and now for something completely different...

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.

Greg Doudna wrote:

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. 

Well let me help you out.

Confirming that you would remember x if x happened, is in no way a denial or a confirmation that x happened. Anyone answering a yes/no question in such a way, is hoping though that you will assume it is a denial and not ask again. It is a deliberate deception. Four out four people asked to give an opinion on the answer all said it doesn't answer the question. Two of the four added that it appeared to be a deliberately misleading answer.  Only one of the four was even vaguely aware of who Ruth is. None were prompted or given any other information. They were simply given the question and asked to give an opinion on the answer. 

You are being wilfully blind. I mean, it seems both you and Ruth missed the Quaker memo sent from the 1600s `The Lord taught me to be faithful in all things ... and to keep to Yea and Nay in all things.'

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

No, it's actually the core issue. You would not give two Hoots about my identification of young Bill as the barbershop kid if he had not been associated with Ruth. Nor would you have thrown Buell under the bus if Bill was just some random kid.

You made Ruth the focus through your ill-advised and ill-conceived knew-jerk defensiveness of her and Quaker alleged traditions of truth-telling - a tradition that has now completely fallen apart, if it ever existed except in the deluded minds of adherents.  If I can believe you, truth to Quakers is now whatever suits the individual. Can't lose with that philosophy, can you?

But George Fox was really just another Brian of Nazareth wandering the streets in tumultuous times when soothesayers and priests offering the "one" truth were a dime a dozen. Luckily today we know about mental health, and the real causes of those still, quiet inner voices. 

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.

You are nothing, if not flexible. 

Here is what you said on October 7.
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.  

In summary
> You don't think Ruth really believed what she said on the papers about here husband
> You believe about 50% of quakers would sign off on similar lies if it was the only way to get a divorce (which in fact it was not. It was not uncommon to go get a divorce in a state that had different laws, not requiring such marital conditions as a pre-requisite)

And you said the above despite oreviously claiming that Quaker tradition was to tell the truth despite any consequences of doing so. When you were reminded of that claim, you changed your 50% of dishonest Quakers to 25% - but wrapped it in more qualifications than you could count. 

Now you are also walking away from claiming that you think Ruth did not believe what she she swore to on those papers. 

These backflips are not the hallmarks of someone looking for the truth. They are the hallmarks of someone caught in a web of self-deceipt about their own religious convictions. Don't blame me. I am just holding the mirror up to you

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.

Hmmm,

How is it do you suppose, that Mike's good friend, Ray Krystinik, came to believe that the Oswalds were nothing but a charity case to the Paines?  The only way I see that happening is by what was told to him by Mike.

Mr. LIEBELER. Based upon your knowledge of both of the Paines, you have no reason to suspect them of any involvement of any kind in the assassination, do you?
Mr. KRYSTINIK. Only as victims of a very cruel twist of fate, that is all I can say, and that they are in that position because of their charity. I think it is a vexatious, cruel reward for charity, to be associated with the people, or to harbor the wife of the assassin--I won't say harbor--I don't say she had anything to do with it. Michael told me that Oswald visited the Paine residence on weekends. 

But Mike's friends were not the only ones suffering under the delusion that the Paine's were acting out of charity. Ruth's friends were suffering that same delusion.





I happen to agree with you here. There was zero charity involved. The pair had even discussed how Mike might profit from it as a tax dodge. 

But nor to do I believe that was the main reason Marina was taken in. Ruth after all, was of the conservative faction of Quakerism and that faction does not see charity as their calling because it does not serve god. Or some such nonsense. 

Bottom line: the idea that Ruth was acting out of charity was never an idea that was disabused by anyone. It was in fact, a view that was encouraged in order to put an innocent spin on the association. 

Ruth lied when it suited her to lie. You now try and get around that by claiming in effect that all truth is subjective. 

I disagree. Terms like "cruel" and "tyrannical" are not open to interpretation. They have very clear and distinct meanings. 

Can you possibly lower the bar any further for Ruth? I doubt it, but I'm sure you'll try.

That is a misrepresentation. I gave my reasons in my long article. I have looked in one way or another, in many cases in depth, at all of the major claimed Oswald sightings and have produced original research on some, such as a substantial, in-depth argument that the Furniture Mart sighting and Dial Ryder scope installation were the real Oswald with Marina driving Ruth's car without her knowledge on Mon Nov 11. On the other hand I have found all of the Sports Drome Rifle Range Oswald claims are mistaken identifications, probably Mannlicher-Carcano gun dealer Thomas Masen who looked like Oswald according to ATF agent Ellsworth and who was told by Masen that he was there at the rifle range. I have intensely studied the Jarnagin story. I have found dozens of crazy Oswald sighting claims among the FBI interview reports on the Mary Ferrell site that are obviously outlandish except to the witnesses who are convinced they saw Oswald, somewhere else in the country. If Ruth Paine did not exist I would no less consider the Oswald/Hootkins of Dallas identification to be mistaken for reasons explained in my article. I know you have put a lot of work into developing the theory and are invested in it but its not right. In the future if you repeat your belief that Ruth Paine is my reason for thinking the biweekly-groomed customer of Shasteen with his hair cut so short it would not lay down flat, with his oversized coveralls and yellow shoes and driving his station wagon, was not Oswald known by his coworkers for looking so badly in need of a haircut, disclose that I deny that preferably with link to my article giving my reasons.

But nor to do I believe that was the main reason Marina was taken in. Ruth after all, was of the conservative faction of Quakerism and that faction does not see charity as their calling because it does not serve god. Or some such nonsense. 

That isn't quite right. Your reference is to a certain kind of evangelical Christianity which thinks souls should be saved not people fed with mere bread, but that is not the Friends branches in which Ruth has been involved. In her college days she was involved with Friends United Meeting (liberal, pastoral) and also in college and later years with meetings of Friends General Conference (liberal, silent meetings), and in St. Petersburg, Florida, where I knew her, the meeting there was part of a regional conference called Southeastern Yearly Meeting which is an independent Yearly Meeting but whose monthly meetings including St. Petersburg are in every way just like the meetings of Friends General Conference, which is the major silent-meeting Friends body of North America and overwhelmingly liberal/social conscience politically. None of these Friends bodies have that peculiarity to which you refer. All of these branches have long supported the national organization the American Friends Service Committee which is opposed to trying to convert or proselytize on principle. The branch of North American Friends in which what you refer would be true is the one I know least of personally, Evangelical Friends, with pastors and conservative right-wing politics but Ruth has not been involved with that branch to my knowledge. Now I have given you an item of information. You can scorn it, continue mistaken, or thank me for taking the time to explain this so that you learn a detail about something.


