What evidence is there that Lee Harvey Oswald beat Marina?

[Michael Clark]

9 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

"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......"

 

........ "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?"

The accused would be found guilty.

Cheers

Michael

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Just now, Michael Clark said:

The accused would be found guilty.

Cheers

Michael

One honest man!

[James DiEugenio]

Guilty of what?

If every hubby in America was tried  for slapping his wife, do you know how many people would be in jail?  Especially when we do not know that the circustmances were.

This is just more of Parnell's hypothetical semantics a la Arlen Specter. Can't wait until he tries that on the Single Bullet Fantasy.

Edited March 5, 2017 by James DiEugenio

[W. Tracy Parnell]

2 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Guilty of what?

If every hubby in America was tried  for slapping his wife, do you know how many people would be in jail?  Especially when we do not know that the circustmances were.

This is just more of Parnell's hypothetical semantics a la Arlen Specter. Can't wait until he tries that on the Single Bullet Fantasy.

The charge-probably assault or assault and battery. And it wouldn't matter what the circumstances were unless she was equally abusive and there is no evidence of that. You cannot strike your wife just because she annoys you.

[James DiEugenio]

Can you please explain Tracy where you got your law degree from?  And what your field of specialty is?

I am not a lawyer, and I do not claim to be one.  But I do know that in these cases, there has to be a pattern. No DA is going to try someone for a one time slap.  

From what I can see your legal specialty is simply reasserting the Warren Report.

Which is not a legitimate field.  In fact, as we all know, its full of fraud.

 

Edited March 5, 2017 by James DiEugenio

[Michael Walton]

I just got done watching a murder investigation show. The defense claimed spousal abuse as to why the wife shot the husband six times, including  a  coup de grace.

However, the prosecution brought in several family members saying the dead husband was not violent, nor was abuse ever reported to them.

This, IMO, is the essence of this thread. Because  Oswald had no representation during the WC hearings, and because  they wanted to paint him in a negative  light, the wife beating testimony  was one more way to put the nails down ever more tightly so to speak.

[Alistair Briggs]

Although not about Marina, the following may somewhat be of relevance - I post this with no contentions on my part;

Quote

Mr. PIC - At about the same time that Lee was enrolled in school that we had the big trouble. It seems that there was an argument about the TV set one day, and--between my wife and my mother. It seems that according to my wife's statement that my mother antagonized Lee, being very hostile toward my wife and he pulled out a pocketknife and said that if she made any attempt to do anything about it that he would use it on her, at the same time Lee struck his mother. This perturbed my wife to no end. So, I came home that night, and the facts were related to me.
Mr. JENNER - When the facts were related to you was your mother present, Lee present, your wife present? If not, who was present?
Mr. PIC - I think my wife told me this in private, sir. I went and asked my mother about it.
Mr. JENNER - Your mother was home?
Mr. PIC - Yes, sir; she was home.
Mr. JENNER - You went and spoke with your mother?
Mr. PIC - Yes, sir.
Mr. JENNER - Was Lee present when you spoke to your mother?
Mr. PIC - No, sir.
Mr. JENNER - What did you say to your mother and what did she say to you?
Mr. PIC - I asked her about the incident and she attempted to brush it off as not being as serious as my wife put it. That Lee did not pull a pocketknife on her. That they just had a little argument about what TV channel they were going to watch. Being as prejudiced as I am I rather believed my wife rather than my mother.

 

[Joe Bauer]

Back in those early 60's times, slapping and more serious physical abuse of spouses ( almost always husbands against wives ) was much more prevalent and even tolerated versus the last 20 to 30 years in our society.

This situation was similar in prevalence to many more people driving drunk and without seat belts  ( causing great injury to hundreds of thousands of innocent victims )  back in those times versus now also.

It wasn't until hugely increased severity penalties of fines and imprisonment were created, mandated and strictly enforced on perpetrators of these two crimes, along with increased societal shunning and condemning of them such as job loss, insurance denying etc, that these behaviors have been curtailed in any significant numbers.

