and now for something completely different...

Tue 27 Sep 2022, 12:31 am

First topic message reminder :

Greg Doudna has started a thread at the 13 Inch Head Hangout he titled The coveralls-wearing customer in Shasteen's barbershop in Irving: was that Oswald or a mistaken identification?

Do I need to ask why Greg has started this thread at a forum where I cannot directly take him to task?

Added to that, the post is an example of a classic Gish Gallop - almost an essential method of arguments from bias, which in Greg's case involves his reflexive defense of Ruth Paine. His problem with Shasteen is this: if he is right and Oswald had his hair cut there, and I am right and his young companion was Ruth's Russian student, Bill Hootkins, then Ruth is clearly a liar - a situation that Greg finds intolerable.

It caused such a storm in Greg's mind when first coming across it that he foolishly tried to claim the young man was Buell Frazier.

This current attempt to circumvent reality involves claiming that it is all just

Greg Starts off by quoting Roy Lewis

“He [Oswald] never wanted to get a haircut. We would tease him about it because hair would be growing down his neck. We told him a week or two before the assassination that we were going to throw him down and cut it ourselves, but he just smiled. But he was a good worker and I don’t remember his getting into arguments with anybody.”

--Roy Lewis, Texas School Book Depository employee, coworker with Oswald (in Sneed, No More Silence, 86)

From Shasteen's testimony

Mr. SHASTEEN. The fact is, he never did want his hair cut--he always wanted it to look like it was about a week old when he cut it and he got a haircut about every 2 weeks,

In other words, Oswald got it cut, but not to look like it had just been cut. He wanted it to look like it was about a week old. Or put another, left a bit longer than most men would.

There is a belief that a certain customer in Shasteen’s barbershop in Irving, Texas, who nearly always wore oversized coveralls, was Oswald, and that a boy who Shasteen said was associated with that customer and had told him, Shasteen, that he was 14 years old, was Ruth Paine’s 15-year old Russian student in Dallas, the future famous actor William Hootkins. Greg Parker originated the argument for the Hootkins identification

The age of the kid and the incorrect claim that he was 14, was addressed in the debate here when I posted

What actually appears to have happened is that Shasteen initially could not recall if the boy said he was 14 or 15 https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1142&relPageId=833
(accorded to Bert Glover, his employee, Shasteen told him the boy was 14 or 15[/url]). By the time of his Warren Commission testimony, he seems to have settled on 14. It was not the only number he got wrong.
https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2295-the-latest-paine-apologist-greg-doudna?highlight=Paine

The reason he settled on 14 was because the FBI settled on 14. Probably because they knew it was wrong.

Greg Parker’s 15-year-old Hootkins is an improvement on the Wesley Frazier idea* in that it reduces the discrepancy in age to only a year,

[*Since the above note is not clear as to whose idea is being discussed regarding Frazier, note that it belongs to Greg D and mot me.]

No. It does not "reduce" anything. What Shasteen told Burt Glover was correct. The boy either told him he was 14 or he told him he was 15. Shasteen simply could not recall which it was. You are taking the FBI preference for calling him a 14 year old - and Shasteen's acceptance of that from the FBI, as if Shasteen only ever said the kid was 14. Glover says otherwise.

although at the price of having to suppose (if the scenario were correct) two round-trips of Ruth Paine from Irving to Dallas and back each time, to pick up Hootkins and ferry him to Irving, where Ruth would hand him and her car over to Oswald to drive himself and Hootkins 0.8 miles to the barbershop where Oswald would get a haircut, then Ruth drive Hootkins back to Dallas and Ruth return again, all without either Ruth Paine or Hootkins telling Hootkins’ mother this was happening. Is it realistic that Hootkins’ mother would not know her son was making trips to Irving? Is it realistic that Ruth Paine, a mother herself, would not inform another mother that she was taking her son to another city for a few hours? Hootkins’ mother knew nothing of Hootkins going into Irving with Ruth Paine (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=145811#relPageId=34).

Hmmm. Count the number of logical fallacies involved in the above - particularly the rhetorical appeal to Greg's idea of common sense.

Meanwhile here are the facts: The FBI report on the interview with Mrs Hootkins does not state she knew nothing about Bill going to Irving. It only states that Ruth Paine was his Russian instructor at St Marks for the Summer term and that following the summer term, he started having private instruction from Ruth and that Ruth would pick him up on Saturday and take him to St Mark's for these lessons. I believe the summer term would have finshed around mid-August - which means Ruth probably did pick him up and have the lessons at St Mark's initially. This would change after Ruth picked up Marina in late Septemeber and brought her back to Irving. From that time, I believe Ruth started bringing Hoot back to Irving instead of taking him to St Marks. The chance to have a native speaker involved in the lessons would have been too hard to resist.

The assistant principle at St Mark's told Hosty that as at the date of the interview ON OCTOBER 31 , that Ruth's priviate tuition (following her summer course) was taking place at the homes of the students. Although plural was used - there was only one - Hoots.

So according to the school itself, even if the private lessons started out as being conducted at St Mark''s, they were most certainly NOT being conducted there by Oct 31. YEt Mrs Hootkins continued to believe that was the case. Who was being deceived and who was the deceiver - and what was the purpose of the deceit?

END PART ONE.

Mon 03 Oct 2022, 1:43 am

Greg_Doudna wrote:

greg_parker wrote:Mr. SHASTEEN. Well, he had on blue jeans and they fit tight and he had on an old striped shirt, I remember him just like I see a picture over there right now and he was a husky kid, he wasn't what you call fat, but he was strong--broad-shouldered--he had a real full, and when I say full, I don't mean a round fat face, he was a wide-faced kid.

[. . .]

"when I say full, I don't mean a round fat face..." (Shasteen)
I think Hootkins' face looks like a round fat face.
An overweight "nerdy" kid.
Different color hair according to the firsthand informant who knew him growing up.
Lives in Dallas not Irving.

Shasteen's kid lived in Irving, because patronizing Irving's barbershop, family (who we will agree with Shasteen was not Oswald) brought the kid to Shasteen's shop on a weekday school afternoon Mon or Tue Nov 18 or 19. No evidence whatever Shasteen's kid did not live in Irving. Shasteen saying he thought so because he did not recognize him is not evidence.

Maybe the kid of Shasteen's shop went to a Catholic private school, not a public school, I don't know. In any case I doubt Shasteen knew all kids even in the most local public school and I suspect in a city the size of Irving there was more than one public school. The evidence the family of the kid was local in Irving is, there is no evidence they weren't, and (per Shasteen's testimony) a non-Oswald family member drove the kid for his haircut on the afternoon of a school day in a car that was not Ruth Paine's station wagon. That means a local family who was not Ruth Paine, in the absence of evidence otherwise, it just does.

A fat face is very subjected.

I don't think it meets that discription until later in life.

Let's stick to objective descriptors given. "Wide face". Yes he did have a wide face. Your subjective description of "fat" is disgraceful from someone claiming to be an academic.

As is your subjective description of him being a "fat nerdy kid". In fact the alleged fat nerdy kid played football at St Mark's as well as acted.

The alleged informant said he had "reddish" hair. In some (not all - just some) photos later in life, he does appear to have reddish hair
and now for something completely different... - Page 2 8180-1744-0

and now for something completely different... - Page 2 8180-1744-0

Hair color can change. I was snowy haired as a little kid, light brown hair by teens.

His photo from St Mark's shows a much light tone than the above - and in fact it meets Shasteen's description as much as can be determined from a black and white shot. Dark blonde going on light brown.

The kid was not local according to Shasteen and Shasteen's statements under oath about that certainly DO constitute evidence. I don't understand the mindset that allows such a blatant lie that it's not.

As for the pick up and drop off of the kid

Mr. SHASTEEN. No; I think it was a 1958 Ford--them there old gun-colored, it was a dark color, but it wasn't black or nothing, and that's what let him out--the kid out in front.

Shasteen never saw the driver and really wasn't positive about the make.

My guess is that it was Mike Paine in his 1959 Citroen.

Mr. LIEBELER - What kind of an automobile do you own?
Mr. PAINE - It is a French Citroen.
Mr. LIEBELER - What model?
Mr. PAINE - 1959; year 1959.
Mr. LIEBELER - Not a 2CV?
Mr. PAINE - No; it is an ID-19, I guess.

I wonder if his Citroen was this color?

and now for something completely different... - Page 2 050919-1959-Citroen-ID-19-1-630x390

and now for something completely different... - Page 2 050919-1959-Citroen-ID-19-1-630x390

Mon 03 Oct 2022, 2:05 am

Ed.Ledoux wrote:So also in that pic are nice black Hardy shoes.
Let me get this straight....
Lee goes to Beckley changes his shirt...
Changes his britches... but keeps on the same work shoes ? huh!
Didnt he have to take off the work shoes to change from work pants.... but puts back on old sweaty shoes when a supposedly nice pair is sitting there.
I dont buy it.
Cheers, Ed

He was weirdo wasn't he?

Got an email from an anonymous source today pointing out that between about 1919 and 1980, Dallas a had a "Little Mexico" district just north of Downttown Dallas.

The earliest businesses developed in Little Mexico were groceries, and were followed by bakeries, barber shops, shoe shops, and bookstores.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Mexico

I wonder if Oswald might have said "Little Mexico", and Shasteen might have recalled it as "Old Mexico" and later as just "Mexico"?

Shasteen says he wore them on the cut he had prior to the one on Nov 8... which was n the weekend commencing either beginning October 18 or 25.

Let's say it was on the weekend commencing October 25. Little Audrey was born at Parkland on October 20 and Little Mexico was about a 15 minute walk from there.

Mon 03 Oct 2022, 2:24 am

Greg_Doudna wrote:

greg_parker wrote:Having already established that Hootkins was not at Shasteens on the first occasion Oswald was (on or about the 5th of October), and having established that the private lessons most likely commenced late August, it can be assumed that the lessons were originally at the school. Sometime from mid or late October through to some time in November prior to the assassination, Hootkins was visiting the Paine home. We know why Lee stopped going to Shasteen's. We can guess why Hootklns did, and from then on, the lessons returned to St Marks. Everyone wins! Everyone was telling the truth! Everyone gets a Kewpie Doll!

