Ruthie Paine's Confusing Calendar

[Jerry Freeman]

 At the top of Mrs Paine's calendar March 1963 [CE 401] there is a star and a note 'LHO purchase of rifle'. This calendar was confiscated in a search.

The calendar was confiscated on the afternoon of the coup d e'tat, 11 / 22/63....and it wasn't returned to Paine for several days.....(The police kept all of the evidence until they had time to examine it)

So Ruth Paine could NOT have made that entry on 11/23 /63..... 

Yet through the ordeal of her days of testimony...she was asked absolutely nothing about it after a tedious search as there were hours spent exploring the history of her life. Why that was... is anyone's guess.

.... it depends upon how much fat you have between your ears.

..it depends upon how much fat.. air.. ozone.. vacuum you have between your ears.
No insults there are directed to anyone in particular.

[Richard Smith]

Yet through the ordeal of her days of testimony...she was asked absolutely nothing about it after a tedious search as there were hours spent exploring the history of her life. Why that was... is anyone's guess. ..it depends upon how much fat.. air.. ozone.. vacuum you have between your ears.
No insults there are directed to anyone in particular.

She was specifically asked about the calendar notation by the WC and explained.  Again, though, after you had a tantrum denying that you ever suggested that Paine had been involved in a conspiracy, why does this matter?  It's unclear what point you are trying to make in understanding her subjective motivations.  And you have thus far refused to explain. 

[Jerry Freeman]

I stand corrected on the relevant testimony--

Mr. JENNER - Now, I turn to March, and I direct your attention to the upper left-hand corner of that card, and it appears to me that in the upper left-hand corner are October 23, then a star, then "LHO" followed by the words "purchase of rifle." Would you explain those entries?
Mrs. PAINE - Yes. This was written after.
Mr. JENNER - After?
Mrs. PAINE - This was written indeed after the assassination.
Mr. JENNER - All right.
Mrs. PAINE - I heard on the television that he had purchased a rifle.
Mr. JENNER - When?
Mrs. PAINE - I heard it on November 23.
Mr. JENNER - Yes.
Mrs. PAINE - And went back to the page for March, put a little star on March 20 as being a small square, I couldn't fit in all I wanted to say. I just put in a star and then referring it to the corner of the calendar.

Mr. JENNER - That is to the entry I have read?
Mrs. PAINE - Put the star saying "LHO purchase of rifle." Then I thought someone is going to wonder about that, I had better put down the date, and did, but it was a busy day, one of the most in my life and I was off by a month as to what day it was.
Mr. JENNER - That is you made the entry October?
Mrs. PAINE - October 23 instead of November.
Mr. JENNER - It should have been November 23?
Mrs. PAINE - It should have been November 23.
Mr. JENNER - And the entry of October 23, which should have been November 23, was an entry on your part indicating the date you wrote on the calendar the star followed by "LHO purchase of rifle" and likewise the date you made an entry?
Mrs. PAINE - On the 20th.
Mr. JENNER - This is the square having the date March 20?

[Jerry Freeman]

 

She was specifically asked about the calendar notation by the WC and explained.  Again, though, after you had a tantrum ..

The testimony was already posted on the first page of this thread and I missed it.
I had a "tantrum"? 
Forgot to mention that Ms Paine did not explain why she made that entry.
 

[David Von Pein]

JIM DiEUGENIO SAID:

And we haven't even gotten to the most bizarre point of all: the calendar with the rifle delivery marking.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

If Ruth Paine was really the vile patsy-framing vixen and conspirator that Jim DiEugenio thinks she was, then why on Earth would Ruth, PRIOR to President Kennedy's murder, have written a note on her March 1963 calendar saying "LHO purchase of rifle"?

Does Jimbo think "Ruthy" was leaving a little bread crumb of conspiratorial proof for future researchers to find, so that those researchers can scream these words with delight -- "Aha! I told you Ruth Paine was a liar!"?

Can anyone (even conspiracy mongers like Jim D.) REALLY believe Ruth would do something so utterly stupid?

Evidently Jimbo CAN believe that Mrs. Paine would be so foolish -- because it's obvious that DiEugenio DOES believe that Ruth Paine wrote the words "LHO purchase of rifle" on her calendar BEFORE the assassination ever took place.

Which, therefore, must also mean that DiEugenio believes that Ruth was privy to the "March 20th" date of Oswald's rifle purchase PRIOR to the time when Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry made that date of 3/20/63 known to the public on national television on November 23, 1963.

