Paul Trejo

Martin, the fact that the WC refused to buy Marina's Nixon story makes little difference to reason -- the WC also refused to buy the rich evidence that Oswald had accomplices! Marina's story about Nixon stands or falls on its own merits -- I personally find nothing implausible about it. A man who would beat his wife, who would take a pot-shot at General Walker in his living room at night, and who (according to his New Orleans 1963 summertime pal, Ron Lewis) would take his rifle to a Russell Long rally -- this sort of man would certainly be capable of taking a pistol to a Nixon rally. What's the problem? I understand that that many (not most) JFK researchers refuse to believe Marina Oswald, mainly because they refuse to believe that Lee Oswald shot at General Walker on 10 April 1963 -- despite copious photographic evidence. IMHO their thinking is one-sided -- Either/Or -- either Oswald never shot anybody ever, period, or else he shot everybody he is accused of shooting. period. No middle ground. No further discussion. That's too one-sided for reality. Real life is full of nuances. JFK researchers should be willing to take a nuanced look -- that Oswald could be innocent of the murder of JFK, and yet be guilty of all these other violent activities. Besides, we have information from the 1980's which notes that Roscoe White admitted that he killed J.D. Tippit. We have Walker's lifetime conviction that there were two shooters at him on 10 April 1963. We have plenty of other viable suspects -- so there's no real need anymore to try to portray Lee Harvey Oswald as a gentleman. I say Marina's Nixon story is plausible -- please tell me what parts you find to be implausible. By my reading, Oswald lived in a world that he kept secret from Marina. That world included rough-necks of various shades -- Cuban Exile desperados, CIA assets, Interpen mercenaries, Guy Banister, David Ferrie; also, in Dallas, George De Mohrenschildt, who had war and spy experience in World War Two (on both sides of the war) teamed with Volkmar Schmidt and others to convince Oswald to kill ex-General Edwin Walker, another self-righteous racist run amok. Assassination was apparently on Oswald's mind -- the books he checked out from the library tend to reflect that. Oswald was making friends and influencing people with his rifle. Also -- we clearly disagree on the proportion of JFK researchers who disbelieve Marina Oswald. Although you and I don't make decisions based on majorities or minorities (but on evidence), I agree that it's a fine idea to take a poll on this Forum, to count how many believe Marina fully, and how many doubt at least part of her story. As for proving that Rankin didn't do something, clearly the burden of proof falls on the one who claims he did. As for Alfredda Scobey, you claim knowledge of her memo to Senator Russell which charges that Marina "lied on at least two occassions”? But I have Alfredda Scobey's final WC lawyer's report -- dated January 1965 -- and nowhere does it suggest that Marina lied. Are you certain about your source? As for HSCA staff and their subjective opinions -- they were paid to keep this case open -- and anyway nothing matters except hard evidence -- so what was their hard evidence? Or were they just complaining and boasting at the same time? If they had a true complaint, they should have voiced it plainly. Let's see it. Also -- it is cynical to believe that Marina invented her story for the $132,350 that came to her as a result of his her historical position. In point of fact, she would have obtained that money no matter what she said. Because of the fact of JFK moldering in his grave, and Lee Oswald moldering in his grave -- the public would accept anything. She was under no pressure to make up stories for the public -- her money source. Yes, I know some blindly suspect the US Government and the CIA of killing JFK -- but actually we only have hard evidence that they covered-up the plot in the interest of National Security. So my approach is more conservative -- I will accept sworn testimony until I receive a material fact (not mere suspicions or allegations) that such testimony is perjury. Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

Tom, I certainly don't claim to have solved the JFK case. However, I did expect the Forum to offer a more supportive environment for my challenges to the WC's Lone Nut theory. Now, I don't happen to see anything spooky about the testimony of Marina Oswald, or the exploitation of her testimony made by Priscilla Johnson McMillan some years later. As Marina said -- "I told everything to the Warren Commission and I told everything to Priscilla Johnson -- but I never read her book." This explains why the stories we get from both the Warren Commission and Johnson's 1977 book, Marina and Lee, are virtually identical, except that Johnson's journalistic style is far more readable than the Warren Commission stenographers'. If you see something spooky (CIA) in their testimony, Tom, please make that plain in a single paragraph, or a single page of your own text. You can add all your hyperlinks in subsequent posts -- but pretty please -- I'd like to see your views in your own words. People can see, very clearly, what I'm trying to prove. But what is it, specifically, that you're trying to prove? Would you kindly just blurt it out without hyperlinks, for a change? Regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

Well, Tommy, I never looked at it that way before. With 185,000 views, why a comparatively miniscule number of reponses, when compared with other threads on this Forum? From the IT viewpoint, it might suggest that the counter-app of this thread does not behave exactly the same as other counter-apps on other threads on this Forum. Could the number of hyperlinks in a thread increase the count? Interesting. Yet, please, let's not get side-tracked from the business at hand -- the theme of the thread. Are you yourself persuaded that the CIA set-up Oswald as a patsy for the JFK assassination? If so, in what year do you believe this started? I think that's the truly critical question. Regards, --Paul Trejo

Terri, here is one page from a seven-page article that appeared in the 1 September 1968 issue of National Enquirer. The author is Loran Hall, whom Harry Dean saw along with ex-General Edwin Walker in Southern California in the late summer of 1963, plotting to make Lee Harvey Oswald the patsy of their plot. Loran Hall was deeply involved in Cuban politics -- he knew Gerry Patrick Hemming, and both men served Castro in 1959 and then turned against Castro in 1960, leading raids on Cuba, and collecting donations and supplies from right-wing militants throughout the Southern USA. Right before this interview, Loran Hall was the victim of an attempted murder -- somebody tried to run his car off a California cliff, and then sped away. To save his life, Loran Hall made a deal with Jim Garrison in 1968, and told him everything he knew. Loran Hall provided a summary of those interviews to the National Enquirer, too, so that the public could see that Loran Hall had nothing more to hide. What is most interesting is that Loran Hall tells the interviewer that the KKK was involved in the JFK assassination. There are more facts that Loran Hall stated that agree with your understanding of the JFK assassination, too, Terri. Let me quote one page from that seven-page article: ---------------------- Begin Extract from 1 September 1968 National Enquirer ---------------------- KEY WITNESS IN GARRISON PROBE SAYS: I WAS OFFERED $50,000 TO KILL JFK by Loran Hall I turned down a $50,000 offer to kill President John F. Kennedy only five weeks before he was shot dead in Dallas, Texas. It came from right wing radicals who also had Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King on their kill list -- a list which members of the CIA helped form. I have given New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison, who is probing President Kennedy's assassination, a full list of names, dates and places which I firmly believe will help him prove there was a plot to kill President Kennedy. I have told him that at meeting after meeting which I attended before President Kennedy's assassination, the killing of President Kennedy, Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King was openly discussed. And these people were deadly serious. They were lunatic, fanatical right wingers -- Klansmen and Fascists -- who had the means, the men, and their own twisted reasons for wanting to kill our leaders. I know from my own experience as an Anti-Castro guerilla leader that among them were CIA men -- for the CIA was deeply involved in our Anti-Castro activities. I have told Garrison that there was a plot to kill President Kennedy. But I believe that the biggest plot of them all was the plot the U.S. Government set to cover up the assassination. The Government knows Lee Harvey Oswald was not the lone assassin. He was the patsy, the guy who gave his life so that members of a sniper team could escape. I doubt if he even fired a shot. The Government's cover up enabled the radical right wingers to continue killing -- with Martin Luther King's death certainly the result, and Bobby Kennedy's very probably. Two attempts have been made on my life because I know too much about the activities of these right wingers. I hope that by telling all I know to Garrison and The ENQUIRER, these militants will figure there is no longer any point in trying to silence me... ---------------------- End Extract from 1 September 1968 National Enquirer ---------------------- Now, Loran Hall was not the brightest bulb on the tree. He often showed his confusion about who was a CIA agent and who was only a paid informer or bagman for a legitimate CIA agent. So when Hall suggested that the CIA was involved, this might possibly mean that some bagmen for the CIA who liked to brag about their CIA connections and called themselves 'members' of the CIA might have been involved. Also, Loran Hall hoped that the Garrison probe would put an end to all the speculation, but actually, Jim Garrison failed to investigate the Dallas Connection thoroughly, and completely neglected the KKK connection -- and put all his eggs in the CIA basket -- and lost his case very soundly. Yet Loran Hall was candid enough to say that the JFK plotters "were lunatic, fanatical right wingers -- Klansmen and Fascists." Also, Loran Hall was candid enough to say that the JFK plotters: "also had Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King on their kill list." After reading that, Terri, I couldn't help thinking about your experience in high-school, when at least one of your classmates said, "They're not stopping until there's a K-K-K," meaning, JFK-MLK-RFK. Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

