back to False Mystery | JFK | ratville times | rat haus | Index | Search | tree
Next | Contents | Prev
( PDF | text only formats )
The Role Of The Paines In History
Transcript of statement by Vincent Salandria read on April 8, 2016 during his interview as background for the upcoming Feature Documentary, The Assassination & Mrs. Paine.
The recording of this statement is at: <>. Annotated presentation published in rat haus reality press, May 29, 2017.

After more than a half century, the historical truth of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy has been finally established beyond rational dispute. The Kennedy assassination is a false mystery. It was conceived by the conspirators to be a false mystery which was designed to cause interminable debate. The purpose of the protracted debate was to obscure what was quite clearly and plainly a coup d’état. Simply stated, President Kennedy was assassinated by our U.S. national security state in order to abort his efforts to bring the Cold War to a peaceful conclusion. A critical component of that historical truth is the certainty that without the roles played by Ruth and Michael Paine in President Kennedy’s assassination, he could not and would not have been killed in Dallas.

It has been firmly established that Kennedy’s assassination was conspiratorial. Therefore, rationality requires that one is compelled to the conclusion that Kennedy’s killers carefully selected Ruth and Michael Paine to perform the vital conspiratorial tasks to which they were assigned. Without the Paines having carried out their crucial assignments in the conspiracy, the Dallas assassination of Kennedy simply could not have occurred.

Let us briefly summarize some, but certainly not all, of the vital work carried out by the Paines without which no successful Dallas conspiracy to kill Kennedy could possibly have occurred. The work of the Paines regarding Oswald was essential for the successful closing of the circle of events that were required to kill Kennedy and to frame Oswald as the patsy.

Notwithstanding the overwhelming weight of the evidence which speaks to Oswald’s innocence, the Paines, even now, continue to support the incredible myth that Oswald was Kennedy’s lone assassin. Let us examine why it follows that in the absence of the aforementioned roles played by the Paines in the service of the assassins, the Dallas liquidation of Kennedy and the framing of Oswald could not have happened.

Researchers have uncovered a mound of evidence which unquestionably points to U.S. intelligence as the executioners of President Kennedy.[1] Another mound of evidence demonstrates that the Paines and their families were steeped in involvement in the United States intelligence services.[2] Yet another mound of evidence proved that Oswald was a U.S. intelligence agent.[3] Once one recognizes the Kennedy assassination as a conspiracy, one must conclude that the Paines had been carefully selected by the U.S. intelligence services to fulfill their important functions. Probability theory, a branch of mathematics, dictates that the invaluable work of the Paines, which served to incriminate Oswald as the assassin, and to frame him, could not have been left by the conspirators to happenstance. One cannot rationally attribute to happenstance the cause of the series of actions of the Paines, which served to impute guilt to Oswald. Such a conclusion defies the axioms and logic of probability theory.


So, the Paines were a necessary part of the conspiracy to kill Kennedy and to frame Oswald. Probability theory precludes that the Paines had not been selected to play their roles but had randomly and by happenstance performed them. It also necessarily follows that since the Paines had been assigned their roles by the assassins, the Paines could serve as beacons showing the way to identify the conspirators who had selected them. It was to confirm the identity of the forces behind Kennedy’s assassination that I was eager to get to know the Paines.

    Shirley Martin
In August of 1965 the opportunity for me to meet the Paines presented itself. I had the good fortune to come to know and make a friend of Shirley Martin of Hominy, Oklahoma, who was one of the earliest Kennedy assassination critics.[4] It was she who had had arranged for Mark Lane to represent Oswald posthumously. In Shirley Martin’s assassination investigatory pursuits, Shirley had come to know the Paines. Shirley had planned in August of 1965 to visit the Paines at their Irving, Texas residence. She decided to include me in the visit. In planning the journey we thought it best that Shirley not advise the Paines in advance that I was to be included in the meeting. We scheduled a one day trip.

In early morning Shirley and I left on our trip. Shirley was driving us in her car when a local police officer signaled for us to pull over. When she did so the police officer politely told Shirley, “Ms. Martin, we see that you are on your way on a trip. Please drive carefully.” Shortly after dawn we had reached Dallas and went directly to Dealey Plaza where Kennedy had been killed. When we emerged from Shirley’s car at Dealey Plaza a big man appearing to be in his fifties and wearing sandals approached me. Upon reaching me, he asked:

“How is Mark Lane?” I offered no answer.

