What evidence is there that Lee Harvey Oswald beat Marina?

[Paul Trejo]

8 hours ago, Alistair Briggs said:

Paul,

with the utmost of respect I can't find that in his WC testimony at all...

Alistair,

You asked where George De Mohrenschildt argued that LHO was innocent of the shooting of JFK.  I showed one item from his WC testimony, and here is another item from his 1977 manuscript, I'm A Patsy! I'm a Patsy!

"...For me Lee is innocent of Kennedy's assassination.  I cannot prove it but the later events, which will be discussed, tend to prove Lee's innocence.  I did not know Lee to be a dangerous man, a man who would kill like a maniac without any reason...and we proved that he was rather an admirer of Kennedy's..:"   (George De Morhrenschildt, I'm A Patsy! I'm a Patsy!, 1977)

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited February 28, 2017 by Paul Trejo

[Alistair Briggs]

2 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

You asked where George De Mohrenschildt argued that LHO was innocent of the shooting of JFK.  I showed one item from his WC testimony, and here is another item from his 1977 manuscript, I'm A Patsy! I'm a Patsy!

"...For me Lee is innocent of Kennedy's assassination.  I cannot prove it but the later events, which will be discussed, tend to prove Lee's innocence.  I did not know Lee to be a dangerous man, a man who would kill like a maniac without any reason...and we proved that he was rather an admirer of Kennedy's..:"   (George De Morhrenschildt, I'm A Patsy! I'm a Patsy!, 1977)

Cheers Paul,

That is very interesting indeed. The 'without a reason' is quite the qualifier to the 'I did not know Lee to be a dangerous man'.

 

 

 

[Lawrence Schnapf]

sworn testimony given to friendly attorneys with no risk of cross-examination should not be treated as "Gospel" as some in this thread seem to believe. Witnesses went through pre-testimony interviews, were pressured to change their stories when they did not comport with the theme being sought and often times when they went off the reservation, the deposition/interviews were stopped and went off the record so the testimony could be redirected. The very smart and aggressive staff lawyers who served on the WC knew how to shape witness testimony before that witness went on the record.    

[Steve Logan]

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?

[Joe Bauer]

I strongly agree with Lawrence Schnapf's take on the WC investigative MO.

Over-all it was so one-sidedly controlled that compared to a true legal cross examination testimonial process it was a sham.

However, it appears to me that despite that great effort to control the hundreds of testimonies, there were still a good number that breached the intended protocols in ways that clearly caused some nervous anxiety with the questioners.

When these testimonies would veer too far into uncomfortable areas, yes, you would see changes of direction questions, no follow up ones and even "off the record" interruptions.

I think George DM was a bigger than normal problem for the WC in this way.

He was inclined toward outspokeness ( sometimes to an eccentric degree ) as his social circle acquaintances often claimed and probably some embellishment as well. 

In this character vein however,  I don't think the WC staff was able to control him as much as most other witnesses. And I believe that mixed in with his quirky, occasionally impish comedic, former aristocrat pretentious manner testimony was more truth than others believe.

I think DM definitely held back much of what he really knew about Oswald and so many other things of importance in this whole affair, but his basic eccentric flawed personality sometimes seemed to compel him to say things that a more controlled person wouldn't. And his take on Oswald as pitiful but not hateful of JFK  is an example of this imo.

Edited February 28, 2017 by Joe Bauer

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Nobody had to do anything they didn't want to. If you read the testimony, they are all advised they could have a lawyer if they wanted. So, if they thought they were being pressured they could get a lawyer and tell their story exactly as they wanted with the lawyer's guidance. I know there is no way I would say anything I didn't want to under those circumstances. And sworn testimony is just that-testimony given under threat of perjury.

I would like to ask all the naysayers here to conduct a mock trial with the following setup:

A woman who says she was abused.

8 witnesses who saw the bruises.

A witness who says he saw the physical and emotional abuse first-hand.

Now give all the participants false names so the JFK assassination would not enter into it.

Now honestly tell me what you think the result of the mock trial would be?

Edited February 28, 2017 by W. Tracy Parnell

[W. Tracy Parnell]

3 minutes ago, Steve Logan said:

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?