Jim, the HSCA staff in general? As in, nobody in the HSCA believed Marina? I'm accused of "playing games" with Marina's testimony, so why leave such broad generalizations unchallenged? I read her HSCA testimony, and she does not contradict her WC testimony in any essentials. The key difference is that she was somewhat inclined to believe in 1964 that Lee was the Lone Assassion (according to the evidence she was shown) while in 1979 she was somewhat disinclined to believe that Lee was the Lone Assassin (because she saw more evidence by then). That remains an honest difference of opinion in both cases. It is very clear that Marina's early statements to the Secret Service and the FBI were emotional denials of everything -- and it is also clear to me that Marina's detractors (old and new) choose to call those denials "lies". Yet, I've read her WC and HSCA sworn testimony carefully -- she does not contradict herself in any essentials. Anybody who said that about her testimony had to be either (1) biased; or (2) thinking only of her earliest denials that she made while not under oath. This is important to my theory -- so if anyboidy wishes to point out any perceived contradictions, I will make an effort to respond to them one at a time. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Tommy, I agree with you completely. The title is intriguing. That's why I thought my contribution was viable, i.e. that the the "CIA" was not the true "Sheep Dip" vehicle to make "Lee Harvey Oswald" into ther "Patsy" to kill JFK. Instead, as I have repeatedly re-affirmed on this thread, it was (as Jack Ruby and Harry Dean have said all along) ex-General Edwin Walker, the John Birch Society and their many right-wing resources. But that causes a major conflict with Tom, evidently, who has posted countless hyperlinks of 185,000 pages (by his count) of supporting evidence that the CIA did it. But his evidence is too loosey goosey. For example, his sources sort of suggest that Priscilla Johnson McMillan was a CIA agent who met Lee Harvey Oswald in Moscow in 1959. So what? Are we to assume that the CIA plotted to kill JFK in 1959, even before JFK became President? That is, 185,000 pages of hyperlinks can be used to show anything at all, or to give rise to thousands of more questions. As I've already requested from Tom -- please post one single page of his own text to clearly state his objectives. Tom hasn't done that yet. Regards, --Paul Trejo

Martin, if a relationship of consenting mutual violence means something other than a variety of an S&M relationship, then you're right, it makes no sense to me. Psychoanalysis would probably view it as an S&M relationship in disguise. I have little doubt that little Marina was scrappy -- that she could hold a door shut on her husband for a few seconds as they shouted and screamed at each other to make her point. But Lee was a hardened Marine -- and thus in such cases I find it hard to believe (just as the WC attorneys found it hard to believe) that Marina could literally "overpower" Lee. Lee was not really trying at such times, clearly. Either he was teasing her (which is feasible) or he had some misgivings about shooting Nixon as well (which is also feasible. By the way, Ron Lewis in his 1993 book, FLASHBACK: The Untold Story of Lee Harvey Oswald, says he saw Lee carry his rifle to a political rally of Russell Long in Louisiana, just for the fun of it, which gives some credence to Marina's Nixon story.) Also, the expression -- "gave as good as I got" -- can mean different things in different contexts. When a weaker person says this about a stronger person, this is called bluster. You're right, Martin, to this extent -- Marina never said that she was terrified of Lee. But it was physically impossible for her to "give as good as she got" -- that is, in a genuine bar-fight with him she would die. The sentence must be read in context -- in a marriage relationship between man and wife she was not terrified. And she could "overpower" her husband in a quarrel -- if he really didn't have his heart set on fighting. Furthermore, Martin, I agree that I'm responding only to Marina's side of the story -- nobody is telling Lee's side. Yet it would be difficult for anybody to talk about beating his wife under any circumstances at all -- in a public courtroom. Most likely, Lee would deny that he was ever violent toward the love of his life. Am I to accept that as a likelihood? Again -- who said Lee was covered in scratches? What does that actually mean? Like he fell into a briar patch? Or that while he was pummelling somebody smaller than himself, that the victim used the proximity to scratch his face? I repeat -- it was physically impossible for this slight, skinny woman to overpower a wiry, hard Marine. They had a weird relationship, IMHO. Now -- you're quite correct that Marina admitted she actually did throw the radio at Lee. Yet to be literal, she said that Lee struck her first, and that was in self-defense. Then, as she continues, he beat her. I won't edit the full story, so please don't edit the full story. Now, she does not describe the salubrious details of the beating. Was it another face slapping? Was it a formal beating with a cane? All she says as that "he beat me." I won't be choosy with the evidence, Martin, so please also be candid with all of the evidence. George DM said that Lee was jealous of any attention that Marina got -- no matter how little -- and that he always wanted all the attention himself. In such a weird relationship, how was it ever possible for Marina to avoid "winding Lee up" or "provoking" him? It is obviously impossible. Also, if I ever portrayed generally Marina as an innocent victim, I apologize, since clearly she wasn't terrified of Oswald -- and yet given the testimonial evidence of Alexander Kleinlerer, the time when Lee slapped her hard, twice, in public, with a baby in her arms, we cannot overlook this obvious sadistic side of Lee. As for Marina's sworn testimony -- many people have heard it and read it -- and the consensus is that it is true -- she doesn't contradict herself. Now -- when she was first arrested, before she was sworn in, before she trusted some public officials, then yes, Marina denied everything and defended Lee Harvey Oswald with her every word. Marina distrusted the Secret Service and the FBI at first, even as she distrusted the secret police in her own home town. But after she calmed down and evaluated her real situation -- and realized she could stay in the USA if only she told the truth under oath -- then she told the truth. I know many researchers doubt Marina, but I believe the majority of JFK researchers accept her testimony. (That is, she told what she knew -- and since Lee told her many lies, she could only tell the truth that she knew.) Rankin, as you showed, expressed early concerns about her early wild remarks - but Rankin did not express such concerns after the proceedings were completed. In sum, I think the topic of Lee's cruelty to Marina (whether she asked for it or not) forms a line of demarcation between JFK researchers. There were nine separate witnesses who testified under oath that Lee beat Marina. One of those witnesses was George De Mohrenschildt -- a profoundly individualistic intellectual. There is, furthermore, an official police report (either local or federal) about Lee-beating-Marina incidence in late 1962. I will find that in the Briscoe Center and supply it as soon as I can. Yet some JFK researchers try to tell us that there was a "conspiracy" of these nine to lie about poor Lee, who was gentle as a lamb, and only spying on the "bad guys." What stuff. Again -- and this bears repeating -- even if Lee turns out to be a sadistic monster -- that is still not enough to legally convict him of being the Lone Nut assassin of JFK. I realize the Warren Commission (and Walter Cronkite) used such evidence to condemn Lee Harvey Oswald in the public perception, and I sharply disagree with that. I continue to maintain that Lee was framed for the crime. But he was well-chosen. Also, the monsters who killed JFK were buddies of Lee Harvey Oswald -- they were cut from the same cloth. Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

