RUTH PAINE (PART 1)
David Von Pein
www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/f7fb7fe29bedd69d
HALE BOGGS -- "You have no doubt about the fact that he assassinated
President Kennedy?"
RUTH PAINE -- "I have no present doubt."
HALE BOGGS -- "Do you have any reason to believe he was associated
with anyone else in this act or it was part of a conspiracy?"
RUTH PAINE -- "I have no reason to believe he was associated with
anyone. .... If the so-called great Soviet conspiracy has to rest for
its help upon such inadequate people as Lee Oswald, there is no hope
of their achieving their aims. I said I simply cannot believe that the
FBI would find it necessary to employ such a shaky and inadequate
person." ....
JOHN SHERMAN COOPER -- "Is there anything about him {Lee Harvey
Oswald} now...which seems consistent with the fact...that you believe
he did shoot...President Kennedy?"
RUTH PAINE -- "Well, what has led me to the conclusion that he did
shoot President Kennedy is the massive circumstantial evidence that
surrounds his relationship or where he was, what he had at the time of
the assassination." ....
ALLEN DULLES -- "Have you any idea as to his motivation in the
act...in the assassination?"
RUTH PAINE -- "It is conjecture, of course, but I feel he always felt
himself to be a small person -- and he was right. That he wanted to be
greater, or noticed; and Marina had said of him he thinks he is so big
and fine, and he should take a more realistic view of himself and not
be so conceited. And I feel that he acted much more from the emotional
pushings within him than from any rational set of ideas." ....
ALBERT JENNER -- "Did you ever give any consideration, Mrs. Paine, to
the possibility that Lee Harvey Oswald might have been employed by
some agency of the Government of the United States?"
RUTH PAINE -- "I never gave that any consideration. .... None
whatsoever. .... It never occurred to me at any time."
ALBERT JENNER -- "Was the absence of its occurring to you based on
your overall judgment of Lee Harvey Oswald and his lack, as you say,
of, not a highly intelligent man?"
RUTH PAINE -- "Yes. .... That, and he was not in a position to know
anything of use to either Government. .... As regards he might be a
Soviet agent, what does this man know that would be of interest to
anybody or what could you find out, and you judge he didn't know
anything that the Soviets might be interested in, and, as I say, I
never gave it any thought of the possibility of his being employed by
this Government."
robcap...@netscape.com
> www.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/f7fb7fe29bedd69d
Let's act like we are in a court of law.
HALE BOGGS -- "You have no doubt about the fact that he assassinated
President Kennedy?"
DEFENSE LAWYER-- "Objection your honor, the question is leading and
calls for speculation."
JUDGE: "Sustained."
(RUTH PAINE -- "I have no present doubt.") This answer would NOT have
been allowed. The WC lawyer would have had to rephrase.
HALE BOGGS -- "Do you have any reason to believe he was associated
with anyone else in this act or it was part of a conspiracy?"
DEFENSE LAWYER -- "Objection your honor, the question calls for
speculation and assumes my client is guilty."
JUDGE: "SUSTAINED."
(RUTH PAINE -- "I have no reason to believe he was associated with
anyone. .... If the so-called great Soviet conspiracy has to rest for
its help upon such inadequate people as Lee Oswald, there is no hope
of their achieving their aims. I said I simply cannot believe that the
FBI would find it necessary to employ such a shaky and inadequate
person." ....) This long-winded answer is all speculation as she
would have no idea what LHO was doing or not doing as he was around
her so little. IF she did know I would say she had good information,
where did she get it from?
JOHN SHERMAN COOPER -- "Is there anything about him {Lee Harvey
Oswald} now...which seems consistent with the fact...that you believe
he did shoot...President Kennedy?""
DEFENSE LAWYER -- "Objection your honor, this question is leading and
calls for speculation."
JUDGE -- "Sustained. I would like to warn the prosecutor to start
asking NON-leading questions."
(RUTH PAINE -- "Well, what has led me to the conclusion that he did
shoot President Kennedy is the massive circumstantial evidence that
surrounds his relationship or where he was, what he had at the time of
the assassination." ....)
This is SO out of bounds I don't know where to start. A witness is
not allowed to discuss the evidence against the defendent unless it is
introduced by the side that called them. Even when the evidence is
introduced it is not the job of a witness to say the defendent is but
rather answer the question placed to them, and this type of question
would have been objected to immediately.
ALLEN DULLES -- "Have you any idea as to his motivation in the
act...in the assassination?""
DEFENSE LAWYER -- "Objection your honor, this question assumes my
clients guilt when the prosecution has not proven their case. It also
calls for speculation as she has no way of knowing what is asked.
(neither did the WC by the way)"
JUDGE -- "Sustained."
