Joe Bauer

Michael, if you are referring to the White Russian history link, I have read the first half of it. Time restraints and errands prevented me from reading the rest but I will finish it today.

It's a fascinating piece. 

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

Were they ever asked this question under oath?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wow ... what an eye opener.

That close up of Gerald Posner's book "Case Closed" on Prouty's shelf when Prouty begins to express his view of the horrible proliferation of so many misleading and misinformed history books is wincing.

Posner ... the historical hatchet job poster boy.   

Egads, what an embarrassing legacy.

The Jerry Coley interview begs interesting and important questions about the so-called "pool of blood" that was seen and photographed at the top of the grassy knoll Pergola stairs right after the shooting ( and the intimidation and threats directed toward his family as a result of his talking about it as reported by everyone's favorite super reporter Hugh "Clark Kent" Aynesworth )   but it's Coley's recollections of Jack Ruby's comings and goings and remaining so long at the advertising offices of the Dallas Morning News on the day of the assassination that are just as important.

I  assume several JFK assassination researchers have developed many time line summaries of Ruby's whereabouts and actions that day, and I wonder if these correlate with Jerry Coley's memories.

In reading Jack Ruby's Warren Commission testimony recounting his whereabouts and actions that morning through early afternoon at the Dallas Morning News, Ruby ( in his typically nervous, rambling, disjointed almost incoherent manner ) gives very different takes on his presence there than Coley describes.

I have copied and pasted Ruby's WC testimony regards this subject at the end of this posting to show these discrepancies.

Coley says Ruby came into their Dallas Morning News offices at 8:am.

Ruby states in his WC testimony that he arrived there at 10:30 to 11:00 am.

That's a huge time gap.

Ruby describes having dinner Thursday evening ( 11,21,1963 ) at the Egyptian restaurant when " a fellow comes over to the table." Ruby then states that this fellow tried to invite him to visit another club two doors down and Ruby refused because the owner of this club had recently taken a band away from him that had been with Ruby at the Carousel for 7 years. 

Ruby states that the fellow that invited him to this club the previous evening had a desk at the Dallas Morning News ( he doesn't mention his name )  but relates that this fellow handled advertising for this other club, and that he wanted to go apologize to him for turning him down and that this took 20 or 25  minutes of his time there.

Ruby says this D M News ad person apologized back.

Ruby rambles on about other innocuous and scattered thought stuff ( retrieving a brochure, working on his Carousel ads) in his effort of trying to explain his prolonged presence in that building that morning and during the time of the motorcade passing through without him personally going out to watch it, as Coley and thousands of other Dallas residents enthusiastically did.

To me, Ruby doing so clearly reveals he knows that his longer than normal presence in that building that day during all the heightened activity is a suspicion arousing problem for him and his 11,22,1963 location and activity story.

Ruby then gives this explanation as to why he didn't go outside of the Dallas Morning News building to personally see his "beloved president" and his beautiful wife when they drove by mere feet away and he could see them in the flesh.

He says simply: " I don't want to go where there is big crowds."

Really?  

Wasn't there a big super packed crowd around and in the Dallas PD building all that Friday night that Ruby thrust himself into?

How about the large crowd of people assembled around and across the street from the Dallas PD building basement entrance that Ruby decided to walk to and through on Sunday morning and again into that super crowded PD basement?

What about large crowd boxing matches that were occasionally held in the Dallas area that Ruby attended?

What about the crowds at the ice skating rink. Were they always sparse?

This explanation is as stupid and ridiculous as Ruby's "saving Jackie Kennedy the ordeal of a trial" one he gave to explain why he shot Oswald. 

Coleys recollection of the time line of Jack Ruby's Friday morning visit to the D M News states Ruby came into their offices at 8:00 am. Not 10:30 to 11:00 AM.

Coley then says he had to run out to do some advertising business at 9:00 am and Ruby was still there at the DM News Advertising offices when he left...and that Ruby was still there when Coley came back at 11:00 am.

Now, that leaves open the possibility that Ruby may have left the D M News building himself after Coley left...and returned some time before Coley returned, or, Ruby did remain there for those two hours. Big questions there.

Then Coley states he and his friend left again to go down two or three blocks to personally see JFK and Jackie up close as their motorcade limo drove by.

Then all hell breaks out and Coley describes what he and his friend saw and did the next 15 minutes or so in all the Dealey Plaza and grassy knoll chaos.

Coley then states he returned to his office and there again is Jack Ruby.

One wonders if Ruby heard all the sirens ( how could he not have ? ) and perhaps looked out any window to see the massive energetic police response that was going on all around from 12:30 pm and that continued for the next couple of hours. If he did, one is forced to ask...why this police and action loving guy didn't even think to go outside for even a few minutes to see and ask what all the unprecedented commotion was about?

If Jerry Coleys recollections are even close to accurate regarding his interactions with Jack Ruby on 11,22,1963, then one is forced to seriously consider that Jack Ruby's much longer than usual stay in the Dallas Morning News Advertising offices ( and laughable reason why he didn't engage in the enthusiastic outdoor close up viewing of his "beloved President and Jackie )  was more logically a JFK shooting time location and activity alibi than any other excuse Ruby gave in his WC testimony.

But even if educated and coherent and mentally balanced Jerry Coley had given this information to the Warren Commission back in 1964, my guess is that they would have stated Coley must have simply been mistaken about all that he had seen and his interactions with Ruby on 11,22,1963 and believed Ruby and his mentally unbalanced testimony instead.

