What evidence is there that Lee Harvey Oswald beat Marina?

[James DiEugenio]

I ask again, who is the interviewer, OW?

[Alistair Briggs]

Oprah Winfrey

[W. Tracy Parnell]

54 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Excuse me, but who is OW?

Oprah Winfrey.

EDIT: Alistair beat me to the punch.

Edited March 6, 2017 by W. Tracy Parnell

[James DiEugenio]

OK thanks.

[Paul Brancato]

It seems obvious to me that this interview with Oprah is likely to be honest. Note she professes his innocence, yet still criticizes his bad behavior towards her. Are there any readers who think this is still worth arguing about? Abuse takes many forms. How about we just settle on the fact that he was abusive?

[W. Tracy Parnell]

9 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

It seems obvious to me that this interview with Oprah is likely to be honest. Note she professes his innocence, yet still criticizes his bad behavior towards her. Are there any readers who think this is still worth arguing about? Abuse takes many forms. How about we just settle on the fact that he was abusive?

Well said.

[Michael Clark]

9 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

It seems obvious to me that this interview with Oprah is likely to be honest. Note she professes his innocence, yet still criticizes his bad behavior towards her. Are there any readers who think this is still worth arguing about? Abuse takes many forms. How about we just settle on the fact that he was abusive?

The problem is PT's overstatement of frequency, duration, severity and number of witnesses. That is how this pro-longed debate is being fueled.

[James DiEugenio]

Its worse than that actually.

Because PT's argument about Marina is that we can only regard her WC testimony as genuine.

Everything else is questionable.  So is he now going to say Oprah is genuine also?

IMO, Marina is one giant question mark.  I really do not know what to make of her or her testimony which is why I don't use her very much.  Even at the time of the ARRB, she comes out in the company of the LaFontaines.  Does anyone recall them today?  How many people use that book, in which they denounced, of all people, Sylvia Odio as a confabulator.  Plus, their main story about Elrod turned out to be wrong. But yet Marina stood by them and attacked the ARRB for wanting Oswald's tax forms.

Also, here is another puzzler: Has Marina ever explained her association with PJM?  I mean that whole book deal lasted for over a decade. And then when it comes out, its essentially a straight Oswald did it tract, right down the pike from Langley.

Marina now will not go on broadcast TV.  She would not appear for Jesse Ventura on his special.

So to me, I really don't know what to make of her.  And by the way, neither did Cooper, Boggs, and Russell of the WC.  They simply did not think she was genuine.  IMO, its  hard to make an general categorization of her testimony. 

 

 

Edited March 6, 2017 by James DiEugenio

[James DiEugenio]

I was not aware of this when I wrote the above: both the LaFontaines have passed on.

Ray in 2004 and Mary in 2015.  Whatever I wrote about them above, RIP.  And thanks for trying.

Edited March 6, 2017 by James DiEugenio

[Paul Trejo]

4 hours ago, Michael Clark said:

The testimony of spousal abuse is being used to prosecute a dead man who was denied an opportunity to defend himself from the accusation that he killed the president. It's a non sequitor, a fallacy.

Judge: Mr. Clark, did you rob the bank?

Mr. Clark: No.

Judge: Yet, I see that you were born in July. Thus I find you guilty.

Mr Clark: Damn, that bites.

Cheers,

Michael

 Michael,

That's not really what's happening.   LHO is not being convicted of the crime of killing JFK because LHO beat Marina here and there during their 3-year relationship.

I myself have always found it absurd that anybody would focus on this aspect of LHO in order to make a case for LHO killing JFK -- but some do.

Yet even the Russian Expatriates in Dallas who spoke about it, said that they never guessed that LHO would kill JFK, even though the scuttlebutt around the Russian community for months was that LHO beat Marina.

It is irrelevant.  In exactly the same way -- the evidence that LHO shot at General Walker in his home (goaded by George De Mohrenschildt and Volkmar Schmidt and probably others) -- really has nothing to do with the JFK assassination.   No relation at all that I can see.

LHO was not a perfect person.  He made some big mistakes in life.  Yet this in itself is not evidence that he tried to kill JFK.

There is no connection.  People should get off LHO's case about these matters.

If you have a strong position about LHO and JFK, then focus on the JFK assassination scenario itself -- only -- strictly.  That's my position.

That said -- I can't stand it when people try to accuse dozens of WC witnesses of some sort of a CIA plot to lie and say that LHO was a wife-beater.   The WC testimony does indeed go beyond the nine eye-witnesses of the bruises on Marina's face.  Yet why in the world would so many people lie about LHO beating Marina?  Why?  Certainly not to convict LHO of killing JFK.   They didn't believe LHO could kill JFK.  They said so.

So -- readers should just accept the Russian Expatriates WC testimony at face value and move on.  It's irrelevant to the JFK assassination.   

