James Norwood

23 hours ago, Bill Simpich said:

why didn't they take better care of him.  This is abusive conduct by his handlers.  If he had dedicated two years of his life to his country as an agent, he would not have been worried about criminal charges and he would not have his honor, his income and his future dragged in the dirt.

Bill,

In my thinking about this topic, I keep circling back to the main issue of the thread, namely, Oswald's ability to speak Russian.  This was obviously his principal asset in the Russian sojourn, and indeed he used his time to quietly observe work in the factory, military maneuvers, and daily life, which he recorded in a detailed report upon his return.

At the same time, I believe that you raise a valid point about the shabby treatment Oswald received upon his return.  Is it possible that Oswald's handlers were outraged when they learned that he was bringing home a Russian wife and baby?  It is difficult for me to believe that part of his assignment was to marry a Russian and bring her back to the United States.  Is it plausible (given the preconditions of human nature) that Oswald did not use much discretion when it came to birth control, and, by not using birth control, he unintentionally forced himself into a shotgun wedding, Soviet style?

I would be very interested in learning the views of other respondents as to how and why Oswald was led to the altar during his Soviet sojourn.  Much of the discussion on this thread has dealt with espionage.  But is it possible that a relevant motivation has more to do with the birds and bees and the phenomenon of an “accident” during the Russian sojourn?

1 hour ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Before ever setting foot in the Soviet Union, Oswald scored as well in a Russian-language exam as he did in tests of his English.  Are we to believe this was merely because he was “motivated” to teach himself Russian?

Jim,

Thank you for posting the detailed background and analysis of the Russian language exam administered to Oswald.  This helps to provide the context for understanding his degree of competency in speaking Russian on the eve of the Russian sojourn.  In the Oswald biography, it seems inevitable at some point to come to terms with the question of how, when, and where he achieved an unusual level of proficiency in the Russian language at such a young age and with no evidence of formal classroom instruction.

In my interchanges with Bill sprinkled through this thread, we have discussed many facets of the matter of the Russian sojourn, reaching agreement that Oswald was an asset of the United States government during the mission to the Soviet Union.  He and I differ on the matter of emphasis.  It is my position that Oswald was a major asset for one essential reason:  his fluency in the Russian language. 

If universally accepted, this point alone would change the history books and the way we think about the JFK assassination.

23 hours ago, Bill Simpich said:

James, here is my question to you:  In your opinion, how was Oswald being "coached" prior to his arrival to the USSR?

 

Bill,

To be precise, my usage of the word “coaching” in counterintelligence of the mid-twentieth century is that Oswald had "handlers" who were training him and providing him with explicit instructions for his assignments, as well as manipulating him for purposes he may not have understood.  One example of the coaching may be seen in how Oswald’s activities were directed in the summer of 1963.  Jim Garrison discovered the address of 544 Camp Street stamped on one of Oswald's Fair Play for Cuba Committee (FPCC) flyers, which led him to the address of Guy Banister's office in New Orleans.  Garrison began to connect the dots between Oswald, Banister, Ferrie, and Shaw, concluding that Oswald was being "sheepdipped" by the CIA in such activities as distributing the flyers, engaging in a street scuffle, and appearing on the radio.  And if the CIA was controlling Oswald in 1963, it is likely that the CIA was behind the phony defection of Oswald to the USSR in 1959.

There is also evidence of Oswald being coached prior to his arrival in the USSR, and here are five examples:

(1)  There are moments when the young Oswald dramatically expresses his sympathy for communism at the height of the Cold War.  In New Orleans, Oswald proudly showed off to a friend his copies of Marx's Das Kapital and The Communist Manifesto.  He brazenly argued with the father of a friend, opposing democracy while singing the praises of communism.  For this, he was booted out of the house of the friend.  Oswald and a friend attended a special performance of Mussorgsky's opera Boris Godunov in New Orleans.  How many kids in middle school would sit through a three-hour Russian opera?  All of these experiences would leave vivid imprints on those who witnessed Oswald’s behavior, and their memories would be invaluable at the time of the phony defection.