Just like they did with Seth Kantor and his testimony of seeing and even talking with Jack Ruby at Parkland hospital that Friday afternoon.

JACK RUBY'S WARREN COMMISSION TESTIMONY:

Chief Justice WARREN. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give before the Commission will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? 
Mr. RUBY. I do. 
Chief Justice WARREN. Now will you please state whether the things you have just told us are true under your oath? 
Mr. RUBY. I do so state they are the truth. 
Chief Justice WARREN. Now you complete whatever story you want to tell. 
Mr. RUBY. All right. Thursday night I was having dinner at the Egyptian Restaurant on Mockingbird Lane, and a fellow comes over to the table. I was sitting with a guy by the name of Ralph Paul. He tried to invite me to the club a couple of doors down and I refused, because he had taken a band away from me that had been engaged for 7 years, and I felt it was a lost cause, that the club would be failing because of that, and I sort of excused myself and I refused to go over to the club.
We finished our dinner, and I went down to the club that I operated, the Carousel, and this particular master of ceremonies happened to be there at the time, and we discussed a few things.
And there is a columnist by the name of Tony Zoppi--and prior to that, I wrote out a full page copy of this build--I have the copies--as an emcee, and brought a picture and brochure, and Tony said, "I will write a story." This was done 2 days prior to this Thursday night.
So then I went down, so we discussed it and were very much disgusted with Tony because he only gave us a build of one or two lines.
Well, I retired that night after closing the club. Then I knew I wanted to go back to the Morning News Building to get the brochure I left, and also this complete page of longhand writing describing the various talents of this Bill DeMar.
I picked up the brochure that Friday morning, and I also had business at the News Building on Friday because that is the start of the weekend, which is very lucrative, the weekend.
I have ways of making my ads of where they have a way of selling the product I am producing or putting on on the show.
So I went down there Friday morning to Tony Zoppi's office, and they said he went to New Orleans for a couple of days.
I picked up the brochure. I believe I got downtown there at 10:30 or 11 o'clock that morning. And I took the brochure and then went into the main room where we compose our ads. That is the sales room where we placed our ads. And I remained there for a while. I started to write the copy of my ad. Now I go back to the same fellow that wanted me to come over to the club when we were having our dinner on Mockingbird at the Egyptian Lounge.
I came to the desk and I wanted to apologize and explain why I didn't accept his invitation last night. I wanted to explain, and that took about 20 or 25 minutes. All this is pertaining to everything prior to the terrible tragedy that happened.
I started to explain to him why I didn't want to go there, because this fellow mentioned--Tony, I think---I can't think of his last name of me having his band so many years, and I felt at the moment I didn't want to go over to the club because I didn't care to meet this fellow.
And he started to apologize, "Jack, I am sorry, I did work for the fellow and we have been advertising him for that club, and I am putting out a night club book."
I remained with him for 20 or 25 minutes talking there. I don't know whether my ad was completed or not. It was an ad on the Vegas and the Carousel.
My ads were completed, I believe, and after finishing my conversation with him, he left.
Suddenly the man that completes my ads for me, that helps me with it on occasion--but I usually make it up myself--but the person that takes the money for the ads--this is the reason it is so hard for me to meet a deadline when I get downtown to the News Building. And as a rule, I have to pay cash for my ads.
When you are in debt, it is necessary, and they will not put it in unless you pay cash.
And consequently, the weekend, I had been to town on that particular day. All this adds up later on, as I will state why I didn't go to the parade.
In the first place, I don't want to go where there is big crowds. I can't explain it to you. If I was interested, I would have seen it on television, our beloved President and all the parade that transpired.
But all that adds up why it is important for me to be in the News Building.
I owe the Government quite a bit of money, and it is doing business out of your pocket, supposedly, in the slang expression.
Well, John Newnam comes in, and evidently he took it for granted I finished my ad, and I don't recall if he paid for his ad, and suddenly there is some milling around. I think it was 12, or 15 minutes after 12, I don't recall what, but John Newnam said someone had been shot.
And I am sorry, I got carried away. It is the first time I got carried away, because I had been under pressure.
And someone else came running over and he said a Secret Service man was shot, or something to that effect.
And I am here in the middle with John Newnam, because Newnam isn't paying any attention to anyone else, and there is a lot of going back and forth.
So someone must have made a statement that Governor Connally was shot. I don't recall what was said. And I was in a state of hysteria, I mean.
You say, "Oh my God, it can't happen." You carry on crazy sayings.
There was a little television set in one office not far away from where I had been sitting at the desk. I ran over there and noticed a little boy and a little sister say, "I was standing right there when it happened." I mean, different things you hear on the television.
Then the phone started ringing off the desk and I heard John Newnam say people were complaining about the ad, why they accepted this ad.

(A tray of water and glasses was brought in.)

