Edwin Walker

[Guest Tom Scully]

Paul, I haven't joined any team, I'm not the member of any gang, and I'm not anyone's follower. All terms you have used to label me.

I was critical of you long before this recent firestorm that you have brought on yourself.

It was on the Terry, Mississippi thread, where I discovered that you were not really interested in sound arguments.

I never claimed I criticized you only once. Robert Charles-Dunne was right about your reading skills.

Michael, nobody cares about your personal issues. This is a thread about Edwin Walker. Do you have anything at all to say about the role of Edwin Walker in the assassination of JFK? If so, please make that contribution. Please. Pretty please.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

I am sorry, Michael. Paul only accepts "hard evidence." If Paul posts we are all part of a bunch cobbled together by Lee Farley, what other explanation could there reasonably be?

BTW Michael, how long is "long"? Can we find one of your old posts older than this?

1

I'm hoping the dramatic progression in the resoluteness of Paul's opinions is more due to his writing style and my interpretation than it actually is to strong conclusions he has formed.

I read his posts since early spring and my first reaction is to post replies, but I don't because I don't get the impression anything I put in a post will lessen his resolve. His mind seems made up about so many details. The Gerald Ford presidency, to name one example, should be enough, in its intricacy and circumstances, to give him pause but I do not see where this even enters into his conclusions, if they are conclusions.

Ford was unelected as either V.P. or as POTUS. He had been a partner of Robert Douglas Stuart, Jr, in the AFC in 1940, and as a member of the WC, we now know he was the eyes and ears of DeLoach and Hoover, down to carrying a secret FBI briefcase......

.....and the above associations cannot be divorced from a serious appraisal of DeMohrenschildt, but Paul has done it. The firmness and swiftness of Paul's resoluteness is even more surprising because the proof he provides for his conclusions about Walker's relevance is not voluminous or particularly persuasive, especially related to the alleged shooting, did Paul's co-shooters give Oswald and his rifle rides to and from, lack of forensic evidence, etc...? ...... and he seems to have dismissed Jim Root's impressive research on the airline flight Walker and Oswald may have shared in Europe.

As in the example of my references about Gerald Ford, et al, posed as questions and observations, rather as anything presented as a whodunnit solution, if we are misinterpreting Paul's points as being conclusions, than he only needs to consider adjustments in his presentation to set readers straight about his flexibility.

No "bunch" working under the direction of Lee Farley, Paul. Just individual members using our posting privilege here to speak for the thousands who have read your posts and are unable to post the obvious. Ralph Cinque is permitted to post at alt.assassination.jfk, why not give it a try?

Somewhere out there is an audience for your writing who will receive it well. Somewhere, but obviously, not here.

[Michael Hogan]

Paul, I haven't joined any team, I'm not the member of any gang, and I'm not anyone's follower. All terms you have used to label me.

I was critical of you long before this recent firestorm that you have brought on yourself.

It was on the Terry, Mississippi thread, where I discovered that you were not really interested in sound arguments.

I never claimed I criticized you only once. Robert Charles-Dunne was right about your reading skills.

Michael, nobody cares about your personal issues. This is a thread about Edwin Walker. Do you have anything at all to say about the role of Edwin Walker in the assassination of JFK? If so, please make that contribution. Please. Pretty please.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2544&p=273762

[Paul Trejo]

No "bunch" working under the direction of Lee Farley, Paul. Just individual members using our posting privilege here to speak for the thousands who have read your posts and are unable to post the obvious. Ralph Cinque is permitted to post at alt.assassination.jfk, why not give it a try?

Somewhere out there is an audience for your writing who will receive it well. Somewhere, but obviously, not here.

Not so, Tom. Lots of people give me positive encouragement on this Forum. Lots of 'em. Only a few bunch together and spit spitballs.

ANYWAY -- back to this interesting thread by Jim Root!

The Edwin Walker issue is fascinating because the Warren Commission records name him more than 700 times -- and yet Edwin Walker is all but forgotten today. Only Jim Root's thread, Harry Dean's memoirs, and my banging the drum at www.pet880.com with Walker's personal papers seem to keep the topic moving these days.