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited March 7, 2017 by Paul Trejo
typos

[James DiEugenio]

PT: That said -- I can't stand it when people try to accuse dozens of WC witnesses of some sort of a CIA plot to lie and say that LHO was a wife-beater.   The WC testimony does indeed go beyond the nine eye-witnesses of the bruises on Marina's face.  Yet why in the world would so many people lie about LHO beating Marina?  Why?  Certainly not to convict LHO of killing JFK.   They didn't believe LHO could kill JFK.  They said so.

So -- readers should just accept the Russian Expatriates WC testimony at face value and move on.  It's irrelevant to the JFK assassination.   

 

Talk about standing an issue on its head.  This all started, if one will recall, when PT said there were 19 witnesses who said that Oswald was a wife batterer.  Robert Charles Dunne then waited for PT to produce his 19 witnesses.  He did not.  So RCD then said, OK, let us look at them.

It turned out that PT had, let us say, overestimated the evidence ever so slightly.  From those 19, there was actually one person who was a usable witness.  And then that one person was not called to testify but wrote an affidavit, which included the view that the couple in question play acted a lot.

So now that it was been proven that PT was exaggerating beyond any normal bounds, he wants us all to forget about that fact.  And he wants us to accept the likes of Marina, and George DeMohrenschildt and his wife, and Bouhe, because he cannot stand people saying these witnesses are lying about something or other. 

Then maybe he should have never brought it up way back then, and then repeated it since he thought that RCD's post was gone?  

The idea that Oswald was a chronic wife batterer is not supported by the evidence in play once it is analyzed. And Oswald had no opportunity to reply. It is especially troubling  since all of this WC evidence is constituted from people who, shall we say, viewed him rather unsympathetically.  And the idea of that association--that is of White Russians who wanted to bring back the Czar with a man who allegedly supported communism--would give anyone of any normal curiosity some pause.  

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Paul T. said:

Quote

It's irrelevant to the JFK assassination.   

At the risk of losing my only comrade in this thread  let me add this for clarification. It is relevant only in that they could use it to show a willingness to commit violence. It is, of course, not a proof that he murdered JFK and if you look at the WC questioning, you can see that they didn't spend that much time on the subject so they didn't consider it that significant either.

[James DiEugenio]

BTW, let us never forget what DeMohrenschildt's wife said about Oswald.  Let me quote from the first version of Destiny Betrayed, way back in 1992:

"Jean described an afternoon scene in which she saw Oswald and his daughter in the park with Lee carrying his rifle .  Occasionally, he would pull it out and fire at some birds in the area."   When Albert Jenner asked he if she thought that was strange, she replied with "But he was taking the baby out.  He goes with her and that was his amusement." (p. 134, p. 356)

No one of any intelligence or intuition or common sense could possibly believe such a piece of BS.  And the WC did not buy it either.  Just as they did not buy Marina's tale about Oswald's hijacking a jet to Cuba or Oswald trying to kill Nixon.  But the fact that this testimony exists undermines the tenet expressed above that somehow these people were as pure as the driven snow and were not prevaricating in order to demean the portrait of Oswald.  

Edited March 7, 2017 by James DiEugenio

[Michael Clark]

7 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

BTW, let us never forget what DeMohrenschildt's wife said about Oswald.  Let me quote from the first version of Destiny Betrayed, way back in 1992:

"Jean described an afternoon scene in which she saw Oswald and his daughter in the park with Lee carrying his rifle .  Occasionally, he would pull it out and fire at some birds in the area."   When Albert Jenner asked he if she thought that was strange, she replied with "But he was taking the baby out.  He goes with her and that was his amusement." (p. 134, p. 356)

No one of any intelligence or intuition or common sense could possibly believe such a piece of BS.  And the WC did not buy it either.  Just as they did not buy Marina's tale about Oswald's hijacking a jet to Cuba or Oswald trying to kill Nixon.  But the fact that this testimony exists undermines the tenet expressed above that somehow these people were as pure as the driven snow and were not prevaricating in order to demean the portrait of Oswald.  

If it was a .22 caliber plinking gun, maybe; not a 6.5 mm high-powered military rifle. I recall Marina saying he would go to the park and shoot leaves..... pffffft!

I can't believe that George would let Jeanne say something like that.

Cheers,

Michael

 

[Sandy Larsen]

11 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

It seems obvious to me that this interview with Oprah is likely to be honest. Note she professes his innocence, yet still criticizes his bad behavior towards her. Are there any readers who think this is still worth arguing about? Abuse takes many forms. How about we just settle on the fact that he was abusive?

Perhaps so, and what does Marina say?

OW- Was he abusive to you, Marina?
MOP- Yes, he was. 
OW- Like, he hit you physically? 
MOP-MOP- Yes, he was. 
OW -Like, he hit you physically? 

 MOP-Yes....

 

Which doesn't contradict my conclusion, that Lee probably hit Marina... once.

 

Edited March 7, 2017 by Sandy Larsen