Mark Wengler Posted April 19, 2013 Share Posted April 19, 2013 Bill O'Reilly said that he was on De Mohrenschildt's doorstep that day and actually heard the fatal shot did he talk to the police and is there a report on this??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted April 19, 2013 Share Posted April 19, 2013 (edited) Present them and then present Jurek's and Tobias' statements next to them. I am asking you to tell the whole story. Is that difficult to understand? You are quick to label Lee Oswald a "wife beater" and I want you to present ALL the evidence related to some of these incidents. Please link to or post the police reports that prove Oswald was a wife beater. Lee, If Paul is reluctant to do so, perhaps you wouldn't mind posting the reports in question? If nothing else, I might learn something. Martin, I'm not reluctant to post the copious evidence that Lee Harvey Oswald was a wife-beater -- I'm only reluctant to reply to an insulting snob on this Forum or any other Forum. But since you kindly asked for this evidence, I'll share it with you. The bulk of it is from the sworn testimony from the Warren Commission. Now -- I realize that many people reject the Warren Commission testimony with a knee-jerk reflex, simply because the Warren Commssion proceedings were slanted to frame Lee Harvey Oswald as the Lone Nut killer. I agree that the Warren Commission bias is a problem. Nevertheless, that does not, in itself, negate the sworn testimony of the witnesses called. So, I can still reject the conclusions of the Warren Commission while still accepting this sworn testimony as valuable facts. That's my first orientation. Secondly, I will cite the main folks who claimed eye-witness evidence that Lee Harvey Oswald beat Marina. Aside from Marina herself (who never changed her story, not even in her fairly recent interviews with Oprah, when she stated that Oswald was was innocent of the JFK slaying), there was testimony from George Bouhe, Anna Meller, Elena Hall, Katya Ford, Mahlon Tobias, Jeanne De Mohrenschildt and George De Mohrenschildt. While most of these were Russian emigrants, they were not all Russians or in that circle. Here are some excerpts: ---------- Begin Warren Commission Excerpts ------------------- ....Warren Commission Hearings, Vol. VIII, p. 365. GEORGE DE MOHRENSCHILDT Mr. De Mohrenschildt. Well, George Bouhe, started telling me that "George, Lee is beating Marina. I saw her with a black eye and she was crying, and she tried to run away from the house. It is outrageous." And he was really appalled by the fact that it actually happened. And Jeanne and I said, let's go and see what is going on George Bouhe gave me their address, as far as I remember, there in Oak Cliff...So we drove up there to that apartment, which was on the ground floor, and indeed Marina had a black eye. And so either my wife or I [later] told Lee, "Listen, you cannot do things like this." Mr. Jenner. ...And when you entered that apartment on the first floor, you observed that she had a black eye? Mr. De Mohrenschildt. A black eye, and scratched face, and so on and so forth. Mr. Jenner. Did you inquire about it? Mr. De Mohrenschildt. Yes. Mr. Jenner. What did she say? Mr. De Mohrenschildt. She said, "He has been beating me." As if it was normal--not particularly appalled by this fact, but "He has been beating me", but she said "I fight him back also." So I said, "You cannot stand for that. You shouldn't let him beat you." And she said, "Well, I guess I should get away from him." Now, I do not recall what actually made me take her away from Lee.... GEORGE BOUHE... Mr. LIEBELER. You spoke about these parties with Mrs. Ford and Anna Meller and Anna Ray. Mr. BOUHE. Well, the only time I have been bringing that up is when I saw or heard that she had a black eye. Mr. LIEBELER. When did you see that? Mr. BOUHE. I would say within the first 2 weeks of September. One Saturday several of us arrived at their house. Mr. LIEBELER. At Oswald’s house? Mr. BOUHE. Yes. Mr. LIERELER. Where was that house located at that time? Mr. BOUHE. On Mercedes Street. Mr. LIEBELER. In Fort Worth? Mr. BOUHE. Yes; and she had a black eye. And not thinking about anything unfortunate, I said : “Well, did you run into a bathroom door?” Marina said, “Oh, no, he hit me.” Mr. LIEBELER. Was Oswald there at that time? Mr. BOUHE. No.... Mr. LIEBELER. You said that you noticed another black eye. Did you see Marina with bruises on her at a time prior to this time in September? Mr. BOUHE. Yes. Mr. LIEBELER. When was that? Did she appear bruised at Mr. Gregory’s party? Mr. BOUHE. Oh, no; that was when she ran away from Oswald, probably in the middle of November, already in Oak Cliff here in Dallas. She called at 11 o’clock at night Mrs. Anna Meller from a gasoline station and said, “He is beating me up and here I am with the baby and no diaper and no nothing, and so on, what can I do?” Well, if you talk to Mrs. Anna Meller, you will see that she is a plain, very attractive woman with a big heart, and what could she say but “come over.” Mr. LIEBELER. Mrs. Meller told Marina to come over to her house? Mr. BOUHE. Right. That was 11 o’clock at night. Mr. LIEBELER. Marina went to Mrs. Meller’s and stayed there about a week? Mr. BOUHE. About a week. Mr. LIEBELER. And subsequently she went to Mrs. Ford’s house? Mr. BOUHE. Yes. Mr. LIEBELER. And you took her there to Mrs. Ford? Mr. BOUHE. I did take her, with the baby and the playpen, and Mrs. Anna Meller drove over with us to Mrs. Katya Ford’s, I think, on a Saturday or Sunday, because Mrs. Ford volunteered that since the Meller’s had a very small apartment, to take Marina for a week because her husband, Declan P. Ford, was attending [a] convention in Houston for the whole week and she could bring her over for a week... MARINA Mr. RANKIN. Could you tell us a little about when he did beat you because we have reports that at times neighbors saw signs of his having beat you, so that we might know the occasions and why he did such things. Mrs. OSWALD. The neighbors simply saw that because I have a very sensitive skin, and even a very light blow would show marks. Sometimes it was my own fault. Sometimes it was really necessary to just leave him alone. But I wanted more attention. He was jealous. He had no reason to be. But he was jealous of even some of my old friends, old in the sense of age. Mr. RANKIN. When he became jealous, did he discuss that with you? Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, of course. Mr. RANKIN. What did he say? Mrs. OSWALD. I don't remember. Basically, that I prefer others to him. That I want many things. which he cannot give me. But that was not so. Once we had a quarrel because I had a young man who was a boyfriend--this was before we were married, a boy who was in love with me, and I liked him, too. And I had written him a letter from here...And, of course, he hit me... Mr. RANKIN. Do you recall anything more that he said at that time about that matter? Mrs. OSWALD. Of course after he hit me, he said that I should be ashamed of myself for saying such things because he was very much in love with me. But this was after he hit me. Generally, I think that was right, for such things, that is the right thing to do. There was some grounds for it. Please excuse me. Perhaps I talk too much. ANNA MELLER Mr. LIEBELER. Now, do you remember that some time in the fall of 1962, after the Oswalds had moved out of their apartment in Fort Worth that Marina called you on the telephone one evening and told you that she wanted to leave Oswald? Would you tell us about that? Mrs. MELLER. Yes, yes, sir. It was in November, I think on certain Monday about 10 in the evening, she will call me and say that her husband beat her and she came out from the apartment and reached the filling station and said the man -- she did not have a penny of money. and the good soul helped her to dial my number and she’s talking to me if she can come over my house...I came to my husband and I asked him if we can take Marina. He did not want to. We have one bedroom apartment and he said “Do not have very much space.” I like a maniac woman, started to beg and said “We have to help poor woman; she’s on the street with baby..." My husband said “Okay let her come.. Mr. LIEBELER. Did she tell you what she and Oswald had been arguing about? Mrs. MELLER. I do not remember. She said he beat her and I do not remember asking really for what or something. I did not ask for arguments, really, because it was so shocking and so unagreeable. I do not think I went into detail... Mr. LIEBELER. ...Did you think it was mostly Lee Harvey’s fault or did you think it was partly her fault, or what? Mrs. MELLER. It was not easy to judge but I think since we do not know them very close and very long, let’s say this way but it seems to me again that Lee Osw-ald was not normal because later I heard from somebody that he beat Marina and he did one time, I think even Marina told to me that when they moved in apartment. The bulb is burned through and she has to put new lamp in it. He demanded when the master is home the bathtub supposed to be full with water so he can take bath before he sit down to eat and one time he come home and it was dark and she has to put lamp in the room, she did not hare time to put water in the tub and he find tub was without water and he beat her. MAHON TOBIAS There is also Warren Commission Exhibit #2189 that speaks of the Oswald's fellow tenants at the roominghouse owned by Mahlon Tobias, who frequently complained to Tobias: "They didn't like the way Oswald beat her all the time." Jenner questioned Tobias, who testified, "there was one man that came over there one night and he told me, he said, 'I think that man over there is going to kill that girl . . .'" KATYA FORD Katya Ford took Marina into her home after a week with Anna Mellen and her husband. Katya, called Lee "unstable," and called Oswald "a mental case." She added, "We all thought that." ----------------------- End Warren Commission Extracts --------------------- It was at the Elsbeth address, as I recall, that we find official reports of complaints of disturbances at the Oswald address. Now, I'm well aware that conservative theorists have tried to use this to bias our judgment against Lee Harvey Oswald, to "prove" that Oswald killed JFK all by himself. But that is an error in reasoning. Lee Oswald might have been a complete moral reprobate, but that in itself is not legal proof of murder. I continue to argue that (1) Oswald was framed for killing JFK; and (2) Oswald was deeply involved with the JFK conspirators and knew most of its members by name. Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos> Edited April 19, 2013 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tom Scully Posted April 20, 2013 Share Posted April 20, 2013 (edited) Marina and Lee - Page 456 books.google.com/books?id=AiEaAAAAYAAJ Priscilla Johnson McMillan - 1977 - Snippet view - More editions Sam Ballen, who saw him in Dallas only one month before he died, found George "beating himself pretty hard." He berated ... Ballen, who had not seen De Mohrenschildt in years, came away from their meeting feeling sad. For all his faults, Giving everyone named the benefit of the doubt and avoiding a sinister description, it will suffice to say that a small group of well connected people who happened to be acquainted with each other seem to have coordinated their efforts to control the narrative and to suppress whatever might seem awkward. http://www.maryferre...420&relPageId=3...... 9. On April 29, 1963, Security furnished (___________) of DODs a thermofaxed copy of the OO/C Summary referred to above. Gale Allen, a DODs service officer had requested an expedite check of George DeMohrenschildt for reasons unknown to security....... http://www.maryferre...758&relPageId=3 30 January 1968 Subject: Thomas J. Devine ....... 