• 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

3 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:
  • Marguerite Oswald: Said that she saw Marina with a black eye one time, and that Marina admitted that Lee hit her. And that Lee admitted the same with these words, "that is our affair."
     

 

Is it possible to know when and where that happened? I had a look to see what I could come up with and some time between Mid September and early October 1962 at Mercedes Street Fort Worth is what I deduced but I really don't know...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tracy - sworn testimony...

Oh wow, so because someone put their hand on a book written by men and they speak words that it makes it official and real? I guess you have a lot of faith in people, Tracy, that no one would lie just because they do this.  Didn't a certain *president* do the exact same thing and then in sworn testimony lie that he never had sexual relations "...with that woman?"  I mean it was extremely clever of him to do this, to just say two different words to make it appear that he didn't do it.  But we all know he did (and we all know he confessed to it years later).

According to your logic, you make it sound as if *every single person who testified* for the WC got it 100% truthfully right. Pshhh.  Really?

And for those who continue to think Oswald beat his wife, I'm putting this here:

http://www.blackopradio.com/pdf/Oswald in the USSR - They All Lied.pdf

But of course, once people like Sandy Larsen get hooked on a feeling like he often does on this forum, he won't say a word about what the above insightful article says.  He and others will just keep steamrolling their own thoughts with endless and mindless WC testimony quotes that keep dragging on and on and on. That's one of things I hate about this forum - instead of analyzing things and then writing it out, people just post 30-paragraph long clips of the testimony as if it's all 100% truthful testimony or showing no analysis of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Michael Walton said:

And for those who continue to think Oswald beat his wife, I'm putting this here:

http://www.blackopradio.com/pdf/Oswald in the USSR - They All Lied.pdf

But of course, once people like Sandy Larsen get hooked on a feeling like he often does on this forum, he won't say a word about what the above insightful article says.  He and others will just keep steamrolling their own thoughts with endless and mindless WC testimony quotes that keep dragging on and on and on. That's one of things I hate about this forum - instead of analyzing things and then writing it out, people just post 30-paragraph long clips of the testimony as if it's all 100% truthful testimony or showing no analysis of it.


Michael, what the hell are you talking about? I'm not going to read that long PDF to try and figure out what you're accusing me of.

I never post long snippets of WC testimony and assume it's all true. For god's sake, I'm constantly challenging the official story and questioning whose testimony is true and whose is false. Don't you pay attention? I'm also one who puts forth hypothesis after hypothesis in carefully laid out threads, and then methodically analyzes them to see if they past muster or not.

Now let's look at you. You hardly ever do any research or analysis of your own. (Unless you consider putting your 2 cents worth in as being "analysis.") I've only seen you making comments and ridiculing researchers you disagree with. And the latter is something I don't like about this forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

..........

I never post long snippets of WC testimony and assume it's all true. For god's sake, I'm constantly challenging the official story and questioning whose testimony is true and whose is false. Don't you pay attention? I'm also one who puts forth hypothesis after hypothesis in carefully laid out threads, and then methodically analyzes them to see if they past muster or not.....

I was wondering how that would shake-out. I THINK I know where you were coming from, and going, Sandy. But you WERE just laying the info out there, doing a good job of letting the chips just fall.

Cheers,

Michael

Edited by Michael Clark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Michael Clark said:

I was wondering how that would shake-out. I THINK I know where you were coming from, and going, Sandy. But you WERE just laying the info out there, doing a good job of letting the chips just fall.

Cheers,

Michael


Thanks Michael.

Do you think that Michael Walton was picking on me because his impression was that I am one of those "who continue to think Oswald beat his wife?" (Quoting him.)

If that's what he was thinking, no wonder I was taken by surprise reading his post. I actually have a rather high opinion of Oswald, based on everything I've learned about him. I started this thread because I wanted to know what to think when I hear accusations of Oswald's wife beating. I had my doubts, but I wanted to know the truth.