Yet in 1963, just minutes after Lee Harvey Oswald was arrested, Bernard Weissman, chairman of the CUSA Dallas front group, American Fact-Finding Committee, said to Larrie Schmidt, "I hope he is not a member of the Walker group." Something like that -- "I hope he is not one of Walker's boys."

Bernie Weissman was terrified because it was his name on the black-bordered ad that the John Birch Society put out inside the Dallas Morning News on 22 November 1963 that began with the snide remark, "Welcome MISTER Kennedy," followed by 12 insults disguised as questions, and signed by "Bernard Weissman, Chairman, American Fact-Finding Committee."

That ad was clearly right-wing and inflammatory, accusing JFK of treasonous acts of Communist collaboration. That was what the John Birch Society preached. That was what General Walker had preached for all of 1962, up to the day that he led a massive race riot at Ole Miss University, in which hundreds were wounded and two were killed (just to keep one Black American student, James Meredith, from attending).

For the John Birch Society, it was JFK and the Communists who were responsible for that race riot. Their hatred of JFK was matched only by the hatred of the KKK and the White Citizens' Councils of the Deep South. In fact, ex-General Walker was a frequent speaker for the White Citizens' Councils, and even appeared on TV with them:

Here is some footage...Part One: youtube.com/watch?v=ZeQKuJTJi48

Here is more footage...Part Two: youtube.com/watch?v=Y9yUW019xoA

This is what Bernie Weissman recalled under oath about those days before the JFK assassination: "...As a matter of fact, I was pretty worried about [Larrie's] brother becoming involved with General Walker, and I thought it might give us a black eye."

It appears to me that Bernard Weissman was the most politically astute member of CUSA -- far more than the founder, Larrie Schmidt, who today appears to me to have been a political neophyte.

Readers seem to forget that Bernie had arrived in Dallas only 18 days before the black-bordered ad appeared in the Dallas Morning News. Before that he was a starving Encyclopedia salesman in New Jersey. He came to Dallas because Larrie Schmidt had boasted about how powerful he was becoming in Dallas politics. It seemed to Bernie that Larrie Schmidt had organized the humiliation of UN Ambassador Adlai Stevenson on 24 October 1963 (but actually it was ex-General Walker who organized that humiliation, and Larrie was merely on the sidelines - taken by surprise).

Also, Bernie was talked into signing his name to the ad -- he didn't write the ad (although he did approve it, and he did select a thicker black border). Larrie Schmidt convinced Bernie that his political career would be "launched" by this ad.

Nor was Bernie Weissman the only American who suspected Edwin Walker of plotting to kill JFK on 22 November 1963. Lots of people did. (I remember now that Michael Hogan did submit a useful post naming one news reporter in Dallas who, just minutes after the JFK killing, made a bee-line to Edwin Walker's home in Dallas for immediate questioning. Walker was in Louisiana at the time.)

So -- these are only a few of the issues that bring Edwin Walker front and center for our questions on this, the 50th anniversary year of the murder of JFK.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited May 17, 2013 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

Marina Oswald in the time period of 1963-1964 was an epic xxxx, a scared, terrified and controlled tool of US intelligence who had enveloped her. Marina Oswald in 1963 was age 22, with a baby and a todler, no money and could not speak English well, while at the same time the entire national media and the government was saying that her husband had murdered the president of the United States in one of the biggest crimes of the American century.

Marina Oswald in the immediate wake of the JFK assassination was a marionette doll for US intelligence and would say anything they bullied/suggested that she say. She is not reliable.

I spoke to Hugh Aynesworth a few years ago and asked "Did you get the story of Oswald wanting to shoot at Nixon from Marina" or had you heard about it from some other source. Aynesworth actually told me that he had gotten that story first from some other source than Marina Oswald. Most likely a black propaganda lie created by US intelligence in the wake of the JFK assassination, just a way of slandering Oswald posthumously...

Marina Oswald today thinks Oswald was not involved in the JFK assassination, and free from the intimidation of the net of US intelligence she has changed her tune dramatically. (I personally think Oswald was in some way involved in the JFK assassination precisely *because* he was US intelligence.)

Marina Oswald's warped and coerced and even forged and twisted statements of the 1963-64 time period simply cannot be trusted, especially those that support the US governments false narrative of a lone nutter killing John Kennedy.