Also, every Friends meeting I've ever attended in North America has been involved in some forms of local charitable work. Its not necessarily called "charity" but it may be something to do with refugees or immigrant families, poverty, whatever. Everyone contributing financially to the meeting, which is most regular attenders, is therefore helping fund these local initiatives, and the budget decisions themselves are made by consensus in business meetings of the full members and attenders. Ruth would have been part of financial contribution to any meeting in which she was a part, would have participated in the business meetings in which budget allocations were made, and therefore it is certain she was involved in charitable work in that way, to which may be added unknown volunteer labor. So this idea that I have seen you express dogmatically several times that Ruth Paine never did anything charitable, as a character criticism or attempt to character assassinate, is baseless.


I think you are so fixated on hostility to Ruth Paine, for whatever reasons going well beyond an unverified but reasonable inquiry into whether she was asked to be helpful to or look after Marina by an agency or informally. You like so many other CT's go way beyond that question into wild and deep strange theories about her, none of which have any proof, but you firmly believe, almost as bad as Alex Jones Sandy Hook ravings. This notion of a gigantic mini-conspiracy and then coverup on Ruth Paines's part of evil machinations with Hootkins in the Shasteen barbershop is looney-tunes. But it is not defense of Ruth Paine why I reject this bat-shit crazy Shasteen barbershop conspiracy theory. It is because it is looney-tunes. On your serious purpose, the center and strength of your work, on reopening the case on Oswald as the victim of an historical injustice--I too am convinced that is the case--that is your strength. I hope you will understand my harsh criticism of this Shasteen barbershop error is because I also believe it is not helpful to recovery of a true understanding what went down with Oswald and the JFK assassination.


In the absence of evidence, and because the mystification of what happened with the JFK assassination is both real and unsolved, CT's starting from maybe Salandria have fallen into filling in the unknown with malevolent Ruth Paine explanations created to explain the puzzles. Because humans are so wired such that significant questions combined with not knowing is extremely, extremely uncomfortable as a stable stasis, there is an almost overwhelming desire to close the gap with some explanation, any explanation, as better than no explanation, which is how unwarranted conspiracy theories in the negative sense of that term come about and proliferate. It is also how innocent persons in the wrong place at the wrong time get wrongfully convicted, scapegoats found. I see some Rene Girard scapegoat theory phenomenon going on with the treatment of Ruth Paine in the JFK CT world. 

From my book. Copy and paste plays havoc with formating, but I would be happy for Greg to point out anything I got wrong.
---------------
He should perhaps re-read our 2020 discussion here. 
---------------
Ruth Paine’s Midwest Quaker Roots

            Ruth Hyde (the future Mrs. Michael Paine) started attending Quaker Meetings as a 15 year old living in Columbus, Ohio in 1947, but did not officially join the church until 1951.[url=#_edn1][/url] The Columbus meeting had been inaugurated circa 1840 by the Hicksite faction – a splinter group who eschewed Evangelical dogma in favor of Quietism.[url=#_edn2]^[sup][ii][/sup][/url] The Hicksites had been at the forefront of the anti-slavery movement, and their overall influence on society was much weightier than their numbers should have allowed. While looking inward, they performed outward acts of charity and benevolence.
Time and population growth, along with the consequent influx of protestant religions, had a profound effect on the views of the peace testimony at the very heart of the religion and has in retrospect, been seen by many as deleterious to Midwestern Quakerism.
By the end of WWII, the Hicksites no longer held sway. The new majority of conservatives and evangelicals looked upon service to humanity as social work rather than religion, and their “light” did not reside inside themselves, butthemselves but had to be reached through the admission of sin and the hope of some implacably random redemption. 
             By 1969, the move to the right in the Midwest had gone so far as to cause one young Friend to read a prepared statement to the West Branch Yearly Meeting in Indiana. In the statement, the Friend bemoaned the slide toward materialism, and the loss of the belief that God was in every man.  The Friend also pointed out the hypocrisy of treasuring their anti-slavery heritage while holding meetings which showed them to be “among the most segregated groups anywhere.”[url=#_edn3]^[sup][iii][/sup][/url]
            Despite not committing to the Quaker faith until 1951, Ruth Hyde nonetheless, represented the Columbus Meeting at the 1947 Young Friends conference held at Earlham College in Richmond, Indiana – only about 50 miles from her home in Yellow Springs, Ohio.[url=#_edn4][iv][/url]
            Earlham College was something of a microcosm of Midwestern Quakerism.  Faculty and alumni lists routinely displayed such names as William Cullen Davis, his son David, and D. Elton Trueblood. The elder Davis was President of Earlham from 1929 to 1946 and Trueblood was a theologian and White House confidante. The common denominators between some of these faculty and alumni listees were conservatism, anti-communism and the hint of being intelligence assets. One can also extract the names of a few John Birch Society heavyweights. This includes psychological warfare expert and Douglas MacArthur protégé, Bonner Fellers and his daughter Nancy Jane. In what appears to be an orchestrated incident, Nancy Jane left Earlham and enrolled at Vassar where, in an article for The Freeman, she accused her former college of grading her poorly based on differences in ideology. She then left the ensuing national furore behind by returning to Earlham and graduating.[url=#_edn5][v][/url] There was also E. Merrill Root who in retirement became the editor of Human Events.
            There is one more graduate of Earlham who is of interest: Von Edwin Peacock, class of ’57. Von Peacock’s father, Virgil, had been a trustee of Earlham College and a board member of Quaker Haven.
During the time the FBI was conducting the Mexico City phase of its Oswald investigation, Von Peacock was the Acting Director of the American Friends Service Committee (AFSC).  The AFSC owned and operated the Casa de los Amigos which functioned as a home base for AFSC programs and work camps, and as a guest house for visiting Quakers and volunteers. The FBI had been led to the Casa de los Amigos by a local Quaker named Homobono Alcarez Aragon who had reportedly seen Oswald in the company of young Americans thought to be staying at the Friends guest house.[url=#_edn6][vi][/url]
            The FBI interviewed Von Peacock, but failed to identify, let alone interview, the person who was the actual Director during 1963. His name was Ed Duckles, and he was not only the director, but the founder of the non-profit organization. Despite this, his name appears nowhere in the 26 volumes of reports, interviews or other documentation.

---

[url=#_ednref1][i][/url] Warren Commission Hearings vol. III, p133

[url=#_ednref3][iii][/url]   http://www.quakerquaker.org
[url=#_ednref4][iv][/url] Warren Commission Hearings vol. IX, p337
[url=#_ednref5][v][/url] Vassar College Libraries – the Fellers Incident Records, 1949 - 1967
[url=#_ednref6][vi][/url] Unless otherwise stated, information on Midwest Quakers, Earlham College and its professors and alumni, has been sourced from a private researcher who wishes to remain anonymous. His own sources include Indiana University History Magazine, Earlham College archives  and Quaker Life magazine

Reformatted in MS Word.