 

Edited by Sandy Larsen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wet blanket time - if Oswald didn't assassinate JFK who cares? Given the way the WC went about questioning people, and knowing they were trying to convict Oswald in absentia, all testimony portraying Oswald as prone to violence, whether it's hitting Marina, shooting at Walker, threatening Nixon, hijacking a plane, is worth taking with a heavy dose of skepticism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

Wet blanket time - if Oswald didn't assassinate JFK who cares? Given the way the WC went about questioning people, and knowing they were trying to convict Oswald in absentia, all testimony portraying Oswald as prone to violence, whether it's hitting Marina, shooting at Walker, threatening Nixon, hijacking a plane, is worth taking with a heavy dose of skepticism.


Good point Paul.

(Which might have been a good point for Michael Walton had he not chosen to attack a member to make his point.)

Edited by Sandy Larsen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:


Thanks Michael.

Do you think that Michael Clark was picking on me because his impression was that I am one of those "who continue to think Oswald beat his wife?" (Quoting him.)

If that's what he was thinking, no wonder I was taken by surprise reading his post. I actually have a rather high opinion of Oswald, based on everything I've learned about him. I started this thread because I wanted to know what to think when I hear accusations of Oswald's wife beating. I had my doubts, but I wanted to know the truth.

 

Sandy, to be sure, I think you meant Michael "Walton" in your post. 

To answer your question, I think he is making the case that you were coming down on one side or the other. If that was the case then it's fair game. Anyone can make a case, and anyone can criticize it.

I think you clearly were trying to gather facts. The fact that you were doing that speaks for itself, IMO. I think you are doing a good job of trying to get to the verifiable facts. If you don't mind me saying so, in other threads, you are more often, it would seem, trying to make a case. Not in this case. 

Michael Walton was coiled-up to strike at you. In this case he did it without justification, probably without reading. That is valuable information, at no loss to you; you have discovered an entity who has a hard-on for you; you can ignore any disguised criticism from him going forward.

Cheers,

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding Paul's post, there's truth to that. Anyone who knows that Oswald didn't do it is wasting their time making that case. The point is to find the bad guys. However, all pieces have a place in the puzzle. To do the wet blanket thing to someone who feels it is important is unnecessary. 

Cheers,

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sandy, to be clear, what you are doing is important. You are discrediting one chunk of the WC case. Your doing it in one place under a clear forum title. Sure, this may have all been covered in a book somewhere, but someone will find and read your thread on the internet and walk away with one important nugget. I'll compare it to my recent Oswald rifle possession thread. I would not have doe that if it was already in one place on this forum, now it is. It is important.

Cheers,

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see your point Michael. 

To Sandy - you were nice enough to acknowledge my point. I've seen you go into a few things in great detail, such as this thread, and the mail order rifle. I deliberately posted on a thread I would like to see you turn your attention to started by Steve Thomas about all the Colonels. I admit I'm not a nuts and bolts guy, and that I'd rather talk about who and why than how. I also think that the thread about William Harvey possibly being at Parkland when Oswald was shot is worthy of attention. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sandy,

Here is my second post about another eye-witness who saw Lee Harvey Oswald beat Marina Oswald.  His name is Alexander Kleinlerer, from Fort Worth, and this data comes from his sworn Affidavit to the WC on June, 16, 1964.  

Originally Polish, Alex was 41 and worked as a salesman for a plastics firm in Fort Worth.  He lost his family in World War Two, in German concentration camps.

His connection to Lee and Marina Oswald was through the Russian expatriates in Fort Worth and Dallas, including Anna Meller, George Bouhe, George and Jeanne DeMohrenschildt, Max Clark and Gali Clark, Lydia Dymitruk, Declan and Katarina Ford, Igor and Natalie Voshinin, but especially Elena Hall.

In September, 1962, Alex was dating Elena Hall, then divorced.  Elena also assisted George Bouhe in his Church drive to collect used clothes for Marina and baby June.  The Russians also asked Elena Hall for advice about Marina's teeth problems, because Elena was also a dental technician, and knew the contacts in Fort Worth.  