Robert, you're well-read on this topic, and I agree with much of what you write -- and yet you remain biased about some key elements and we agree to disagree on those issues.

The two key issues about which we disagree are: (1) that Marina Oswald told the truth when she was under oath; and (2) that although LBJ masterminded the coverup of the JFK murder, nevertheless he did not lead the conspiracy to kill JFK.

You were kind enough to invite me to this Forum, and I'm grateful for that -- and I'll continue to show my gratitude in honesty about our disagreements. I will always share my honest opinion, as you will share yours.

So, let's look again at your rationale for calling Marina Oswald "an epic xxxx." You reason that Marina was "scared, terrified" and that she was a "controlled tool of US intelligence who had enveloped her."

Yet in actual fact, when the FBI and Secret Service "enveloped" Marina, her first response was simply to deny everything -- everything. No this. No that. No the other. No, no, no.

Of course, Marina wasn't under oath when she was bombarded with a hundred questions from the FBI and Secret Service. But she wasn't their "controlled tool," either.

In fact, it was precisely all these denials that formed the core of the HSCA document of ~100 places where Marina allegedly "contradicted herself." But that document is a living joke. That lame HSCA document made famous by Tom Anderson was largely a comparison of Marina's sworn testimony (in which she told the truth) with places where that sworn testimony directly contradicted her blanket denials that she told the FBI and Secret Service when she was first detained.

Then, a secondary source of so-called "contradictions" in Marina's testimony, said the HSCA, was the novel written by Priscilla Johnson, Marina and Lee (1977), which told Marina's Warren Commission story in the melodramatic and romanticized prose of Priscilla Johnson. That's a totally lame-ass comparison; completely bankrupt. Using a novel written by a third party to find "contradictions" in Marina's sworn testimony? C'mon!

My claim -- and I've studied this for a long time -- is that when we only take Marina's sworn testimony, that she made under oath -- Marina is fully consistent. Furthermore -- and this is important -- Marina never contradicted her sworn testimony to this very day.

Now -- one might try to claim that she said in 1964 that Lee Oswald killed JFK, but today she says Lee Oswald didn't kill JFK -- so isn't that a contradiction? No, because that abstraction leaves out the nuances. What Marina actually said in 1964 was (I paraphrase) based on the data she was allowed to see in 1964, she had to conclude that Lee Oswald killed JFK, but if she had more information she might have a different opinion. That's what she really said.

That's why, all these decades later, after Marina Oswald Porter was able to recieve lots more data, she came to a different conclusion. So, you see, there really is no contradiction at all in Marina's story from 1964 until today.

Robert, you somehow believe that Marina was a terrified little mouse who didn't want to be deported, so she would be motivated to lie without shame. But this is only your hunch. You haven't provided any material evidence.

I know that many on this Forum who push the "Marina lied" theory will cite that pathetic HSCA document as their "solid" evidence -- but that document is as wispy as a dandelion. One little touch and it crumbles.

Marina told the truth. That's what the material evidence -- the sworn testimony -- shows over and over.

Now -- what does this have to do with Edwin Walker? Everybody knows this one -- Marina is our principal source that Oswald was the shooter at ex-General Edwin Walker on 10 April 1963. Right?

Now -- just like the "innocent victim" theories of Lee Harvey Oswald have violently rejected the idea that Lee Oswald beat Marina, they will at least as violently reject the idea that Lee Oswald tried to kill General Walker. They mistakenly believe that it lends credence to the claim that Lee Oswald killed JFK. But that is simply an error. There is no material connection.

Besides -- as the Briscoe Center's personal papers of Edwin Walker show -- Edwin Walker announced that Lee Oswald was his shooter only 18 hours after JFK was killed. This was in his phone conversation to the Deutsche Nationalzeitung on the early morning of 23 November 1963. Here's a URL: pet880.com/images/19631129_Deutsche_NZ.jpg

That's material evidence. And now compare that with this well known fact: Marina Oswald announced it to the FBI ten days later.

The material evidence against Edwin Walker continues to mount. And coincidentally, it actually supports the testimony of Marina Oswald.

Robert, I know that you and I also firmly agree that H.L. Hunt along with the right-wing in Dallas were up to their necks in the JFK assassination. This is one of the issues upon which we have amiably agreed for a long time. But I will continue to struggle to show that Edwin Walker was the center of that cyclone -- not LBJ.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited May 17, 2013 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Brancato]

Paul T - how do you explain the fact that the German newspaper article you link was published on Nov 29?

