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

55 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

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

Michael,

I believe this is one-sided thinking.   It's not that somebody else shot JFK, and so LHO must be a choir boy.   LHO was part of the plot to kill JFK, even if LHO was only a Patsy, and foolishly handed over his rifle to them.

It's not a Black and White question.  LHO was dirty.  He was in the mix.  A conspiracy consists of MANY people.  If you want to find them, then you also need to find out the people that LHO was associating with in the summer of 1963.

Come on -- this is Jim Garrison 101.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo\

Share this post


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

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


Thanks for your response, Michael.

No, I don't mind your pointing out that in other threads (particularly those I created) I often am trying to make a case. As I said earlier, I am one who tests hypothesis after hypothesis. And while it is true that I often defend my position vigorously, I do so because I feel  the counter-arguments are weak. When an "opponent" of my hypothesis has a good counterargument, I will readily acknowledge it.

However, what is usually the case is that different people have fundamental differences in the ways they view the case and the evidence. For example, Pat Speer places a great deal of importance on the physical evidence (at least in the case of JFK's wounds), whereas I believe those things are prone to alteration, and so I believe eyewitness testimony trumps the physical evidence when there is a good deal of it.

I'm finding that there is no end to the debating when fundamental beliefs like these are infringed upon  by the premise of the hypothesis. It probably would be best for people who can't accept the premise of a hypothesis to steer clear of debating it.

 

Edited by Sandy Larsen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/24/2017 at 5:34 PM, Michael Walton said:

Paul Trejo has this crazy theory - and he continues to push it to sell his books - that Ed Walker planned the murder with Oswald. So therefore to keep this crazy house of cards theory propped up, he's going to post stuff that's negative to Oswald, that he beat his wife.

But watch Mad Men season 4, episode 3 and you'll see the assassination weekend unfold. Yes, it's a fictional show but they use actual TV footage to tell the story. And the tour de force clip is the little one shot in the hall way of the Dallas police station. It's all you need to know about Trejo's silly theory.

Michael,

May I ask you, sincerely -- what is your opinion of James Di Eugenio's writings about the JFK assassination?

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours 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.

 

Paul:

 

Yes that definitely seems to have been the track taken by the FBI, SS and the WC.  To create a violent character when actually Oswald was not.

Isn't it incredible how Marina went along with this?  With the whole Nixon assassination thing, which not even the the WC went along with.  And the plane hijacking, where she was supposed to hold a weapon to cover for Lee. :lol:  I mean really, how did these guys keep a straight face rehearsing her on this absolute crap?

But that was the agenda. Turn Oswald into a sociopath. That is what Liebeler was working on in his cabin there in Vermont.  He got so hard up he called his brother and begged him for some help.  I guess he did not know that Marina was coming to the rescue.  Either that or she goes back to Russia.

What a way to run an investigation eh?

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Paul Brancato said:

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. 


Paul,

Thank you for your vote of confidence.

You may have noticed that I have a good deal of self confidence, and indeed I've been accused of being a know-it-all. Truth is, most the topics on this board are far beyond my level of understanding. I mean, understanding with confidence. I stick to those things that I feel confident about. At least in terms of participating.

I can tell by reading the other topics that some of you guys are very well read. And I am impressed by it. I'm not much of a reader myself. If something interests me, I'll bone up on it.

I tried reading the Colonels thread and didn't feel comfortable with it at all. I have no military experience or knowledge. I don't know who the guys are that are talked about on the thread. I didn't even know there was suspicion of colonels' involvement in the assassination plot.... or that there was any interest in this inquiry.

I will make one comment on that topic. I believe the whole operation incorporated principles of compartmentalization and need-to-know. And I can't think of any reason why the assassination plotters would want to involve colonels. They would be of no use doing the dirty work, and there are far too many to be of use as managers. It seems that the only thing that could come out of involving the colonels would be a greater chance of security leaks.

Having said that... I suspect I don't really understand the Colonels concept, and that what I just said doesn't really apply.

Edited by Sandy Larsen

Share this post


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

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.

Oh I can assure you that I didn't 'fall for it', and that should have been already (partially) evidenced by when I posted the part of Anna Meller's testimony that Robert hadn't put in his list.

I think you might have missed my point from the totality of my earlier comment, which to be fair, was my fault as I 'underplayed' my point somewhat...

Quote

One major issue though is, by the very nature of what 'domestic abuse' is, the likliehood of there being 'independent, first hand witnesses' to it are somewhat remote.

Next there is 'second hand 'witnesses' - ones who are maybe told (either directly or indirectly) by the 'victim or 'see' the results... then there is the 3rd/4th/5th hand 'witnesses' who have heard rumours or have spread the gossip, what they say is 'hearsay'.