While pointing broadly to the area around us he asked: “Do you know what this is?”

“Dealey Plaza,” I answered.

He then followed with, “No, do you know what it is?

I responded: “Well, I guess I don’t.”

He followed by answering his own question: “This is a WPA project, a socialist project where a socialist president was killed. The next time you write an article, mention that.”

This informative man then undertook to explain to me his view of the Holocaust. He related that the Holocaust had been a mere historical accident. He said that Jews just happened to have been closely quartered together in Ghettos in Europe. As a consequence of this intense crowding, they naturally got killed from the carnage of World War II in greater numbers than the rest of the population. It was accidental, he explained. The large man, having informed me about some history, also had indirectly informed me that he knew who I was and why I was in Dealey Plaza. He then slowly and calmly walked away.

After Dealey Plaza, Shirley and I then drove to Irving, Texas, the home of Michael and Ruth Paine. Author Thomas Mallon, in his book, Mrs. Paine’s Garage wrote admiringly of the Paines. He wrote in the book about the Martin-Salandria trip to the Paines and that: “Mrs. Martin apologized to Ruth for lack of any advance notice about Salandria.” (p. 129)

Michael and Ruth Paine    

So, the Paines had not been advised in advance by Shirley Martin of my identity nor of my planned visit to them. Yet they apparently saw no need to conceal from me that they had received prior information about my visit. At that time, I had achieved no name recognition from my assassination writings in tiny, low-circulation magazines. Therefore, there was little chance that the Paines, on their own, could have come to know anything about me.

Before my visit with them, they had apparently been informed about my identity. Michael Paine had become aware that I had worked in civil liberties and civil rights. In fact, I had served for many years as a volunteer lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union. Immediately, after having been introduced by name only by Shirley to the Paines, Michael Paine, promptly asked me: “Why are you working on the assassination? Why don’t you stick to your work in civil liberties and civil rights?”

On March 18, 1964 Ruth and Michael appeared in secret hearings before the Warren Commission.
His questions struck me as curious on two accounts. First, I wondered how he had learned about my work in civil liberties and civil rights? And, second, I wondered why my efforts in those areas would be viewed by him as activities that were not compatible with my work researching the Kennedy assassination. For both of the Paines were, like me, members of the ACLU. Both had attended Warren Commission secret hearings which had not been open to the public. They knew that secrecy in such an investigation was contrary to the openness sought by the ACLU. Then why, I wondered, would Michael Paine see my work in the Kennedy assassination research as separate from, rather than complimentary with, my civil liberties and civil rights efforts?

On the way home from Dallas, upon reentering the Hominy, Oklahoma area, Shirley Martin was driving well within the speed limit. Nonetheless, a police officer signaled us to pull over and issued a speeding ticket to Shirley.

Through this visit to the Paines I was grimly force-fed certain facts by the conspirators. They were informing me of their extensive power of surveillance. Rather than being secretive about their tracking me, they were informing me that they were so powerful that they were willing to have me know that they had instructed the Paines on how to toy with me. I was being advised that the Paines did not see themselves as having any need to conceal their foreknowledge of me. The killers were informing me that the Paines did not see that it was necessary for them to conceal from me their connections with the power that was tracking me. The conspirators were telling me that their operatives, the Paines, were absolutely and transparently loyal to them.


Later I was able to reflect and to give meaning to Michael Paine’s curious suggestion that my work in civil liberties and civil rights was incompatible with my Kennedy assassination research. It turned out that Michael Paine, when he had imparted to me that I had to choose between doing either the assassination or the ACLU work, had been remarkably prescient. For, upon my return to Philadelphia, I was phoned by my close friend, Spencer Coxe. Spencer was the Executive Director of the Philadelphia branch of the ACLU. In his phone call he asked me to come to his office. When I arrived, he suggested that we take a walk together. After walking a few city blocks, Spencer Coxe broke an awkward silence and said: “Vince, the National Office of the ACLU contacted me. They want you to stop writing articles about the Kennedy assassination.” Without saying anything to Spencer, I removed my wallet from my trousers. I extracted from the wallet my ACLU membership card. Without comment, I handed it to him. By that act I resigned from my friendship with Spencer and my membership in the ACLU.

