by many of the conspiracy theorists and authors (and even his own mother), is one of almost total subservience, with Oswald's strings being pulled by other people all the way back to his teenage years.

I say -- Hogwash.

Oswald wasn't subservient to anybody. Just the opposite, in fact. He liked to manipulate other people. Not the other way around.

Of course, conspiracists are free to think that Oswald was being manipulated by experts who did these things to Lee Oswald without Oswald himself being the slightest bit aware of the fact that his strings were constantly being pulled by evil forces.

Let me repeat -- Hogwash.

Addendum -- 1964 video footage of Ruth Paine and Linnie Mae Randle, pertaining to the topic of Oswald getting his Depository job, can be seen in the video below. Roy Truly is also interviewed on camera in that 1964 program.


Did Ruth Paine have six or seven metal filing cabinets full of letters, maps, records and index cards with names of pro-Castro sympathizers as has been claimed? Does anyone know anything about this?


It's very likely just another one of the dozens of myths that conspiracy theorists love to tout as true about the JFK case. And according to what Ruth Paine herself said in a public appearance on September 13, 2013, the story about the "seven file boxes of Cuba sympathizers' names" was a completely bogus story from the get-go. Listen to Ruth talk about it right here.

And let's stop and think about this for a moment from the POV of the CTers who think Ruth Paine was a "CIA agent" who was attempting to manipulate and frame Lee Oswald for Kennedy's murder in 1963:

In such a circumstance, with Ruth being a "CIA" employee involved in a lot of underhanded shenanigans, would it make any sense for Ruth to keep on her property (or, in general, traceable back to her) six or seven filing cabinets filled with stuff that could only make the authorities (and the conspiracy theorists) suspicious about what she was up to? IMO, the whole thing is just silly to begin with.



Thanks for supplying Decker Exhibit No. 5323, Gary.

Nice to know that Ruth and Michael Paine weren't hiding anything.

Do conspiracy theorists actually believe that anything in that "set of file cabinets" could possibly have any relation to any alleged "CIA" activity revolving around either Ruth or Michael Paine and a plot to frame Lee Oswald for JFK's assassination?

According to Deputy Walthers' report in Decker Exhibit 5323, the cabinets were seized on either November 22 or 23 and were found right there in Ruth Paine's house in Irving. And if Ruth had been "setting up" Oswald for weeks (or months) prior to Nov. 22, as many conspiracists believe, she, of course, would have to know that the police would be searching her residence right after the assassination, since she was allowing the wife of the "patsy" to stay at her house and since the "patsy" himself stayed there the night before the assassination.

All of this indicates, of course, that whatever was in those filing cabinets could not possibly be some "key" to link Ruth and Michael Paine to an assassination plot, nor could it be a key to link the Paines to the CIA -- unless, that is, the conspiracy theorists want to believe that Ruth Paine was a very very stupid person. And by just listening to Ruth speak for only a few minutes, it's fairly obvious that the word "stupid" does not apply to Mrs. Ruth Hyde Paine.


What are you talking about?

Are you trying to make the metal filing cabinets disappear again, like the DPD and FBI did in '63?

Too late, the cat's out of the bag.



If you were a CIA operative and were tasked with the chore of framing Lee Harvey Oswald for President Kennedy's murder, would you place IN YOUR HOUSE a bunch of stuff that proves you were "CIA"?


The SAME HOUSE where you are allowing the patsy's wife to live....and the SAME HOUSE where you've "arranged" for the police to think the assassination rifle was stored....and the SAME HOUSE where all of the patsy's belongings are being kept....and the SAME HOUSE where the resident patsy spent his last night of freedom? You'd have to be nuts.

And why wasn't Decker Exhibit 5323 destroyed (along with the file cabinets and all those "secret" Ruth Paine documents)?

The bumbling, stumbling plotters strike again. They can manage to deep-six a bunch of filing cabinets and tons of suspicious documents relating to that vixen named Ruth, but they can't quite seem to manage to get rid of that one sheet of paper containing Walthers' report about the cabinets. Yeah, right.

