Ruthie Paine's Confusing Calendar

[David Von Pein]

Otto, you need a new hobby. It's obvious from the way you casually dismiss every bit of evidence in the whole case that you are really, really rotten at this "JFK Case" thing. Maybe you'll do better at video games instead. Why not try that.

[Martin Weidmann]

Oh come on, Martin! You can't possibly believe this statement you just wrote (can you?)....

"The problem is though that there is not a shred of evidence there was in fact a rifle in Ruth Paine's garage on 11/21/63."

Marina SAW the damn thing in the garage in October. She testified to that fact. (Or do you want to call her a liar on this point, Martin? A lot of other CTers do call her a liar, of course.)

Plus: We know that LHO had his rifle in New Orleans in the summer of '63. And we also know that all his possessions were transported to Irving in Ruth's car in Sept. '63. Nobody specifically saw the rifle at that time, that's true enough. But let's get out that calculator again and add some things up.....

1. Lee Oswald has possession of a rifle in New Orleans in Summer 1963. (And Marina sees Lee working the bolt of the gun on the screened-in porch in that city.)

2. The Oswald possessions are taken to Ruth Paine's house in Irving, Texas, in September '63.

3. Marina sees the butt end of a rifle in a blanket in the Paine garage in about October of '63.

4. Lee Oswald carries a long-ish paper package into the TSBD on the morning of 11/22/63. (And Lee lies to Buell Wesley Frazier about the contents of that package.)

5. The blanket in Ruth Paine's garage where Marina says Lee kept his rifle was empty when the police picked up that blanket on the afternoon of 11/22/63.

If the above five things are true (and the evidence and testimony demonstrates they are true), then is it reasonable to come to the conclusion that Lee's rifle WASN'T also present in Ruth Paine's garage on 11/21/63? Why would anyone feel compelled to reach such a conclusion after adding up #1 thru #5 above?

Marina SAW the damn thing in the garage in October. She testified to that fact.

Actually, she testified that she looked inside the blanked only once, about a week after moving from New Orleans (which means it was late September), and she saw what she believed to be the wooden stock of a rifle. That later morphed into "she saw a rifle". But even if that is true, how does Marina seeing a rifle in late September prove that it was Oswald's rifle, that it was an MC and that it was (still) in Ruth Paine's garage on 11/21/63?

Plus: We know that LHO had his rifle in New Orleans in the summer of '63.

How do we know that? Even if we assume that the rifle Oswald was holding in the BY photos was his property, how did that rifle get to New Orleans?

And we also know that all his possessions were transported to Irving in Ruth's car in Sept. '63.

So, what? If Oswald succesfully transported "his rifle" from Dallas to New Orleans in another manner, why would he be so foolish to just hand over the weapon to Ruth Paine?

Nobody specifically saw the rifle at that time, that's true enough.

Which means that you can only assume there was a rifle amongst those possessions. You're already getting in dangerous "assuming facts not in evidence" territory.


But let's get out that calculator again and add some things up.....

1. Lee Oswald has possession of a rifle in New Orleans in Summer 1963. (And Marina sees Lee working the bolt of the gun on the screened-in porch in that city.)

That's an inconclusive assumption based solely on what Marina said. The problem with that is that if you compare her many statements (made to law enforcement officers) prior to her testimony and her actual testimony, you will find enough contradictions to conclude that Marina's word alone is hardly enough to rely on. And there is no other corroboration. Nobody else saw Oswald with a rifle and nobody most certainly saw him with the MC rifle.

2. The Oswald possessions are taken to Ruth Paine's house in Irving, Texas, in September '63.

Again, so what? There is no evidence a rifle was among those possessions. You can only assume there was.

3. Marina sees the butt end of a rifle in a blanket in the Paine garage in about October of '63.

And but how does this prove (1) that it was Oswald's rifle, (2) that it was the MC and (3) that it was still there on 11/21/63? You only assume all that, right?

4. Lee Oswald carries a long-ish paper package into the TSBD on the morning of 11/22/63. (And Lee lies to Buell Wesley Frazier about the contents of that package.)

Highly inconclusive. There is no evidence that there was a rifle in that paper bag or, for that matter, that the bag was in fact large enough to contain a broken down MC rifle.
As for lying to Frazier, you first need to know what was actually said and what was in the bag, before you can make the claim that Oswald lied. Without this information you can only assume he lied.

5. The blanket in Ruth Paine's garage where Marina says Lee kept his rifle was empty when the police picked up that blanket on the afternoon of 11/22/63.

How does this tell you that it wasn't empty on 11/21/63? If there was indeed a rifle in there, you really can only assume that it wasn't removed earlier, right?

If the above five things are true (and the evidence and testimony demonstrates they are true), then is it reasonable to come to the conclusion that Lee's rifle WASN'T also present in Ruth Paine's garage on 11/21/63? Why would anyone feel compelled to reach such a conclusion after adding up #1 thru #5 above?

This is selfserving circular logic. The most important remark is "If the above five things are true" and that's a massive "if". And no, the evidence and testimony doesn't demonstrate that they are true. In fact, we've just gone over this "evidence" and it clearly is nothing more than just assumptions and conjecture. If you actually had any kind of evidence to back up those claims 1 thru 5, you would have posted it. But you didn't, for one simple reason; it doesn't exist.

So, I have indeed added up 1 thru 5 and find that they don't add up to the conclusion you attach to your assumptions.

Basically, what you have presented here is a highly circumstantial case, backed up with no significance evidence whatsoever.

I have to ask, David; You do understand the difference between assumptions and actual evidence, right?