From my book. Copy and paste plays havoc with formatting, but I would be happy for Greg to point out anything I got wrong.
---------------
He should perhaps re-read our 2020 discussion here. 
---------------
Ruth Paine’s Midwest Quaker Roots

Ruth Hyde (the future Mrs. Michael Paine) started attending Quaker Meetings as a 15-year-old living in Columbus, Ohio in 1947, but did not officially join the church until 1951 


The Columbus meeting had been inaugurated circa 1840 by the Hicksite faction – a splinter group who eschewed Evangelical dogma in favour of Quietism.
The Hicksites had been at the forefront of the anti-slavery movement, and their overall influence on society was much weightier than their numbers should have allowed. While looking inward, they performed outward acts of charity and benevolence.


Time and population growth, along with the consequent influx of protestant religions, had a profound effect on the views of the peace testimony at the very heart of the religion and has in retrospect, been seen by many as deleterious to Midwestern Quakerism.


By the end of WWII, the Hicksites no longer held sway. The new majority of conservatives and evangelicals looked upon service to humanity as social work rather than religion, and their “light” did not reside inside themselves but had to be reached through the admission of sin and the hope of some implacably random redemption. 


By 1969, the move to the right in the Midwest had gone so far as to cause one young Friend to read a prepared statement to the West Branch Yearly Meeting in Indiana. In the statement, the Friend bemoaned the slide toward materialism, and the loss of the belief that God was in every man.  The Friend also pointed out the hypocrisy of treasuring their anti-slavery heritage while holding meetings which showed them to be among the most segregated groups anywhere.


Despite not committing to the Quaker faith until 1951, Ruth Hyde nonetheless, represented the Columbus Meeting at the 1947 Young Friends conference held at Earlham College in Richmond, Indiana – only about 50 miles from her home in Yellow Springs, Ohio.


Earlham College was something of a microcosm of Midwestern Quakerism.  Faculty and alumni lists routinely displayed such names as William Cullen Davis, his son David, and D. Elton Trueblood. The elder Davis was President of Earlham from 1929 to 1946 and Trueblood was a theologian and White House confidante. The common denominators between some of these faculty and alumni listees were conservatism, anti-communism, and the hint of being intelligence assets. One can also extract the names of a few John Birch Society heavyweights. This includes psychological warfare expert and Douglas MacArthur protégé, Bonner Fellers and his daughter Nancy Jane.
 
In what appears to be an orchestrated incident, Nancy Jane left Earlham and enrolled at Vassar where, in an article for The Freeman, she accused her former college of grading her poorly based on differences in ideology. She then left the ensuing national furore behind by returning to Earlham and graduating. There was also E. Merrill Root who in retirement became the editor of Human Events.
            
There is one more graduate of Earlham who is of interest: Von Edwin Peacock, class of ’57. Von Peacock’s father, Virgil, had been a trustee of Earlham College and a board member of Quaker Haven.


During the time the FBI was conducting the Mexico City phase of its Oswald investigation, Von Peacock was the Acting Director of the American Friends Service Committee (AFSC).  The AFSC owned and operated the Casa de los Amigos which functioned as a home base for AFSC programs and work camps, and as a guest house for visiting Quakers and volunteers.
The FBI had been led to the Casa de los Amigos by a local Quaker named Homobono Alcarez Aragon who had reportedly seen Oswald in the company of young Americans thought to be staying at the Friends guest house.
           
The FBI interviewed Von Peacock, but failed to identify, let alone interview, the person who was the actual Director during 1963. His name was Ed Duckles, and he was not only the director, but the founder of the non-profit organization. Despite this, his name appears nowhere in the 26 volumes of reports, interviews, or other documentation.


Warren Commission Hearings vol. III, p133
 
A type of Christian mysticism whose adherents believe the state of perfection can be achieved through annihilating the ego so that the soul may be absorbed into Divine Light, even in this life. Once perfection is attained, there is no need for further prayer or fasting and one may freely give oneself whatever one desires.  You are also no longer subject to human authority or the precepts of the Church. This is close to the vision of Quaker founder, George Fox, and the name “Society of Friends” is held to be derived from the term, “Friends of the Light.” 

http://www.quakerquaker.org
Warren Commission Hearings vol. IX, p337
Vassar College Libraries – the Fellers Incident Records, 1949 - 1967
Unless otherwise stated, information on Midwest Quakers, Earlham College and its professors and alumni, has been sourced from a private researcher who wishes to remain anonymous. His own sources include Indiana University History Magazine, Earlham College archives  and Quaker Life magazine

That is a misrepresentation. I gave my reasons in my long article. I have looked in one way or another, in many cases in depth, at all of the major claimed Oswald sightings and have produced original research on some, such as a substantial, in-depth argument that the Furniture Mart sighting and Dial Ryder scope installation were the real Oswald with Marina driving Ruth's car without her knowledge on Mon Nov 11. On the other hand I have found all of the Sports Drome Rifle Range Oswald claims are mistaken identifications, probably Mannlicher-Carcano gun dealer Thomas Masen who looked like Oswald according to ATF agent Ellsworth and who was told by Masen that he was there at the rifle range. I have intensely studied the Jarnagin story. I have found dozens of crazy Oswald sighting claims among the FBI interview reports on the Mary Ferrell site that are obviously outlandish except to the witnesses who are convinced they saw Oswald, somewhere else in the country. If Ruth Paine did not exist I would no less consider the Oswald/Hootkins of Dallas identification to be mistaken for reasons explained in my article. I know you have put a lot of work into developing the theory and are invested in it but its not right. In the future if you repeat your belief that Ruth Paine is my reason for thinking the biweekly-groomed customer of Shasteen with his hair cut so short it would not lay down flat, with his oversized coveralls and yellow shoes and driving his station wagon, was not Oswald known by his coworkers for looking so badly in need of a haircut, disclose that I deny that preferably with link to my article giving my reasons.

Of course you claim misrepresentation. What else can you do? 

And of course close study of many individual sightings will expose them to be in error. But some are not. This is one.

The only thing I am invested in is drawing out the facts. If I am wrong about anything, so be it. I am on record as changing my mind based on errors of fact I had previously relied upon, or by the provision of more evidence. 

Your case of mistaken identity here is full of loaded language, personal bias and errors in judgement and interpretation. 

Using "hair cut so short it would not lay down flat" for example. It is a claim you keep repeating, but one which has no basis in reality.

This is what Shasteen said - and it describes Oswald's hair perfectly:

Mr. SHASTEEN. You could just name it, because he didn't wear it long and he didn't wear it short. It was almost short enough to stand up but it was too long to stand up.