4. Subject's current role in Project Wubriny.... ...... Gale Allen DO/CO http://www.maryferre...361&relPageId=3 26 April 1963 1. Wubriny/1 called on the sterile line at approximately 17:00 hours to report on a meeting, as described below. ........................ 3. M. DeMohrenschildt (deM) is the son of a Swedish father who was in Baku..... SAMUEL B. BALLEN , Chairman .of the Board_of the Highpi.ains ... jfk.hood.edu/Collection/.../Ballen%20Samuel%20B/Item%2001.pdf File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - Quick View feDERAL BUREAU OF INVEST IGA. 1. Data 1/4/64. SAMUEL B. BALLEN , Chairman .of the Board_of the. Highpi.ains Natural Gas Company and Electrical Log http://www.jfk-assas...vol9/page47.phpThe testimony of Samuel B. Ballen was taken at 2:20 p.m., on March 24, 1964, in the office of the U.S. attorney, 301 Post Office Building, Bryan and Ervay Streets, Dallas, Tex. by Mr. Wesley J. Liebeler, assistant counsel of the President's Commission. Mr. Liebeler. Would you raise your right hand to be sworn, Mr. Ballen?....... Mr. Liebeler. Would you tell us briefly your educational background? Mr. Ballen. I went to public schools in New York. Attended Townsend Harris High; attended C.C.N.Y.; received a BBA Degree from C.C.N.Y., and then have also taken extension courses at Columbia University, Manhattan College, NYU Graduate School of Banking, Oklahoma University, and Texas A&M. Mr. Liebeler. What were the graduate courses in, generally? Mr. Ballen. Three fields. Money and banking; geology; and petroleum engineering. Mr. Liebeler. Did there come a time when you made the acquaintance of Lee Harvey Oswald? Mr. Ballen. Yes. Mr. Liebeler. Will you tell us the circumstances surrounding that? Mr. Ballen. In some respects, my memory is still a little bit hazy. My best recollection though is that in the fall of 1962, George De Mohrenschildt, a close friend of mine, told me that he and his wife had met an extremely interesting couple who had worked their way from Russia here to Dallas and Fort Worth, and that among other problems that this fellow was in pretty desperate financial straits and needed a job, and would I be willing to see him and try to find employment for him. I said, "Yes." And he came down to my office and I spent approximately 2 hours with him. He came down, and I left my office in the Southland Center with him to go to a meeting at the Republic National Bank, and walked down with him, and he then left and I believe stated that he was going over to the YMCA where he was residing. Mr. Liebeler. Can you fix the date of this meeting with any precision? Mr. Ballen. I can't. I think it was either the latter part of 1962 or the very early part of 1963. Mr. Ballen. I know the particular day was pleasant, because I recall walking down the street not wearing any topcoat, just wearing a regular coat, and that was also true of Oswald. Mr. Liebeler. Did Oswald have a job at the time he came to talk to you; do you know? Mr. Ballen. He indicated to me that he was not employed. Mr. Liebeler. He told you he was living at the YMCA in Dallas, is that correct? Mr. Ballen. That's correct. He told me that his--I knew he had a wife and child, and he indicated that his wife was staying with some friends, and his child, but he at that time was working out of the YMCA. Mr. Liebeler. Did he tell you where his wife was staying? Mr. Ballen. No. I would have had some vague idea about that from the De Mohrenschildts. Mr. Liebeler. Did you have an idea from De Mohrenschildt? Mr. Ballen. I had the idea that they were either moving into or just coming out of some apartment, and I would have an idea, which is very vague and not too accurate, that this may have been somewhere in the Oak Cliff region. Mr. Liebeler. Did Oswald tell you anything about his previous employment? Mr. Ballen. Just during the course of my trying to be helpful to him and of trying to see what skills he had so that I could try to develop some employment for him. He did say that he had some training in the U.S.S.R., in some area in the field of photography--no, some area in the field of reproduction, but the thing that I was impressed about in talking with him was his lack of any usable training. Mr. Liebeler. What is the state of your recollection that Oswald told you he had received training in photography when he was in Russia? Mr. Ballen. Pretty vague, but I had the feeling that he said he may have worked in some capacity, either in a house organ--or a newspaper in the U.S.S.R., and that he did have some training and knew how to use commercial camera equipment and general reproduction equipment. Mr. Liebeler. Did you take any steps to help Oswald get a job as a result of his interview with you? Mr. Ballen. No. During the course of my meeting with him, I started out being attracted somewhat toward him, and I started out having a fairly good impression of the individual, and I also started out feeling very sorry for the chap, knowing some hard times that he had been through, and of wanting to help him. But as this meeting wore on. I just gradually came to the feeling that he was too much of a rugged individualist for me, and that he was too much of a hardheaded individual, and that I probably would ultimately regret having him down at my organization. I was, during the course of this meeting, trying to analyze his training to find a place for him at Electrical Log Services, where we have a large camera and commercial reproduction equipment, but the more I talked to him, while I had a certain area of admiration for him, it still remained that I gradually came to the conclusion, and did not relay this to him in any way, that he was too much of a rugged individualist and probably wouldn't fit in with the team down there. So I never did really try to help Oswald. I think I told George De Mohrenschildt I would search around and see what I could do. Mr. Liebeler. But in point of fact, you never took any steps after this to try to help him find a job? Mr. Ballen. My memory was a bit hazy in one respect. I knew I reached my conclusion. I didn't know whether I had called up our general manager down at the Log Services to see what openings, if any, could be generated, but in checking with the individual, he does not have any memory of my calling him in that regard. Mr. Liebeler. The other individual being the man in charge of operations at Log Services? Mr. Ballen. That's correct. Mr. Liebeler. What did Oswald say to you that led you to this conclusion that you have just expressed? Let me ask you a broader question. Let me ask you, if you will now, to your best recollection, give the substance of the conversation that you and Oswald had that day? Mr. Ballen. We commenced speaking in pleasantries, and I had known from De Mohrenschildt that he had gone to Russia, that he had married, and come back. I did not know of any unpleasant association with the Marine Corps, nor did I know of any attempt on his part to be a defector. I asked him why he had left and gone to Russia, and he said that this Russian movement was an intriguing thing and he wanted to find out for himself and didn't want to depend upon what the newspapers or visitors had said, and that he had gone there and spent some time there. He gave me the impression somehow that this was in the southern portion of Russia. And he said that the place was just boring, that there was hardly anything of any real curiosity or interest there. I had gotten the feeling, and I don't know how specific I can make this, but all of his comments to me about Russia were somewhat along a negative vein. He said nothing to me that would indicate that he still had any romantic feeling about Russia. His comments to me seemed to be fairly realistic. Some time as we talked on, he displayed somewhat the same type of detached objective criticism towards the United States and our own institutions. Mr. Liebeler. Can you remember anything specifically that he said along that line ? that Mr. Ballen. I don't believe I can recall anything specific, but there were just during the entire course of this 2 hours, general observations, general smirks, general slurs that were significant to me that he was equally a critic of the United States and of the U.S.S.R., and that he was standing in his own mind as somewhat of a detached student and critic of both operations, and that he was not going to be snowed under by either of the two operations, whether it be the press or official spokesmen. He would have displayed pretty much to me a plague-on-both-your-houses type of viewpoint, but the one thing that greatly started to rub me the wrong way is, as I started to seriously think through possible industrial openings or possible people I could refer him to, and he could see I was really making an effort in this respect, he kept saying, and then he repeated himself a little too often on this, he said to me, "Now, don't worry about me, I will get along. Don't you worry yourself about me." He said that often enough that gradually it became annoying and I just felt this is a hot potato that I don't think will fit in with any organization that I could refer him to. Mr. Liebeler. Did he ever demonstrate or indicate to you any particular hostility toward any official of the U.S. Government? Mr. Ballen. None whatsoever; none whatsoever. My own subjective reaction is, that the sum total of these 2 hours that I spent with him, I just can't see his having any venom towards President Kennedy. Mr. Liebeler. Did President Kennedy come up in any way during the course of your discussion? Mr. Ballen. No; it did not. The sum total of his reaction, limited as it was that I got from this individual, is that this man would have--this is subjective, I can put no concrete support in there, but I would have thought that this is an individual who felt warmly towards President Kennedy. Mr. Liebeler. You drew that inference simply as a general impression based on the 2 hours that you spent conversing with him? Mr. Ballen. That's correct. Mr. Liebeler. Could you--and you can't pinpoint anything specifically that led you to that conclusion? Mr. Ballen. No, sir. Mr. Liebeler. Did you have any discussion, or was the name of Governor Connally mentioned? Mr. Ballen. No; it was not. Mr. Liebeler. Did Oswald manifest any hostilities toward any particular institution of the United States? Mr. Ballen. Yes. I think he had referred sarcastically to some of our religious institutions, or all religious institutions, and I think he referred with some venom and sarcasm to some race prejudices in the United States. I..... http://web.archive.o...news/56641.html The New Mexican - Colorful La Fonda owner known for loyalty February 8, 2007 La Fonda owner Samuel B. Ballen died Monday night, a year and a day after his wife, Ethel......... "I think he was great for Santa Fe," Weaver said. "He was one of the most generous persons I know of. He supported just all kinds of activities while he was here in town, and I was always amazed that no matter whose funeral you went to, chances were Sam was there." According to Ballen's autobiography: He was born Schmuel ben Mordecai on March 3, 1922, to Jewish Russian/Polish immigrants who ran a corner grocery in the Harlem borough of New York City. As a young man, he made deliveries to the Cotton Club, where he met musicians Cab Calloway, Dizzy Gillespie and Charlie Parker. Ballen (whose name rhymes with gallon) attended City College of New York, where he admitted he was an unexceptional student but managed his "most significant achievement" by meeting Ethel. After graduation in 1942, he worked briefly for an investment firm before enlisting in the Army, which sent him to Europe. After World War II, Ballen returned to New York to marry Ethel, work on Wall Street and get involved in the booming postwar petroleum industry. He claimed he came up with the idea of self-service gasoline stations and even copyrighted the name Gas-O-Mat. In the 1950s, Ballen's work in the petroleum industry began taking him to the Southwest. The Ballens and their growing family finally relocated to Dallas. They began to take regular vacations to Santa Fe. One night at the De Vargas Hotel, now the Hotel St. Francis, Sam and Ethel watched a line of people marching with crosses and candles, and "wondered if we had fallen into a Ku Klux Klan rally," he wrote. But the Ballens learned to love Santa Fe, and its Hispanic and American Indian cultures. After a visit in 1967, the family took a vote on whether to move here. All seven were in favor of Santa Fe. Soon after moving, Ballen learned La Fonda was for sale. In November 1968, he agreed to buy the hotel at 100 E. San Francisco St. for $1.4 million. A month later, the Ballens purchased their home at 1020 Old Santa Fe Trail. In 1989, Ballen showed his mettle by fending off an attempt to gain control of the hotel by art dealer and real-estate investor Gerald Peters. But Ballen was known to compromise as well. In 1993, after the Historic Design Review Board rejected La Fonda's expansion plans because it would encroach on Cathedral Place, he appeared in person before the board to promise to send his architect "back to square one." Less than a hop, skip, and a jump now for even a serious person such as journalist Jeff Morley to telephone Thomas J. Devine to ask if he would like to make a statement on the record? When did he become aware that Sen. Jay Rockefeller's grandfather Elon Huntington Hooker was Devine's grandmother's first cousin? How did this family background affect his life? Did he ever discuss DeMohrenschildt or Priscilla with Garry Coit? When was the last time he had contact with any of his 15 Sigma Chi housemates? http://sigmachi.mit....