An unjust accusation: Ruth Paine and the TSBD job of Oswald by Greg Doudna at the Ed Forum

[greg_parkerAdmin]

In the Max Good film, "The Assassination & Mrs. Paine", Vince Salandria is filmed saying the following, which represents a more or less bedrock belief in some circles underlying why Ruth Paine has come under such severity of abuse. Here is Salandria, then I will give my comment. I invite reflection on my comment and thoughtful reaction. 

Vince Salandria: If you wanted to have a conspiracy, you've got to complete the circle. In this case you've got to get the Oswalds into the Dallas area. You've got to get Oswald into the Texas Book Depository in time. People with a garage where the so-called murder weapon can be stored. Suppose its a conspiracy that says we'll just wait, somebody will get Oswald and his family into Dallas, we'll just wait--maybe he'll happen to find a job in the Texas Book Depository. Once you see a conspiracy, its over for the Paines! You can't close the circle without the Paines! There's no way they can be innocent! No way!

My response. It is a mystery why conspiracy researchers have focused on Ruth Paine, who had no capability to deliver a job for Lee at the Texas School Book Depository, as the means by which a criminal conspiracy to assassinate President Kennedy would accomplish placement of Oswald at that location, when a family member of the Dixie Mafia from south Texas—among the worst of gangland killers and in working relationship with the Marcello crime organization headquartered in New Orleans—found employment in the Texas School Book Depository a month earlier and then successfully recommended to his boss that Lee Oswald be hired as a fellow-worker, the day after his sister got word to Lee that Lee could apply there.

Here is how Oswald got his job.
https://gregrparker.com/3615-2/


Your theory about the Dixie Mafia is not supported by any facts.

Most notably according to Wiki, the Dixie Mafia never existed until the late 1960s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixie_Mafia

"Beginning in the late 1960s, the Dixie Mafia began working as a loosely knit group of traveling criminals performing residential   burglary, robbery, and theft."

Sara Peterson and K.W. Zachry, Lone Star Speaks (2020), pp. 179, 185: 

"Frazier shared memories of Oswald with the authors on three different occasions (. . .) Frazier's stepfather was not the only frightening individual in the young man's life. He also knew 'Pete' Kay, who was, along with his father, an important figure in the Dixie Mafia. According to Frazier, they offered him the chance to become a member of the 'family.' By then, Frazier had already met one group member, a man so heartless that locking eyes with him made his blood run cold. Frazier identified this man as Charles Harrelson; others who knew Harrelson also commented on how coldly he could stare down someone. Frazier decided to take his sister's advice and not take up the offer. They both thought he would be much safer in Dallas!"

You also make a mountain out of a  molehill by accepting the claim that Wes knowing Pete Kay in Hunstville is in any way meaningful. In 1960, Hunstville had a population of 12,000. Everyone would have known everyone.

And that same crap book that says David Williams was in the Dixie Mafia and was just as famous as Pete Kay, isn't worth the spit that holds the spine together. 

There are a number of references to Pete Kay on the web linking him to the Dixie Mafia. I could not find a single one referencing anyone named David Williams being a member.

The name Dixie Mafia itself was a media invention applied to any two-bit thug south of the delta.  Sure helped sell papers. 

Greg's full defense opening statement:
https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/27730-an-unjust-accusation-ruth-paine-and-the-tsbd-job-of-oswald/

[Vinny]

Doudna is the new Paul Trejo. Defend Paine at all costs regardless of the evidence.

[JFK_Case]

I'm not adding much here but want to say it anyway. There's just too much coincidence with these Paine people. She always seems to be around at the right place at the right time. She does the job thing for Lee; she decides to type up that letter that Lee supposedly handwrote; she threw out the leftist papers that he supposedly held up when the [fake] BYP were taken; she's driving around Marina to NO and back; she told fibs while under oath for the WC. And so on.

I know coincidences can and do happen. For example, 50 years ago I used to play with this girl in the neighborhood. She stayed and I moved away and about 10 years later, I went to this boarding school in another state. A year later, we got a new teacher in and several years later, this teacher ends up marrying that neighborhood girl's brother.

