The Backyard Photos

[William Kelly]

Can anyone answer the following questions:

How many photos did Marina say she took?

How many different types of photos are in evidence?

How many negatives are in evidence and what happened to the others?

Is there any credence to the story there were color photos of the same scenes?

What issues of The Militant and The Worker are in the photos?

Are those issues in evidence or available on line anywhere?

Do they contain any articles about Cuba, Castro or the CIA Maritime raids?

Did the FBI keep track of who subscribed to those magazines?

Thanks to anyone who knows,

And no more Tullamore Dew for Ray.

Bill Kelly

[Michael Hogan]

What I am doing here is no secret. It is to expose the frauds and fallacies of ANYONE accusing Lee Oswald.

"I believe that Lee acted alone in this murder, and shot the President, ironically, a man whom he respected and admired....

I always thought he was guilty. At first, it was intuition. But through the years, I have found a logical explanation....bits and

pieces of his character fit.... I can never forget what he did to me and my children, to the President and his family, to the whole world.

Right now, I almost hate him."

Marina Oswald Porter news conference, October 1977

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=YK0tAAAAIBAJ&sjid=jH8FAAAAIBAJ&pg=958,4995912&hl=en

[John Dolva]

BK, If the issue#s of the papers are known, copies can be found.

Yes, Cuba features.

Yes, the FBI kept track.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

]"I believe that Lee acted alone in this murder, and shot the President, ironically, a man whom he respected and admired....

Marina Oswald Porter news conference, October 1977

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=YK0tAAAAIBAJ&sjid=jH8FAAAAIBAJ&pg=958,4995912&hl=en

1977 was a LONG TIME AGO. (33 YEARS, TO BE PRECISE) AND GIVEN MR HAY'S OBVIOUS IMMATURITY, it would not surprise me if that was before the poor kid was even born.

Since then, a great deal of evidence has come to light, AND NONE OF IT INCRIMINATES LEE OSWALD.

The result is that -- as everyone except Mr. Hay seems to know -- Marina has been saying for MANY years now that her husband was innocent, and that she was hoodwinked by authorities like Earl Warren into believing that they had evidence that he was guilty.

Speaking of suckers who remain HOODWINKED -- despite 30-odd years of exculpating evidence -- do the names Martin Hay and Lee Farley ring a bell?

And how many other members are prepared to admit that they are SUCKERS too?

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Right now, I almost hate him."[/b]

Marina Oswald Porter news conference, October 1977

1977 was a long time ago and Marina has gone way beyond the Warren Commission garbage spouted by so-calleed researchers like Mike Hogan.

I can speak from personal experience that Marina still loves her husband.

As for Mike Hogan, if Marina was not a good Christian person, she would be perfectly entitled to HATE HIS IGNORANT GUTS.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

don't be sore Jay, I was only kidding. Bless your old bones.

Mr. Hay, I have absolutely nothing against you whatsoever (except that you are English, which I must admit is not your own fault.)

But if you SERIOUSLY want to join the movement dedicated to solving the JFK assassination, then you should lay off accusing the innocent victims.

[Michael Hogan]

]"I believe that Lee acted alone in this murder, and shot the President, ironically, a man whom he respected and admired....

Marina Oswald Porter news conference, October 1977

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=YK0tAAAAIBAJ&sjid=jH8FAAAAIBAJ&pg=958,4995912&hl=en

1977 was a LONG TIME AGO. (33 YEARS, TO BE PRECISE) AND GIVEN MR HAY'S OBVIOUS IMMATURITY, it would not surprise me if that was before the poor kid was even born.

Since then, a great deal of evidence has come to light, AND NONE OF IT INCRIMINATES LEE OSWALD.

The result is that -- as everyone except Mr. Hay seems to know -- Marina has been saying for MANY years now that her husband was innocent, and that she was hoodwinked by authorities like Earl Warren into believing that they had evidence that he was guilty.