-spring2009.pdf "..we visited Barbara Coit, the recent widow of another Alpha Theta Sig,. Garry Coit '46, who died in February. 2008....” Lawsuit over little bridge still cutts wide chasm in Shore town ... articles.baltimoresun.com/.../1992213129_1_boone-creek-bridge-tal... Jul 31, 1992 – Among those opposing the bridge are Mr. Becker, a retired aviation lawyer; L. Garry and Barbara M. Coit, two former Central Intelligence ... Without Reservations: From Harlem to the End of the Santa Fe Trail - Page 265books.google.com/books?isbn=0943734363 Samuel B. Ballen - 2001 .....Betty and a few others were hospitalized after an unfortunate Wednesday auto encounter with a school bus. Participation in these hikes became a high priority with me. The hikes included a four-day backpack around Navajo Mountain, which I led, and a two- day 70th birthday hike for Bob Walker up to Lake Lily in Colorado. Our group had a near-fatal descent from Wheeler Peak on a scree slope, led by a Taos pediatrician. Memorable were several glorious trips to the McNally's cabin on Wilson Mesa, west of Telluride. But, if anything, Betty engendered confidence. At a cocktail party in Corrales, a momentary acquaintance at her elbow revealed that he was the former FBI agent involved in that Oppie bugging and that it bothered him. When the three of us had lunch at La Fonda, Lee Hancock repeated to me what he had told Betty at the party. Betty joined with me afterwards in writing an affidavit with notary acknowledgment in case something happened to either of us. Ethel and I were invited to dinner at the home of Dave Davenport who also had Priscilla McMillan, his cousin, as a guest. I had not seen Priscilla since she had interviewed me in Dallas on the Oswald matter and since she had married and divorced George McMillan, who had produced the NBC Anniversary TV show on the Kennedy assassination. Like many others, I had the highest possible opinion of Priscilla's intelligence and reliability. David Davenport was a former CIA man who had become disenchanted and was now semi-retired to his youthful locus of Santa Fe. He had remarried the charming Scottish ophthalmologist, Ann Thompson. When Priscilla asked what was of interest, I implied that I had some explosive documents on the Oppenheimer affair and was searching for an honest journalist to complete the investigation and let the chips fall where they may. "Well, Sam, I've always been intrigued by Oppenheimer and the Manhattan Project even if I know absolutely nothing about them.... Marina and Lee - Page 507 55] books.google.com/books?id=AiEaAAAAYAAJ Priscilla Johnson McMillan - 1977 - Snippet view - More editionsTelephone conversation with Samuel B. Ballen, May 20, 1977. 3. Conversation with Samuel B. Ballen, November 28, 1964. 4. Telephone conversation with Samuel B. Ballen, April 21, 1977. 5. Because of De Mohrenschildt's friendship with ... http://educationforu...=45#entry272099 ....... The thread was started as a presentation of evidence that Priscilla Johnson was engaged in a long, duplicitous role before and after the Assassination of JFK. She has been out in the open in this role since 1959. I have connected her to Garry Coit, the CIA roommate of George HW Bush's CIA friend and business partner, Thomas J. Devine. In my lasts few posts in this thread, I have also connected her first cousin, David Coit Davenport, to OSS Lt. Colonels Ellery C. Huntington and George E. Brewer, Jr., Lt. Col. Perkins Bass who was US Army Air Force Intelligence under Gen. Clair Chennault (Flying Tigers, Civil Air Transport (CAT) ), Terry Votichenko, ...During WWll, he enlisted in the Navy and rose to the rank of Lt. Commander, working directly under Gen. Eisenhower to set up the US military government in newly liberated France. He was especially proud of helping to provide food for the hungry civilian population and his part in the liberation of Paris. After the war, he worked for the OSS as head of the North Africa division. In 1956, he moved from Princeton, NJ with his family to Tempe, Arizona to teach Philosophy and Psychology at AZ State University. And Votichenko's Princeton '40 classmate and friend, David H. Blair '40 ......And to Jerome Allen Hasy, aka Hastings, who married David H Blair, Jr.'s former wife who was the sister of Helen Davenport Tuttle, who was the wife of Terry Votichenko. Priscilla Johnson, David Davenport, and Jerome Hastings were buzzing like bees, around Marina Oswald. I want to know about and share as much information as possible about the names I've typed..... http://educationforu...=30#entry271344 Yes, it seems Priscilla Johnson probably had the connections to be hired under NOC at CIA. Edited April 20, 2013 by Tom Scully Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted April 20, 2013 Share Posted April 20, 2013 (edited) Paul, I have spent nearly 15 years studying the Warren Commission volumes and read every piece of testimony in them. So I am familiar with the evidence you shared. However, Lee is correct. This is not what I was asking for. It was the mention of "police reports" that piqued my interest. I would be very grateful if you could share those. On the subject of Lee beating Marina I think you should pay closer attention to the fact that, by her own admission, she gave as good as she got. I seem to recall DeMohrenschildt mentioned seeing Lee covered in scratches.There is also testimony in the record that suggests that Marina delighted in winding Lee up and embarrassing him whenever she could. So the picture may not be quite what you are portraying it as. Very few knowledgable people believe Marina was the innocent victim she likes people to think she was. Martin, I appreciate your professional attitude. As for the actual police report, I feel certain that I saw it at the Briscoe Center last year when I was rifling through FBI microfiche. FBI files, as you know, contain lots of local police reports and news reports. The report in question was at the Tobias apartment in November 1962, as I recall. I recall being struck by the report -- but I didn't make a copy of it since I was researching De Mohrenschildt at the time. I presumed it was common knowledge. But I know it's there. The official report was about a visit either by the police or by the FBI themselves. I'll need to schedule another visit to the Briscoe Center to find it again. As for the subject of Lee beating Marina, there was only one phrase in all the evidence that suggested that "Marina gave as good as she got," and that was by George DeMohrenschildt, whose English skills also leave something to be desired. What Marina herself said -- and this characterized her attitude and the attitude of George DM as well -- "Perhaps I deserved it." Marina was disoriented in the USA in 1963 -- wife-beating was still being debated in the South as an ethical behavior -- it was common in Russia (and as Marina said -- she married Lee because he didn't seem to be a wife-beater, and he never beat her in Russia.) Two Warren Commission interviewers (from the South) later returned to this topic with Marina to salubriously review the "matrimonial duties" of a wife. So, liberals, like George De Mohrenschildt told Marina in no uncertain terms not to put up with it. Yet it was common enough. (I'm reminded of the Billie Holiday blues song, "If I get beat up by my papa; That don't mean you should call no copper; Ain't nobody's business if I do.") Marina's response shows confusion about whether she should defend her husband, like a good wife, or call him on the carpet, like a good citizen. So her testimony is wobbly. (I don't recall the image that Lee was covered in scratches.) George De Mohrenschildt often took Lee's side, but that was futile. Jeanne De Mohrenschildt liked neither Lee nor Marina -- she was especially disturbed by Marina's bad teeth -- a pretty face, but if you've seen Marina's first interview, the whole right side of her mouth seems solid black. George DM was also feeling guilty, IMHO, because he was so much of a busybody that he acted to take Marina and June away from Lee. George DM also had to rationalize to the Warren Commission and the public why he -- a rich socialite -- was the close friend of Lee Oswald -- a dishonorably discharged sack from the military, unable to hold down a simple job. If George had been honest, he would have had to admit his CIA deal to babysit Oswald -- and that was disallowed. So he had to create lies: he really liked Lee -- then he had to justify the obvious wife-beating -- "she asked for it." Pity poor George. And it was George DM who said that Marina delighted in winding Lee up -- yet George also admitted that Lee hated to see Marina get any atttention of any kind whatsoever -- so that contradicts the first charge, because anything at all that Marina might have said at any time would have been interpreted as winding-up Lee - obviously. IMHO, the picture is clearer than the anti-Marina theorists would like to admit. I admit that she was reasonably tough -- she wasn't just a passive doll -- because one needed to be tough to be a Russian woman in those days (and perhaps today as well). However, Marina was a new citizen in the USA -- arrived in early 1962 and by late 1962 she was suffering beatings by Lee Harvey Oswald, a rock-hard, trained Marine who couldn't hold down an ordinary job. (Lee was frustrated because he wanted a regular job with the ONI, CIA or FBI -- he had some talent, but he also had many faults. He wasn't going to get that job.) By the way, Martin, there's another story in the Warren Commission that you probably know about which should also be cited here, namely, the sworn affidavit by Alexander Kleinlerer. I'll post a tiny extract: ------------------------------ Begin Warren Commission Extract -------------------------- Mr. KLIENLERNER. ...I came by the Halls the next day, which was Saturday, in the morning. Marina and Oswald were there. I entered the house. Marina was in the living room with her child in her arms. We had just begun to discuss the matter of moving the next day when Oswald observed that the zipper on Marina’s skirt was not completely closed. He called to her in a very angry and commanding tone of voice just like an officer commanding a soldier. His exact words were, “Come Here!