Thank you.
Has every witness been this hesitant in trying to explain their story? 
Chief Justice WARREN. You are doing very well. I can understand why you have to reflect upon a story of that length. 
Mr. RUBY. The phones were ringing off the desk calling various ads, and they were having a turmoil in that News Building because of a person by the name of Bernard Weissman placing that particular ad, a full page ad. I am sure you are familiar with the ad. 
Chief Justice WARREN. Yes; I am. 
Mr. RUBY. Criticizing a lot of things about our beloved President. Then John Newnam and I and another gentleman walked over to another part of the room, and I heard John Newnam say, "I told him not to take that ad." Something to that effect.
Then he said, "Well, you have seen him pay part cash and come back and pay the balance."
Now everything is very vague to me as to when this transpired; after they heard the President had been shot, or prior to that.
You know it's been a long time, and I am under a very bad mental strain here. 
Chief Justice WARREN. Yes. 
Mr. RUBY. From the time that we were told that the President was shot, 35 minutes later they said he had passed away. In the meantime, I became very emotional. I called my sister at home. She was carried away terribly bad. And John Newnam happened to be there, and I know it is a funny reaction you have, you want other people to feel that you feel emotionally disturbed the same way as other people, so I let John listen to the phone that my sister was crying hysterically.
And I said to John, I said, "John, I will have to leave Dallas." I don't know why I said that, but it is a funny reaction that you feel; the city is terribly let down by the tragedy that happened. And I said, "John, I am not opening up tonight."
And I don't know what else transpired there. I know people were just heartbroken.
I left the room. I may have left out a few things. Mr. Moore remembers probably more, but you come back and question me and maybe I can answer those questions.
I left the building and I went down and I got my car, and I couldn't stop crying, because naturally when I pulled up to a stoplight and other people would be adjacent to me, I wouldn't want them to see me crying, because it looked kind of artificial.
And I went to the club and I came up, and I may have made a couple of calls from there. I could have called my colored boy, Andy, down at the club. I could have--I don't know who else I would have called, but I could have, because it is so long now since my mind is very much warped now.
You think that literally?

Mrs. William Harveys effusive praising of mafioso Johnny Roselli ( who Mrs. Harvey acknowledged had done some really bad things - like what - ordering murders?  ) as a "real patriot" and at the same time disparaging the Kennedy's as "real scum" and "idiots" so clearly reveals this woman and obviously her husband's twisted sense of patriotism and the depths of their hatred of the Kennedy's.

Mrs. Harvey speaking of the Kennedy's as if she and her husband considered them as truly the bad guys and even the enemy, and at the same time praising members of the Mafia as the opposite is just so perverse it's sickening. 

Whether William Harvey had anything to do with the Kennedy murders or not, one thing is obvious;. He clearly thought their removal wasn't a bad thing.  

And when you read of David Morales's equally extreme hatred comments regarding the Kennedys ( although second hand ) you get an even stronger chilling feeling about the sheer number of these powerful and dangerous types who shared these JFK/RFK hatred feelings.

And what a real Freudian slip kicker at the end of this Mrs. William Harvey interview when she first says Roselli was recruited to kill "Kennedy" and then catching herself  says ... "or, uh... on Castro." 

Could Marina have been sugar coating their real financial situation a bit to perhaps save herself the embarrassment of stating in public that she and Lee were actually very poor and so often dependent on others?  Living frugally to Marina would to most Americans mean at the bottom of the income classes.

And with Lee working then not working and spending his time running around with Ferry and Shaw and passing out leaflets instead of working and making an income, I just don't see this as adequately getting by for Marina and her child. And remember that Ruth Paine just had to state how she was spending quite a bit extra on groceries and other items that Marina and Junie needed and used.

So, frugal Oswald spends $100 he had saved up on a trip to MC ( which ended up being as much a sight-seeing one versus just political )...and he couldn't pass $50 to Ruth Paine to help with expenses for his wife and child?

I respect Jim Di's research on Marina's supposed physical abuse...but there sure seems to be a lot of White Russian testimony otherwise. Almost a consensus?

And don't forget Judyth Vary Baker's claim that Oswald confessed to her that he had physically abused his wife...which appalled her.

I know, I know, nobody believes Judyth Baker.

And again I ask, did Marina get to keep that $132,000?

Regards such, I believe it's not unreasonable to consider the possibility that Marina made a deal for that massive payout to say what someone wanted her to say regards Lee. It would be very hard for a woman who came from such a poor childhood to turn down what would be a million dollars today.

In a previous post I suggested that Marina Oswald took Ruth Paine's offer to stay with her out of desperation more than any other reason.

I don't think Marina Oswald liked Ruth Paine. But, just a couple of months away from having her second baby and with no offers from anyone else on that level, she took it.

I suggested this as a main reason for her doing so, considering the chaotic moving and stressful life with Lee Oswald.

Ruth Paine was financially stable and was another fairly young mother with young children, so this must have been a better situation for Marina than being on her own and worrying about rent and not enough food at times, and/or living with others who were older and didn't have children.

But I didn't mean to suggest what Marina Oswald was all about in her entire life up until late 1963.

I am not well informed enough to speculate on the broader aspects of Marina.

I just read George Bouhe's WC testimony.

There are so many interesting and even intriguing things mentioned about Marina and Lee in his testimony.

I wasn't aware of how many times Marina needed real help as far back as 1962 and how many times others provided her with this help.

She seemed so miserable back then ( with physical abuse to boot ) and her life up until 11,22,1963 seemed like it was constantly in upheaval.

Just reading about it all in the white Russian community testimony is exhausting and sad.

Bouhe mentioned in his testimony that he was amazed Marina didn't break emotionally during all that time and after 11,22,1963.

He was amazed at her strength to endure through all that.

Bouhe was also amazed at Marina's command of very proper Russian. The kind of Russian educated women spoke.

And later Bouhe even began to suspect that Marina may have been an agent for Russia in some capacity. Bouhe's suspicion in this area shocked me. Throughout 95% of his Marina recollections, he was always very sympathetic to her and her rough life in 1962 and 1963.

