(PART 791)


[Ruth] Paine says: "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."

Out and out lie, she had already told Hosty that Elm was exactly where Oswald worked. Hosty even said they knew the general area it was in at the time but not the exact address.


She looked up the address for Hosty. However she didn't realize (at the time) that it was a different address than the address of the warehouse building that she saw with the name on it. A simple and innocent explanation.


My take on this topic:

Ruth Paine And 411 Elm Street


Congrats, yes Ruth never lies does she? I will give her great credit though, I just watched her 2013 interview and she is a Pro even in old age.


Read my response to Greg Parker's silly nonsense, Jack. Don't just stop at the CT quotes.

A few excerpts [from this DVP webpage].....


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.


There are a lot of things that interest me about Ruth. The I Love you, Marina, and want to live with you in one of her letters is very interesting. Do I think she fancied her? I do. The husband split seemed around the same sort of time that they met the Oswalds.

I would also like to talk to her daughter. The rumour of the daughter not talking with her because of evil things in her past could very well be true. In the 2013 interview they asked a question about how her daughter felt about everything, she looked sad and said I have spoken with my son, but with my daughter, I don't know.

She brushed off some admittedly hand picked questions with professional aplomb. The filing cabinets full of communists, I always thought BS, she had them laughing about it.

Ruth Paine is highly intelligent. But she has slipped up a couple of times at least. She said in this interview that she was surprised when the police first turned up and had no idea Oswald was involved and just thought it about a police officer's murder, whereas in the Warren Commission, she opens the door and says I have been expecting you. There is another Lie. She is Teflon coated though.


Why the Ruth Paine is an angel scenario?


Ruth Paine is dirty.


Ruth stinks.


I don't agree with you about Ruth, but I welcome your argument.


And I provided my argument--in some detail--HERE.

Do you think my arguments are wholly unreasonable and/or irrational?


Question, what CE [Commission Exhibit] number matches the description Hosty stated in...his WC transcript?

There is no CE # of a communication from Hosty that is dated 4 November. Instead, the primary reason Hosty was disciplined by Hoover was because this portion of his testimony was not complimentary of the Bureau. The failure to enter the communication Hosty had described sending to New Orleans and to Washington, DC, dated 4 November was a sign of WC complicity in a cover up of who knew what, when.


Total nonsense, Tom.

Hosty's testimony regarding his November 1st and November 5th visits to the Paine residence to check up on Lee Oswald is fully backed up and corroborated by Ruth Paine. But, naturally, you don't believe anything that came out of her mouth either, do you Tom?

Were James Hosty and Ruth Paine working together as part of a "patsy-framing tag team" or something?


Why not simply admit there is no record of the communication Hosty claimed to the WC was dated 4 November that was sent to New Orleans and to Washington, that the WC listened to him describe, but did not have, and did not assign a CE # to?

Instead, you attempted to twist what I posted around, with the intent to somehow make it about me. The response of Dulles and the lack of an existing CE # indicates, to me, the opposite of your twisted post.

I accept what Hosty described, in that instance. He received the 411 W. Elm address on Friday, the 1st, and dictated it onto a document created and sent on Monday, the 4th. Where is it? Why were the commissioners asking if Hosty had it with him? Where is this key, early alert from Hosty, David?


I have no idea, Tom.

But Hosty is quite clear about what he sent to Washington and New Orleans in that 11/4/63 report. He gives the date, the cities to where it was sent, and the fact it was sent "airmail letter to New Orleans".

Why there is no copy of the transmission Hosty sent, I cannot answer.

But does the lack of the letter have to mean Hosty is a liar? Or that the Warren Commission participated in a cover-up? I think that's a large leap to make.

But, then too, a lot of conspiracy theorists make a whole lot of "large leaps" in the JFK case. Take Ruth Paine, for example. Many CTers are more than willing to send her to the gallows on the flimiest "evidence" imaginable.


David, I appreciate your evenhanded reply.


Do you really copy/paste every discussion about JFK?


Most of the ones that I am personally involved in, yes. (So I can archive them at my websites.)

Sorry if it bothers you.


Please tell me you have a life beyond this case..... if you can, that is.


I can't tell you that, because I don't have a life. Haven't for years.

Sorry if it bothers you.