Your next claim - "with his oversized coveralls" is on only slightly firmer ground but does have a logical explanation - which I have given several times. But here it is again. Mike Paine would have been issued arny coveralls while serving. Mike liked tinkering in the garage - his army issued coveralls would be perfect to protect his clothes whilst doing that. Mike was a few inches taller that Lee, so if Oswald borrowed such coveralls to protect his own clothing while having a haircut, they would indeed appear to oversized. Your reference to the yellow shoes is your only real piece of evidence that is hard to nail down and dismiss. What happened to them? Exactly where were they purchased and when? I have given some plausible, but not difinitive answers to those questions. But the shoes alone do not impeach all of the other evidence of it being Oswald - leaving it as him ON THE BALANCE OF PROBABILITY.

Another claim you repeat is "Oswald known by his coworkers for looking so badly in need of a haircut"

But as is your want, you refuse to acknowledge the rebuttal where Shasteen says the exact same thing about his customer.

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

But I will gladly give links in future so that everyone can see what i say is not a misrepresentation. Your self-appointed role as defender of Ruth Paine goes well beyond just the Hootkins incident. You are all over anything that even hints at her being less than saintly. 

That isn't quite right. Your reference is to a certain kind of evangelical Christianity which thinks souls should be saved not people fed with mere bread, but that is not the Friends branches in which Ruth has been involved. In her college days she was involved with Friends United Meeting (liberal, pastoral) and also in college and later years with meetings of Friends General Conference (liberal, silent meetings), and in St. Petersburg, Florida, where I knew her, the meeting there was part of a regional conference called Southeastern Yearly Meeting which is an independent Yearly Meeting but whose monthly meetings including St. Petersburg are in every way just like the meetings of Friends General Conference, which is the major silent-meeting Friends body of North America and overwhelmingly liberal/social conscience politically. None of these Friends bodies have that peculiarity to which you refer. All of these branches have long supported the national organization the American Friends Service Committee which is opposed to trying to convert or proselytize on principle. The branch of North American Friends in which what you refer would be true is the one I know least of personally, Evangelical Friends, with pastors and conservative right-wing politics but Ruth has not been involved with that branch to my knowledge. Now I have given you an item of information. You can scorn it, continue mistaken, or thank me for taking the time to explain this so that you learn a detail about something.

She was close to people associated with Earlham College - heartland of conservative Quakerism, including prominent Birchers. And as you know, she travelled all over the US with Earlham professors when working on the East-West contact program. These people were rabidly anti-communists living in fear of WWIII. So dogmatic were they, that could not even bring themselves to refer to the Soviet Union. They insisted on continuing to call it Russia. 

Ruth also claimed that she was called by God to learn Russian. That sounds conservative (as in mainstream), if not  evangelical.  It certainlnly isn't the practice of a nontheist liberal (i.e. bleeding heart) quaker.

Having read many many FBI documents pertaining to interviews with quaker friends and associates of Ruth... many mention her work on the east-west program. None mention any charity work - with one exception - Marina. 

In any case many religions such as Scientology, and some evangelical churches, maintain shopfronts supposedly operating as charities in order to maintain tax exemptions. But in fact, no charity work is being carried out. None. Zip. 

Ruth was no Margaret Scattergood. 

Margaret [Scattergood] was far more skeptical of CIA and considered the organization’s mission to be in violation of her pacifist beliefs. She used her trust fund to financially contribute to antiwar causes. She lobbied Congress to cut the US Intelligence and military budgets. In the 1980s Margaret opened her home to Sandinistas from Nicaragua, while CIA supported the opposition.
https://www.quakerranter.org/the-quaker-pacifist-who-lived-with-the-cia/

Seriously Greg, do you think you are debating one of the turnips at the 13 inch head forum? 

Once again, you have made undue assumptions at the start, leaving your whole argument looking pretty silly. I'm sure you are capable of much better - on subjects where you are less emotionally involved.

It may be that the words “unkind”, “harsh”, and “tyrannical” are from Ruth, verbatim descriptions of Michael by Ruth during the period in question, added by the attorney to the only actually relevant legal term at issue, cruel. It may be the attorney saw the descriptions of Michael in Ruth’s wording (and supporting incidents) as, according to Texas family law, “cruelty”.

This is no routine boilerplate. It is a serious charge which must be capable of demonstration in court.

Yes, it is indeed boilerplate.

This is from the court ruling in a Texas divorce appeal from the same time period:

The trial court filed findings substantially as follows:
"4. The parties separated on or about January 15, 1964, by reason of the cruel, harsh and unkind treatment of defendant towards plaintiff.


"5. Sometime after their marriage, defendant, being mindful of the duties and obligations of his marriage vows, began a course of studied and deliberate unkind, cruel, harsh and tyrannical conduct against plaintiff, which continued and became worse and more unbearable until she was forced to separate from him.

BOILERPLATE!!!! What Is Boilerplate? The term boilerplate refers to standardized text, copy, documents, methods, or procedures that may be used over again without making major changes to the original.

As to s other assumptions firstly, that the charges must be capable of demonstration in court... wrong again. From the divorce appeal quoted above:  
---------------------
Appellant complains that these findings are too general and the trial court erred in not specifying the particular acts and conduct of appellant which constituted excesses, cruel treatment and outrages. It is seen, however, that the trial court made findings on all ultimate issues of fact necessary to establish this ground for divorce. Howell v. Howell, 147 Tex. 14, 210 S.W.2d 978. It was not necessary for the trial court to make specific findings on evidentiary issues as requested by appellant. Moore v. Campbell, Tex.Civ.App., 254 S.W.2d 1018, wr. ref., n. r. e.; 4 McDonald, Texas Civil Practice, 1289.


Appellant urges further that the evidence was not full and satisfactory  because appellee's testimony was not corroborated. It is settled that corroboration of the testimony of the complaining spouse is not an indispensable requirement under Art. 
https://casetext.com/case/houssiere-v-houssiere
------------------
And secondly... 

A key point is the petition does not have Ruth saying Michael was unkind, harsh, and tyrannical in 1963 or later or other than the time frame in 1962. There may be allusion to something specific that Michael did or said in March 1962, "about six months before" the separation, which "commenced" a course of unkind, harsh and tyrannical treatment and conduct toward Ruth of which Ruth told the attorney specifics.

Boy you tie yourself in verbal knots sometimes. You seem to trying to claim both that it was a single incidence AND ongoing bad treatment but not continuing into 1963 - unless that is necessary - whereby you can "clarify" your word salad to mean whatever you next need it to mean.
 
In any case... this is from a Texas law firm specializing in divorce:

What Is Cruelty?
Cruelty as grounds for divorce covers a wide spectrum of actions. According to the Texas statutes about cruelty, a divorce can be granted on the grounds of cruelty if the cruelty makes living together impossible. There are three kinds of cruel treatment recognized by the courts.

Physical cruelty. This is also defined as physical abuse. If one partner batters or physically restrains the other to the point of injury, physical cruelty is easy to prove in court. Physical cruelty also falls under criminal statutes in Texas.

