What evidence is there that Lee Harvey Oswald beat Marina?

[Sandy Larsen]

4 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Yes Sandy,your dictionary definition of "wife beater" is correct. My point is that in the eyes of the law, if you strike your wife you are a wife beater and will be charged with assault, even if you only hit your wife once. The cavalier attitude toward domestic violence of the individuals who are defending LHO in this thread surprises me, especially in this day and age.

I'm just being precise with my words, Tracy. You contradicted me, so I defended myself. I wasn't defending Oswald.

Edited March 4, 2017 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

2 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Some are saying "he only hit her once" or "she ran into a doorknob" or some such nonsense.

The credible evidence indicates that Oswald probably hit Marina, once.

[Sandy Larsen]

2 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

They either say they simply don't believe Kleinlerer or he has some secret agenda so "poof" it goes away.

I invite everybody to read Kleinlerer's affidavit and compare it with the testimony of everybody else who knew Oswald. It's an obvious outlier. It's no wonder he wasn't asked to testify for the WC.

But take de Mohrenschildt's testimony with a grain of salt. He is a demonstrable prevaricator, at least with regards to the wife beating issue. The testimonies of others prove it.

And Bouhe lied one of the times he said he saw a bruise. The testimonies of others prove it.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

57 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I invite everybody to read Kleinlerer's affidavit and compare it with the testimony of everybody else who knew Oswald. It's an obvious outlier. It's no wonder he wasn't asked to testify for the WC.

But take de Mohrenschildt's testimony with a grain of salt. He is a demonstrable prevaricator, at least with regards to the wife beating issue. The testimonies of others prove it.

And Bouhe lied one of the times he said he saw a bruise. The testimonies of others prove it.

The reason Kleinlerer was in a position to witness the abuse is  because LHO had no respect or fear, if you will, of him. He would not do it in front of most of the Russians because he knew they would not tolerate it.

[Michael Clark]

Oswald never got a trial.

He may have been serving his country dutifully.

His character was asssassinated after he was murdered.

He may have hit her in order to try to save his or both of their lives.

That may have cost him his life.

He never had a chance to face accusations of spousal abuse.

The accusations of spousal abuse serve as character assassination after the fact.

I seee nothing but victims.

Cheers,

Michael

[Paul Brancato]

Which is why I don't understand arguing whether he did, or how often. The only value in studying Oswald's life, assuming his innocence, is to look for his handlers and connections - who set him up? Most of the discussions involving the behavior or psychology of Oswald sound like character assassination. Once I decided he was innocent if the crime of shooting JFK I lost interest in that kind of discussion, other than to wonder about the motives of the accusers. 

[David Andrews]

Paul, the flipside is Oswald's interests and volition in the serial affairs that led him through years of tradecraft and previous assignments in undercover work, and finally to Dealey Plaza.  If we lose sight of Oz's motivations and desires, we lose the overview, and make him more of a victim than he is - though "I'm just a patsy" is compelling, it's not definitive. 

[Paul Trejo]

7 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

But the "stakes" don't justify a visit to an alternate universe. I will agree to this extent that just because he beat her it doesn't prove he was a murderer.

Tracy,

That's the best point yet, IMHO.

Allow me to add a point on Sandy's side here.   Many of us have seen or heard of wife-beaters near to our families, and in perhaps many cases these are habitual hard-cases who beat their wives for years -- and who are also lost in alcohol or drug abuse.  It's a sad story.

On Sandy's side -- I will say this -- IMHO LHO did not belong to that specific class of people.   

I differ with Sandy because I accept most of the WC testimony -- especially from eye-witnesses who knew LHO for long periods of time.   Yet it is precisely from this same data that I derive the following portrait:

(1) LHO's relationship with Marina stretched from March 17, 1961, until November 24, 1963 (according to your able Timeline) and during those those three years, the witnesses show that LHO beat Marina only between August 1962 through November 4, 1962.

(2) That does make LHO a wife-beater, technically, but it doesn't make him a habitual wife-beater, 

(3) Actually, we can show that social circumstances that added social pressure to LHO's life during that time -- unemployment and competition from Russian Expatriate attention.

(4) Both Jeanne DeMohrenschildt and Ilya Mamantov testified that George Bouhe had more than charity in mind with regard to Marina Oswald.

(5) Marina Oswald herself testified about that period, and without going into detail, she said that the violence was occasioned by some degree of relationship with a "boyfriend."   The least said about that the better, perhaps.

So, I say that LHO beat Marina Oswald during a consecutive four-month period of their three-year relationship.  It was a hard patch they went through.

The key point -- which you just made, Tracy -- was that this in no way supplies any evidence whatever that LHO killed JFK.  As many of the Russian Expatriates testified, even knowing that LHO had beat Marina during this period, they were utterly astonished that LHO was accused of assassinating JFK.   He did not seem like the type.   Here is what Declan Ford said:

I never imagined Lee Oswald would ever kill anybody.  He didn't impress me that way.  Just the fact that he beat his wife was not strong evidence, to me.  A man and wife can fight over a lot of things and it isn't necessary that this implies intent to kill.  Besides, a wife beater picks on somebody smaller and weaker.   Lee never impressed me as the type of person who would violently attack another man.  (Declan Ford to the WC, 1964)

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

[W. Tracy Parnell]

I am working on a new chronology and according to what Marina told McMillan, the abuse started on June 24, 1962 while she and LHO were still at Robert's house. However, there were no witnesses to this event and we only have Marina's word and you correctly point out the timeline for the abuse that was witnessed. 

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

19 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

But the "stakes" don't justify a visit to an alternate universe. I will agree to this extent that just because he beat her it doesn't prove he was a murderer.

You should reserve your high dudgeon for those who invent an alternate universe of transparently fraudulent details.  

Such as fools who claim 19 witnesses testified that LHO beat his wife, while populating that list with people who hadn’t even met the Oswalds, hadn’t seen any evidence for the assertions, or had heard third hand gossip which those allegedly responsible for spreading then denied having said.  Or, in the case of the one alleged eye-witness, he wasn’t called to testify.

If one good witness exists, there is no need to invent a massive list of those who are incapable of providing any first hand evidence, let alone proof.  

One need only quote his testimony.  But, of course, the one purportedly genuine eye witness didn’t testify.  Seems to be a surprising lack of curiosity about that anomaly.  

Why would the WC call upon numerous people who knew nothing, or little, yet refrain from calling the one ostensible eyeball witness who could tell them precisely what they wanted to hear?

His affidavit makes plain he was available to be called when witness testimony was taken.  For reasons yet unclear, perhaps, the WC deliberately avoided calling the single person who could make the case.      

The fact that Trejo has the lowest standards for veracity, and lacks even the most basic of analytical skills in these matters, is plain to those who read his guff and twaddle.  But some people are easily trolled, because so long as the bullxxxx being spewed comports with their own personal bias, they see nothing wrong with it.  Embrace it, in fact.  As we see here.

To wit, Trump and his supporters.  They think they need only repeat falsehoods often enough and they become true because..... *magic.*  

It won’t work for them, and it certainly won’t work here.  Paul Trejo demonstrates that with his every post.

For example, Trejo’s post in this very thread where he stipulates that he only claimed 7 eye-witnesses, and that I procured more, lesser valid witnesses to fraudulently deceive.  

To wit: “Instead of listing the seven actual witnesses to Lee's violence against Marina Oswald, the famous Robert Charles Dunne goes into great detail itemizing more than a dozen witnesses who never claimed to have seen such violence.” 

Yet at the very beginning of the post that has Trejo so agitated is the stipulation, which Trejo had and has no basis to deny:

“Just to bring this thread back to the topic on which it started, Paul Trejo has now had some days to provide what he claims to have in abundance, the witness testimony that Lee Oswald beat his wife.  With nineteen people cited, he should have had little difficulty in doing so, yet his streak of failing to provide compelling evidence for his contentions continues unblemished.  In fact, he now seems to deny that the onus of providing proof for his contentions resides with him.  It is now our job to do his homework for him.

Instead, Paul has given us a list of people who presumably testified to that effect, and the Commission volume in which it could be located, but not the testimony itself.  This is akin to a lawyer standing up in court, naming the nineteen witnesses who have critical information, listing their addresses, yet then failing to call any one of them to the stand.

When something so bizarre as this takes place, one knows there’s fraud afoot.  To wit, the following list of nineteen people provided by Paul Trejo and what we should find  in furtherance of his contentions, but do not.”

So, first Trejo posts 19 names of “witnesses,” only to later disavow a dozen of them as fraudulent.  And then mis-attributes his own attempted fraud onto me.  But the fraud is his, not mine, as the above clearly demonstrates.

“...the famous Robert Charles Dunne goes into great detail itemizing more than a dozen witnesses who never claimed to have seen such violence.”

Yet these dozen people who who never claimed to have seen such violence are the very people Trejo used to pad his witness list into something so large, it MUST be undeniably true.  In other words, Trejo named a dozen people as witnesses whom he then denounced as know-nothings.    

How does such a fraud artist still manage to xxxxx members here?

I should also point out to Paul Trejo, who has repeatedly crowed that he somehow bested me in this debate some years: people who win debates don’t usually feel compelled to say so.  They are comfortable in the knowledge that they won, and allow other posters to draw their own conclusions.  I am that comfortable.  Trejo clearly is not.

Anyone who paid the slightest attention to the original thread in question would vehemently disagree with Trejo’s false assertions of triumph.  And have.  

Perhaps Tom Scully’s wayback machine needs to be dusted off again.

  

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

dupe post

Edited March 5, 2017 by Robert Charles-Dunne
dupe post

[James DiEugenio]

RCD: I should also point out to Paul Trejo, who has repeatedly crowed that he somehow bested me in this debate some years: people who win debates don’t usually feel compelled to say so.  They are comfortable in the knowledge that they won, and allow other posters to draw their own conclusions.  I am that comfortable.  Trejo clearly is not.

 

I'll say: methinks PT protests too much.  Robert reduced his list pretty significantly.  I mean, from 19 to 1?  

[Michael Clark]

5 minutes ago, Robert Charles-Dunne said:

You should reserve your high dudgeon for those who invent an alternate universe of transparently fraudulent details.  

...................

 .........machine needs to be dusted off again.

  

New word for me.....

dudg·eon

ˈdəjən/

noun

1. a feeling of offense or deep resentment.

   "the manager walked out in high dudgeon"

   synonyms:

   indignantly, resentfully, angrily, furiously; More

[Michael Clark]

6 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

New word for me.....

dudg·eon

ˈdəjən/

noun

1. a feeling of offense or deep resentment.

   "the manager walked out in high dudgeon"

   synonyms:

   indignantly, resentfully, angrily, furiously; More

I am curious as to why the pronunciation indicates the first vowel as taking a schwa. I would think it would be a short "U". Anyway, it's not everyday that I come upon a new word and it's far rarer to have the opportunity to use the word "schwa". I am satisfied, time to go out and enjoy a part of this sunny day.

Cheers,

Michael

[W. Tracy Parnell]

I think I have done about all I can do here but I'll try this one more time as something of a sign-off on this thread.

Take the situation out of the context of the JFK assassination. Forget about “conspiracy theorist privilege” as I call it. That’s where you make all kinds of excuses because the end justifies the means. Instead, have a mock trial using actors to portray the principals with names such as "Smith" and "Jones". Choose a jury from a bunch of normal people off the street.

The first witness is the complainant who states she was abused and provides details regarding numerous instances.

Eight witnesses appear next who all saw the bruises inflicted and some also saw emotional abuse.

Finally, you have a witness who saw the emotional and physical abuse first-hand.

You could also have an expert for the prosecution who tells the court that the victim’s behavior such as saying she ran into a doorknob or whatever it was is normal for an abused woman-she is apologizing for the abuser and trying to justify his behavior.

The accused probably would not testify, but if he did he would offer a weak excuse such as “she made me do it with her nagging.” If the accusers were cross examined, the defense could possibly bring out the fact that they didn’t like the defendant. But that is not surprising since they were aware of his abuse and general “the world owes me a living” attitude.

Now, with all these facts and remembering that the jury in this trial will hear nothing about JFK, be honest with yourself. Who would win?

EDIT: I would add one other thing-the accused is impoverished and has a public defender rather than a world class attorney.

Edited March 5, 2017 by W. Tracy Parnell