It doesn't bother me at all. I just think it is very very sad, that's all.


Yes, it is. But we puppets who work at Langley have no choice. Once CIA---always CIA.



That's an extremely paranoid reply, David.


Hint: It was a joke, Martin.


I was only amazed that anybody would go through such length to archive and index most of his conversations about a 50 year old murder.

What would the purpose for that even be?


I like to archive my writings in a place where I know they'll be safe.

Plus, I don't like the idea of taking hours (sometimes) to write an article or an Internet post and then having it virtually vanish from sight overnight (as almost all Internet forum posts do). That is to say, they get buried under a sea of other things in a very short period of time. And who is going to take the time to dig deep into the bowels of a forum's archives for 5-year-old posts or 10-year-old discussions? I sure don't.

What a huge waste of time and energy it would be to continually post in such a fashion, particularly in an Internet world where forums can come and go about as fast as a start-up airline. Take Bob Harris' now-defunct forum, for example, with all of those posts now gone into the dustbin of cyberspace. (And I thought Bob had a pretty good forum, too. Too bad all that work was wiped out when he decided it wasn't worth the effort.)

Ergo, I archive my material on my own site, where I have many articles indexed on the main page for easy access.

Simple as that.


Btw, I don't recall saying anything about the CIA at all.


You didn't. I brought up my dastardly "CIA" connections.

Another hint: It was a joke. (As if you didn't know that.)



Hello DVP,

I have a question and comment. Do you consider debating someone who is unaware of a post or unable to respond challenging?


I think you'll find, Carmine, that most of my online "debates" are against CTers who are, indeed, "aware" of what is being posted for the most part. (I show what the CTer said and then I post what my response was.)

There are times, however, when I see something really stupid being written by a CTer at a website where no personal give-and-take is possible (a non-forum site), and I want to archive the stupid CT comments and then post my response. I did that for years with Jim DiEugenio's delusional statements that I could only see at his CTKA site (which isn't a forum situation, of course).

That was prior to his joining Simkin's forum in 2010. So, if I wanted to respond to the pre-2010 dumb things spouted by Jimbo, I had to copy his quotes into my site and then post my reply after his. But that's just the way it was if I wanted to get in my 2-cents worth. Not every site is a "forum" site where personal and immediate exchanges of thoughts are possible.


Additionally, I have not yet seen you offer the fact that Ruth Paine had immediate family in the CIA. While you may not find that relevant I would contend it is worth mentioning.


Well, let me ask you this, Carmine --- Regardless of how many of Ruth's family members were charter members of the CIA, just how much direct influence do you think Mrs. Ruth Paine actually had over the actions of one Lee H. Oswald in the weeks leading up to the assassination?

And when we eliminate the silly idea that Ruth had anything whatsoever to do with "planting" Oswald in the Book Depository in order to frame him for President Kennedy's murder (which is exactly what many conspiracy theorists firmly believe DID happen in 1963, despite the fact we know that Ruth could not possibly have had any knowledge of the motorcade route through Dealey Plaza at the time she helped Oswald secure his TSBD job in mid-October), then what would be left for Mrs. Paine to do with Lee Oswald in any type of "frame-up" plot?

What "role" did Ruth Paine supposedly play as Oswald's alleged "handler" in October and November of 1963? From the paper-thin arguments I've heard from some CTers over the years, it's never really fully defined as to just what purpose Ruth Paine served in the "Oswald Frame-Up" theory endorsed by conspiracists. Once we remove the "Planted In The Depository" nonsense, what's left?

I'd like to know what Ruth's specific tasks and functions were in October and November of '63 as she supposedly served as Lee Harvey Oswald's "handler"? Because merely being friends and roommates with a person's wife doesn't seem to me to be enough to qualify Mrs. Paine as "handling" or "guiding" Lee Oswald in any manner whatsoever.

And I'd also like to know what MOTIVE Ruth Paine would have had for participating in the evil DOUBLE plot of being part of a conspiracy to assassinate the President AND to frame an innocent man named Lee Harvey Oswald for that murder?

In short, shouldn't a little more EVIDENCE be required before conspiracists feed Ruth Paine to the lions?


Indeed evidence, substantial evidence should be used to judge Mrs. Paine one way or the other. I would just state all the evidence we have should be considered.