(2)  Oswald was a high school dropout, not even completing his freshman year.  Prior to that time, there are gaps in his elementary education that are worthy of study by JFK researchers.  David Josephs has prepared a meticulous timeline of Oswald's life that is helpful in identifying the instances when Oswald was out of school and may have been receiving private tutoring and the opportunity to keep in practice with his Russian language skills.  Researcher John Armstrong came across an eyewitness who recalled hearing young Oswald and a woman in an apartment conversing in a foreign language.  John did not include that account in his book because he was unable to corroborate it with any other eyewitness.  There are nonetheless tantalizing moments when apparent coaching experiences were occurring.  Later, there are more gaps in the biographical record during the period of Oswald's Marine training.  In one instance, there is evidence that he showed up on the campus of Antioch College in Ohio.  What was he doing there?  The gaps are well worth exploring by researchers.

(3)  The times when young Oswald moved around while growing up are a telltale sign that he and Marguerite were being shuffled around on a chessboard.  In his book The Interloper, Peter Savodnik, who has, in my estimation, done nearly catastrophic damage in his interpretation of Oswald's stay in the Soviet Union, at least writes a useful opening to his book:

"He [Oswald] was, in a way, homeless--without a stable backdrop of buildings or even people.  By the age of seventeen, he had moved twenty times.  Almost all of these moves happened because of his mother, Marguerite." (p. 3)

A close study of Marguerite Oswald reveals that she too was being coached in the moves and the remuneration she likely received.  As a widow, Marguerite had placed all three of her sons in orphanages at some point in time.  But, by the mid-1940s, her fortunes inexplicably were reversed, and she was buying and selling properties in the Fort Worth area.  A couple of the residences were in extremely remote areas.  Her little boy kept changing schools, which was the whole idea to confuse the KGB in the event that the Soviets investigated Oswald's past during the Minsk years.  

(4)  The shadowy figure of Edwin Ekdahl is a possible link to the long-term project of placing an American operative in the Soviet Union who was fluent in Russian.  The short-lived marriage of Ekdahl and Marguerite has puzzled researchers.  The Warren Commission concluded that Ekdahl bonded with the youngest son.  But what was Ekdahl's line of work and what were the circumstances of his marriage to the much younger Marguerite?  How deep were his ties to the East Coast Establishment?  Did Ekdahl have any connection to American intelligence?  I know that Greg Parker, who has an excellent knowledge of Oswald's life, has taken an interest in Ekdahl.  Any discoveries made by Greg would be a significant contribution.

(5)  While stationed in Santa Ana, California as a Marine, Oswald blatantly called attention to himself as a Slavophile, playing records of Russian classical music, reading Russian publications, and earning the nickname of Oswaldovitch.  This posturing was clearly the result of coaching at the critical moment when Oswald was about to leave the Marines and travel to the Soviet Union.  Around this time, Oswald was administered an army examination in Russian language proficiency, answering over half the questions correctly.  Why on earth would a nondescript Marine private be required to take a Russian language exam?  I have written about the exam in my article.  Oswald’s boosterism of everything Russian and the taking of the exam are clear indications of him being directed in ways far beyond the regular duties of a Marine.

While the documentary record of Oswald's life was sanitized at the time the Warren Commission convened, the five examples above nonetheless offer evidence and raise questions about how, when, and where Oswald was being trained and directed in preparation for his "defection" to the USSR.  Students of the JFK case will typically make a beeline for Dealey Plaza in Dallas to make sense of the assassination.  But by shifting our focus to other areas, such as Fort Worth and New Orleans, new areas of investigation present themselves with great potential for learning more about Oswald’s ties to the American intelligence network.

6 hours ago, Bill Simpich said:

Let me address James' two questions:  (1)  What more information would you need as the threshold to be able to identify Oswald as an agent of the United States, as opposed to a "wannabe agent" or an aspiring James Bond? 

A lot more.  As I said in my first post I think he was an asset and a dangle, but I see him as a "wannabe agent", not an agent.

I think we agree on a lot about his role, and don't want to quibble about phrasing.  As you pointed out - at the end of the day, he didn't have a lot of personal "agency".

My point is that he wanted to have a lot of agency - and he tried to act on it.  If you asked him in 1959, I think LHO would tell you that going to the USSR was basically his idea, just like he told Nelson Delgado he wanted to go to Cuba.  He wanted adventure.  He loved the attention.  Even in 1963 - he at least claimed he wanted to go back - and Marina certainly did!