“, in the Russian Language, and he uttered them the way you would call a dog with which you were displeased in order to inflict punishment on him. He was standing in the doorway leading from the living room into another room of the house. When she reached the doorway he rudely reprimanded her in a flat imperious voice about being careless in her dress and slapped her hard in the face -- twice. Marina still had the baby in her arms. Her face was red and tears came to her eyes. All this took place in my presence. I was very much embarrassed and also angry but I had long been afraid of Oswald and I did not say anything. ------------------------------- End Warren Commission Extract ------------------------------------ Well, the anti-Marina theorists (and some insulting snobs) might claim that Marina "asked for it." Civilized people, however, know beter. Again - and this bears repeating - I'm not arguing that Lee Oswald was so mean that he was obviously the killer of JFK. That poor logic has lasted for too long. I say Lee Oswald was framed for the crime -- yet he was also carefully chosen for it. (I also say that Lee Oswald knew his framers.) Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos> Edited April 20, 2013 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted April 20, 2013 Share Posted April 20, 2013 (edited) In addition, Trejo is implying you are "uncivilised." I don't know why he has included me in his final statement though because I don't believe Oswald was a "wife beater" so therefore will never claim that Marina "asked for it." Lee, I read that part but didn't think it was worth responding to. But I should clarify that it was never my intention to suggest that Marina was "asking for it". My point was simply that the evidence doesn't support the idea that Marina was some innocent little victim. Also, I have seen first hand horrible relationships in which couples will push each other to do things they should not do just so they can complain to friends and family about it later and gain sympathy for themselves. Reading accounts of the Oswalds' marriage very much reminded me of this. Martin, it seems to me that you're intelligent enough to see the overwhelming evidence that Lee Harvey Oswald was a wife-beater. (There are none so blind as they who will not see.) The only issue between you and me might be the question regarding whether she "asked for it" or not. Although I agree with you that some human relationships are based on a sado-masochistic element, and that it's really nobody's business if we have two consenting adults -- still, it crosses the line of civility, IMHO, when we consider Alexander Kleinlerer's account. That is, if a sado-masochistic relationship bleeds into public displays of witnesses who are unconsenting, doesn't that cross the line? The evidence you cited suggests a consented sado-masochistic relationship -- and we are not here to make moral judgments on others and their consented family behavior. But slapping Marina's face -- hard -- twice -- in public -- while she's holding her baby? Gimme a bloody break. Again -- this bears repeating -- Oswald's cruelty is no proof that he killed JFK -- but it certainly suggests the sort of persons he would consort with -- birds of a feather. Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos; intended for Martin, not Lee> Edited April 20, 2013 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted April 20, 2013 Share Posted April 20, 2013 (edited) Lee, I read that part but didn't think it was worth responding to. But I should clarify that it was never my intention to suggest that Marina was "asking for it". My point was simply that the evidence doesn't support the idea that Marina was some innocent little victim. Also, I have seen first hand horrible relationships in which couples will push each other to do things they should not do just so they can complain to friends and family about it later and gain sympathy for themselves. Reading accounts of the Oswalds' marriage very much reminded me of this. Lee, it seems to me that you're intelligent enough to see the overwhelming evidence that Lee Harvey Oswald was a wife-beater. (There are none so blind as they who will not see.) The only issue between you and me might be the question regarding whether she "asked for it" or not. Although I agree with you that some human relationships are based on a sado-masochistic element, and that it's really nobody's business if we have two consenting adults -- still, it crosses the line of civility, IMHO, when we consider Alexander Kleinlerer's account. That is, if a sado-masochistic relationship bleeds into public displays of witnesses who are unconsenting, doesn't that cross the line? The evidence you cited suggests a consented sado-masochistic relationship -- and we are not here to make moral judgments on others and their consented family behavior. But slapping Marina's face -- hard -- twice -- in public -- while she's holding her baby? Gimme a bloody break. Again -- this bears repeating -- Oswald's cruelty is no proof that he killed JFK -- but it certainly suggests the sort of persons he would consort with -- birds of a feather. Best regards, --Paul Trejo Paul, Was that post intended for me or Lee or both of us? Because you addressed it to him but appeared to be responding to some of what I said. In any case, I didn't say anything about sado-masochism nor was it implied in anything I wrote. I did however relate the fact that I have witnessed couples in violent relationships where neither one is entirely to blame. You also appear to have either missed or ignored post #62 in which I posted Marina's own testimony admitting that she was violent towards her husband too. I'll repeat it here: Mrs. OSWALD: Yes; he did strike me. Senator RUSSELL: What reason did he give for striking you. usually? Mrs. OSWALD. Well, the reasons were if--they were very petty--I can't even remember what the reasons were after this quarrel was over. Sometimes he would tell me to shut up, and I don't take that from him. I'm not a very quiet woman myself. Senator RUSSELL: "I'm not--" what? Mrs. OSWALD: I'm not a quiet woman myself and sometimes it gets on your nerves and you'll just tell him he's an idiot and he will become more angry with you. Enraged. When I would call him an idiot, he would say, "Well, I'll show you what kind of an idiot I am," so he would beat me up. Senator RUSSELL: Did you ever strike him?* *Mrs. OSWALD: I would give him some in return. Senator RUSSELL: You would give him some in return. As I recall your testimony, when he told you about the Nixon incident, you testified that you held him in the bathroom by physical strength for some 4 or 5 minutes, so you should have been able to hold your own pretty well with him if you could do that? Mrs. OWALD: Probably not 5 minutes, but a long time for him. Sometimes one can gather all of his strength in a moment like that. I not a strong person, but sometimes under stress and strain perhaps I am stronger than I ordinarily am. Senator RUSSELL: Did you ever strike him with anything other than your hand? Mrs. OSWALD: Well, I think at one time I told him that if he would beat me again, I will hurl a radio, a transistor radio, and when he did strike me, I threw the radio at him. (5H598) Right. Sorry for the typo, Martin...that last post was intended for you, not Lee. I also realize you didn't raise the notion of sado-masochism is this thread -- but you did refer to other couples in violent relationships -- and that, IMHO, was a short hop to the subtheme of S&M. That is, one might make a reasonable case that Lee and Marina shared a variety of sado-masochism in their relationship; i.e. that Marina would engage Lee in violence with full consent. (A proper victim, on the other hand, enters into violence without any consent.) Furthermore, you offered tangible evidence for your argument -- the testimony of Marina in which she said: MARINA: ...Sometimes he would tell me to shut up, and I don't take that from him. I'm not a very quiet woman myself. ...and sometimes it gets on your nerves and you'll just tell him he's an idiot and he will become more angry with you. Enraged. When I would call him an idiot, he would say, "Well, I'll show you what kind of an idiot I am," so he would beat me up. So, one might argue, reasonably, that from that scenario itself, that Marina was deliberately and consciously "asking for it." On the other hand, the nature of her English, and the cultural dynamics of her sentence also permit a different interpretation -- i.e. -- "if he's going to beat me up, that does not mean I need to passively take it. I will resist." That is less of a provocation and more of a defiant protest -- which is well outside the definition of an S&M relationship, and enters into the definition of self-defense. There was more: MARINA: I would give him some in return....I not a strong person, but sometimes under stress and strain perhaps I am stronger than I ordinarily am....at one time I told him that if he would beat me again, I will hurl a radio, a transistor radio, and when he did strike me, I threw the radio at him. OK, that could be seen as a consented exchange of violence -- but there is also another interpretation. Her words enunciate a conditional choice -- IF you beat me again, THEN I will hurl a radio at you. In other words, one can also detect more of the defiant protest -- not an invitation to more violence, but a warning of reprisals -- which is quite different. In other words -- Marina could be interpreted as enjoying her rough relationship with this indominatable Marine, and egging him on, or something very different -- she could be interpreted as disliking the beatings, and attempting to defend herself. IMHO, Marina did not enjoy being slapped in the face hard, twice, in public, while holding her baby. IMHO Marina did not enjoy being beaten by this immature malcontent; although she was also smart enough to notice that the role of women in 1963 was largely an utter dependence on men, no matter how unreasonable they happened to be. Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos> Edited April 20, 2013 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted April 21, 2013 Share Posted April 21, 2013 (edited) Clearly what I was referring to is beyond your experience, and that's fine but it has NOTHING to do with S&M. Some people thrive on confrontation. Some couples are so bad for eachother that they constantly and often intentionally bring out the other's worst traits and can be violent towards one another. And often they will each try to present themselves as the victim when, in fact, they are more than capable of controlling the situation themselves. For example, Marina admitted that she gave as good as she got and claimed that she could over power her husband when she wanted to. What you need to bear in mind here is that you are only hearing one person's side of the story. She is claiming that Lee always initiated the violence. How do you know that is true? As I said before, Lee was observed covered in scratches himself and Marina herself claimed that she was capable of over powering her husband. You are playing games with the evidence. It does not just say that she simply threatened to throw the radio at him, it says that she DID throw the radio at him. But you chose to edit that part out. Once again you're choosing what you want to believe. You're ignoring the evidence that Marina enjoyed winding Lee up, embarrassing and belittling him in order to provoke him. And you're ignoring the fact that she was violent towards him too just so you can continue portraying her as an innocent victim. But you need to bear in mind that both the Warren Commission and the HSCA had grave misgivings about Marina's various and often conflicting testimonies. For example, a formerly secret memo from Norman