Tom, allow me to respond to the original theme of this thread of your, which you began nearly one year ago. The title of your thread is, "Did the C.I.A. "Sheep Dip" and Orchestrate the Tale of the Patsy, Lee Harvey Oswald?" With little narrative, you began to post -- by your own count -- 185,000 pages of supporting material to firm up your point -- that yes, the CIA sheep-dipped Oswald. Yet you haven't written write a single page summary yourself -- without hyperlinks -- so that we can plainly see the nuances of your point. As an example, in your very first point last year you began -- with hyperlinks instead of narrative -- to cast suspicion on Priscilla Johnson McMillan. Now, it's true that she met Lee Harvey Oswald while he was in Russia -- but why not simply spell out your point? Your hyperlinks in your first post told us mainly this: 1. As a student at Radcliffe College in NYC Priscilla was a member of the United World Federalists, an organization run by Cord Meyer -- who later became famous as a CIA agent. 2. After she graduated in 1952 she applied for a job with the CIA. She was rejected. Cord Meyer himself rejected her. 3. She applied again in 1953 and was rejected again. 4. Because of her Russian langauge skills, In 1954 Johnson worked as a translator for the Digest of Soviet Press, and did so well that in 1955 she moved to Moscow to serve as a translator for the US Embassy there. As envoy to the Ambassador, she enjoyed a very high security clearance. 5. In 1957, the CIA file on Priscilla Johnson was confused with another person's, and that temporarily gave the impression that she was Swedish, six years older, and during WW2 served the OSO. 6. In 1958 she applied to the USSR in order to return there. On 6 May 1958, the Chief of CI/OA submitted approval for her -- for classified work. She was there only a few weeks and returned to the USA. 7. Then she got a job at the North American News Alliance (NANA). She was a bilinguaal journalilst. 8. Priscilla traveled back to Moscow soon after Lee Harvey Oswald was intereviewed.in November, 1959. She stayed in the same hotel as Oswald. 9. On 16 November 1959 John McVickar told her that "there's a guy in your hotel who wants to defect, and he won't talk to any of us here". She took the assignment to talk with him. 10. In a 007 twist to the narrative, as Johnson was leaving the American Embassy McVickar told her "to remember she was an American." That's it. A little bit of background. So now what? Are we to somehow fill in the blanks with imagination, and suspect that Priscilla Johnson was part of a plot to sheep-dip Oswald as early as 1959? No -- filling in the blanks with mere suspicion isn't progressive. If you have something to charge -- please come forth with it, and please spell out your reasons. You can support your claims later (if indeed these 185,000 posts of loosely related hyperlinks actually do support your suspicions). But first, please, plainly state your suspicions for discussion. Regards, --Paul Trejo

Lee, it seems to me that you're intelligent enough to see the overwhelming evidence that Lee Harvey Oswald was a wife-beater. (There are none so blind as they who will not see.) The only issue between you and me might be the question regarding whether she "asked for it" or not. Although I agree with you that some human relationships are based on a sado-masochistic element, and that it's really nobody's business if we have two consenting adults -- still, it crosses the line of civility, IMHO, when we consider Alexander Kleinlerer's account. That is, if a sado-masochistic relationship bleeds into public displays of witnesses who are unconsenting, doesn't that cross the line? The evidence you cited suggests a consented sado-masochistic relationship -- and we are not here to make moral judgments on others and their consented family behavior. But slapping Marina's face -- hard -- twice -- in public -- while she's holding her baby? Gimme a bloody break. Again -- this bears repeating -- Oswald's cruelty is no proof that he killed JFK -- but it certainly suggests the sort of persons he would consort with -- birds of a feather. Best regards, --Paul Trejo Paul, Was that post intended for me or Lee or both of us? Because you addressed it to him but appeared to be responding to some of what I said. In any case, I didn't say anything about sado-masochism nor was it implied in anything I wrote. I did however relate the fact that I have witnessed couples in violent relationships where neither one is entirely to blame. You also appear to have either missed or ignored post #62 in which I posted Marina's own testimony admitting that she was violent towards her husband too. I'll repeat it here: Mrs. OSWALD: Yes; he did strike me. Senator RUSSELL: What reason did he give for striking you. usually? Mrs. OSWALD. Well, the reasons were if--they were very petty--I can't even remember what the reasons were after this quarrel was over. Sometimes he would tell me to shut up, and I don't take that from him. I'm not a very quiet woman myself. Senator RUSSELL: "I'm not--" what? Mrs. OSWALD: I'm not a quiet woman myself and sometimes it gets on your nerves and you'll just tell him he's an idiot and he will become more angry with you. Enraged. When I would call him an idiot, he would say, "Well, I'll show you what kind of an idiot I am," so he would beat me up. Senator RUSSELL: Did you ever strike him?* *Mrs. OSWALD: I would give him some in return. Senator RUSSELL: You would give him some in return. As I recall your testimony, when he told you about the Nixon incident, you testified that you held him in the bathroom by physical strength for some 4 or 5 minutes, so you should have been able to hold your own pretty well with him if you could do that? Mrs. OWALD: Probably not 5 minutes, but a long time for him. Sometimes one can gather all of his strength in a moment like that. I not a strong person, but sometimes under stress and strain perhaps I am stronger than I ordinarily am. Senator RUSSELL: Did you ever strike him with anything other than your hand? Mrs. OSWALD: Well, I think at one time I told him that if he would beat me again, I will hurl a radio, a transistor radio, and when he did strike me, I threw the radio at him. (5H598) Right. Sorry for the typo, Martin...that last post was intended for you, not Lee. I also realize you didn't raise the notion of sado-masochism is this thread -- but you did refer to other couples in violent relationships -- and that, IMHO, was a short hop to the subtheme of S&M. That is, one might make a reasonable case that Lee and Marina shared a variety of sado-masochism in their relationship; i.e. that Marina would engage Lee in violence with full consent. (A proper victim, on the other hand, enters into violence without any consent.) Furthermore, you offered tangible evidence for your argument -- the testimony of Marina in which she said: MARINA: ...Sometimes he would tell me to shut up, and I don't take that from him. I'm not a very quiet woman myself. ...and sometimes it gets on your nerves and you'll just tell him he's an idiot and he will become more angry with you. Enraged. When I would call him an idiot, he would say, "Well, I'll show you what kind of an idiot I am," so he would beat me up. So, one might argue, reasonably, that from that scenario itself, that Marina was deliberately and consciously "asking for it." On the other hand, the nature of her English, and the cultural dynamics of her sentence also permit a different interpretation -- i.e. -- "if he's going to beat me up, that does not mean I need to passively take it. I will resist." That is less of a provocation and more of a defiant protest -- which is well outside the definition of an S&M relationship, and enters into the definition of self-defense. There was more: MARINA: I would give him some in return....I not a strong person, but sometimes under stress and strain perhaps I am stronger than I ordinarily am....at one time I told him that if he would beat me again, I will hurl a radio, a transistor radio, and when he did strike me, I threw the radio at him. OK, that could be seen as a consented exchange of violence -- but there is also another interpretation. Her words enunciate a conditional choice -- IF you beat me again, THEN I will hurl a radio at you. In other words, one can also detect more of the defiant protest -- not an invitation to more violence, but a warning of reprisals -- which is quite different. In other words -- Marina could be interpreted as enjoying her rough relationship with this indominatable Marine, and egging him on, or something very different -- she could be interpreted as disliking the beatings, and attempting to defend herself. IMHO, Marina did not enjoy being slapped in the face hard, twice, in public, while holding her baby. IMHO Marina did not enjoy being beaten by this immature malcontent; although she was also smart enough to notice that the role of women in 1963 was largely an utter dependence on men, no matter how unreasonable they happened to be. Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