The resignations were for me emotionally wrenching. Spencer Cox had been a dear friend and I had dedicated much work over so many years to the causes espoused by the ACLU. It pained me to have to depart from what I had viewed as an admirable organization and from a close and endearing friendship. Michael Paine had informed me, although indirectly, that the assassins, to which he was transparently closely connected, were quite formidable. They were so powerful that they had prevailed upon the ACLU to seek to discourage me from writing about the Kennedy assassination. The assassins had ironically succeeded in getting the American Civil Liberties Union—its reason for existence is to preserve civil liberties—to seek to get me to refrain from exercising my first amendment-right to free speech in writing on the Kennedy assassination.

Apparently Ruth Paine had shared my concern for an open society and for the increasing power of the CIA. On April 20, 1968, she wrote a letter to my friend, Jim Garrison. In that letter she offered to support his efforts to arrive at the truth in the Kennedy assassination. In part she wrote:

I was glad to discover that there are some fundamental ways in which I agree with the importance of your pursuit of information regarding a possible conspiracy. Most basic is the conviction that if our form of society is to survive we must create checks and balances on the burgeoning clandestine wing of our government called the CIA (or close it down).... Your charges are so sweeping and major that it would be national folly not to pursue the issue to see where truth lies.... If there are ways I can help I shall be glad. I was struck by your passionate concern for Man, and by the intense grief you feel over the loss of President Kennedy. I, too, feel that loss acutely.... He had taken the measure of the “expert advice” of generals (and the CIA) and had found it wanting. He was a man prepared to do his own thinking in a framework of the highest regard for man, for life, and for civilization. For myself, I have given up wondering when the sharp sting of my grief over the loss will wane. I have concluded it never shall, and in that I found you kindred.
With highest regards.

In this letter to Jim Garrison, Ruth Paine stated that she had a desire to check the power of the CIA and the generals and to help find the truth of the Kennedy assassination. Yet, Ruth Paine’s roles, and those of her husband, Michael, were crucial in making the assassination conspiracy in Dallas successful. Their roles were only matched in their importance in the conspiracy to kill Kennedy by that played by former Senator Arlen Specter. It was Arlen Specter, the author of the single-bullet theory, that was designed to solve the three-bullet ammunition shortage that befell the Warren Commission. It was Arlen Specter’s theory which made possible the Warren Commission’s myth that Oswald and Oswald alone killed President Kennedy with a three-bullet ammunition supply.

Senator Specter, like the Paines, persisted for almost fifty years in defending his single-bullet theory.[5] Almost immediately after the issuance of the Warren Report, I had accused Arlen Specter of having been fraudulent in his analysis of the ballistics evidence of the Warren Commission. Over almost fifty years I had predicted that Specter would never waiver in his support for his Warren Commission work. Unexpectedly, some four years ago, Senator Specter proved me wrong. Senator Specter phoned me. In his call he asked me to have lunch with him. I agreed. The following occurred at that luncheon.

Arlen Specter, Apr 2012
On January 4, 2012 I arrived at the Oyster House restaurant in Philadelphia to meet with Arlen Specter..[6] At the lunch I thanked Specter for arranging for us to meet. I told him that I would relate to him why I viewed his work on the Kennedy assassination as having very likely saved my life. I also confided to him that if I had been given his Warren Commission assignment, and if I had known then what I learned over the years, I would have done what he did. Of course, as a pacifist peace activist with socialist leanings, I would never have been selected for Specter’s Warren Commission assignment which was to cover up the state crime of killing President Kennedy and framing Lee Harvey Oswald for the crime.

I related to Specter how the conspirators had given the killing a leftist aura, but that Oswald was not a leftist, but rather was a U.S. intelligent agent. I told him that the Kennedy assassins, by choosing as the patsy a supposed defector to the Soviet Union and a Fair Play for Cuba member, pointed an accusatory finger at the Soviet Union and Cuba as being complicit in the Kennedy assassination. I said that the Warren Commission had chosen to turn away from the option of a leftist assassination of Kennedy to a lone assassin myth.

I told Specter that over the years I had come to understand that my view of the assassination as a coup could not be accepted by the U.S. public. It was true that the public opinion polls, except for those taken immediately following the Warren Commission’s issuance, indicated that the majority of the American people believed that an undefined conspiracy had killed Kennedy. I told Specter that over the years I had came to acknowledge that if the Warren Commission’s Oswald myth had not quieted the U.S. public but had unraveled shortly after the assassination, then domestic and possibly international chaos would have very likely ensued.