But what "evidence" do you have that would even REMOTELY suggest Ruth Paine was part of any kind of plot in November '63? Have you got ANYTHING other than your gut feeling and unsupportable "family connections" to the CIA?


I never claimed she was. I stated she had immediate family connections to the CIA. If any witness had immediate family to any intelligence agency, I would consider that relevant. Since Paine was in close proximity and did offer housing for Marina and her children and allowed Oswald to visit, it is worth review. Perhaps focus on claims that are made and save your presumptions for someone who resembles them.


...let's imagine her sister did not work directly for the CIA...


Let's see you prove that assertion. To date, I've not seen the proof. Post the proof please.

Plus, are ALL "CIA employees" supposed to automatically be looked at as potential bad people? Or is the ENTIRE Central Intelligence Agency supposedly the scum of the Earth in the eyes of conspiracy theorists?

Talk about painting things with a very wide brush.

I also find it quite humorous to see how CTers treat Ruth Paine, whom the CTers have no evidence against whatsoever. They treat her as much more of a criminal than they do Lee Oswald, who is the man who took the life of JFK.

I guess the "Innocent Until Proven Guilty" motto that CTers SAY they live by goes flying out the window when the discussion turns to Mrs. Paine. Because in the minds of many conspiracists, Ruth Paine IS guilty--of something.

Irony at its best.


Ruth's older sister Sylvia's CIA Security File ----> CLICK HERE.

Additionally Sylvia and Ruth's father William Avery Hyde was considered for membership as a covert asset in....the CIA.

I would imagine most people at the CIA are decent professionals doing their best. However, some might be akin to Allen Dulles and suppress relevant evidence to important investigations. I would imagine we should judge on a case by case basis. However, repeated actions can be instructive.


Thanks, Carmine, for the link to Sylvia Hoke's Security File. I've seen and linked to Commission Document 508 before, but I don't recall ever seeing the "Security File" document. So thank you.

Now, can we manage to put Ruth Paine in a plot to kill the President and/or frame Oswald just because her sister worked in some capacity for the CIA?

And from what I've heard, Sylvia was a psychologist. Would that be part of the "Covert Team" who planned assassinations? ~shrug~


Come on Von Pein -- just another CT'er forged note?

Be a man.


Not at all, Mr. Bone. I'm not suggesting that the "Security File" document posted by Mr. Savastano is "forged" at all. But your "six degrees of separation" game that you're playing with Ruth Paine's various family members isn't convincing to me at all that Mrs. Ruth Hyde Paine played any role whatsoever in a plot to murder President Kennedy (or frame Lee Oswald).

And, again, once we remove the notion that ANYONE planted Lee in the TSBD, then where do you go with any type of "handler" theory? What did Ruth DO to advance the plot forward in the weeks prior to November 22nd? Was letting him stay at her house a few nights in October and November supposedly furthering the plot along?

Teaching him to drive? Was that what Ruth's CIA bosses used her for?

Fixing Lee potatoes and corn muffins on weekends? Was that her purpose?

Just WHAT supposedly was Ruth's role?


A question I can't seem to get an answer to:

Why did the Secret Service warn Marina Oswald about--and advised her to break off all contact with--Ruth Paine?

Or did that never happen?



I would say that such an action taken by the Secret Service regarding Marina and Ruth was merely a precaution taken by the SS right after the assassination. In much the same way that Buell Frazier was considered a potential co-conspirator of Oswald's right after the shooting, I would think Ruth Paine would have been looked at in the same fashion by the authorities.

After all, LHO did spend the night before the shooting at Ruth's house....and the assassination weapon was stored in Paine's garage. So the police and SS couldn't have known that Ruth was "clean" until they investigated things more closely. Same with Frazier. He could have been a co-plotter too, for all the cops knew. The police don't work with crystal balls. They can't know immediately who might have aided Oswald and who didn't.

So they might have wanted Marina to not contact Ruth. And for that matter, it might have been a case of keeping two potential "plotters" from comparing notes right after JFK's murder too -- Ruth and Marina. For all the authorities knew, Marina might have played a part in the assassination too. They couldn't have known right away that she didn't.

David Von Pein
September 1-2, 2014 [This forum link is no longer available.]