I know one of your issues is that some of the Shasteen visits were not on a Saturday. But there was nothing stopping young Hootkins hopping a bus and going to Irving on his own on other days. Social visits rather than lessons. But for a short while, some lessons were at Ruth's place. And that fits her profile. She would not have been able to resist parading her prize Russian native to her student.

You are getting Ruth bringing Hootkins all the way in to Irving, then driving him all the way back, on Saturdays in ca. late Oct to Nov 1963 for his Russian lessons which would include meeting with Marina, all on the basis of Hosty's Dec 11, 1963 memo writing that assistant headmaster Oviatt, on Oct 31, 1963, told Hosty that "at this time [Oct 31], however, she [Ruth Paine] was not teaching on a full-time basis but tutoring students at their homes."

That is simply unclear language for the tutoring happening not as part of classroom. It means no different than Ruth going to Hootkins' home where she picked him up and drove to St. Mark's and then back to Hootkins' home, as Ruth Paine said, as Hootkins' mother said, and as Mrs. Jean Evans, secretary to the headmaster at St. Mark's, said more accurately.

Clearly Hosty's report that Oviatt told him, Hosty, that Ruth Paine was tutoring Hootkins at Hootkins home ("tutoring students at their homes") was not literally occurring at Hootkins' home. But for you to jump to citing that slight garbling to make that into some kind of secret tutoring of Hootkins occurring in Irving different from what Hootkins' mother, Mrs. Evans, and Ruth Paine said was going on--which Marina also never mentioned occurring, which Michael Paine also never mentioned occurring, which no neighbor of Ruth Paine ever mentioned seeing, which nobody mentioned occurring--does not make sense. More likely either Oviatt did not personally know the specifics (this might be suggested from Oviatt alluding to multiple students tutored by Ruth Paine to Hosty not realizing it was only one), or else he did and told Hosty and Hosty garbled it slightly in wording. More likely one of those two trivial explanations than what you are saying.

You're jumping that shark again with this one, Greg

According to what you say above "tutoring at the homes of the students" actually means "tutioring at the school".

The only thing garbled about what Hosty wrote is your convoluted. contorted, twisted and weird interpretation of it.

I am saying Ruth took him to Irving at least once - maybe twice and he made his own way (or got a lift with someone else) there at least once, maybe twice.

It is also possible he got taken by Ruth on all occasions because she often traveled into Dallas to to shop or conduct other business.

The time he went on his own to Shasteen's, it was probably Mike Paine dropping and picking up in his Citroen.

Mon 03 Oct 2022, 7:44 am

greg_parker wrote:
Mr. SHASTEEN. No; I think it was a 1958 Ford--them there old gun-colored, it was a dark color, but it wasn't black or nothing, and that's what let him out--the kid out in front.

Shasteen never saw the driver and really wasn't positive about the make.

My guess is that it was Mike Paine in his 1959 Citroen.

Wasn't Michael Paine normally at work and not in Irving mid-afternoons on weekdays?

Wouldn't Hootkins be in school in Dallas on a weekday?

Any idea why all of these people never said anything about this in their testimony or any other time in their lives?

Mon 03 Oct 2022, 8:01 am

greg_parker wrote:
The kid was not local according to Shasteen and Shasteen's statements under oath about that certainly DO constitute evidence. I don't understand the mindset that allows such a blatant lie that it's not.

You are misrepresenting me. It is evidence that Shasteen thought that, and Shasteen said why he thought that (because he didn't recognize the kid from going to the local school games and being familiar with a lot of the school kids around).

Its not evidence that what Shasteen said was true, since Shasteen would have had no way of really knowing. There is good reason why what Shasteen said (which he had no way of knowing) was not true, because of the dropoff of the kid on a weekday afternoon after school by an adult in a car, which looks like a family living in Irving.

By your logic, if a creationist testified under oath that the earth was created 6000 years ago that becomes evidence that the earth was created 6000 years ago and you would not "understand the mindset that allows such a blatant lie that it's not".

Mon 03 Oct 2022, 10:57 am

Greg_Doudna wrote:

greg_parker wrote:
The kid was not local according to Shasteen and Shasteen's statements under oath about that certainly DO constitute evidence. I don't understand the mindset that allows such a blatant lie that it's not.

You are misrepresenting me. It is evidence that Shasteen thought that, and Shasteen said why he thought that (because he didn't recognize the kid from going to the local school games and being familiar with a lot of the school kids around).

Its not evidence that what Shasteen said was true, since Shasteen would have had no way of really knowing. There is good reason why what Shasteen said (which he had no way of knowing) was not true, because of the dropoff of the kid on a weekday afternoon after school by an adult in a car, which looks like a family living in Irving.

By your logic, if a creationist testified under oath that the earth was created 6000 years ago that becomes evidence that the earth was created 6000 years ago and you would not "understand the mindset that allows such a blatant lie that it's not".

I'm not misrepresenting anything. You said Shasteen's statements were not evidence. They most certainly were.

Your latest on this shows the depth of your confusion. "Its not evidence that what Shasteen said was true" because you're just compounding the issue by confusing evidence withh proof.

"By your logic, if a creationist testified under oath that the earth was created 6000 years ago that becomes evidence that the earth was created 6000 years ago and you would not "understand the mindset that allows such a blatant lie that it's not".

You need to come up with something else. Under no circumstances would a creationist come before a court to give evidence on the age of the earth because it is already pretty much established scientifically. Maybe when the US becomes a theocracy it might happen. Then you can throw science out all together. Until then, court cases are to establish the nature of uncertain facts and events. To help establish such, they use witnesses, physical evidence (if there is any) and experts in various fields.

Shasteen was a witness, and his statements do constitute evidence. What he claimed happened, is not proof that it happened, and who he claimed was involved is not proof that he had the right person. NO one ever claimed any different. To establish the proof of his statements, we have been looking at his timeline of events, and his descriptions of various people and cross-matching that data against Lee Oswald's known movements and against what little we know about Hootkins during that time frame. That data falls short of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but does meet the civil court standard that it was them on the "balance of probability". In my opinion anyway.

Shasteen however, was an expert on hair, so what he had to say on that subject stands - eg Oswald liked his haircuts to look like they were about a week old.

If you really don't understand the difference between "evidence" and "proof", and how evidence is used to help establish proof, you need to quit this, and all historical research, until you understand the difference.

Mon 03 Oct 2022, 11:01 am

Greg_Doudna wrote:

greg_parker wrote:
Mr. SHASTEEN. No; I think it was a 1958 Ford--them there old gun-colored, it was a dark color, but it wasn't black or nothing, and that's what let him out--the kid out in front.

Shasteen never saw the driver and really wasn't positive about the make.

My guess is that it was Mike Paine in his 1959 Citroen.

Wasn't Michael Paine normally at work and not in Irving mid-afternoons on weekdays?

Wouldn't Hootkins be in school in Dallas on a weekday?

Any idea why all of these people never said anything about this in their testimony or any other time in their lives?

Michael Paine was not a grunt in a factory or sweatshop. He had no one looking over his shoulder and could pretty much do as he wanted. As shown on Nov 22 when he left work without the need to obtain permission to do so.

We also don't know what time in the afternoon it was. It is only a 30 or so minute drive. What time did school finish? About 3:30?

Mon 03 Oct 2022, 11:28 am

ON THE FRIENDS OF TRUTH & THEIR TESTIMONY OF INTEGRITY, ETC...

Your complaint that you can find no evidence for any wiggle room on telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth in Quaker historical records is like a Lone Nutter stating that they can find not evidence of Oswald's innocence in the Warren Commission Report.

Let's start with Ruth's 1963 petition for divorce.

It states that "about six months prior to their separation, Michael Paine commenced a course of unkind, cruel, harsh and tyrannical treatment of Ruth Paine of such a nature as to render the future of their living together insupportable"

Unkind, cruel, harsh and TYRANNICAL????

Was that true, or was that just the standard wording to be able to get a divorce at the time? I say it is the latter, and was therefore a big fat lie.

You like history? Let's try history...

Quakers are justifiably proud of the Underground Railroad. But how well would that have worked had they stuck to the truth?

Knock on the door by slave trackers.

Quaker opens the door.

Slave tracker. Do you know where any slaves are hiding?

Quaker: I cannot tell a lie. They’re all hiding in the root cellar.

Let's look at specific statements of Ruth Paine beyond just the lies on her diviorce petition

and now for something completely different... - Page 2 Painet10

"in the neighborhood" is misleading in the extreme.

The WC testimony of Shasteen was taken in April 1964 - well before the above FBI interview with Ruth. Shasteen specifically said that the kid was NOT a local neighborhood kid, otherwise he would have known him.

Saying she knew of no kid IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD..." automatically excludes any kid not living in the neighborhood but who may visiit it for any reason. Had she NOT included that phrase, and just said she is aware of no kid, then THAT would have excluded all boys "about 14" year olds included Hootkins. In other words, she deliberately avoided excluding Hootkins in order to avoid a lie.

The same can be said of her next statement.

that she never let him take her car anywhere BY HIMSELF. That too avoids a lie via a technicality, since Hootkins was with him.

I will now do a tour through her magical testimony and post whatever tidbits beckon me.

First stop.
----------------
Mr. JENNER - Would you please tell us who Mr. Everett Clover was and how you became acquainted with him.
What was the milieu?
Mrs. PAINE - I met Mr. Glover at a group gathered to sing madrigals together. These are old English songs where each part has a melody and it was for the enjoyment of reading the music and in harmony, and we often had coffee after ward and would talk.
Mr. JENNER - This included your husband, however, did it not?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes indeed.
Mr. JENNER - You had a common interest in this?
Mrs. PAINE - Madrigal singing?
Mr. JENNER - Madrigal singing?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes. And went together.
-------------
Madrigal trivia. Aldous Huxley used to listen to madrigal records while on mescaline. I think we should all try that.

Not so trivial is that Madrigals are intertwined with mysticism, magick and the occult. Which kind of fits with Mike Paine and son Chris who changed his name to Panym - an ancient word meaning Pagan - running a camp to hold ancient female coming of age ceremonies for 12 year olds. You know the kind of stuff. Dancing around at midnight under a full moon in special robes. That sort of stuff.