But there are too many occurrences with Paine and the Oswalds for it to be mere happenstance.

[Vinny]

[JFK_FNG]

I don’t think that Paine was wittingly involved in the assassination or anything, but I don’t think she told anything remotely close to the “whole truth” to the Warren Commission either. Many of her statements read to me as deliberately evasive, like non denial denials, and I have trouble writing off every instance of questionable behavior and shifty testimony as mere coincidence. Her testimony is jam packed with ambiguous non-recollections of key events, like her interactions with Marina in April '63, and I find it hard to believe her memory was that selective. 

For two more examples, her weird testimony about when Oswald's regular mail began arriving at her home as her "judgement" or a "rationalization", and her explanation of "why not?" (and subsequent change of story) for why she destroyed subversive papers after the assassination does not reflect someone committed to telling the "whole truth", in my opinion. 

My biggest issue with some of Greg D.’s very well written defense briefs is that circumstantial evidence against Paine is summarily rejected while circumstantial evidence of the exact same or lesser quality is used to exonerate her of any wrongdoing. For example, compare Greg’s post on the TSBD job to the analysis at the end of the Manning essay. Buell Frazier clearly had trouble keeping his story straight; and one version of that story, that’s just as (if not more) likely to be true as the other, suggests that Paine may have lied to the Warren Commission about her role in getting Oswald the TSBD job. Manning points out Frazier’s contradictions, but Greg only quotes from Frazier’s book, which tells a version of the story that looks the best for Paine.

Another example is the thread about the metal boxes on the Ed forum that was just bumped. Ron Bulman gave a perfectly plausible reason to be suspicious that the boxes containing Cuban material belonged to the Paines, and the evidence used by Greg to challenge that notion is of no better quality or credibility. Either possibility could be true, and there is not enough evidence to fully accept one scenario over the other. Despite this ambiguity, Greg would not consider the possibility that Ron was correct. 

I think having someone defending persons of interest like Paine can be good for research, since more facts and better articulated information tend to come out in a discussion at least somewhat resembling an adversarial proceeding instead of an echo chamber. That said, I think that rejecting all of the circumstantial evidence against Paine and defending her with the exact same type of evidence is not the best approach to evaluating a witness. I think you have to at least attempt to apply a consistent standard to this sort of thing, present both sides of an argument, and look for patterns with as little bias as possible. In my opinion, an 'objective' reading of evidence suggests that Paine withheld information from the Warren Commission. I would not go farther than that, and I'm just as biased as anyone else, but I think the evidence supports that Paine was a much more complex character than just a charitable housewife. /rant

[Ed.Ledoux]

Is it beyond a reasonable doubt Ruth and Michael were involved?
Yes.
Is it beyond a reasonable doubt Ruth kept files and did so later as well?
YES!!
Circumstantial case for Ruth being directly involved in maneuvering Oswald/Marina?
YES YES YES!!!

The scales of truth, due to Ruth's actions and the evidence presented since 1963, tip and not in Ruth's direction.

As a juror that's my decision.

[Vinny]

At the very least Ruth knows more than she is telling.

[JFK_Case]

The two kickers for me are how she typed up that letter that LHO supposedly wrote. How many god-fearing, blessed-at-heart neighbors would do this? And throwing away the papers that Oswald supposedly posed with for the fake BYP.

[JFK_FNG]

Is it beyond a reasonable doubt Ruth and Michael were involved?
Yes.
Is it beyond a reasonable doubt Ruth kept files and did so later as well?
YES!!
Circumstantial case for Ruth being directly involved in maneuvering Oswald/Marina?
YES YES YES!!!

The scales of truth, due to Ruth's actions and the evidence presented since 1963, tip and not in Ruth's direction.

As a juror that's my decision.

I do absolutely think there is a circumstantial case for Ruth being directly involved in maneuvering Oswald/Marina, and I think it’s basically irrefutable that she withheld information from the Warren Commission.