Redlich to J. Lee Rankin, dated February 28, 1964, contains this passage: "We cannot ignore, however, that Marina Oswald has repeatedly lied to the Secret Service, the FBI, and this Commission on matters which are of vital concern to the people of this country and the world." Martin, if a relationship of consenting mutual violence means something other than a variety of an S&M relationship, then you're right, it makes no sense to me. Psychoanalysis would probably view it as an S&M relationship in disguise. I have little doubt that little Marina was scrappy -- that she could hold a door shut on her husband for a few seconds as they shouted and screamed at each other to make her point. But Lee was a hardened Marine -- and thus in such cases I find it hard to believe (just as the WC attorneys found it hard to believe) that Marina could literally "overpower" Lee. Lee was not really trying at such times, clearly. Either he was teasing her (which is feasible) or he had some misgivings about shooting Nixon as well (which is also feasible. By the way, Ron Lewis in his 1993 book, FLASHBACK: The Untold Story of Lee Harvey Oswald, says he saw Lee carry his rifle to a political rally of Russell Long in Louisiana, just for the fun of it, which gives some credence to Marina's Nixon story.) Also, the expression -- "gave as good as I got" -- can mean different things in different contexts. When a weaker person says this about a stronger person, this is called bluster. You're right, Martin, to this extent -- Marina never said that she was terrified of Lee. But it was physically impossible for her to "give as good as she got" -- that is, in a genuine bar-fight with him she would die. The sentence must be read in context -- in a marriage relationship between man and wife she was not terrified. And she could "overpower" her husband in a quarrel -- if he really didn't have his heart set on fighting. Furthermore, Martin, I agree that I'm responding only to Marina's side of the story -- nobody is telling Lee's side. Yet it would be difficult for anybody to talk about beating his wife under any circumstances at all -- in a public courtroom. Most likely, Lee would deny that he was ever violent toward the love of his life. Am I to accept that as a likelihood? Again -- who said Lee was covered in scratches? What does that actually mean? Like he fell into a briar patch? Or that while he was pummelling somebody smaller than himself, that the victim used the proximity to scratch his face? I repeat -- it was physically impossible for this slight, skinny woman to overpower a wiry, hard Marine. They had a weird relationship, IMHO. Now -- you're quite correct that Marina admitted she actually did throw the radio at Lee. Yet to be literal, she said that Lee struck her first, and that was in self-defense. Then, as she continues, he beat her. I won't edit the full story, so please don't edit the full story. Now, she does not describe the salubrious details of the beating. Was it another face slapping? Was it a formal beating with a cane? All she says as that "he beat me." I won't be choosy with the evidence, Martin, so please also be candid with all of the evidence. George DM said that Lee was jealous of any attention that Marina got -- no matter how little -- and that he always wanted all the attention himself. In such a weird relationship, how was it ever possible for Marina to avoid "winding Lee up" or "provoking" him? It is obviously impossible. Also, if I ever portrayed generally Marina as an innocent victim, I apologize, since clearly she wasn't terrified of Oswald -- and yet given the testimonial evidence of Alexander Kleinlerer, the time when Lee slapped her hard, twice, in public, with a baby in her arms, we cannot overlook this obvious sadistic side of Lee. As for Marina's sworn testimony -- many people have heard it and read it -- and the consensus is that it is true -- she doesn't contradict herself. Now -- when she was first arrested, before she was sworn in, before she trusted some public officials, then yes, Marina denied everything and defended Lee Harvey Oswald with her every word. Marina distrusted the Secret Service and the FBI at first, even as she distrusted the secret police in her own home town. But after she calmed down and evaluated her real situation -- and realized she could stay in the USA if only she told the truth under oath -- then she told the truth. I know many researchers doubt Marina, but I believe the majority of JFK researchers accept her testimony. (That is, she told what she knew -- and since Lee told her many lies, she could only tell the truth that she knew.) Rankin, as you showed, expressed early concerns about her early wild remarks - but Rankin did not express such concerns after the proceedings were completed. In sum, I think the topic of Lee's cruelty to Marina (whether she asked for it or not) forms a line of demarcation between JFK researchers. There were nine separate witnesses who testified under oath that Lee beat Marina. One of those witnesses was George De Mohrenschildt -- a profoundly individualistic intellectual. There is, furthermore, an official police report (either local or federal) about Lee-beating-Marina incidence in late 1962. I will find that in the Briscoe Center and supply it as soon as I can. Yet some JFK researchers try to tell us that there was a "conspiracy" of these nine to lie about poor Lee, who was gentle as a lamb, and only spying on the "bad guys." What stuff. Again -- and this bears repeating -- even if Lee turns out to be a sadistic monster -- that is still not enough to legally convict him of being the Lone Nut assassin of JFK. I realize the Warren Commission (and Walter Cronkite) used such evidence to condemn Lee Harvey Oswald in the public perception, and I sharply disagree with that. I continue to maintain that Lee was framed for the crime. But he was well-chosen. Also, the monsters who killed JFK were buddies of Lee Harvey Oswald -- they were cut from the same cloth. Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos> Edited April 21, 2013 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tom Scully Posted April 21, 2013 Share Posted April 21, 2013 (edited) Lee and Martin, stop wasting your time..... Hmmmm..... Paul, considering your presentations as sincerely written to the best of your ability, they are gifts that keep on giving. (quote name='Robert Morrow' timestamp='1365699484' post='271436') "We have more confirmation that the U.S. government intended for Marina Oswald not to have a chance from the weekend of the Assassination of JFK and onward. The sequestering of Marina and of Svetlana Stalin were operations fronted by Priscilla Johnson, and now we have new leads that make it more likely Priscilla was working for other masters in Moscow in 1959 when she "interviewed" Lee Harvey Oswald, than simply NANA and curious American foreign service officials assigned to the U.S. Embassy, Moscow." That is probably true. Priscilla Johnson put on the case to control and manage the PR flow of Marina & Svetlana Stalin on behalf of US intelligence. And to suck them for information and then manipulate how this information is used, revealed or not revealed to the American public. (endquote) Highly doubtful. After speaking with Priscilla Johnson i got a clear impression that she's wildly over-rated as a spy. Writers project wild fantasies onto her. Most of what Priscilla Johnson wrote can be gleaned directly from Warren Commission testimony. She didn't invent a thing. She was and remains staunchly conservative -- she would never contradict the US government as she knew it in 1964. She simply repeated the official line, and once that was done, she never wavered from it, for fear of contradicting herself. After the HSCA findings of 1979, all her conclusions about the Lone Nut gunman became obsolete. Since Priscilla Johnson did nothing more than repeat to the world in readable English exactly what Marina Oswald already told the world in the pages of her Warren Commission testimony, it is reaching to try to find anything clandestine or spooky in Priscilla Johnson's writings. bugliosi_1.doc - Assassination Research www.assassinationresearch.com/v5n2/originals/bugliosi_1.doc File Format: Microsoft Word - Quick View By James DeEugenio ..... Pg. 22 In 1978, the HSCA grew wary of Marina’s highly questionable testimony. They collected all of her statements to the FBI, Secret Service, Warren Commission and HSCA and said it was like reading a nightmare. They actually drew up a secret report on the matter entitled “Marina Oswald Porter’s Statements of a Contradictory Nature.” The list of contradictory statements ran on for 29 pages. Several of the pages were on the Walker incident. The report concluded they could not agree with the Warren Commission on Oswald’s involvement in the Walker incident simply because of the credibility issue involving Marina. (ibid p. 520) Bugliosi defends Marina’s role as chief witness by attacking Sylvia Meagher’s attempt to show the conflicts in her testimony (Bugliosi p. 351, Meagher pgs 238-241) But Meagher spends only four pages on the issue. The HSCA spent twenty-nine. In light of that, plus what I have pointed out here, any defense of Marina’s testimony today is simply ill-founded. Marina Oswald was and remains her own person. She told the truth to the Warren Commission (once she calmed down and took the oath). Many object to Marina Oswald's portrait of Lee Harvey Oswald, yet it is realistic -- believable -- and shows Lee to be a wife-beating commoner. This goes against the theories of some JFK researchers who wish to portray Lee Oswald as an innocent victim of the Establishment -- or perhaps even a whistle-blower. Not a chance. Lee wasn't innocent. And he was up to his neck in associations with Guy Banister, David Ferrie, Carlos Bringuier, Ed Butler, Loran Hall, Larry Howard, Gerry Patrick Hemming, George De Mohrenshildt and ex-General Edwin Walker. Believable theories, IMHO, also connect Lee Harvey Oswald with Frank Sturgis, E. Howard Hunt, Antonio Veciana, David Atlee Philips, Eladio Del Valle, and many more of that ilk. Lee Harvey Oswald probably shot nobody on 11/22/1963 -- but he knew who did -- and he was also dumb enough to bring his rifle to work that day, when asked to do so by Gerry Patrick Hemming (courtesy A.J. Weberman). IMHO Lee Oswald had a chance to tell the world what happened -- but he was in the mud up to his neck -- and he firmly believed they would get away with it. (quote name='Tom Scully' timestamp='1366093930' post='271822') ..Paul, can you not admit that Newsweek's Elliott and Aynesworth, Priscilla Johnson, and possibly Nicholas Katzenbach were not candid and transparent with the American people, and that you do not know enough to post these points, but you keep doing it? Why not present what can be found and build pressure to the point that Priscilla can either publicly state the truth, finally, or go to the grave with it? Calling her for what purpose? How was she feeling and how was the weather in Cambridge? (endquote) As for your first question, Tom, I openly admit that all those loyal to the Warren Commission were less than candid with the American people -- and that was by design and they never denied it. The reason for the Warren Commission deception -- and it was openly deceptive -- was honestly stated -- namely, National Security. The message was clear to everybody with common sense -- The Warren Commission knew the truth but was never going to tell the American people for reasons of National Security. This was made blatantly obvious by the fact that the FBI files on Lee Harvey Oswald (among other critical documents) were scheduled to be released to the American people in 75 years after the death of JFK -- in 2038. That, all by itself, is an open admission of the fact -- the Warren Commission was not going to tell us the truth. Period. Get over it. The US government -- our