So, Jimbo, tell us how Ruth became aware of that "March 20" information prior to 11/23/63? Was she in cahoots with Klein's Sporting Goods too? Or did the evil FBI furnish her with that exact date? Or could it be that it was Ruth Paine HERSELF who faked and manufactured Waldman Exhibit No. 7? Maybe it was Ruth herself who wrote "3/20/63" on that Klein's document. Is that how she knew the date prior to November 23rd, Jimbo?

JIM DiEUGENIO LATER SAID:

More blather.

I am waiting for someone to show me where I was wrong [re: Ruth Paine]. .... Please show me with specifics from the book [Destiny Betrayed, 2nd Edition].

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You're wrong about everything relating to JFK's assassination, Jim. That's fairly obvious.

And I want YOU, Jimbo, to prove to me that Ruth Paine had ANYTHING whatsoever to do with "planting" Lee Harvey Oswald in the Book Depository Building as part of a pre-arranged plot to frame Oswald for the murder of John F. Kennedy.

Because as far as I can see, if THAT critical portion of your silly "Paine Framed Lee" plot collapses (as it certainly must collapse when the facts surrounding Oswald getting his TSBD job are evaluated in a reasonable manner), then the rest of your suspicions about Ruth and her sister and the DeMohrenschildts and the CIA and the camera (which is a really silly extension of your theory, since we KNOW, scientifically, that that camera DID take the backyard photos of LHO) crumbles into that foundation of mush that you've built it on in the first place.

In other words -- Jim DiEugenio has his suspicions. Nothing more.

And as we all should know by now when talking about the suspicions put forth by JFK conspiracy theorists, "suspicions" about someone do not equal "facts". Far from it, in fact. Particularly when the person who has those suspicions is James DiEugenio of Los Angeles.

I mean, come on, Jimbo thinks Linnie Mae Randle and Buell Frazier lied about Oswald having ANY BAG AT ALL on the morning of 11/22/63. That theory of Jimbo's, all by itself, should cause anyone to cast some "suspicion" on Jim DiEugenio's ability to reasonably assess ANY evidence connected with the death of JFK. (Shouldn't it?)

JIM DiEUGENIO SAID:

Yawn.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I'm sleepy too, Jimbo. Especially after reading your latest batch of "suspicions" in your last post.

Lurkers -- Please note how Jimbo will never be able to REASONABLY put Ruth Paine in the middle of a "Let's Frame Oswald" plot when it comes to the topic of how (and WHEN) Oswald obtained his Depository job.

Key word there -- "Reasonably".

JIM DiEUGENIO SAID:

LOL. ROTF.

This is the guy who tried to distract from the Adams affidavit. Until I blew that up.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Jimbo likes to think he has blown things up, when, in fact, he hasn't even lit the match.

This whole "Adams" thing goes directly to Jimbo's theory that Ruth Paine (some how, some way--even though we know it was impossible, as already proven) had a desire to PLANT Lee Oswald in the TSBD for the express purpose of framing him for JFK's murder.

Let me repeat that (just in case some people reading this don't realize the sheer craziness of such a notion; not to mention the fact that it's a disgusting and vile allegation against a woman who did NOTHING of the kind; but such allegations against innocent people don't seem to bother DiEugenio in the slightest):

James DiEugenio thinks that Ruth Paine was able to plant (and DID plant) Lee H. Oswald in the Depository for the specific purpose of being able to frame Oswald for the 11/22/63 murder of the President of the United States.

Whew!

And Jimbo doesn't even BLUSH! That's remarkable.

More:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/04/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-87.html

[Richard Smith]

JIM DiEUGENIO SAID:

And we haven't even gotten to the most bizarre point of all: the calendar with the rifle delivery marking.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

If Ruth Paine was really the vile patsy-framing vixen and conspirator that Jim DiEugenio thinks she was, then why on Earth would Ruth, PRIOR to President Kennedy's murder, have written a note on her March 1963 calendar saying "LHO purchase of rifle"?

Does Jimbo think "Ruthy" was leaving a little bread crumb of conspiratorial proof for future researchers to find, so that those researchers can scream these words with delight -- "Aha! I told you Ruth Paine was a liar!"?

Can anyone (even conspiracy mongers like Jim D.) REALLY believe Ruth would do something so utterly stupid?

Evidently Jimbo CAN believe that Mrs. Paine would be so foolish -- because it's obvious that DiEugenio DOES believe that Ruth Paine wrote the words "LHO purchase of rifle" on her calendar BEFORE the assassination ever took place.

Which, therefore, must also mean that DiEugenio believes that Ruth was privy to the "March 20th" date of Oswald's rifle purchase PRIOR to the time when Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry made that date of 3/20/63 known to the public on national television on November 23, 1963.