But Mike and Chris were not batshit on their own. Ruth was also into batshit crazy stuff and it appears the real reason she sought a divorce was on the advice of an astrologer.

and now for something completely different... - Page 2 Ruthas10

Neither of them had any sense of reality.
____________
Ruth is talking here about the first ever meeting with Marina and why she asked for Marina's address.

Mrs. PAINE - To talk Russian. She is very hard to find, a person speaking modern Russian, and in fact I know of no other, and this was an opportunity for me to again practice in the language, a rather unusual opportunity, and I was interested in meeting her and getting to know her.

This underlines to me that as a self-confessed, far from perfect teacher of Russian, she would have found it impossible to resist showing off her prized and highly unusual trophy Modern Russian doll to her sole Russian student. A unique opportunity for learning, as she herself understood it.

I am only part way through her first lot of testimony and there is a pattern emerging. At this early stage, she has already been asked two or three times to answer a question with a simple "yes" or "no" and she has so far, failed to abide by that request. I would have been slapping her by this stage.

-------------------------------------
Mrs. PAINE - Of Dallas. She inquired of me, a young woman, about birth control methods, and she said that she felt-- ell, clearly this pregnancy had surprised her, but she said that she didn't believe in abortion, and didn't want to consider such a course.

In other testimony Ruth speaks of a Black maid asking her about birth control. Two socially disadvantaged women asking her. Why? In both cases she wants to take them to a Planned Parenthood Clinic.

What annoys me is not the advice. It is that she hides the fact that she is the one instigating that conversation. I'd bet my left testicle on it. Class condescension and glistening bare-assed bastardry while she herself takes marriage advice from a fucking astrologer.
----------------------------

Mr. JENNER - Did you not think it was curious that her husband was adverse to her acquiring some facility with the English language?
Mrs. PAINE - I thought it was distinctly thoughtless on his part. even cruel.

Okay! We have a benchmark on what she considers "cruel" behavior to a spouse. What would be something at least equal in cruelty that the tyrannical Mike could have inflicted upon her? Refusal to pay for a full-time necromancer to be at her disposal?
---------------------
Mrs. PAINE - I don't know. It may be here. I can look if you want. This letter was never sent and never mentioned to her. I wrote it so that I would have the words before me to use if it seemed appropriate to me to make the invitation, you see, a way of gathering enough of the language, enough Russian, and to say what I wanted to say. And this letter is dated the 7th of April.
Mr. JENNER - The 7th of April?
Mrs. PAINE - And I know I spent at least a week thinking about it. I talked it over with Michael before I wrote it, and it is plainly marked "never sent" on the letter. I carried it with me, as I recall I carried it once to the apartment so that if--
Mr. JENNER - To what apartment?
Mrs. PAINE - To their apartment on Neely Street, so that if it seemed appropriate I could hand it to her, you see. I could make this invitation at home with time and a dictionary in hand, and then let her read it. It was ever so much easier than just trying to say it.

Utter bullshit. She never went to see Marina after March 20 until the day Oswald left for New Orleans on or about April 23. She dated the letter April 7. If it was a letter that was ever going to be sent or hand delivered, she would leave the date off until that time. Her claim though is that she was never going to send it and just use it as a means of being able to relay it to her verbally. What was she intending to do? Pull it out and read it to Marina? Again, utter bullshit.

Such a letter could have been written at any time, with any date put on it. The letter itself was supposedly written in response to Marina saying Lee was trying to force her to return to the Soviet Union.

Just my opinion, but I don't believe Marina was ever meant to stay in the US and when the time came for her to return to the Motherland, she refused. She played the system and the intelligence communities of two superpowers, and won.

------------------

Mr. JENNER - You invited the Oswalds to dinner on the evening of April 2?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes.
Mr. JENNER - What day of the week was that?
Mrs. PAINE - Tuesday.
Mr. JENNER - Did anything occur that evening?
Mrs. PAINE - Well, Michael picked them up.
Mr. JENNER - Who did?
Mrs. PAINE - Michael picked them up.
Mr. JENNER - Your husband?
Mrs. PAINE - At the Neely Street address. Has he talked about that? It didn't come up?
Mr. JENNER - I don't know. I haven't the slightest notion. I was talking with you.
Mrs. PAINE - Should I go ahead? I just want to get this first impression into the record somewhere if he hasn't already.
Representative FORD - I think it would be helpful if you gave your impression of his impression.
Mr. JENNER - Of his impression.
Mrs. PAINE - All right. This I have learned since the assassination. he didn't give me this impression as at the time we didn't talk that much.
Mr. JENNER - Please, you are not giving us your impression of his impression on this occasion, but rather your impression of what he said to you after the assassination.
Mrs. PAINE - You still want it?
Representative FORD - I think it is important.
Mr. DULLES - Let us hear it.

Pure farce. They think it is important to get Ruth's impression of Mike's impression. FFS.

Will finish here for now. Will continue with her first day of evidence in another post. It is nothing, if not entertaining stuff!

Wed 05 Oct 2022, 12:40 am

Ruth Paine first session before WC continued...

In this section, Ruth has a hard time explaining some calendar notations for the 8th, 10th and 11th of April. The 10th of course was the day of the alleged attempt on Walker. The notions simply bear Marina's name, but she has no recollection of meeting up with Marina on any of those dates, though she thinks she might have. The next date she is definite about is the 20th for a picnic, which means my previous comment was in error that she had not met with Marina again until April 24.

Mr. JENNER - Yes. There is a square, and in the square there is written something.
Mrs. PAINE - "Marina" is written this time in Russian. I am improving, it seems.
Mr. JENNER - In Russian. It is in the square dated April 10.
Mrs. PAINE - I am talking now about the square on April 8. There is a notation "Marina".
Mr. JENNER - Is that all there is in that square?
Mrs. PAINE - That is all that is in that square.
Mr. JENNER - Yes.
Mrs. PAINE - Then the only thing that appears in the square for April 10 is the name "Marina" in Russian, and an arrow pointing, an arrow from it pointing, to April 11.
Mr. JENNER - Now, go back, if you will to April 8.
Mrs. PAINE - Yes.
Mr. JENNER - Does that refresh your recollection or stimulate you as to whether you had any contact with Marina on that day or whether it was prearranged and what the occasion was?
Mrs. PAINE - Certainly, it says that there had been an arrangement to get together. Whether we did I don't know.
Mr. JENNER - I thought you had read everything that appeared in that square. Is there more than just the word "Marina" in the square?
Mrs. PAINE - No.
Mr. JENNER - That is my recollection. But that refreshes your recollection in turning that, that was a prearranged meeting?
Mrs. PAINE - Well, all of these were, since there was no way over the telephone.
Mr. JENNER - Is your recollection sufficiently refreshed to state whether the meeting was a visit by you to her or she to you?
Mrs. PAINE - No; I don't recall.
Mr. JENNER - Does it have a relation to the letter that you say that you prepared dated April 7, which is the day before?
Mrs. PAINE - I might have taken it that day, I don't know. Yes; it is entirely possible. I hadn't thought about it.
Mr. JENNER - But anyhow my mentioning those two events together, does that refresh your recollection or stimulate it more specifically on the subject?
Mrs. PAINE - No.
Mr. JENNER - It does not. You have no recollection beyond the fact that on April 8 you have an entry with the word "Marina." Is that written in Russian?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes.
Mr. JENNER - The word "Marina" in Russian, it doesn't stimulate you in any respect, does not stimulate your recollection?

These entries surrounding the date of the Walker incident, remain mysterious. Yet curiously, there is also this exchange.

Mr. JENNER - Was there any day on or about this time, the 10th or 11th or 12th, within those 3 days, that you saw Marina, where your attention was arrested by her being upset or disturbed?
Mrs. PAINE - No.
Mr. JENNER - In any fashion?
Mrs. PAINE - No.

So... she had no memory of seeing Marina on those dates, but can attest that she (Marina) was not upset or disturbed on those dates.

She must have consulted her psychic to know that.

One of Ruth's ironclad beliefs has been that Lee took that potshot at Walker. Marina testified that she was mortified about the whole episode at the time. But yet here is Ruth with Marina's name plastered all over her calendar on and around the date of April 10, claiming no actual memory of meeting with her, but still being able to declare she was fine - not upset or distressed. These are the deliciously quandarous* moments that keep this case bubbling.

We also need to ponder the fact that Ruth not only may have visited Marina on the day of the Walker incident, but that the rifle allegedly used against Walker was ordered on the date of any earlier visit. There would be nothing of concern if the visits were frequent. But they were not, Yet they all seem to fall on significant dates on the LHO timeline.

*coined 2 minutes ago. In my head it means of or like a quandary.
------------------------------

Jenner was having so much fun deposing her, Ruth thought she might have a go at deposing him.

Mr. JENNER - Are all other entries in the entire address book in your handwriting?
Mrs. PAINE - Did we go over it? What did I say?
Mr. JENNER - Yes, we did this morning.
Mrs. PAINE - I would guess so. I don't recall. Did we say so this morning? I will have to look it over again.
Mr. JENNER - I am not permitted to testify, Mrs. Paine.

Poor Ruth's memory was shot to bits apparently. Couldn't recalll what her line was supposed to be from the morning rehearsal.

--------------------------

Mrs. PAINE - That is right. And he then bought a ticket, he bought a ticket for Marina, I mean I was thinking, while he was in the bus station, and suggested that it would be a very difficult thing for a pregnant woman with a small child to take a 12-hour, 13-hour bus trip to New Orleans, and suggested that I drive her down with June.
Mr. JENNER - You volunteered this?
Mrs. PAINE - I volunteered this, and suggested further that instead of her staying at her--at the apartment, as was planned at that time, while waiting to hear from him, that she come and stay at my house where he would reach us by phone, and where she would have someone else with her while she waited to hear if he got work.
Mrs. PAINE - I volunteered this, and suggested further that instead of her staying at her--at the apartment, as was planned at that time, while waiting to hear from him, that she come and stay at my house where he would reach us by phone, and where she would have someone else with her while she waited to hear if he got work.