Naturally, no conspiracy theorist can think of ANY other solution to ANYTHING relating to the JFK case OTHER than "it's a conspiracy". No non-sinister explanation would even be entertained by the likes of a conspiracy monger such as a Gary Craig.

So, Ruth Paine is automatically guilty of--something. The conspiracy-happy kooks aren't sure just WHAT she's "guilty" of. But she's got to be guilty of SOMETHING, that much the conspiracy buffs know for sure.

The conspiracy nuts who want to hang Ruth Paine are sickening. I only wish she could sue the pants off of at least one of the idiots who has slandered her name since 1963. She couldn't lose.


Thumbs up Dave!

I've always felt Ruth Paine is a very sympathetic character in the LHO murder spree....and subsequent character assassination by CTs.

Ruth is the perfect example of why LNers CARE to post here. To help protect innocent people from slander.


Maybe she (or he) made a mistake? Forgot about the thing? There are other possibilities of course.

What did she say about these boxes? Undoubtedly the WC has asked her about these files? Where are these files now? Names?



I can't find a thing in Ruth Paine's Warren Commission testimony or in her Clay Shaw trial testimony concerning the "metal file cabinets" and their contents. Maybe there is something in her extremely lengthy WC sessions about them, but I had no luck finding it. (The CTers would no doubt say that the WC was covering up something re the file cabinets too, since they mentioned nothing about them during Ruth's many hours on the witness stand.)

I also noticed that Vince Bugliosi doesn't mention a thing about those file cabinets in his 2007 book.

It would be nice to know what was in the file cabinets. But I still stand by my previous argument re the cabinets. If Ruth was "CIA", would she have such things sitting in her garage for the police to find? Or was she supposedly in cahoots with the DPD and Sheriff's Office too? Did she nudge Bill Decker one day and whisper -- "Remember, Bill, you've got to get rid of those filing cabinets." And then Decker complied? Too funny.

EDIT -- But, as I mentioned in an earlier post, we do now have Ruth's very own words concerning the topic of the filing cabinets (or "file boxes"). Here again is what Ruth herself said in September of 2013:


Following the same arguments you use for Ruth Paine: Would Oswald leave a rifle with his fingerprints in the SBD? Would he make the backyard pictures? Would he....? Do you think he was nuts?.... You are explaining the find of the cabinets in a way that suits you.


I am explaining the file cabinets in a way that suits me....yes. But it's also in a way that makes sense (IMO).

Re: Oswald doing those things you mentioned -- There's a big difference: it can be PROVEN he did those things (although very few Internet CTers would ever dare admit that Oswald actually did the first thing on your LHO list--leaving his prints on the rifle in the TSBD on November 22nd -- but he did it all the same).

And the backyard photos have been proven to be genuine (i.e., non-phony). That's not even debatable here in the real world of science where a negative exists of one of the pictures which can be tied to Oswald's own camera. Did the plotters manage to steal LHO's camera too? And then got Marina to lie about taking the photos?

When does this string of conspiracy-oriented nonsense end? Or does it ever reach an end in this case? (Silly question, I know. Of course it doesn't end...and never will. That's why we're here now.)

And btw...yes, Oswald was kinda nuts (not "insane", but just plain "nuts"). You've got to be "kinda nuts" in order to point a gun at someone and pull the trigger (unless it's strictly self-defense). And Oswald did that THREE times in 1963 (Walker, Kennedy, and Tippit.) And none of the three was done in "self-defense". Yes, Oswald was nuts alright.


BUDDY 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.

WESLEY 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 and we also found a box of pictures, a bunch of pictures that we taken. We didn't go to the trouble of looking at any of this stuff much---just more or less confiscated it at the time, and we looked at it there just like that, and then we took all this stuff and put it in the car and then Mrs. Paine got a phone number from Mrs. Oswald where you could call Lee Harvey Oswald in Oak Cliff. It was a Whitehall phone number, I believe, and they said they didn't know where he lived, but this was where they called him, and I called Sheriff Decker on the phone when I was there and gave him that number for the crisscross, so they could send some men to that house, which I think they did, but I didn't go myself. Then we put everybody in the car, the kids, Mrs. Oswald, and everyone---no; just a minute---before that, though, this Michael Paine or Mitchell Paine, whichever you call it, came home and I had understood from Mrs. Paine already that they weren't living together, that they were separated and he was supposed to be living in Grand Prairie and when he showed up I asked him what was his object in coming home. He said--well, after he had heard about the President's getting shot, he just decided he would take off and come home, and he arrived there while we were there.


