Morley's Substack Goes After Ruth Paine
- Fred Litwin
- 5 hours ago
- 13 min read
Right off the bat, the headline is completely misleading -- Ruth Paine was hardly enigmatic, in fact, she's been quite open about her life. But does Ruth have "CIA Ties"?
Only if you play the six degrees of separation game. Here is the salient paragraph from Voskamp's article:
In his 2022 film, “The Assassination & Mrs. Paine,” documentarian Max Good reported that Ruth’s sister Sylvia was a CIA employee; her USAID-employed brother-in-law applied to work for the agency; her father also worked for USAID and interacted often with the CIA; Michael’s mother, Ruth Forbes Paine, knew CIA Director Allen Dulles’ mistress Mary Bancroft and once had the couple to the Forbes family’s private island, Naushon, near Martha’s Vineyard.
But who cares if Ruth's sister worked for the CIA? And the fact that her "USAID-employed brother-in-law applied to work for the agency." Why is that salient? Ruth's father "interacted often with the CIA." So what? And so what if Ruth knew the mistress of Allen Dulles. That means nothing.
Voskamp then presents the allegations against Ruth:
Ruth had long been suspected in some quarters of having been a quiet cog in an intelligence agency scheme to set Oswald up as a patsy in the assassination — acting as a sort of “babysitter” of Oswald, something de Mohrenschildt had also been suspected of. Indeed, de Mohrenschildt left the Dallas area for Haiti just as the Oswalds were safely under the care of the Paines.
In which quarters has she been long suspected?
Only in the crazy world of JFK assassination conspiracy theorists was Ruth a "quiet cog in an intelligence agency scheme to set Oswald up as a patsy."
Was that "scheme" like the Oswald operation that George Joannides oversaw?
Is it really necessary for Morley's Substack to repeat some of the more lurid accusations made over the years? Yes, Voskamp does say that "Ruth vehemently denied playing any such role," but why can't he say that there is no evidence to sustain the allegations and thus that they are all completely baseless.
I guess it's much better to leave people with suspicions.
Right at the top Marina says that Ruth "was sympathizing with the CIA. She wrote letters over there, and they [the Secret Service] told me, for my own reputation, to stay away."
Ruth was writing letters to the ACLU, not the CIA.
Andrew Sciambra then asks Marina "Did they explain to you why it would be bad for you to associate with her if she was associated with the CIA? And Marina answers that they were talking about the "Civil Liberties Union." The ACLU, not the CIA.
A few seconds later, Marina actually asks a grand juror, "what is CIA?"
Here is an excerpt from the diary of Tom Bethell: (February 8, 1968)
Marina made one remark that pleased Garrison. She said the Secret Service had told her to beware of Ruth Paine "because she was a member of the CIA." However, Alcock told me later that by the way she answered -- "that organization you join..." it was evident she meant something other than the CIA, namely the ACLU. As far as the substance of our case was concerned, Alcock said that she contributed nothing of value, and could only be a defense witness when it came to the trial. Oswald did not stay away at night, neither he nor she drove a car, she had never been to Clinton, nor had he, as far as she knew.
Greg Doudna has written this up for the Education Forum and notes that Marguerite Oswald talked about Ruth Paine and the ACLU when she was questioned by the Secret Service right after the assassination. The Secret Service knew that Ruth was associated with the ACLU, and they didn't want the ACLU to interfere with their investigation.
It's interesting that when Voskamp quotes Marina's testimony he footnotes it to James Douglass's book, JFK and the Unspeakable. Is that where he gets his JFK assassination information?
Voskamp quotes from several conspiracy theorists to demonize Paine.
First up is James DiEugenio who wrote that " ... the fact that the Paines were part of finding evidence that incriminated Oswald -- in events that perhaps did not occur -- this should merit some notice."
Actually, Oswald did that all by himself (no pun intended). He left evidence that incriminated himself, but I guess if think most evidence is planted or forged, then you have to find a villain somewhere.
Voskamp then quotes DiEugenio quoting Sylvia Meagher: (Accessories After the Fact, p. 217)
Ruth Paine … is a complex personality, despite her rather passive façade … Some examples from her testimony show a predisposition against Oswald and a real or pretended friendliness toward the FBI and other Establishment institutions, which should not be overlooked in evaluating her role in the case. … Mrs. Paine is sometimes a devious person, and her testimony must be evaluated in that light.
This is Sylvia Meagher at her worst. Judging Ruth Paine by "friendliness towards the FBI and other Establishment institutions." Is this the simple rule for JFK Facts? If you show any "friendliness" to the CIA, or other establishment institutions, then you will be judged negatively? And what evidence is there that Ruth Paine was "a devious person."
And was there any reason for Voskamp to quote Vince Salandria with some of his more outlandish opinions?
“Without the Paines having carried out their crucial assignments in the conspiracy the Dallas assassination of Kennedy simply could not have occurred. … The work of the Paines regarding Oswald was essential to the closing of the circle of events that were required to kill Kennedy and to frame Oswald as the patsy,” Salandria argued (remarks are made in the first three minutes).