As some might know, I do not believe Lee was staying at the Neely St apartment - only Marina and June. Which makes the above piece of testimony very interesting. Apparently the ticket he bought for Marina was not for any particular date and was for future use. In the meantimne she would stay at Neely St until he summoned her. It shows that despite alleged lack of English, there were no concerns that Marina would be able to cope with living there alone. Which means she was also capable of living there up to then on her own...

The rent on Neely was paid up for another couple of weeks, but no refund was apparently sought. Not sure what Marina was to do if she had stayed and the rent came due again. Presumably he would have left enough money to keep her going.

All that said, Dulles and others expressed being perplexed by what was supposed to be happening with Marina after Lee left and as to why he had bought a ticket for. That took up quite a bit more of her testimony until they finally gave up and moved on to Lee's luggage.
---------------------

Mrs. PAINE - Adlai Stevenson, and Lee had been to a meeting of the National Indignation Committee held another night that week, and he was at our home the following Friday night and commented that he didn't like General Walker. This is the only thing I heard from him on the subject.

The National Indignation Committee was the group that Larrie Schmidt targeted for takeover by CUSA.

Three of the group disappeared from Dallas just prior to or just after the assassination - Larry Jones - William Burley and Bernard Weissman.

Jones looked somewhat like Oswald and is the one that is least discussed anywhere.

The person mistaken for Oswald at the UN Day Rally was said to have been marching back and forth in a military fashion.

and now for something completely different... - Page 2 Steven10

The person seen on the 6th floor was said to be standing at "port arms" as if in the military.

Mr. ROWLAND - The way he was standing it would have been in a position such as port arms in military terms.

All the members of CUSA were ex-military and those that joined them from the university were probably involved in ROTC.

----------------------
If Ruth had been totally honest, she would have said that she was indeed active in politics via anti-communism as evinced through her Friends exchange program, her determination to speak Russian and her past interactions with anti-communist emigres. This instinct would surface again later in Nicuagua.

Representative BOGGS - Have you been active in politics yourself?
Mrs. PAINE - No; I vote. And I am a member of the League of Women Voters, that is the extent of my activity.
Representative BOGGS - Do you belong to any other political organizations?
Mrs. PAINE - No.
Mr. JENNER - Have you ever belonged?
Mrs. PAINE - No.
Representative BOGGS - Are you, I don't know quite how to state this question, are you a practicing Quaker?
Mrs. PAINE - I am. I am also a pacifist.
Representative BOGGS - You are a pacifist?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes.
Representative BOGGS - You are not a Marxist?
Mrs. PAINE - No; they don't go together, in fact. You can't believe violent overthrow and be a pacifist.

------------------------
More on her first appearance asap

Wed 05 Oct 2022, 8:03 am

"These are the deliciously quandarous* moments that keep this case bubbling."

Indubitably!

Wed 05 Oct 2022, 10:59 am

Ed.Ledoux wrote:"These are the deliciously quandarous* moments that keep this case bubbling."

Indubitably!

Thu 06 Oct 2022, 1:53 am

Mrs. PAINE - It is conjecture, of course, but I feel he always felt himself to be a small person; and he was right. That he wanted to be greater, or noticed, and Marina had said of him he thinks he is so big and fine, and he should take a more realistic view of himself and not be so conceited.

Lee was like Dustin Hoffman in Little Big Man! Talk about bipolar.... well, you would be, hanging around that pair...

--------------------

McCloy was suspicious...

Mr. McCLOY - Did you, at any stage of your life while you were, whether living with your husband or apart from him, did you ever contemplate inviting anyone to come and live with you in anything like the manner in which you did invite Marina?
Mrs. PAINE - My mother completed her studies at Oberlin College in February, and we talked-----
Mr. JENNER - February 1963?
Mrs. PAINE - No; just now, February of 1964 and we talked about the possibility as long ago as last summer of 1963, we talked about the possibility of her coming and staying for several months. I said I was tired of living alone. This is not exactly comparable, but it also is a search for a roommate.
Mr. McCLOY - But apart from your mother, there was no one similarly situated to Marina, whom you thought of inviting to live with you?
Mrs. PAINE - No one situated similarly that I knew either.
Mr. McCLOY - No; you didn't invite anyone?
Mrs. PAINE - Didn't make any other such invitation.

And apparently right to be. Marina was the only person she ever opened her home to. She did not normally associate with the hired help or charity cases. So what was so special about Marina? Oh, that's right. She was a modern Russian speaker who could help improve her own Russian language skills that God had called her to learn - so by expralolation, God must have arranged for Marina to come into her life. Luckily she was no communist...

---------------------

Mr. JENNER - Before returning to the automobile and somewhat along the tail end at least of Representative Boggs' inquiries of you, did you ever give any consideration, Mrs. Paine, to the possibility that Lee Harvey Oswald might have been employed by some agency of the Government of the United States?
Mrs. PAINE - I never gave that any consideration.
Mr. JENNER - None whatsoever?
Mrs. PAINE - None whatsoever.
Mr. JENNER - It never occurred to you at any time?
Mrs. PAINE - It never occurred to me at any time.
Mr. JENNER - That is all on that.
Was the absence of its occurring to you based on your overall judgment of Lee Harvey Oswald and his lack, as you say, of, not a highly intelligent man?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes.
Mr. JENNER - There was some reason why you gave it no thought, is that correct?
Mrs. PAINE - That, and he was not in a position to know anything of use to either Government. I am questioning myself.

Isn't it odd that she thinks an agent of an intelligence agency has to have knowledge that would be of use to one or the other government? That is hardly the usual reason agents are employed. It is a reason to for example make an agent-in-place of someone like Popov... but why couldn't the KGB hire Oswald to retur to gather information? Why couldn't Oswald have been hired by the USG or CIA to to go to the Soviet Union to gather information? Her strangley specific criteria gives pause because of her sister's work in recruitment for the FICON program in the lead up to Lee joining the Marines and his subsequent tour of duty as a radar operator at a base where the program that superceded FICON was located.

And during this same persiod, the Executive Office of the President wrestled with how to get a reluctant Kremlin to the summit negotiating table... eventually using subtefuge to covertly share radar blueprints creating a faux equilibrium... that would allay concerns about who had an advantage.

---------------------

Mr. JENNER - Excuse me, but I think, Mr. Chairman, Representative Ford. Mrs. Paine has related to us something we had not known. that this Sunday afternoon-
Mrs. PAINE - October 13.
Mr. JENNER - October 13, when she sought to instruct Lee Harvey Oswald on the local parking lot--was it by a shopping center?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes.
Mr. JENNER - That he had gotten into the car, in the driveway, with the key and had turned on the motor of the car, had backed it up into the street.
Mrs. PAINE - And then proceeded to drive to the shopping center.
Mr. JENNER - With Mrs. Paine.
Mrs. PAINE - While I complained.
Mr. JENNER - Mrs. Paine complaining because she was concerned; she is the daughter of an insurance actuary.
Mrs. PAINE - In my complaint I simply said that I would drive back, and that I didn't want him to drive on the street, but I didn't insist that he stop at that moment.

Mrs. PAINE - There were two occasions when we practiced parking, one in the larger parking lot just backing into, pretending there were cars there to back between, as in parallel parking, and another occasion directly in front of my house. On this second occasion directly in front of my house he finally learned how to do it. He had had a bad time, getting his wheels too cramped and not getting in, and getting his wheels straightened out, a beginner's mistakes.

This practice at the parking lot was not possible according to one of the shopkeepers.

Mr. JENNER. All right. Do you have a large parking lot area?
Mr. HUTCHISON. Well, I would consider it fairly large; yes.
Mr. JENNER. Mrs. Paine has testified with respect to attempting to teach Lee Oswald to drive an automobile, and that she went to a supermarket area, which she said was approximately 8 blocks from her home---it took her about 4 minutes, 4 1/2 minutes or 5 minutes to drive there 4 minutes, I guess.
Mr. HUTCHISON. I don't believe she could teach on my driveway because my driveway is three-way parking, and I don't have a lot to where she could turn, feasibly, around.
Mr. JENNER. I see.
This was, she said, on Sunday afternoons when there were no vehicles on the lot.
Mr. HUTCHISON. Well, I'm open on Sunday so she----
Mr. JENNER. Oh, you are?
Mr. HUTCHISON. Yes, sir; I'm open on Sunday. So she couldn't--my parking lot is not filled every Sunday, but I don't believe she would have practiced on my parking lot. It would have been noticed--I would say that. Now, I work until around 3 o'clock on every Sunday.
Mr. JENNER. Every Sunday?
Mr. HUTCHISON. Yes, sir; so it would have had to have been after then and, feasibly, I don't believe she could teach anyone to drive in my parking lot.
_____________________

Mrs. PAINE - Never.
Just to complete the discussion of automobile driving, I will go on to the next weekend then when he did not come out to my house, but I----
Representative FORD - That would be the weekend of the 18th?
Mrs. PAINE - Just prior to the assassination. The 16th I was having a birthday party for my little girl and said I couldn't possibly take him again to this place so he could take a test. But that he didn't need a car. This was news to him. He thought he needed a car for his initial test, learner's permit. I said he could go himself from Dallas.
Mr. JENNER - This was a conversation between you and Lee Oswald?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes.

But on the 15th, Ruth was in Oak Cliff with Lee checking out apartments. She also made phone calls inquiring about renting a washing washine for Marina.

That's all for her first session.

Thu 06 Oct 2022, 1:09 pm

greg_parker wrote:

Plenty of contemporary references show "Old Mexico" was synonymous for "Mexico". In Shasteen's HSCA testimony Shasteen refers to the same incident and calls it "Mexico" where he has his "Oswald" telling him the yellow shoes were bought for such a cheap price. And doesn't the cheap price sound like over the border cheaper in Mexico?

Shasteen's HSCA interview is usless as evidence. It clearly shows his memory was polluted by then.

And I already said "Old Mexico" could be a reference to contemporary Mexico. If that had been the sole possible meaning, you would win on this. But it is not. It can also refer to any part of the terrority annexed/ceded or otherwise ending up on the US side of the ledger, as it were.

