The Backyard Photos

[Greg Parker]

Very interesting about Fitzpatrick. Was not aware of that.

Well, if you want to see some interesting questions put to Marina, take a look at the Volume 5 testimony where Russell, Boggs, and Cooper go down and interview her.

Its pretty clear they have all kinds of doubts abut what she says and who she is.

They also don't understand why she was allowed to leave the USSR.

Have a look at transcripts of discussions between Nixon and either Mikoyan or Niki K (flying from memory here - it was one or the other). Nixon uses discussion about repatriating downed pilots as a segue into a discussion on country of residence when a US national marries a Soviet national. Almost straight away, there was a couple of such marriages - with at least one taking his Russian bride back to the US.

I tend to believe at least some of those females were targeted - including Marina who was probably identified as a "catch" by the REDCAP/REDSOX agent Mikhail Platovsky - recruited through White Russian NTS associated with Ghelan org. and parachuted into Minsk. One newspaper report quoted TASS as saying that one of Platovsky's missions was to find recruits for the NTS through association with "morally loose elements"... and it's no secret that Marina liked the boys.... Mikhail Platovsky Marina did hook up with the White Russian Church in Dallas with connections leading back to NTS, CIA, Ghelan etc...

John Armstrong has some interesting stuff about her in his book. The Webster stuff is fascinating.

[Len Colby]

I sometimes think that closing one's eyes to all the facts is Greg Parker's favorite pastime. Next thing you know he will be quoting hearsay evidence from anonymous US agents who attended Lee Oswald's wedding.

Ray,

The evidence comes from a prominent academic who authored a book about his time as an exchange student in the Soviet Union. It was an Embassy official who mentioned to him at a wedding of another student, that he had recently attended a wedding between a US citizen and a Russian woman in Minsk. This evidence would be accepted in a court of law as an exception to the hearsay rule. "One major misconception about the hearsay rule is that hearsay is never admissible in court. While the general rule is that such evidence is inadmissible, there are many exceptions." Such testiminy would likely be allowed under Article VIII Rule 804 of the US Federal Rules of Evidence.

As for me getting some shut-eye... you'd be surprised at how little I get...

Please spell out how this would qualify as an exception, here's a link to the rule

http://www.law.corne...les.htm#Rule801

Rule 804 allows the hearsay where the declarant is unavailable.

As I suspected you misunderstood (what a surprise) hearsay from an unavailable declarant is only admissible under 5 circumstances

( Hearsay exceptions.

The following are not excluded by the hearsay rule if the declarant is unavailable as a witness:

(1) Former testimony. Testimony given as a witness at another hearing of the same or a different proceeding, or in a deposition taken in compliance with law in the course of the same or another proceeding, if the party against whom the testimony is now offered, or, in a civil action or proceeding, a predecessor in interest, had an opportunity and similar motive to develop the testimony by direct, cross, or redirect examination.

(2) Statement under belief of impending death. In a prosecution for homicide or in a civil action or proceeding, a statement made by a declarant while believing that the declarant's death was imminent, concerning the cause or circumstances of what the declarant believed to be impending death.

(3) Statement against interest. A statement which was at the time of its making so far contrary to the declarant's pecuniary or proprietary interest, or so far tended to subject the declarant to civil or criminal liability, or to render invalid a claim by the declarant against another, that a reasonable person in the declarant's position would not have made the statement unless believing it to be true. A statement tending to expose the declarant to criminal liability and offered to exculpate the accused is not admissible unless corroborating circumstances clearly indicate the trustworthiness of the statement.

(4) Statement of personal or family history. (A) A statement concerning the declarant's own birth, adoption, marriage, divorce, legitimacy, relationship by blood, adoption, or marriage, ancestry, or other similar fact of personal or family history, even though declarant had no means of acquiring personal knowledge of the matter stated; or ( a statement concerning the foregoing matters, and death also, of another person, if the declarant was related to the other by blood, adoption, or marriage or was so intimately associated with the other's family as to be likely to have accurate information concerning the matter declared.

(5) [Other exceptions.][Transferred to Rule 807]

(6) Forfeiture by wrongdoing. A statement offered against a party that has engaged or acquiesced in wrongdoing that was intended to, and did, procure the unavailability of the declarant as a witness.

[...]