(RUTH PAINE -- "It is conjecture, of course, but I feel he always felt
himself to be a small person -- and he was right. That he wanted to be
greater, or noticed; and Marina had said of him he thinks he is so big
and fine, and he should take a more realistic view of himself and not
be so conceited. And I feel that he acted much more from the emotional
pushings within him than from any rational set of ideas." ....") She
has more sense than the lawyers!!
ALBERT JENNER -- "Did you ever give any consideration, Mrs. Paine, to
the possibility that Lee Harvey Oswald might have been employed by
some agency of the Government of the United States?"
RUTH PAINE -- "I never gave that any consideration. .... None
whatsoever. .... It never occurred to me at any time."
ALBERT JENNER -- "Was the absence of its occurring to you based on
your overall judgment of Lee Harvey Oswald and his lack, as you say,
of, not a highly intelligent man?"
RUTH PAINE -- "Yes. .... That, and he was not in a position to know
anything of use to either Government. .... As regards he might be a
Soviet agent, what does this man know that would be of interest to
anybody or what could you find out, and you judge he didn't know
anything that the Soviets might be interested in, and, as I say, I
never gave it any thought of the possibility of his being employed by
this Government."
This answer would have givent the defense lawyer a great amount of
information to cross with. How does she know so much about what is
useful or not to intelligence groups? The majority of these questions
would have been objected to and made to either be rephrased or
dropped.
David Von Pein
just wanted to find the facts (and they did; Mr. Lane's ilk
notwithstanding). The WC didn't have to restrict themselves to
official "courtroom" procedures.
Question is: Why does Rob and his ilk WANT Oswald to be innocent so
badly? Just...why? For, it's quite obvious that is a deep-seated
desire for nutjobs who can say (with a straight e-face): "LHO SHOT NO
ONE THAT DAY [11/22]".
But if you want to see some funny courtroom stuff, you can always look
up a portion of Ruth's '69 Shaw Trial testimony (she had them
rollin').....
MRS. PAINE -- "I telephoned the Texas School Book Depository and asked
whether they were employing at this time, whether they did have an
opening."
MR. DYMOND -- "To your knowledge, was any appointment made?"
MRS. PAINE -- "Appointment? No. You have got me confused on how to
describe what the man said without saying what he said."
[Laughter ensues throughout the courtroom.]
BAILIFF -- "Order! Order!"
MR. DYMOND -- "You can't very well do that."
MR. ALCOCK -- "That is hearsay."
MRS. PAINE -- "I heard him say it."
robcap...@netscape.com
"The WC knew they weren't in a "court", Mr. Kook. As McCloy said, they
just wanted to find the facts (and they did; Mr. Lane's ilk
notwithstanding). The WC didn't have to restrict themselves to
official "courtroom" procedures."
Exactly Herr Himmler, thus their theory carries NO weight
whatsoever!!! Especially when we saw how they ignored all his rights
to carry this charade out. Maybe that flies in Nazi Germany, but not
here.
"Question is: Why does Rob and his ilk WANT Oswald to be innocent so
badly? Just...why? For, it's quite obvious that is a deep-seated
desire for nutjobs who can say (with a straight e-face): "LHO SHOT NO
ONE THAT DAY [11/22]"."
I have explained this over and over, but when dealing with a very
small child or a LNer you have to do this. I don't care if LHO is
innocent, and in fact, I think he was involved in some way, JUST not
in the shooting of anyone part. You have NO evidence that shows he did
shoot anyone.
"But if you want to see some funny courtroom stuff, you can always
look up a portion of Ruth's '69 Shaw Trial testimony (she had them
rollin').....
MRS. PAINE -- "I telephoned the Texas School Book Depository and asked
whether they were employing at this time, whether they did have an
opening."
MR. DYMOND -- "To your knowledge, was any appointment made?"
MRS. PAINE -- "Appointment? No. You have got me confused on how to
describe what the man said without saying what he said."
[Laughter ensues throughout the courtroom.]
BAILIFF -- "Order! Order!"
MR. DYMOND -- "You can't very well do that."
MR. ALCOCK -- "That is hearsay."
MRS. PAINE -- "I heard him say it."
All laughs aside, Ruth called Truly who told her they were not hiring
right then, but he would at least meet LHO. Viola, he was hired on the
spot. What a coincidence, huh?
David Von Pein
Robby,
Make sure you give yourself the 5 stars on that hunk of hilarity, Mr.
Murderer-lover. We wouldn't want any of Robby's trash to go
unrewarded, now would we?
10-4??
robcap...@netscape.com
"Robby,
10-4??"
Thanks for proving once again you can't refute anything I have said
since you have NO evidence showing Oswald shot anyone.