Emotional cruelty. This can be described as the deliberate infliction of distress, pain, or intimidation through verbal or non-verbal acts. Shouting, threatening, manipulation of children and friends, are all forms of emotional cruelty.


Mental cruelty. This is difficult to define and prove in court. Mental cruelty is a form of abuse in which the abusive partner attacks the mental stability of the other partner. Gaslighting, humiliation, isolation, and deprivation of civil rights are forms of mental cruelty.

For example, a partner who beats a spouse and breaks their arm would be engaging in physical cruelty. If the same partner routinely shouted and threw things at the spouse, but never struck them, it would be emotional cruelty. If the partner broke plates, hid them, then asked the spouse why they kept breaking the plates, that would be mental cruelty.

For purposes of divorce, the cruelty needs to be shown as an ongoing pattern throughout the marriage. A single incident in a marriage is unlikely to be grounds for a cruelty-based divorce unless it was physical abuse of an especially heinous nature.
https://i.servimg.com/u/f71/19/74/07/06/rruths10.png


Meanwhile here is what some of Ruth's friends said about the separation:



Apparenty he did not give his wife and kids enough attention. Sounds pretty typical of the era to me. Does not meet any of the criteria for physical, mental or emotional abuse needed for divorce - thus the use of boilerplate language. It is not the job of the lawyer to play mariage counsellor and decide that what Ruth said, did or did not meet any standard.Lawyers are paid to get what the payee is paying for. The best the lawyer could say was "this is not a solid case but we'll do the best we can". Of course it helps when you don't need to prove anything - the court simply decides which party is the most believable.

Anyhow... you now have a choice.

Ruth either lied to her friends, or she lied on legal divorce papers. Which was it?

I say it was on the legal documents.

Greg P, do you have links or a reference on those boilerplate comparative examples of similar wording to that in Ruth Paine's divorce petition?

Greg_Doudna wrote:Greg P, do you have links or a reference on those boilerplate comparative examples of similar wording to that in Ruth Paine's divorce petition?

Apologies. I provided the wrong link previously.

Here is the right one: 
https://casetext.com/case/houssiere-v-houssiere

In further support, here is what the legal dictionary says regarding "cruelty"
---------------
The deliberate and malicious infliction of mental or physical pain upon persons or animals.


As applied to people, cruelty encompasses abusive, outrageous, and inhumane treatment that results in the wanton and unnecessary infliction of suffering upon the body or mind.


Legal cruelty involves conduct that warrants the granting of a Divorce to the injured spouse. Phrases such as "cruel and inhuman treatment," "cruel and abusive treatment," or "cruel and barbarous treatment" are commonly employed in matrimonial law. The term comprehends mental and physical harm, but a single act of cruelty is usually insufficient for divorce; a pattern of cruel conduct must occur over a period of time. 
https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Cruelty



And here is a 1931 Texas divorce where thosae same terms are ued

 'That defendant, disregarding the solemnity of his marriage vows and obligation to treat plaintiff with kindness and attention, within about two weeks after the said marriage commenced a course of unkind, harsh and tyrannical treatment toward plaintiff which continued with very slight intermissions until plaintiff finally separated from defendant on the 15th day of February, A.D. 1923;
https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Cruelty

The above dude was apparently a deadbeat who didn't work, didn't provide for her and, insisted they live with his parents and refused to allow her to socialize with girlfriends she had grown up with and repeatedly threatened her and her relatives with physical violence.

By contrast, after the separation, Mike gave Ruth $500 to go east and visit his and her relatives, gave her the house, and provided other ongoing monetary and emotional support. What an utter bastard he must have been!

Prior to the separation? Apparently he was consumed with his work and did not pay her the attention she craved. Again, sounds like a typical marriage of the era. 

Ruth lied to avoid the consequences of telling the truth. The truth would not have got her a divorce. Only a few lies would do that.

Greg P., hate to say this but you are right on this divorce wording business. It is boilerplate, your comparative examples show that.

I do not think Michael was cruel. Ruth visited that lawyer on Mon Nov 11. Michael was at her house overnight that weekend. When Ruth left to go to the lawyer on Monday morning she left her car with Lee to practice his parallel parking, meaning Ruth went with someone else in someone else's car. I don't think its clear in Ruth's WC testimony who she left with that morning to go to her divorce lawyer, but the obvious person would be Michael who was there that weekend with his car. Who knows, maybe Michael was even present with Ruth in a three-way meeting with that lawyer, with the lawyer explaining just how cruel Michael needed to agree he had been in order to get Ruth her divorce.

I drop contesting that that cruelty was fiction filed by a lawyer to get the divorce.

But I am not going to condemn Ruth for it. 

May I ask you a question. If you were in Texas in a comparable situation, needed a divorce from someone who was not cruel but who also wanted the divorce, and the right lawyer for a fee could file the boilerplate needed to get the divorce, would you refuse to sign it?

I am just wondering how harshly you would apply to yourself or others the condemnation you apply to Ruth.

I do not think Michael was cruel. Ruth visited that lawyer on Mon Nov 11. Michael was at her house overnight that weekend. When Ruth left to go to the lawyer on Monday morning she left her car with Lee to practice his parallel parking, meaning Ruth went with someone else in someone else's car.

Firstly, you claim that Ruth never let Lee drive her car - but you say here that she did - though just to practice parking. I have tried to verify this without success. Not doubting you, but would appreciate a link. All I can find is where she took him to the parking lot to practice on the Sunday - which you may recall, Hutchinson said was a claim he found hard to swallow given the lot was not suitable for that (according to him).

I don't think its clear in Ruth's WC testimony who she left with that morning to go to her divorce lawyer, but the obvious person would be Michael who was there that weekend with his car. Who knows, maybe Michael was even present with Ruth in a three-way meeting with that lawyer, with the lawyer explaining just how cruel Michael needed to agree he had been in order to get Ruth her divorce.

Again - can't find anything about her visiting her lawyer on Monday the 11th, let alone needing a lift so Lee could practice parking.

But for the sake of argument, if she did need a lift, it was not with Mike. That was Veteran's Day.

 Here is what Mike said:

 Mr. PAINE - I think I saw him every weekend on Friday; I think he was there except for the weekend, before the assassination, exceptional.
I would arrive on Tuesday or Wednesdays and, of course, he was not there and there was Ruth and Marina. I would simply come in on Sunday when he was generally there.
Also, I quite specifically remember on the long holiday he had some period there, I don't remember, what celebration it is, when Bell did not have that day off and he did, so he was there that morning, a Monday morning on that date of that holiday, perhaps you can feed me the date.
Mr. LIEBELER - Would that be November 8th, 9th and 10th, 1963?

Liebeler is talking about the Friday, Saturday and Sunday. The holiday Mike was recalling was Monday the 1th.

So no. Mike wasn't driving anyone anywhere that day. He had to work. It was just Ruth and her lawyer, Louise Raggio in the Raggio and Raggio office in the Rio Grande building not all that far from the TSBD. 

