• Announcements

    • Evan Burton

      OPEN REGISTRATION BY EMAIL ONLY !!! PLEASE CLICK ON THIS TITLE FOR INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR REGISTRATION!:   06/03/2017

      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send an email to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team
Sandy Larsen

What evidence is there that Lee Harvey Oswald beat Marina?

284 posts in this topic

7 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Well, off the top of my head I don't remember "the whole tale." Let's do it this way-what part of his story don't you find credible.

I'm not very good at dancing. A girl once tried to teach me the two step but it was more like the toe step (her toes). If it's convenient for you to dance around George's testimony that lays out his CT, go ahead, but it makes the rest of your argument less credible.

I don't have time to go through the most voluminous testimony given to the WC, (sorry Trejo - not RP), and pick out everything that I think you may not agree with.

Instead I'll copy and paste from wikipedia:

Quote

Jeanne de Mohrenschildt also gave the HSCA committee a copy of a draft manuscript called I Am a Patsy! I Am a Patsy! which George de Mohrenschildt had completed in the summer of 1976 about his relationship with his "dear, dead friend" Oswald, wherein he said that the Oswald he knew was rarely ever violent and would not have been the sort of person to have killed John F. Kennedy. In part this judgment was based on Mohrenschildt's estimation of Oswald's political views and Kennedy's liberal ideas. Until 2014 the memoir had never been published as a stand-alone book, but the entire typescript was published as an appendix in the HSCA report.[66]

The primary focus of Mohrenschildt’s text is a series of recollections about the brief time period between September 1962 and April 1963 that he and Jeanne were acquainted with the Oswalds. A secondary focus consists of a number of meditations on the corrosive effects knowing the Oswalds had on the professional and personal lives of the Mohrenschildts. "It must be acknowledged that our brief friendship with the Oswalds had strange and adverse effects on our lives." Only in a tertiary sense is the manuscript concerned with Oswald’s guilt or innocence and who the “real criminals” might be. Stating Oswald was a "patsy not involved in any revenge", and referencing articles describing "organized murder for profit", readers are challenged to make up their own minds. This memoir by Mohrenschildt was edited and annotated as Lee Harvey Oswald As I Knew Him, by Michael A. Rinella. It was released in November 2014 by the University Press of Kansas.[72]

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Chris Newton said:

I'm not very good at dancing. A girl once tried to teach me the two step but it was more like the toe step (her toes). If it's convenient for you to dance around George's testimony that lays out his CT, go ahead, but it makes the rest of your argument less credible.

I don't have time to go through the most voluminous testimony given to the WC, (sorry Trejo - not RP), and pick out everything that I think you may not agree with.

Instead I'll copy and paste from wikipedia:

 

Chris,

I honestly didn't know if you were referring to GDM's testimony concerning his confrontation of LHO or something else. Turns out it was something else. In later years, GDM became concerned that he might have influenced LHO's killing of JFK and this caused him to become depressed and mentally unbalanced or at least contributed to it. This, along with the doubtless influence of conspiracy theories, accounts for some of the things in his book. I think more weight should be given to his WC testimony than to what he said in later years in a manuscript.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

I honestly didn't know if you were referring to GDM's testimony concerning his confrontation of LHO or something else. Turns out it was something else.

Tracy, I chose that quote from Wikipedia because it seemed to describe what GDM believed. I gave no thought to how his opinions may have changed over time or what influenced them. I haven't read Mellen's "Our Man in Haiti" yet and it's, quite frankly, not on my "list" at this time.

I don't know if he was an opportunist and misogynistic playboy, as he liked to be perceived, or part-time asset of the Intelligence apparatchik or a little bit of both.

I, for one, don't trust anything that he espoused unless corroborating evidence can be produced. I don't care if it supports my theories or not.

You won't find me making any case based on his statements.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

de Mohrenschildt probably spoke truthfully at least once in his life.  When he begged CIA director George Bush (George Bush of the CIA, briefed by FBI director J. Edgar Hoover, 11/23/63) to get the spooks off his ass.  Dear George... 

Were they not both members of the Dallas Petroleum Club.  Attendee's of the Oil Barron's Ball?

Edited by Ron Bulman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

Were they not both members of the Dallas Petroleum Club

 

 

I don't know but... The Dallas Petroleum Club (I think it's just called "The Petroleum Club") was/is extremely expensive.  When I was a Private stationed at Ft. Hood in 1982 I met a girl at U.T. whose father was a member and she took me up there to impress me on a date.  A suit and tie were required but I had none so I wore my US Army Class A uniform which gave the staff a chuckle (since I wore one measly stripe). After dinner, when I was served coffee they gave me a package of five large black folding books of matches with my name, "PVT. Newton", engraved in gold lettering on the front of each one. I may still have one of these.  There were no prices on the menu and no bill. I'm sure everything was simply charged to daddy.