Speaking of suckers who remain HOODWINKED -- despite 30-odd years of exculpating evidence -- do the names Martin Hay and Lee Farley ring a bell?

And how many other members are prepared to admit that they are SUCKERS too?

I see Carroll is still struggling mightily with the quote function.

There was more than sufficient evidence uncovered from 1963 to 1977 that exculpated Lee Oswald.

Obviously, she chose to remain oblivious to that.

[Michael Hogan]

Mike:

The question is why did she stay tied to PJ all those years?

The only reason I can see is the money.

Jim. I'm sure at one time or another you've run across this 1999 essay by Peter R. Whitmey titled

Priscilla and Lee: Before and After the Assassination

In the footnotes to Part one, Whitmey writes:

132. In reply to a letter I wrote to Harper and Row in regard to the long delay in the publication of Priscilla's book, Mr. Wyeth, Jr. stated, in part: "...The fact that her manuscript of Marina and Lee was not delivered is not an unusual development in publishing, unfortunately. However the books are often worth waiting for, and this one certainly was ... Many people simply find writing a book takes much longer than they expect..." (December 7, 1989)

The Third Decade contributor Scott Van Wynsberghe offered another possibility in a letter to me (January 12, 1990): "... I believe the Code Name Zorro book speculates that the interminable length of time needed before publication of Marina and Lee effectively prevented any other writer from getting at Marina for well over a decade."

Timothy Cwiek, in a letter to me (October 8, 1990), recalled having spoken to Marina Oswald Porter in the early 1980s: "...By that time she already sounded quite disillusioned with Priscilla ... She said the book, Marina and Lee, was a big disappointment, appearing much too late to be a big seller."

I don't know if Whitmey's long essay will answer your question.

[Steven Gaal]

I believe Van Wynsberghe is right. The idea was too keep her occupied for years with a writer the CIA could control.

As per her reason, I think it was the money. Which, as you quoted, she seemed disappointed in.

BTW, did you know she was also being funneled money during her WC testimony?

JOhn Armstrong discovered it. It was phony Hollywood company called Tex-Italia.

************************

To understand 11/22 ,the best method is the "Ye old negative template".

On June 5, 1964 Hoover wrote a letter to J. Lee Rankin of the Warren Commission and advised:

"For your information, this Bureau is conducting no investigation regarding the commercial ventures or contract negotiations of Marina Oswald in connection with our investigation of Lee Harvey Oswald."

******

Of note the TSBD power outage is another exlample of Hoover not investigating.

********************

In both cases Hoover would have normally used a score of agents.

THANKS SG

Edited August 3, 2010 by Steven Gaal

[Michael Hogan]

I believe Van Wynsberghe is right. The idea was too keep her occupied for years with a writer the CIA could control.

As per her reason, I think it was the money. Which, as you quoted, she seemed disappointed in.

BTW, did you know she was also being funneled money during her WC testimony?

JOhn Armstrong discovered it. It was phony Hollywood company called Tex-Italia.

Yes. I reproduced that part of Harvey & Lee here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=7039&view=findpost&p=65084

John Duvall mentioned Marina's financial arrangements here: http://books.google.com/books?id=PiAmIsFfXXsC&pg=PA54&lpg=PA54&dq=texitalia+films&source=bl&ots=AEcA8_-UJV&sig=sni0Tb-UD3eXjAOlu_3kDVkyiJ0&hl=en&ei=pJZYTOXQFIHi8gT84YW4BA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBUQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=texitalia%20films&f=false

Take a few minutes to read Carroll's response and the rest of the thread where he demonstrates his unfamiliarity with the evidence and

his propensity for making desultory remarks about other members, a trait which he still harbors today.

Carroll's lack of self-control when it comes to Marina Oswald Porter keeps him from following his own dictum.

It is the ARGUMENT that matters, not the person making it.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Carroll's lack of self-control when it comes to Marina Oswald Porter keeps him from following his own dictum.