[Paul Brancato]

Paul T - I have read your explanation of why the apparent contradictions in Marina's testimony don't hold up under scrutiny. However, why do you make such a clear distinction between sworn and unsworn testimony? One could argue that by the time she was giving sworn testimony she had been compromised, and was saying what she thought her interrogators wanted to hear. Wasn't she kept confined for several weeks without access to her own friends and surrounded by national security types and a translator supplied by Jack Crichton, a military intelligence agent? Its been a while since I have looked at this period, so if my memory is faulty on her confinement or lack of access please feel free to correct me,

Edited May 17, 2013 by Paul Brancato

[Guest Robert Morrow]

Trejo: "Robert, you somehow believe that Marina was a terrified little mouse who didn't want to be deported, so she would be motivated to lie without shame. But this is only your hunch. You haven't provided any material evidence."

No, I think Marina of 1963-1964 was a terrified little mouse who did not want to be murdered. She was a marionette doll for US intelligence and by the time she was under oath they had her controlled.

It is very hard to tell what Marina is telling the truth about and what she is parroting for US intelligence, the murderers of JFK, in this time period.

Marina Oswald to Jesse Ventura in 2010:

“Would you sacrifice your children for the truth?” – Marina Oswald to Jesse Ventura in 2010

[Paul Trejo]

Paul T - how do you explain the fact that the German newspaper article you link was published on Nov 29?

The explanation, Paul B., is that the Deutsche Nationalzeitung printed its story in its Friday 29 November 1963 issue. (This would have been its weekend issue, I believe.)

Yet Walker's story was taken from a conversation around 7AM on 23 November 1963, because the full story reported that as the date and time of the interview. (The full story can be read today on the Mary Ferrell Foundation web site).

Even so, this account of Lee Oswald being Walker's shooter precedes Marina's report to the FBI on the 2nd of December, 1963. That's why the Warren Commission asked ex-General Walker about it. The FBI had even traced the phone records of this call. (The German equivalent of the FBI got involved in Germany, as well, and fully grilled the reporter. That is also found in the Mary Ferrell Foundation web site.)

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited May 18, 2013 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

Paul T - I have read your explanation of why the apparent contradictions in Marina's testimony don't hold up under scrutiny. However, why do you make such a clear distinction between sworn and unsworn testimony? One could argue that by the time she was giving sworn testimony she had been compromised, and was saying what she thought her interrogators wanted to hear. Wasn't she kept confined for several weeks without access to her own friends and surrounded by national security types and a translator supplied by Jack Crichton, a military intelligence agent? Its been a while since I have looked at this period, so if my memory is faulty on her confinement or lack of access please feel free to correct me,

Paul B., the distinction between sworn and unsworn testimony is a legal distinction. People can be charged with perjury for false statements made under oath -- and the penalties are severe. These penalties don't apply to unsworn statements.

From a legal standpoint, therefore, statements that have have not been found to be perjury are treated as facts by the court. The court refuses to treat unsworn statements as facts. That's my understanding of how our legal system works.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited May 18, 2013 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

Trejo: "Robert, you somehow believe that Marina was a terrified little mouse who didn't want to be deported, so she would be motivated to lie without shame. But this is only your hunch. You haven't provided any material evidence."

No, I think Marina of 1963-1964 was a terrified little mouse who did not want to be murdered. She was a marionette doll for US intelligence and by the time she was under oath they had her controlled.

It is very hard to tell what Marina is telling the truth about and what she is parroting for US intelligence, the murderers of JFK, in this time period.

Marina Oswald to Jesse Ventura in 2010:

“Would you sacrifice your children for the truth?” – Marina Oswald to Jesse Ventura in 2010

Well, Robert, that quotation from Marina may support your hunch, but it remains a hunch. Marina did not say anything like, "If I tell you the truth the CIA will kill my children."

Also, as I remember Jesse Ventura's reply to Marina Oswald Porter, he replied: "Marina, I'm a trained Navy Seal -- and Seals aren't afraid of anything or anyone." For that answer of courage, Marina granted Jesse Ventura the interview he was seeking.