Rule 807. Residual Exception

A statement not specifically covered by Rule 803 or 804 but having equivalent circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness, is not excluded by the hearsay rule, if the court determines that (A) the statement is offered as evidence of a material fact; ( the statement is more probative on the point for which it is offered than any other evidence which the proponent can procure through reasonable efforts; and © the general purposes of these rules and the interests of justice will best be served by admission of the statement into evidence. However, a statement may not be admitted under this exception unless the proponent of it makes known to the adverse party sufficiently in advance of the trial or hearing to provide the adverse party with a fair opportunity to prepare to meet it, the proponent's intention to offer the statement and the particulars of it, including the name and address of the declarant.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rules.htm#Rule801

I'm curious why would Marina and the State Dept lie about someone from the embassy being at the wedding? If true wouldn't it undermine your strange belief he was a spy? Why spy on a spy?

Who said they have lied? No one has ever asked them a direct question about this.

IIRC - Marina said only a few friends attended and State said they were not sure of his wearabouts at the time. But if this does contadict their versions who cares?

No, it would bot undermine any of my beliefs. It would reinforce them.

And btw, Angleton's whole life was spying on spies.

Why?

Angleton is not analogous why would they send an obvious Amer. official in LHO was a spy

Also what evidence do you have LHO had access to Radar secrets and passed them on to the Soviets?

The only kind available i.e. the same kind that the WC used to "convict" him post mortem - circumstantial evidence.

In other words you agree with the WCR or are admiting your claim unreliable? But seriously care to elaborate?

[William Kelly]

If Ray would be a little more liberal with his Tullamore Dew, I think we all would come around to see things more his way. - BK

I don't mind the thread getting hijacked for Marina.

I kinda like her too. I met her once and she came across as very nice and believable.

Just wondering if her meeting Porter was a set up too, since he worked at Collins Radio?

Then they get married and buy a bar in Dallas (Oak Cliff?) but use the phone next door where

Johnny Grassafi has a business, the same guy who sold the Egyptian Lounge to Campisis.

Marina did acknowldge taking the Backyard Photos, right?

How many did she say she took?

How many are there in evidence?

How many photos and how many negatives, and what happened to the other negative?

And what about the story of the guy who says he saw a COLOR copy of the same photo on the weekend of the assassination?

BK

Edited August 2, 2010 by William Kelly

[J. Raymond Carroll]

As a result of this conversation, my interest and desire to study Russian has grown. Thanks to your husband, too, for his very good report in our seminar. Perhaps, we did not agree with him regarding certain of his conclusions, but we all respect him for his idealism and the truthfulness of his search.

I also thank you for records of Tchaikovsky's ballet, the "Swan Lake." I listened to them and I like the orchestra of the Bolshoi Theater and its conductor Yu. Fayer. Thank you, once more!

Mr. Farley finds it suspicious that two intelligent people should engage in an hour-long discussion on Russian culture, music and literature.

Such are the ravings of a VERY NARROW and VERY SHALLOW mind.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Well, if you want to see some interesting questions put to Marina, take a look at the Volume 5 testimony where Russell, Boggs, and Cooper go down and interview her.

Its pretty clear they have all kinds of doubts abut what she says and who she is.

Well isn't it interesting how the Garrisonites and the Warrenista's think alike. Abusing Marina is one pastime they have in common.

Of course, if the case is viewed from Lee Oswald's point of view, the only difference between Garrison & Warren was that one was bad and the other was worse.

[John Dolva]

Branum is apparently a variant of Brennan. Is there anywhere any mention of a (James) Branum in relation to Brennan?

[J. Raymond Carroll]

In fact, Russell expressed his doubts while the process was on. He even did his own private investigation.

If the DEVOTED racist Richard Russell Is your hero, then I greatly pity you.

End result: even parts of the Commission did not trust Marina.

So the phony Warren Commission did not trust Marina, and neither do you.

I hope you are VERY HAPPY to be in SUCH GOOD COMPANY, old sport.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

You know Mr. Carroll saying stuff like the above makes everyone wonder what you are doing here.

What I am doing here is no secret. It is to expose the frauds and fallacies of ANYONE accusing Lee Oswald. If that shoe fits you, Mr. Di Eugenio, then you are DOOMED to a life of sore feet.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

And so on, and so forth...

Hey Farley, why don't you go back to discussing Rugby League. That is ONE SUBJECT about which you have some claim that you are not COMPLETELY IGNORANT.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Oh, but Ray, I am ignorant of Rugby League. And Union.

Well in that case the list of subjects you are ignorant about is EVEN LONGER than I thought!