Lee, I read that part but didn't think it was worth responding to. But I should clarify that it was never my intention to suggest that Marina was "asking for it". My point was simply that the evidence doesn't support the idea that Marina was some innocent little victim. Also, I have seen first hand horrible relationships in which couples will push each other to do things they should not do just so they can complain to friends and family about it later and gain sympathy for themselves. Reading accounts of the Oswalds' marriage very much reminded me of this. Martin, it seems to me that you're intelligent enough to see the overwhelming evidence that Lee Harvey Oswald was a wife-beater. (There are none so blind as they who will not see.) The only issue between you and me might be the question regarding whether she "asked for it" or not. Although I agree with you that some human relationships are based on a sado-masochistic element, and that it's really nobody's business if we have two consenting adults -- still, it crosses the line of civility, IMHO, when we consider Alexander Kleinlerer's account. That is, if a sado-masochistic relationship bleeds into public displays of witnesses who are unconsenting, doesn't that cross the line? The evidence you cited suggests a consented sado-masochistic relationship -- and we are not here to make moral judgments on others and their consented family behavior. But slapping Marina's face -- hard -- twice -- in public -- while she's holding her baby? Gimme a bloody break. Again -- this bears repeating -- Oswald's cruelty is no proof that he killed JFK -- but it certainly suggests the sort of persons he would consort with -- birds of a feather. Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos; intended for Martin, not Lee>

Tom, why don't you just get to the point of what you're trying to say -- instead of stuffing the thread full of page after page of loosely related quotations? --Paul

Martin, I appreciate your professional attitude. As for the actual police report, I feel certain that I saw it at the Briscoe Center last year when I was rifling through FBI microfiche. FBI files, as you know, contain lots of local police reports and news reports. The report in question was at the Tobias apartment in November 1962, as I recall. I recall being struck by the report -- but I didn't make a copy of it since I was researching De Mohrenschildt at the time. I presumed it was common knowledge. But I know it's there. The official report was about a visit either by the police or by the FBI themselves. I'll need to schedule another visit to the Briscoe Center to find it again. As for the subject of Lee beating Marina, there was only one phrase in all the evidence that suggested that "Marina gave as good as she got," and that was by George DeMohrenschildt, whose English skills also leave something to be desired. What Marina herself said -- and this characterized her attitude and the attitude of George DM as well -- "Perhaps I deserved it." Marina was disoriented in the USA in 1963 -- wife-beating was still being debated in the South as an ethical behavior -- it was common in Russia (and as Marina said -- she married Lee because he didn't seem to be a wife-beater, and he never beat her in Russia.) Two Warren Commission interviewers (from the South) later returned to this topic with Marina to salubriously review the "matrimonial duties" of a wife. So, liberals, like George De Mohrenschildt told Marina in no uncertain terms not to put up with it. Yet it was common enough. (I'm reminded of the Billie Holiday blues song, "If I get beat up by my papa; That don't mean you should call no copper; Ain't nobody's business if I do.") Marina's response shows confusion about whether she should defend her husband, like a good wife, or call him on the carpet, like a good citizen. So her testimony is wobbly. (I don't recall the image that Lee was covered in scratches.) George De Mohrenschildt often took Lee's side, but that was futile. Jeanne De Mohrenschildt liked neither Lee nor Marina -- she was especially disturbed by Marina's bad teeth -- a pretty face, but if you've seen Marina's first interview, the whole right side of her mouth seems solid black. George DM was also feeling guilty, IMHO, because he was so much of a busybody that he acted to take Marina and June away from Lee. George DM also had to rationalize to the Warren Commission and the public why he -- a rich socialite -- was the close friend of Lee Oswald -- a dishonorably discharged sack from the military, unable to hold down a simple job. If George had been honest, he would have had to admit his CIA deal to babysit Oswald -- and that was disallowed. So he had to create lies: he really liked Lee -- then he had to justify the obvious wife-beating -- "she asked for it." Pity poor George. And it was George DM who said that Marina delighted in winding Lee up -- yet George also admitted that Lee hated to see Marina get any atttention of any kind whatsoever -- so that contradicts the first charge, because anything at all that Marina might have said at any time would have been interpreted as winding-up Lee - obviously. IMHO, the picture is clearer than the anti-Marina theorists would like to admit. I admit that she was reasonably tough -- she wasn't just a passive doll -- because one needed to be tough to be a Russian woman in those days (and perhaps today as well). However, Marina was a new citizen in the USA -- arrived in early 1962 and by late 1962 she was suffering beatings by Lee Harvey Oswald, a rock-hard, trained Marine who couldn't hold down an ordinary job. (Lee was frustrated because he wanted a regular job with the ONI, CIA or FBI -- he had some talent, but he also had many faults. He wasn't going to get that job.) By the way, Martin, there's another story in the Warren Commission that you probably know about which should also be cited here, namely, the sworn affidavit by Alexander Kleinlerer. I'll post a tiny extract: ------------------------------ Begin Warren Commission Extract -------------------------- Mr. KLIENLERNER. ...I came by the Halls the next day, which was Saturday, in the morning. Marina and Oswald were there. I entered the house. Marina was in the living room with her child in her arms. We had just begun to discuss the matter of moving the next day when Oswald observed that the zipper on Marina’s skirt was not completely closed. He called to her in a very angry and commanding tone of voice just like an officer commanding a soldier. His exact words were, “Come Here!“, in the Russian Language, and he uttered them the way you would call a dog with which you were displeased in order to inflict punishment on him. He was standing in the doorway leading from the living room into another room of the house. When she reached the doorway he rudely reprimanded her in a flat imperious voice about being careless in her dress and slapped her hard in the face -- twice. Marina still had the baby in her arms. Her face was red and tears came to her eyes. All this took place in my presence. I was very much embarrassed and also angry but I had long been afraid of Oswald and I did not say anything. ------------------------------- End Warren Commission Extract ------------------------------------ Well, the anti-Marina theorists (and some insulting snobs) might claim that Marina "asked for it." Civilized people, however, know beter. Again - and this bears repeating - I'm not arguing that Lee Oswald was so mean that he was obviously the killer of JFK. That poor logic has lasted for too long. I say Lee Oswald was framed for the crime -- yet he was also carefully chosen for it. (I also say that Lee Oswald knew his framers.) Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