The Paines had an assignment in the conspiracy?
Salandria actually wanted Garrison to charge Marina Oswald, Allen Dulles, and the Paines. Here is an excerpt from Tom Bethell's diary from January 28, 1968, describing a meeting at the New Orleans Athletic Club with the various people from Garrison's office who were working on the assassination:
He [Salandria] then started to urge us that the only trouble was we weren't going far enough, and he then started to work himself up into a harangue about Michael and Ruth Paine. "They're agents," he said, "I know they're agents. I've got the proof." He went on at some length about how he had met the Paines, and he produced some quasi-evidence suggesting they were agents etc. Then he told us to go ahead and charge the Paines -- "You've got all the evidence you need." He exhorted us to charge some others too, Marina Oswald, and Allan Dulles. Don't worry about anything, just go ahead and charge them, "the evidence is THERE!"
You'd think that Voskamp would actually want some proof that the Paines had an assignment in the conspiracy. But, hey why spoil a good quote?
If you thought the article could not get any worse, well Voskamp then quotes Roger Craig:
And then there is the Warren Commission testimony of Deputy Sheriff Roger Craig. Craig was in Dealey Plaza at the time of the assassination. In the immediate aftermath of the shooting, he said he saw a man run from the same side of the street as the Texas School Book Depository to a Nash Rambler station wagon, driven by someone else along Elm Street.
Later that day when Craig learned that Dallas Police had a man in custody, he contacted Capt. Will Fritz, who asked him to come to the station. Once there, he identified the suspect, Lee Harvey Oswald, as the man he’d seen running to the car earlier that day. When Fritz then asked about the car, Craig testified that Oswald reacted angrily: “That station wagon belongs to Mrs. Paine. … Don’t try to tie her into this. She’s got nothing to do with it,” Oswald said, per Craig.
Voskamp doesn't discuss the credibility of Roger Craig. There is firm evidence that Oswald left the Depository in a bus and then a taxi. None of the officers present in Fritz's office back up Craig's story. Craig initially said the station wagon was a white Rambler but Ruth Pained owned a green Chevrolet.
Voskamp mentions none of this.
Check out these links on Roger Craig:
The book Chokeholds quotes Roger Craig without mentioning his poor credibility.
Both Ferrell and Meagher didn't think much of Roger Craig.
Craig told Lane some really crazy stuff.
Roger Craig wrote a memo to Jim Garrison about Marina Oswald's doctor.
Garrison charges Edgar Eugene Bradley with conspiracy to kill JFK, and Roger Craig says that Bradley was the Secret Service man he encountered outside the TSBD.
Some conspiracy theorists believe that Bradley was one of the three tramps. A few letters in this post mention Roger Craig.
I also want to discuss J. Walton Moore and some of the accusations made in Voskamp's article:
Ostensibly they [the Paines] were good Christians with an abiding interest in world peace and charity. But they were both also lousy with family intelligence connections, and Ruth became a den mother to Lee and Marina Oswald after being introduced to them by a CIA-connected Russian emigre [George de Mohrenschildt], who had been asked by a CIA agent [J. Walton Moore] to keep an eye on Lee.
The CIA had nothing to do with any of this. J. Walton Moore, who was a domestic contact officer for the CIA in Dallas. It is quite true that George de Mohrenschildt told Edward Jay Epstein that "I would never have contacted Oswald in a million years if Moore had not sanctioned it." But de Mohrenschildt was delusional at the time and was probably suffering from dementia.
And de Mohrenschildt was not a CIA agent; he was a domestic contact from time to time.
Moore never had any contact with Oswald. But his wife had contact with Jeanne de Mohrenschildt who was concerned about Oswald beating up Marina.
Here is Moore's Outside Contact Report with the HSCA:
Gus Russo also talked to Moore for his Frontline PBS documentary on Lee Harvey Oswald. Moore said that Jeanne de Mohrenschildt talked about Marina being black and blue from the beatings she received from her husband. Jeanne asked the Moores if she should help Marina out and they said yes.
Towards the end of his article, Voskamp discusses the "defense" of Ruth Paine. But she wouldn't need any defenses if people would stop giving credence to the ridiculous allegations. And despite the limited defense, Voskamp is "still left wondering just what was afoot during the spring and fall of 1963 ..."
Mr. Voskamp, the answer is good will. There was a lot of good will afoot in the Paine household back then. Ruth Paine was always there to help. She spent her life in service helping others. She deserves our thanks and appreciation.
I wish there was some sort of good will amongst conspiracy theorists.
Previous Relevant Blog Posts on Ruth Paine
Ruth Paine lived a meaningful life helping people.
Here is a letter from Burt Griffin, counsel for the Warren Commission, to Max Good, producer of a film about Ruth Paine.
Guess who sponsored our dinner in Dallas?