[Michael Walton]

Here's the problem with Ruth. I look back on '63 because my Father was pretty much the same as Oswald. He was a dock worker to Oswald's order filler. He was married with 4 kids. Didn't socialize much and had maybe one or two friends.

But look at all that happened with Ruth Paine the short time she knew the Oswalds. She typed up that letter for him, but didn't keep the handwritten one; she got him the job at the book building; and so on.

There is such a thing as circumstantial evidence. The more you have the more it speaks of a larger truth. If my Dad back then had all of this xxxx happening to him out of sheer coincidence, it would be ridiculous. But one piece of evidence on one hand that leads to other evidence on the other - and everything that happened in between - makes it a strong case.

Of course, the folks who fully support the lone-nut theory will say just that - it's all just one big coincidence.

And the even larger problem is that he was never able to present anything in open court. They didn't even allow an opposing view lawyer during the hearings to weigh the evidence after he was murdered.

https://aarclibrary.org/the-jfk-case-the-twelve-who-built-the-oswald-legend-part-12-the-endgame/

[Richard Smith]

Marina SAW the damn thing in the garage in October. She testified to that fact.

Actually, she testified that she looked inside the blanked only once, about a week after moving from New Orleans (which means it was late September), and she saw what she believed to be the wooden stock of a rifle. That later morphed into "she saw a rifle". But even if that is true, how does Marina seeing a rifle in late September prove that it was Oswald's rifle, that it was an MC and that it was (still) in Ruth Paine's garage on 11/21/63?

Marina was asked dozens of times about the "rifle" by the WC.  In each instance she responds to those questions without ever once suggesting there is any doubt that the item she saw was a "rifle" and not just some object made of wood as Martin dishonestly suggests.  It is incredible that contrarians latch onto one statement among dozens about the rifle to suggest that Marina perhaps didn't see a rifle but a "wooden stock of a rifle" as though that has meaning.  It is absurd.  Below is what Marina was asked answered AND, of course, when the police arrived on Nov. 22 just hours after the crime and asked Marina if her husband owned a rifle she directed them to the blanket in the Paine's garage believing that is where Oswald's rifle would be found.  Why?  Because that is where she had seen it.  She indicates that she was "surprised" it wasn't there. As a result, there no doubt that Marina confirmed that Oswald owned a rifle and kept in the Paine's garage in this timeframe.

That rifle is gone on Nov. 22 and can't be accounted for in any other way except as the rifle found at the TSBD.  The rifle is linked to LHO by documents, serial number, photos, and prints.  Oswald lied about owning the rifle and provided no explanation to suggest much less account for ownership of any other rifle when he had a chance to do so.  His lie is indictive of guilt because he obviously did not want to be associated with the murder weapon.  If there had been some exculpatory explanation for his missing rifle (such as he had sold it to someone) then he would have had every incentive to tell the police that.  Instead he denied owning any rifle because he had no other choice.  To suggest that there was another rifle that Oswald kept in the garage and that it magically disappeared sometime before Nov. 22 to never be accounted for in the last six decades is classic contrarian bull.


 Mr. RANKIN. When was the last time that you had noticed the rifle before that day?
Mrs. OSWALD. I said that I saw--for the first and last time I saw the rifle about a week after I had come to Mrs. Paine. But, as I said, the rifle was wrapped in a blanket, and I was sure when the police had come that the rifle was still in the blanket, because it was all rolled together. And, therefore, when they took the blanket and the rifle was not in it, I was very much surprised.

Mr. RANKIN. Could you describe for the Commission the place in the garage where the rifle was located?
Mrs. OSWALD. When you enter the garage from the street it was in the front part, the left.
Mr. RANKIN. By the left you mean left of the door?
Mrs. OSWALD. It is an overhead door and the rifle was to the left, on the floor.
It was always in the same place.
Mr. RANKIN. Was there anything else close to the rifle that you recall?
Mrs. OSWALD. Next to it there were some next to the rifle there were some suitcases and Ruth had some paper barrels in the garage where the kids used to play.

[Jerry Freeman]

Marina was asked dozens of times about the "rifle" by the WC.  In each instance she responds to those questions without ever once suggesting there is any doubt that the item she saw was a "rifle" and not just some object made of wood as Martin dishonestly suggests. 

Martin Weidmann is dishonest but Saint Marina was without sin and any ulterior motive to throw her dead husband under the bus with extreme prejudice.

[Richard Smith]

Pro-tip: Read what you quote.

It was always in the same place.

Not so, according to Ruth and Michael Paine, and that's how we know somebody in the Irving household kooked up a blanket story.

What was always in the same place?  The rifle!  The relevant point being that Marina confirms with no ambiguity whatsoever that Oswald possessed a rifle and kept in the Paine's garage.  She was not referring to a hockey stick or some other object made of "wood".  Whew.

[Richard Smith]

Martin Weidmann is dishonest but Saint Marina was without sin and any ulterior motive to throw her dead husband under the bus with extreme prejudice.

Read Marina's testimony and tell us if it contains any ambiguity whatsoever regarding whether she confirmed that Oswald kept a rifle in the Paine's garage.  In fact, when the police arrived just hours after the assassination, she directed them to the blanket in Paine's garage expecting them to the find the rifle.  She was "surprised" that it wasn't there.  Is that indicative of someone who was uncertain that the object she saw was a rifle as Martin suggested or not?  And was she already involved in the plot to frame Oswald at the moment the police arrived on 11.22? 

[John Iacoletti]

Yes they do.

How?  All they tell you is when the orders were processed.