[John Dolva]

Give the guy a break.

Maybe he's got a tooth ache or something. I actually find some of Rays ideas quite interesting. Ray, how aboutt you tell all as it went down, to the extent you know with noone interfering till your'e done.

[Greg Parker]

I sometimes think that closing one's eyes to all the facts is Greg Parker's favorite pastime. Next thing you know he will be quoting hearsay evidence from anonymous US agents who attended Lee Oswald's wedding.

Ray,

The evidence comes from a prominent academic who authored a book about his time as an exchange student in the Soviet Union. It was an Embassy official who mentioned to him at a wedding of another student, that he had recently attended a wedding between a US citizen and a Russian woman in Minsk. This evidence would be accepted in a court of law as an exception to the hearsay rule. "One major misconception about the hearsay rule is that hearsay is never admissible in court. While the general rule is that such evidence is inadmissible, there are many exceptions." Such testiminy would likely be allowed under Article VIII Rule 804 of the US Federal Rules of Evidence.

As for me getting some shut-eye... you'd be surprised at how little I get...

Please spell out how this would qualify as an exception, here's a link to the rule

http://www.law.corne...les.htm#Rule801

Rule 804 allows the hearsay where the declarant is unavailable.

As I suspected you misunderstood (what a surprise) hearsay from an unavailable declarant is only admissible under 5 circumstances

( Hearsay exceptions.

The following are not excluded by the hearsay rule if the declarant is unavailable as a witness:

(1) Former testimony. Testimony given as a witness at another hearing of the same or a different proceeding, or in a deposition taken in compliance with law in the course of the same or another proceeding, if the party against whom the testimony is now offered, or, in a civil action or proceeding, a predecessor in interest, had an opportunity and similar motive to develop the testimony by direct, cross, or redirect examination.

(2) Statement under belief of impending death. In a prosecution for homicide or in a civil action or proceeding, a statement made by a declarant while believing that the declarant's death was imminent, concerning the cause or circumstances of what the declarant believed to be impending death.

(3) Statement against interest. A statement which was at the time of its making so far contrary to the declarant's pecuniary or proprietary interest, or so far tended to subject the declarant to civil or criminal liability, or to render invalid a claim by the declarant against another, that a reasonable person in the declarant's position would not have made the statement unless believing it to be true. A statement tending to expose the declarant to criminal liability and offered to exculpate the accused is not admissible unless corroborating circumstances clearly indicate the trustworthiness of the statement.

(4) Statement of personal or family history. (A) A statement concerning the declarant's own birth, adoption, marriage, divorce, legitimacy, relationship by blood, adoption, or marriage, ancestry, or other similar fact of personal or family history, even though declarant had no means of acquiring personal knowledge of the matter stated; or ( a statement concerning the foregoing matters, and death also, of another person, if the declarant was related to the other by blood, adoption, or marriage or was so intimately associated with the other's family as to be likely to have accurate information concerning the matter declared.

(5) [Other exceptions.][Transferred to Rule 807]

(6) Forfeiture by wrongdoing. A statement offered against a party that has engaged or acquiesced in wrongdoing that was intended to, and did, procure the unavailability of the declarant as a witness.

[...]

Rule 807. Residual Exception

A statement not specifically covered by Rule 803 or 804 but having equivalent circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness, is not excluded by the hearsay rule, if the court determines that (A) the statement is offered as evidence of a material fact; ( the statement is more probative on the point for which it is offered than any other evidence which the proponent can procure through reasonable efforts; and © the general purposes of these rules and the interests of justice will best be served by admission of the statement into evidence. However, a statement may not be admitted under this exception unless the proponent of it makes known to the adverse party sufficiently in advance of the trial or hearing to provide the adverse party with a fair opportunity to prepare to meet it, the proponent's intention to offer the statement and the particulars of it, including the name and address of the declarant.

And just why do you think the highlighted part would not apply, Len?

http://www.law.corne...les.htm#Rule801

I'm curious why would Marina and the State Dept lie about someone from the embassy being at the wedding? If true wouldn't it undermine your strange belief he was a spy? Why spy on a spy?

Who said they have lied? No one has ever asked them a direct question about this.

IIRC - Marina said only a few friends attended and State said they were not sure of his wearabouts at the time. But if this does contadict their versions who cares?