Getting back to the theme of this thread -- the CIA didn't sheep-dip Lee Harvey Oswald -- rather, very specific individuals of the extreme, racist right-wing in the USA did that task, namely: Guy Banister, David Ferrie, ex-General Edwin Walker, Loran Hall, Larry Howard (Leopoldo and Angelo), Gerry Patrick Hemming, Carlos Bringuier (DRE) and Ed Butler (INCA), Their goal was to blame the JFK slaying on a Communist, so that the USA would invade Cuba. Naturally some former CIA assets and bitter veterans (e.g. Frank Sturgis, Eladio del Valle) would have given aid in any way they could -- but IMHO they were on the sidelines. The proof that the JFK plot failed is that the USA never invaded Cuba. The people who covered up the JFK assassination were different from the people who actually killed JFK, and they had opposing goals. The CIA worked with the FBI and the Warren Commission to cover-up the JFK assassination and to complete the framing of Lee Harvey Oswald. But it was the assassins themselves -- a very different group -- who actually sheep-dipped Lee Harvey Oswald in the first place. Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

Tommy, we're not too far apart on the conclusion, anyway. Loran Hall intended to abuse the English language to foment a lie about Oswald -- that Oswald was a Communist. That was the modus operandi of the JFK plot -- to blame the Communists for the killing, when, IMHO, it was really the racist right. We see Loran Hall (Leopoldo) making the same sort of deliberate lie when he was asked about Gerry Patrick Hemming in one of his last interviews. He lost his temper, and at first claimed that Gerry Patrick Hemming was a Communist; then he claimed that Gerry Patrick Hemming was CIA; then he claimed that if he saw Hemming again he would kill him. I think Loran Hall's main point was to place as much distance as possible between himself and his long-time pal, Gerry Patrick Hemming. I think this is because the truth of the JFK assassination will -- in the end -- turn out to involve not only Lee Harvey Oswald, but also Loran Hall and Gerry Patrick Hemming -- working in cooperation with ex-General Edwin Walker. Even if we didn't have the eye-witness testimony of Harry Dean on this score, we have plenty of other evidence that links Walker with Hemming and Hall throughout 1963. Finally, Gerry Patrick Hemming himself told A.J. Weberman that he personally invited Lee Harvey Oswald to bring his rifle to the TSBD building on 22 November 1963, in order to sell it for double its market price. Hemming asked Oswald to hide the rifle on the 5th floor (not the 6th) and that some secret person would retreive it, and then Oswald would get paid. So, Hemming has already confessed. The reason Loran Hall exploded at his last interviewer, IMHO, was because the interviewer hit a nerve -- Hall and Hemming were key members of the ground-crew in the JFK assassination -- both in New Orleans and in Dallas. I 'd like to reinforce the evidence that Harry Dean provides regarding Edwin Walker's participation in the JFK assassination. That's why I'm trying to eagerly to contact Silvia Odio. Any idea how I can reach her? Regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

