Jump to content
The Education Forum

Steve Logan

Members
  • Posts

    25
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

1,350 profile views

Steve Logan's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/14)

  1. http://www.cityofirving.org/498/Ruth-Paine-House-Museum
  2. Once again: MOP-Lee had been accused of killing the President. I had been testified for the Warren Commission. Their conclusions were that Lee Harvey Oswald was guilty of the crime. I was there to probably give the most damaging testimony about Lee Harvey Oswald and whatever hate you have over him, I cannot make him an angel with a good character. As a wife, I still say he wasn’t a very pleasant person to be with and I’m the same way. We’re both stubborn and whatever. 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? We have a victim stating that her spouse hit her . Maybe it's just me but in my experience as a Detective, that spent 5 years in a Domestic Violence unit, I'm not buying the once or twice scenario. To read the entire interview, which is short, is interesting . Despite all that could be said in an interview with Oswald's wife, the subject of Spousal Violence is approached by the interviewer and Porter agrees that Oswald was abusive. All the while proclaiming his innocence . That is unless you believe Porter to being a fabricator and maybe the opposite is true. That Oswald wasn't abusive towards her but was guilty.
  3. OW-When you look at yourself then, were you like in a state of constant shock of disbelief? MOP-Lee had been accused of killing the President. I had been testified for the Warren Commission. Their conclusions were that Lee Harvey Oswald was guilty of the crime. I was there to probably give the most damaging testimony about Lee Harvey Oswald and whatever hate you have over him, I cannot make him an angel with a good character. As a wife, I still say he wasn’t a very pleasant person to be with and I’m the same way. We’re both stubborn and whatever. 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, but now slowly but surely a different kind of picture of Lee in the public’s eye appears, as the most hated man, a man who committed a horrible crime of the century, but at the same time as people learn to hate him more I discovered a different Lee that I did not know. I did not know about his childhood and his true underlying character whatever it was. That’s the role he played. But that doesn’t make him better. But guilty of the crime against Kennedy? He is not. OW-You do not believe your husband killed John F. Kennedy? MOP-No – and it’s not an overnight conclusion and it’s not because I read books, and this book and that book. It’s the responsible statement to make in front of the country that I’m grateful to – and when I did say that I think Lee killed President Kennedy. So in 1996 she goes on national television and while proclaiming Oswald's innocence she states that Oswald beat her? What's up with that?
  4. Was Kennedy Planning to Pull Out of Vietnam? Robert Kennedy was not merely John Kennedy's brother, he was his closest political ally and closest confidant. So what Bobby said about John's view of the war in Vietnam is not merely speculation or opinion. The following is a passage from an oral history interview done with Bobby in April, 1964 by the John F. Kennedy Library. Third Oral History Interview with ROBERT F. KENNEDY April 30, 1964 New York, New York By John Bartlow Martin For the John F. Kennedy Library [BEGIN TAPE V, REEL 1] [snipping earlier portion of interview] Martin: All right. Now, Vietnam began in the first--on the 3rd of January started appearing rather prominently in the papers and, of course, still is, and was all through '63. Do you want to talk about it now? Do you want to wait till we come and pick up the coup later? In, on, in January, the Vietnamese killed three Americans and shot down five helicopters. Kennedy: Viet Cong, you mean. Martin: That's right. That's what I mean, I'm sorry, Viet Cong. A little later Mansfield said that we were, this thing was turning into an American war and wasn't justified by our national interest; we hadn't any business going in so deep, but we kept going in deeper. The president sent Maxwell Taylor and McNamara out there. And then, and Lodge, he appointed Lodge as the ambassador--and you remember the hassle between the CIA and Lodge. The president brought the CIA fellow back, and, in the end, there was the coup against the Diem brothers. Do you want to discuss the whole thing now? You must have been in on a good deal of this. Kennedy: Yes. Well, yeah, what do you want to start with? Martin: All right. At the beginning we seemed to have our lines crossed. I mean, the majority leader in the Senate, Mansfield, was saying this was not an American war, and he didn't think it was--that our--it should be--not, not--should not be an American war. He didn't think our heavy commitment there was justified. How'd you feel about it; how'd the president feel about it; and at what point did we get our lines straightened out? Kennedy: Well, I don't think that . . . Martin: Did I make myself clear? Kennedy: No, I don't think that fact, Senator Mansfield or somebody in the Senate takes a position, necessarily means .. . Martin: Well, he was majority leader. Kennedy: Yeah, but, you know, he's frequently taken that, those, that line or that position on some of these matters. I don't think that the fact he has an independent view from the executive branch of the government, particularly in Southeast Asia, indicates that the lines aren't straight. I, no, I just, I think every. . . . I, the president felt that the. . . . He had a strong, overwhelming reason for being in Vietnam and that we should win the war in Vietnam. Martin: What was the overwhelming reason? Kennedy: Just the loss of all of Southeast Asia if you lost Vietnam. I think everybody was quite clear that the rest of Southeast Asia would fall. Martin: What if it did? Kennedy: Just have profound effects as far as our position throughout the world, and our position in a rather vital part of the world. Also, it would affect what happened in India, of course, which in turn has an effect on the Middle East. Just, it would have, everybody felt, a very adverse effect. It would have an effect on Indonesia, hundred million population. All of these countries would be affected by the fall of Vietnam to the Communists, particularly as we had made such a fuss in the United States both under President Eisenhower and President Kennedy about the preservation of the integrity of Vietnam. Martin: There was never any consideration given to pulling out? Kennedy: No. Martin: But the same time, no disposition to go in all . . . Kennedy: No . . . Martin: . . . in an all out way as we went into Korea. We were trying to avoid a Korea, is that correct? Kennedy: Yes, because I, everybody including General MacArthur felt that land conflict between our troops, white troops and Asian, would only lead to, end in disaster. So it was. . . . We went in as advisers, but to try to get the Vietnamese to fight themselves, because we couldn't win the war for them. They had to win the war for themselves. Martin: It's generally true all over the world, whether it's in a shooting war or a different kind of a war. But the president was convinced that we had to keep, had to stay in there . . . Kennedy: Yes. Martin: . . . and couldn't lose it. Kennedy: Yes. Martin: And if Vietnamese were about to lose it, would he propose to go in on land if he had to? Kennedy: Well, we'd face that when we came to it. Martin: Mm hm. Or go with air strikes, or--direct from carriers, I mean, something like that? Kennedy: But without. . . . It didn't have to be faced at that time. In the first place, we were winning the war in 1962 and 1963, up until May or so of 1963. The situation was getting progressively better. And then I . . . Martin: But then it got progre-- started going downhill, didn't it? Kennedy: Yes, and then we had all the problems with the Buddhists and the . . . Martin: Yeah. Kennedy: And, uh . . . Martin: Why did they go down, why did they get bad, Bob? Kennedy: Well, I just think he was just, Diem wouldn't make even the slightest concessions. He was difficult to reason with, well, with the. . . . And then it was built up tremendously in an adverse fashion here in the United States and that was played back in Vietnam, and . . . . And I think just the people themselves became concerned about it. And so, it began to, the situation began to deteriorate in the spring of 1962, uh, spring of 1963. I think David Halberstam, from the New York Times' articles, had a strong effect on molding public opinion: the fact that the situation was unsatisfactory. Our problem was that thinking of Halberstam sort of as the Ma-- what Matthews [unidentified] did in Cuba, that Batista [Fulgencio R. Batista] was not very satisfactory, but the important thing was to try to get somebody who could replace him and somebody who could keep, continue the war and keep the country united, and that was far more difficult. So that was what was of great concern to all of us during this period of time. Nobody liked Diem particularly, but how to get rid of him and get somebody that would continue the war, not split the country in two, and therefore lose not only the war but the country. That was the great problem.
  5. http://www.bostonherald.com/news/columnists/howie_carr/2017/01/carr_obama_legacy_a_big_lie_let_me_count_the_ways
  6. In 1963 people did not carry or put on or take off a bottle cap. Twist off caps were not on these bottles. You get a bottle of coke/dr. pepper/7up whatever and remove the cap in the bottle cap remover which was in the vending machine. The cap would drop into a well inside the door of the machine to be removed and emptied by the guy who filled the machine.
  7. Custodial Interrogation Recording Compendium By State https://www.nacdl.org/usmap/crim/30262/48121/d/#
  8. David, Colin Crow, who is not a member here, asked me to respond to your post with the following response: Dear David, I do not post on the ED forum but occasionally browse through the threads. I was amused you used a quote attributed to me in this recent thread... http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21855 As a courtesy I would appreciate that you update the thread with the following quote that I posted just a day later. I feel that this more accurately reflects my thinking than the quote from the previous day. I have added the (sic)s for you.....I think there may be more....who knows. Colin Crow: Yesterday I posted the following.... "History shows that the Warren Commission ultimately did not convince the majority of the US public (and world) that there was not a conspiracy. This was its prime objective and therefore must be deemed a failure." Upon relection (sic) I have reconsidered this view.......maybe this is more accurate... History shows that the Warren Commision (sic) ultimately did not convince the majority of the US public (and world) that there was not a conspiracy. However its prime objective was to placate and reassure the public (and world) that there was no conspiracy at that time and for the immediate future. Therefore must be deemed a success. Here is the link to that post.... http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php?topic=1635.20;wap2 While I have your attention I would appreciate your thoughts on the following threads......they seem to have passed by without any meaningful comment from the LN team. Perhaps they are waiting for some leadership. Perhaps you have not noticed them. http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,12165.0.html http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,12183.0.html http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,12191.0.html http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,12212.0.html http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,12154.0.html Take your time. There is a bit more reading on this topic than Vince managed. I await your considered response.
  9. Is there a point you're attempting to make here?
  10. Is this a new installment of The Oswald Code?
  11. Just out of curiosity, are translators available to scrutinize foreign languages? In case I lose it and go off in a Gaelic blaze of glory, would a certificate authenticating one's bonafides be available prior to being banished to one's room without supper?
  12. Two hours earlier, they had assassinated MIT police officer Sean Collier, and now the vile little maggots were coming for more cops. It was about 12:45 on Friday morning, and a half-dozen Watertown officers had been exchanging gunfire with the Tsarnaev brothers for 10 minutes. The cops had their sidearms and a couple of rifles, and they were holding their own. The maggots decided it was time for the heavy artillery. They ducked behind their Honda and opened the trunk. One of the cops was pinned behind a tree, the others were set up behind their cruisers. More than 200 rounds had been fired. Transit police officer Richard Donohue, who had rushed to scene to support his brothers from Watertown, was shot and wounded. More officers were on the way. Sirens and blue lights filled the air, and the maggots had to know: It was over. They had paralyzed our city since 2:50 p.m. on Monday. Getting away was no longer an option. Soon they would either be in custody or be dead. Now they were only hoping to take a few more cops with them. . In the end, of course, the Tsarnaevs proved to be exactly what their Uncle Ruslan said they were: Losers. Failures. Oh, they took four innocent lives, and they hurt so many more. But there is no doubt that they had bigger plans, more destruction, more death, more terror in mind. In many dark, godforsaken corners of this planet, there are people who support and applaud scum like the Tsarnaevs, and you know what they’re saying today: That’s it? That’s the best they could do? That was the best they could do because of people like the cops in Watertown who stood their ground against these evil, Armani-wearing terrorists. In a week where we pay tribute to heroes from the finish line to Fenway Park, no one stood taller than the team of brave police officers on Laurel Street in Watertown. This was no game. This was real life and these were real heroes. Desperate and trapped, the Tsarnaevs began to throw their explosive devices at the cops, including four small, homemade bombs. Two exploded, two didn’t. At one point, according to Watertown police chief Ed Deveau, they tossed a pressure-cooker bomb, the same kind of device that caused such destruction on Boylston Street at the finish line of the Boston Marathon. The bomb didn’t reach the officers, but it did explode. Miraculously, none of the cops got hit. “My officers saw them throw something, and then there was a huge explosion,” Deveau said in a radio interview on WEEI yesterday morning. “That turned out to be the pressure-cooker bomb. They found the lid down the street.” So a bomb designed to cause maximum damage went off in the middle of the street and no one was hurt? “Why Watertown isn’t planning funerals for one, two, three, four or five officers is just incredible to me,” Deveau said. Let me tell you something else that was pretty incredible that morning: the reaction of Deveau’s officers when Tamerlan Tsarnaev ran out of ammo. In a scene straight out of a “Die Hard” movie, the older brother began to walk toward the officers while firing his weapon. Call it a tough break for the terrorist: He ran out of rounds only 10 feet from the officers, according to Deveau. Now the cops could have shot the rabid dog down right there in the middle of the street, but they wanted him alive. So with his heart racing, his head spinning and his hearing shot, one Watertown police officer left his cover, ran toward Tamerlan and tackled him. Deveau refused to single out The Tackler. He said two other officers jumped in right away to help handcuff Maggot No. 1. Oh, by the way: All three of these cops believed there was a good chance Tamerlan had explosives strapped to his body. When I first heard this story, I thought of David Feherty, the great golf announcer. Three or four times during the previous week’s Masters, Feherty described a golfer as showing “courage” for hitting a shot over water or going for a par 5 in 2. Well, if that’s the case, we need to come up with new words to describe men like the street cops who stopped these armed-to-teeth terrorists and quashed their plan to kills hundreds, if not thousands, more. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev would only kill one more, and that would be his big brother. At least that’s what we’d like to believe was the fatal blow. As the cops were restraining Tamerlan, Dzhokhar jumped behind the wheel and drove at them. The cops jumped out of the way. Tamerlan did not. The gash you see in the photo of his dead body is believed to be a burn mark from the undercarriage of the Mercedes, which dragged the maggot for about 45 feet. Dzhokhar then drove a few blocks and fled on foot before crawling into a boat and nearly bleeding out. Tamerlan was rushed to Beth Israel hospital where he was declared dead. Remarkably, of the more than 180 people who were injured in last Monday’s attacks, every single one of them is expected to leave the hospital alive, doctors said yesterday. The only one to die in the hospital since the Patriots Day attack: Tamerlan Tsarnaev. Loser. Failure. The big, bad terrorist who turned out to be nothing but a speed bump and blood stain on Laurel Street. That is all? Yes, that is all. by Gerry Callahan
×
×
  • Create New...