Jump to content
The Education Forum
  • 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?

Recommended Posts


I'm saving the relevant excerpt of Paul Gregory's 2013 article here just in case the article disappears.
 

Quote

At the bottom of the Oswalds’ conflict, I thought, was Lee’s refusal to let Marina learn English. He argued that it would jeopardize his fluency in Russian, but more important, it was a way he leveraged control over her. During one visit to a Rexall drugstore that August, Lee became visibly angry when a pharmacist offered to hire Marina, who had worked at a hospital pharmacy in Minsk, once her language skills improved. The job, after all, could have made her the family breadwinner. That rage would resurface later that month as we exited the duplex one evening. Marina took a step backward and fell, thumping her head on the hard, dry ground and dropping June. The thud was so loud that I feared she might be seriously injured; Lee, however, screamed at her for her clumsiness as she lay curled on the ground clutching for her baby. Even after he realized June was fine, he didn’t speak to Marina for the rest of the night.

After a couple of months of lessons, my parents’ Russian émigré circle became curious about my new friends. So on Aug. 25, 1962, we invited the Oswalds to a small dinner party at our house. George Bouhe, a dapper bachelor who took it upon himself to be a one-man social-service department for new Russian-speaking immigrants, was particularly eager to meet Marina. After all, they each grew up in what is now St. Petersburg. But as a true patriot of his adopted country, he was wary of her husband for leaving the U.S. for the Soviet Union.

Soon after I arrived with the Oswalds, Marina and Bouhe repaired to the living room. He brought along maps of St. Petersburg at various stages of its history, and they spread them out on the floor and huddled together, pointing at various landmarks. Bouhe was impressed that Marina spoke educated Russian and that her grandmother had attended an exclusive girls’ school. Marina also disclosed that her grandmother was religious, which was particularly pleasing to Bouhe because he organized Russian Orthodox services in Dallas. After a short while, he concluded that he would do whatever he could for this young woman, even if that meant helping her husband, who had sulked off to the den, waiting to be called to the table.

When dinner was served, Bouhe kept things light by asking Lee and Marina about life in Minsk. Yet I recall that his companion for the evening, a Russian woman named Anna Meller, couldn’t resist asking the question we all secretly wanted answered — why had Lee defected to the Soviet Union? Lee, who had been on his best behavior and even wore a sports jacket to dinner, suddenly became agitated and defensive. His voice rose, but what came out were canned slogans — he left because capitalism was a terrible system, it exploited the workers, the poor got nothing and so forth. Meller would not let him off the hook, though. The Soviet Union was a miserable place to live, she continued, so why had he left a country that was so wonderful and hospitable? Lee responded defensively that, yes, he did not think that the party faithful believed in Communism anymore but that this did not make America a great place.

Later in the evening, Bouhe and Meller began to insist that Marina needed to learn English if she was to survive in America. In fact, Bouhe noted, he had arranged English lessons for many Russian émigrés; he could do the same for her. Now Lee’s voice rose again. If he allowed Marina to learn English, he said, his Russian would suffer, and it was very important that he retain his fluency. Anna Meller could scarcely control her anger over his selfish behavior. Dinner ended abruptly.

Source: This 2013 New York Times article.

 

Edited by Sandy Larsen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sandy,

You not only forgot Marguerite, but you deliberately neglect to quote many others -- based on your bias that they are not to be believed.

There are seven eye-witnesses to Lee beating Marina -- more than once.   You don't believe their sworn testimony -- that's your right.  But I'm the one who quoted them all

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Sandy,

You not only forgot Marguerite, but you deliberately neglect to quote many others -- based on your bias that they are not to be believed.


Paul,

I forgot Marguerite only in one post. One post! So get off of that! Marguerite is -- and has always been -- listed in my Master Posts, #2 and #3.

I didn't neglect anybody! I actually have three more witnesses than those you list. You forgot Anna Meller, Declan Ford, and Katrina Ford. Should I claim that YOU neglected them??

There are two witnesses whose testimony I refused to take into account in my analysis, which I did because of serious credibility issues:

First, George de Mohrenschild, because he made up this long, detailed bullsh*t story out of whole cloth. He claimed he skipped his regular tennis game and forcibly removed Marina against Lee's wishes and drove her to the Mellers house. When in fact, Marina took a taxi cab to the Melllers on her own. (Read the competing testimonies here.) The man is not credible.