Lee, If Paul is reluctant to do so, perhaps you wouldn't mind posting the reports in question? If nothing else, I might learn something. Martin, I'm not reluctant to post the copious evidence that Lee Harvey Oswald was a wife-beater -- I'm only reluctant to reply to an insulting snob on this Forum or any other Forum. But since you kindly asked for this evidence, I'll share it with you. The bulk of it is from the sworn testimony from the Warren Commission. Now -- I realize that many people reject the Warren Commission testimony with a knee-jerk reflex, simply because the Warren Commssion proceedings were slanted to frame Lee Harvey Oswald as the Lone Nut killer. I agree that the Warren Commission bias is a problem. Nevertheless, that does not, in itself, negate the sworn testimony of the witnesses called. So, I can still reject the conclusions of the Warren Commission while still accepting this sworn testimony as valuable facts. That's my first orientation. Secondly, I will cite the main folks who claimed eye-witness evidence that Lee Harvey Oswald beat Marina. Aside from Marina herself (who never changed her story, not even in her fairly recent interviews with Oprah, when she stated that Oswald was was innocent of the JFK slaying), there was testimony from George Bouhe, Anna Meller, Elena Hall, Katya Ford, Mahlon Tobias, Jeanne De Mohrenschildt and George De Mohrenschildt. While most of these were Russian emigrants, they were not all Russians or in that circle. Here are some excerpts: ---------- Begin Warren Commission Excerpts ------------------- ....Warren Commission Hearings, Vol. VIII, p. 365. GEORGE DE MOHRENSCHILDT Mr. De Mohrenschildt. Well, George Bouhe, started telling me that "George, Lee is beating Marina. I saw her with a black eye and she was crying, and she tried to run away from the house. It is outrageous." And he was really appalled by the fact that it actually happened. And Jeanne and I said, let's go and see what is going on George Bouhe gave me their address, as far as I remember, there in Oak Cliff...So we drove up there to that apartment, which was on the ground floor, and indeed Marina had a black eye. And so either my wife or I [later] told Lee, "Listen, you cannot do things like this." Mr. Jenner. ...And when you entered that apartment on the first floor, you observed that she had a black eye? Mr. De Mohrenschildt. A black eye, and scratched face, and so on and so forth. Mr. Jenner. Did you inquire about it? Mr. De Mohrenschildt. Yes. Mr. Jenner. What did she say? Mr. De Mohrenschildt. She said, "He has been beating me." As if it was normal--not particularly appalled by this fact, but "He has been beating me", but she said "I fight him back also." So I said, "You cannot stand for that. You shouldn't let him beat you." And she said, "Well, I guess I should get away from him." Now, I do not recall what actually made me take her away from Lee.... GEORGE BOUHE... Mr. LIEBELER. You spoke about these parties with Mrs. Ford and Anna Meller and Anna Ray. Mr. BOUHE. Well, the only time I have been bringing that up is when I saw or heard that she had a black eye. Mr. LIEBELER. When did you see that? Mr. BOUHE. I would say within the first 2 weeks of September. One Saturday several of us arrived at their house. Mr. LIEBELER. At Oswald’s house? Mr. BOUHE. Yes. Mr. LIERELER. Where was that house located at that time? Mr. BOUHE. On Mercedes Street. Mr. LIEBELER. In Fort Worth? Mr. BOUHE. Yes; and she had a black eye. And not thinking about anything unfortunate, I said : “Well, did you run into a bathroom door?” Marina said, “Oh, no, he hit me.” Mr. LIEBELER. Was Oswald there at that time? Mr. BOUHE. No.... Mr. LIEBELER. You said that you noticed another black eye. Did you see Marina with bruises on her at a time prior to this time in September? Mr. BOUHE. Yes. Mr. LIEBELER. When was that? Did she appear bruised at Mr. Gregory’s party? Mr. BOUHE. Oh, no; that was when she ran away from Oswald, probably in the middle of November, already in Oak Cliff here in Dallas. She called at 11 o’clock at night Mrs. Anna Meller from a gasoline station and said, “He is beating me up and here I am with the baby and no diaper and no nothing, and so on, what can I do?” Well, if you talk to Mrs. Anna Meller, you will see that she is a plain, very attractive woman with a big heart, and what could she say but “come over.” Mr. LIEBELER. Mrs. Meller told Marina to come over to her house? Mr. BOUHE. Right. That was 11 o’clock at night. Mr. LIEBELER. Marina went to Mrs. Meller’s and stayed there about a week? Mr. BOUHE. About a week. Mr. LIEBELER. And subsequently she went to Mrs. Ford’s house? Mr. BOUHE. Yes. Mr. LIEBELER. And you took her there to Mrs. Ford? Mr. BOUHE. I did take her, with the baby and the playpen, and Mrs. Anna Meller drove over with us to Mrs. Katya Ford’s, I think, on a Saturday or Sunday, because Mrs. Ford volunteered that since the Meller’s had a very small apartment, to take Marina for a week because her husband, Declan P. Ford, was attending [a] convention in Houston for the whole week and she could bring her over for a week... MARINA Mr. RANKIN. Could you tell us a little about when he did beat you because we have reports that at times neighbors saw signs of his having beat you, so that we might know the occasions and why he did such things. Mrs. OSWALD. The neighbors simply saw that because I have a very sensitive skin, and even a very light blow would show marks. Sometimes it was my own fault. Sometimes it was really necessary to just leave him alone. But I wanted more attention. He was jealous. He had no reason to be. But he was jealous of even some of my old friends, old in the sense of age. Mr. RANKIN. When he became jealous, did he discuss that with you? Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, of course. Mr. RANKIN. What did he say? Mrs. OSWALD. I don't remember. Basically, that I prefer others to him. That I want many things. which he cannot give me. But that was not so. Once we had a quarrel because I had a young man who was a boyfriend--this was before we were married, a boy who was in love with me, and I liked him, too. And I had written him a letter from here...And, of course, he hit me... Mr. RANKIN. Do you recall anything more that he said at that time about that matter? Mrs. OSWALD. Of course after he hit me, he said that I should be ashamed of myself for saying such things because he was very much in love with me. But this was after he hit me. Generally, I think that was right, for such things, that is the right thing to do. There was some grounds for it. Please excuse me. Perhaps I talk too much. ANNA MELLER Mr. LIEBELER. Now, do you remember that some time in the fall of 1962, after the Oswalds had moved out of their apartment in Fort Worth that Marina called you on the telephone one evening and told you that she wanted to leave Oswald? Would you tell us about that? Mrs. MELLER. Yes, yes, sir. It was in November, I think on certain Monday about 10 in the evening, she will call me and say that her husband beat her and she came out from the apartment and reached the filling station and said the man -- she did not have a penny of money. and the good soul helped her to dial my number and she’s talking to me if she can come over my house...I came to my husband and I asked him if we can take Marina. He did not want to. We have one bedroom apartment and he said “Do not have very much space.” I like a maniac woman, started to beg and said “We have to help poor woman; she’s on the street with baby..." My husband said “Okay let her come.. Mr. LIEBELER. Did she tell you what she and Oswald had been arguing about? Mrs. MELLER. I do not remember. She said he beat her and I do not remember asking really for what or something. I did not ask for arguments, really, because it was so shocking and so unagreeable. I do not think I went into detail... Mr. LIEBELER. ...Did you think it was mostly Lee Harvey’s fault or did you think it was partly her fault, or what? Mrs. MELLER. It was not easy to judge but I think since we do not know them very close and very long, let’s say this way but it seems to me again that Lee Osw-ald was not normal because later I heard from somebody that he beat Marina and he did one time, I think even Marina told to me that when they moved in apartment. The bulb is burned through and she has to put new lamp in it. He demanded when the master is home the bathtub supposed to be full with water so he can take bath before he sit down to eat and one time he come home and it was dark and she has to put lamp in the room, she did not hare time to put water in the tub and he find tub was without water and he beat her. MAHON TOBIAS There is also Warren Commission Exhibit #2189 that speaks of the Oswald's fellow tenants at the roominghouse owned by Mahlon Tobias, who frequently complained to Tobias: "They didn't like the way Oswald beat her all the time." Jenner questioned Tobias, who testified, "there was one man that came over there one night and he told me, he said, 'I think that man over there is going to kill that girl . . .'" KATYA FORD Katya Ford took Marina into her home after a week with Anna Mellen and her husband. Katya, called Lee "unstable," and called Oswald "a mental case." She added, "We all thought that." ----------------------- End Warren Commission Extracts --------------------- It was at the Elsbeth address, as I recall, that we find official reports of complaints of disturbances at the Oswald address. Now, I'm well aware that conservative theorists have tried to use this to bias our judgment against Lee Harvey Oswald, to "prove" that Oswald killed JFK all by himself. But that is an error in reasoning. Lee Oswald might have been a complete moral reprobate, but that in itself is not legal proof of murder. I continue to argue that (1) Oswald was framed for killing JFK; and (2) Oswald was deeply involved with the JFK conspirators and knew most of its members by name. Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

In response to the theme of this thread -- did the CIA sheep-dip Lee Harvey Oswald -- the answer, IMHO, is no, the CIA didn't sheep-dip Oswald, but very specific individuals of the extreme, racist right-wing in the USA did that task. We can name them fairly easily because of all the clues we have. We have film of Lee Harvey Oswald with Carlos Bringuier (DRE) and Ed Butler (INCA), and we have Guy Banister's building address (544 Camp Street) stamped on Oswald's bogus FPCC flyers (thanks to Jim Garrison for noticing that). Now, while one might note that the CIA was happy to support and finance any Cuban Exile Group (like the DRE, INCA, Alpha66, CDRF, and many more) that wanted to kill Fidel Castro, that is not the same as saying that the CIA controlled all these groups. (If you doubt that, then you probably know very few Cubans.) In fact, Carlos Bringuier and Ed Butler worked hand in hand with Guy Banister and David Ferrie in New Orleans, especially at the Lake Pontchartrain paramilitary training camp, attended by many Cuban Exile groups, and was also attended by KKK members from Mississippi (which proof is pending). Guy Banister was a member of nearly every right-wing rascist organization in the South. He openly ran for office in New Orleans on the "race segregation" platform. That sounds bizarre today, but in 1963, in the South, it was commonplace. Other attendees of the Lake Pontchartrain camp were members of Interpen, led by Gerry Patrick Hemming, and accompanied by Loran Hall, Larry Howard (allegedly Leopoldo and Angelo, aka. Lorenzo and Alonzo, per Harry Dean), as well as William Seymour as well as ex-General Edwin Walker and even Lee Harvey Oswald (as Gerry Patrick Hemming claimed). The leaders were ultra-rightwing racists. They wanted, first and foremost, to Impeach Earl Warren and roll back the Supreme Court Brown decision that racially integrated US public schools. Secondly, they wanted to invade Cuba and take it back from the Communists. Naturally, the CIA (and the Cuban Exiles) were totally in sympathy with their second goal. But the first goal was alien to most Americans, and was against the written principles of the CIA and the FBI. (No doubt there were secret KKK members in the FBI and CIA, but we're talking about official positions here.) I feel certain that the Cuban Exiles didn't care one bit about the Brown decision -- it was no skin off their noses. But politics makes strange bed-fellows, and if it was the ultra-right in the USA that would support taking Cuba back by force, then the Cuban Exiles would sign up with them. I feel certain of that as well. No -- those who sheep-dipped Lee Harvey Oswald were first and foremost ex-General Walker and the John Birch Societey (exactly as Jack Ruby and Harry Dean have said all along). They were assisted by Guy Banister, David Ferrie (as Jim Garrison showed) as well as by Loran Hall, Larry Howard and Guy Gabaldon (as Harry Dean says). Why Lee? Because he had too few friends among the rightists -- he moved within this snake pit, and they didn't trust him. Lee was bold enough to be a double-agent, and this confused the simple minds of many of them (e.g. Nico Crespi). Add to this my own theory -- that Lee Harvey Oswald really was one of the shooters at General Walker as Marina Oswald testified under oath -- and this again places ex-General Walker in the front lines. If (and only if) Oswald tried to kill Walker, and if Walker found out about it (as Dick Russell claims) then ex-General Edwin A. Walker had the perfect motive to transform Lee Harvey Oswald into the patsy of the Crime of the Century. He was the mover. Whatever other role he might have had -- Walker was responsible, IMHO, for delivering the patsy to the plot. He did a brilliant job. Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