She has never disavowed anything that she testified to before the WC or HSCA to my knowledge or that she told McMillan. She simply believes (or wants to believe) from reading books etc. that LHO was innocent. She still says (and the evidence shows) she was beaten.

[Alistair Briggs]

I was just reading a couple of things written by June Porter (Oswald) from 1983 (which can be found here) Couple of things I felt worth sharing...

Quote

When I was growing up, I was very much aware of the many people who spent years of their lives collecting or acquiring data about my father and the assassination. Some of these “assassination buffs” would call my mother, and others I have heard of through news stories and books. I have never understood the reason for their persistence. Some, no doubt, are motivated by sadness and a sense of injustice, while others seem driven just because it is something to do, a game, an obsession. I don’t think it should consume anyone’s whole life. I resent the fact that so many people expect me to have a theory about the assassination. All I know is what everybody else knows. The daughter in me believes one thing—what daughter wouldn’t want to believe that her father is innocent?—but the person outside the daughter is as unsure of the facts as the next person. 

and

Quote

Q: And if someone were to show scientifically that Lee Oswald was or wasn’t involved ,that wouldn’t make a difference to you?

A: It would make a difference in the sense of justice being served.If the truth can be found that shows Lee had nothing to do with the assassination, I would feel better in that there have been a lot of things said and done regarding  my family that all proceeded from an erroneous perception of what he did or didn’t do. But you have to understand that,aside from what role he had in the assassination,there’s the issue of what role he had in our family. I know that in my life,Lee wasn’t a good man. He beat my mother.There were times when we didn’t have milk to drink.We lived in poor housing or were taken in by others.So if I,m able to be detached or seem unemotional about it,it’s because I took Lee on those terms.

 

[Joe Bauer]

In 1996 Marina Oswald Porter said "Yes" when asked if Lee Oswald beat her.

Seems very straight forward and she balances this claim that she was stubborn and not easy to live with also.

To me it's harder to disbelieve Marina Porter's public statements in this specific physical abuse area than to believe them.

However, In this abuse debate am I missing a larger context?

One that goes deeper into the White Russian community who pounded the Lee Oswald abuse of Marina topic and what they  ( the White Russians ) were all about?

Referrals to past relative postings would be appreciated.

[Paul Trejo]

4 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

In 1996 Marina Oswald Porter said "Yes" when asked if Lee Oswald beat her.

Seems very straight forward and she balances this claim that she was stubborn and not easy to live with also.

To me it's harder to disbelieve Marina Porter's public statements in this specific physical abuse area than to believe them.

However, In this abuse debate am I missing a larger context?

One that goes deeper into the White Russian community who pounded the Lee Oswald abuse of Marina topic and what they  ( the White Russians ) were all about?

Referrals to past relative postings would be appreciated.

Joe,

It seems to me that the main thing you're missing here is that most CIA-did-it CTers refuse to tolerate any notion of a cruel Lee Oswald.

Also, most CIA-did-it CTers refuse to tolerate any claim that Marina Oswald told the truth -- ever -- about anything.

Also, most CIA-did-it CTers are willing to make stuff up -- they are willing to invent any fantasy so that Lee is always the nice guy, and that Marina is a horrible person.

It has been that way in CT literature for 40 years.  It perhaps reaches its zenith in the 1990's in the ridiculous CTKA journal, Probe Magazine. 

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

6 hours ago, Steve Logan said:

 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?

Steve,

Marina Oswald said, even during the Warren Commission hearings, to the FBI, to the Secret Server, to whomever -- that she didn't believe that LHO killed JFK -- and if he was involved, he certainly was not alone. 

Lee Oswald's mother said the same thing.   So did his brother.

But that doesn't make LHO a saint.  It doesn't even make him a good husband or father.

The facts show that LHO was miserly.  First, he could not hold down a steady job.  From mid-1962 to 1963 LHO had four different jobs, and was fired from at least two -- and lived on Unemployment Benefits for perhaps four months in that period.  It was rare for him even to give Marina $1 during that period (even though some reports say that LHO got $200 monthly from the FBI in 1962 for secret information).

When Marina was eight months pregnant in New Orleans, she found out that LHO had been fired from Reily Coffee the previous month!  Lee often refused to tell Marina the truth about his employment -- and about many other things as well.