I explained that the alternative to the Oswald lone assassin myth was written large as a pro Soviet and Castro killing. I told Specter that if the leftist killing of Kennedy had been adopted by the Warren commission, I believed the consequences would have been dire. In such a case of a purported leftist killing of Kennedy, the U.S. military would have been free to consider the killing an act of war. The next president would have been considered a unitary president possessing dictatorial powers.

Specter then asked me what I thought the reason was for the assassination. In reply, I asked him whether he had read the correspondence between President Kennedy and Premier Nikita Khrushchev. He said that he had not. I explained that my reading of the correspondence had convinced me that Kennedy and Khrushchev had grown fond of one another and were seeking to end the Cold War. I told Specter that I felt that the two leaders sought to change the Cold War into a peaceful competition on an economic rather than a military basis. They were going to test peacefully the relative merits of a free market system and a command economy model. I told him that I saw the U.S. military and intelligence services and their civilian allies as having been deeply opposed to ending the Cold War.

I also related to Specter that there was a bitter conflict between Kennedy and our military on the issue of escalation in Vietnam. I told Specter that I felt Kennedy was seeking to withdraw our military advisors from Vietnam,[7] and this policy was unacceptable to our Joint Chiefs of Staff who wanted a U.S. military victory there.

I explained that the day after Kennedy’s assassination I had met with my then brother-in-law, Harold Feldman. We decided that if Oswald was the killer, and if the U.S. government was innocent of any complicity in the killing, Oswald would live through the weekend. If Oswald was the assassin, he would be given a fair and public trial which would serve the purpose of clearing the U.S. government from suspicion of complicity in the killing. But if Oswald was killed over the weekend, then we would know that the assassination was the result of a high level U.S. government plot. For only a guilty government would have Oswald killed while in police custody in order to silence him. Oswald had already identified himself to the Dallas police as the patsy.[8]

Specter made reference to our meeting in 1964. That meeting occurred after Specter had completed his work for the Warren Commission. We had met when he was being honored by the Philadelphia Bar Association for his Warren Commission work. He asked me what I remembered about the event. I said that I attended the meeting with my copy of the Warren Report. After his address, I directed some questions to him regarding his conclusions about the shots, trajectories and wounds of the assassination. His answers to my questions were considerably less than dispositive of the problems I had raised. At the conclusion of the meeting some of my legal colleagues gathered around me and asked me to write an article on the subject. I did so and sent the article to the Chancellor of the Philadelphia Bar Association, Theodore Vorhees. I requested that he have it published. He arranged for its publication in The Legal Intelligencer, the oldest legal journal in the nation. In the article I concluded that Specter’s work was fraudulent, and that the U.S. government’s Warren Commission evidence proved that there was a conspiracy.[9]

Specter recalled that in our confrontation in City Hall I had accused him of corruption. He said that he had asked me at that time whether I would change the charge to incompetency. I had refused and I told him that I could not have changed the charge to incompetency because I knew then from his public record, as I knew at our meeting at the luncheon, that he was not incompetent. My charge of fraud made at the meeting was reiterated in the Legal Intelligencer article in which I described the Warren commission’s work as speculation conforming to none of the evidence. In the article I had written that the Warren Report deserved to have not the slightest credibility. I wrote that the Warren Commission was incredible because it had committed errors of logic, and its findings were contrary to the laws of physics and especially the Newtonian laws of motion.

Allen Dulles, 1962
Earl Warren

Specter asked me whether I thought that the Warren Commission had been a set up. I answered that probably not all of the Commissioners knew that it was a set up, but that Allen Dulles and Earl Warren knew. I also told him that I thought McGeorge Bundy was privy to the plot.[10]

    McGeorge Bundy

The Warren Report largely succeeded during the critical times immediately following the assassination, in quieting the public’s concerns. As it developed, my work criticizing the Warren Commission was ineffective in exciting any material opposition to the Warren Commission’s findings. So, I told Specter that the effectiveness of his work, and the ineffectiveness of my own, caused my life to be spared.