Old Mexico could be a reference to anywhere in the yellow area of this map

I believe Oswald was takling about Houston

Greg I don't know about that. I used to live in east Texas, early 1970s, only a decade later. Whenever anyone was going to Houston, I always heard them say they were going to "Houston". I never heard anyone going to Houston say they were going to "Old Mexico".

Here's another one, wc testimony of Nancy Powell, stage name Tammi True. (CE 15, pp. 417 and 420.)

Mrs. Powell. ... There was this one guy I knew was a bartender in Tulsa, and when I worked in Oklahoma I--the last time, he rode this far [to Fort Worth] with me. He had a friend in Old Mexico, and he was going to go over there for about a month or so...

(. . .)

Mr. Griffin. You said he was from Tulsa?
Mrs. Powell. Yes.
Mr. Griffin. What does he do for a living?
Mrs. Powell. He is a bartender.
Mr. Griffin. What club was he working in?
Mrs. Powell. Well, he was working in Enid whenever he went to Mexico, and I don't know the name of it.

You see, it is interchangeable, just as in Shasteen's interchangeable uses in the same story to the Warren Commission ("Old Mexico") and HSCA ("Mexico"). Probably used to refer to "old" (real) Mexico, not to be confused with "New" Mexico, the name of the state of the United States adjoining Texas. I am not sure how well your map of Mexico in 1794 applies. Better would be if you could show comparative examples of ordinary people in Texas in the 1950s or 1960s speaking in current time of Texas or Oklahoma as "old Mexico".

Now you say Shasteen's customer who told Shasteen he bought some yellow shoes for a low price in old Mexico and promised Shasteen next time he went there he would get a pair for Shasteen too, was Lee Harvey Oswald. (Because Shasteen said so!) Why again are you so certain that man really was Lee Harvey Oswald? Sure doesn't sound like Oswald.

Was this really Oswald who did not want to tell Fritz about being in Mexico at all other than Tijuana when in the Marines? The husband of Marina who initially denied to the Secret Service that she knew anything about Lee going to Mexico City? But he's happy to tell a random barber all about his multiple trips to Mexico?

Do you really think Oswald in Oct 1963 had intention of a return shopping trip to Mexico, or a return shopping trip to Houston if that is what you say was meant by "old Mexico", to buy another pair of yellow shoes at a cheap price for his barber? Doesn't it sound like Shasteen misidentified somebody as Oswald who was not Oswald, like so many other mistaken Oswald identifications after the assassination?

Thu 06 Oct 2022, 2:22 pm

New Spain was not how you refer to Mexico... how odd. Maybe because your not from Spain.

Fri 07 Oct 2022, 1:22 am

Ed.Ledoux wrote:New Spain was not how you refer to Mexico... how odd. Maybe because your not from Spain.

Yep. Plenty of precedence for "New" being added. New York and New Orleans iare obvious examples. New Caledonia is another. The state I live in is New South Wales while the country was once known as New Holland.

According to wikipedia
___________________
United States
Parts of the United States are sometimes referred to as Old Mexico

California, formerly The Californias
New Mexico, formerly Nuevo México, itself sometimes referred to as “Old New Mexico”
Pueblos, namesake of Nuevo México, their advanced trading network once connected with the Valley of Mexico, their network became part of El Camino Real
Texas, formerly Spanish Texas and Coahuila y Tejas
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Mexico
--------------------------

So what constitutes Spanish Texas is also sometimes referred to as "Old Mexico".

Looking at Spanish Texas... it was a province of New Spain... and at one time, it's capital was... Houston.
https://hamiltonhistoricalrecords.com/2019/05/14/the-many-capitals-of-spanish-texas-the-republic-of-texas-and-the-state-of-texas/

That you and no one you know ever called that part of Texas "Old Mexico" is irrelevant.

Some people did, and still do call it that, and this is reinforced in the edit discussions for the wiki entry where it states "It is a common term, but it refers to various parts of Mexico and the US."

I do take your point that it would be more common to use it in regard to Mexico. But you are wrong in claiming that as the exclusive use.

Oswald was noted for his language pecadillos. Did you know he was the sole employee who referred to the TSBD vestibule as a "vestibule" and not as a "lobby"?

-----------
Mrs. PAINE - He told me that he was going to try to look for work in Houston, and possibly in Philadelphia; these were the two names he mentioned.

Mr. JENNER - When you returned to your home, that was in the afternoon, wasn't it?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes.
Mr. JENNER - Where was Lee Harvey Oswald?
Mrs. PAINE - I don't recall.
Mr. JENNER - Was he inside the home or outside?
Mrs. PAINE - Inside, I believe.
Mr. JENNER - Did any conversation ensue as to where he had been in that 10-day interim?
Mrs. PAINE - Where he had been?
Mr. JENNER - Where he had been in the intervening 10 days?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes; he said to me that he had been in Houston and that he hadn't been able to find work there and was now going to try in Dallas.

So he told them in New Orleans he was going to Houston to look for work and he said on his treturn to Dallas that he had been in Houston unsuccessfully looking for work.

Which is exactly where he was https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1141#relPageId=37

But I am not yet discounting that he may actually have told Shasteen he bought them in Little Mexico Village on Harry Hines.
www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=77921#relPageId=2

Lots of cheap shoe shops there.

Now about Ruth's legal divorce papers...?

Fri 07 Oct 2022, 2:51 am

greg_parker wrote:
So he told them in New Orleans he was going to Houston to look for work and he said on his treturn to Dallas that he had been in Houston unsuccessfully looking for work.

When Shasteen's customer told Shasteen he would be going back to old Mexico and would bring back a pair of yellow shoes for Shasteen, do you think Oswald in Oct 1963 was planning to return to Houston (to talk like that to Shasteen)? Do you think this Irving barbershop customer, that Shasteen and you say was Oswald, was planning to drive Ruth Paine's station wagon as his means of getting to Houston?

Do you think this talk of a return to Houston occurred before or after Oswald started work at the TSBD? Do you think Oswald's plans for another shopping trip to Houston were secret (other than telling a talkative barber)? Could that be why nobody else ever heard of Oswald planning another trip to Houston?

Do you completely rule out in your mind that Shasteen could have gotten his identification wrong?

Fri 07 Oct 2022, 12:56 pm

When Shasteen's customer told Shasteen he would be going back to old Mexico and would bring back a pair of yellow shoes for Shasteen, do you think Oswald in Oct 1963 was planning to return to Houston (to talk like that to Shasteen)? Do you think this Irving barbershop customer, that Shasteen and you say was Oswald, was planning to drive Ruth Paine's station wagon as his means of getting to Houston?

Firstly, you are mischaracterizing what was said and secondly, who the hell said anything about driving Ruth's car to Houston??? You can back that truck up and leave it there. You have an extremely vivid imagfination, I'll give you that.

Here is what Shasteen said

Mr. SHASTEEN. Yes; slip-ons, only they were a little heavy--they were just a little heavier than just a common house shoe, and I admired them and I said, "Them looks expensive," and he said, "They are not."
"He said, "I gave a dollar and a half for them." I said, "My goodness, where did you get a pair of house shoes for a dollar and a half?" And he said, "Down in Old Mexico."
Mr. JENNER. Down in Old Mexico?
Mr. SHASTEEN. And I said, "Man, I'd like to have a pair of them because I have to wear a shoe built up," you see and they were heavy enough that I could build that shoe up and he said, "Well, I'll get you a pair the next time I'm down there," and that is the only time he ever was nice and polite-in the conversation, any time anything would come up--anybody else would talk to him, he was just disgruntled.

Nowhere does Oswald say he makes multiple trips to Mexico, Old mexico or anywhere else. Nor does he indicate any firm plans of returning there. His comment about getting Shasteen a pair next time he is down there is like me telling my wife I'll pick up that handbag she likes next time I go to Sydney. It may happen, but probably not. It certainly does not mean I have any firm or imminent plans of going to Sydney.

Do you think this talk of a return to Houston occurred before or after Oswald started work at the TSBD? Do you think Oswald's plans for another shopping trip to Houston were secret (other than telling a talkative barber)? Could that be why nobody else ever heard of Oswald planning another trip to Houston?

This discussion - which despite your claim - did not include any talk of a trip anywhere - just a vague suggestion about a nebulous "next time" - took place before he started at the TSBD if it occured on his first visit. If it happened on the second or third visit, it was after he started at the TSBD.

You are being absolutely ridiculous in trying to spin Oswald's vague talk of a "next time" into a hard and fast plan to return to Old Mexico/Houston/Little Mexico specifically to buy shoes for Shasteen. And it is your bias regarding Ruth and your religion that drives you to make such silly claims.

And speaking of silly claims... any comments on Ruth's description of Mike being a cruel tyrant on legal documents ??? Speciffically through the prism of being a Friend of the Truth?

Do you completely rule out in your mind that Shasteen could have gotten his identification wrong?

I already told you it was Lee and Hootkins, based on the balance of probablity test applied by civil courts.

That is as much as I would claim if I had to swear to it. On a more personal level, I have zero doubt in my own mind that it was Lee and Hootkins.

But then, I have no dog in the hunt. I could not care less if the evidence pointed to other people. Same as I could not care less if the evidence pointed to Oswald as the Lone Nut assassin.

But neither of those scenarios apply... the evidence exists and bears its own testament to the facts outside of any theory, any bias, any viewpoint... and if I ever fall into the trap of allowing bias to dictate what the evidence is saying, I hope I will walk away from all of this. What about you?

Fri 07 Oct 2022, 4:22 pm

GregP wrote:Firstly, you are mischaracterizing what was said and secondly, who the hell said anything about driving Ruth's car to Houston??? You can back that truck up and leave it there.

OK. The serious point was the logistical difficulties of Oswald taking another trip to Mexico or Houston in terms of transportation and work schedule and visiting his wife and kids in Irving on weekends. However this is irrelevant if Shasteen's customer was not serious about going to (old) Mexico again, as you suggest.

Nowhere does Oswald say he makes multiple trips to Mexico, Old mexico or anywhere else.

Well that's how Shasteen represented the customer in his later HSCA version. But in his WC version he just said next time he was there, true.

His comment about getting Shasteen a pair next time he is down there is like me telling my wife I'll pick up that handbag she likes next time I go to Sydney. It may happen, but probably not. It certainly does not mean I have any firm or imminent plans of going to Sydney.