Previous Relevant Blogs Posts on Jefferson Morley's Congressional Testimony
An analysis of Congresswoman Luna's Congressional Hearings
An FBI memo that quoted James Angleton is used by Morley to reach an unwarranted conclusion.
Morley misreads Angleton's testimony before the HSCA.
Morley believes a document proves the CIA did not believe that a lone gunman killed JFK.
Additional documents relevant to Part Three.
Morley claims that there is some connection between the suicides of Gary Underhill, Charles Thomas, George de Mohrenschildt, and the overdose death of Dorothy Kilgallen.
Morley believes that Agustin Guitart was spying on pro-Castro forces in New Orleans
Previous Relevant Blog Posts on Jefferson Morley
I don't even have law degree!
A new CIA file on Herminio Diaz does not sustain allegations that he was a grassy knoll gunman.
Richard Russell always believed that Oswald was the lone gunman.
An article by Chad Nagle, on Morley's Substack, gets it wrong on Hoover's testimony.
My latest article for Quillette.com
The recent segment on CBS about Morley and JFK documents was not journalism.
Morley's list of six CIA operations do not prove that Oswald was under surveillance.
Morley claims the SpyTalk authors are working as pro bono lawyers for the CIA.
The CIA was just quoting from a State Department memo.
SpyTalks replies to Jefferson Morley.
Gerald Posner on the Joannides' file.
Fact Checking Morley's Fact Check
Morley's Fact Check on SpyTalk needs a fact check.
Gus Russo and Michael Isikoff on the Joannides' personnel file.
Now that the entire personnel file of George Joannides has been released, Jefferson Morley has now published his unified theory of nothingness.
More Morley Nothingburgers on the way
Morley is requesting more documents -- they will reveal nothing about the assassination.
Morley got the headlines he wanted to a complete non-story.
Joannides did not come out of retirement to work with the HSCA.
There is no mention of an "Oswald Operation" in the Joannides' personnel file.
Morley believes that Dr. Robert McClelland's recollections provides proof of a shot from the front. Here is the truth about McClelland.
A reply by Nicholas Nalli to Jefferson Morley.
Morley suspected a redacted file would reveal major secrets. It didn't.
Several months ago, I posted an article, in association with several researchers, that showed what was contained in the redacted section of Schlesinger's memo.
Morley somehow knows what is in the supposed 2,400 recently-discovered FBI files.
Morley discusses Israel with Tucker Carlson.
Morley believes that the United States can never be great unless it solves the JFK assassination.
An analysis of the 13 documents Morley wants to see.
Morley claims I am a CIA apologist and then misquotes me.
It would be worthwhile for the CIA to release the Joannides file just to stop the incessant posts from Jefferson Morley.
Actually, Oswald stayed at two budget-priced hotels in Helsinki.
He keeps asking the same questions, and we keep posting the same answers.
Conspiracy authors are playing fast and loose with the facts.
There is no evidence that Diaz was involved in the JFK assassination.
There are clues as to what is in a redacted section of Schlesinger's memo.
Chad Nagle and Dan Storper's article on New Orleans gets everything wrong.
Believing Michael Kurtz is problematic.
Morley wrote that there are two redacted memos on CIA reorganization, but there is only one. He wrote about Goodwin's copy as if it was a different memo, rather than a copy of the Schlesinger memo.
The phrase 'who shot John' does not refer to the JFK assassination.
Only one word is redacted in Harvey's deposition.
There are no redactions in the Operation Northwoods document.
Kilgallen had nothing to tell.
An underwhelming interview of Marina Oswald.
Morley often repeats stories and changes their meanings.
Chad Nagle claims there was an assassination plot against JFK in Chicago in November 1963. One problem: There is no evidence of such a plot.
A response to Morley's Substack post alleging that I am a CIA apologist.
A rebuttal to Morley's response to my post Was Bill Harvey in Dallas in November of 1963?
There is no credible evidence Harvey was in Dallas in November of 1963.
Morley repeats the claim that Dulles was at a CIA training center during the weekend of the JFK assassination. He wasn't.
Morley's claims about Efron are all wrong.
Morley responded to my article "The Truth about Operation Northwoods." Here is my reply.
W. Tracy Parnell on Jefferson Morley
W. Tracy Parnell is one of the best JFK assassination researchers out there. Here is his look at Jefferson Morley with several important articles.
Operation Northwoods can only be understood as part of the Kennedys' war against Cuba and Operation Mongoose.
And a response from me.
There is no evidence that Dr. West petitioned the court to examine Jack Ruby before his trial.
There is absolutely no evidence that Dr. Louis Jolyon West interfered with Jack Ruby's case.
Jefferson Morley used a fake Oswald handbill in his press conference for the Mary Ferrell Foundation.
An examination of redactions in the JFK collection of documents.
Morley doesn't understand Alecia Long's arguments about homophobia and Jim Garrison.
Jefferson Morley asks why "what the CIA knew about Herminio Diaz is still off limits."
Morley misses that a lot of redactions are actually available.
Jefferson Morley's press conference presents evidence that belief in a conspiracy has dropped.