But anyway,

of course I wasn't around back then, so forgive me for not being up to speed on everything. ;) In the last day however I have started doing my own digging around all these 'witnesses' and, as I said earlier;

Quote

It seems to me that there are certainly 'tantalising' glimpses of things that could add up to a certain amount of 'abuse' happening between Oswald and Marina, but not enough to call him a 'wife beater'... From what I have gathered thus far from my own research is one person saying they witnessed Oswald be slapped twice and a couple of others who were witnesses to 'bruises'.

Perhaps I should have clarified more... but there is a reason I put 'wife beater' in single quotation marks. ;)

As you know there is a lot of things to get through and it takes a bit of time to read through all the testimony of all the people, I'm not all the way through yet. I will say though, I have come across many interesting things about some of these people (including ones not on Robert's list of 19).

But yeah, anyway, I can assure you that I didn't 'fall for it'.

Regards

P.S. let me know the name of the 7 you have (privately if need be) just in case I have missed one of them. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sandy - 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.

This is exactly what I mean.  There's a lot of good stuff in that PDF that talks about how it was the White Russians' main mission to paint Oswald in a bad light.  As Paul B said, he was pretty much tried in absentia and because he couldn't defend himself, well, it's pretty easy to paint a person as a wife beater, loner, and all-around crazy kid who wanted to kill Kennedy.

But as it goes on this forum, no one wants to listen to reason or they have their own agenda and just blindly keep posting away without considering the well-written PDF and other alternative thoughts.

Mike Clark - hard on.

No hard ons here for Sandy or anyone.  But if you took the time to read other people's posts here, you'll find some pretty crazy ideas that have no basis for reason or plausibility.  There was one post where SL and I debated whether the guy on the steps had his arms crossed or was clapping.  It's obvious to *anyone* that he's clapping but not to SL.  Then I guess he saw the light and posted one of those "stick your tongue out" icons.  I guess that was his way of acknowledging he was wrong.

Paul - thoughts on Jim DiEugenio.

My thoughts are this - Lee Oswald was a low-level Marine.  Somehow, he got trained to speak Russian, was working on that base in Japan where U-2 flights took place, got involved in intelligence, was sent to Russia on some kind of mission (perhaps to sniff out a mole), got married to a Russian girl after only knowing her for six days, came back easily to the U.S. with his Russian wife - all during one of the hottest periods of the Cold War. Not a peep from the Russian or U.S. governments.

Then he's involved with many people with dubious credentials - the White Russian community, the Paines, and so on.  I mean you have to ask yourself - what are the odds of this happening to a low-level ex-Marine?  But that's the problem.  No one ever seems to ask that because they're too wrapped up in their own theories.  I mean think about it - George DeM, Ruth Paine, and all of the others listed in that PDF I posted earlier.  It goes beyond any reasonable and rational thought for one man to get to know *that many* people tied together into that WR community, as well as someone like the Paines who had CIA connections.

As a comparison, think of Tim McVeigh, who I often like to compare with Oswald. He knew that guy out on his farm to help him build the bomb.  I think he knew one other person in the white supremacist movement, but he really and truly was a loner, the same type of "loner" the WC has always tried to make LHO out to be.

But to have the connections Oswald had - he even knew a person who just so happened to be Ruby's neighbor, for god's sake - it just flies in the face of real-world reality.

Only people with government connections could have pulled this off as well as the cover-up.  We should all know that if the government really and truly was vigorously pursuing the truth of this case, they would have flushed these people out immediately.  But everyone had their marching orders the minute Kennedy was pronounced dead and the K memo pretty much shows what those marching orders were going to be.

Now compare this with your theory - the only thing I'll give you about your theory is yes, there were a lot of people, more than we will ever know, who hated Kennedy with a passion, just like there are people today who hate Trump and hated Obama. But there's no proof that Oswald hated Kennedy and his actions completely fly in the face of your theory of being mixed up with Ed Walker.

As I said, read the PDF and the long laundry list of White Russians he was involved in and the actions they took - Paine and others streering him around to keep him employed and other things and so on.

Meanwhile, there was NO plot to kill John Kennedy in 1960.  It's silly to think that and the reason is simple - the people who were really running the government had every reason to believe he'd "collapse" and do their bidding when they wanted him to.  Like at the BOP and later during the CMC. But they found out he was NOT going to do what they wanted him to do. And then his AU speech about reaching out to Russia and secretly with Cuba was, IMO, the last straw for them. Dulles, even after being fired, was running xxxx from the Farm so is it any surprise that the fox was guarding the hen house when the WC was started?  In my mind, that was the ultimate betrayal to bring him back to the WC and I also think it's one of the most revealing moments as well in this whole mess.