OK. Still sounds odd for that customer to talk that way at all if he was Oswald (but not odd to talk that way if he was not Oswald and did make recurring trips across the border to Mexico).

You are being absolutely ridiculous in trying to spin Oswald's vague talk of a "next time" into a hard and fast plan to return to Old Mexico/Houston/Little Mexico specifically to buy shoes for Shasteen. And it is your bias regarding Ruth and your religion that drives you to make such silly claims.

The customer spoke of next time he went to old Mexico he would pick up a pair for Shasteen. Shasteen offered to give him money, the customer declined but in Shasteen's telling it sounds like it was a "deal", that the customer would next time he was there, pick up a pair for Shasteen. That's just what Shasteen says, odd for car-less Oswald with no money and no known travel plans outside of Dallas to be talking that way to Shasteen for no point or reason to it (but not odd for a customer who was not Oswald who made trips to Mexico). The role of Ruth Paine has nothing to do with it for me.

That is as much as I would claim if I had to swear to it. On a more personal level, I have zero doubt in my own mind that it was Lee and Hootkins.

But then, I have no dog in the hunt. I could not care less if the evidence pointed to other people. Same as I could not care less if the evidence pointed to Oswald as the Lone Nut assassin.

But neither of those scenarios apply... the evidence exists and bears its own testament to the facts outside of any theory, any bias, any viewpoint... and if I ever fall into the trap of allowing bias to dictate what the evidence is saying, I hope I will walk away from all of this. What about you?

Although I differ with you on this one I respect your last words here. I say the same thing of myself, yes. I am after the truth.

Sun 09 Oct 2022, 2:12 am

OK. The serious point was the logistical difficulties of Oswald taking another trip to Mexico or Houston in terms of transportation and work schedule and visiting his wife and kids in Irving on weekends. However this is irrelevant if Shasteen's customer was not serious about going to (old) Mexico again, as you suggest.

Apart from your bias regarding Ruth, you also have a roadblock to the truth by virtue of uncritical acceptance of the Oswald bio served up to order.

Lee never went to Mexico... a fact that will come out when I get around to it.

Lee didn't did not visit his wife and children on weekends. He didn't have to. He was living there. Seen multiple times at the local shops midweek. Seen getting rides to work with Beull through the week. No physical evidence of living anywhere else.

He was with with Ruth Friday the 15th in Oak Cliff looking for an an apartment for himself and his family. Ruth also phoned a store that day to try and hire a washing machine for Marina. And Ruth testified that the plan the Oswalds had was to be in there own place shortly after Christmas. Though I believe it was happening sooner than that... much to Ruith's chagrin.

Mrs. PAINE - No. As close as we came to such discussion was saying that when they had enough money and perhaps after Christmas they would get an apartment again, and I judged, felt that he was saving money towards renting a furnished apartment for his family.

That was the money kept in the bedroom. It was not suddenly left there on the morning of the 22nd. It was left there from the start and added to every payday.

A washing machine was Marina's demand before any move to a new apartment. Goddamn it. Ruth had a washing machine and she had to have one too.

And as I said... Ruth was making calls. The shop remembered the name of the female caller as "Ruby" and was asking on behalf of a Mrs Oswald. Quite obiously this was Ruth.

And here we find yet another of her patended non-dnial denials. She never denied making the call - just stated flatly that she would remember the call had she made it. She was wearing her flammable pants again. I mean, who answers a "yes/no" question like that?

Well, quakers apparently, when they want to make it seem like they answere, but really didn't.

I think Lee may have had Houston on his mind for the future, having convinced himself he had a friend there in the form of Horace Twiford. Horace was something of a writer and adventurer, (as well as being a Trotskyist). I think the idea of hooking up with him was just what he was looking for. Let's call it The Hemmingway Effect. But that aside, what was allegedly said about buying shoes would not be taken seriously by most people. Put yourself in Shasteen's place with a customer who is surly and new to the business saying something like that to you. Are you really going to be expecting to see the shoes any time soon? Ever? You put far too much weight o it. And we both know why.

Well that's how Shasteen represented the customer in his later HSCA version. But in his WC version he just said next time he was there, true.

Memories change over time. Hard scientific fact.

I don't think Michael was a cruel tyrant, I don't think Ruth thought so, and I think that legal boilerplate was signed with Michael's agreement and cooperation. I doubt you would find a Friends Meeting formally agreeing upon a written testimony that that was endorsed or approved, but probably half of Friends of any given Meeting would individually sign that similarly if that was the only way to get a wanted and agreed-upon divorce under state laws.

Amazing. So we agree, afterall. At least some Quakers will lie in certain circumstances. That the lie was needed to obtain soething she wanted, doesn't make it right. Just another excuse like any non-Quaker might make. That Mike was agreeable to the lie being told, likewise does not make it right.

Throughout this, you have been absolutely adamant that under no circumstances did Quaker practice, history or ethics condone or allow any lies at all. Thanks for the backflip, with pike in the compromised position.

And by the way, I NEVER said that the practrice of omission or tricky non-responsive answers was ever written down as some practice that Quakers could use. That is not how such things work, Every society has it's unwritten laws and practices.

Anyway, here is your long defense of Quaker Truth-telling:

While this does not materially affect the Shasteen barbershop analysis I would like to take a moment to address this because it has come up again. You think there is a custom or practice among Friends of, so to speak, giving false or misleading answers by means of tricky telling of literal truth, and that some of Ruth Paine's answers can be understood or explained in light of that Friends' custom or practice.

The issue of whether Ruth Paine did such in accord with this alleged Quaker practice can be set aside because there is no credible evidence of such custom or practice among Friends that I ever heard of and I think I know whereof I speak on this, nor standard reference work or reputable source on Friends beliefs and practice and history that has that. I have been involved with Friends Meetings since my 20s, quite a number of meetings in various cities over the years. I come from a long line of ancestors on my father's side who were part of Conservative Friends of eastern Ohio, which is the most conservative branch of North American Friends (to this day they wear only black and white and speak "thee" and "thou"). Though I do not claim to know or to have read everything, I have read extensively of the major Quaker works and Quaker history. In the 1980s I wrote a magazine article entitled "Return to Quaker Roots" which can be seen on my page at academia.edu. I have academic background in history of religion and have taught courses in religious studies at the undergraduate college level. I have never heard of this Quaker custom or practice or belief that you cite.

But you don't need to believe me simply because I say that as native testimony. The way to know what religious bodies or traditions believe is not so hard--there is no mystery about how to find out--there are standard reference works on library shelves, scholarly and popular studies, good-quality books and studies written, academic journal articles, written by historians of religion and scholars of religious studies, both insiders and outsiders, giving accurate description of Quaker beliefs and practices just as there exist such reference works on any historic religion. It is not acceptable to cite a single blog which makes a hearsay claim, with no footnote or specific reference, and run with it. If that Quaker practice exists or did exist, there should be a real footnote, a real standard reference work referring to it, a real journal article or encyclopedia article or some other credible written source discussing it and referring to it. The blog post you cite gives no such footnote. As recently as last night I attempted to check again, everywhere I could find online, to find some credible source which could tell of such a Quaker practice or belief or custom, in the past if not now--to see if perhaps I might have missed something, but came up with nothing. You should, just as clean method, find a credible solid footnote from a credible source on this before being so quick to believe and claim it, because as it stands you are promoting an unsubstantiated claim. You have not shown evidence it is true, and at this point I am pretty sure you will not be able to find it verified in any credible primary source.

For example there is this page in a "QuakerWiki" on what Friends call the "Testimony of Integrity" (truth-telling): https://quaker.fandom.com/wiki/Testimony_of_Integrity https://quaker.fandom.com/wiki/Testimony_of_Integrity. There it is said (this is Friends' self-understanding): "The Testimony of Integrity is not simply telling the truth. Rather it is applying ultimate truth to each situation. For example, Friends (Quakers) do not believe that one should trick others by making statements that are technically true but misleading."

Sometimes insiders' representations to themselves and others of their beliefs may not be the same as how outsiders see it (emic versus etic issues, insider vs. outsider point of view). Is there an outsider perception that Friends, as a culture or tradition or as a body of people, have a tendency or whatever do that? Well, find and give a credible citation if so. I cannot find anything of that nature. The blog post you quote is not such because it is hearsay not primary, it gives no credible citation. If that blog post hearsay does come from anything specific it needs to be identified and specified. What century? What location? What incident? How widespread? I would like to know myself. From the blog post you give, there is no clue to those questions. And in the credible sources, there is just zero that I know of, or that you have shown, in support.

Friends' beliefs are found in a history of written "testimonies" on any number of topics, which are for-the-record written statements forged from consensus in Friends Meetings. For first-generation history of Friends there are early journals such as the journal of George Fox of 1600s England. There are any number of credible books giving description and history of Friends; any library will have such books on the shelf. Go to those for sources. Where is such written in a Friends "testimony"? Where is such found in any credible historian writing Quaker history? From my father telling of his Conservative Friends' upbringing in his childhood and other old Friends along the way I picked up a lot of lore, a lot of idiosyncracies, a lot of trivia about Friends' history and practices. But I have never heard of that one. The whole thing does not make sense because it violates Friends' testimonies of non-secrecy and truth-telling combined with acceptance of consequences for speaking truthfully.

Now think about this and stop being a hypocrite. What would be the consequence of Ruth telling the truth in her divorce filing - with the truth being that "he has been a good provider, loves the kids, and did not physically or mentally abuse me - but I want to get a divorce because he is immature and my astrologer thinks divorce is the only option."

Have you guessed? That's right! The consequences of the truth that YOU previously claimed was paramount to a Quaker - would have been --- NO DIVORCE.

Ruth would not accept that consequence and was willing to lie through her teeth to get what she wanted.

Your defense of her is appalling and based on false idealization of a religion.
------------

I apologise to members for going full Fez-Gaal here, but I think it was warranted.

