This week I added several pages to the Wikipedia entry for Ruth Paine, based on my December 2015 interview of her on behalf of my 2016 paper for H.W. Brands at UT Austin. Here's the link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruth_Paine
My entries are:
2. Ruth and Marina 2/22/1963 to 05/11/1963 4. Ruth and Marina 6/06/1963 to 11/22/1963
These entries are a tightly encapsulated -- terse but not vague -- summary of all of Ruth Paine's WC testimony, from volumes 2, 3, 9 and 11, as follows:
volume 2. pp. 400-517
volume 3. pp. 1-140
volume 9. pp. 331-425
volume 11. pp. 389-398
That's a total of 361 pages of WC testimony. Ruth Paine was called back more than any other WC witness, and she answered more than 5,000 questions for the Warren Commission -- more than ten times the number of questions that were asked of the average WC witness -- hundreds of them.
Also, Ruth Paine has given more interviews over the years than any other WC witness. In my reading, Ruth Paine is one of the most honest and reliable witnesses in the WC volumes.
Here's how my summary came about. I remember calling her starting in November 2015, getting her secretary, until she finally responded in person. Then she vetted me. Her first question to me was, "Have you read every word of my WC testimony?" I had to admit that I hadn't.
Then Ruth said, "Well, read every word, and after you've done that, then I'll speak with you," she said frankly. "Because, the chances are that any question you might have has already been answered in the hours and hours of testimony that I have to the WC attorneys, who were pretty good at their jobs. So, after you've read it all, call me back."
I took Ruth at her word. I read every word of her WC testimony -- and not only read it, but studied it hard. I made a flowchart of it. I arranged it all in chronological order -- the most logical order. The WC attorneys didn't always ask their questions with respect to chronology, so, I had little choice but to make the chronology myself.
In any case -- after I did that, I called Ruth back, and, true to her word, she spoke to me. "What do you want to know," she asked?
My first question was obvious -- something that came up but was never answered in the WC volumes. Somebody had tapped Ruth's phone on the day before JFK was assassinated, and somebody had reported to the FBI that Michael Paine had called Ruth and told her, "LHO didn't kill JFK, but we know who did." So, I asked Ruth about that.
"Yes," she admitted, "Michael called me and said something like that to me -- but the way the FBI heard it, it sounded like we knew the killers personally. That's not what Michael meant. We both knew what he meant."
"And what was that," I asked?
Ruth replied: "Michael meant that we knew the JFK killers were the folks -- whoever they were -- who had circulated the 'Wanted for Treason: JFK' handbill, and who had placed the famous Black-bordered Ad in the Dallas Morning News, namely, 'Welcome, Mister Kennedy, to Dallas, WHY do you support Communism?'"
So, it wasn't that Michael and Ruth knew exactly what persons had published those two crucial Dallas Right Wing documents -- but only that those documents seemed to Michael and Ruth to be signed confessions of harmful intentions against JFK. I could see that. Then I asked Ruth, "But who do you suppose tapped your telephone on the day before the JFK assassination?"
Ruth replied, "That's exactly what I want to know! I asked the WC attorneys several times. Who tapped my telephone? That's my personal phone! I'm an American citizen with a right to privacy! I have a right to know who tapped my telephone!" But nobody in the Warren Commission would answer her question. They told her that they heard her question loud and clear, and that they'd get back to her if they found out. They never got back to her. So, it's up to historical researchers to decipher the most likely groups or persons that tapped Ruth Paine's telephone on the day before the JFK Assassination.
Then I asked Ruth Paine why she concluded to the WC and to the world, that LHO was the lone shooter at JFK. She told me frankly -- "I still have an open mind about that. I did way back then, and I still do today. My opinion is only based on the limited information that we were all allowed to see. Based on that, the evidence is pretty clear against Lee, and doesn't point to anybody else."
But that isn't the end of the story. Ruth added, "I still read about the JFK assassination, and I still haven't read any convincing explanations about what happened in Dallas on November 22nd. I wish somebody would contribute something new and convincing. In the meantime, I can only call them like I see them." I could see that, too. I haven't read any CT books that have explained the JFK Assassination without resorting to melodrama and hyperbole -- and I've been reading for more than a quarter of a century. Ruth has been reading for more than half a century.
Anyway -- I summarized Ruth Paine's WC testimony in a terse and fairly comprehensive manner for H.W. Brands in 2016 and for Wikipedia this week. Many people make ridiculous accusations about Ruth Paine, and it's clear that they never read all of her WC testimony. There's no excuse for that.
Here's the quick summary: In February 1963 Ruth Paine met Marina Oswald at a party, and immediately wanted to be friends. Ruth kept a correspondence going with Marina Oswald for the rest of 1963, until the Secret Service and Robert Oswald cut her off. Ruth's main interest was to keep Marina living in the USA -- and not get forced back to the USSR by Lee -- against her will. Ruth's secondary interest was to ensure that Marina had medical care for her second baby, to be born in late October 1963 -- especially since LHO was unable to hold down a steady job in 1963.
Please read my Wikipedia segments. They will inform my case against the Dallas Right Wing in the JFK Assassination in the weeks to come.
Good health to all,
--Paul Trejo