The most important aspect of our lunch was not anything that was said. Rather, what was not said represented what I consider most significant. Specter requested that I agree that his Warren Commission ballistics work was incompetent rather than fraudulent. I could not concede to his request. But what was not said in our discourse was one word from Specter defending the historical truthfulness of the Warren Commission’s findings. Rather Specter was most eager to settle for error rather than fraud to explain his work. But he never offered a single word of defense for his work and the Warren Commission’s conclusions. Specter was never known to be passive, unassertive and shy. At the long luncheon he had an open path to continue his defense of the Warren Commission. He declined to do so, and only sought to have me attribute the falsity of his analysis of the ballistics to incompetency rather than fraud. I could not bring myself to withdraw the charge of fraud of which I had accused him for almost a half century. As we departed the luncheon I gave Arlen Specter a copy of James Douglass’ book JFK and the Unspeakable which proved the thesis of a coup in order to perpetuate the Cold War.[11]

After many years of my harsh criticisms of Arlen Specter for his lies on which the Warren Commission anchored its conclusions, would I be inclined to change my contemptuous view of him? My answer is that, yes, I would, and here is why.


The highly skilled lawyer, Arlen Specter, was enlisted by the U.S. government to serve the needs of the Warren Commission. Through his invention of the single-bullet-theory lies he enabled the Warren Commission to issue a report which served to calm the U.S. public in a period of great crisis. At the time of the assassination, if any serious domestic or foreign efforts had been made to counter the coup, the weaponry commanded by the national security state criminals who killed Kennedy was by far the most devastating on the planet. A struggle against the forces which effectuated the coup and their civilian allies would have caused catastrophic loss of life from resulting domestic discord and possibly international war. Therefore, in my current judgment of Arlen Specter, in changing my view, I defer to the wisdom of Sophocles who said: “Truly, to tell lies is not honorable; but where truth entails tremendous ruin, to speak dishonorably is pardonable.”

So, Senator Arlen Specter has done what Ruth Paine had suggested in her 1968 letter to Jim Garrison that she was willing to do. In her letter to Garrison she said that she joined with him in wanting to know “where the truth lies.” In the luncheon with me, Specter ceased espousing his single-bullet theory which served as the key element to the U.S. government’s efforts to cover up the coup that constituted the Kennedy assassination. Arlen Specter has done that which the Paines’ have failed to do, i.e. turn away from asserting the falsehoods regarding the purposeful and dark roles their lies had performed in the service of the national security state’s killing of President Kennedy.

In the recent book of historical significance entitled The Devil’s Chessboard, author David Talbot spells out how Allen Dulles had both the motive to kill and coordinated the conspiracy which killed Kennedy. Allen Dulles was a very active member of the Warren Commission and was a close friend of Michael Paine’s mother, Ruth Forbes Paine. Both Ruth and Michael Paine’s families are deeply enmeshed in CIA activity. As we have set forth, there is no rational way that the Paines can hope to explicate their roles in the Kennedy assassination as the innocent results of an accidental occurrence of a series of inexplicable and weird coincidences. The mathematics of probability theory forecloses that a series of coincidences serve as fig leaves to conceal effectively their guilt by enabling the conspirators to assassinate President Kennedy. The truth is plain. With great care, they were chosen by Allen Dulles to do their work that made possible Kennedy’s assassination in Dallas.

Intelligence agencies require that their operatives, in carrying out their covert functions, know only what they need to know. Therefore, it is quite clear that the Paines had no reason or need to know, and therefore had received no forewarning, of the planned assassination of Kennedy. They had no reason to believe that they were being selected by Allen Dulles to serve critical roles in falsely implicating Oswald in an assassination in which he was to be the patsy. The information to which they were made privy about the nature of their assignments, which information was greatly constricted, was based on need-to-know limitations. The information which they had prior to the assassination was unquestionably sketchy and uninformative. They were in a very real sense victimized by being unknowingly and critically positioned so that they have been recorded in history as having played key roles in effectuating the conspiracy which killed President Kennedy. They were victimized by their employers, the national security state, in its falsification of the historical questions in order to obscure how and why it assassinated Kennedy.

I respectfully direct my concluding remarks to Ruth and Michael Paine. I address them as a fellow human being who understands and empathizes with them for the evil roles they were unknowingly designated to serve on behalf of the criminality of our national security state. They were victimized by being placed in positions which resulted in enormous harm to our republic and to global peace.As a consequence of the Kennedy assassination, the national security state which killed Kennedy, is now in substantial control of both our military budget and our foreign policy.

Our warfare budget supports perpetual war and causes the consequent depletion of our social welfare and grossly increases the suffering incurred by those in the lower economic brackets. Our efforts to maintain our military global hegemony excites increasing levels of retaliatory terroristic activity. This terroristic activity is further exacerbated by the covert actions of our intelligence services which have little or no respect for national boundaries and sovereignty. Our perpetual wars take a horrible toll on the lives of innocent civilians. The militarism that grew out of the Kennedy assassination is making a future more peaceful nation and world impossible.