Tommy, as I said, it wasn't so much a language mistake, as it was a common case of language imprecision. It happens all the time, even on this Forum. Yet you seem to wish to rip Hall's statement out of its context. Loran Hall's sentence existed in a very specific context, namely, the context of the belief that Oswald was a double-agent. You're ignoring that. You are taking the phrase "pro-Castro" out of its context and trying to make it stand on its own. Once again -- the fact that Lee Harvey Oswald moved in the circles of Carlos Bringuier, Ed Butler and Guy Banister in New Orleans is our first evidence that Oswald was anti-Castro. Then, the fact that Oswald claimed to be the officer of an FPCC chapter in New Orleans -- when there was no such chapter aside from himself and his alias, is our second evidence that Oswald was anti-Castro. Then, the fact that Oswald took all his newspaper clippings of his arrest, his radio program and his TV appearance with him to Mexico, as bona fides that he really was an FPCC officer, is our third evidence that Oswald was anti-Castro. Then, the fact that the Cuban Consulate in Mexico City rejected Oswald's claim to an instant entry into Cuba on grounds that he was an FPCC officer, is our fourth evidence that Oswald was anti-Castro. Here is another place where the account of Harry Dean can be helpful. Harry was part of the 26th of July Movement in 1960, when Fidel Castro made a deal with the founders of the FPCC in New York City. Castro agreed to subordinate the 26th of July Movement underneath the FPCC. Many of the old guard quit the Castro movement because of this, but Harry Dean remained inside the network. He saw first hand how closely Fidel Castro cared for the FPCC, a major fund-raiser and supply line of materials and information for Castro. FPCC officers were privileged people in Havana in those days. (Also the Cuban Consulate in Mexico had an official list of FPCC officers -- and the name of Lee Harvey Oswald was not on that list. Therefore, there was no way that Oswald was going to fool the Cuban Consulate -- but he didn't know that -- he lost his temper.) Guy Banister had agonized over the FPCC since its inception. He was well aware that an FPCC officer would be admitted instant, unquestioned entry into Cuba from Mexico City, without waiting. This explains the ridiculous charade of Oswald in New Orleans in the summer of 1963 -- pretending to be an FPCC officer on the street, in the newspapers, on radio and on TV. We know this is correct because when Oswald wrote to the FPCC to boast about his merits, he told them that he was arrested for fighting with a 'gusano' on the streets of New Orleans -- but that would not happen for another two days. So, Oswald was lying all along. He was working for Guy Banister, just as Jim Garrison plainly exposed in 1968. Furthermore, you doubt whether Oswald was mobile enough to travel from New Orleans to Dallas on short notice. That mythology exists today, because Oswald had no car and most accounts say he couldn't drive. But Silvia Odio's account shows that Oswald had a chauffeur, namely Loran Hall, who's red car transported Oswald all the way to Mexico, according to Harry Dean and other researchers. Further, I believe that Nico Crespi was being truthful and correct -- according to the knowledge he had. He only witnessed the newspaper, radio and TV events -- so it was absolutely certain to Nico Crespi that Oswald was a Communist. There was no doubt in his mind. Yet most of Oswald's companions were radical rightists. Loran Hall and Larry Howard were only two of many. Oswald did not hang with Communists. Also, Oswald kept his rightist connections far from Marina's view. She thought Oswald was a loner. I also agree with you that nobody impersonated Oswald in Dallas. Oswald was mobile. He had a driver. He got around and he was trying to make a name for himself so he could eventually be hired permanently by the CIA, FBI or ONI. But he was such a mediocre asset that he never got offered the job. As for Loran Hall -- I think you should review the way he talked about Gerry Patrick Hemming -- he was inflammatory and violent. Yet in his interviews with Jim Garrison, Loran Hall admits he was pals with "Gerry Patrick" for a long time. So, Loran Hall was very shrewd and lied a lot. As Harry Dean also reported, after JFK was finally killed, all these former "pals" suddenly stopped seeing each other. It was not a good idea to be connected with a fellow conspirator after the Crime of the Century. Regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>

I knew it was a lie, I just didn't know he was so utterly shameless. I've managed to get an advance copy of his new book Killing Jesus. In it he claims that he was at the Garden of Gethsemane hoping to get an interview when they came and arrested Jesus. "It was during a past life regression with a hypnotist friend of mine. I saw Jesus as they led him away. He looks just like the Shroud of Turin." Omigosh, it sounds like a case of egomania run amok. --Paul

DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY IDEA HOW I CAN CONTACT SILVIA ODIO? Open Letter to Silvia Odio: Dear Miss Odio, I am not going to ask you about Lee Harvey Oswald or JFK. My current interest is in ex-General Edwin A. Walker, the only US General to resign in the 20th century. Did you, while you lived in Dallas, ever have occasion to hear Walker speak? Had you ever followed his career? Were you aware that Walker led race riots at Ole Miss University on the evening of 30 September 1962; riots in which hundreds were wounded and two were killed? Were you aware that Walker was wrongly acquitted of those crimes by perjuring himself before a Grand Jury in January, 1963? Did you have any opinion one way or another about ex-General Edwin Walker? Were you aware that in mid-1963 Walker turned his attention to the Cuban problem, and courted support from the Cuban Exile community? If you'd like to know more about my research into ex-General Edwin Walker, please visit my web site at www.pet880.com Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Well, Tommy, I agree that Loran Hall's English wasn't poor, I only note that it wasn't great, either. I personally accept Nico Crespi's claim -- and Loran Hall's repetition of his claim -- to be an ambiguous English statement. Look at the dynamics. Nico Crespi was concerned that Lee Harvey Oswald was going to address some Cuban s in Texas -- not pro-Castro Cubans (Communists) but anti-Castro Cuban Exiles. Now, why would Cuban Exiles invite a pro-Castro speaker to their event? Answer: they wouldn't. Therefore, Nico Crespi was concerned that Lee Harvey Oswald -- under a pretense of giving an anti-Castro speech (and thus was invited to do so) would sneak in some pro-Castro propaganda. That was Crespi's concern -- that his Cuban Exile compatriots would be fooled by Oswald, because, as the same account reveals, his worry was that Oswald was a double-agent. Now -- Loran Hall didn't make that perfectly clear, IMHO. That's because his English skills, while good enough on the surface, were really imperfect. (Much like many native English speakers I can name). See the ambiguity? Yet Loran Hall didn't unpack the ambiguity. Now, you ask what possible disinformation would the double-agent Oswald try to slip past the gullible Cuban Exiles, that so worried Crespi? It's a moot point, because Oswald wasn't really a Communist (as the Warren Commission falsely claimed) in the first place. Oswald was in Dallas to promote a war against Castro -- just as he cooperated (yes, cooperated) with Carlos Bringuier of DRE and Ed Butler of INCA in New Orleans in August, 1963. Oswald's association with Guy Banister and David Ferrie in New Orleans in the summer of 1963 unambiguously places Oswald in the right-wing. However, part of his cover (as orchestrated by Bringuier, Butler and Banister) was that Oswald was an FPCC officer (a bald-faced lie). Nico Crespi, however, was not one of the insiders, and he didn't know it was a ruse. He only believed the evidence he saw in the newspapers, or heard on the radio, or saw on television -- Oswald was an FPCC officer! Therefore, when Crespi heard that Oswald was going to Dallas to give a speech to his own people, Crespi chose to stop the speech -- not knowing or caring what Oswald was going to say. Regards, --Paul Trejo