Jim Di...did Marina get to keep that $132,000 from that shell company?

Wonder what Marina's thoughts and feelings were upon coming into what to her must have seemed like a lot of financial wealth.

There is a video interview ( on You Tube ) of Bill Harvey's wife years after he passed away.

She is asked about the Kennedy's ( JFK and his wife Jackie) and in response says bluntly and with disdain ... " they were scum."

They were scum.

Hmmm...what a hateful and almost vengeful ( they got what was coming to them) statement. 

Dear God, couldn't this woman in her older and reflective years mellow just a little and perhaps give one ounce of sympathy to a young mother seeing her husband's brains blown out 5 inches from her own face?

This hatred of the Kennedys by Ms. Harvey, and surely her husband when he was alive, was obviously so deep that it makes it very easy to contemplate Harvey having something do do with JFK's demise at some level. Heck, they probably celebrated with a fine dining meal afterwards.

And regards Dr.Crenshaw and his recollection of LBJ calling Oswald's surgery room and this creepy, intimidating, gun toting Oliver Hardy look-a-like hanging out there too ...

I think most researchers believe Crenshaw's story. The details seem orderly, he never changed his story and as mentioned earlier, the call was seconded by the hospital operator. Suggestions that the caller wasn't really LBJ seem so weak in their effort to diminishing Crenshaw and this part of his story.

On 2/17/2017 at 8:55 AM, Paul Baker said:

 

Repeating some of my earlier post message, but feel the Julia Mercer story is credible and important enough to do so and to counter Baker's general dismissal of her.

Again, how does one determine whether someone is a very credible witness to some widely viewed public event versus something less so, or even the opposite? 

Obviously, just common sense dictates you first read their initial statements and later ones if given, and then compare them to each other and to known facts and perhaps to other witnesses's statements who were close to their physical location in viewing the same event.

Also, if more thoroughly needed, checking on the witness's personal background relative to their life experiences, actions and words.

Of course there were a few suspect witnesses in Dealey Plaza on 11,22,1963.  Jean Hill was just all over the place and seemed prone to hyper-anxiety.

I also question Beverly Oliver's story and Gordon Arnold's as well.

Ed Hoffman seems more credible. And I believe that it wasn't Hoffmans entire family that said he was prone to exaggeration and maybe even lies. It appears his father  ( mainly or even alone ) spread that dis-info to protect his son from what he believed were serious threats to his life.

But Mercer is a different story to me. She never exhibited the kinds of personality traits that would suggests she would exaggerate or even make up things for some insecure need for more attention in her life. She made her statements...and was gone.

And even if she mis-identified Jack Ruby as the stalled truck's driver that morning, it's other parts of her story that are just as important and seemed to pass other source verification muster. Most everything she said about the truck - when and where is was pulled up, it's color, two passengers, police above it - was absolutely verified. 

Mercer says she saw the younger man passenger of this stalled truck  ( with clothing specifics ) get out and pull what looked to her like a gun case from the back or side of the truck. She described it's color ( brown )  it's size and shape in general terms and the fact that this item had a handle. She relates that the younger man then took this item and walked up the grassy incline ( where it temporarily got stuck in the ground ) away from the truck and she lost sight of him, at least until traffic allowed her to slowly pull out and past the stalled truck.

This stalled truck witness statement by Mercer seems so matter-of-fact unremarkable and void of the kind of exaggerations or extra coloring drama such as something Jean Hill or Gordon Arnold put out, that you can't at all lump her into their non-credible category. 

I would have liked to have asked Mercer some basic questions myself. How would she know the difference between a gun carrying case from a plumbing tool box?

Did she have someone in her family that owned and used guns?

Was she a politically inclined person? With strong feelings about anything on a national level regarding Kennedy, or maybe even civil rights?

And Ed Hoffman. The mute. Baker questions whether he was even there?  Seems to me that it would take a monumentally serious and personally traumatic event for him to knowingly risk embarrassment in aggressively thrusting himself onto what law enforcement he could find at the moment to try to get them to hear his story.

Hoffman and his incoherent speech and frantic arm and hand movements were derisively dismissed by the first police interaction ( which must have been humiliating  ) but he was so motivated to get his observations out he was willing to risk going through this. That separates him somewhat from the least reliable witnesses.

And Hoffman also said that the item being passed from one man to the other behind the picket fence was brown in color ( or that it may have been carried in something this color . Same color as Mercer's "gun case". That's only one matched description by two witnesses I admit, but it is something in common.

Even if the item removed from the stalled plumbing ( or air conditioning?) truck as stated by Mercer was simply a "tool box", what possible  explanation could anyone come up with that rationally explains why anyone would need or use this up in the area it was taken? There was nothing up in there that would require the need for plumbing or air-conditioning tools.

I believe that many more 11,22,1963 Dealey Plaza eye witnesses were more credible than not and that only a handful were what Baker implies as fringe cases.

The Knebel - Bailey II novel based, John Frankenheimer produced  film "7 Days In May" was made because JFK wanted the American people to know that this kind of situation could easily take place.

Of course, it actually did on 11,22,1963.

Regards Marina Oswald accepting Ruth Paine's offers of assistance, perhaps it was simply because no one else was offering that level of help which Marina desperately needed since her life with Oswald was so unstable and her relationship with Lee was so stressing.

I think Marina at that time was also looking for any way to seperate from Oswald because he was more and more doing and saying things that were scaring her.