The Rio Grande Building also happened to be occupied by the 112th Military Intelligence Unit. Weird really because Louise's husband Grier, also a divorce lawyer, tried "unsuccessfully" to join army intelligence at the outbreak of WWII. "Flunked out" on the background check. Spent the entire war in Europe writing scathing letters home about the army and then years later would complain constantly about being harassed by the government. Yet there the Raggios are, snug as bugs in rugs sharing space with army intel.

Grier was a member of the local ACLU affiliate... and of Michael's Unitarian Church and it was Grier who claimed "credit" for the farcical attempt of the local ACLU to check that Oswald's rights were not being abridged. That went well, didn't it?

I drop contesting that that cruelty was fiction filed by a lawyer to get the divorce.

Well, you need to pick it up again. Boilerplate, the wording of which Ruth was unlikely to be aware of.  It was a lie because not paying enough attention to a spouse is not cruelty under any legal definition - unless the spouse is in a cage in the basement and the lack of attention includes forgeting to leave food and water (yes, Greg, that's an exaggeration in order to get the point across). Ruth signed off on this lie. 

But I am not going to condemn Ruth for it. 

Nor will I. But I will maintain that it bursts the bubble on her being a truth-teller and calls into question the parts of her statements I have previously highlighted as being ambiguous. Or to put it more bluntly and accurately - deliberately misleading.

May I ask you a question. If you were in Texas in a comparable situation, needed a divorce from someone who was not cruel but who also wanted the divorce, and the right lawyer for a fee could file the boilerplate needed to get the divorce, would you refuse to sign it?

I am not a member of a religious organization that originally went by the name Friends of Truth and who hold that truth-telling is the foundation of their faith. I did not undertake as part of that faith to bear whatever the consequences were of telling the truth, and I do not belong to a religion that calls me to do all that is possible to maintain a marriage - which as I understand it, is another tenet of Quakers. 

Here is what I would most likely have done. Utilized one of these shopfronts - assuming they were still operating as at 1963. If not, I would have looked at maybe Nevada for a quickie no fault divorce:

"Mexico used to be the hot spot for quickie divorces. In the States, divorce proceedings can drag on for months and cost thousands of dollars. From the 1940s to the 1960s, enterprising lawyers and judges set up shop right across the Texas and California borders, offering 24-hour divorces at low prices. U.S. courts eventually stopped recognizing these divorces, and Mexico enacted tougher residency requirements in the 1970s. But that didn't curb the demand for fast and cheap divorces. Today, the top destination for eager-to-be-exes is the Dominican Republic, a quick four-hour flight from NYC."
https://people.howstuffworks.com/get-secret-divorce.htm

The main reason for not seeking a cheaper no fault divorce is because of the property split. The person at fault is gonna lose - possible big-time - on the property split.  I don't care much for all that materialism. And that has been the case with the two major relationship splits I've had. I walked away with only my clothes and my record collection both times. Have not fought for anything, cars, houses or anything else, regardless of who was "at fault". 

One of my sons now has my record collection.

But I have a laptop now, and a desk and a lamp - much better for writing than the old typewriter I stuck with for so long - and I get to cook and watch sport, and discover shit through reading, and to watch my boys growing up to be better men than I ever was.  I take all of these things as my rewards for whatever I got right along the journey.

Also, I quite specifically remember on the long holiday he had some period there, I don't remember, what celebration it is, when Bell did not have that day off and he did, so he was there that morning, a Monday morning on that date of that holiday, perhaps you can feed me the date.
Mr. LIEBELER - Would that be November 8th, 9th and 10th, 1963?

Thanks Greg P for this detail from Michael Paine's testimony, referring to working at Bell on Mon Nov 11, 1963, Veterans Day. I missed that.


Michael Paine was at her house Sunday evening, because Sunday evening was when Ruth said she had "the men", both Michael and Lee, move furniture, switch positions of a sofa and desk that evening. (Which, trivia note, some, not here, have spun into some malevolence in that, when I dug a bit and figured out it had to do with having the sofa out of line of sight of the sun in eyes when sitting watching television late afternoon/early evening, based on the effects of Daylight Savings Time and the setting of the sun and the south-facing picture window of that living room, not more complicated than that.)

But from this Michael would not have joined her Monday morning Nov 11 in driving into Dallas for the meeting with her divorce attorney. The divorce petition was filed two days later on Nov 13 after having been worked out in the Nov 11 meeting. In her testimony Ruth refers to Lee inquiring of her on Sunday about her thinking about her meeting concerning a divorce and Ruth says she had been thinking about it. Ruth testified that on Mon Nov 11 she arranged with the neighbors to babysit her two children so it would not burden Lee and Marina left at the house, and was gone from about 9 a.m. until about 2 p.m. that day.

Incidentally contrary to the divorce petition (which though signed and filed, never was served to Michael, responded by Michael, nor did it result in divorce, according to any known record) which has the "unkind, harsh, cruel, and tyrannical", is contradicted by Ruth's testimony to the Warren Commission in which she says Michael had never been unkind.

Mr. Jenner. Is he gracious and kind and attentive to you?
Mrs. Paine. Yes.
Mr. Jenner. Has he always been?
Mrs. Paine. Insufficiently attentive, I would say, but he is always kind and thoughtful. 

So that divorce petition wording was boilerplate, generated by the attorney to satisfy legal requirement in Texas at that time to get a divorce.

Here is what I would most likely have done. Utilized one of these shopfronts - assuming they were still operating as at 1963. If not, I would have looked at maybe Nevada for a quickie no fault divorce:

"Mexico used to be the hot spot for quickie divorces. In the States, divorce proceedings can drag on for months and cost thousands of dollars. From the 1940s to the 1960s, enterprising lawyers and judges set up shop right across the Texas and California borders, offering 24-hour divorces at low prices. U.S. courts eventually stopped recognizing these divorces, and Mexico enacted tougher residency requirements in the 1970s. But that didn't curb the demand for fast and cheap divorces. Today, the top destination for eager-to-be-exes is the Dominican Republic, a quick four-hour flight from NYC."
https://people.howstuffworks.com/get-secret-divorce.htm

The main reason for not seeking a cheaper no fault divorce is because of the property split. The person at fault is gonna lose - possible big-time - on the property split.  I don't care much for all that materialism. And that has been the case with the two major relationship splits I've had. I walked away with only my clothes and my record collection both times. Have not fought for anything, cars, houses or anything else, regardless of who was "at fault". 

One of my sons now has my record collection.

But I have a laptop now, and a desk and a lamp - much better for writing than the old typewriter I stuck with for so long - and I get to cook and watch sport, and discover shit through reading, and to watch my boys growing up to be better men than I ever was.  I take all of these things as my rewards for whatever I got right along the journey.