Second,  Alexander Kleinlerer's testimony is so extreme that it requires corroboration to be believed. It is an extreme outlier, far worse than than George de Mohrenschild's proven BS story. None of the other witnesses describe Oswald to be the way Kleinlerer does. None.  (Read about his testimony here.)

 

2 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

There are seven eye-witnesses to Lee beating Marina -- more than once.   You don't believe their sworn testimony -- that's your right.  But I'm the one who quoted them all

Regards,
--Paul Trejo


First of all Paul, the witnesses saw the bruise, not the beating. Only one person said he saw Oswald hit Marina (I think he said he slapped her), and that was the extreme outlier Alexander Kleinlerer. He's clearly making the story up, just as I proved George de Mohrenschild did.

There was only one credible witness to Marina getting bruised on the head, and that was Paul Gregory. He wrote, "Marina took a step backward and fell, thumping her head on the hard, dry ground and dropping June. The thud was so loud that I feared she might be seriously injured;"


Paul, why do you hate Lee Oswald so much that you will believe proven l.i.a.r.s but not those whose stories make sense? Remember, Paul Gregory was out to make Oswald look bad in his article. And yet he doesn't mention a thing about Oswald beating Marina. What he does, instead, is explain how Marina got the bruise.

 

Share this post


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

Paul,

I forgot Marguerite only in one post. One post! So get off of that! Marguerite is -- and has always been -- listed in my Master Posts, #2 and #3.

I didn't neglect anybody! I actually have three more witnesses than those you list. You forgot Anna Meller, Declan Ford, and Katrina Ford. Should I claim that YOU neglected them??

There are two witnesses whose testimony I refused to take into account in my analysis, which I did because of serious credibility issues:

First, George de Mohrenschild, because he made up this long, detailed bullsh*t story out of whole cloth. He claimed he skipped his regular tennis game and forcibly removed Marina against Lee's wishes and drove her to the Mellers house. When in fact, Marina took a taxi cab to the Melllers on her own. (Read the competing testimonies here.) The man is not credible.

Second,  Alexander Kleinlerer's testimony is so extreme that it requires corroboration to be believed. It is an extreme outlier, far worse than than George de Mohrenschild's proven BS story. None of the other witnesses describe Oswald to be the way Kleinlerer does. None.  (Read about his testimony here.)

First of all Paul, the witnesses saw the bruise, not the beating. Only one person said he saw Oswald hit Marina (I think he said he slapped her), and that was the extreme outlier Alexander Kleinlerer. He's clearly making the story up, just as I proved George de Mohrenschild did.

There was only one credible witness to Marina getting bruised on the head, and that was Paul Gregory. He wrote, "Marina took a step backward and fell, thumping her head on the hard, dry ground and dropping June. The thud was so loud that I feared she might be seriously injured;"

Paul, why do you hate Lee Oswald so much that you will believe proven l.i.a.r.s but not those whose stories make sense? Remember, Paul Gregory was out to make Oswald look bad in his article. And yet he doesn't mention a thing about Oswald beating Marina. What he does, instead, is explain how Marina got the bruise.

Sandy,

The following is my opinion.

1.  I didn't say that you forgot anybody else besides Marguerite Oswald -- I said that you failed to QUOTE several others (including Marguerite Oswald.)

2.  The seven people I QUOTED were Eye-Witnesses ONLY.  That's why I neglected all the others.   (RC Dunne named 12 non-eye-witnesses, wasting our time, plus he omitted Marguerite).

3.  You refused to QUOTE George de Mohrenschild, because in YOUR OPINION "the man is not credible."   You know what is a "fact" somehow. The point, for me, is not whether his memory of several events was perfect, but rather, the bruises he saw with his own eyes, plus the words he heard from Marina with his own ears -- "Lee beat me."

4.  Alex Kleinlerer reports actually seeing the beating itself.  The motive is believable, knowing that jealousy of the Dallas Russians was the cause of all the beatings.  In this case, Marina was alone (with baby June in her arms) speaking with Alex in a room.   When Lee walked in, he noticed that the zipper on her skirt was half-way undone.  He went off like a madman.  The motive is a match.