Staying with Ruth Paine ( who also had young children ) gave Marina and her young daughter some needed normalcy and stability, especially in her last months of pregnancy and a break from this marital stress.

When someone is feeling that desperate, they will often take help from persons offering it, even though they may not personally like them.

Years ago, my wife and I ( with two of our own adolescent children ) took in a 17 year old girl with baby who was in a similar situation as Marina.

We knew her single mother and the fact that her family was totally dis-functional and could not help her like we could. She stayed with us for about a month and moved on. I knew this girl felt horrible having to live with us. Not because she didn't like us...but because she wanted to be in a situation where she wasn't dependent on anyone. She was embarrassed that she and the girl's father were just so poor and unable to take care of themselves on the most basic level. 

I believe that Marina did not like Ruth Paine, but she needed her at the time that she lived with her. And "as soon as she was able"  she moved on to other living accommodations...and of course the donation money started pouring in.

And here is an added stress on Marina and Lee;  other persons ( males) besides Lee showing Marina attention and generosity because they were very attracted to her physically more than for just humanitarian reasons. Bouhe for one. I think Oswald sensed this ( and probably Marina's openness to this ) and felt very insecure and even angry about it. 

What always disgusted me was the reported boast by Hugh Aynesworth that he seduced Marina and bedded her. If so, what a rat!

And don't forget that Lethario Norman Mailer. He was smitten with Marina after personally meeting her even in her middle age years. He spoke glowingly about her intelligence and added something like...she had the most beautiful blue eyes. They shined like blue diamonds.

Marina's youthful beauty certainly made her a more compelling and sympathetic character in this story. If she looked like a cold-war era poster depicted Russian peasant woman ( Like Kruschev's wife or even Oswald's mother )  she would not have received anything close to what she did after all her exposure in the national and even international media imo.

Regards Julia Ann Mercer;

How does one accurately determine the credibility of an eye witness to something monumentally important, traumatic and controversial and their testimony of such?

With a range from "totally credible" to "not credible at all?"

Are there some proven, or in the least, fairly widely known, accepted and used standards of determining this, say in the criminal investigation realm?

I am not well informed in this area but I sure would like to hear a take on Mercer and her documented affidavit from someone who is.

And has any researcher found anything in Mercer's personal background up to 11,22,1963 that would strongly suggest she was prone to exaggeration or even lying and seeking the limelight? What about irrational excitability or anxiety or mental problems? Drama queen?

How about after 11,22,1963?

Her story as stated in her affidavit has certain details that seem too mundane for someone trying to make it all much more dramatic than it was.

The truck ( which she accurately described ) was stalled...a younger man came out of the truck cab and went to the side of the truck and removed what looked to Mercer to be a gun carry case (or bag? ) in it's length and shape.

Mercer then says this person takes whatever he has pulled out and walks up the grassy mound with it and she doesn't see him again.

She describes physical builds, clothing.  

She sees the face of the truck driver as she slowly goes around the truck as impeded traffic would allow. Pretty straight forward stuff.

She picks out the face photo of Jack Ruby as the driver of the truck, but did she actually say she thought the young man looked like Oswald?

But what most concerned Mercer was her feeling that the item pulled from the truck seemed to her to be more like a gun carrying case than some plumbing tool one would expect. And I've never heard of long plumbing tools inserted in bags or cases.

And why would this younger man then take this and walk up the grassy mound with it?  What tool ( one item ) did this young man remove from the truck and what possible reason could explain taking this that far away from the truck when there where no structures in that area that would require any plumbing work?

Later in that morning, Mercer shares what she saw in a diner and this is overheard by some Dallas PD officers who apparently were concerned because she mentioned the word gun?

Mercer is then taken in for a statement.

After this early investigative time period Mercer purposely avoids any more public sharing of her story unlike so many others who saw dramatic doings in Dealey Plaza that day.

.Mercer is clearly not seeking any more attention than most everyone else who spent time in Dealey Plaza that day.

Years later she is found ( married to an Illinois state representative ) by Jim Garrison and tells him her tale, Then, when her affidavit is read back ( or shown? ) to her she claims that it's been altered, and that there was no notary public present when she gave this.

Seems to me that the greater doubt and suspicion and lower credibility label more appropriately fits those who took Mercer's statement versus her and her story based on everything that is known about her.

Can't wait to see this Douglas.

I am not a proponent of "The Mafia" mainly killed JFK.

I don't agree with the Kwitny report slant.

I just referred to the debate video because of it's content on Ruby.

Agree Paul

21 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

I just don't want to see this thread die.

Kwitny Report on JFK Assassination (1988)

Just watched this.

I am sure many here might see some flaws in John Davis's proposition that the Mafia ( mainly ) killed JFK.  However he brings up many facts ( ones we all probably have read before ) regarding Ruby and his much deeper involvement with high ranking members ( Tafficante, Marcello, Chicago and Teamsters muscle )  that are still worth hearing again to understand Ruby as more than just a small time strip joint owner who loved buying and delivering Kosher sandwiches to the DPD and cuddling with his Dachshund wife Sheba.

One thing Davis said in this debate video about Dallas Police Sergeant Patrick Dean (head of DPD basement security for the Oswald transfer) rang an intriguing bell.

DPD Sergeant Patrick Dean had dinner ( I assume one on one ) with the Dallas Mafia member who attended the Appalachian conference.  

Dean has always rattled my suspicious mind cage.

Sometimes members here will re-post an older thread.