Bill,

This post will continue our discussion of Oswald as either a formal asset of the CIA or as "a wannabe agent.”  Over the weekend, I will respond to your question about the coaching in a separate post.

For historians, semantics matter.  At the time of the fiftieth anniversary of the death of JFK, the journalist Peter Savodnik published a book on Oswald that was based on a set of interviews the author had conducted.  I even quoted Savodnik in my article on Oswald's Russian language proficiency.  But the term that Savodnik used for his book title and his thesis was Oswald as an interloper during his stay in the Soviet Union.  Unfortunately, the word interloper completely muddies the waters about Oswald's purpose in leaving the Marines and heading to the Soviet Union in 1959.

I am pleased that we are in accord with the word asset to describe Oswald's connection to the United States intelligence network in his assignment to the Soviet Union.  At the same time, if you refer to Oswald as an asset and then write that he was also a "wannabe agent," your readers will forget the former expression and remember the latter.  And, they will be absolutely confused about Oswald’s purpose in the apparent defection. 

The subject of young Oswald as an aspiring James Bond with a fetish for watching the television series I Led Three Lives was discussed on an Ed Forum thread last May.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/26535-about-oswald-by-robert-morrow/

I responded to Doug Caddy by writing that "Oswald did not become involved in counterintelligence by watching the television program I Led Three Lives.  That supposition is based exclusively on hearsay evidence."  Specifically, the hearsay evidence comes from the notoriously unreliable Robert Oswald, who, for decades, threw his "brother" under the bus of history.  To be credible, the premise of Oswald as James Bond would need some attribution in Oswald's own words.  And there exists none.

In the fascinating notes for the speech delivered by Oswald at the Jesuit House of Studies at Spring Hill College near Mobile, Alabama in July, 1963, there would have been the perfect opportunity for Oswald to reveal his longstanding obsession for being a spy.  But, to the contrary, the notes for the speech read more like the memoir of a missionary when Oswald writes that "in going to Russia I have followed the old priciple [sic] 'Thou shall seek the truth and the truth shall make you free [sic] In returning to the U.S., I have done nothing more or less than select the lesser of two evils." (WH Hearings and Exhibits, Vol. XVI, 442).  There is nothing in this speech that suggests that the trip to the Soviet Union was an adventure of any sort, let alone that of an aspiring spy.

In the forum discussion, it was mentioned by Jim DiEugenio, one of the most fastidious of JFK researchers, that Warren Commission apologist Jean Davidson drew upon the meme of I Led Three Lives in her analysis of the young Oswald.  And, sure enough, on p. 65 of Davidson's work of propaganda, Oswald's Game, she writes that, from viewing the television program, the life of "being an outsider and secretly fighting the authorities---would likely have appealed to him."  

So, what I am suggesting is that in using the expression "wannabe agent," you need to support that premise with primary evidence in the words of Oswald himself.  Otherwise, the discourse will be one step removed from the implausible interloper conceit of another Warren Report apologist, Peter Savodnik, who formulates this conclusion in The Interloper:

“It would be more accurate to say that Oswald was his own agent, that he was moved to act by dint of his own inclination.  That inclination was born of a fragmented and peripatetic youth, adolescence, and early adulthood, but ultimately Oswald was self-propelled.  The mysterious and fictional heart of darkness residing somewhere in America did not murder the mythical hero-president.  Oswald did.” (p. 219)

And once we are in the territory of the kind of speculative discourse about Oswald as an interloper or wannabe agent, the response from our readers will be:   "we'll probably never know the truth about the JFK assassination."

23 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

James - you are inferring that Marguerite was in on the game and moving around to protect her future agent son? Seems like a stretch. 

Paul,

It didn't seem like stretch to Marguerite Oswald, who was indigent and forced to place her two oldest sons in an orphanage.  The money she received from moving around likely allowed her to get her boys out of the asylum and to maintain the semblance of a family as a single mom.

James

2 hours ago, Bill Simpich said:

(a) the careful planning of the venture to the Soviet Union in 1959; can we focus on this aspect - I'm looking forward to it.  If we can hold off on the full-blown Harvey & Lee discussion for a moment, that would be helpful.