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.




What proof is there that the file cabinets belonged to Ruth or Michael Paine? Why couldn't that stuff have been part of Lee Oswald's personal possessions? After all, about everything Lee and Marina owned was in Mrs. Paine's garage in November of '63.

This part of Buddy Walthers' Warren Commission testimony above certainly makes it sound as though at least some of the material in at least one of the metal file cabinets belonged to Lee Harvey Oswald:

"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..."

In addition, there is this WC testimony from Marina Oswald, in which she refers to a metal file cabinet owned by Lee Oswald, in which he kept materials associated with his Fair Play For Cuba activities (the box itself can be seen in Commission Exhibit 125):

Mr. THORNE. Exhibit 125 is a file cabinet for presumably three by five or five by seven inch cards.

Mrs. OSWALD. Lee kept his printing things in that, pencils.

Mr. RANKIN. The things that he printed his Fair Play for Cuba leaflets on?

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

Mr. RANKIN. Pencils and materials that he used in connection with that matter?

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

Mr. RANKIN. Did he have any index cards in that metal case?

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, he had some.

Mr. RANKIN. You don't know what happened to them?

Mrs. OSWALD. No.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you know what was on those index cards?

Mrs. OSWALD. No.

Mr. RANKIN. A list of any people that you know of?

Mrs. OSWALD. No. I don't know.

Mr. RANKIN. Were those leaflets about Fair Play for Cuba printed?

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

Mr. RANKIN. And then did he stamp something on them after he had them printed?

Mrs. OSWALD. He would print his name and address on them.

Mr. RANKIN. You don't know what happened to the cards that were in that?

Mrs. OSWALD. No.


Whether the metal box of LHO's (CE125) has any connection at all to the several similar such metal boxes found at Ruth Paine's house on 11/22/63, I haven't the slightest idea. But perhaps Lee owned more than one such box.



The questions to LNs (DVP in particular):

1. Did the file cabinets exist as documented?


I don't think there's any doubt of that fact. Decker Exhibit 5323 is the proof of their "existence", plus Buddy Walthers' WC testimony. He mentions the "six or seven file cabinets" there too. And I certainly don't think Buddy W. just made it up from whole cloth.

I will admit, point-blank, that prior to today [July 10, 2013], I had no knowledge of the definitive existence of any such "file cabinets" being confiscated from Ruth Paine's house (other than to hear James DiEugenio ramble on about such cabinets during some of his appearances on Black Op Radio in the past; but you know how far I trust Jimbo; so anything uttered by him isn't going to make a big impression on a person like myself, seeing as how Jimbo can't even get the easy stuff right--like Oswald shooting Tippit).

But, anyway, prior to 7/10/13, I really had no desire to dig into the "file cabinet" matter at all. And obviously neither did Vincent Bugliosi, because upon searching my PDF file containing the entire 2800 pages of "Reclaiming History", I couldn't find a single reference to the "file cabinets" in that tome--even when cross-referencing and searching for "Decker Exhibit No. 5323". Vince might have mentioned the cabinets in his book, but if he did, I couldn't find it via my word search today.

So, yes, the cabinets (or, more accurately, the "small metal boxes") definitely did (or do) exist.


2. Did the material in the file cabinets exist as documented?


I haven't the slightest idea. Nor do you. And that's because (based on the limited "scope" of my looking into this matter) there doesn't appear to be anything in the testimony of anyone that would clarify the contents of the file cabinets/metal boxes. Walthers said "I don't know myself to this day" what was in the cabinets. And there's nothing in the testimony of Will Fritz or Jesse Curry or Sheriff Bill Decker pertaining to the cabinets either (that I could find via a word search). Nor is there any reference to the cabinets in the testimony of Guy Rose.

There is, however, something in the testimony of DPD Detective Richard Stovall that might be of interest (although whether these "boxes" picked up by Stovall are related to the "file cabinets" discussed by Buddy Walthers, I haven't the foggiest)....