To throw in an example from my mail research - Marina filled out a change of address form at the Dallas Post Office on 5/10/63, forwarding her (and Oswald’s) mail from Box 2915 to Paine’s house. 5/10/63 is the exact same day Ruth drove Marina to New Orleans. How the hell do you think Marina got from Irving to Ervay St.? Paine was asked by the WC if any mail for Marina arrived at her home while she was living there, but she failed to mention this visit to the Post Office and giving Marina permission to forward mail to her home before going to New Orleans. She also failed to mention that Marina had been receiving mail at the P.O. Box for that entire 15-day period. All Paine said was that “we accelerated our preparations and left midday on the 10th”…What “preparations” do you think they were up to that morning? A trip into the city perhaps? Absofuckinglutely.

The government went through a hell of a lot of effort to cover up that May 10th change of address, and though it’s the Commission’s fault for asking shitty questions, Paine definitely took Marina to the Post Office that day, and played along with the cover-up. She probably helped Marina fill out the form, and certainly knew about the P.O. Box since Marina was receiving mail there while Oswald was in New Orleans.

You could argue that Paine wasn’t asked direct enough questions, and that she answered truthfully to what she was asked, but I don’t buy that for a second. She was supposed to tell the “whole truth” and share her recollections, and did nothing of the sort.

Of course, another form was filled out at the Post Office on March 12th while Oswald was at work, and Ruth was hanging out with Marina. Could that have been the first trip from Irving to Ervay St.?

It’s infuriating that the WC never asked Marina a single question about P.O. Box 2915, despite Harry Holmes’ report saying that Oswald lent her one of the keys on occasion. How do you think Marina got to the Post Office? Did she walk the 7-mile round trip every time?

[JFK_FNG]

I know this is a bit off topic for this thread, but I think it’s good to share examples of why there is legitimate reason to be suspicious of Paine. I think what Greg D. is doing is actually helpful and facilitates a more balanced discussion, but I do not agree with his interpretation of a lot of the evidence, and think that other possibilities deserve a lot more consideration than he gives them.

A popular argument at the Ed forum is that since Paine didn’t link the rifle to Oswald, she wasn’t hellbent on incriminating him. Greg P. has done some great research on the mechanics of a frame-up, and a key aspect of that is building a scenario that is as close to the truth as possible. The government surely didn’t need Paine to link Oswald to the rifle, so I don’t think this argument holds much weight. Another interpretation, if we assume Paine’s aim was to be as truthful as possible, is that she knew of a rifle in her garage, but knew it wasn’t Oswald’s. Maybe she knew Oswald never transported it to New Orleans and back because it was in her garage the whole time. Maybe she knew there was never any rifle at all. Sure this is speculative, but it’s no less valid than other, more flattering speculations about Paine’s motivations. Paine’s answer to the WC was another non-denial:

Representative BOGGS - Did you see the rifle that he had in the room in your home?
Mrs. PAINE - In the garage, no.
Representative BOGGS - In the garage, you never saw one?
Mrs. PAINE - I never saw that rifle at all until the police showed it to me in the station on the 22d of November.

It leaves open the possibility she saw a different rifle, saw the original packaging, saw a rifle in a different room, or just saw the rifle disassembled, etc. She also could have known about it but didn’t see it herself. When she was finally asked a slightly more open-ended question about there being a gun in her house at the Clay Shaw trial, she gave another non-denial denial, and only said she hadn’t seen one:

Q: Did you ever see any guns stored on your premises?
A: No, nor would I have wanted it there had I known. We had very young children, I wouldn't have wanted a gun on the premises at all.

Her choice of words leaves open the possibility that she DID know there was a gun in her house, but never saw it directly, or assembled, etc.

Sure you could call this selective parsing of testimony a bunch of crap, but the point is that Paine never denied under oath that she knew there was a rifle in her house. The kind of stuff used to defend Paine is often the same type of analysis, relying on evidence that can be interpreted in several different ways, but whatever looks best for Paine gets presented as more credible than any alternative. I don’t agree with that. I’ve said this before regarding the mail destruction, but I think that there’s enough sketchy evidence with Paine that a hostile cross-examination and a polygraph would be more than justified. It’s unconscionable that the Paines were never called before the HSCA or ARRB, and hopefully someone gets the opportunity to ask Paine some legitimately tough specific questions before it’s too late.