Its touching reading of your sons, the twins, incidentally. On the quick divorce solution in Nevada and leaving the lady the better part of the material split, that's how I would go too if there were no children involved, I'm with you on that. However that is bachelor man thinking. In Ruth's case there are two children involved in addition to Michael was quite wealthy (the Forbes trust fund). Even though they were both decent with each other that is probably not the thing to leave ambiguous or unresolved in a Las Vegas quickie divorce. 


You condemn Ruth Paine for signing that wording and consider it impeaches the credibility of her Warren Commission testimony. Would you consider the same credibility impeachment of other Warren Commission witnesses if you found, entirely unrelated to their testimony, that they had signed upon advice of a lawyer legal boilerplate involving elastic definitions in their divorce paperwork? Isn't that a little extreme? 

Back to the Shasteen barber shop

~ ~ ~
Mr. Jenner. All right. We have a report, Mrs. Paine, and you might help us with it on this subject, of a barber in your community, who recounts to the FBI that in his opinion Lee Harvey Oswald or what he thinks a gentleman who was that man, came to his shop reasonably regularly and had a haircut on Saturday, on Saturdays, and accompanying him was what he judged to be a 14-year-old boy. Do you recall Lee Oswald ever obtaining a haircut over any weekend while he was at your home?

Mrs. Paine. No.
~ ~ ~

~ ~ ~
Mr. Jenner. He also says that the man he thinks was Lee Harvey Oswald not only regularly came to his shop on Friday evenings or Saturday mornings for a haircut, but that he occasionally drove a station wagon. Do you know of any occasion to your certain knowledge that Lee drove your station wagon other than the one occasion you have already related?

Mrs. Paine. Absolutely none.
~ ~ ~

I dunno, that sounds like a "no", these things didn't happen. Do you think Ruth Paine was the project manager for what you suppose was the Shasteen barbershop saga and decided on her own to subject herself to criminal penalty for perjury, or did that instruction to her come down from above her level by the ever-present but never-identified "handlers"?

Do you think in such a case Ruth perhaps after consultation with her husband Michael or an attorney might wisely request and have obtained indemnification from the federal government, legal guarantees that the government would compensate her for financial or criminal penalties if she was prosecuted for perjury or other violations of law carried out at the instruction of her handlers, and suffered financial loss or imprisonment? If you were in her position, would you ask for indemnification guarantees before committing perjury like what you are imagining for Ruth Paine?

If Ruth herself was so set upon covering up Lee driving her station wagon openly in Irving to get his haircuts because it was illegal for Lee to drive, would it not have been simpler to not let him drive it in the first place (and drive him there herself)? This doesn't really make much sense. 

Then on Hootkins. Ruth only went in to Dallas to teach Hootkins two times. She was not going in every Saturday. Neither Hootkins nor his mother nor his family, nor any of Ruth Paine's neighbors or Marina or Ruth--no one--ever said anything of Hootkins in Irving. Both Ruth and Marina when asked explicitly denied knowing of any kid about 14 years old with Oswald. Irving is a long drive from Dallas. There is no evidence Ruth ever brought Hootkins to Dallas. The incident with Shasteen and the kid occurred on a school day when Hootkins would be in school far away in Dallas. The kid did not start the conversation in the barbershop on politics which the kid joined in. The connection of that kid talking politics in the barbershop, with no known mention of Castro, Cuba, Oswald, or the word "communism", to Oswald--supposedly the whole point of the thing in the elaborate scenario you suppose--is weak. And you have a about a half dozen separate persons wittingly doing perjury and coverup for life. And what was the point of covering it all up? Would Hootkins' identity have been covered up? But if so who would the kid have been explained to have been? But the problem is the whole thing does not add up to making any sense. It has too many moving parts for an elaborate plot that goes for so little point to it. Its not like its hard to establish Oswald is a communist if he was in Mexico City wanting to go to Cuba, and talking with KGB in the Soviet embassy, and has FPCC flyers and was a known defector to USSR. Its not like that point needs additional evidence provided by an elaborate Shasteen barbershop plot. 

Just because Shasteen said he didn't recognize the kid among the local school kids doesn't prove he is out of town. Shasteen didn't know everyone. The kid either was a kid in the local school Shasteen did not know or another school in Irving, or for all anyone knows maybe even a Catholic or private school in Irving. The failure of the kid to show up again after the only haircut he is known to have received there, following the politics discussion scene, makes sense in light of Shasteen who by his own account berated the kid in the shop, wanted to beat the kid (no wonder the kid never went back). It would be interesting to know who the kid was but he was some unknown local, not Hootkins brought all the way in on a school day from far-away Dallas just for the occasion in the Irving barbershop, with no corroboration for any of this.    

~ ~ ~
Mrs. Paine. (...) and the two times that I can recall in the Saturday afternoon, on a Saturday afternoon that I went to Dallas to teach one Russian student a lesson. I can't think of any other spaces of time, hours that I was away.
~ ~ ~

Mr. Jenner. Is he gracious and kind and attentive to you?
Mrs. Paine. Yes.
Mr. Jenner. Has he always been?
Mrs. Paine. Insufficiently attentive, I would say, but he is always kind and thoughtful. 

So that divorce petition wording was boilerplate, generated by the attorney to satisfy legal requirement in Texas at that time to get a divorce.

In other words it was a lie. The Raggios were familiar with the Paines through church and aclu activities. Calling it "boilerplate" is also accurate, but does not replace the word "lie". 

And let's not forget the reason for the lie. It was because her astrologer told her to get a divorce. 

You condemn Ruth Paine for signing that wording and consider it impeaches the credibility of her Warren Commission testimony. Would you consider the same credibility impeachment of other Warren Commission witnesses if you found, entirely unrelated to their testimony, that they had signed upon advice of a lawyer legal boilerplate involving elastic definitions in their divorce paperwork? Isn't that a little extreme? 

I already said I don't condemn her for it. What I added was it does call into question parts of her testimony that have to be deliberately ambiguous.  When you are asked a straightforward question that only requires a "yes" or "no" response and you not only do not give a straightforward "yes" or "no": reply, but answer a completely different querstion, you are being dishonest. 

If witness X had lied on legal papers and then on more than one occasion, insisted on not providing answers to questions not asked, instead of a "yes" or "no to questions that WERE asked... then yes... the lie on the lie on the legal document would sway me into believing that the ambiguous answers in testimony were not simple errors. 

Mr. Jenner. All right. We have a report, Mrs. Paine, and you might help us with it on this subject, of a barber in your community, who recounts to the FBI that in his opinion Lee Harvey Oswald or what he thinks a gentleman who was that man, came to his shop reasonably regularly and had a haircut on Saturday, on Saturdays, and accompanying him was what he judged to be a 14-year-old boy. Do you recall Lee Oswald ever obtaining a haircut over any weekend while he was at your home?