Oswald's possible physical abuse of Marina in that era ( although viewed as despicable by most who saw or heard of it ) would not be given the consideration it would be today in suggesting that this behavior made him and others like him more likely to attack and even kill other people ( especially men ) outside of their regular victim wives or girlfriends,

However, it appears that with increased modern day research and knowledge into the life behavior patterns of wife ( or husband ) and kid abusers, that they are involved in more violent and self destructive behavior ( even suicides ) than those who do not engage in these types of abuses.

I speculate that if was not for the many physical separation and basic needs financial stress relief help efforts provided to both Marina and Lee that his physical abuse of her may have been substantially worse and longer term than it was. Those separations where Marina and the baby's needs were met with help from others provided Lee with some stress relief also. 

And thank God Oswald wasn't a drinker!

Alcohol has always been proven to increase the frequency and severity of spousal abuse.

I know first hand about such things.  My boozing step-father beat our mother several times week and abused my brothers and I for years from the time my mother married him in 1960 until I barely survived this nightmare by basically begging to stay with other families as much as I could starting around 1966 until I graduated high school in 1969.

I actually have a stronger, even extreme bias against wife beaters than most people because of my childhood past.

But that deep bias still hasn't made me consider Oswald's limited spousal abuse behavior as making him more psychologically prone to going to the almost suicidal lengths  ( on his own and without more than say a week's knowledge of the motorcade route )  of planning and then carrying out the blasting of JFK's head into a massive spray of brain and blood and bone matter, 12 inches from his wife's face and in front of hundreds of on-lookers in broad daylight and pumping Tippit's body with an over-kill 4 shots, with a last one in the head.

These are the traits of psychotic Mafia hit men. And Oswald doesn't seem to fit that bill imo.

One last observation, which I have mentioned before;

If Oswald was working for others in any way regarding all the intrigue in especially N.O., why would his handlers allow him and his family to suffer so much in the area of financial stress?  Oswald's life with his family was so desperate at times, you'd think he would have asked anyone he worked for to help him take care of at least the most basic family needs such as food, shelter and medical costs.

 

 

 

 

Edited March 5, 2017 by Joe Bauer

[Alistair Briggs]

Joe, kudos to you for such a great posting (once again) - a voice of reason indeed.

9 minutes ago, Joe Bauer said:

I speculate that if was not for the many physical separation and basic needs financial stress relief help efforts provided to both Marina and Lee that his physical abuse of her may have been substantially worse and longer term than it was. Those separations where Marina and the babies needs were met with help from others provided Lee with some stress relief also.

From the research I have been doing, I can't help but get the feeling that under different circumstances things could have worked out quite well between Lee and Marina. From when they left the 'Russian community' I feel they were about to turn a corner...

... the Beatles song It's Getting Better springs to mind.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

5 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Can you please explain Tracy where you got your law degree from?  And what your field of specialty is?

I am not a lawyer, and I do not claim to be one.  But I do know that in these cases, there has to be a pattern. No DA is going to try someone for a one time slap.  

From what I can see your legal specialty is simply reasserting the Warren Report.

Which is not a legitimate field.  In fact, as we all know, its full of fraud.

 

No, I am not a lawyer. Under my scenario, I was assuming he was tried for repeated abuse.

[Paul Trejo]

7 hours ago, Robert Charles-Dunne said:

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.  

Well, well, well, Robert Charles-Dunne.  Ready for more?

First point -- I claimed that seven people (nine if we break apart the couples) gave EYE-WITNESS testimony to seeing bruises on Marinas face, or to actually watching Lee Oswald slapping Marina in the face -- hard -- twice.

Second point -- You altered that to forge a straw dog to debate.   That's your forte.  You lost that debate all those years ago, and if you bring it up again, I'm happy to prove you wrong again.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited March 6, 2017 by Paul Trejo

[Michael Clark]

2 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Well, well, well, Robert Charles-Dunne.  Ready for more?

First point -- I claimed that seven people (nine if we break apart the couples) gave EYE-WITNESS testimony to seeing bruises on Marinas face, or to actually watching Lee Oswald slapping Marina in the face -- hard -- twice.