So, Jimbo, tell us how Ruth became aware of that "March 20" information prior to 11/23/63? Was she in cahoots with Klein's Sporting Goods too? Or did the evil FBI furnish her with that exact date? Or could it be that it was Ruth Paine HERSELF who faked and manufactured Waldman Exhibit No. 7? Maybe it was Ruth herself who wrote "3/20/63" on that Klein's document. Is that how she knew the date prior to November 23rd, Jimbo?

JIM DiEUGENIO LATER SAID:

More blather.

I am waiting for someone to show me where I was wrong [re: Ruth Paine]. .... Please show me with specifics from the book [Destiny Betrayed, 2nd Edition].

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You're wrong about everything relating to JFK's assassination, Jim. That's fairly obvious.

And I want YOU, Jimbo, to prove to me that Ruth Paine had ANYTHING whatsoever to do with "planting" Lee Harvey Oswald in the Book Depository Building as part of a pre-arranged plot to frame Oswald for the murder of John F. Kennedy.

Because as far as I can see, if THAT critical portion of your silly "Paine Framed Lee" plot collapses (as it certainly must collapse when the facts surrounding Oswald getting his TSBD job are evaluated in a reasonable manner), then the rest of your suspicions about Ruth and her sister and the DeMohrenschildts and the CIA and the camera (which is a really silly extension of your theory, since we KNOW, scientifically, that that camera DID take the backyard photos of LHO) crumbles into that foundation of mush that you've built it on in the first place.

In other words -- Jim DiEugenio has his suspicions. Nothing more.

And as we all should know by now when talking about the suspicions put forth by JFK conspiracy theorists, "suspicions" about someone do not equal "facts". Far from it, in fact. Particularly when the person who has those suspicions is James DiEugenio of Los Angeles.

I mean, come on, Jimbo thinks Linnie Mae Randle and Buell Frazier lied about Oswald having ANY BAG AT ALL on the morning of 11/22/63. That theory of Jimbo's, all by itself, should cause anyone to cast some "suspicion" on Jim DiEugenio's ability to reasonably assess ANY evidence connected with the death of JFK. (Shouldn't it?)

JIM DiEUGENIO SAID:

Yawn.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I'm sleepy too, Jimbo. Especially after reading your latest batch of "suspicions" in your last post.

Lurkers -- Please note how Jimbo will never be able to REASONABLY put Ruth Paine in the middle of a "Let's Frame Oswald" plot when it comes to the topic of how (and WHEN) Oswald obtained his Depository job.

Key word there -- "Reasonably".

JIM DiEUGENIO SAID:

LOL. ROTF.

This is the guy who tried to distract from the Adams affidavit. Until I blew that up.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Jimbo likes to think he has blown things up, when, in fact, he hasn't even lit the match.

This whole "Adams" thing goes directly to Jimbo's theory that Ruth Paine (some how, some way--even though we know it was impossible, as already proven) had a desire to PLANT Lee Oswald in the TSBD for the express purpose of framing him for JFK's murder.

Let me repeat that (just in case some people reading this don't realize the sheer craziness of such a notion; not to mention the fact that it's a disgusting and vile allegation against a woman who did NOTHING of the kind; but such allegations against innocent people don't seem to bother DiEugenio in the slightest):

James DiEugenio thinks that Ruth Paine was able to plant (and DID plant) Lee H. Oswald in the Depository for the specific purpose of being able to frame Oswald for the 11/22/63 murder of the President of the United States.

Whew!

And Jimbo doesn't even BLUSH! That's remarkable.

More:
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/04/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-87.html

CTers are impervious to the use of facts and logic or they would not be JFK CTers in the first place.  The Catch-22 of these exchanges  You can tell as much when their normally long winded responses become short and dismissive.  Like a small child being told there is no Santa Claus.

[Jerry Freeman]

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
You're wrong about everything relating to JFK's assassination, Jim. That's fairly obvious.

Is this to postulate that everything that DVP and all who agree with him are correct about everything relating to such?
 I will [as noted earlier] stand corrected when I am in error.
From another thread---

Re: Lee Oswald The Cop Killer
« Reply #1693 on: October 25, 2019, 12:54:23 AM »Quote from: John Iacoletti on October 22, 2019, 07:37:42 PM
 Now where does it say what you claimed it does?  Where does it say that Tippit was pronounced DOA at 1:15?

 
 And yet such is documented....


The above is an [obviously] altered police report.
Why it was 'adjusted' is open to speculation just like many other anomalies in this case.