Bill,

I agree that this would be an excellent place to start!  And for this discussion, I was not even planning on mentioning Harvey & Lee.  There is great potential to try to come to terms with the focused question of whether Oswald was an agent of United States in the lead-up to his sojourn in the Soviet Union.  In this young man's life, I do not believe he had much personal "agency."  Sadly, like others during the Cold War, he was a creature of the CIA.

A little historical background is important for understanding the context of Oswald's so-called defection.  In February 1956, Nikita Khrushchev delivered his "secret speech" at the XX Party Congress in Moscow, wherein he denounced the atrocities of Joseph Stalin.  There followed what is often called a brief "thaw" in the tensions between the superpowers.  By 1959, a major summit had been planned in Paris in which there was the potential for Khrushchev and Eisenhower to break the ice. 

This was the political backdrop when Oswald left the Marines and made a beeline for the Soviet Union in 1959.  In its historical context, the gravitas of this venture had major diplomatic implications if Oswald's ties to American intelligence were exposed.  The following components of Oswald's trip suggests that it was not a small operation:

• Oswald postured as a Slavophile who played Russian records, read Russian-language publications, and was known by the nickname Oswaldovitch to his fellow Marines in Santa Ana, California.  This posturing established a motivation for the "defection";

• Oswald's discharge from Marines was conducted under extremely suspicious circumstances in which he claimed hardship to support his mother after a candy bowl landed on her head;

• Oswald's phony application as a student to the non-existent Albert Schweitzer College in Switzerland was a carefully documented ruse;

• Oswald's route to the Soviet Union taken through Finland miraculously allowed him to enter the country expediently with little bureaucratic hassle;

• Oswald's phony suicide attempt in a Moscow hotel was designed to influence the authorities' decision to allow him to remain in the Soviet Union;

• Oswald's finances in 1959 consisted of military scrip, raising the question of how he could have funded this trip.

The points raised above suggest a meticulously choreographed operation that was in the works for a considerable amount of time and that could only have been implemented by the facilitation of the national security network.  This was no small espionage project, especially considering the timing during the period of the thaw.

An essential eyewitness account of the Oswald defection is that of James Botelho, Oswald's Marine roommate in Santa Ana, who described the investigation that followed in the immediate aftermath of a United States Marine seeking asylum in the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War: 

“It was the most casual of investigations.  It was a cover-investigation so that it could be said there had been an investigation….Oswald, it was said, was the only Marine ever to defect from his country to another country, a Communist country, during peacetime.  That was a major event.  When the Marine Corps and American intelligence decided not to probe the reasons for the ‘defection,’ I knew then what I know now:  Oswald was on an assignment in Russia for American intelligence.”

"A major event," in the words of a contemporary observer in the military.

We will probably never uncover a direct body of evidence of those who trained, prepared, and coached the young Oswald as he grew up.  However, I made a research trip to the Fort Worth area, traveling to all of the known addresses where Oswald lived.  There were so many moves on the part of Marguerite that it was mind-boggling to contemplate, and she often lost money on the sale of her homes.  Some of the moves of only several blocks made no sense until I learned that the move translated into young Oswald changing school districts.  The constant moving served to make it difficult for the KGB to trace Oswald's history when he arrived in the Soviet Union.  For this assignment, the idea was not to recruit a high-profile spymaster like Yale University graduate Cord Meyer, whose background could easily be traced.  Rather, it had to be an obscure, low-level operative like Oswald with a salient skill:  facility in the Russian language.  A substantial effort went into constructing the legend to cloak that reality.

Based on the prodigious research efforts of military historian John Newman, we know enough from the scarce surviving documents to understand that CIA had some kind of relationship with Oswald prior to JFK's election as president.  So, I am puzzled why you are unable to accept the word "agent" as the role of Oswald in this operation.  Based on the data that I have presented above, I have two questions for you:

(1)  What more information would you need as the threshold to be able to identify Oswald as an agent of the United States, as opposed to a "wannabe agent" or an aspiring James Bond? 

(2)  Would you accept the term asset as an appropriate description of Oswald in the so-called defection of 1959?

James

1 hour ago, Anthony Thorne said:

reading through your article, half your points in it seem to come from Warren Commission witnesses saying, yeah, he did speak Russian, and he spoke it really well. Were any of them coached?