Ruth and Michael Paine—whom I view as having been named to perform intelligence functions related to Oswald that they had no reason to understand—were essential to Kennedy’s assassination. But, after many years, their guilt in continuing to misrepresent the truth of how they were used to implement the assassination in Dallas, is now fully known to them. They now know that it was not coincidence, but Allen Dulles who carefully selected them for their assignments. The tasks that they performed at the behest of Allen Dulles enabled the assassins to kill Kennedy in Dallas.


I respectfully urge Ruth and Michael Paine to separate themselves now from their long allegiance to the work of Allen Dulles and the powerful military and intelligence dark forces which assassinated Kennedy. I ask the Paines to refuse future support for the false history of the Kennedy assassination which serves the interests of our warfare state. Instead, I implore them to embrace the historical truth and to use it to honor President Kennedy for his brave turn towards peace which led to his martyrdom.

I urge the Paines to join with those who espouse the truth of Kennedy’s death which was so assiduously sought by Jim Garrison. I ask the Paines to enlist themselves in helping to publicize the remarkable research of James Douglass and David Talbot that shows how and why the national security state killed Kennedy. By so doing they will help our society point the way to the hard work of restoring our republic which was shot away by the terrible fusillade in Dealey Plaza. I respectfully implore them to take Arlen Specter as a model. I beseech them to abandon their long service to our warfare state, and to turn towards peace and historical truth which would be their only path to redemption.

If the Paines had spoken the truth in 1963, most probably there would have been catastrophic consequences. So, in 1963, the Paines’ truth telling, in the words of Sophocles, would have caused terrible ruin. But Senator Arlen Specter, at the luncheon with me, demonstrated that times have changed. He ceased telling and defending the lies of the Warren Commission. No terrible ruin resulted from his turn away from lies and towards truth. I would hope that others will join me in seeing him, as a consequence of his turn towards truth, as entitled to a pardon for his fraudulent roll in the service of the Warren Commission.

I submit that no terrible ruin will result from the Paines ceasing telling their lies about how they came to play the roles which were so critical in the closing of the circle which made the Dallas assassination of President Kennedy occur. Rather than terrible ruin, their commitment to historical truth now is likely to cause social good. Historical truth is the polestar which guides humankind when we grope for direction to help guide us through the thick morass of current crises. Without historical truth we are denied the guidance and wisdom required to solve the afflictions which now threaten the very existence of the family of man. If the Paines contribute to our society’s arriving at the historical truth of the Kennedy assassination, they will help to allow themselves to achieve both redemption and pardon.

On May 1, 1962 Kennedy posed a question to some Quakers who visited him at the White House. He asked: “You believe in redemption don’t you?” I hope that the Paines believe in redemption and will, through telling the truth about their assassination roles, turn away from the militarists and towards a more peaceful world which Kennedy was seeking when he was martyred.