Mr. STOVALL -- "I've got listed "one grey metal file box, which is 12 inches by 6 inches; youth pictures and literature." I've got, "One black and gray metal box 10 inches by 4 inches, letters, etc., one box brown Keystone projector." Let's stop just a minute and let me tell you about this. These two metal boxes came out of Ruth Paine's bedroom. This Keystone projector came out of the closet in the hall. Then, I have listed, "Three brown metal boxes 12 inches by 4 inches containing phonograph records." They came out of Ruth Paine's bedroom."


EDIT -- Please note that most of the above information supplied by Detective Stovall concerning the contents of various "metal boxes" perfectly matches the items that Ruth Paine herself said was in the "file boxes" during her 2013 public appearance that I twice provided above. In that 2013 audio, she said three of the boxes contained "folk dance records", three more boxes contained her "college papers", and the seventh box had a "projector" in it.


If yes to #1 or #2, what were the Paines doing with this information and what are the implications?


I'm not convinced the stuff in the "file cabinets" seized by Buddy Walthers even belonged to Ruth Paine. As I speculated previously, maybe that stuff belonged to Lee Oswald. And this portion of Walthers' testimony is one reason why I say that:

"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..."

So, as to WHAT exactly was contained in the boxes/cabinets and WHO exactly was the owner of that material -- I have no idea. Do you?


And since you checked all conspiracy's [sic] of any sort: Ruth has nothing to do with these cabinets! We can go on to the next topic! Life is easy if you want!


"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..." -- Eddy "Buddy" Walthers

Sure sounds like OSWALD'S letter there, doesn't it? And why would Oswald's letter be in Ruth Paine's metal cabinets?

Who do you think the "he" is referring to in this sentence, Ronald?.....

"That's from the people he writes to in Russia."


Thank you LNs for clearing this up. I didn't know much about this. Thank you kooks for trying to make it seem sinister and getting totally destroyed by LNers who spent a few minutes looking into it. I always enjoy when that happens.


There is no question that the cabinets were found at the Paines house, why wouldn't the DPD, FBI and WC make more of an effort to link them to LHO, esp. after LHO was murdered?


That's not a bad question. And I'll admit I don't know the answer to it. But let
me add these observations (FWIW):

Along similar lines to what Vern Saylor mentioned above, we know that the
Dallas Police, on either November 22 or 23, found among Lee Oswald's possessions "a large box" containing "a great amount of Communist literature" (Jesse Curry's words; see video below).

The reporter's question regarding the "large box" and Chief Curry's answer make it sound as though the large box was recovered from Oswald's room on North Beckley in Oak Cliff, and I suppose that could be correct based on this list of things recovered from LHO's roominghouse. Curry talks about this box of Communist literature during one of his many televised in-the-hallway press gatherings on Saturday, November 23:

Now, since the above video exists and can never be "swept under the rug" (so to speak), it seems fairly obvious that a "large box" of Communist-related material was indeed confiscated that belonged to the DPD's murder suspect Lee Harvey Oswald. But when looking through Chief Curry's Warren Commission testimony, I can't find a single reference to this large box of Communist literature anywhere. And I couldn't find reference to it in Captain Will Fritz' testimony either.

And wouldn't such a "find" be worthy of mentioning, similar in nature to the "find" of the metal file cabinets (if the cabinets had belonged to Oswald, that is)? After all, Chief Curry certainly wasn't shy about revealing that information about the big box of Communist stuff to the anxious press waiting in the DPD corridors the day after the assassination. So Curry and the DPD certainly weren't "covering up" anything in relation to those materials as of 11/23/63. Are we supposed to believe they started "covering up" stuff like that at some later date (after receiving some memo from "high up")?

So there could possibly be a parallel between the "large box" that Curry spoke of and the "metal file cabinets" which were (apparently) never heard from again either. As to why these materials were never discussed again in various officers' Warren Commission testimony, I haven't the foggiest.