Also, as I remember Jesse Ventura's report -- Marina did not give him one new fact that wasn't already in the Warren report. All she did was confirm her older testimony, and add her new opinions based on new information she received in the past 50 years, namely, that Lee Harvey Oswald HAD ACCOMPLICES.

In my view, Marina Oswald was RIGHT, and so were Sylvia Odio and Harry Dean and Gerry Patrick Hemming, all of whom said exactly the same thing: Oswald HAD ACCOMPLICES.

It is up to us today, IMHO, to identify those accomplices with material evidence. It's been fifty years -- the days of hunches are officially over.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos, with thanks to Mark Knight>

Edited May 19, 2013 by Paul Trejo

[Guest Robert Morrow]

Marina Oswald was a controlled and terrified little mouse in 1963-64 and I think that quote confirms it. As to the truth of her testimony then, let others be the judge.

[Mark Knight]

The U.S. Army doesn't have SEALs....the NAVY does.

If you're going to use quotation marks, make sure your quotes are accurate. I don't care if it IS your best recollection, to not know that the Army has Special Forces and Green Berets, while the SEALs belong to the Navy, demonstrates your lack of commitment to accuracy.

My college training was in journalism. Back then, when accuracy in reporting was the standard, if we didn't know something, we looked it up. And you have the entire vast World-Wide Web at your disposal, something we didn't have in 1974.

I spend a lot of time on the Internet. Even though I'm not in journalism, I still research my claims, to be able to back them up. I probably spend more time doing research than actually writing anything.

Why do I do this? Because being wrong hurts my credibility. And if I'm wrong over and over and over again, I suddenly have NO credibility. Ever hear the phrase, "Mind the pennies, and the dollars will take care of themselves"?? Facts work the same way. Keep ALL the little things straight, and the big things will "magically" be accurate as well.

I'm beginning to see a pattern here. NO neighbor phoned the police to report Lee Oswald for beating his wife. And when A "police agency" was informed that Lee Oswald "probably" was a wife beater, it turns out that Hosty and the FBI didn't follow up...because they had no reason to follow up. WHY? Because, just like killing the President, beating your spouse wasn't a federal crime in 1963 either.

So why are you so concerned at making sure you paint Lee Oswald as a wife beater? You've already said that has no bearing on whether he shot the President or not. So I'm STILL wondering why it would have any bearing on whether he shot at Walker or not. Whether he did shoot at Walker or not, it doesn't matter if he was a wife beater or not. And whether he did beat his wife or not, it doesn't affect whether he shot at Walker or not.

I think you're clinging to a connection that [a] isn't there, and doesn't matter even if it did exist. Wife beaters are not necessarily folks who attempt to murder others [i.e, Walker or JFK]...and folks who attempt to murder others are not necessarily wife beaters. I think only God knows whether ANY of Marina's testimony is true...and He hasn't clued me in on the truth of her testimony up to now.

[Paul Trejo]

The U.S. Army doesn't have SEALs....the NAVY does.

If you're going to use quotation marks, make sure your quotes are accurate. I don't care if it IS your best recollection, to not know that the Army has Special Forces and Green Berets, while the SEALs belong to the Navy, demonstrates your lack of commitment to accuracy.

My college training was in journalism. Back then, when accuracy in reporting was the standard, if we didn't know something, we looked it up. And you have the entire vast World-Wide Web at your disposal, something we didn't have in 1974.

I spend a lot of time on the Internet. Even though I'm not in journalism, I still research my claims, to be able to back them up. I probably spend more time doing research than actually writing anything.

Why do I do this? Because being wrong hurts my credibility. And if I'm wrong over and over and over again, I suddenly have NO credibility. Ever hear the phrase, "Mind the pennies, and the dollars will take care of themselves"?? Facts work the same way. Keep ALL the little things straight, and the big things will "magically" be accurate as well.

I'm beginning to see a pattern here. NO neighbor phoned the police to report Lee Oswald for beating his wife. And when A "police agency" was informed that Lee Oswald "probably" was a wife beater, it turns out that Hosty and the FBI didn't follow up...because they had no reason to follow up. WHY? Because, just like killing the President, beating your spouse wasn't a federal crime in 1963 either.