Instead of relying on memory, why don't you try something radical and find the the quotes? And even if you remember correctly, so what? They still need to have the chance to answer the specific question, instead have something put in a very general fashion. IN that way, they can have their memory jogged - or specifically make a denial.

No, it would bot undermine any of my beliefs. It would reinforce them.

And btw, Angleton's whole life was spying on spies.

Why?

Why what?

Angleton is not analogous why would they send an obvious Amer. official in LHO was a spy

Also what evidence do you have LHO had access to Radar secrets and passed them on to the Soviets?

The only kind available i.e. the same kind that the WC used to "convict" him post mortem - circumstantial evidence.

In other words you agree with the WCR or are admiting your claim unreliable? But seriously care to elaborate?

Ike wanted to share that stuff with the Soviets as gesture of good will toward reaching a Test Ban Treaty Accord. He could not do so openly because of all the hawks. The agreement with the Soviets on science and technology exchanges allowed that such exchanges could take place in any manner whatsoever agreed upon. Thus, Oswald could covertly pass them the information without breaking any laws. The Special Group was tasked with organising it. They tended to use Marine Reserves. Oswald was chosen as he was already earmarked for a fake defection (though I doubt he knew it) but this additional mission meant an early out was needed from active duty due to a tight window of opportunity. As per the norm, CIA provided support for the operation inside existing ops (in this case, REDSKIN). Oswald was met by a REDSKIN agent in Snyder's office - Ed Keenan. Keenan had been recruited at Harvard by Snyder in '57. Keenan's role as a Russian specialist was orientation. There was a whole raft of negotiations on Oswald between the two sides of the Cold war - none of which the KGB was made privy to - ditto most of the CIA, as this was also an opportunity to test reactions of the two opposing agencies. There is no great riddle about how Marina got out. It was part of the package deal and the seeds of that specific action can be found in transcripts of talks between Nixon and Mikoyan.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

It's never pretty with Ray Carroll.

Lee Farley is a Warren Commission CREEP who has recently infiltrated this forum.

NUFF SAID

[William Kelly]

If Ray would be a little more liberal with his Tullamore Dew, I think we all would come around to see things more his way. - BK

I don't mind the thread getting hijacked for Marina.

I kinda like her too. I met her once and she came across as very nice and believable.

Just wondering if her meeting Porter was a set up too, since he worked at Collins Radio?

Then they get married and buy a bar in Dallas (Oak Cliff?) but use the phone next door where

Johnny Grassafi has a business, the same guy who sold the Egyptian Lounge to Campisis.

Marina did acknowldge taking the Backyard Photos, right?

How many did she say she took?

How many are there in evidence?

How many photos and how many negatives, and what happened to the other negative?

And what about the story of the guy who says he saw a COLOR copy of the same photo on the weekend of the assassination?

BK

At one time Tullamore Dew was hard to get in America. I think they also made a special home brand that was sold in unique bottles that changed every year, so they were prized by collectors.

Once such collector, when he heard I was going to Europe and Ireland (they're two separate countries aren't they?), asked me to bring him a bottle of Tullamore Dew. So when I get to Ireland I go to visit some friends, one of whom married a pub owner's daughter. But McReynold's Pub in Dungiven didn't have Tullamore Dew so I caught a ride to the next town and found a pub that sold me a bottle and while I was there I got a brew and shortly thereafter a parade came through - it was the anniversary of the battle of Boyne? when the Prod King James defeated the Catholic William and never the twin shall meet.

I was a Catholic Kelly in a Protestant town on the one day of the year when I shouldn't be there, but when it was explained that I had come all the way from America just to get a bottle of Tullamore Dew, all was forgiven and William and James sat down to drink together while the pipes and drums played. But I got the bottle of TD and got back to the Catholic lines and acomplished my mission without further incident.

BK

[J. Raymond Carroll]

End result: even parts of the Commission did not trust Marina.

Well whoop -Di- Do!

Parts of the Commission did not believe Marina?

I got news for you, Mr. Di Eugenio, there are large parts of the world (including the USA) where no one believes the Warren Commission.

If you want to cite the Warren Commission as the fountain of truth, you might do better over on the McAdams forum, where the Warren Report is considered gospel.

The Warren Commission made its name by accusing an innocent man named Lee Oswald.

Since that theory has long ago fallen flat, it seems some members of this forum now think the next best thing is to accuse his widow.

[PS I hear the hottest spot in hell is reserved for those who persecute innocent widows.]

Edited August 3, 2010 by J. Raymond Carroll