5.   It was not just a matter of seeing the bruises, Sandy -- but it's also a matter of hearing Marina Oswald say, "Lee beat me."   IN ALL SEVEN CASES THAT I QUOTED.

6.  You never proved that George de Mohrenschild made up a story -- you only proved, at best, that his memory of the sequence of several events was somehow imperfect.

7.  If it was only ONE WITNESS who testified under oath that they saw facial bruises and heard Marina Oswald say, "Lee beat me," then that would be cause for doubt.   BUT SEVEN?   How can anybody doubt SEVEN WITNESSES?

8.  Sandy -- I don't hate Lee Harvey Oswald AT ALL.   Just because Lee beat Marina in Fort Worth and Dallas -- that is no reason to blame him for the JFK assassination.  In fact, Lee Oswald never, ever beat Marina Oswald in Russia, or in New Orleans, or in Irving.  So, I say that he must have been CRAZY WITH JEALOUSY at those times (three different times at least) -- and in fact many normal men would have done the SAME THING.

So, Sandy, it's not hatred of Lee Oswald; it's just honesty.   Seven eye-witnesses is too many to doubt.  Just accept it.    

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo
typos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, Paul Trejo said:

6.  You never proved that George de Mohrenschild made up a story -- you only proved, at best, that his memory of the sequence of several events was somehow imperfect.

 

Paul,

De Mohrenschild said he skipped his tennis game, drove over to the Oswalds, had an lengthy altercation with Oswald, and took Marina away as Oswald threatened to get even with him. And then drove Marina over to the Mellers.

What really happened is that Marina left the house, went to a phone booth, called the Mellers and asked if she could stay with them. And the Mellers sent a taxicab to pick her up.

(Anybody can read the testimony snippets here.)

I don't know how you can possibly believe that George merely got a little confused.


 

1 hour ago, Paul Trejo said:

7.  If it was only ONE WITNESS who testified under oath that they saw facial bruises and heard Marina Oswald say, "Lee beat me," then that would be cause for doubt.   BUT SEVEN?   How can anybody doubt SEVEN WITNESSES?


LOL,  I DON'T doubt the witnesses (other than for prevaricators De Mohrenschild and Kleinlerer).  They testified that Marina TOLD THEM that Lee hit her.  I'm sure she did tell them that. (Long after she got the bruise, BTW.)

Have you never heard of women who lie about being abused? My sister-in-law did about my own brother. It happens.

That is what I'm accusing Marina of doing.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul Trejo:  "4.  Alex Kleinlerer reports actually seeing the beating itself."

That's not exactly correct. Kleinerer's description is of an incident in November 1962, whereas the noted bruising was in late August/September of that year. Your bold text suggests an equivalence.

Sandy Larsen's scepticism as to whether there is a direct correlation between reports of Oswald's spousal abuse and the witnessed bruising on Marina's face is, in my opinion, well argued as the allegation, by the existing record, is largely rumour and second-hand accounts. He notes the witnessing by Paul Gregory of another possible explanation for such bruising, and I have previously offered a further possible explanation related to Marina's dental problems at the time.  

Marina Oswald herself is an extremely unreliable witness - which is not a value judgement necessarily, but the record cannot be seen as anything but. Look at CE993-994 for example, her account of life with Lee Oswald written for the Warren Commission, and compare that with sections of the later "Marina and Lee." 

That the two often quarrelled is undeniable - and Marina asserted that the quarrels would at times become physical - but hitting a person such that it leaves bruises is another level of assault altogether (defined as criminal), and I'm not sure there is much in Lee Oswald's background which supports a propensity for violence at that level. Marina briefly attests to Lee being physical in CE 993/994, but her aside does not at all support such severity. That distinction seems to be the dividing line in this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll offer one more common sense thing.

Marina's fall, which happened in latter August, resulted in her losing grip of baby June. The baby was only six months old... weighed very little. How could Marina have lost her grip on  such a small baby?

Had Marina fallen backward, I maintain that odds are high she would have held onto that baby with all her might. There's not much a person can do to stop themselves from falling once they've begun falling backward. I don't think there is anything the person can do. But if she fell forward, that's a different story. Odds are that she would have held onto the baby with one arm, and tried to stop her fall with the other. (I think it's very unlikely that she would have held onto June with both hands.)