[Ed.Ledoux]

I agree Tom.
GD has made his attempt to rehabilitate his client.
His minimizing every instance of Ruth and Michael is doing the opposite.
Ruth n Mike are guilty of what one should expect from the Quakerish Paines cya.
Doudna by making them saints actually revealed more about Ruth and Michael.
Ruth's hate for Lee became more exposed than ever.
Lists of reasons and instances of her and Michaels deception and a few bold outright lies.
The Salandria's of the world see who and what the Paines are.
Doudna see's what might have been through Rose flavored lenses.
Easy to do with the Paines and Federal governments help.
Effective?
Not in the slightest.

Oh whoa is me... Ruth has been victimized by those whom prove her guilt.
That's called justice.
Ed

[greg_parkerAdmin]

I know this is a bit off topic for this thread, but I think it’s good to share examples of why there is legitimate reason to be suspicious of Paine.  I think what Greg D. is doing is actually helpful and facilitates a more balanced discussion, but I do not agree with his interpretation of a lot of the evidence, and think that other possibilities deserve a lot more consideration than he gives them.

A popular argument at the Ed forum is that since Paine didn’t link the rifle to Oswald, she wasn’t hellbent on incriminating him. Greg P. has done some great research on the mechanics of a frame-up, and a key aspect of that is building a scenario that is as close to the truth as possible. The government surely didn’t need Paine to link Oswald to the rifle, so I don’t think this argument holds much weight. Another interpretation, if we assume Paine’s aim was to be as truthful as possible, is that she knew of a rifle in her garage, but knew it wasn’t Oswald’s. Maybe she knew Oswald never transported it to New Orleans and back because it was in her garage the whole time. Maybe she knew there was never any rifle at all. Sure this is speculative, but it’s no less valid than other, more flattering speculations about Paine’s motivations. Paine’s answer to the WC was another non-denial:

Representative BOGGS - Did you see the rifle that he had in the room in your home?
Mrs. PAINE - In the garage, no.
Representative BOGGS - In the garage, you never saw one?
Mrs. PAINE - I never saw that rifle at all until the police showed it to me in the station on the 22d of November.

It leaves open the possibility she saw a different rifle, saw the original packaging, saw a rifle in a different room, or just saw the rifle disassembled, etc. She also could have known about it but didn’t see it herself. When she was finally asked a slightly more open-ended question about there being a gun in her house at the Clay Shaw trial, she gave another non-denial denial, and only said she hadn’t seen one:

Q: Did you ever see any guns stored on your premises?
A: No, nor would I have wanted it there had I known. We had very young children, I wouldn't have wanted a gun on the premises at all.

Her choice of words leaves open the possibility that she DID know there was a gun in her house, but never saw it directly, or assembled, etc.

Sure you could call this selective parsing of testimony a bunch of crap, but the point is that Paine never denied under oath that she knew there was a rifle in her house. The kind of stuff used to defend Paine is often the same type of analysis, relying on evidence that can be interpreted in several different ways, but whatever looks best for Paine gets presented as more credible than any alternative. I don’t agree with that. I’ve said this before regarding the mail destruction, but I think that there’s enough sketchy evidence with Paine that a hostile cross-examination and a polygraph would be more than justified. It’s unconscionable that the Paines were never called before the HSCA or ARRB, and hopefully someone gets the opportunity to ask Paine some legitimately tough specific questions before it’s too late.

As a rule of thumb, debating those who hold different views can indeed be helpful. It is one reason I sometimes hold my breath and dive into the google group swamp. 

But as for Greg, I give him credit so far for being right on a single issue - Marina confused the initals ACLU and CIA. 

I am ambivalent about one other (the Pronica debate). 

The rest are sometimes comical in the stretches taken to "exonerate" Ruth. 

I might also add he is right on one other matter. She had no responsibility to help acquire legal assistance for him. 