government -- decided that the American people could not handle the truth. That is, the truth would have jeopardized National Security. How? They would not say -- because that would have been a hint that would have given the secret away. Why did Nicholas Katzenbach call Jim Garrison "a complete nut?" Not because Jim was way off the scent of the JFK assassins -- on the contrary -- Jim Garrison was hot on the trail of the assassins. Rather, Katzenbach called Garrison a "nut" because he continued to put pressure on the US government and at the same time claimed that he was loyal to the US government -- that he was a great patriot. Well, if Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren said that the truth about the JFK assassination was a matter of National Security, how could Jim Garrison consider himself patriotic by publicly calling Earl Warren a bald faced xxxx? As for your second question -- why did I call Priscilla Johnson -- I called her because I was writing a screen play using the 1993 book by Ron Lewis, entitled, Flashback: The Untold Story of Lee Harvey Oswald, as my model. What Ron's book lacks, unfortunately, is the love interest, i.e. the dramatic element provided by a female relationship. So, I called Priscilla Johnson to ask for her permission to use excerpts from her 1977 book, Marina and Lee, to supplement Ron Lewis' account. She turned me down. Priscilla Johnson insists that her name never be used in connection with any theory that suggests that Lee Harvey Oswald was anything other than a Lone Nut Gunman. This is not because she found more evidence or proof after the Warren Commisison -- on the contrary -- she knows utterly nothing more than was presented in the Warren Commission volumes, and she deliberately shut out any and all newer information, including the Jim Garrison investigation and the HSCA investigation. She insists on the Lone Nut theory solely and only because she is loyal to the Warren Commission. She built her writing career on that loyalty. She will never waver from that, come hell or high water. What was the truth that the Warren Commission and Nicholas Katzenbach held back from us? What would have been so risky to National Security fifty years ago? I think it is finally becoming obvious -- it was the political fact that the racist rightwing in the USA was behind the JFK murder. If that had been known in 1963, it would have started a new Civil War. And in the middle of the Cold War, that would have been fatal to the USA. If that is correct then Earl Warren (along with Hoover and LBJ) surely made the right decision. I don't believe it's so risky anymore, fifty years later. Because the USSR bit the dust in 1990, the global threat posed by the Cold War is a thing of the past. I think now, finally, the time has come to see all the records of Lee Harvey Oswald. Regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos> We also have the experience of the Terri Williams thread to consider. Paul has no standards or methods. Terri's tireless endorser and booster responded to this: Paul, please post a brief quote of a key, SUPPORTED point you have added to this thread. I am surprised at your objection to "stuffing". Here are links to all of your posts in this thread.: .............. ....in a thread you now describe as "page after page of loosely related quotations." But you have not stepped on this thread Paul. No, not you! Please post a quote of your contribution to this thread that you believe has drawn many of the 185,000 page views here. http://educationforu...er/snapback.pngTom Scully, on 20 April 2013 - 12:27 PM, said: Without Reservations: From Harlem to the End of the Santa Fe Trail - Page 265 books.google.com/books?isbn=0943734363 Samuel B. Ballen - 2001 ....Ethel and I were invited to dinner at the home of Dave Davenport who also had Priscilla McMillan, his cousin, as a guest. I had not seen Priscilla since she had interviewed me in Dallas on the Oswald matter and since she had married and divorced George McMillan, who had produced the NBC Anniversary TV show on the Kennedy assassination. Like many others, I had the highest possible opinion of Priscilla's intelligence and reliability. David Davenport was a former CIA man who had become disenchanted and was now semi-retired to his youthful locus of Santa Fe...... (quote name='Tom Scully' timestamp='1366483306' post='272132') Paul, please post a brief quote of a key, SUPPORTED point you have added to this thread. I am surprised at your objection to "stuffing". Here are links to all of your posts in this thread....in a thread you now describe as "page after page of loosely related quotations." But you have not stepped on this thread Paul. No, not you! Please post a quote of your contribution to this thread that you believe has drawn many of the 185,000 page views here... (endquote) Tom, allow me to respond to the original theme of this thread of your, which you began nearly one year ago. The title of your thread is, "Did the C.I.A. "Sheep Dip" and Orchestrate the Tale of the Patsy, Lee Harvey Oswald?" With little narrative, you began to post -- by your own count -- 185,000 pages of supporting material to firm up your point -- that yes, the CIA sheep-dipped Oswald. Yet you haven't written write a single page summary yourself -- without hyperlinks -- so that we can plainly see the nuances of your point. As an example, in your very first point last year you began -- with hyperlinks instead of narrative -- to cast suspicion on Priscilla Johnson McMillan. Now, it's true that she met Lee Harvey Oswald while he was in Russia -- but why not simply spell out your point? Your hyperlinks in your first post told us mainly this: ....................................... ..................................... That's it. A little bit of background. So now what? Are we to somehow fill in the blanks with imagination, and suspect that Priscilla Johnson was part of a plot to sheep-dip Oswald as early as 1959? No -- filling in the blanks with mere suspicion isn't progressive. If you have something to charge -- please come forth with it, and please spell out your reasons. You can support your claims later (if indeed these 185,000 posts of loosely related hyperlinks actually do support your suspicions). But first, please, plainly state your suspicions for discussion. Regards, --Paul Trejo Tom ScullyPosted Today, 01:42 AM You indicate by your reply you did not understand some or all of the challenge to you in my last post. There is nothing in your reply remotely responsive to my concern that you have posted so often here yet contributed so little that you can support. I provided you with links to all of your posts in this thread. Which one of your posts or points in this thread do you believe is attracting readers to this thread? Maybe I am mistaken. Maybe it is your influence on what is in this thread that is influencing the number of views. Please direct us to your contribution in this thread you are most proud of. (quote name='Paul Trejo' timestamp='1366552602' post='272194') (quote name='Thomas Graves' timestamp='1366514548' post='272175') Paul, I suspect the reason this thread has been viewed so many times over the past year is simply due to it's interesting title. You know, "CIA," "Sheep Dip," "Patsy," "Lee Harvey Oswald?"... Sincerely, --Tommy (endquote) Tommy, I agree with you completely. The title is intriguing. That's why I thought my contribution was viable, i.e. that the the "CIA" was not the true "Sheep Dip" vehicle to make "Lee Harvey Oswald" into ther "Patsy" to kill JFK. Instead, as I have repeatedly re-affirmed on this thread, it was (as Jack Ruby and Harry Dean have said all along) ex-General Edwin Walker, the John Birch Society and their many right-wing resources. But that causes a major conflict with Tom, evidently, who has posted countless hyperlinks of 185,000 pages (by his count) of supporting evidence that the CIA did it. But his evidence is too loosey goosey. For example, his sources sort of suggest that Priscilla Johnson McMillan was a CIA agent who met Lee Harvey Oswald in Moscow in 1959. So what? Are we to assume that the CIA plotted to kill JFK in 1959, even before JFK became President? That is, 185,000 pages of hyperlinks can be used to show anything at all, or to give rise to thousands of more questions. As I've already requested from Tom -- please post one single page of his own text to clearly state his objectives. Tom hasn't done that yet. Regards, --Paul Trejo (endquote) Unless you are posting with the high level of substantiation of say..... a Terri Williams, Paul will do what he has been doing in so many threads. He "stuffs" thread after thread with linkless text. IMO, the last thing you can expect from him is forthright discussion and constructive debate. Edited April 21, 2013 by Tom Scully Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted April 21, 2013 Share Posted April 21, 2013 I find it interesting that its Russell doing the probing of Marina. Its pretty obvious by about August, that he does not buy her at all. And in fact, he insisted they examine her down in Dallas. But the Troika--Dulles, McCLoy and Ford--did not show up for that one since they knew he was going to give her a going over. Which he did with Cooper and also help from Boggs. I have always thought that this particular examination is the closest the WC ever came to being a really deliberative body doing what is was supposed to do. Russell got so disgusted with the whole dog and pony show about Marina that he penned a note to LBJ resigning from the WC. But he never sent it. He just stopped going to meetings. And BTW, Russell was not alone on this point. His assistant, Scobbey, and some WC junior counsel also did not find the woman credible and did not think she should be used as a witness. The Troika overrode this protest. And Redlich used her a lot. Later, the HSCA staff, as Martin notes above, thought she was a pretty much worthtless witness, especially in relation to the Walker shooting. Jim, the HSCA staff in general? As in, nobody in the HSCA believed Marina? I'm accused of "playing games" with Marina's testimony, so why leave such broad generalizations unchallenged? I read her HSCA testimony, and she does not contradict her WC testimony in any essentials. The key difference is that she was somewhat inclined to believe in 1964 that Lee was the Lone Assassion (according to the evidence she was shown) while in 1979 she was somewhat disinclined to believe that Lee was the Lone Assassin (because she saw more evidence by then). That remains an honest difference of opinion in both cases. It is very clear that Marina's early statements to the Secret Service and the FBI were emotional denials of everything -- and it is also clear to me that Marina's detractors (old and new) choose to call those denials "lies". Yet, I've read her WC and HSCA sworn testimony carefully -- she does not contradict herself in any essentials. Anybody who said that about her testimony had to be either (1) biased; or (2) thinking only of her earliest denials that she made while not under oath. This is important to my theory -- so if anyboidy wishes to point out any perceived contradictions, I will make an effort to respond to them one at a time. Best regards, --Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tom Scully Posted April 21, 2013 Share Posted April 21, 2013 (edited) (quote name='Jim DiEugenio' timestamp='1366557228' post='272207') I find it interesting that its Russell doing the probing of Marina. Its pretty obvious by about August, that he does not buy her at all. And in fact, he insisted they examine her down in Dallas. But the Troika--Dulles, McCLoy and Ford--did not show up for that one since they knew he was going to give her a going over. Which he did with Cooper and also help from Boggs. I have always thought that this particular examination is the closest the WC ever came to being a really