But I also found it interesting to note that the word "Cuba" isn't uttered even ONE time during Jesse Curry's lengthy WC session. And the "Fair Play For Cuba Committee" isn't mentioned once either. And there's certainly no "cover-up" with respect to Oswald's known and established involvement with the FPCC. It was common knowledge that Oswald was affiliated with the FPCC, and the Warren Commission certainly didn't try to hide this fact in the finished Warren Report. Just look at how many times the FPCC is mentioned in the WCR (dozens of times). So Oswald's attachment to "red" causes and to pro-Castro organizations like the FPCC is well-documented in the Warren Report itself.

I would, however, like to know where the metal file cabinets went. And is the metal box I mentioned previously (CE125) part of the "six or seven" cabinets/boxes that were seized by the police at the Paine house? And are the five "metal" boxes referred to in Detective Richard Stovall's WC testimony the same as the metal cabinets described by Buddy Walthers? I just do not know. But I do think that at least ONE of those metal file boxes belonged to Lee Oswald, based on the quote I mentioned earlier from Walthers' WC session (where Walthers quotes Michael Paine). Granted, that's just one short blurb in one officer's testimony. But it's a revealing blurb, in my opinion.

Anyway, I thought I'd share the video clip above featuring Curry talking about the "large box" of Communist stuff they found among Oswald's possessions that I can't recall ever being mentioned again. (But I could be wrong about that. Maybe it was mentioned by other police officers in their WC testimony. A more detailed search of the testimony might reveal some answers.)


I found this excerpt from Henry Wade's Warren Commission testimony kind of interesting, so I'm throwing it in as a bonus:

J. LEE RANKIN -- "Did you say anything about whether you had evidence to support such a complaint of a conspiracy?"

HENRY WADE -- "Mr. Rankin, I don't know what evidence we have, we had at that time and actually don't know yet what all the evidence was. I never did see, I was told they had a lot of Fair Play for Cuba propaganda or correspondence on Oswald, and letters from the Communist Party, and it was probably exaggerated to me. I was told this. I have never seen any of that personally. Never saw any of it that night. But whether he was a Communist or whether he wasn't, had nothing to do with solving the problem at hand, the filing of the charge."



Thank you so much for your post. The information you provided is very interesting and telling.


At the end of the day, I am of the opinion that it would have been interesting if LHO had been able to go to trial. Keep in mind, people who were questioned by the WC were never cross examined by defense lawyers. Since

this thread is centered on Ruth Paine, let's use her as the example. I just think she would have been a very interesting witness.


And she was a very interesting witness--on the witness stand at an "adversarial" court proceeding--TWICE, in fact (in 1969 at the Clay Shaw trial and again in 1986 at a mock trial held in London). Ruth wasn't asked anything about any "metal file cabinets" that were confiscated from her house by the police, but her testimony at both of those "trials" is still interesting indeed.

Here's the video [again] of her testimony at the 1986 mock trial, including the questions asked by prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi and cross-examination by defense attorney Gerry Spence:

The best part of Ruth Paine's 1969 testimony at the Shaw farce (er...I mean trial) is mentioned below (culled from my "Ruth Paine" blog site):

On February 22, 1969 (exactly six years to the day after she first met Lee and Marina Oswald), Mrs. Paine testified for the defense at the Clay Shaw trial in New Orleans. During her fairly brief time on the witness stand, the following humorous exchange occurred:

MR. DYMOND -- "Mrs. Paine, if someone else said something and you did anything as a result of something that was said, you may say what you did...but don't say what anyone else told you at that time. As a result of the conversation that you had on that day [on 10/14/63, re LHO's trouble finding a job], did you do anything?"

MRS. PAINE -- "Yes."

MR. DYMOND -- "What did you do?"

MRS. PAINE -- "I telephoned the Texas School Book Depository and asked whether they were employing at this time, whether they did have an opening."

MR. DYMOND -- "To your knowledge, was any appointment made?"

MRS. PAINE -- "Appointment? No. You have got me confused on how to describe what the man said without saying what he said."

[Laughter ensues throughout the courtroom.]

BAILIFF -- "Order! Order!"

MR. DYMOND -- "You can't very well do that."

MR. ALCOCK -- "That is hearsay."

MRS. PAINE -- "I heard him say it."