But as a quaker and ACLU member, that is an astonishing position to take, even if she thought he was guilty.  Maybe ESPECIALLY if she thought he was guilty. Quakers and ACLU members understand - or should - that everyone deserves a proper defense in court. If you cannot provide that for the very worst offenders, you can't guarantee it for anyone. 

The failure on her part to provide that assistance when asked, goes against every quaker and ACLU principle and speaks directly to her true nature, if not her true motives.

[JFK_FNG]

As a rule of thumb, debating those who hold different views can indeed be helpful. It is one reason I sometimes hold my breath and dive into the google group swamp. 

But as for Greg, I give him credit so far for being right on a single issue - Marina confused the initals ACLU and CIA. 

I am ambivalent about one other (the Pronica debate). 

The rest are sometimes comical in the stretches taken to "exonerate" Ruth. 

I might also add he is right on one other matter. She had no responsibility to help acquire legal assistance for him. 

But as a quaker and ACLU member, that is an astonishing position to take, even if she thought he was guilty.  Maybe ESPECIALLY if she thought he was guilty. Quakers and ACLU members understand - or should - that everyone deserves a proper defense in court. If you cannot provide that for the very worst offenders, you can't guarantee it for anyone. 

The failure on her part to provide that assistance when asked, goes against every quaker and ACLU principle and speaks directly to her true nature, if not her true motives.

Gary Spence’s cross of Ruth at the HBO mock trial was painfully vague and inadequate, but he did do a pretty good job at exposing her disdain for Oswald. How Ruth tried to deny her own statement that Oswald seemed “presumptuous of his own innocence”  was telling, and showed that she had convicted him in her own mind before he could be given any due process. She thought it crazy that Oswald could ask her to get him a lawyer “at that point”…the point when any accused person needs a lawyer.

Just to add on to my questionable analysis of Paine’s testimony about there being a gun in her house, when Spence asked her a yes or no question if she ever knew there was a gun in her house, she looked up briefly and said “I never saw one, that’s true”. That’s a pretty sketchy answer in light of her WC and Shaw trial testimony in my opinion. Spence’s next question was “you don’t know if Lee Oswald or anyone else took a gun from that house, do you?" Paine replied with “Not from my own observation, no”. She didn’t answer either question, which were both about what she knew, not what she saw.

I’m not sure what has convinced Greg D. beyond any reasonable doubt that Paine could not have done anything wrong. I wouldn’t think that casual interactions with a witness decades after the fact would really be enough to counteract the entire evidentiary record. I suppose she came across as very genuine and convincing, but I doubt Greg has had the opportunity to really interrogate her. I hesitate to pass judgment on Paine, since for all we know she could have been leveraged in some way, but I think that the evidence more than justifies the kind of scrutiny she gets. I don’t agree with Greg that such scrutiny equates to “smearing” her at all, as long as it sticks to the evidence; and until she goes on the record and confronts the issues herself she’s basically inviting all the criticism. She has said multiple times that it is important for history that people get a “full” picture of who Oswald was as a person, so you’d think she’d apply the same standard to herself and be open to doing a long, detailed interview where she addresses the concerns of the research community. I’m looking forward to the Max Good film (if anyone knows where to watch it let me know) but it doesn’t seem like Good really knew how to question her. For the sake of history, I really hope someone gets a chance to do that at some point.

[Mick_Purdy]

My two pence worth. The Mock trial was a staged TV theatrical event - I realise you all know that - I'm stating the bleeding obvious but it annoys me when it's used in any sentence regarding people who were involved in the case and what they had to say. I have no idea if people were paid to appear by the Network who hosted the farce but if they were it certainly undermines the intent of the program in the first place. Anyhow that's just my thoughts - but who am I - I think I've used the stupid thing to make a point in the past. lol.

I think people who have embedded themselves with the participants of the case have to excuse themselves from these types of discussions IMO. They cannot remain impartial. Greg D is such a person - no matter how honest or transparent they think they are - they have become completely biased. The flip side of that is as some here have said before - sometimes these people do contribute valuable information which helps paint a more accurate picture of people like Ruth Paine.

