Forum members opinions on the following persons linked with Oswald

[Walt Cakebread]

So, as the failed conspiracy theorist often does when caught in out right lies and fabrications, you now revert to condescension.  Paulie?  You must think you?re DiEugenio.  That?s his playbook. This is your history Walt. This forum knows that simply by reading this thread. Help society Walt.  Get an education. Perhaps, just perhaps you might learn how to support your utter stupidity. Cya.

Hee, hee,hee,....    What a golden example of a dichotomy ....  Who's reverting to condescension, and insults?   Huh Paulie?

[Walt Cakebread]

So, as the failed conspiracy theorist often does when caught in out right lies and fabrications, you now revert to condescension.  Paulie?  You must think you?re DiEugenio.  That?s his playbook. This is your history Walt. This forum knows that simply by reading this thread. Help society Walt.  Get an education. Perhaps, just perhaps you might learn how to support your utter stupidity. Cya.

Psssst Paulie, Do you see the contradiction in your statement ?......

You must think you?re DiEugenio.  That?s his playbook. This is your history Walt.

On one hand you say that I'm like Di Eugenio because "that's his playbook"  ...but on the other hand you say, "this is YOUR history, Walt"

You seem to be a bit rattled......

[Richard Smith]

No, Mr. Cakebread. She said she found the draft of the letter, made a copy of it, and showed it to her husband, Michael. He dismissed her concerns so she didn't do anything afterwards. She didn't call the FBI about it. She testified that she considered giving it to the FBI the next time agent Hosty came but she didn't.

Here is the relevant portion of her testimony:
Mr. JENNER - What did you do ultimately with your draft of the letter and the original?
Mrs. PAINE - The first appearance of an FBI person on the 23d of November, I gave the original to them. The next day it probably was I said I also had a copy and gave them that. I wanted to be shut of it.
Mr. JENNER - So I take it, Mrs. Paine, you did not deliver either the original or the copy or call attention to the original or the copy with respect to the FBI.
Mrs. PAINE - Prior.
Mr. JENNER - Prior to the 23d did you say?
Mrs. PAINE - That is right.

So again, prior to the assassination she withheld the letter. The rest of her testimony on the matter is here:  http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/paine_r2.htm

Ruth Paine provides very little information that is incriminating to Oswald in the assassination of JFK.  If she were some type of master spy with the assignment of framing Oswald, she would have done obvious things like confirm he stored a rifle in her garage, carried a long bag to work that morning, had some type of grievance against JFK, and was acting strangely on the night before the assassination.  She did none of those things.  So why do CTers obsess on her as a sinister spy?  Because she presents an enormous problem for them.  If she is merely a suburban housewife doing a charitable deed for Oswald and his family, then the entire sequence of events that leads to Oswald's presence in the TSBD becomes a matter of chance that no one is controlling.  It blows the notion of a planned conspiracy narrative out of the water because Oswald's presence at the TSBD on 11.22 would simply be a random event.  As a result, kooks like Walt have to claim she is a spy or FBI informant etc.  It's laughable.  And then he even gets the basic facts wrong. 

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Ruth Paine provides very little information that is incriminating to Oswald in the assassination of JFK.  If she were some type of master spy with the assignment of framing Oswald, she would have done obvious things like confirm he stored a rifle in her garage, carried a long bag to work that morning, had some type of grievance against JFK, and was acting strangely on the night before the assassination.  She did none of those things.  So why do CTers obsess on her as a sinister spy?  Because she presents an enormous problem for them.  If she is merely a suburban housewife doing a charitable deed for Oswald and his family, then the entire sequence of events that leads to Oswald's presence in the TSBD becomes a matter of chance that no one is controlling.  It blows the notion of a planned conspiracy narrative out of the water because Oswald's presence at the TSBD on 11.22 would simply be a random event.  As a result, kooks like Walt have to claim she is a spy or FBI informant etc.  It's laughable.  And then he even gets the basic facts wrong.

She offers no evidence whatsoever of motive or means for Oswald. None. Neither does Michael Paine.

The two most critical parts of framing Oswald are completely absent from what they revealed: nothing about him hating JFK, nothing about him being distraught, nothing about a rifle, nothing about seeing him with a large package that morning of the assassination, nothing about violence from him...nothing, nothing, nothing.  Heck, if anything they present evidence that Oswald DIDN'T shoot JFK.

Some conspirators they were!

[Jerry Freeman]

  If she were some type of master spy with the assignment of framing Oswald, she would have done obvious things like confirm he stored a rifle in her garage, carried a long bag to work that morning,

But there was no rifle and there was no bag. So how could she? You can't prove a myth with strawman hypothetical anecdotes Snickers, it just doesn't work.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

But there was no rifle and there was no bag. So how could she? You can't prove a myth with strawman hypothetical anecdotes Snickers, it just doesn't work.

Sorry, are you saying that no rifle and no bag were found in the building? Nobody saw him carry a bag to work? There's no other evidence he owned a rifle?

And it doesn't matter if there was no rifle in her garage. Or bag. The point is she would - if she was part of the plan to do so - frame Oswald by claiming there was. He's dead. She can say anything about him at that stage.

So we go back to the original point: If she was involved in framing Oswald - she allegedly got him the job where he would be framed - then why not say she saw the rifle too? And saw him carrying it that morning of the assassination?

[Bill Chapman]

Sorry, are you saying that no rifle and no bag were found in the building? Nobody saw him carry a bag to work? There's no other evidence he owned a rifle?

Don't you realize that all evidence was either faked, planted or altered in some way?

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Don't you realize that all evidence was either faked, planted or altered in some way?

Right, I know that's what some - many - of them think. But a rifle and bag WERE found. They did exist even if planted.

So if Ruth was part of this framing of Oswald - planting the bag and rifle - why didn't she lie and say she saw the rifle in the garage? Or that she saw him carrying a bag to work that day? Or that he expressed hatred of JFK?

We're asked to prove a negative here: i.e., that Ruth Paine did not frame Oswald. And we're offering up examples that show that she didn't do/say far more serious things to frame him.