Anthony,

The one Warren Commission eyewitness who might be considered suspect is the shadowy figure of George deMohrenschildt.  But the others are primarily ordinary citizens who had chance meetings with Oswald and happened to hear him speak unusually fluent Russian.  The questions asked about foreign language proficiency by the Warren Commission attorneys were boilerplate in their examination of the witnesses who had contact with Oswald.  I see no reason why any witness would be coached into implying that Oswald was either competent or inept in speaking Russian, or why that would matter to the Commission.  The truly hot button questions had to do with Oswald’s proclivity to violence. 

I give especially strong weight to the Warren Commission witnesses on the side of credibility because they swore an oath prior to their testimony and risked perjury charges if they lied.  With the exception of deMohrenshcildt, I see no reason why any of those eyewitnesses would be lying about their experience of Oswald's proficiency in Russian.  As you note above, the Warren Commission witnesses were only half those who vouched for his competency.  The instances when Oswald appeared to be deficient were during the Minsk years when he was feigning ignorance of the language and maintained the appearance of lethargy in trying to improve.

James

20 minutes ago, Bill Simpich said:

The loaded question for me is that whether there is enough evidence to conclude that when he left the US, his purpose was to act as a United States agent.

Bill,

That question isn't loaded at all.  Surely, you recognize that it is the heart of the matter of why you challenged me to a debate here on this thread.  By the late 1970s, Senator Richard Schweiker asserted that there were "fingerprints of intelligence" all over Oswald, and we have so much more evidence today to support his conclusion.  You and I can closely examine the evidence on this thread and let readers make up their own minds. 

For starters, I would offer one instructive example in the Warren Commission testimony of Dennis Ofstein in Volume X of the Hearings and Exhibits.  Offstein was one of Oswald’s co-workers at Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall in 1962.  Ofstein had spent a year studying Russian language at the famed Monterey language institute, and he was amazed with Oswald's grasp of the Russian language, both in reading and conversational Russian.  In their occasional talks at work, Ofstein and Oswald engaged in conversations about the time Oswald spent in Minsk.  From those talks, Ofstein concluded that Oswald had been an agent of the United States.  On multiple occasions during his testimony, he told the Commission that he believed Oswald was an agent of the United States.  That testimony, sworn under oath, should have alerted the committee to thoroughly investigate Oswald's ties to the intelligence community.  Of course, that never happened in large part because Allen Dulles was screening the information from the commission.

My position is that we now have a threshold of evidence to conclude that Oswald was a low-level operative, spy, dangle, or agent (take your pick of the terms) at the center of what was known in the 1950s as the Oswald Project in sending a false defector to the Soviet Union for the purpose of gathering intelligence at the height of the Cold War.  The testimony of Dennis Ofstein is only the tip of the iceberg for the evidence.

 

Another excellent query, Matt.

This particular young boy was chosen because he was fluent in the Russian language, and that skill coupled with an obscure background difficult to trace (as opposed to that of a graduate of Yale) made him the perfect candidate for low-level operative in a Cold War intelligence operation. 

I'll be happy to answer any questions you have on this matter.  But I have unfolded the argument and presented the evidence in my article "Oswald's Proficiency in the Russian Language": 

https://harveyandlee.net/Russian.html

Matt,

Yes!  Your thinking is right on the mark.  The "legend" was being developed long before Oswald entered the military.  The evidence for this is found in the times when the young Oswald is spouting off to his school chums about Marxism, proudly showing them his copies of The Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital, and, on one occasion, arguing in support of communism with the dad of one of his New Orleans friends and getting kicked out of the home.  This was all pretense done with the intent of leaving a paper trail.  The kid was clearly being coached and directed in preparation for the long-term project of the "defection" to the Soviet Union.

The main point I was underscoring in my post to Bill above was that it is important to set aside the JFK assassination for a moment and focus on the evidence of Oswald's life prior to his return from the Soviet Union in 1962.  What emerges is a fascinating story.

James

Bill,

For this discussion, it was my understanding that we would engage in a focused dialogue about the true nature of Oswald's purpose in residing in the Soviet Union from 1959-62.  In expanding the time frame to 1963, as you have done above, I believe that we would missing an essential point, namely, that there were two "legends" crafted for Oswald.  I have written on this subject in my article "Lee Harvey Oswald: The Legend and the Truth":  http://harveyandlee.net/J_Norwood/Legend.html

In my article, I wanted to keep things simple for people to understand that one Oswald legend was created long before John F. Kennedy was elected President, and it obviously had nothing to do with the assassination.  The first legend was conceived with Oswald's cooperation to paint a portrait of a disgruntled American Marine who was a Marxist idealist. 

The second legend was crafted sometime after the Cuban Missile Crisis and without Oswald's knowledge.  That legend built upon the profile of the Marxist sympathizer, adding the element that Oswald was a malcontent prone to violence.  This second legend had everything to do with President Kennedy because Oswald was being framed as the assassin.

Unless the distinction is drawn between the two legends, the analysis of the legend topic becomes murky.

In your opening statement above, you have provided an overwhelming number of topics to consider.  While it is fine if others want to comment on your various points, I am writing to request that in our interchanges, could we begin with the period leading up to the "defection" and ending with Oswald's return to the United States in 1962?  I hope this will be agreeable.

The first question that I have for you is whether we are in agreement that at the time Oswald left for the Soviet Union in fall 1959, there is enough evidence to conclude that his purpose was as a United States agent and not as a genuine Marxist wishing to defect from the United States.  Do you concur?

Bill,

Yes, I believe a thread devoted to the topic of Oswald's language abilities and the evidence related to his adventure in the Soviet Union (1959-62) to be instructive.  Please feel free to start a thread, and I will be keeping an eye out for it.

Thank you!

James

7 hours ago, Bill Simpich said:

I took a look at James Norwood's well-written article on Oswald's Proficiency in the Russian Language and realized that if readers like Mr. Norwood are going to look for a Harvey and Lee-type analysis in my work, they are not going to find it.

Dear Bill,

Thank you for having a look at my article and for the work you have done on the important topic of the Oswald legend.

I'm not looking for a Harvey and Lee-type analysis.  But I am looking for a defensible rationale for why Oswald spent two-and-a-half years in the Soviet Union. 

In examining this topic, it is inevitable that the historian must address Oswald's exceptional fluency in the Russian language.  So, in analyzing the legend of Oswald, students of the JFK assassination will find it essential to understand why, when, and where Oswald learned Russian. 

The topic of the legend opens a Pandora's Box of questions about the truth lying beneath the legend.  It is not enough to merely assert that he was a "wannabe spy," given (a) the careful planning of the venture to the Soviet Union in 1959; (b) Oswald's exceptional foreign language skills; (c) the feigning of his ignorance of Russian in the Minsk years; and (d) the ease with which he returned to the United States in 1962. 

At the close of my article, I conclude that, far from being a wannabe spy, Oswald was a bona fide 100% agent of the United States.  Once we understand that reality, then it becomes apparent why there has been a concerted effort for over 50 years to conceal from the public the truth about Oswald's connection to American intelligence.  And when we understand that connection, it is possible to see clearly who planned the assassination of President Kennedy.

James 

6 hours ago, John Butler said:

If you can't see the difference I can't help you.  As for the other gotcha questions I don't have time to answer them.

Gentlemen,

The photo on the right is that of actors Beata Pozniak and Gary Oldman in the respective roles of Marina and Lee Harvey Oswald in Oliver Stone's film JFK.  We are always on shaky ground when trying to draw conclusions about photos without examining the images in context and verifying their authenticity.

James 

Another interesting detail in the document discussed above is the interest of Jacques Richardson (a.k.a., Thomas Casasin) in the information Oswald could provide "on the Minsk factory in which he had been employed."  This illustrates how Oswald was in a position to provide valuable data on life in the Soviet Union for Cold War spooks.  And indeed Oswald delivered the goods in his detailed accounts about the factory and life in Minsk, upon his return to the United States in 1962.  

Thanks for posting this doc, David.

6 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

I suggest, kindly, that you drop your criticism of his style and pay more attention to the quite original research

My criticism has nothing to do with the author's "style."  Simpich surmises that Oswald "wanted to be in espionage," which flies in the face of the evidence that Oswald was as deeply engaged in espionage as humanly possible, as apparent in the so-called defection to the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War. 

In a preface, we should be able to see the author's thesis being developed.  In asserting that Oswald only "wanted to be in espionage," the writer is engaging in equivocation.  Thus far, I see nothing original in this research. 

I suggest, kindly, that you stick to analyzing the content of the essay, as opposed to misdirecting the discussion to a question of style.

2 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

 in any case it might be good to quote the entire paragraph in question, in which Mr. Simpich’s view is more nuanced than your excerpts suggest.

Paul,

Here is the entire paragraph that appears early in the essay:

"Oswald was different in another way - he wanted to be involved in espionage. As many have pointed out, he didn't have the credentials. But many people in the espionage business were glad to use him in one way or another. If nothing else, Oswald was a valuable witting or unwitting asset to US intelligence. All the more reason to endow him with a legend."

There is nothing "nuanced" about this writing.  It is pure opinion/speculation, supported by no source, quote, or link.

As I indicated in earlier posts on this thread, I am not impressed with the author's preface to his essays.  At the same time, I want to keep an open-mind to his work and read the essays with care when they appear.  I have written on the legend topic myself, and I am interested in his findings and whether they will include detailed examination of the twenty points enumerated by Jim Hargrove above, as well as how Simpich will support the "why," the "how," and "by whom" Oswald was endowed with the legend.

Anthony,

Thank you.  I will keep an open mind to forthcoming articles.  At the same time, I want to take a stand on what I believe constitutes good scholarship versus substandard work.  Even if the essay is preface, the author should still have the obligation to guide the reader carefully through the selected source materials.  Instead of linking the reader to a document at a principal hub like the Mary Ferrell site, each item needs to be carefully identified in context.  Was the document an excerpt from Warren Commission testimony?  Was it from a newspaper article?  Was it from the HSCA?  Was it declassified by the ARRB?   The only way to weigh the evidence is for the author to take the time to identify the context of each source.  And that has not happened in the preface.

Dear Anthony and Larry,

Let me rephrase my point.  In good scholarly work, it is really helpful to see all of the sources within the document, cited at the bottom of the page, or referenced in a bibliography, as opposed to clicking on so many links.  The conventional source citations would allow us to learn that the author is working closely to Mary Ferrell site, but not much beyond that for a diverse set of sources.

Setting aside the matter of primary sources, the article strikes me as superficial, never probing deeply into the topics raised.  One example is that raised by Jim Hargrove about Oswald's ability to speak Russian.  Another is the author's attempt to the identify the "intimate" relationship of Oswald and "Don Alejandro" Ziger, whom he met in Minsk.  But the article never probes beneath of surface of understanding what actually was the intimate relationship of Oswald and the Ziger family and what it tells us about Oswald.  The only point would appear to be that Oswald was given the nickname Alik by the family.  There is so much more to explore.

4 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

If “Lee Harvey Oswald” was not trained as a spy, how did he learn to read, write, and speak Russian before ever traveling to the USSR?

Jim,

I admired your analysis, especially the question you raised about Oswald's fluency in the Russian language.  We have now reached the point in JFK assassination studies to recognize that any attempt at an Oswald biography must begin with how, when, and where this young man learned to read, write, and speak Russian.  I have attempted to present the evidence in my article "Oswald's Proficiency in the Russian language":  http://harveyandlee.net/Russian.html

According to the Warren Commission testimony of Dennis Ofstein in Volume 10 of the Hearings and Exhibits, Oswald dazzled him with his Russian fluency when Ofstein and Oswald were co-workers at Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall in 1962.  Ofstein recalled that Oswald was subscribing to and reading sophisticated Russian-language materials.  Despite the fact that Ofstein had spent a year studying Russian at the famed Monterey language institute, Ofstein testified that Oswald's Russian was so superior that he provided Offstein with coaching.

A problem that I have with Bill Simpich's article is that there are no source citations other than links to other internet resources and there is no bibliography.  For studies of Oswald, the goal should be to work closely with primary sources.  And there is no greater repository of documents and eyewitness testimony about Oswald than in the Baylor University archive.