deliberative body doing what is was supposed to do. Russell got so disgusted with the whole dog and pony show about Marina that he penned a note to LBJ resigning from the WC. But he never sent it. He just stopped going to meetings. And BTW, Russell was not alone on this point. His assistant, Scobbey, and some WC junior counsel also did not find the woman credible and did not think she should be used as a witness. The Troika overrode this protest. And Redlich used her a lot. Later, the HSCA staff, as Martin notes above, thought she was a pretty much worthtless witness, especially in relation to the Walker shooting. (endquote) Jim, the HSCA staff in general? As in, nobody in the HSCA believed Marina? I'm accused of "playing games" with Marina's testimony, so why leave such broad generalizations unchallenged? I read her HSCA testimony, and she does not contradict her WC testimony in any essentials. The key difference is that she was somewhat inclined to believe in 1964 that Lee was the Lone Assassion (according to the evidence she was shown) while in 1979 she was somewhat disinclined to believe that Lee was the Lone Assassin (because she saw more evidence by then). That remains an honest difference of opinion in both cases. It is very clear that Marina's early statements to the Secret Service and the FBI were emotional denials of everything -- and it is also clear to me that Marina's detractors (old and new) choose to call those denials "lies". Yet, I've read her WC and HSCA sworn testimony carefully -- she does not contradict herself in any essentials. Anybody who said that about her testimony had to be either (1) biased; or (2) thinking only of her earliest denials that she made while not under oath. This is important to my theory -- so if anyboidy wishes to point out any perceived contradictions, I will make an effort to respond to them one at a time. Best regards, --Paul Trejo You'll "respond one at a time"? I think it is well past time to break down the buffet table. Jim, I showed Paul this a few days ago. You can read his reply below. He did not ask for the link to all 29 pages. Why would he? Lee and Martin, stop wasting your time..... Hmmmm..... Paul, considering your presentations as sincerely written to the best of your ability, they are gifts that keep on giving. (quote name='Robert Morrow' timestamp='1365699484' post='271436') "We have more confirmation that the U.S. government intended for Marina Oswald not to have a chance from the weekend of the Assassination of JFK and onward. The sequestering of Marina and of Svetlana Stalin were operations fronted by Priscilla Johnson, and now we have new leads that make it more likely Priscilla was working for other masters in Moscow in 1959 when she "interviewed" Lee Harvey Oswald, than simply NANA and curious American foreign service officials assigned to the U.S. Embassy, Moscow." That is probably true. Priscilla Johnson put on the case to control and manage the PR flow of Marina & Svetlana Stalin on behalf of US intelligence. And to suck them for information and then manipulate how this information is used, revealed or not revealed to the American public. (endquote) Highly doubtful. After speaking with Priscilla Johnson i got a clear impression that she's wildly over-rated as a spy. Writers project wild fantasies onto her. Most of what Priscilla Johnson wrote can be gleaned directly from Warren Commission testimony. She didn't invent a thing. She was and remains staunchly conservative -- she would never contradict the US government as she knew it in 1964. She simply repeated the official line, and once that was done, she never wavered from it, for fear of contradicting herself. After the HSCA findings of 1979, all her conclusions about the Lone Nut gunman became obsolete. Since Priscilla Johnson did nothing more than repeat to the world in readable English exactly what Marina Oswald already told the world in the pages of her Warren Commission testimony, it is reaching to try to find anything clandestine or spooky in Priscilla Johnson's writings. bugliosi_1.doc - Assassination Research www.assassinationresearch.com/v5n2/originals/bugliosi_1.doc File Format: Microsoft Word - Quick View By James DeEugenio ..... Pg. 22 In 1978, the HSCA grew wary of Marina’s highly questionable testimony. They collected all of her statements to the FBI, Secret Service, Warren Commission and HSCA and said it was like reading a nightmare. They actually drew up a secret report on the matter entitled “Marina Oswald Porter’s Statements of a Contradictory Nature.” The list of contradictory statements ran on for 29 pages. Several of the pages were on the Walker incident. The report concluded they could not agree with the Warren Commission on Oswald’s involvement in the Walker incident simply because of the credibility issue involving Marina. (ibid p. 520) Bugliosi defends Marina’s role as chief witness by attacking Sylvia Meagher’s attempt to show the conflicts in her testimony (Bugliosi p. 351, Meagher pgs 238-241) But Meagher spends only four pages on the issue. The HSCA spent twenty-nine. In light of that, plus what I have pointed out here, any defense of Marina’s testimony today is simply ill-founded. Marina Oswald was and remains her own person. She told the truth to the Warren Commission (once she calmed down and took the oath). Many object to Marina Oswald's portrait of Lee Harvey Oswald, yet it is realistic -- believable -- and shows Lee to be a wife-beating commoner. This goes against the theories of some JFK researchers who wish to portray Lee Oswald as an innocent victim of the Establishment -- or perhaps even a whistle-blower. Not a chance. Lee wasn't innocent. And he was up to his neck in associations with Guy Banister, David Ferrie, Carlos Bringuier, Ed Butler, Loran Hall, Larry Howard, Gerry Patrick Hemming, George De Mohrenshildt and ex-General Edwin Walker. Believable theories, IMHO, also connect Lee Harvey Oswald with Frank Sturgis, E. Howard Hunt, Antonio Veciana, David Atlee Philips, Eladio Del Valle, and many more of that ilk. Lee Harvey Oswald probably shot nobody on 11/22/1963 -- but he knew who did -- and he was also dumb enough to bring his rifle to work that day, when asked to do so by Gerry Patrick Hemming (courtesy A.J. Weberman). IMHO Lee Oswald had a chance to tell the world what happened -- but he was in the mud up to his neck -- and he firmly believed they would get away with it. (quote name='Tom Scully' timestamp='1366093930' post='271822') ..Paul, can you not admit that Newsweek's Elliott and Aynesworth, Priscilla Johnson, and possibly Nicholas Katzenbach were not candid and transparent with the American people, and that you do not know enough to post these points, but you keep doing it? Why not present what can be found and build pressure to the point that Priscilla can either publicly state the truth, finally, or go to the grave with it? Calling her for what purpose? How was she feeling and how was the weather in Cambridge? (endquote) As for your first question, Tom, I openly admit that all those loyal to the Warren Commission were less than candid with the American people -- and that was by design and they never denied it. The reason for the Warren Commission deception -- and it was openly deceptive -- was honestly stated -- namely, National Security. The message was clear to everybody with common sense -- The Warren Commission knew the truth but was never going to tell the American people for reasons of National Security. This was made blatantly obvious by the fact that the FBI files on Lee Harvey Oswald (among other critical documents) were scheduled to be released to the American people in 75 years after the death of JFK -- in 2038. That, all by itself, is an open admission of the fact -- the Warren Commission was not going to tell us the truth. Period. Get over it. The US government -- our government -- decided that the American people could not handle the truth. That is, the truth would have jeopardized National Security. How? They would not say -- because that would have been a hint that would have given the secret away. Why did Nicholas Katzenbach call Jim Garrison "a complete nut?" Not because Jim was way off the scent of the JFK assassins -- on the contrary -- Jim Garrison was hot on the trail of the assassins. Rather, Katzenbach called Garrison a "nut" because he continued to put pressure on the US government and at the same time claimed that he was loyal to the US government -- that he was a great patriot. Well, if Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren said that the truth about the JFK assassination was a matter of National Security, how could Jim Garrison consider himself patriotic by publicly calling Earl Warren a bald faced xxxx? As for your second question -- why did I call Priscilla Johnson -- I called her because I was writing a screen play using the 1993 book by Ron Lewis, entitled, Flashback: The Untold Story of Lee Harvey Oswald, as my model. What Ron's book lacks, unfortunately, is the love interest, i.e. the dramatic element provided by a female relationship. So, I called Priscilla Johnson to ask for her permission to use excerpts from her 1977 book, Marina and Lee, to supplement Ron Lewis' account. She turned me down. Priscilla Johnson insists that her name never be used in connection with any theory that suggests that Lee Harvey Oswald was anything other than a Lone Nut Gunman. This is not because she found more evidence or proof after the Warren Commisison -- on the contrary -- she knows utterly nothing more than was presented in the Warren Commission volumes, and she deliberately shut out any and all newer information, including the Jim Garrison investigation and the HSCA investigation. She insists on the Lone Nut theory solely and only because she is loyal to the Warren Commission. She built her writing career on that loyalty. She will never waver from that, come hell or high water. What was the truth that the Warren Commission and Nicholas Katzenbach held back from us? What would have been so risky to National Security fifty years ago? I think it is finally becoming obvious -- it was the political fact that the racist rightwing in the USA was behind the JFK murder. If that had been known in 1963, it would have started a new Civil War. And in the middle of the Cold War, that would have been fatal to the USA. If that is correct then Earl Warren (along with Hoover and LBJ) surely made the right decision. I don't believe it's so risky anymore, fifty years later. Because the USSR bit the dust in 1990, the global threat posed by the Cold War is a thing of the past. I think now, finally, the time has come to see all the records of Lee Harvey Oswald. Regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos> We also have the experience of the Terri Williams thread to consider. Paul has no standards or methods. Terri's tireless endorser and booster responded to this:..... .................................................. Unless you are posting with the high level of substantiation of say..... a Terri Williams, Paul will do what he has been doing in so many threads. He "stuffs" thread after thread with linkless text. IMO, the last thing you can expect from him is forthright discussion and constructive debate. Edited April 21, 2013 by Tom Scully Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tom Scully Posted April 21, 2013 Share Posted April 21, 2013 (edited) Consider that the guy who posted time after time that he found Terri William's "eyewitness accounts" credible and compelling and claims to believe with all his heart that Walker and white supremacists assassinated JFK and posts that Earl Warren, the WC commissioners and senior staff, LBJ, and nearly every serious person in government, business, and journalism knew that the guilt of the assassins must be covered up to avert a new civil war in the U.S., also believes the following anomolies are "too loosey goosey". He