The Assassination and Mrs. Paine

[Richard Smith]

Did Ruth Paine incriminate LHO?
http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2022/07/the-assassination-and-mrs-paine-part.html

If Ruth Paine were part of some effort to frame Oswald, she would undoubtedly have said things like Oswald hated JFK, kept a rifle in her garage, seemed nervous or agitated on the night before the assassination, and carried a long bag as he left the house that morning.  None of which she did.  The CTer hatred of Paine is perplexing since she really didn't provide much evidence that linked Oswald to the crime.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

If Ruth Paine were part of some effort to frame Oswald, she would undoubtedly have said things like Oswald hated JFK, kept a rifle in her garage, seemed nervous or agitated on the night before the assassination, and carried a long bag as he left the house that morning.  None of which she did.  The CTer hatred of Paine is perplexing since she really didn't provide much evidence that linked Oswald to the crime.

Good point. I'll get into that in part two I expect.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Good point. I'll get into that in part two I expect.

I guess I should order/watch the movie (I've wasted enough money on these conspiracy books and works; when I was younger it was spent on women now it's this: somebody's getting taken advantage of) but does Max Good or anyone raise these questions? Consider them? Or try to answer them? Apparently no.

It seems obvious to us that if they were CIA assets/agents ordered to frame Oswald that connecting him directly to the rifle and providing a motive would be two things they would be ordered to do. Get that rifle in Oswald's hands. Get his hands on that rifle. But as Richard said they did neither of these things. Nothing about seeing a rifle, nothing about expressing hatred towards JFK.

How can you say they were part of this horrible act (it's treason for crissake) and not address these two critical questions?

[W. Tracy Parnell]

but does Max Good or anyone raise these questions? Consider them? Or try to answer them? It seems not.

No, Good plays the usual conspiracy game of mentioning the allegation (or inconsistency or whatever) and then moving on. Only occasionally does he let the LN talking heads respond and then it is usually only briefly.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

The conspiracy believers, those that argue the Paines were directly involved, have Ruth Paine doing things to frame Oswald that she couldn't do - like finding and getting Oswald a job at the TSBD, at that specific building on Elm Street, with access to that specific floor and window on November 22, 1963 - and not doing things to frame Oswald that she could do - like say that she saw the rifle in the garage or that he expressed anti-JFK views or that he left work that day carrying a 38 inch package.

[John Iacoletti]

If Ruth Paine were part of some effort to frame Oswald, she would undoubtedly have said things like Oswald hated JFK, kept a rifle in her garage, seemed nervous or agitated on the night before the assassination, and carried a long bag as he left the house that morning.

If she had, you would undoubtably consider that legitimate evidence against Oswald and not a frame job.  That's what's known as trying to have it both ways.

[Bill Brown]

If she had, you would undoubtably consider that legitimate evidence against Oswald and not a frame job.  That's what's known as trying to have it both ways.

The above is a perfect example of responding to a post without actually addressing the point raised in the post.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

The above is a perfect example of responding to a post without actually addressing the point raised in the post.

As I wrote above, it is obvious to us that if Ruth and Michael Paine were indeed CIA assets/agents directed to frame Oswald that they could have said many things that would have destroyed him, that would have implicated him in the assassination. Things they did not say at all.

They could have tied him directly to that rifle. They could have provided a direct motive. They could have described a person that was erratic and had shown signs of violence that would have persuaded people that he was capable emotionally and psychologically of killing two people and essentially committing suicide in doing so.

But they did and said none of those things. Not a thing.

The answer to these failure to do so is? What can the explanation be? Hand waving and distractions is not a try. It's a dodge.