For more on Laura Kittrell, see the two-part article published by William Weston in The Fourth Decade (Volume 8, Number 1, November 2000 and Volume 8, Number 2, January 2001), wherein Weston carefully cites his sources:

https://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=48719#relPageId=3&tab=page

https://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=48720#relPageId=3&tab=page

Denny,

Yes, the detail about the motorcycle jacket is intriguing.  When one is searching for a job, the idea is to make a favorable impression.  In the interview of the first Oswald, it was clear that the attire and deportment were unprofessional.  John Graef, the work supervisor of Oswald at Graef at Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall, testified to the Warren Commission that Oswald arrived at his interview "in a dark grey suit, modestly dressed and he was very businesslike and likeable."  (WCH, Vol. 10, 177).  That is the demeanor that one would expect from a job applicant, and it is the exact opposite of the man interviewed by Kittrell.  For this and a host of other issues, I must conclude that the man meeting Kittrell was an Oswald imposter.

The long, typewritten Kittrell manuscript is available in the online John Armstrong collection at Baylor.  But after the Baylor University library made a change in software, it is apparently impossible download the file in a readable format.  Jim Hargrove has more detailed information on this, and I am certain that he will reply more completely to your question.

Thanks for joining the discussion on this thread.

Jim,

One of the reasons that it is difficult to evaluate what Marina "said" is that she had two women who were speaking for her, and their words may not accurately represent what Marina told them.  Priscilla Johnson McMillan, author of the ridiculous book "Marina and Lee," would regularly appear in documentaries and would be quoted in the media about what Marina "said."  In turn, Ruth Paine served as McMillan's tag-team partner in representing (or misrepresenting) the words of Marina. 

Jim DiEugenio just published a meticulous review of a new book on Marilyn Monroe that discredits earlier books that have offered lurid accounts of Monroe's relationships with the Kennedy Brothers.  DiEugenio shows how one or two authors served in poisoning the well about Monroe's connection with the Kennedys.  So too, McMillan and Paine have used Marina as a pawn to advance their agenda about Oswald.  That agenda was to throw Oswald under the bus of history.

John Armstrong makes a persuasive case that, despite her heavy accent, Marina understood English perfectly and gave the false impression that she was in need of a translator.  So, you may be correct when you write above that her behavior is not entirely "blameless."

Jim, Steve, and John:

This is a good discussion of Marina with an important point about the unreliability of her testimony.  In nearly every instance, there is the chance that she is either embellishing, obfuscating, or contradicting herself.  And yet, I feel great empathy for Marina because I believe that she was focused primarily on ensuring the safety and well-being of her children.  Growing up, the two girls were completely cut off from anything to do with her father.  The FBI even gathered up every photo of Oswald from Marina, so there was no family photo album.  After Oswald's funeral, Robert completely cut ties with his two Oswald "nieces." 

Anyone who knew that Oswald was a native speaker of Russian would not be reliable as an eyewitness to history.  Therefore, the words of Marina, Marguerite, and Robert are so often not helpful when one is developing an argument about the true story of the JFK assassination.

One of the most interesting of Oswald's family members is John Pic, who died at age 68 in the year 2000.  A devoutly religious man, Pic believed he was a sinner and feared the wrath of God.  Pic never threw his half-brother under the bus like Robert .  While he knew much more than he let on, Pic's words are definitely worthy of close examination.

35 minutes ago, Steve Thomas said:

I would only add a note of caution about that. To the best of my knowledge, we only have Ofstein's word on that, and I think I've picked up a couple of instances where he was less than truthful shall we say; such as not remembering Crigler's last name, even after visiting in their respective homes on at least three different occasions.

Steve,

The Warren Commission witnesses were sworn under oath before giving their testimonies.  Each witness knew that the committee had unlimited powers to investigate and corroborate their stories.

Offstein goes into great detail to inform the commission that his Russian language skills were inferior to those of Oswald.  On multiple occasions, Offstein claimed that he was curious about how Oswald spoke such fluent Russian.  He also recalled that he solicited coaching from Oswald in conversational Russian and that Oswald gave him Russian language publications to improve his reading skills.

So, why would Offstein possibly be "less than truthful" about these matters when he ran the risk of perjury charges if the committee interviewed other JCS employees or researched Offstein's Russian language achievement at the Monterey School and found that he was not telling the truth?

What do you think Offstein may have been hiding?