Depending on the thread title and/or who the OP was, I will often click onto these and at least read the first few paragraphs.

When John Simkins is the author I am more inclined to finish the original post.

Paul, your take on the Walker shooting / rifle discovery incident makes sense to me.

Marina was definitely in the worst possible position to be able to separate herself from her husband.

Did Marina actually testify to writing "Hunter Of Fascists Ha Ha Ha" on the photo mentioned?

I just can't figure her trying to be funny, even derisively, about such talk from her husband.

And who wouldn't be asking their husband why he would want her to take extremely provocative pictures of him with two guns and those Russian newspapers?

Maybe she did.  Wonder what he told her in response.

Oswald told Will Fritz ( when he was claiming the BYP were faked ) that he ( Oswald ) knew a lot about photography.  

Was he exaggerating his level of knowledge and skills in this area?

Or does anyone know whether Oswald was into photography ( even recreational ) in the military or during his stay in Russia?

Or did Oswald think he learned enough at S and Jaggers to claim this expertise?

2 hours ago, Michael Clark said:

A post concerning, and isolating, George De Mohrenschildt's pot-shot on Walker comment. I am seeing 3 accounts on that comment. The first is Marina's Feb 3rd testimony. The second is George De M's 4-22-64 testimony. Them3rd is Jeanne De M's 4-23-64

 

Mr De Mohrenschildt: He said "I go out and do target shooting. I like target shooting." So out of the pure, really jokingly I told him "Are you then the guy who took a pot shot at General Walker?" 

---------------------

MOHRENSCHILDT.: Yes, yes, yes, yes; that is right. How could I have--my recollections are vague, of course, but how could I have said that when I didn't know that he had a gun you see. I was standing there and then Jeanne told us or Marina, you know, the incident just as I have described it, that here is a gun, you see. I remember very distinctly saying, "Did you take the potshot at General Walker?"

The same meaning you know, "Did you miss him," about the same meaning? I didn't want him to shoot Walker. I don't go to that extent you see.

---------------------

On April 23, 1964 Mrs. De Mohrenschildt recalls the pot-shot comment:

 

These testimonies are mind blowing in their revelations, implications, contradictions and illogicality.

Marina simply demands Lee promises never do this again? Even her threat to go to the police if he ever did this again sounds ridiculous in the context of normal reactions to such murderous, family destroying, Marina herself being implicated behavior.   

Even a woman raised in a KGB Colonel's home in politically paranoid cold war era Russia ( especially so young and with a baby ) should have been terrified of the possible consequences of her husband actually shooting to kill such a famous political figure as General Walker.

And to be filled with the most serious questions  about why her husband was doing such life and death and family destroying risky things.

Did Marina ever wonder where Lee was getting his motivations for carrying these actions out? Was he simply crazy with anger and revenge or obsessed with proving to others that he was a man of great world injustice changing destiny who should be recognized more than simply a school book box filler who was highly thought of by one Wesley Frazier?

JENNER. All right. Now, then, what did you do? Go into some other part of the house?
Mrs. De MOHRENSCHILDT. I came back to the room, where George and Lee were sitting and talking. I said, do you know what they have in the closet? A rifle. And started to laugh about it. And George, of course, with his sense of humor--Walker was shot at a few days ago, within that time. He said, "Did you take a pot shot at Walker by any chance?" 

----------------------

It seems, Marina claims that G. De M. Made the comment about the pot-shot as soon as he walked in the door. 

In testimony months later, George, himself, makes note that he could not have made that comment if he did not know that Lee had a rifle.

And so, Mrs De M. Steps-up with the story about Marina showing her the closet and gun, then telling George about it while in the living room. This sets the stage for the comment having been made in the context of him knowing that Lee had a rifle.

Marina does not testify, nor is she asked, if she had shown Jeanne De M. the gun in the closet. 

----------------------------

It looks to me like Marina's "by the way" comment was a pre-planned comment that was awkwardly inserted. It also looks to me that it created a problem that needed to be later amended by testimony from the De M's.

Mrs. OSWALD. He said only that he had taken very good aim, that it was just chance that caused him to miss. He was very sorry that he had not hit him.
I asked him to give me his word that he would not repeat anything like that. I said that this chance shows that he must live and that he should not be shot at again. I told him that I would save the note and that if something like that
should be repeated again, I would go to the police and I would have the proof in the form of that note. He said he would not repeat anything like that again.
By the way, several days after that, the De Mohrenschildts came to us, and as soon as he opened the door he said, "Lee, how is it possible that you missed?"
I looked at Lee. I thought that he had told De Mohrenschildt about it. And Lee looked at me, and he apparently thought that I had told De Mohrenschildt about it. It was kind of dark. But I noticed---it was in the evening, but I noticed that his face changed, that he almost became speechless.
You see, other people knew my husband better than I did. Not always--but in this case.

 

18 hours ago, Michael Clark said:

I  stopped as soon as I started. I copied Marinas testimony and I forgot how dumbfounded it makes me....

LHO: "Hi honey, I'm home! I just took a shot at General Walker!"

Reading stuff like this stops me in my tracks. I don't know what to do with it.

Obviously, that is not the real statement of LHO. Here is a line from Marina.

Mrs. OSWALD. No; the day Lee shot at Walker, he buried the rifle because when he came home and told me that he shot at General Walker and I asked him where the rifle was and he said he buried it. 

To be sure, however,  the list is not that long, although I obviously haven't read everything.