Sun 09 Oct 2022, 8:39 am

Here is an example. My step-grandfather was a strict, devout Quaker farmer. He also happened to be a good farmer. My father tells as a small boy remembering a time hay cut and baled in the fields needed to be gotten in before a threatened rainstorm broke. Those Friends had strict rules against working on Sundays. My grandfather simply blatantly disregarded that rule and worked sunup to sundown that Sunday with some hired hands and got all the hay in just as the storm broke when they finished. That done my grandfather went back to being a strict, devout Quaker. He had too much respect in the community to suffer repercussions though there was criticism. On the other hand, my great-grandfather Ephraim at age 18 enlisted under Lincoln on the Union side of the Civil War "to help free the slaves" and was promptly formally "disowned" by the Meeting for going to war.

You are so hostile to Ruth Paine that it looks to me like you are biased, taking anything ambiguous and construing it to make her malevolent. You latch on to this divorce papers thing as if that impeaches her Warren Commission testimony which it does not. You have this idea that the only reason I say that is because I am biased in favor of Ruth. Not so. 100 percent of the experienced staff counsels of all of the major investigations, practically none of whom were Friends, considered Ruth of high and consistent credibility in her testimony, on the merits. As those veteran investigators' assessments were not caused from sharing her religion, mine is comparable for the most part, no matter how much you keep insisting otherwise.

So on Ruth Paine's divorce papers I am just going to say I don't consider it relevant to the credibility of her testimony to the FBI and Warren Commission and I don't judge her on that, and that's about all I think needs to be said on that.

Back to Shasteen's barbershop and his claim that his customer so particular about his hair was Oswald. You believe that claim, I don't, maybe this is a case of agree to disagree on this one.

Sun 09 Oct 2022, 3:38 pm

I have a backflip which I will get to in a moment, but what you think is a backflip here is not. You are confusing what religions claim and believe, with the issue of claim of hypocrisy or degree of observance on the part of a member or adherent, not the same thing. Quaker practice, history and ethics has been consistent in not condoning any lies at all. It is a tough standard to apply throughout life but I would say virtually all Friends attempt it in most if not all areas of life. (And if not all Friends apply it in all areas of lives it is not because Friends as a religion does not have those beliefs but because not all Friends are perfect Friends or agree on all points with Friends beliefs.) There are situations, judgment calls, lapses. There is no priest or authority deciding cases for individuals, it is pretty anarchist on the level of individuals working out situations for themselves.

Greg, my questions all along were about OBSERVANCE of beliefs. You simply ignored that and kept harping on as if the official doctrine and observance of same were axiomatically interchangeable. In fact, you annoyingly kept trying to insinuate that I was claiming that the practice was an official written-down doctrine of the cult.

The quote that I used and that you referred to as a "blog entry", was also from a Quaker who was basing his claims on personal knowledge and observance. It is my experience that when someone refers to evidence as being from a "blog", they are using the term in the pejoritive sense. If it had been something you supported, the term "blog" would never have been used. That is bias. Just like my use of the word "cult" in the previous paragraph is meant in the pejoritive so you get the gist of how this whole bias thing works.

Here is my backflip: I retract saying "half" of Friends would sign divorce paper language they did not believe was true. That was unwarranted: I really have no basis for knowing that, and as I reflect as to where I would even guess, I would just guess--that is all this is, a guess as to actual behavior--I would guess maybe three-quarters (more than half) of Friends today probably would not sign such wording if they knew it was not true in legal boilerplate of that nature even at personal cost. (And most of the ones who would sign it, if they knew it was not true would feel discomfort.) (Though on another level, when it comes to internet fine print terms and agreements, the complicated American tax reporting system, legalese in apartment lease agreements et al, in reality hardly no one never signs off on untrue boilerplate taken literally.) Friends are decentralized, anyone who shows up and shares core beliefs becomes part of the community. There are some things which are beyond the pale resulting in social ostracism but how Ruth Paine handled her divorce papers would not be one of those among most Friends I know.

Unwarranted but stated, because it suited your argument at then time - retracted now because it blew up in your face.

"in reality hardly no one never signs off on untrue boilerplate taken literally." is one of your ultimate crimes against the English language. I will hazard a guess based on the preamble, that you meant to say "most people, including Quakers, will sign off on boilerplate agreements because they are often written in such confusing terms it is not possible to tell if the terms are completely honest and legitimate." That statement is both true - and entirely irrelevant in the context of Ruth's false claims in her divorce filing - claims that were self-evidently true or false - no in-between and no confusion over meaning. And we both agree she LIED on that legal document - wittingly - and with the intent of avoiding the consequences of telling the truth - i.e. not obtaining a divorce.

Here is an example. My step-grandfather was a strict, devout Quaker farmer. He also happened to be a good farmer. My father tells as a small boy remembering a time hay cut and baled in the fields needed to be gotten in before a threatened rainstorm broke. Those Friends had strict rules against working on Sundays. My grandfather simply blatantly disregarded that rule and worked sunup to sundown that Sunday with some hired hands and got all the hay in just as the storm broke when they finished. That done my grandfather went back to being a strict, devout Quaker. He had too much respect in the community to suffer repercussions though there was criticism. On the other hand, my great-grandfather Ephraim at age 18 enlisted under Lincoln on the Union side of the Civil War "to help free the slaves" and was promptly formally "disowned" by the Meeting for going to war.

Nice story.

Here is one for you. My father was called up to do National Service - in peace-time. He and others were fired by the state railroad on medical grounds - then passed fit for National Service by the same government doctors whose reports got them fired from the railways. The reason? The rules were if you had a government job and were called to do National Service, you could not drop in pay as a result of that. So it was done to avoid paying them their proper wage.

My father reacted by going AWOL a number of times, including being arrested once at the finish line of a yacht race. He was a devout atheist and working class man standing up in his own way, to injustice.

We all have family stories.

You are so hostile to Ruth Paine that it looks to me like you are biased,

I did not start out as hostile to her. Nor am I now. After years of examination, I m hostile to her, dare-I-say testimony and to her actions from the time she met the Oswalds.

taking anything ambiguous and construing it to make her malevolent.

Simple yes/no questions do not require or lead to ambiguous responses from people with nothing to hide.

Again I am forced to repeat myself. This document shows that Ruth was asked a simple yes/no question by the FBI. That question was "Did you make a telephone call to the Ridgeway Furniture Company in Garland, Texas for Marina Oswald relative to the rental of a washing machine?"

Here is Ruth's non-answer "a telephone call from Irving to Garland Texas would be a toll call and I definitely would remember this call if I made it."

So a quick yes or no from you, please. Do YOU believe she actually answered the question with all of that unnecessary ambiguity? take your Quaker hat off and ask yourself whether or not she was trying to hide something? Hint. I have asked people who don't know anything about the case - let alone about Ruth Paine. Do I need to quote what those people said?

Firstly, the FBI did not say the call was made from Irving, so she is introducing elements not relevant to the question and limiting where the call was made. Secondly, saying she would recall such a call from Irving to Garland if it had been made, would indeed be a true statement. What it is NOT is any sort of denial that it was made.

You latch on to this divorce papers thing as if that impeaches her Warren Commission testimony which it does not.

On it's own, of course it doesn't. On it's own, what it shows is that she was quite willing to lie when it suited her desires - despite your strong and frequent protestations. But even that does not means she lied in testimony. What it DOES mean is that we do need to read her statements critically and with the possibility of deceit in mind. I have done no more amd no less. It is called due dilligence.

You have this idea that the only reason I say that is because I am biased in favor of Ruth. Not so. 100 percent of the experienced staff counsels of all of the major investigations, practically none of whom were Friends, considered Ruth of high and consistent credibility in her testimony, on the merits. As those veteran investigators' assessments were not caused from sharing her religion, mine is comparable for the most part, no matter how much you keep insisting otherwise.

I put it to you that the ambiguity in some of her responses is quite deliberate when faced with a simple "yes/no" type question that she wants to avoid. And despite what you say, Jenner seems very much aware of this Quaker trait of avoiding giving simple, direct answers to simple direct questions where such answers may not be personally beneficial.

Mr. JENNER - Mrs. Paine, when you talk in terms of conclusion, we have a little trouble testifying. If you will give us examples such as you just gave us about censorship, could we go back a moment to the conversation about his going to Russia. During the course of that subject, in questions put to him, was anything he listed as to why he went to Russia? May I have a yes or no first? Do you recall anything like that?
Mrs. PAINE - I can't be certain that this is when I first got an idea about why he wanted to go or whether I learned this later.

The only answer she needed to give here was "no". As in no, I don't recall.

And no - I am not suggesting anything nefarious about her answer here. The point is showing that Jenner was trying to prevent tricky Quaker non-responses by framing "yes.no" questions - and still failing to get that little concession from her.

Mr. JENNER - Yes. That is the point I was seeking to make. Did you become better acquainted with the Oswalds thereafter?
Mrs. PAINE - I met--
Mr. JENNER - Did you, first, yes or no?
Mrs. PAINE - I became better acquainted with Marina.

Jenner seems to be getting frustrated with her avoidance at this stage. And again fails to get his "yes/no".

And again, nothing nefarious in the answer - just an apparent awareness that she could not be trusted and he needed to get simple responses from her.

I am guessing he had a long talk to her before the second session because suddenly she is giving those simple "yes/no" responses consistently. Her third session bore no "yes" responses at all, but a number of qualified "no" answers.

During the 4th session, she got anther reminder, but this time at least, heeded it.

Mr. JENNER - Had you talked with John Thorne, or Jim Martin in advance of delivering those checks-- "yes" or "no"?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes.

She went back to relative compliance in the last session. I doubt Jenner had to do this with any other witness. Perhaps he had previous experience of cross-examining quakers?

So no, I don't agree that she was universally trusted by commission counsel, though in the end, she was certainly accepted as being a star witness for the Warren Prosecution.

And I also need to add that as it was a prosecutorial commission (despite disclaimers that it was merely a fact-finding commission), she was overall, a friendly witness for the prosecution. and she like, all other witnesses, was not cross-examined to have her statements tested. Even Jenner never persued her over her repeated efforts to avoid straight answers, even though he was aware of it as an issue.

Mon 10 Oct 2022, 5:20 am

Another thing about Ruth’s testimony is Jenner had to repeatedly badger her to stop “rationalizing” and actually give her personal recollection of events. Ruth did not comply, and got away with several instances of basically making shit up by either qualifying her statements as a “rationalization” or giving non denial denials to direct questions - as Greg P has pointed out.