And what was Dulles' quote about JFK after his death? "That Kennedy fellow really thought he was going to run the government."

And I can't emphasize enough what Oswald said in the hallway, his little short and sweet impromptu statement, with no fillers, no scribbled or dubious notes by police officers, but his actual words. "The only reason I'm here is because I lived in Russia. No sir I did not shoot the president.  I'm a patsy." A word that, to be honest, speaks volumes not only because of its meaning but because how could a low-level "nobody" even know the meaning of that word?  As a comparison, do you think Lovelady or Frazier or any of the other blue collars he worked with - or even my Dad who also worked on the shipping docks 1,000 miles a way from Dallas - would even know the meaning of that word?

And then just take that word and tie it all together with the above, the W Russian people he was tangled up with, the handing out of leaflets in NO, his TV interview in NO (you can almost see his slight smile as he's telling his beliefs in that interview), and so on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul Trejo is either illiterate, a fool or a xxxx, or perhaps all three.

To wit, we now have a desperate gambit by Trejo in which he claims I picked a dozen irrelevant witnesses, and ignored the seven witnesses he thinks germane.

Had he read the beginning of the post that has him so rankled, he would have seen:

“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:”

Illiterate, fool or xxxx?

I’ll let readers here decide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Robert Charles-Dunne said:

Paul Trejo is either illiterate, a fool or a xxxx, or perhaps all three.

To wit, we now have a desperate gambit by Trejo in which he claims I picked a dozen irrelevant witnesses, and ignored the seven witnesses he thinks germane.

Had he read the beginning of the post that has him so rankled, he would have seen:

“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:”

Illiterate, fool or xxxx?

I’ll let readers here decide.

Hi, Robert....

Good to see you posting again!  I'm still waiting for Mr. Trejo to make good counters to my following list.  He tried once but failed miserably.  He'll probably want to try again, since he goes to such links to defend the CIA at almost every opportunity.


21 Facts Indicating ”Lee Harvey Oswald” was a CIA Agent

1. CIA accountant James Wilcott said he made payments to an encrypted account for “Oswald or the Oswald Project.”

2. Antonio Veciana said he saw LHO meeting with CIA’s Maurice Bishop/David Atlee Phillips in Dallas in August 1963.

3. A 1978 CIA memo indicates that a CIA operations officer “had run an agent into the USSR, that man having met a Russian girl and eventually marrying her,” a case very similar to Oswald’s and clearly indicating that the Agency ran a “false defector” program in the 1950s.

4. Robert Webster and LHO "defected" a few months apart in 1959, both tried to "defect" on a Saturday, both possessed "sensitive" information of possible value to the Russians, both were befriended by Marina Prusakova, and both returned to the United States in the spring of 1962.

5. Richard Sprague, Richard Schweiker, and CIA agents Donald Norton and Joseph Newbrough all said LHO was associated with the CIA. 

6. CIA employee Donald Deneslya said he read reports of a CIA agent who had worked at a radio factory in Minsk and returned to the US with a Russian wife and child.

7. Kenneth Porter, employee of CIA-connected Collins Radio, left his family to marry (and no doubt monitor) Marina Oswald after LHO’s death.

8. George Joannides, case officer and paymaster for DRE (which LHO had attempted to infiltrate) was put in charge of lying to the HSCA and never told them of his relationship to DRE.

9. For his achievements, Joannides was given a medal by the CIA.

10. FBI took Oswald off the watch list at the same time a CIA cable gave him a clean bill of political health, weeks after Oswald’s New Orleans arrest and less than two months before the assassination.

11. Oswald’s lengthy “Lives of Russian Workers” essay reads like a pretty good intelligence report.

12. Oswald’s possessions were searched for microdots.

13. Oswald owned an expensive Minox spy camera, which the FBI tried to make disappear.

14. Even the official cover story of the radar operator near American U-2 planes defecting to Russia, saying he would give away all his secrets, and returning home without penalty smells like a spy story.

15. CIA Richard Case Nagell clearly knew about the plot to assassinate JFK and LHO’s relation to it, but the CIA ignored his warnings.

16. LHO always seemed poor as a church mouse, until it was time to go “on assignment.”  For his Russian adventure, we’re to believe he saved all the money he needed for first class European hotels and private tour guides in Moscow from the non-convertible USMC script he saved. In the summer of 1963, he once again seemed to have enough money to travel abroad to Communist nations.

17. To this day, the CIA claims it never interacted with Oswald, that it didn’t even bother debriefing him after the “defection.” What utter bs….