In September 1963, Marina was eight months pregnant, had no money, no health insurance, and Lee was out of work again.  Is it any wonder that Marina would practically beg Ruth Paine to come to rescue her?  Is it any wonder that Ruth Paine, herself a young mother of two, would take pity on Marina and go forth to register Marina at Parkland Hospital so that baby Rachel could be safe?

Lee lied to Ruth Paine about where he was going after Ruth took Marina back to Dallas.   Marina knew, but he warned Marina not to say a word.  Marina was afraid of Lee -- but what could she do?  He could get violent.

Ruth Paine never saw Lee Oswald getting violent -- but she didn't like his shiftless ways.  He had two babies who needed a breadwinner, and he refused to help Marina learn English -- and Marina had a college degree in pharmacology -- so Marina could have obtained a better job than Lee Oswald ever could.

But evidently Lee Oswald wanted to be in the CIA.  All these money worries led Lee to work with Guy Banister in New Orleans -- and throw caution to the wind.  Most likely Guy Banister (along with Clay Shaw, David Ferrie, Fred Crisman and Jack S. Martin) promised Lee Oswald a lot of money, and a job in the CIA, if he would play ball with them in their plot to kill Fidel Castro.  

Lee Harvey Oswald wanted to be in the CIA so bad he could taste it.  He would even believe these mercenary reprobates if they told him they were CIA agents, and could promise him a job in the CIA.  Lee would do anything they told him to do -- like taking his rifle to the TSBD on the morning of 11/22/1963, and handing it over to one of them.

Lee Harvey Oswald was the perfect Patsy.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited March 1, 2017 by Paul Trejo
typos

[Brad Milch]

Paul, I always enjoy what you write & your take on the assassination, so please don't take this the wrong way:

Researchers continuously forget LHO's dishonorable discharge (that he wrote Secretary of the Navy John Connally about, in an attempt to have it reversed). Without that dishonorable discharge hanging over his head, LHO could have applied for & possibly gotten a CIA job without leaning on the likes of Guy Banister to 'pull strings' for LHO. Ditto for most Federal jobs. That DD ruined LHO's veteran status. I believe it also killed his right to attend college under the G.I. Bill also.

Of note to those who believe LHO did intel work for the Navy, specifically ONI: Such work would have qualified LHO for positions within the CIA & FBI, had he not had a Dishonorable Discharge hanging over his head like a Felony conviction. IOW, LHO could have achieved his intel goals on his own without the assistance of shadowy others had he not had a Dishonorable Discharge.

Had LHO been doing clandestine work for the Navy (or any other Federal agency), LHO could have used such experience to join Jesse Curry's or Bill Decker's elite group of undercover officers (had he wanted to). Instead of being accused of murdering a Dallas police officer, LHO could have been one himself.

6 months of Army service without a dishonorable discharge was all that was needed to qualify for a Civil Service (Federal) job as a Veteran during the Viet Nam thing. LHO had radar (Air Traffic Controller?) experience as well as foreign language proficiency (Russian) just a few years before I served our country. LHO could have scored a lot of good Federal & civilian jobs with just his military & veteran status (minus the Dishonorable Discharge). Without the Dishonorable Discharge, LHO could have attended colleges & earned his own degree (while getting paid by the Government). He could have joined his wife Marina's status as college educated.

I know this for a fact: Viet Nam & the college that followed my HONORABLE Discharge opened the door to Federal employment that allowed me to retire at age 52. None of that would have been possible with a DISHONORABLE Discharge dragging behind me like a ball & chain.

I'm more prone to believe that, if LHO was a shooter (solo or with help), he was aiming at John Connally for ruining his life. John Connally's signature on reversing LHO's Dishonorable Discharge could have turned LHO's life completely around.

In short, the Navy & John Connally stuck it to LHO & LHO stuck it right back on Nov 22, 1963.

David Von Pein knows this area much better than me....jump in here & go for it, David!

Sincerely & Respectfully,

Brad Milch

Edited March 1, 2017 by Brad Milch

[Alistair Briggs]

4 hours ago, Brad Milch said:

Researchers continuously forget LHO's dishonorable discharge (that he wrote Secretary of the Navy John Connally about, in an attempt to have it reversed).