Ruth Paine IMO doesn't come close to passing the pub test. There's something NQR. Hosty's 2 visits to the house and the dodgy phone numbers in the little black note book come to mind. 

There is absolutely no chance that anyone who has looked at this case honestly would suggest that Ruth Paine had no involvement in the framing of Lee Oswald beyond any reasonable doubt.

[Ed.Ledoux]

Doudna asks us for what Ruth herself wouldn't .... reasonable doubt.

If I were Doudna I'd be ashamed.
I/we haven't come to a conclusion of Ruth's guilt overnight or immediately.
Quite the contrary.
No, that's a charge I have taken 50 years to level and have the goods to bring charges.
Doudna supports Ruth's charges against Lee though, and her direct implications of Lee, even though Ruth's hand is directly involved in them.

Doudna loves magicians but can't figure out their tricks...hence the admiration.

Sorry but I've peeked behind the curtain and saw the levers for the trap door used on Lee.
Doudna's prestigious beliefs of the Paines pains me personally.
Lies liars damned lies lying then there was Ruth.

[greg_parkerAdmin]

My two pence worth. The Mock trial was a staged TV theatrical event - I realise you all know that - I'm stating the bleeding obvious but it annoys me when it's used in any sentence regarding people who were involved in the case and what they had to say. I have no idea if people were paid to appear by the Network who hosted the farce but if they were it certainly undermines the intent of the program in the first place. Anyhow that's just my thoughts - but who am I - I think I've used the stupid thing to make a point in the past. lol.

Can I just try and clarify here?

Are you saying that your experience in the industry tells you that this mock trial was not without some staging and direction?  Obviously editing could have a real impact on pereception as well?

A bit like reality TV not being as "real" or as spontaneous as the producers claim, due to massaging situations, suggesting, directing and whatever else?

[Jake_Sykes]

As far as the mock trial, for virtually every participant there was a simple decision to be made going into it: Do I stay in the lane the WCR placed me in and let this thing expire quietly or do I jump the guard rails in the name of truth and spend the rest of my days defending myself against an onslaught of inevitable attacks upon my credibility along with the possibility of physical harm? The answer is the reason why a mock trial was ever allowed to go forward in the first place.

[JFK_FNG]

The HBO “trial” example was based on Ruth’s supposed religious duty to not lie, at least technically, however dubious that assumption may be in this case. It’s not like Ruth needed any convincing to tow the WC line, and she failed to answer direct questions  in the same way she did when she was actually under oath. I think that’s interesting even if it was just a TV show.

[JFK_FNG]

Another thing, and this might be deserving of its own thread, is that it is now being claimed that only tax records are being withheld on the Paines. What Greg D. fails to mention is that there are records officially listed as "open in full" that have been almost completely expurgated. I'll have to verify this but I'm almost positive there is a Hosty report on Ruth Paine from Dec. '63 that only exists as a cover sheet. It was mentioned in Black Op Radio episode 860 from 2017, but I don't remember seeing the RIF sheet myself. 

A quick search of the Malcolm Blunt Archive shows several records Blunt uncovered on the Paines that are missing pages. Hell, some of the records in the NARA spreadsheets that are listed as "open in full" are anything but. The following record shows in the spreadsheets that it was released in full on 6/14/93. Well, it appears that Malcolm Blunt checked on this, and the report sure as hell was not released in 1993:

Open in Full

Release

6/14/93

Box 113.

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION

OSWALD, LEE, POST RUSSIAN PERIOD, ASSOCIATES AND RELATIVES

OSWALD, MARINA, ASSOCIATES AND RELATIVES

PAINE, MICHAEL, INTERVIEWS

PAINE, RUTH, ASSOCIATES AND RELATIVES

STEVENSON, ADLAI

This was about thirty seconds of work, and I'm sure several others here who have looked for specific records have found that despite what NARA says, the records do not exist. According to the Blunt Archive, even a collection of photographs of Ruth Paine's 62-page address book only exists in NARA as a 37-page document. 

I could be wrong on this, but it sure doesn't seem to me like tax records are the only records being withheld on the Paines.

EDIT: I think I found the Hosty report referenced on BOR. I think what's sketchy about it is that the record appears to be a cover sheet to CD 208, the 12/11/63 Hosty report - which is 16 pages long in the version available. However, the 2017 record release says it is supposed to be 36 pages long, but only 5 pages of cover sheet info were released:

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=192725#relPageId=1

If you go to RIF view on MFF, you'll see that the official status of the record is "release with deletions" with an opening criteria of "indefinite". Well, 31 pages is a shit load of deletions, even if 16 of those have been released elsewhere. I wonder if it's an earlier draft of CD 208 which was later sanitized. Either way, that's one example of a non-tax record on Paine that is still being withheld.

EDIT2: After looking at it, I'm pretty sure the missing Hosty report pages consist of two different copies of CD 208 that were sent to the Philadelphia Field Office. There are two copies of 2-page cover sheets in the record, and you add in two 16 page reports that gives 36 pages. The full reports are a part of that RIF number though, and there is no reason they should be withheld if they are just identical copies of CD 208. Another thing is that I don't even think the cover sheet is complete. If you look at the "Leads" section, all it says is "Cincinnati: At Yellow Springs, Ohio"...the sheet should set forth a lead for the Cincinnati Field Office to follow, but the next page just jumps into mentioning the Hosty pretext interview of of 10/29/63 with Ruth Paine. It could all be nothing, but it's still an incomplete non-tax record on Paine. I'll flip through the NARA spreadsheets when I get the chance and try to track down the Bureau, Dallas, and Cincinnati copies of the cover sheet/report.

[Mick_Purdy]

My two pence worth. The Mock trial was a staged TV theatrical event - I realise you all know that - I'm stating the bleeding obvious but it annoys me when it's used in any sentence regarding people who were involved in the case and what they had to say. I have no idea if people were paid to appear by the Network who hosted the farce but if they were it certainly undermines the intent of the program in the first place. Anyhow that's just my thoughts - but who am I - I think I've used the stupid thing to make a point in the past. lol.

Can I just try and clarify here?

Are you saying that your experience in the industry tells you that this mock trial was not without some staging and direction?  Obviously editing could have a real impact on pereception as well?

A bit like reality TV not being as "real" or as spontaneous as the producers claim, due to massaging situations, suggesting, directing and whatever else?

I ma saying that precisely. How could it not be influenced by it's stake holders? I find it amusing it's often referred to by researchers -  and yes I'm guilty of using it as a reference as well in the past. But it was made for television, that in and of itself should provide the clues to how serious we should take anything that was said. As near as I can tell there were no ramifications for the contributors if they lied or changed their stories from previous statements. It was a Theatrical release, with all the trimmings - hair and make - up - lighting. cameras etc. There absolutely would have been directors and producers involved. I'll have a look further into it. But from my experience truth and the Telly don't often mix.

[Vinny]

[Vinny]

He seems obsessed with defending Ruth Paine.

[lanceman]

Biographies of director Chris Paine go out of their way to avoid mentioning he is the son of Ruth Paine. I was starting to doubt the hosts of the video Vinny presented. Then I saw the Wikipedia bio of Michael Paine which mentions in passing Chris being born in 1961 but makes no mention of Chris being a film director. If it is noteworthy, Wikipedia bios will also indicate the occupations of the subject’s immediate relatives.

If I believed the Lone Nut scenario, I’d have to suspect a homosexual aspect to the case specifically, the Ruth-Marina relationship and the Walker shooting.

The discovery of methamphetamines in the garage was news to me. Is there any confirmation of this? I had wondered if drug use would explain Oswald being calm in the aftermath of the assassination, offering his taxi and then shooting Tippit and his behavior in the theater [that is, according to the WC narrative]. If true, why was this suppressed by the police and WC? Also might explain Dulles’s inquiry if Tippit had been involved in narcotics and tie into why Tippit supposedly stopped Oswald. Again, if true.

[Sponsored content]