RUTH PAINE (PART 4)
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/f7fb7fe29bedd69d
The testimony that appears below was taken at Ruth Paine's house at
2515 West Fifth Street in Irving, Texas, on the evening of March 23,
1964. Secret Service Agent John J. Howlett was also present to assist
WC Counsel member Albert Jenner during the taking of this portion of
Mrs. Paine's deposition. Howlett's main function at the Paine home
seemed to be to measure the size of the rooms and to take other
measurements of just about everything imaginable. .....
===========================
ALBERT JENNER -- "Did you do anything else that evening {11/22/63} in
the garage?"
RUTH PAINE -- "Yes. .... I lacquered two large box blocks." ....
ALBERT JENNER -- "John Joe {Howlett}, will you measure that which Mrs.
Paine describes as a block and which I describe as a box?"
JOHN HOWLETT -- "It is 1/4-inch wide by 2 feet long. .... It is 7-1/2
inches deep, with 1/2 inch press plywood on the bottom, makes it a
total height of 8 inches. .... It is open on the top, yes. It is
closed on the five sides and open on the top."
ALBERT JENNER -- "Mrs. Paine, just so we don't have any confusion in
the record, is my description of this as being a box a fair
description?"
RUTH PAINE -- "I will adopt it for our usage, for usage here."
ALBERT JENNER -- "You are setting apart your sensitivity about blocks
here?"
RUTH PAINE -- "That's quite all right--I will call it a box."
ALBERT JENNER -- "And those two boxes or containers, you lacquered
these that evening {11/22/63}?"
RUTH PAINE -- "That evening."
ALBERT JENNER -- "How long did that take you?"
RUTH PAINE -- "About half an hour."
===========================
While reading the above excruciatingly-detailed testimony regarding
children's "blocks" or "boxes", I kept thinking to myself: Why is any
of this "block"/"box" testimony needed in order to help find out who
shot President Kennedy?
About the only reason I can think of to explain why the Commission
needed to know the exact dimensions of the children's blocks that Mrs.
Paine lacquered in her garage on the evening of November 22, 1963, is
that the Commission was possibly interested in determining the exact
amount of time it would have taken Mrs. Paine to lacquer two of those
large blocks in her garage that evening.
But even without knowing the precise dimensions of the blocks that
Ruth lacquered, Mrs. Paine testified (more than once) that she was in
the garage for "about half-an-hour" on the night of November 22nd.
There are many other occasions during Ruth Paine's lengthy WC sessions
(and during the testimony of other witnesses as well) when a lot of
questions revolving around seemingly-unimportant matters surface in
the WC record. Which, IMO, just tends to further illustrate the fact
that the Warren Commission and its associated lawyers and counsel
members were trying to cover any and all bases (even the seemingly-
meaningless ones) when it came to questioning the various witnesses
who appeared before the Commission in 1964.
I think CTers would be wise to ask themselves the following question
-- Would an organization like the Warren Commission have desired to go
into such massive detail with many of the witnesses it questioned if
the Commission had been on a "Cover-Up" mission from the get-go, as
many conspiracy theorists seem to believe?
In other words, the level of detail and thoroughness that can be found
within the 888-page Warren Commission Report (and its supplementary 26
volumes of exhibits and witness testimony) is such that it certainly
does not bode well for conspiracy theorists who want to believe that
Earl Warren's Commission was merely one great-big "whitewash job" --
especially with respect to the MANY times when witnesses were asked
OPEN-ENDED questions during their testimony or depositions (such as:
"Is there anything else you would like to add that would aid the
Commission in any way?", which is the type of open-ended question that
was asked of many witnesses during the WC's investigation).
Food for WC thought anyway (IMHO).