Mrs. Paine. No.

It was "regularly" every 2 to 3 weeks over 3 haircuts. And I can see how she could parse that question in order to answer "no". She could not "recall" something she did not persoanlly see. Moreover, she may not have even been home. She seemed to enjoy shopping quite a bit... I wonder how she would have answered is she had been asked if she was "aware of Lee  Oswald obtaining haircuts..."

Mr. Jenner. He also says that the man he thinks was Lee Harvey Oswald not only regularly came to his shop on Friday evenings or Saturday mornings for a haircut, but that he occasionally drove a station wagon. Do you know of any occasion to your certain knowledge that Lee drove your station wagon other than the one occasion you have already related?

Mrs. Paine. Absolutely none.

Absolutely none (that she is aware of)

If she got a lift to Dallas as you claim, from someone unknown, to see her lawyer, then this same person may have been her regular shopping companion with Ruth leaving her car amd thus available to Lee with or without her knowledge.

I dunno, that sounds like a "no", these things didn't happen. Do you think Ruth Paine was the project manager for what you suppose was the Shasteen barbershop saga and decided on her own to subject herself to criminal penalty for perjury, or did that instruction to her come down from above her level by the ever-present but never-identified "handlers"?

It was a "no" only to "recalling" it... and technically speaking, she could not recall it from personal knowledge because she did not see it for herself. No perjery, but also no truth. 

No amount of ridicule about unknown handlers will make this go away. Hootkins, 2 or 3 days prior to the assassination, put on a show for former FBI security informant Shasteen, that would smear Oswald by association, making it look like Oswald was poisoning the kid's mind with anti-US, pro communist propaganda. It was a masterful performance by the already budding actor. 

I can't prove who organized it. I suspect it was via Students for America, which ran a secretive "junior FBI" infiltrating leftist groups and spying on individuals. Because they modelled that secret network on  FBI COINTELPRO, it stands to reason that the FBI had some sort of liaison with Students of America. 

As for Hootkins... he did have his Russian lessons at St Marks on Saturdays with the exception of 2 or 3 between mid-October and November 8. Vice Headmaster Oviatt even advided that the lessons were not being held at the school as at October 31.  The lessons not at St Marks's during that brief period  were at Ruth's place where she had the use of Marina. It may have started out as innocent. or not.  But at some stage, close to the assassination, Hootkins was back in Irving for a haircut without Oswald, making Oswald look like a commie corrupter of kids. Communists corrupting the minds of kids was a huge fear during the cold war. Many a talking head and psychiatrist built a good living banging the warning drum on the subject.

If Ruth herself was so set upon covering up Lee driving her station wagon openly in Irving to get his haircuts because it was illegal for Lee to drive, would it not have been simpler to not let him drive it in the first place (and drive him there herself)? This doesn't really make much sense. 

You're aware that in Texas at the time, Hootkins could have had a license? Maybe Ruth gave him pesmission to drive her car and Lee drove instead?

Then on Hootkins. Ruth only went in to Dallas to teach Hootkins two times. She was not going in every Saturday. Neither Hootkins nor his mother nor his family, nor any of Ruth Paine's neighbors or Marina or Ruth--no one--ever said anything of Hootkins in Irving.

She only spoke of two time, but that does not mean they were the only two times. The lessons started after the summer classes she taught at St Mark's. That makes it mid to late August? They continued like that until the weekend commencing Oct 18 where they switched to Ruth's until the weekend commencing November 8. After that, they resumed at St Marks as per the FBI interview with Mrs H. 

Here is Ruth's testimony in context

Mr. JENNER - Were there other occasions when you were off ministering to your children, that is taking them to the dentist or something of that nature, on a Saturday or to church on Sunday or to the local park on Sunday, that Lee Oswald may have been, that is periods of time when you would not have known whether he was on or off your premises?
Mrs. PAINE - I can think only of grocery shopping which would have been an hour to an hour and a half period, and the two times that I can recall in the Saturday afternoon, on a Saturday afternoon that I went to Dallas to teach one Russian student a lesson. I can't think of any other spaces of time, hours that I was away.

The question was about time sshe was absent AND wouldn't know about Oswald being at her place or not. Two parts to that question, not one. The answer has to satisfy BOTH parts to be an adequate answer.

There were two time she drove in to give Hootkins lessons on a Saturday where she DID NOT KNOW IF OSWALD WAS AT HER PLACE OR NOT. There could have been any number of other times she drove to Dallas and was quite aware that Oswald was or was not at her place. 

Both Ruth and Marina when asked explicitly denied knowing of any kid about 14 years old with Oswald.

Not rue regarding Ruth. She denied knowing of any kid in the neighborhood that Oswald associated with. You forgot already, one of her non-denial denials? I forget if Marina was even aske, but it doesn't matter-  her testimony is all over the place like a dog's breakfast. It was one photo.... okay it was two... you found another one.... gee it must have been three? He left the ring in a cup on the cupboard and the FBI found it. He left the ring and no one found it. There was hardly a subject she never changed positions on.

There is no evidence Ruth ever brought Hootkins to Dallas.

There is also no evidence that she never. She was never asked.

 The incident with Shasteen and the kid occurred on a school day when Hootkins would be in school far away in Dallas. 

Yes it was on a school day. Shasteen at first said it was in the evening but then claimed it was before 4 pm. We both agree I think his memory for times nad dates was not walways accurate. I'm not sure a half hour drive can be construed as "far away".  It sure as hell is not considered that here. And I think Texas has similar wide open spaces.

The kid did not start the conversation in the barbershop on politics which the kid joined in. The connection of that kid talking politics in the barbershop, with no known mention of Castro, Cuba, Oswald, or the word "communism"

Yes, the men getting cuts and "solving the problems of the world" did provide a segue. And yes, it is possible I had not given the actual instigators of the conversation enough thought and his joining in was completely innocent.

But then I have to ask myself why such efforts were made to keep Hootkiins from even being considered. As pointed out previously... the FBI knew about Hootkins and Ruth from at least Oct 31. If they had cross-checked what Oviatt told them about the lessons being at home against what Mrs Hootkins said post-assassination about the lessons being at the school, they would have had to investigate the possiblity that Hootkins was the barbershop kid. 

So based on the cover-up alone, I have a problem accepting it was all innocent (though that door can't be closed now based on him not instigating the conversation).

But it hardly matters. He was the kid involved whether it was innocent or not. I have always said that my take on the reason for his little lecture was speculation.

We have made progress. You now accept that the reasons for divorce,  as stated on the divorce papers were lies. I now accept that there is at least a possibility that Hootkins lefture was innocent and not a rehearsed script. I had never really denied that possiblity, but did concentrate on the speculation, neglecting other possibilities.

I think I will call it quits here and let you have the last word.

I don't have anything further to add and yours can be the last word, thanks.