Alex also helped in this charity drive for Marina, collecting used clothes for Marina and baby June.  One day Alex drove a package of clothes to the Oswalds on Mercedes Street in Fort Worth.  Alex was suprised to see baby June sleeping in a suitcase because she had no crib.   Later, Alex drove a crib over to the Oswalds. 

Then, at a friendly gathering of several Russians at Mercedes Street, suddenly Lee Oswald noticed there was no butter on the table.   Lee got up red faced and angry, and publicly domineered Marina in a rude manner, and vigorously reprimand her "like a sergeant bullying a new recruit."

Later, in October, Lee went to Dallas to look for work, and Marina began living with Elena Hall.  That month, Elena Hall was injured in an car accident,  While Elena was in the hospital, Lee would come to stay with Marina from Friday evenings to Sunday evenings.  Alex would drop in on them during those weekends, to watch Elena's house and belongings, and to work in the garage on his car or on carpentry projects.

Alex remembers when Gary Taylor moved Marina away from Elena Halls to Lee's new apartment in Dallas, there on Elsbeth Street -- this was in early November, 1962.  Alex came by Elena's house to ensure that the Oswalds' move was smooth and uneventful. 

Marina was in the living room with baby June in her arms as Lee and Gary loaded up the trailer.  Alex started up a conversation with Marina.  Soon, Lee walked in and noticed that the zipper on Marina's skirt was not completely closed. He called to her in a very angry and commanding tone of voice, exclaiming, "Come Here!", in the Russian language, "the way you would call a dog with which you were displeased in order to inflict punishment."  

Lee was standing in the doorway and when she reached the doorway, Lee Harvey Oswald slapped Marina Oswald hard in the face.  Right in front of Alex.  Lee did this twice.  Marina still had baby June in her arms.  Her face was red and tears came to her eyes.  

It was humiliating not only for Marina, but also for Alex -- who was puzzled about the issue of protecting a lady in distress, because this was a man and his wife.    

Other Russian expatriates also complained about Lee Oswald's boorish behavior towards Marina Oswald.  Some had complained that they saw bruises on Marina's face.  But Alex Kleinlerer swore an affidavit that he personally witnessed Lee Oswald strike Marina Oswald in the face -- twice. 

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

 

Edited by Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Sandy,

Here is my second post about another eye-witness who saw Lee Harvey Oswald beat Marina Oswald.  His name is Alexander Kleinlerer,  

  -------------------

  But Alex Kleinlerer made a sworn affidavit that she personally witnessed Lee Oswald strike Marina Oswald in the face -- twice. 

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

 

Paul, This was covered on the second page, sans drama.

It was also poiinted out that this guy could not be questioned in front of the commission, although, it was stated, he was in town. No reason was given for his unavailability.

He could have signed a blank sheet of paper in exchange for paying his bar-tab.

Cheers,

Michael

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Like I said:  a tour de force.

Actually, it's a silly bit of writing.

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.

And James D. thinks this is good writing.  Figures.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Alistair Briggs said:

Yes indeed.

*in my opinion, Paul totally overplayed his position - by saying that those 19 people were witnesses to Oswald being a wife beater is a total 'exaggeration', as noted by the 'debunking' done by Robert Charles Dunne.

Presumably, Paul is trying to make the case of Oswald being a 'wife beater' and was going for a 'weight of numbers' makes a better case....

Alistair,

Talk about hearsay -- I claimed there were SEVEN.   Robert Charles Dunne said he found 19 who DIDN'T claim that LHO beat Marina.

Robert Charles Dunne proved that he could find 19 people who never saw LHO beat Marina.  Big deal.  Who can't?

But Robert Charles Dunne used a lot of volume for his shell game.   He hid the SEVEN witnesses who DID claim that LHO beat Marina.

And you evidently fell for it.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

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