  1. For example, Jim Garrison’s prosecution of Clay Shaw was conducted on the basis that Shaw was a contract agent for the CIA. Documents prove that Shaw was part of the CIA Domestic Contacts Service for several years, and author William Davy (Let Justice Be Done: New Light on the Jim Garrison Investigation, 2011) found a CIA memo indicating Shaw had used the alias “Clay Bertrand,” a key piece of evidence Garrison was unable to use at trial. Additionally, Shaw had worked for a mysterious company called Permindex. Permindex’s initial backing had been from the J. Henry Schroder Banking Corporation, whose former General Counsel had been CIA Director Allen Dulles. Further, that particular bank had previously benefited from prior CIA operations that overthrew leaders in Iran and Guatemala (Jim DiEugenio, Destiny Betrayed: JFK, Cuba, and the Garrison case, pp. 385-386; 2013 review). There is much more including specific operatives who appear to have been directly involved. See, for example, Bill Simpich’s State Secret: Wiretapping in Mexico City, Double Agents, and the Framing of Lee Oswald and David Talbott’s The Devil’s Chessboard: Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America’s Secret Government (2015 review). For more on Dulles, see also Joseph Green, “A Texan Looks at Nelson,” particularly under the heading “Toward a More Coherent Scenario.” []
  2. Ruth Paine’s connections begin with her father, William Avery Hyde, and Michael Paine was directly connected to Allen Dulles and one Mary Bancroft. For a good summary, see Talbott, The Devil’s Chessboard, p. 537-539 and Jim Douglass’s JFK and the Unspeakable, p. 168-173,
    See also: the Ruth Paine entry on Spartacus Educational; John Kelin, “Pictures of the Paines,” Fair Play Issue #4, May-June 1995; Steve Jones, “The Confessions of Ruth Paine,” The Fourth Decade Vol. 3, Number 4 (May 1996) :25-29; Carol Hewitt, Steve Jones, and Barbara LaMonica, “Ruth and Michael Paine,” transcript of presentation at Fall 1995 COPA Conference published in Fair Play, Issue #10, May-June, 1996.
    Additional summary data in Vincent Salandria’s 1998 COPA Address. []
  3. For data concerning Oswald’s intersections with U.S. intelligence see: Christopher Sharrett, “Oswald and U.S. Intelligence,” Appendix V, History Will Not Absolve Us 1996 and “Chapter 19, Oswald and the State Department,” from Sylvia Meagher’s Accessories After the Fact: The Warren Commission, the Authorities and the Report, New York: Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc., 1967. (Entire book in PDF format at Internet Archive.)
    The first thing Oswald did when he was arrested was to call a CIA ‘cut-out,’ that is, an individual who serves as a liaison. See Randy Benson’s “JFK, Oswald, and the Raleigh Connection.” Also included in this book see James Wilcott’s HSCA Testimony and background of this reflected in JFK and the Unspeakable.
    Point 7 of the Joseph Green’s “The JFK 10-Point Program” summarizes some of Oswald’s unusual history. Another good reference is Philip Melanson’s Spy Saga: Lee Harvey Oswald and U.S. Intelligence (1990); see the first 100 pages of a draft mirroring the published form in local copy on ratical. Then there is the data complex surrounding Oswald’s Doubles compiled by Jim Douglass in JFK and the Unspeakable including the Affidavit and Statement of Robert G. Vinson. []
  4. Shirley Martin had been very impressed with Senator Kennedy’s record as she read about him in the 1960 presidential campaign. She and her oldest daughter operated a small Democratic Headquarters in Hominy. As John Kelin writes in Praise From a Future Generation:
    Shirley was struck by the news footage of Lee Harvey Oswald in the police station corridors, in particular his declaration that “I didn’t shoot anybody, sir!”
    Something, she quickly concluded, was not right. “My hackles went up over the apparently sweeping statements the police were making ... my suspicions did not take long surfacing thanks to the Keystone Kops in Dallas.”
    Mrs. Martin never did believe the official story. But as much as President Kennedy had meant to her, and as disturbed as she was by his sudden, violent death, there was an even greater sense that the man accused of destroying Kennedy was innocent, and the fall guy for an unknown and undefined conspiracy. (pp. 68-69)
        Shirley Martin
    On page 2 of the original copy of the January 1965 Liberation article in the “In This Issue” section is the following:
    VINCENT J. SALANDRIA serves as legal consultant in the Philadelphia (Pennsylvania) area for the American Civil Liberties Union, Women Strike for Peace and SANE. He spent ten days in Dallas investigating the circumstances of President Kennedy’s assassination, but thinks that the evidence and exhibits published by the Warren Commission are in themselves sufficient to throw doubt on the Commission’s conclusions. He writes that he was inspired to undertake his present inquiry by “Shirley Martin and family, beautiful and brave Catholics who loved President Kennedy deeply.”
    Again from Praise From a Future Generation:
    Salandria sent a copy of The Legal Intelligencer with his article to Shirley Martin, who knew it was being published and was eagerly awaiting its arrival. “How we liked your dissent,” she wrote back.... “Please Vince, write more to other sources. Stay in print and be heard.”
