Why is Ruth Paine still alive?

[Martin Weidmann]

But there's nothing that would have prevented Ruth from just making up a couple of lies on Day 1 (Nov. 22) about how she did see the rifle in the garage and also seeing Oswald leaving the house on 11/22 with a long package.

And if Ruth Paine had been on a "Frame Oswald" mission throughout November of 1963 (as many CTers seem to believe), why wouldn't Ruth have wanted to pad her many alleged post-assassination lies with two more that would certainly have helped "Frame The Patsy" a good deal?

But there's nothing that would have prevented Ruth from just making up a couple of lies on Day 1 (Nov. 22) about how she did see the rifle in the garage and also seeing Oswald leaving the house on 11/22 with a long package.

True, except for the fact that Oswald was still alive on Day 1 and she had no way of knowing what would happen if he had lived and there was a trial.

And if Ruth Paine had been on a "Frame Oswald" mission throughout November of 1963 (as many CTers seem to believe), why wouldn't Ruth have wanted to pad her many alleged post-assassination lies with two more that would certainly have helped "Frame The Patsy" a good deal?

I don't know if she was on a "Frame Oswald" mission, nor am I aware of he alleged post-assassination lies. What I do wonder about is what Marina Oswald instantly distanced from Ruth and why would tell the DPD officers who came to her house on Friday afternoon that she had been expecting them. At best, it seems a strange thing to say, doesn't it?

But I don't consider Ruth Paine to be a conspirator, regardless how useful she may have been in some instances.

[Martin Weidmann]

Exactly Martin, Ruth just told the truth, and you may not be aware of this, but there is a LOT of CT's who paint Ruth Paine in a very unfavourable light, from being the sinister reasoning behind Oswald getting the job at the TSBD, her sister worked for the CIA, Michael her husband worked for Bell Helicopter, evidence that came to light through Ruth and ETC.

Let me elaborate on some of these;

• As for Ruth getting the job at the TSBD, the only reason that Ruth rang Truly for the job was because the local ladies got together for tea at a nearby neighbour and Linnie Mae who also happened to be there had a brother who worked at the Depository which prompted the phone call, how silly is a conspiracy that relies on so many random events?

• Oswald applied for many jobs through October 1963 and could even had been successful at Padget Printing, but Oswald's past of being a troublemaker followed him like glue but just say that Oswald omitted that previous employee, what then?



• Oswald's TSBD application didn't have an easily tracible past. But this application did include a number of lies.



• Ruth's sister if I remember correctly was a research assistant with the CIA but where does that go? Did some higher up at the CIA say "hands up if anyone has a relative willing to house our Patsy"? It's just absurd and If it was me, there would be no way I would I would expose a close sibling to so much danger and a potential lifetime of scrutiny, ala Ruth.

• As for Michael working at Bell Helicopter made him compliant in this plot? Give me a break.

• Then there is the evidence that came to light after Ruth discovered it, like iirc the walker note and a letter also written by Oswald to the Russian Embassy. What was she supposed to do, burn it?

So getting back to original questions, if Ruth was coerced into being a participant, what she actually did added very little to Oswald's guilt but if she really wanted to fulfil her "mission" then her evidence could have been some of the most incriminating of them all! Muhaha!

JohnM

Exactly Martin, Ruth just told the truth, and you may not be aware of this, but there is a LOT of CT's who paint Ruth Paine in a very unfavourable light, from being the sinister reasoning behind Oswald getting the job at the TSBD, her sister worked for the CIA, Michael her husband worked for Bell Helicopter, evidence that came to light through Ruth and ETC.

I don't think I have ever said anything about Ruth Paine, simply because I don't know and don't care to speculate without evidence.
Having said that, I, to this day, still find it odd that she told Detective Rose, on Friday afternoon, she has been expecting DPD officers to show up.
In the same vein, I've never understood (or have been giving a plausible explanation for) why Michael Paine suddenly decided to leave work early and drive to Irving "to see if he could help".

[David Von Pein]

I don't consider Ruth Paine to be a conspirator, regardless how useful she may have been in some instances.

Glad to hear you say that, Martin. (Is this the very first thing you and I have ever agreed on? Or is it the second?)

Anyway, Martin's comment above ("I don't consider Ruth Paine to be a conspirator") is a breath of fresh air after having argued with conspiracy theorists for years in an effort to demonstrate how utterly preposterous it is to believe that Mrs. Paine was part of some kind of plot against Lee Harvey Oswald in 1963:

[Martin Weidmann]

Glad to hear you say that, Martin. (Is this the very first thing you and I have ever agreed on? Or is it the second?)

Your comment above ("I don't consider Ruth Paine to be a conspirator") is a breath of fresh air after having argued with conspiracy theorists for years in an effort to demonstrate how utterly preposterous it is to believe that Mrs. Paine was part of some kind of plot against Lee Harvey Oswald in 1963.

🡻 🡻 🡻

The thing you and other LNs have never understood is that I am not a CT.

[David Von Pein]

The thing you and other LNs have never understood is that I am not a CT.

But you do a stellar job of hiding that fact in almost every single post you write on this forum.

[John Mytton]

But you do a stellar job of hiding that fact in almost every single post you write on this forum.

Martin said previously that he isn't a conspiracy theorist because he doesn't have a theory, even though his theory is there was a conspiracy, so go figure?
I recall that Iacoletti subscribes to the same mindset.
Strange isn't it!

JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

But you do a stellar job of hiding that fact in almost every single post you write on this forum.

That's just LN paranoia.

All I do is question the evidence and ask questions LNs seem to be unable to answer in a credible manner.

[Martin Weidmann]

Martin said previously that he isn't a conspiracy theorist because he doesn't have a theory, even though his theory is there was a conspiracy, so go figure?
I recall that Iacoletti subscribes to the same mindset.
Strange isn't it!

JohnM

Typical LN thinking.

It's really very simple, yet a clown like Mytton simply doesn't understand. There are basically two possibilities; either Oswald did it alone or there must have been a conspiracy.

So, when I question the evidence against Oswald and the LNs come up short in answering my questions (as they frequently do) the likelihood of a conspiracy increases.

It's the inability of the LNs to prove their case against Oswald that actually makes a conspiracy more likely.

The post that I am replying to is a perfect example. I've have never said that my theory is that there was a conspiracy. That's just something Mytton made up, because he desperately needs something to attack me with, when he should be spending his time in providing conclusive evidence and convincing arguments for Oswald's guilt in a honest debate. He doesn't do that because he knows just how weak the case against Oswald really is, so he tries to divert attention away by playing silly games.