The head waiter gave me a tour of the "wine cellar" which was the entire floor below the club and it contained thousands of bottles of wine. It also had a huge circular table that could have sat 30 people. He told me some bottles cost as much as $20K.

Edited by Chris Newton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/22/2017 at 11:00 AM, W. Tracy Parnell said:

It is not surprising to me that  Klienlerer was the only one to witness the abuse firsthand. LHO could hardly be expected to go around in public slapping Marina around-that was bound to attract attention. The abuse he witnessed occurred at the Hall's home indoors where no one else could see. On this occasion LHO lost his temper and slapped her. He wasn't worried about Klienlerer who was admittedly afraid of him. If Klienlerer said anything it was his word against LHO's.  But while only Klienlerer saw the abuse, several others including Marguerite saw the bruises. Marguerite confronted LHO who told her to mind her own business. Marina may have said LHO wasn't violent at one point, but the book Marina & Lee says otherwise. To sum up, plenty of evidence LHO abused Marina.

 

Tracy,

What I highlighted in red is not true. I read the testimonies of everybody who saw the bruises on Marina's face. They all saw the same bruise -- the one where nobody witnessed Oswald hitting Marina. There is no indication that any of them saw a second bruise. None of the witnesses said they saw new bruises on Marina, ever.

Nobody corroberates Klienlerer's story.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

P.S. The bruises on Marina's face were first seen around the end of August or first of September. Elena Hall said in her testimony that she saw a bruise sometime in June. But she is mistaken about the month, because Bouhe was with her at that time and yet he didn't see the bruise until the end of August or first part of September, when several others first saw it.

I created a timeline in Post 3 of this thread that I invite others to see. Also an analysis. My conclusion, based on all the testimony, was that Marina's face was bruised one time, and that occurred in late August 1962. Never was another bruise seen. Two witnesses (one being Mrs. de Mohrenschildt) specifically said they saw only one bruise.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/22/2017 at 10:51 AM, W. Tracy Parnell said:
On 6/22/2017 at 8:08 AM, Sandy Larsen said:

I've discovered that George de Mohrenschildt's testimony cannot be trusted. He took an incident completely unrelated to him, made himself a key player, and fabricated a dramatic story around it!

What happened was that Marina left LHO and went to stay at Anna Meller's house. The date is uncertain but it was possibly on Monday, November 5, 1962. Probably the next Sunday the 11th, a meeting was arranged between Marina and LHO at the de Mohrenschildt's place. Marina did not want to go back with LHO and the De Mohrenschildts drove them to the Elsbeth apartment to get her things where the scene you mention occurred. This is all documented by Marina's biographer in Marina & Lee. So de Mohrenschildt was a key player in the incident. Now, you might say that McMillian can't be trusted because she is "CIA." But Marina, while she now believes in conspiracy, has not taken back anything in the book.


Tracy,

Well maybe the de Mohrenschildts helped move Marina's stuff. Who knows. Because George de Mohrenschildt claimed that he told Oswald he was going to take Marina to the Meller's. Which is not true. Marina had already taken a taxi there. De Mohrenschildt claimed that Oswald protested, saying, "By God, you are not going to do it. I will tear all her dresses and I will break all the baby things." When in fact Marina had already left him. De Mohrenschildt's story goes on and on, as if he was taking Marina away from Oswald. She was already gone!

Then there's this: According to you, de Mohrenschildt's confrontation with Oswald occurred about six days after Marina had gone (by herself) to the Meller's. When in fact, that was the day Marina moved in with the Fords! (Mrs. Meller said that Marina stayed with her for five days.) So not only was de Mohrenschildt wrong about his taking Marina away from Oswald, he was wrong about where he took her! Assuming he even took her anywhere.

This is why de Mohrenschildt's story cannot be trusted.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Tracy,

What I highlighted in red is not true. I read the testimonies of everybody who saw the bruises on Marina's face. They all saw the same bruise -- the one where nobody witnessed Oswald hitting Marina. There is no indication that any of them saw a second bruise. None of the witnesses said they saw new bruises on Marina, ever.

Nobody corroberates Klienlerer's story.

 

They all saw exactly the same bruise in exactly the same place and described it in exactly the same way? I think you're having a bad dream Sandy. BTW, how do you explain the extensive discussion of the abuse in Marina & Lee? Or have you even read it? You are in denial I'm afraid. The abuse doesn't prove LHO killed JFK anyway so I am a little surprised that you are so adamant about this subject.

BTW, if LHO merely slapped Marina, it wouldn't necessarily leave a bruise. Again, try telling the judge that you are not abusing your wife you're just slapping her.