So Marina likely fell down face forward, or perhaps to the side. Paul Gregory said her head hit the hard ground with a loud thud. That surely would have created one hell of a bruise on her face.

The timing of the fall (latter August) is right. The bruise is in the right place. Gregory said nothing about Oswald beating is wife even though he certainly saw the bruise himself. He didn't say anything because he knew the fall caused the bruise.

This narrative fits like a glove IMO.

 

Edited by Sandy Larsen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul Trejo is congenitally incapable of putting forth an honest argument; he merely invents things that are pleasing to him, then hopes he doesn’t get called out for his inventions.

This all started because Paul said Oswald’s fellow tenants called police to complain Oswald beat his wife.  It was a Trejo invention.  No such instance occurred, nor could Trejo provide proof that it had.  But then proof and truth are unnecessary in his protocols.

Then the accuser switched gears.  In the absence of tenants who called police, there were witnesses to Oswald beating his wife who DIDN’T call the police.

Per Trejo's fevered imagination, there were seven eye-witnesses to Oswald beating Marina, then it was 12 and then it ballooned to 19.  It was like witnessing a modern-day Joe McCarthy swelling the numbers of imaginary Communists in the state department; the number being fluid, so long as it kept heading upward.

19?

Surely, so many people must provide definitive proof that Oswald beat his wife.

Except that Trejo now wishes to rescind the bulk of the 19 as though he didn’t name them to begin with.  This, from last Wednesday in this thread:

“2.  The seven people I QUOTED were Eye-Witnesses ONLY.  That's why I neglected all the others.   (RC Dunne named 12 non-eye-witnesses, wasting our time, plus he omitted Marguerite).

Tidy.  Except it wasn’t me who omitted Oswald’s mother.  Paul Trejo neglected to include her on HIS list of 19 witnesses.

It is also a blatant falsehood that I invented a dozen unimportant witnesses to “waste our time.”   As even the least literate among us could perceive had they only done what Trejo didn’t: remember to read the very intro to my original takedown of his so called “witnesses.”  It can be found on the first page of this thread:

“Just to bring this thread back to the topic on which it started, Paul Trejo has now had some days to provide what he claims to have in abundance, the witness testimony that Lee Oswald beat his wife.  With nineteen people cited, he should have had little difficulty in doing so, yet his streak of failing to provide compelling evidence for his contentions continues unblemished.  In fact, he now seems to deny that the onus of providing proof for his contentions resides with him.  It is now our job to do his homework for him.

Instead, Paul has given us a list of people who presumably testified to that effect, and the Commission volume in which it could be located, but not the testimony itself.  This is akin to a lawyer standing up in court, naming the nineteen witnesses who have critical information, listing their addresses, yet then failing to call any one of them to the stand.”

It is because Trejo named 19 witnesses, without troubling himself to recount what they had testified to, that I took the testimony of each and rubbed Trejo’s face in the testimony they did NOT provide.

Now he’d like to deny having proffered those witnesses, for reasons even the slowest Forum member could discern..

The man is as dishonest as he is ill-equipped to debate with others here.

That such undiluted idiocy still appears here only diminishes the stature of the Forum.

 

Edited by Robert Charles-Dunne

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Robert Charles-Dunne said:

The man is as dishonest as he is ill-equipped to debate with others here.

That such undiluted idiocy still appears here only diminishes the stature of the Forum.

Yet another voice of respected reason calling PT out for what he is and has always been...  the starting initials for a 3 ring circus...

 

Paul hasn't the ability to grasp even the smallest aspect of social grace or forum etiquette.   He then posts pure unsupported opinion which he acknowledges as such, yet when shown the falseness of the underlying assumptions backing the opinion... he makes no adjustment other than to dig the heels in further...

Sadly those with this type of "ailment" are completely without self-awareness... they can't comprehend that what their doing is obviously and easily seen for the sham it remains yet cannot seem to help themselves from stopping or adjusting the approach.

Paul will continue to bang away at the keyboard happy in the fact his posts create such a stir... really the only way for him to garner any attention... at least as he remains so wrong, other members will interact with him...  

He serves as a good learning experience for the patience needed to suffer fools...

Edited by David Josephs

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

×