W. Tracy Parnell

Hughes gives the book a positive review but wisely adds the following caveat at the end: "without corroboration in key parts, its plausibility should be weighted carefully by the discerning reader."

That is an assumption on my part, but he was confronted regarding the abuse by de Mohrenschildt whose opinion he apparently respected.

My point was, no abuse was ever alleged while they were in Russia. LHO apparently saw the abuse as a way to gain strict control over Marina after they returned to the US. he eventually gave up on it because he realized he could not continue to get away with it.

Michael, Let me clarify. Only Klienlerer witnessed the abuse first hand. The abuse only occurred during a specific period of time and thereafter LHO stopped, apparently because he felt he could no longer get away with it. But not every person that knew him could be expected to have either witnessed the abuse or the bruises because it occurred during a specific time frame.

OK Sandy, good to know.

The quote from Marina proves nothing. LHO wasn't violent in the Soviet Union and nobody said he was. The abuse started after they came to the US and he had a comfort zone. Of course he wouldn't be violent in front of his aunt. Not every person who knew him witnessed the violence or the bruises. LHO was only physically abusive for a specific period of time and then stopped for whatever reason, probably because of the admonishment from de Mohrenschildt. He realized he couldn't get away with it anymore.

John and Robert provided some important information. However, they are wrong in this instance. LHO attended Trinity Lutheran, PS 117 and PS 44, all in the Bronx.

Sandy, Not every person was a witness to the abuse. And you can go to Marina & Lee and read about the abuse in detail. But both sides have made their case here and in the other thread, I'll let the readers decide. Since this is a CT forum, most will probably side with you.

Yes, but I don't believe LHO was a victim of it. Even his mother believed he hit Marina and she constantly made excuses for him.

Well it's just semantics but as I said tell, it to the judge. And I believe the evidence shows clearly that LHO abused his wife. You have to ignore a whole bunch of evidence and justify reasons for doing so. Have a good weekend.

Jim and Dave, We have made or arguments and I am happy to let the reads here decide for themselves on this point. Thanks

Not the "Harvey" you're referring to. And for the final time, Jenner asked him point blank if he had anything to add to his testimony including mere opinions. Do you really expect us to believe that he was only hinting about two Oswalds when he could right out and say "Mr. Jenner it is my opinion there were two Oswalds at different times"? And why not take the opportunity when he was on the phone with Armstrong, the creator of the two Oswald theory, to report to him his belief in that very theory? Maybe because he believed no such thing.

Normal for someone to change after years and years and have a former friend not recognize them? Seems normal to me and has happened to me many times.

John Pic mentioned "Harvey"? Yes, I must have missed that!

Here we go again is right. The key piece of testimony is: That's why, when I saw her on TV, after all of this happened, she looked so old and haggard, and I said, "That couldn't be Margie," but of course it was, but if you had known Margie before all this happened, you would see what I mean. She was beautiful. She had beautiful wavy hair. The Evans' were just surprised at the change in Marguerite-she had let herself go for sure. But at no time did they say or try to say she was a different individual than the person they had known. And none of the dozens or possibly hundreds of persons who knew the "old" Marguerite ever came forward to say the person they saw on TV was not the Marguerite they knew. As for Pic, he had not seen his brother for 10 years until Thanksgiving day 1962. He looked at some photos and did not feel they looked like his brother. He was being careful since he was under oath. But again, he never said insinuated or implied that there were two Lee Harvey Oswalds. Again, from his testimony: MR. JENNER-I will put it this way then: Is there anything you would like to add at the moment now that I am about to finish questioning you that you think you would like to have on the record? Mr. PIC - If you are interested in my opinions-- Mr. JENNER - Yes, sir; anything that you want to add. Mr. PIC - I think, I believe that Lee Oswald did the crime that he is accused of. I think that anything he may have done was aided with a little extra push from his mother in the living conditions that she presented to him. So when asked point blank to add anything to his testimony including his opinions, Pic said LHO was guilty. He didn't say anything about 2 Oswalds. And when Armstrong called Pic, he had the perfect chance to climb on the conspiracy bandwagon (as many did) but he chose to stand by his testimony.

Same thing, he never insinuated that the LHO he knew was different from the one who came back from Russia-only changed. that is only Armstrong's spin on the matter. He thought a couple photos did not look like LHO and wanted to be careful under oath. he ended his testimony this way: MR. JENNER-I will put it this way then: Is there anything you would like to add at the moment now that I am about to finish questioning you that you think you would like to have on the record? Mr. PIC - If you are interested in my opinions-- Mr. JENNER - Yes, sir; anything that you want to add. Mr. PIC - I think, I believe that Lee Oswald did the crime that he is accused of. I think that anything he may have done was aided with a little extra push from his mother in the living conditions that she presented to him. So Pic had very opportunity to say whatever he wanted. He also could have talked to Armstrong about a conspiracy but did not and stood by his testimony.

Accepting your analysis for the sake of argument, if he hit her once he is a wife beater. Try going to court and telling the judge you only hit your wife once so you are innocent.

Neither Myrtle or Julian Evans ever stated, insinuated or implied that the LHO and Marguerite they saw in later years were different individuals from the people they had know years before. They only said they had changed as people do. Armstrong uses things like this as well as mistaken witnesses to promote his discredited theory. In some instances, such as with Myrtle Evans, he uses selective quotes to make his point. See: http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-two-marguerites-part-2.html

Sandy, I have many irons in the fire right now and haven't had much time to respond here. However, Greg Parker has put up a couple of posts at his site that do a good job on the Stripling matter: https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1444-the-stripling-bullxxxx-rears-its-ugly-head-again https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1445-the-ignorati

The book is of some value for research purposes, especially when coupled with the Baylor website. But there are many errors, missing and incorrect citations etc. And of course, the thesis is nonsense.

Well, that's sort of the point of doing the articles-so I don't have to make the same arguments on forums over and over. But I have been warned that you may not read them so -ok.

Most of the Stripling witnesses "remembered" seeing LHO there years later after prompting by Armstrong.

David, Not much else I can add here. It is a fact that the one and only LHO left with his mother for NY in August, 1952. Robert assumed LHO went to Stripling but he did not.

http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/04/robert-oswald-and-stripling.html

Of course, the fact that he had access to Russian books and read them, at least to some extent, does not prove the Armstrong theory of "Harvey" at all. If you had some proof that he had the ability to read every word in these books perfectly before that was possible, you might have something. But the evidence shows only a gradual progression in his ability and his study of the books was a part of that process. By the time he arrived in the US, he had a reasonable proficiency in reading and writing the language.