Marina, G. De M., possibly Mrs De M., throw in the Paine's just as speculation and that very well could be it.

Edith Whitworth saw a scope, or other rifle part. There may be another gunsmith in the testimony.

I am sure that most every person ( myself included ) who has read Marina Oswald's testimony felt "stopped in their tracks" and "dumbfounded"  many times as you say you did.

I couldn't help but stop and re-frame in my mind a normal thinking reality of what Marina recounted about things she heard from her husband in regards to his shooting Walker, burying the rifle as he made his get-a-way and her reaction to this as well as GDM and his wife's reactions.

GDM lightheartedly "joking" about the rifle discovery and his inferred guess  ( hunter of fascists) that it was Oswald who took a shot at Walker, as if it was all just some mischievous teenager high jinks like discovering a stolen funny name street sign in that closet, is also gobsmacking.

In my 65 year life experience mind, I can't help but think that a normal reaction to a husband telling his wife about such aggressively violent things as the Walker incident, hijacking planes and maybe targeting Nixon would be for that wife so appalling, revolting and concerning for her baby's welfare that she would have run as fast and as far away from him as she could the first opportunity she had.

And for so-called intelligent and worldly friends who stated many times they were extremely concerned about the welfare of Marina and her baby to not feel the same upon hearing of such things, is to me, simply unbelievable.

Knowing your husband is out taking evening pot-shots at anyone, should make any young mother so terrified and traumatized she'd be looking for the first escape she could find.

But according to Marina's and the DeMohrenschild's recounting of such discoveries, it warrants no more action on their part than joking and leaving it be?

The DeM's should have been running from a dangerous gun shooting rogue like Oswald themselves.

In all the months after Marina says what she saw and heard from her husband in regards to his suggested violent gun using thoughts and actions, did she exhibit and maybe even share to anyone appalled anxiety from such "husband as political hit man" revelations?

I know Marina stated she would admonish Lee with responses such as "that's crazy talk" and tell herself he wouldn't really do such things when he spoke of his violent thoughts and schemes , but after the Walker incident when she knew that he was actually carrying these out, I just can't make sense of her not taking more action to free herself and her baby from such a dangerous person. 

I know this has all been covered 10,000 times, but it still carries huge suspicion upon Marina's part and that of the DeMohrenschilds imo.

3 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

 

These guys are the military-industrial complex.

 

Steve Thomas

Steve, your findings and postings remind me of Mae Brussell and her research into not just the JFK assassination but the secret highest power doings beyond it such as the MIC.

One subject that you cover in ferreting out these secret groups and their activities is this consistent connection between them and the wealthy.

How the super wealthy are often wooed with the goal of recruiting them into funding these secret covert activities and agendas.

Funding that is too often hidden from our constitutional government oversight and restraint.

Isn't this marriage of unchecked private wealth and extreme ideology minded groups ( include the Mafia for a real m`enage a` trois )  exactly what President Eisenhower was trying to warn us and our democratic society about in his farewell address?

And when these privately funded ventures become more about surveillance on our own people than anything else...Dear God, where are we?

What has become of our constitution, Bill Of Rights and democracy based society when secret non-elected power people and groups and their wealthy backers have more control over it than our elected officials?

When JFK, MLK and RFK were taken out...I think the answer to that question was already being answered 50 years ago.

Eisenhower himself tried to alert us to what was happening and growing and was the biggest threat to us all in 1960. Thank you Ike.

However with the exception of maybe a couple hundred writers and researchers since then, the main body of our main stream media and scholarly community just never did acknowledge and address this subject in any meaningful way.

Steve to me, your research does.

 

 

 

Paul B says

" Steve, you are like a voice crying in the wilderness."

I need to state that I read almost everything posted here, and I even click on many of the links ( and deeper links from those ) provided by posters like Steve, Jim D. and Doug Caddy and so many others.

And I sense there are many others ( more than you would think ) who access this forum who do the same, but for various reasons don't respond post.

I now respond post here and there, even though I am no where close to the knowledge level of the great researchers on this forum.

I used to remain in the JFK Debate Forum reading only audience ( for years ) but finally figured that at my age any embarrassment I would feel about submitting  my obviously less informed thoughts on these deep study postings were worth expressing, if only for the reason of encouragement and thanks to the real brains here for their years of research work and commitment to the JFK truth cause.

Steve, your postings are not cries in the wilderness.

9 hours ago, Steve Thomas said:

Paul,

 

Thanks. I once wrote that  noone can understand the domestic surveillance by U.S. Intelligence Agencies in the 1960's without reading about the Army Spy scandals in the 1970's. The Army's Counter Intelligence Corps (CIC) far outstripped anything the FBI was doing.

I'd encourage people to read here:

http://www.cmhpf.org/Random Files/senator sam ervin.htm

"According to Pyle, the U.S. Army Intelligence Command for the Continental United States ("CONUS intelligence") included more than one thousand undercover agents operating in a nationwide system with more than three hundred offices. Agents sent their reports through a national teletype network to Fort Holabird, Maryland, where the Army kept its central computer." 

Brandstetter talked about the "Central Index of Subversive Files", and Pyle talks about the "Compendium" or the "Vault Files" that Robert Jones talked about in his HSCA testimony.