Here’s a fairly benign example of Jenner actually doing his job:

Mr. JENNER - Yes; that is all right. And did you also say to Agent Hosty that Oswald himself had "Admitted being a Trotskyite Communist."
Mrs. PAINE - Oh, I doubt seriously I said Trotskyite Communist. I would think Leninist Communist, but I am not certain.
Mr. JENNER - Do you remember making a remark of similar import?
Mrs. PAINE - Reference to Trotsky surprises me. I have come since the assassination to wonder if he had Trotskyite views. I have become interested in what such views are since the assassination.
Mr. JENNER - To the best of your recollection you don't recall making that comment?
Mrs. PAINE - I wouldn't think that I had the knowledge by which to make such a statement even.
Mr. JENNER - Now after this rationalization you have made, Mrs. Paine, it is your recollection that you did not make such a comment?
Mrs. PAINE - I can't recall. What was the second item that I told Hosty he had been out on the second and third? I am just trying to clarify here.
Mr. JENNER - You had told him that Lee Oswald had been at your home November 2 and 3, that you told him that Lee Oswald was an illogical person?
Mrs. PAINE - That is it.
Mr. JENNER - And third, that you told him that Oswald had admitted being a Trotskyite Communist.
Mrs. PAINE - I may have said that. I don't recall.
Mr. JENNER - You may have said the latter.
Mrs. PAINE - I don't recall, that is right.
Mr. JENNER - It is possible that you did say it?
Mrs. PAINE - It is possible. I am surprised, however, by the word at that point.

Here’s a not so benign example of Jenner letting Ruth get away with it that I included in my mailbox essay:

Mr. JENNER - The papers different from the Worker and the Militant, when did they begin to arrive at your home?
Mrs. PAINE - Well, they began to arrive, I would say, some time after October 4th. That is, of course, my judgment. That is a rationalization.
Mr. JENNER - These magazines and newspapers you have recounted first appeared at your home after Lee Oswald came to Dallas and became employed or came to Dallas to live at your house and to seek employment?
Mrs. PAINE - He came to Dallas, he lived in Dallas, but he used my house.
Mr. JENNER - He came to your house?
Mrs. PAINE - As a residence, mailing address. Never asked to and I never complained but I noticed, of course, that he was using it as a mailing address.
Mr. JENNER - Up to that time and even though Marina was living with you nothing of that nature came to your home?
Mrs. PAINE - What?
Mr. JENNER - Prior to the time that Lee arrived at your home on or about or on the 4th of October 1963, none of these newspapers or periodicals had come to your home, is that correct?
Mrs. PAINE - That is correct.

Mon 10 Oct 2022, 6:27 am

GregP and TomG, I too look closely at answers to questions in testimony transcripts to look for signals of non-straightforward answering.

But it should be noted that frustration with inability to get a "yes" or "no" answer to questions from witnesses is actually common, and I think of my mother. She was 100% honest but one of her idiosyncracies which used to drive my Dad crazy was she simply would not give a straight answer to a question. She would start into a roundabout story (apparently thinking it was necessary to give background or context on the topic, then in the process never get back to the question) and end up still with no answer to the question. Not with intent to deceive, just the way she was especially as she got older. She had the best intentions in the world. I agree that if a witness normally gives on-topic direct answers it may signal something if there is some different response, to be gone into case by case. But it is also fair to recognize it is very easy for innocent witnesses to be suspected of malfeasance by overinterpreting things of this nature. This goes into the issue of human lie detection of which there are many systems claimed and advocated but which, as a generalization, are less accurate than claimed when subjected to controlled studies. As I understand it, human lie detection methods (this would include reading testimony transcript for anomalies, "statement analysis") are only barely above random in overall efficacy from controlled studies. (This is concerning ability to detect a serious liar. I think detection of sloppy or frivolous unskilled liars, of which every mom of small children is an expert, may be excluded in these studies as not the question being tested.) As I understand it the only really proven method that goes significantly better than random is the polygraph and that at best only gets to 85% confidence or so, still short of certainty. Maybe you have done more research on this than me but that is what I have read.

The thing about Ruth Paine is with all of the range and severity of horrible suspicions and allegations about her, just nothing has ever been proven in any direct sense. Instead there are a lot of circumstantial cases which people think add up to proof, of the same genre as Harvey and Lee doppelganger arguments for believers in that. Not actually proof, not direct proof, but adherents to such arguments think they constitute proof, and once fixed such internal certainties can hardly ever be dislodged.

Mon 10 Oct 2022, 11:38 am

GregP and TomG, I too look closely at answers to questions in testimony transcripts to look for signals of non-straightforward answering.

Great! What were the signs of lying (including by omission) that caused you to throw Buell under the bus as Oswald's barber buddy?

But it should be noted that frustration with inability to get a "yes" or "no" answer to questions from witnesses is actually common

Great again! The Warren Commission deposed 550 witnesses. Point to any other who had to be reminded to answer a yes/no question with an actual yes or no.

I agree that if a witness normally gives on-topic direct answers it may signal something if there is some different response, to be gone into case by case. But it is also fair to recognize it is very easy for innocent witnesses to be suspected of malfeasance by overinterpreting things of this nature. This goes into the issue of human lie detection of which there are many systems claimed and advocated but which, as a generalization, are less accurate than claimed when subjected to controlled studies. As I understand it, human lie detection methods (this would include reading testimony transcript for anomalies, "statement analysis") are only barely above random in overall efficacy from controlled studies. (This is concerning ability to detect a serious liar. I think detection of sloppy or frivolous unskilled liars, of which every mom of small children is an expert, may be excluded in these studies as not the question being tested.) As I understand it the only really proven method that goes significantly better than random is the polygraph and that at best only gets to 85% confidence or so, still short of certainty. Maybe you have done more research on this than me but that is what I have read.

No need to try and interpret anything. Professionals get a baseline.

We have our baseline with Ruth. We know she is quite willing to lie if it necessary to get what she wants because we have a pre-assassination example of such a lie - and no matter how hard to try and minimise, excuse or rationalize the lie - it remains a lie - made on legal documents.

Which also raises the ugly and unwelcome question of why the hell should Quakers be exempt fro taking an oath to tell the truth? Quite obviously it should have been done in Ruth's case.

Ruth knew the difference between right and wrong, truth and lies, because despite your poor mom and her apparent early onset Alzheimer's, we know Ruth was extremely bright and more than capable of understanding the importance of answering questions in a straightforward, truthful manner - especially in a legal setting. The only witness who had as much trouble answering questions in a straightforward way was Helen Markham - and Helen was not well educated, or very bright, and was easily intimidated and rattled by authority figures. None of that applies to Ruth who was so self-assured, she succesfully bullied her questioners into allowing her to dictate direction of questions at various times.

Now I will try again...

When the FBI asked Ruth if she made the call to the furniture store in Garland on behalf of Marina and she replied that such a call woluld be a toll call from Irving and she would therefore remember it if she made it.... was she actually answering the question, in your opinion..? just a yes or no.

Tue 11 Oct 2022, 7:20 am

greg_parker wrote:When the FBI asked Ruth if she made the call to the furniture store in Garland on behalf of Marina and she replied that such a call woluld be a toll call from Irving and she would therefore remember it if she made it.... was she actually answering the question, in your opinion..? just a yes or no.

I don't know.

This is going afield from the identity of the Shasteen barbershop customer which seems to have run its course.

On one other point, on Ruth Paine's divorce papers, on this: "about six months prior to their separation, Michael Paine commenced a course of unkind, cruel, harsh and tyrannical treatment of Ruth Paine of such a nature as to render the future of their living together insupportable"

I am not going to say I know for certain Ruth Paine lied signing that. This is not like testimony as to a material fact, a date, time, place or an event subject to external verification or falsification. This is a statement of a subjective state of mind interpretation or perception in the eye of the beholder and I do not claim to know whether Ruth Paine in her inner mind considered those adjectives defensibly true or not at the time she signed to them. Nor is it of interest to me to know. So when you express certainty on this point, please do not henceforth represent that I am certain with you. My position is I don't know, I don't think it is knowable, I don't think it is relevant, and I do not care. That's my story on that and I'm gonna stick to it.

And one other point. When you repeatedly say Ruth Paine never helped anyone charitably, what kind of nerve do you have to say that as if you have knowledge of her entire life prior to 1963. You don't know but the tiniest sliver of a fraction of a percent of her life before 1963 or in the years after. Better to stick to what you know. And Ruth never represented herself as taking in Marina as charity in the first place, so you are making a red herring accusation on her on that. Two moms with two small children apiece each headed for divorce who share a Russian language interest in common linking up to share a household and child-rearing is analogous to college roommates or housemates linking up in any university town in America for mutual-advantage reasons. Of course liking each other goes into the mix, makes any household go better. When you attack her for failing to attain some ideal of saintly altruism in failing to take in a second woman after Marina, or failing to take in homeless people off the street to live in her home after she took in Marina or whatever, that is just unwarranted. It would be like someone attacking you if you went into a business partnership for not attaining some ideal of altruism in the way you failed to take in a second business partner after the first one. Or criticizing you for not taking in homeless people to live in your living space. There is nothing unQuakerly about mutual-advantage relationships, housemates, marriages, business relationships. These are red herring accusations you are creating.

and now for something completely different...

and now for something completely different...

Re: and now for something completely different...

Re: and now for something completely different...

Re: and now for something completely different...

Re: and now for something completely different...

Re: and now for something completely different...

Re: and now for something completely different...

Re: and now for something completely different...

Re: and now for something completely different...

Re: and now for something completely different...

Re: and now for something completely different...

Re: and now for something completely different...

Re: and now for something completely different...

Re: and now for something completely different...

Re: and now for something completely different...

Re: and now for something completely different...

Re: and now for something completely different...

Re: and now for something completely different...

Re: and now for something completely different...

Re: and now for something completely different...

Re: and now for something completely different...

Re: and now for something completely different...

Re: and now for something completely different...

Re: and now for something completely different...

Re: and now for something completely different...

Re: and now for something completely different...

Re: and now for something completely different...