In my old age, I like to take an afternoon nap. But if Mike Hogan ever comes up with something HE THINKS is something interesting, you will be risking your life if you wake me up.

[Michael Hogan]

Absolutely, I a think Lee Harvey Oswald was an intelligence operative - probably CIA, had a 201 file, fake defection to Russia, sheep dipping in New Orleans where he hung around and ultra-right crowd when he was not posing as a pro-Castro Marxist passing out flyers are participating in radio debates.

Not to mention he got a $400 LOAN to come back to the USA, after "betraying" his country, giving away radar secrets at the height of the cold war....

There is Not A SHRED OF EVIDENCE that Lee Oswald gave away radar secrets. You just made that up , You xxxx!

http://books.google.com/books?id=tfJBrSFNUNkC&pg=PA74&lpg=PA74&dq=warren+commission+oswald+radar+secrets&source=bl&ots=KO9WWh4p-N&sig=Jq2ILvxIJaTRfFCeVvguLd65EPc&hl=en&ei=29NaTI6LNoOB8gaAqLWUAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBsQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=warren%20commission%20oswald%20radar%20secrets&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=tfJBrSFNUNkC&pg=PA44&lpg=PA44&dq=john+donovan+oswald+radar+change+codes&source=bl&ots=KO9WWh5mUM&sig=UM2Q1i-elTfByQdA-XWdefk5eY0&hl=en&ei=UNZaTIjHN4KC8gaG6_X2Ag&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=7&ved=0CCkQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q&f=false

Links no longer work. See John Newman's treatment of Oswald, radar secrets,

and Priscilla Johnson's failure to tell the Warren Commission.

Edited August 8, 2010 by Michael Hogan

[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.

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

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

It’s not a), OR c) all 3 need to be met. Also how can you be sure the unnamed State Dept. official is legally “unavailable”.

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.

According to yourown source Priscilla Johnson told him this contradicted the official account, but if it does NOT who cares if someone from State was there or not?

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?

Why would the presence of a State Dept. official at LHO’s wedding “reinforce” your belief he was some sort of agent?

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.

What evidence, if any, do have to support the wild speculation spelled out above?

[Greg Parker]

It’s not a ), b ) OR c ) all 3 need to be met. Yes, I know that Len. But since the first two are a given, I thought you must be referring solely to c ) Also how can you be sure the unnamed State Dept. official is legally “unavailable”. If he is available, it makes the question of hearsay moot, doesn't it? And I think his name could be discovered through the Kirsch records.

Why would the presence of a State Dept. official at LHO’s wedding “reinforce” your belief he was some sort of agent? Because of the later claim that they did not know about the wedding until after Oswald wrote and mentioned it in passing. The official from the Kirsch wedding may go along with that denial, or he may not. It is in the records that the Embassy and State Dept had a great interest in weddings between US and SU citizens, and therefore, would have someone in attendance where ever possible. The Oswald wedding would be an exception to that because of his alleged attempt to defect, threat to pass on secrets etc... so any US official at that wedding does raise questions...

What evidence, if any, do have to support the wild speculation spelled out above? What would be the point in filling you in on the evidence, when, without even knowing what the evidence might be, you have decided it is "wild speculation". Such pre-judgement really spells out how little you care about letting the facts fall where they may. The facts here are that Ike did want to share radar technology with the Soviets. Do I have a cite for that? Yes. Did the agreements on science etc allow an exchange in any way agreeed upon? Yes. Can I quote the relevant part? Yes. I have already provided a mountain of evidence showing that Ed Keenan was a REDSKIN agent. That he was present during Oswald's "attempt" to defect is not in dispute anywhere. The man has acknowledged it.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

I have already provided a mountain of evidence showing that Ed Keenan was a REDSKIN agent. That he was present during Oswald's "attempt" to defect is not in dispute anywhere. The man has acknowledged it. [/color][/b]

Wow!

Congratulations GREG.

I think you have finally solved the case