18. After he “defected” to the Soviet Union in 1959, bragging to U.S. embassy personnel in Moscow that he would tell the Russians everything he knew about U.S. military secrets, he returns to the U.S. without punishment and is then in 1963 given the OK to travel to Cuba and the Soviet Union again!

19. Allen Dulles, the CIA director fired by JFK, and the Warren Commission clearly wanted the truth hidden from the public to protect sources and methods of intelligence agencies such as the CIA. Earl Warren said, “Full disclosure was not possible for reasons of national security.”

20. In 1978, the government of Cuba announced that “Lee Harvey Oswald” was a “CIA AGENT.”

21. President Kennedy and the CIA clearly were at war with each other in the weeks immediately before his assassination, and “Oswald” was the CIA’s pawn.

Krock_CIA.jpeg?dl=0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jim H - 21 Reasons....

Yes, and all of that too.  I mean again, we're getting into one-billion-to-1 odds here.  All of the stuff in that PDF I posted, as well as these 21 Reasons happening to one single ex-Marine hopping around from job to job, living in different rooming houses with a Russian wife, a baby, and one on the way.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it's...a cow?

No way.  Anyone who thinks it is a cow is either loony or too blind to see the truth.

Is it any wonder he had to go, especially after playing it coy at the midnight press conference but speaking far more truthful at the little impromptu in the hallway, saying "Now everyone will know who I am" and going into quite a bit of detail about the fake backyard photos?

[Jim H - thanks for posting your 21 Reasons]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul Trejo - believing Oswald innocent of the crime is not the same as believing he was a 'choir boy'. Oswald calling himself a 'patsy' does not prove his involvement in the plot. You are free to have your opinions, but not to twist others opinions with characterizations of them that are derogatory and inaccurate. Hargrove, Walton and others like myself think Oswald was working for US Intel, and not a choir boy. We choose to view his interactions with intelligence figures as something other than as a plotter.

Clark - wet blanket is a phrase I used to suggest that it's a waste of time for me and maybe others who agree with me that Oswald was innocent to defend his character. Yes, I choose, like DiEugenio said, to view the incriminations of Oswald's character as elements of a wider plot to convict him in absentia. But even if it was conclusively proved that he beat Marina, it would not alter my position on his guilt or innocence. So without regret I view debating this as a waste of time. It doesn't clarify anything for me. If others enjoy debating his wife beating that's fine. But I think it's good to remind everyone that it is immaterial.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Robert:

Great to see that post by you above.

I really hope you stick around.  We also cross posted your analysis of Trejo's 19 at Kennedysandking.com, hope that is OK with you;  did not know how to contact you to get your approval in advance.

 

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would someone please share if Ruth Paine or Robert Oswald ever commented on whether they personally heard ( directly from Marina ) or saw anything regarding Oswald being physically abusive toward Marina?

Were they ever asked this question under oath?

Has anyone dared to ask Marina Porter this question since the 1960s?  Is this a question Marina would never respond to?

What is the general take of Robert Dunn proponents on Oswald's mother's statement of seeing Marina with the black eye and upon Oswald's mother asking her about it, Marina saying to her "Mama-Lee."?  Do they believe her recollection of this is totally true, partially true, untrue, exaggerated, made up?

Marguerite Oswald was a serious mental case in so many ways, but that fact alone is not enough to discount every story she related as mostly untrue.

I must say that I don't quite get the emphasis on the testimony ( by people we know for a fact personally met, knew and interacted with the Oswalds in person ) that Lee Oswald's reported physical abuse toward Marina as part of a purposeful and planned campaign of Oswald demonizing as more weighty and important perhaps than these same witnesses all saying that they never heard Oswald ever say anything bad or express any hostility, hatred or anger about JFK.

Oswald did express hostility toward at least one well known political figure - General Walker. 

And Oswald's stated hostility toward Walker specifically does add some reasonable weight to the proposition that he probably was in on the Walker shooting,

I get that rational.  But that same rational doesn't exist with Oswald/JFK motivation subject.

I don't recall anyone who ever interacted with Oswald say under oath or not under oath that he ever expressed similar feelings toward JFK. 

Oswald's treatment of Marina good or bad or even violent at times in and of itself never equated to me that this made him anymore prone to shooting JFK.

One would think that if these White Russians who testified about Lee Oswald abusing his wife as much as they said he did were doing so with a planned purpose of painting Oswald's public image with much more violence prone color that they would have chosen another more effecting color subject..

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I must say that I don't quite get the emphasis on the testimony ( by people we know for a fact personally met, knew and interacted with the Oswalds in person ) t

Did you even bother to read the PDF I posted earlier?

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

×