 

You're right about the "lack of reliable information" and the "misdirection". To paraphrase something Larry Hancock once said, the speed and frequency with which the various military units changed who they reported to makes it really hard to follow the flow of information in a linear fashion. Plus the Army purged its records in a pretty dramatic way following those spy scandals I referenced above. As Col. Robert Jones told the HSCA, he would have kept the Oswald files for historical purposes if nothing else, but it wasn't his decision to make. I think that one of the reasons that people have latched on to the CIA and the FBI over the years as scapegoats, is that there is a paper trail to follow. With the military and the Secret Service, you just hit a brick wall. They either dragged their feet, or flat out refused to comply with people like the ARRB.

 

You asked about General Walker. I was reading the other day about someone approaching him and asking him if he wanted to get involved in the "Cuban cause", and he said no, he didn't want to get bogged down in the small stuff - he wanted to devote himself to defeating communism "everywhere". ( or something along those lines *smile*).

I think he looked at the people involved - Hemming, et.al. and saw the whole venture as pretty Mickey Mouse stuff, and wouldn't touch it. With respect to the Joint Chiefs, no, they were Active Army. The people I was looking at were in the Reserves. A whole different realm. As someone pointed out to me, the Active Army is a full time job. The Reserves are a part-time job with another life in the "civilian" world.

 

As far as the "connections between the "colonels" and the "generals", in many  cases, the "colonels" were the "generals. What I didn't include in my post was how high up Castorr rose in the National Federation of Independent Business. What started out as a small organization to help small business, quickly became an organization worth millions and millions of dollars, funded by people like the Koch Bros. Or Crichton heading some company (I forget which one right now) that, at one time, was something like the fourth highest stock traded on the New York Stock Exchange.

A couple of the people I mentioned in my post were associated with the oil and gas industry -  Crichton, Logue, Castorr.

January 27, 1998December 31, 1998

 

These guys are the military-industrial complex.

 

Steve Thomas

Mr. RUBY. All right, there is a certain organization here---- 

Chief Justice WARREN. That I can assure you. 

Mr. RUBY. There is an organization here, Chief Justice Warren, if it takes my life at this moment to say it, and Bill Decker said be a man and say it, there is a John Birch Society right now in activity, and Edwin Walker is one of the top men of this organization -- take it for what it is worth, Chief Justice Warren.  Unfortunately for me, for me giving the people the opportunity to get in power, because of the act I committed, has put a lot of people in jeopardy with their lives.  Don't register with you, does it? 

Chief Justice WARREN. No; I don't understand that. 

Mr. RUBY. Would you rather I just delete what I said and just pretend that nothing is going on? 

Chief Justice WARREN. I would not indeed. I am only interested in what you want to tell this Commission.That is all I am interested in. 

Mr. RUBY. Well, I said my life, I won't be living long now. I know that. My family's lives will be gone...

When Lee Oswald said spontaneously to the press the night of 11,22,1963 " I am just a patsy" my "simple mind" didn't automatically look for something abstract beyond the literal meaning of his words.

And to this day, 54 years later, with everything I've read and heard I still feel comfortable with Oswald's "Patsy" claim being just what he stated.

Oswald was "simply" a patsy.

I used to sometimes speculate about whether Oswald meant something else in those 5 words, but eventually I would always come back to their literalness as being more logical than my speculations and wonder why I was looking for something more complicated.

Same goes for simple minded Ruby and his statements to the Warren Commission:

 "Unfortunately for me, for me giving the people the opportunity to get in power. because of the act I committed, has put a lot of people in jeopardy with their lives."

I think it's reasonable to assume when Ruby was talking about power, he meant nothing less than the presidency ... and so this to me equated into Lyndon Baines Johnson and all those who would benefit by his ascent, including big oil, J. Edgar Hoover, the intelligence community and parts of the military who saw JFK as the enemy to their interests.

Probably Walker and his following also which of course included many in the Dallas PD. And don't forget the Mafia.

And when Ruby states "Well, I said my life, I won't be living long now. I know that. My family's lives will be gone..."

Ruby was again stating his simple minded but honest thoughts that he now knew that these powerful people and groups would remove him if he said anymore of the truth about Oswald and his act of killing him, to whoever he thought may still have a chance to counter their power.

And when Ruby said "My family's lives" again I see this as literally dealing with his immediate family of brothers and sisters. I don't think he was thinking that these nefarious power groups would start locking up large groups of Jews in camps.

Ruby knew that threatening one's family was a long time tradition of the Mafia and probably most other secret power groups to keep one quiet.

On another note, remember Sheriff Al Maddox stating in his later life interview ( available on Youtube ) that Ruby had passed him a note saying "it was a conspiracy" and the amazing Ruby comment caught on tape where he says to a reporter he is being escorted past... that the answer to the reporters question is that if Adlai Stevenson was the vice president this wouldn't have happened? " and " The man in office now." meaning the presidency.

Here again, I come back to simple statements by simple minded people not always being more complicated than their literal meaning. 

Some other thoughts and questions about Jack Ruby. If he was so enamored of JFK and his beautiful wife Jackie as he claimed , why would he hole up ( almost hiding out)  in a downtown newspaper's offices ( right next to the motorcade route!) during the entire motorcade?

His seeming indifference to taking advantage of this rare chance of seeing his beloved idols in person is totally illogical based on what we all know of Jack Ruby...a person who liked to be where the action was.

And lastly, to take nutty Jack Ruby's word over sane, educated, calm and together Seth Kantor regards Kantor's claim of seeing and even talking to Jack Ruby at Parkland the afternoon of 11,22,193...is imo one of the most illogical and suspicious acts of the WC.