MR. DYMOND -- "To your knowledge, as a result of your conversation, did Lee Harvey Oswald do anything?"

MRS. PAINE -- "Yes. I understood, well, how can I say this? Can I say I did not get a clear understanding that they were or were not hiring?"

MR. DYMOND -- "Well, let me ask you, as a result of your having this conversation, did Lee Harvey Oswald finally do anything?"

MRS. PAINE -- "He applied the next day..."


Also via Mrs. Paine's testimony at the trial of Clay Shaw:

MR. DYMOND -- "Mrs. Paine, had you ever before seen this Defendant, Mr. Clay Shaw, before today out here at court?"

MRS. PAINE -- "Not before today."

MR. DYMOND -- "Did you ever hear Lee Harvey Oswald mention any of these names: Clay Shaw, Clay Bertrand, or Clem Bertrand?"

MRS. PAINE -- "No, I did not."


...we know he [Lee Oswald] handed out the same flyers found in the cabinets...


Where did Walthers (or anyone) say that there were FPCC leaflets actually found INSIDE the metal file cabinets? I must have missed that proof, because it's sure not included in Decker No. 5323 or Buddy Walthers' WC testimony.

But the very fact that Walthers' report in Decker 5323 talks about the cabinets containing "records that appeared to be names and activities of Cuban sympathizers", plus the quote I'll repeat again below, certainly indicates to me that the cabinets probably contained Oswald's things--not Ruth Paine's.

"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..." -- Buddy Walthers


Yes, it would seem you had "missed that proof". In Buddy Walthers hand written report: "Upon searching this house (Paine's residence) we found stacks of hand bills concerning "CUBA FOR FREEDOM" advertising, seeking publicity and support for Cuba".

You're welcome.


You're wrong, Denis.

You're assuming the Cuba leaflets were found INSIDE the "metal cabinets". But that's not what Walthers wrote in Decker Exhibit 5323. In fact, from the way Walthers' report is written, I'd say the hand bills were definitely NOT found inside the metal file cabinets. Walthers lists the hand bills PRIOR to talking about the file cabinets.

And when we look at a portion of Deputy Buddy Walthers' Warren Commission testimony that I previously quoted above, it can most certainly be confirmed that the Cuba hand bills/leaflets were not found inside any type of "metal file cabinet". They were found in some kind of "barrel", per Walthers' testimony:

WESLEY LIEBELER -- "You mentioned the "Fair Play for Cuba" leaflets that were in a barrel."

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

But let me stress again my belief that the metal cabinets and their contents most likely belonged to Lee Oswald and not to Ruth or Michael Paine.

It would be nice to know precisely WHERE within the Paine house the "metal cabinets" were discovered. That could be important information, particularly if they were found by the police in the garage and near other items that positively were proven to have belonged to Lee and Marina Oswald. Because if these allegedly suspicious metal file cabinets were being stored right next to some of Lee Harvey Oswald's other possessions in Ruth Paine's garage, then I think it's logical to conclude that the metal boxes probably also belonged to Oswald.

Buddy Walthers, in his WC testimony, might have provided a hint as to where the metal cabinets were discovered when he starts talking about the "little metal file cabinets" immediately after talking about the blanket that was found in the Paine garage. And since we know for certain that the blanket was most definitely found in the garage along with other things that also belonged to the Oswalds, well--you get the idea. Also take note of how Deputy Walthers is absolutely certain that the blanket the police found in Mrs. Paine's garage had been used to hold a rifle. Walthers said: "You could tell a rifle had been wrapped up in it."

BUDDY WALTHERS -- "We went into the garage there and found this--I believe it was one of these things like soap comes in, a big pasteboard barrel and it had a lot of these little leaflets in it, "Freedom for Cuba" and they were gold color with black printing on them, and we found those and we also found a gray blanket with some red trim on it that had a string tied at one end that you could see the imprint of a gun, I mean where it had been wrapped in it."

WESLEY LIEBELER -- "You could really see the imprint of the gun?"

MR. WALTHERS -- "You could see where it had been--it wasn't completely untied--one end had been untied and the other end had been left tied, that would be around the barrel and you could see where the gun had rested on the inside of it."