Blame the Mother.

Apparently when Oswald was first 'discharged' from the marines it was on a 'hardship discharge' (which apparently is honourable). Because Oswald, when trying to enter Russia, said he was willing to divulge Navy secrets his discharge was changed to a 'undesirable discharge'. The Navy wrote to Oswald to tell him, using his last known address. His Mother recieved it, and then subsequently wrote Oswald to tell him it had been changed to 'dishonourable discharge'...

[Brad Milch]

Thank you for the clarification, Alistair!

It's been awhile since I booted up, wore the uniform & was a 'lean, mean fighting machine' (lol). If I am not mistaken, undesirable was about as bad, if not equal to dishonorable coming out of the US military.

I can certainly appreciate researchers who believe LHO fell into the wrong company (such as right wing extremists)  when he was out of the military that may have taken advantage of him. If I recall correctly, Vincent Bugliosi argued against LHO being an intel operative for the Navy because of the undesirable discharge he received. Some have argued that the discharge was a deception that allowed LHO to continue intel work as a civilian.

I really don't know one way or the other. How the learned researchers spin it matters to me.

I do know that when I was a Federal employee, getting fired from a Civil Service job was about the worst thing that could happen to someone who had invested a lot of years in serving the country. Kinda like a one way ticket to skid row (Desolation Row, as Bob Dylan would have it). Some fought back with lawyers, but the outcome wasn't always rosy.

Paul Trejo's analysis appeals to me in several ways. Placing myself in LHO's shoes, I can understand him wanting a piece of John Connally for turning his back on him. Connally's signature on a reversal of LHO's discharge from undesirable to honorable would have turned LHO's world around 360 degrees. I can also envision LHO working with others that may have told him they'd be the shooter if LHO could smuggle a weapon into the TSBD & help them escape the building.

Respectfully & Sincerely,

Brad Milch

Edited March 1, 2017 by Brad Milch

[Joe Bauer]

The Oswald dishonorable discharge subject is very interesting and worthy of factoring into speculation regards some of Oswald's possible inner feelings of resentment, anger and frustration.

A dishonorable discharge could ruin someone's career opportunity life for sure, especially if they are just starting out and from the lowest economic ladder rung already and with a young family to support, and would need help finding and securing decent paying and benefited jobs and maybe even going to college. Clearly Oswald knew this and seriously tried to reverse the DD. 

But, in regards to Oswald possibly wanting revenge on Connally, if Oswald was shooting from the 6th floor of the TSBD building on 11,22,1963 with the intent of exacting this upon John Connally,  what a pitifully incompetent effort as JFK's back and head got in the way with two shots and a third missing everyone ( except James Tague? ) and even the limo itself!

Has anyone ever investigated whether there was some bad blood between Oswald and James Tague? 

In the film "JFK" when Kevin Costner's Jim Garrison is actually in the TSBD 6th floor snipers lair and crouched down looking out the window and directly at the JFK shooting site on Elm, his chief investigator Lou Ivon (Jay. O. Sanders ) who is standing right next to Garrison and also looking out that window, spontaneously makes an observation comment of how much easier and accurate it would have been for Oswald to have shot at JFK ( and/or Connally? ) when he was coming down Houston street straight towards him and at a much closer distance and direct line of fire range.

Whether this "JFK" film scene and dialogue was made up or not, the Ivon question was and still is perfectly valid from a shooter's point of view.

Illogically Oswald waits until JFK's limo and body target is farther away and getting smaller by the second than it was on Houston coming toward him, not to mention the limo is now going down an incline. But, despite those facts of more difficult target alignment decisions, non-marksmen - cheap rifle with misaligned scope firing Oswald then makes two direct hits on JFK with the second one being a perfect  "bulls-eye" into JFK's moving head at 265 feet.

Considering the question of Oswald choosing the more difficult and risky shooting task on Elm versus Houston, it makes more sense in the context of there being a designated triangular shooting zone and that was in the more open area of Elm where the heavy tree, shadows and picket fence could help obscure another hidden shooter.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 1, 2017 by Joe Bauer