bump

I don't expect to find any cloak-and-dagger intrigue in the life of a journalist, Ron, and I would be surprised to find any in the life of Bill O'Reilly. What I would expect to find in the life of a journalist is exaggeration, hyperbole, sensationalism, and fantasy. Whatever sells. O'Reilly clearly had nothing to add of value in his recent book on the JFK assassination. He repeated the Lone Nut theory to a weary world, and then interposed himself at the scene-of-the-suicide of George De Mohrenschildt. What nonsense. Rarely do so many good trees die in vain to produce paper for such rubbish. O'Reilly has lost his appetite for the truth and has long since rationalized his appetite for lucre at any cost. He's pitiful to watch on TV, interrupting guests so much better informed than he is. But, hey, if they're dumb enough to appear on his program, then they get just what they deserve. I weep for American TV audiences. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Tom, I welcome the voice of an experienced private detective on the Forum. Yet may I ask - why do you characterize the assassination of JFK as a "Coup," that is, a coup d'etat? In an authentic coup d'etat, the assassins boldly announce the righteousness of their cause (Sic Semper Tyrannis!) and they carefully spell out their demands or the new rules of the game. None of that happened with the JFK assassination -- IMHO, the assassins of JFK wanted above all for the USA to invade Cuba and depose the Communist dictator, Fidel Castro. The assassins did not get their way. Nor did they have the manly courage to come out in the open and admit their act of assassination, or why they did it. Instead, the JFK assassins were like snakes in the grass, sneaking and hiding in dark alleys, and hoped, hoped, hoped, that blaming an alleged Communist for the death of JFK would be enough to move the USA to invade Cuba. When that failed to happen, the JFK assassins did not press the issue -- they killed Oswald in cold blood using a mentally defective Mafia hit man, and that was the last we ever heard of them. This is not how a genuine coup d'etat plays out; this was a farce. The USA proved to be too robust to fall for nonsense like that. IMHO, the JFK assassination was a massive miscalculation by some underground paramilitary forces in the USA (forces that always lurk in any modern State) and when it failed, they ran away with their tails between their legs like the yellow cowards they really were. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

Another major aspect of the Harry Dean Memoirs is his confirmation that the testimony given by Sylvia Odio to both the Warren Commission and the HSCA about Loran Hall was substantially correct. That is, Harry's personal connection with ex-General Edwin Walker is important for history; yet Harry's personal connection with Loran Hall is equally important for history. The Sylvia Odio episode was never solved by the Warren Commission -- they left it open because they ran out of time -- they had to go to print. But it is very interesting to me that from her account to the FBI in September 1964, from her recollection of the visit by "Leopoldo," "Angelo" and Leon Oswald -- and what they said -- but nothing else -- that the FBI straightaway picked up Loran Hall for questioning. Sylvia Odio did not have a name, and she could not identify the men at her home on 25 September 1963 from FBI photographs. Yet the FBI quickly picked up the correct man (according to Harry Dean) and at first, Loran Hall admitted to the FBI that he and two friends did indeed visit Sylvia Odio in September of 1963. That is pretty amazing to me. Best regards, --Paul Trejo

As for your first question, Tom, I openly admit that all those loyal to the Warren Commission were less than candid with the American people -- and that was by design and they never denied it. The reason for the Warren Commission deception -- and it was openly deceptive -- was honestly stated -- namely, National Security. The message was clear to everybody with common sense -- The Warren Commission knew the truth but was never going to tell the American people for reasons of National Security. This was made blatantly obvious by the fact that the FBI files on Lee Harvey Oswald (among other critical documents) were scheduled to be released to the American people in 75 years after the death of JFK -- in 2038. That, all by itself, is an open admission of the fact -- the Warren Commission was not going to tell us the truth. Period. Get over it. The US government -- our government -- decided that the American people could not handle the truth. That is, the truth would have jeopardized National Security. How? They would not say -- because that would have been a hint that would have given the secret away. Why did Nicholas Katzenbach call Jim Garrison "a complete nut?" Not because Jim was way off the scent of the JFK assassins -- on the contrary -- Jim Garrison was hot on the trail of the assassins. Rather, Katzenbach called Garrison a "nut" because he continued to put pressure on the US government and at the same time claimed that he was loyal to the US government -- that he was a great patriot. Well, if Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren said that the truth about the JFK assassination was a matter of National Security, how could Jim Garrison consider himself patriotic by publicly calling Earl Warren a bald faced xxxx? As for your second question -- why did I call Priscilla Johnson -- I called her because I was writing a screen play using the 1993 book by Ron Lewis, entitled, Flashback: The Untold Story of Lee Harvey Oswald, as my model. What Ron's book lacks, unfortunately, is the love interest, i.e. the dramatic element provided by a female relationship. So, I called Priscilla Johnson to ask for her permission to use excerpts from her 1977 book, Marina and Lee, to supplement Ron Lewis' account. She turned me down. Priscilla Johnson insists that her name never be used in connection with any theory that suggests that Lee Harvey Oswald was anything other than a Lone Nut Gunman. This is not because she found more evidence or proof after the Warren Commisison -- on the contrary -- she knows utterly nothing more than was presented in the Warren Commission volumes, and she deliberately shut out any and all newer information, including the Jim Garrison investigation and the HSCA investigation. She insists on the Lone Nut theory solely and only because she is loyal to the Warren Commission. She built her writing career on that loyalty. She will never waver from that, come hell or high water. What was the truth that the Warren Commission and Nicholas Katzenbach held back from us? What would have been so risky to National Security fifty years ago? I think it is finally becoming obvious -- it was the political fact that the racist rightwing in the USA was behind the JFK murder. If that had been known in 1963, it would have started a new Civil War. And in the middle of the Cold War, that would have been fatal to the USA. If that is correct then Earl Warren (along with Hoover and LBJ) surely made the right decision. I don't believe it's so risky anymore, fifty years later. Because the USSR bit the dust in 1990, the global threat posed by the Cold War is a thing of the past. I think now, finally, the time has come to see all the records of Lee Harvey Oswald. Regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos>