Jump to content
The Education Forum
Sign in to follow this  
James DiEugenio

RCD vs Trejo: The Proof

Recommended Posts

https://web.archive.org/web/20130717...=20158&page=10

Robert Charles-Dunne - Posted 12 May 2013 - 07:13 PM

.....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:

First, let’s clear the decks of the obvious padding.

Mahlon Tobias (and his wife who didn’t make Paul’s list) have already been dispatched to the remainder bin, as they both testified they personally neither saw nor heard anything except complaints from other tenants of their building. That leaves 18. ....

......We are now down to our final witness on the list of nineteen: Marina Oswald.

I will be uncharacteristically brief and suggest only that one takes seriously what this witness has to say at one’s own peril. For in key respects, of all the Commission’s witnesses, nobody’s narrative has been more flexible, elastic, malleable, changeable, than Marina’s.

Physical abuse of spouses is no laughing matter, irrespective of gender, class, religion, et al. It should be condemned at every turn.

It is remarkable that so few of the above nineteen witnesses bothered themselves to do so.

Equally remarkable is that not one of them, including the victim, thought to notify the police.
It is conceivable that the entire group of them didn’t care enough, but that is belied by their generosity to and solicitude toward Marina.

The alternative, needless to say, is that the issue was blown out of all proportion - for a specific purpose - when Oswald was alive, and magnified even further by the Commission for its own purpose after his death, in taking testimony of those who could only offer hearsay conjecture, while inexplicably giving the cold shoulder to the only puported witness to Oswald slapping his wife.

That this fraud continues to be cited as probative today only illustrates the intellectual and moral bankruptcy of those who traffick in this fiction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The redoubtable Tom Scully rescued this from the Way Back Machine.

As you can see, RCD, Robert Charles Dunne, did a magnificent job in showing that this whole idea of Oswald being some kind of a chronic wife beater has little or no footing in reality.

At best, a bunch of sheep repeated the testimony of one person, and that person was not called before the Warren Commision.

At worst, the White Russians colluded with their handlers to make another charge of violent behavior against a guy who really was not violent at all.

Please click on the link above to see much of the debate. You can judge for yourself who won instead of having PT cruiser spin it for you.

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FWIW, I've never believed Oswald abused Marina physically. It's easy for me believe they argued; all married couples argue.

Nonetheless beating and even raping one's wife was pretty much the norm in this country into at least the 1980s. Certainly it was the norm in the early 1960s. This was an easy card for the WC to play. Real easy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I agree. It really was made almost too easy.

But they used any bread crumb they could.

Too bad RCD isn't here today. He did really nice work. And he was a good writer also.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And here are the last two that were recovered by Tom Scully:

https://web.archive.org/web/20130717...c=20158&page=6

https://web.archive.org/web/20130615...c=20158&page=7

By far the fullest and most in depth analysis and expose of the myth of LHO as a chronic wife beater.

Never seen anything like this anywhere else. RCD was right on the money.

As he usually was.

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Norm – Something that is usual, typical, or standard; A standard or pattern, especially of social behaviour, that is typical or expected:

"Nonetheless beating and even raping one's wife was pretty much the norm in this country into at least the 1980s. Certainly it was the norm in the early 1960s."

​Seriously? Where is the statistical proof. Facts, etc. Let me get this straight you are saying that I (given your dates) most likely have beaten my wife and raped her? I find your insinuation about men in general to be reprehensible, shameful, inexcusable and disgraceful.You tar a lot of good and innocent men (who have never raised a hand or committed another crime of violence against a woman). So put your brush away and think about it.

​Lately, it seems you are becoming trejo-lite and deal out trejo-isms with no regard for the truth. btw was it the norm in your house to beat and rape your wife? tell the truth.

Yikes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nonetheless beating and even raping one's wife was pretty much the norm in this country into at least the 1980s. Certainly it was the norm in the early 1960s. This was an easy card for the WC to play. Real easy. [emphasis added]

In which country did you live from the 60's through the 80's? If it was the USA, are you speaking from first hand experience as either a perpetrator or a witness to such crimes? That would seem to be the only way that you could state the above so authoritatively.

If this was "the norm" in your world, I certainly hope that:

  1. If you were the perp, you turned yourself in, paid your debt to society, and made amends to those you abused
  2. If you were the perp, you've since gotten help so that you have now discontinued such reprehensible behavior
  3. If you were not the perp, I hope you came to the defense of the women you witnessed suffering abuse and you reported the crimes to the proper authorities
Edited by Greg Burnham

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nonetheless beating and even raping one's wife was pretty much the norm in this country into at least the 1980s. Certainly it was the norm in the early 1960s. This was an easy card for the WC to play. Real easy. [emphasis added]

No surprise that Mr. Tidd would post this.

He's the guy that insisted that all of the LHO assassination evidence meant nothing because it hadn't been tested in court. Did he forget about Garrison, never knew, or just ignore his existence because it contradicted his argument?

Edited by Tom Neal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Once again, as I read this forum, it tends to veer way off into space from the original intent of the thread. Yes, I agree that what Mr. Tildon said ("wife beaters were more prevalent back in the 60s") is, to put it bluntly, ridiculous. I totally disagree with that because how in the world would you ever measure that? You can't.


But back to the main point of this thread. It's two words here for Lee Oswald. Character. Assassination.


The WC and government were doing everything and anything they could to "convince the public" (and I'm putting that phrase in quotes because that's also what Katzenbach said in his memo a few days after Oswald went to his grave) that Lee Oswald was an out-of-control defector/communist wild man hellbent on killing John Kennedy, Tippitt, and for good measure, shooting at Walker. Never mind that he was *never* a suspect to the Walker shooting, which happened seven months prior to 11/22, until he was in his grave.


That's the essence of this thread - Lee Oswald = Wife Beater = Murderous Assassin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread pretty much puts to bed Judyth Baker's braggadocio that she personally stopped Lee from beating Marina out of love for Judyth.

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
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...