Edited by W. Tracy Parnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Then there's this: According to you, de Mohrenschildt's confrontation with Oswald occurred about six days after Marina had gone (by herself) to the Meller's. When in fact, that was the day Marina moved in with the Fords! (Mrs. Meller said that Marina stayed with her for five days.) So not only was de Mohrenschildt wrong about his taking Marina away from Oswald, he was wrong about where he took her! Assuming he even took her anywhere.

He took them to pick up Marina's things and then drove her to the Fords.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

They all saw exactly the same bruise in exactly the same place and described it in exactly the same way? I think you're having a bad dream Sandy.

 

I will list here, in chronological order, what every witness to the bruise said. Read the blue text:

 

Marina Meets Elena Hall
Date:  July 1962     (Estimate according to Mrs. Hall)
Location: Oswald' apartment.
Mrs Hall:  "black and blue over half of her face"
Note: Bouhe took Marina to Elena's house. The date must be wrong because Bouhe testified that he first saw the bruise when the group went to visit Marina. That was at the end of August.
 


White Russian Group Visits Marina
Date: Late August 1962
Location: Oswald apartment.
Mr. Bouhe:   "black eye"
Mrs. Meller:  "terrible blue spot over her eye."  "Under her eye was [blue] and over here [pointing].")
 

 

The Oswalds Attend a Luncheon Party
Date: Early September 1962
Location: Meller home.
Mrs. Ford:  "bruises on her face"
Mr. Ford:    "[bruises] on her face"
 

 

 

That's it Tracy. They all saw Marina's bruise at the end of August and beginning of September 1952. Elena Hall said that Bouhe took her to see Marina in July, at which time she saw the bruise. But according to Bouhe, he didn't see the bruise till late August. So Elena Hall was mistaken about the month. She must have also seen the bruise in late August.

Jeane de Mohrenschildt also saw the bruise, but didn't say when. She said, "We saw her with a black eye once." Notice that she said "once!"

George Bouhe said he saw a "black eye" on two occasions. The first occasion is noted above. The second occasion has been discredited. First of all, he wasn't even present to see Marina's face on the occasion he describes. Second, the person who did see Marina (Mrs. Meller) made no mention of a bruise! (See this post.).

I didn't list George de Mohrenschildt's testimony because he's been shown to be untrustworthy. But it should be no different than his wife's. And she specifically said they saw only one black eye.

And of course I didn't list the outlier l.i.a.r, Alexander Kleinlerer. But for kicks I just looked and found that he doesn't say anything about bruises.

So I repeat, they all saw Marina's bruise at the end of August and beginning of September 1952. There was a bruise just one time.

 

6 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

BTW, how do you explain the extensive discussion of the abuse in Marina & Lee? Or have you even read it?

 

Yes I read it! Of course I did. I went right to the sources and documented every time a person actually witness something for themselves. I put it in a timeline. (See it for yourself, it's in the third post of this thread.) I found discrepancies and corrected them. The discrepancies are documented in this thread. (Links to where the discrepancies are exposed are given in Posts 2 and 3.) And I analyzed what was left (also in Post 3).

There was one and only one incident that caused the bruises everybody saw, according to the testimony. Everything beyond that was malicious gossip, fueled IMO by Bouhe, and possibly by de Mohrenschildt and Kleinlerer.

 

6 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

You are in denial I'm afraid. The abuse doesn't prove LHO killed JFK anyway so I am a little surprised that you are so adamant about this subject.


I'm adamant about it because I've also been the target of malicious gossip. I could have had my child taken away because of that, had the CPS worker been one of those militant types. Besides that, Lee Harvey Oswald was framed and has had his name dragged though the mud. So far I haven't seen any evidence that he did anything wrong, other than probably hitting Marina once. He deserves being defended.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I think we are at a point of diminishing returns here and we will have to let the readers decide for themselves. I will admit that I have never undertaken a meticulous study of the testimony regarding the abuse and perhaps I should do that for myself at some point but have not previously because it is obvious that the abuse occurred.This apparently started as a means to gain control over her once they returned to the US. It apparently stopped when he felt he could no longer get away with it. You even admit that it occurred one time and that is all it takes to be an abused individual regardless of your attempts at semantics. There is also mental abuse which obviously happened when you consider the account in Marina & Lee. And as I mentioned before, he could have slapped her with an open hand any numbers of times and not left a mark. So the answer to the original question posed by this thread is a definite yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The original question did not require a yes or no answer. It asked what evidence  was there that Lee beat Marina. Seems there wasn't much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

...which obviously happened when you consider the account in Marina & Lee.

I have "Marina and Lee" and I recently re-read major parts of it for my research on the "Russian Embassy Letter". My conclusion is that it's fiction. The author had access and used portions of persons testimonies before the Warren Commission where it would fit into her narrative and then made up huge portions based on no evidence at all when the testimonies didn't fit. I think PJM has also recently been exposed as a CIA asset, no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now