You took that and change it around so you could offer a straw dog to debate.   That's your forte.  You lost that debate all those years ago, and if you bring it up again, I'm happy to prove you wrong again.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Paul wrote: "or to actually watching Lee Oswald slapping Marina in the face -- hard -- twice".

----------------------------

Paul, how many people testified to "actually watching Lee Oswald slapping Marina in the face -- hard -- twice"?

....just for the sake of clarification.

Cheers,

Michael

[Paul Trejo]

4 hours ago, Alistair Briggs said:

From the research I have been doing, I can't help but get the feeling that under different circumstances things could have worked out quite well between Lee and Marina. From when they left the 'Russian community' I feel they were about to turn a corner...

... the Beatles song It's Getting Better springs to mind.

Alistair,

After LHO separated himself from the Russian Expatriates, and moved way out into Oak Cliff in Dallas, he and Marina still kept a relationship going with George and Jeanne De Morhenschildt.   Lee liked George a lot.  George was wealthy, but not judgmental.  

Also, George admired how Lee, a "hillbilly," as he put it, could teach himself Russian conversational skills -- which George's own, well-educated children did not achieve.

George would sit in amazement as this self-taught "hillbilly" would describe a scene about the USSR to Russian speakers in his audience, and then describe the same scene to English speakers in his audience -- deftly and ably. 

George admired Lee for that skill.  Yet George was also disappointed in Lee for other habits.  One bad habit was Lee's ignorance of politics.  For one thing, Lee's regurgitation of Marxist literature did not please George.  Here is what George said:

Mr. De MOHRENSCHILDT:  Well, he was not sophisticated, you see.  He was a semi-educated hillbilly.  And you cannot take such a person seriously.  All his opinions were crude, you see.  But I thought at the time he was rather sincere.
Mr. JENNER:  Opinion sincerely held, but crude? 
Mr. De MOHRENSCHILDT:  Yes. 
Mr. JENNER:  He was relatively uneducated. 
Mr. De MOHRENSCHILDT:  Oh, yes. 
Mr. JENNER:  Quite -- as a matter of fact -- he never finished high school. 
Mr. De MOHRENSCHILDT:  Yes; I did not even know that. 
Mr. JENNER:  Did you have the feeling that his views on politics were shallow and surface? 
Mr. De MOHRENSCHILDT:  Very much so. 
Mr. JENNER:  That he had not had the opportunity for a study under scholars who would criticize, so that he himself could form some views on the subject? 
Mr. De MOHRENSCHILDT:  Exactly.  His mind was of a man with exceedingly poor background, who read rather advanced books, and did not understand even the words in them.  He read complicated economical treatises and just picked up difficult words out of what he has read, and loved to display them.  He loved to use the difficult words, because it was to impress one. 
Mr. JENNER:  Did you think he understood it? 
Mr. De MOHRENSCHILDT:  He did not understand the words -- he just used them.  So how can you take seriously a person like that?  You just laugh at him.  But there was always an element of pity I had, and my wife had, for him.  We realized that he was sort of a forlorn individual, groping for something. 

In his later manuscript, I'm a Patsy! I'm a Patsy!, George admitted that he and Volkmar Schmidt worked to convince Lee Oswald that General Walker was "as bad as Hitler."   So, George could not keep himself from meddling in this "hillbilly's" life.

After LHO tried to kill General Walker, this was the lumber that broke camel's back for Marina Oswald, who said that her relationship with LHO would never be the same after that.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited March 6, 2017 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

13 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

Paul wrote: "or to actually watching Lee Oswald slapping Marina in the face -- hard -- twice".

----------------------------

Paul, how many people testified to "actually watching Lee Oswald slapping Marina in the face -- hard -- twice"?

....just for the sake of clarification.

Cheers,

Michael

One.   That was Alexander Kleinlerer.

--Paul

[Michael Clark]

15 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

One.   That was Alexander Kleinlerer.

--Paul

And, am I correct that Mr. Kleinlerer actually gave an affidavit, and the Comission didn't see fit to actually have him testify, even though he lived in or near Dallas?

Cheers, 

Michael