MR. LIEBELER -- "You mean by that, you could tell that from the way the thing had been tied?"

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."


It certainly wouldn't be for the first time and almost certainly not the last [that I'm wrong about something], no matter, my point was that the contents of the cabinets belonged to Oswald and if we have FPCC hand bills in the same house, this just backs that up.


I agree. Especially if that "barrel" with the leaflets was sitting right next to (or very near) those file cabinets in Ruth's garage. Proximity just might be important here.


If the metal file cabinets did not belong to a Paine then why did the Warren Commission fail to place the evidence into an exhibit to further paint Oswald as red?


Beats me.

But, as I discussed earlier, the very same question can be asked when talking about that "large box" of Communist material that Chief Curry mentions during this hallway news conference on 11/23/63.

And we know for a fact that that "large box" of stuff belonged to Oswald. It didn't belong to Ruth Paine. So what about that stuff, Herbert? Did the Warren Commission utilize every book and magazine and whatever else was in that big box to paint Oswald as "red"?


You can try all you want to excuse Ruth regarding the divorce papers by saying that it was what had to be written to secure a divorce, or the lawyer wrote it, not her, or whatever other lame excuse you have. The fact is that SHE signed a legal document saying that what it contained by way of statements were all true and correct. It is also Ruth who insists her religion forbids her to lie.

So we are left with this: either she DID lie on this matter OR the mild mannered Mike was a cowardly and cruel man behind closed doors. I don't know which of those is true. I only know that one of them HAS to be true.

Regarding Ruth's knowledge of where Oswald worked -- click here.


Ruth Paine answered your concerns already, Greg....in this WC testimony [emphasis mine] ---

"I had seen a sign on a building as I went along one of the limited access highways that leads into Dallas, saying 'Texas School Book Depository Warehouse' and there was the only building that had registered on my consciousness as being Texas School Book Depository. I was not aware, hadn't taken in the idea of there being two buildings and that there was one on Elm, though I copied the address from the telephone book, and could well have made that notation in my mind, but I didn't."

[End Ruth Paine Quote.]

I wonder why so many Internet conspiracy theorists are so willing (and eager) to try and convict Mrs. Ruth Paine of some crime, based on the flimsiest of evidence that wouldn't even pass the laugh test in any courtroom in America? ~shrug~


Why then did she tell the cops she was expecting them? Do you think she was like some sort of absent-minded professor?

I am not trying to convict her of anything. Not my job. I'm trying to untangle her statements which are contradictory. Like - I wrote down one address but thought he worked in the other. Like, I can't tell a lie versus I only said my husband treated me cruelly so I could get a divorce.

But these things pale compared to the other matters I have to ask her about. I'm sure she'll have her usual non-contradictory, straightforward answers and we can all sleep well again at night. ~wink~


I sleep just fine now, Mr. Parker. It's only you conspiracy nuts who lay awake at night trying to think up reasons to call people liars and patsy-framers. A strange hobby, to be sure.


Regarding why she [Ruth Paine] told the police she was "expecting them" -- here is where that comes from:

Mr. ROSE. We walked up to the house, me and Stovall and one of the county officers, and I could hear the TV was playing, and I could see the door was standing open--the front door was--and I could see two people sitting inside the living room on the couch, and just as soon as we walked up on the porch, Ruth Paine came to the door. She apparently recognized us--she said, "I've been expecting you all," and we identified ourselves, and she said, "Well, I've been expecting you to come out. Come right on in."

Mr. BALL. Did she say why she had been expecting you?

Mr. ROSE. She said, "Just as soon as I heard where the shooting happened. I knew there would be someone out."

[End WC Quotes.]

Now, it makes PERFECT sense for her to say that - why? Because it was approximately 3 hours after the assassination. Everybody and their mother knew Oswald was in custody.


That testimony of Gus Rose is totally different from Ruth Paine's account. Obviously, somebody's not remembering something correctly here ----

RUTH PAINE SAID -- "I said nothing. I think I just dropped my jaw. And the man in front said by way of explanation "We have Lee Oswald in custody. He is charged with shooting an officer." This is the first I had any idea that Lee might be in trouble with the police or in any way involved in the day's events. I asked them to come in. They said they wanted to search the house."