    Mrs. Martin was aware of Salandria’s streak of modesty. “You have such a good, clean, analytical approach, so removed from passion and wild-eyed theories. If you don’t recognize your own value, you will just have to take my word for it. What would any of us do without you?”
    A wealth of biographical information on Shirley Martin can be found in Praise From a Future Generation as well as a summary on Spartacus Educational. []
  5. In 1966 investigative journalist Gaeton Fonzi wrote of his in-depth interviews with then-district attorney of Philadelphia Arlen Specter, in “The Warren Commission, The Truth, and Arlen Specter,” Greater Philadelphia Magazine, Aug, 1 1966, pp. 38-45, 79-88, 91. While Specter attempted to address his concerns, Fonzi described how “I came away from my two long sessions with Arlen Specter numb with disbelief. He had not eased my concerns about the Warren Commission Report, he had magnified them.” []
  6. See “Notes on Lunch with Arlen Specter on January 4, 2012 for additional details of this meeting. []
  7. On October 11, 1963, President Kennedy issued a top-secret order to begin withdrawing the U.S. military from Vietnam. In National Security Action Memorandum 263, he ordered that 1,000 U.S. military personnel be withdrawn from Vietnam by the end of 1963, and that the bulk of U.S. personnel be withdrawn by the end of 1965. Foreign Relations of the United States, 1961-1963, Volume IV: August-December 1963 (Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1991), Document 194, pp. 395-396. Although this Memorandum is short, it directly refers to and builds from the Taylor/McNamara report of October 2, 1963, document 167, as well as document numbers 179 and 181.
    See James K. Galbraith:
    film: James Galbraith-Kennedy was pulling out of Vietnam, Nightly News with Vincent Browne, TV3 Ireland, “Economist and son of John K. Galbraith, James Galbraith discusses the matter of historical fact that President Kennedy had set in motion a plan to remove all U.S. troops from Vietnam by the end of 1965. Galbraith’s father was serving as President Kennedy’s ambassador to India at the time.”
    Exit Strategy - In 1963, JFK ordered a complete withdrawal from Vietnam,” Boston Review, October/November 2003;
    JFK’ s Vietnam Withdrawal Plan Is a Fact, Not Speculation, The Nation, November 22, 2013. []
  8. Further details contrasting how an innocent civilian-controlled U.S. government would direct the investigation of the assassination compared with a guilty U.S. national security state are presented in Vincent Salandria’s summary statement of his work, The JFK Assassination: A False Mystery Concealing State Crimes, COPA Conference, Dallas, November 20 1998. []
  9. Vincent J. Salandria, “The Warren Report Analysis of Shots, Trajectories, and Wounds: A Lawyer’s Dissenting View,” The Legal Intelligencer, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, November 2, 1964, Vol. 151, No. 88, pp. 1, 9-10. []
  10. Mr. Salandria describes McGeorge Bundy’s mind-set and command of the White House Situation Room on November 22, 1963 in: “The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy: A Model of Explanation,” Computers and Automation, December 1971, Vol. 20, No. 12, pp. 37-39, “The Promotion of Domestic Discord,” Computers and Automation, January 1972, Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 37-39, []
  11. For a summary of JFK’s turning toward peace during his Presidency that marked him out for assassination, see Jim Douglass, “The Hope in Confronting the Unspeakable in the Assassination of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy,” Keynote Address at the Coalition on Political Assassinations Dallas Conference, 20 November 2009. Many endnotes in this annotated transcript include segments from JFK and the Unspeakable.
    In the summer of 1962 John Kennedy gave himself three Bay of Pigs -type events—specific conflicts with his national security managers from the military and intelligence establishments—before a military coup would overthrow him and seize control of the United States. A list of such conflicts between himself and his national security state includes:
    1. 1961: negotiated peace with the Communists for a neutralist government in Laos;
    2. April 1961: Bay of Pigs and JFK’s response: “[I want] to splinter the CIA in a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds.”
    3. 1961-63: Kennedy-Hammarskjöld-UN vision kept the Congo together and independent;
    4. April 1962: conflict with big steel industrialists;
    5. October 1962: Cuban Missile Crisis;
    6. 1961-63: Diplomatic opening to Third World leadership of President Sukarno;
    7. May 6, 1963: Presidential order NSAM 239 to pursue both a nuclear test ban and a policy of general and complete disarmament;
    8. June 10, 1963: American University Address;
    9. Summer 1963: Nuclear Test Ban Treaty;
    10. Fall 1963: beginning of back-channel dialogue with Fidel Castro;
    11. Fall 1963: JFK’s decision to sell wheat to the Russians;
    12. October 11, 1963: Presidential order NSAM #263 to withdraw U.S. troops from Vietnam by 1965;
    13. November 1963: Khrushchev decides to accept JFK’s invitation for a joint expedition to the moon.
Next | Contents | Prev
back to False Mystery | JFK | ratville times | rat haus | Index | Search | tree