So why are you so concerned at making sure you paint Lee Oswald as a wife beater? You've already said that has no bearing on whether he shot the President or not. So I'm STILL wondering why it would have any bearing on whether he shot at Walker or not. Whether he did shoot at Walker or not, it doesn't matter if he was a wife beater or not. And whether he did beat his wife or not, it doesn't affect whether he shot at Walker or not.

I think you're clinging to a connection that [a] isn't there, and doesn't matter even if it did exist. Wife beaters are not necessarily folks who attempt to murder others [i.e, Walker or JFK]...and folks who attempt to murder others are not necessarily wife beaters. I think only God knows whether ANY of Marina's testimony is true...and He hasn't clued me in on the truth of her testimony up to now.

Mark, you're right, Jesse Ventura said he was a trained NAVY Seal. I've been sleep-deprived since last week which was the final semester of the year, and final papers were due at UT Austin. My apologies for my mistake.

As for as James Hosty not following up on Oswald, your suspicion, Mark, does not add up to a conclusion; it is just as likely that James Hosty was simply lazy and incompetent. It's not uncommon.

Also, I have no burning desire to portay Lee Oswald as a wife-beater, Mark. I'm mainly concerned to defend myself on this Forum from people who use weeks of vulgar insults to try to silence me, simply because I stand up for what I believe -- namely -- that Marina Oswald told the TRUTH.

Now, Marina Oswald said that Lee Harvey Oswald was a wife-beater. (She has one eye-witness to the striking, Alex Kleinlerer, and seven witnesses to the bruises, already named today in the "Phone" thread, and three witnesses who confronted Lee Oswald about it, who did not deny it.) Besides her eye-witnesses, I say Marina Oswald never contradicted her sworn testimony.

As I've repeated so often, Mark, I don't care about Marina's marital problems 50 years ago -- but it matters a great deal to me whether or not Marina Oswald told the TRUTH.

I'm certainly not the only person on this Forum who has defended Marina Oswald's credibility, but lately there aren't many who have been willing to step up for her -- at least not in these threads. And it's not because of me or my methods, I'm convinced, rather, it's because of the rude manners of my opponents. Decent people don't like brawls.

(Anyway, I was the target of last week's brawl, so I felt morally obligated to defend myself -- and I'm not complaining. I gave better than I got.)

Now you should recognize what this has to do with Walker, right, Mark? Marina Oswald (say most authorities) is the first and only witness who claimed that Lee Harvey Oswald tried to kill ex-General Edwin Walker on 10 April 1963.

It is important for my theory that this accusation be true and correct. Therefore, I rely a great deal (but not exclusively) on the testiomony and credibility of Marina Oswald.

Therefore, whoever calls her a xxxx -- or questions her veracity -- must provide evidence -- material evidence -- for their claims. I will demand it publicly.

Now, in cases where such charges rest on mere personal hunches, intuition, and so on, I often find that such claimants might become irritable when confronted with their lack of material evidence.

I can't help their reactions -- but I will continue to defend the truthfulness of the testimony of Marina Oswald. Unless somebody can provide convincing arguments (and not just personal hunches) then I will stand my ground. And I won't back down.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Edited May 19, 2013 by Paul Trejo

[Michael Hogan]

I'm certainly not the only person on this Forum who has defended Marina Oswald's credibility, but lately there aren't many who have been willing to step up for her -- at least not in these threads. And it's not because of me or my methods, I'm convinced, rather, it's because of the rude manners of my opponents.

Decent people don't like brawls.(Anyway, I was the target of last week's brawl, so I felt morally obligated to defend myself -- and I'm not complaining. I gave better than I got.)

How many Forum members have questioned Paul's methods? Too many to count.

Yet, despite detailed explanations offered by so many of these members, Paul simply chalks it up to rude manners.

His implied message is members that would otherwise support him are intimidated from doing so.

Paul claims that his unnamed opponents lack decency.

Paul seems to think he has a moral obligation to defend himself against all of these indecent people and he seems quite proud of himself.

But a case could be made that Paul Trejo certainly incited and helped escalate the "brawl."

And an even better case could be made that he got his intellectual butt kicked.

[Karl Kinaski]

Exactly:

Marina Oswald was a controlled and terrified little mouse in 1963-64...