But returning to the Depository confusion for a moment longer....

Ruth could still have been of the mindset that there was only ONE "Texas School Book Depository" Building near downtown Dallas. In fact, as I pointed out previously, she DID testify to that very fact.

Now, yes, she seemed to think the only TSBD Building was the "Warehouse", which was not the 411 Elm St. building, but I see nothing suspicious or phony at all in Ruth's statements regarding this matter.

At that time (on 11/22/63 and in the weeks prior to that date), she just simply had not been aware that TWO Depository buildings were in existence in Dallas. And when she heard that the shots had come from a building called the "TSBD", she immediately thought of that as LHO's workplace, because she was only aware at that time that ONE such building by that name existed in Dallas.

So the conspiracists who continue to harp on this aspect of Ruth Paine's testimony only end up looking foolish and silly. And, frankly, they look DESPERATE to hang the label of "liar" and/or "conspirator" around the neck of Mrs. Ruth Hyde Paine. And IMO, such behavior is deplorable.


Chris, you need to get your story straightened out by David before posting.

Tell me David, how do you remember someone saying "I've been expecting you?" if they claim they said nothing - just stood with a dropped jaw?

That's not a mere misremembering, That is either pure fiction for no discernible purpose or benefit that I can think of - or it's the truth.

You're in a tough spot, I know. You refuse to call Ruth a liar - yet you know the consequences of calling the police liars. Your solution that someone was "misremembering" is nonsensical for the reasons outlined.


When comparing Ruth Paine's official Warren Commission testimony with the testimony of Dallas Detective Gus (Guy) Rose, the above contraditions will undoubtedly make some conspiracy theorists do handsprings.

But an inconsistent statement or two is far from being the kind of evidence which would prove that Ruth Paine was some kind of evil plotter who helped frame Lee Oswald for JFK's murder. But for certain CTers, I imagine it's more than enough proof.


So you have no answer - just more apologist bullshit. Your conclusion then is that Rose was having auditory hallucinations? Must have been those magic mushrooms he had for lunch, eh?

Or maybe you're saying Ruth DID say it, but hey...what's one or two inconsistent statements about knowing or not knowing where the accused worked? Relax, we're all friends here, right... and you can't hang someone for a few little white lies fer chrissakes.


Greg, one of those persons is certainly not remembering the encounter accurately. Either Ruth or Detective Rose is wrong about some of the details. Simple as that.

But regardless of which of the two has it correct, it doesn't change the "big picture" regarding Ruth Paine. But this is just the type of silly chaff that CTers look for (and hunger for) in their desire to insert the words "something's fishy" into the discussion of the JFK case.

Conspiracists will say I'm just ignoring the obvious. But I say a non-fishy explanation is most certainly within reach of any sensible person who isn't prone to diving off the deep end of the conspiracy pool whenever they run into something that doesn't quite add up perfectly.


My point, David, is that a police officer is trained to recall statements made while they are investigating crimes. It is therefore highly unlikely he "imagined" or "misremembered" what she said.

Your problem is the same as that which dogs your LN brethren - that is that you very conveniently forget just how many times, in how many different areas of the case, you have to [believe? think?] this is just a minor incident - no big deal - it proves nothing.

It's like having a friend with Alzheimer's. To them, you are a brand new friend every single day because every morning, they have forgotten they already knew you. You do the same with physical evidence. You want to isolate every single piece of evidence so you can pull the same stunt. One little problem with one little piece of evidence proves nothing. You fear having "the big picture" looked at. Because all those little things that "mean nothing" on their own are suddenly a mountain when stacked together.


Greg Parker is blowing this Ruth Paine thing way up out of all tolerable proportions.

But, hey, what's new? I'm talking to an Internet conspiracy theorist here. So I should expect nothing less than mountains being produced from tiny little anthills.


David, the old saying is that you can't make a mountain out of a molehill. That is true. But it's also talking about a single molehill. Precisely why you want to keep each problem separate. Because INDIVIDUALLY they cannot make a mountain - but put together - THEY MOST CERTAINLY CAN.



David Von Pein
April 2013
July 2013
February 2014
September 2014