exhibits not the slightest doubt that Marina Oswald and Priscilla Johnson have said and done nothing curious or influencing a further need for investigation and analysis. No, nothing to see here, Paul has solved the case, move along. Depositions of Marina Oswald Porter - Assassination Archives and ... www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/.../HSCA_Vol12_MarinaOswald.pdf File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML DEPOSITIONS OF MARINA OSWALD PORTER 43-792 0 - 79 - 21 Staff Report of the Select Committee on Assassinations U.S. House of Representatives Ninety-fifth Congress Second Session March 1979 ....... Q. Has anybody ever indicated to you that you couldn't become a citizen? A. I don't believe-in the earlier testimonies to the FBI some- times when I was very difficult and didn't want to answer the ques- tions, sometimes it has come up, "Well, would you like to live in this country?" I felt it was a little threat. I didn't know if I had a con- stitutional right to anything then. Q. You testified about that to the Warren Commission ? A. I don't remember . Q. Since you testified before the Warren Commission has anybody else ever made that same suggestion to you? A.No. Q. You are familiar with Priscilla Johnson ? A. Sure. Q. How do you know herI A. Oh, I met her when she came here with the offer to writs a book about my life and we worked for quite a few months together. I gave her all the information that she needed. That was 13 years ago. Q. When did you first meet her? 342 A. Thirteen years ago, I don't remember the exact date . Q. Where? A. She--I believe she came to my house. Q. In Russia? A. No ; right here. Q,. In Texas? A. Yes. Q. Why did she come, what was the purpose ? A. I had many offers from different writers to write the book and I didn't think it was right for me to do so. I was embarrassed. She keep sending telegrams and telephone calls, she would like to meet me and we talk things over. I still refused. Finally, later on she told me she decided to see me in person and, when we met, I liked her, so agreed. There was an agreement between us, I gave her information so she could write a book. Q. Was it the first time you ever met her or saw her after the assassination? A. Yes. Q. Did she ever indicate to you she had met your husband? A. Yes. Q. What did she say? A. She said when she worked in Russia for some magazine, she worked there for a year or two, and she would like to have an inter- view with Lee, but he granted it to another lady reporter instead of her. She spoke but full Russian, so that was another point that helped me to make up my mind she is the right person. Q. This book that is coming out--I believe you have a book coming out next month? A. Yes. Q. Is there anything in that book which relates to Lee Harvey Os- wald or to the assassination of the President which you have not told the Warren Commission and which you have not told me? What I mean is something about Lee Harvey Oswald which relates to the assassination of the President? A. I don't know, I didn't read thebook. Q. You know what you told Priscilla Johnson. A. I told her everything I know. I told everything I know to the Warren Commission. Q. I am saying in sitting down for these many months and telling her everything you know, did you come across anything that might have popped into your mind you might have forgotten about when you were talking about the book? A. I would have to read the book, the Warren Commission report and see if I forgot to put it there, things like that. Q. Just give me 1 moment. I asked you before whether you had any contacts since the assassina- tion with any U.S. Government agency. Have you had any contacts since the assassination with any foreign, with any agencies of any foreign governments. A. No...... Without Reservations: From Harlem to the End of the Santa Fe Trail - Page 265 books.google.com/books?isbn=0943734363 Samuel B. Ballen - 2001 ....Ethel and I were invited to dinner at the home of Dave Davenport who also had Priscilla McMillan, his cousin, as a guest. I had not seen Priscilla since she had interviewed me in Dallas on the Oswald matter and since she had married and divorced George McMillan, who had produced the NBC Anniversary TV show on the Kennedy assassination. Like many others, I had the highest possible opinion of Priscilla's intelligence and reliability. David Davenport was a former CIA man who had become disenchanted and was now semi-retired to his youthful locus of Santa Fe...... TESTIMONY OF SAMUEL B. BALLEN http://jfkassassinat...russ/testimony/ballen.htm Mr. BALLEN. In some respects, my memory is still a little bit hazy. My best recollection though is that in the fall of 1962, George De Mohrenschildt, a close friend ..... http://newspaperarch...1-10-02/page-10 Oct 2, 2001 Funeral services and memorials DAVID COIT DAVENPORT http://www.maryferre...30&relPageId=40 Priscilla Johnson McMIllan: .....But I have had no, none, no knowing contact ever with anybody working for the CIA except- ing tho., the two instances I have mentioned. I mean literally..... Priscilla had a lot of first cousins. Why did she choose the one first cousin who seemed to be the busiest when he hosted her and Marina in Sante Fe for several weeks from the latter part of September, 1964, and then arranged for his friend, Jerome Hastings to drive to Dallas in December to pick the two women up and take them to an apartment in Sedona and stay with them closely enough for the FBI to use the description, "body guard" in a December, 1964 report? Did Samuel B. Ballen, a man who interviewed Lee Harvey Oswald mislead when he published that Dave Davenport had worked for the CIA, or when he testified to the WC about Oswald and DeMohrenschildt? (quote name='Paul Trejo' timestamp='1366404418' post='272080') Getting back to the theme of this thread -- the CIA didn't sheep-dip Lee Harvey Oswald -- rather, very specific individuals of the extreme, racist right-wing in the USA did that task, namely: Guy Banister, David Ferrie, ex-General Edwin Walker, Loran Hall, Larry Howard (Leopoldo and Angelo), Gerry Patrick Hemming, Carlos Bringuier (DRE) and Ed Butler (INCA), ...................... Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos> (endquote) "Getting back to the theme..." ???? The thread was started as a presentation of evidence that Priscilla Johnson was engaged in a long, duplicitous role before and after the Assassination of JFK. She has been out in the open in this role since 1959. I have connected her to Garry Coit, the CIA roommate of George HW Bush's CIA friend and business partner, Thomas J. Devine. In my lasts few posts in this thread, I have also connected her first cousin, David Coit Davenport, to OSS Lt. Colonels Ellery C. Huntington and George E. Brewer, Jr., Lt. Col. Perkins Bass who was US Army Air Force Intelligence under Gen. Clair Chennault (Flying Tigers, Civil Air Transport (CAT) ), Terry Votichenko, ...During WWll, he enlisted in the Navy and rose to the rank of Lt. Commander, working directly under Gen. Eisenhower to set up the US military government in newly liberated France. He was especially proud of helping to provide food for the hungry civilian population and his part in the liberation of Paris. After the war, he worked for the OSS as head of the North Africa division. In 1956, he moved from Princeton, NJ with his family to Tempe, Arizona to teach Philosophy and Psychology at AZ State University. And Votichenko's Princeton '40 classmate and friend, David H. Blair '40 and Curt A. Zimansky "37 (both Lt.-Capt. Infantry). To them and their six British colleagues was entrusted the tensest and most dramatic of enemy communications: the myriad army orders, situation estimates, pending panzer attacks, requests (usually followed by refusals) for retreat authorization, disastrous tank and gun loss reports, promises of reenforcement divisions and their arrival schedules. The messages behind virtually every major occurrence of the war poured The messages behind virtually every major occurrence of the war poured in an endless stream across their desk, until the strangely quiet morning of May 7, 1945, when the last Enigmas in Bohemia went off the air, and the clattering deciphering machines across the hallway at Bletchley followed suit. ...Blair retumed to Princeton to pursue a Ph.D. in history, but stopped short in favor of writing on his own. Also caught up as a reservist in the Korean War, he headed the Section of Army Intelligence concerned with the pseudopolice armed forces of the German Democratic Republic at the iciest phase of the Cold War. Back at Princeton again, .... And to Jerome Allen Hasy, aka Hastings, who married David H Blair, Jr.'s former wife who was the sister of Helen Davenport Tuttle, who was the wife of Terry Votichenko. Priscilla Johnson, David Davenport, and Jerome Hastings were buzzing like bees, around Marina Oswald. I want to know about and share as much information as possible about the names I've typed and the details displayed between this sentence and the last, "Best Regards, Paul Trejo," I quoted in the beginning of this post. I cannot fathom how it can be of any benefit even to you to step on the specific and well supported details I am posting, but you're doing it anyway. .......................... Why the name change and the secrecy? There is nothing I can find so far connecting Marguerite McAdams to Jerome Hasty. ....Here it is. Nearly two years after the FBI reported the license plate number of the car driven by a man also reported in the Arizona Republic newspaper of Phoenix as Jerome Hastings, friend of David C. Davenport and Priscilla Johnson, Jerome Allen Hasty finally got around to making the name he had been using, legal.: http://newspaperarch...6-10-03/page-10 ..................................... Copyright 2013 by Tom Scully Eleanor Thomas Elliott, Barnard Figure, Dies at 80 - New York Times http://www.nytimes.c.../06/nyregion/06elliott.html Dec 6, 2006 – An advocate for women's rights, Eleanor Thomas Elliott successfully fought ... from a car accident, said her brother-in-law, Osborn Elliott, the former editor of Newsweek ... traditional places,” said the feminist leader Gloria Steinem, a friend. http://tomscully.com...p?topic=40051.0........................... Hugh Aynesworth's boss, Newsweek Editor in Chief, Osborn Elliott had this to say about Aynesworth, just a year after the death of Priscilla Johnson McMillan's father, Stuart Johnson.: (quote) The news media--a service and a force - Page 26 http://books.google....id=GSobAQAAIAAJ Howard Kingsbury Smith, Osborn Elliott, A. Merriman Smith - 1970 ......... But this reporter soon became convinced that Garrison had no case whatsoever, and he made it his business to publicize this fact. The result was one of the first critical stories published about Garrison— which was followed by a series of intimidating telephone calls threatening the reporter's life. In Garrison's mind, this reporter and Newsweek had in effect become co-defendants, and more than 1,100 prospective jurors were asked if they had read Newsweek's critical story. We left this man on the story because we believed he was the best qualified to cover it. And to this day, I am satisfied that he did so fairly and thoroughly. But I would not suggest for a minute that subjectivity had not been involved— once again, in my view, in the interest of the truth. Some of you may recall that our final story on Clay's acquittal was given only nine lines in the magazine. It ran under the headline "Fact and Opinion," and in its entirety it read as follows: "Acquitted: By a jury in New Orleans, exactly two years to the day after his arrest on charges of conspiracy to murder John F. Kennedy, retired Louisiana businessman Clay L. Shaw, 55. Convicted: By a case that collapsed at every seam, District Attorney Jim Garrison, 47, of incompetence and irresponsibility as a public official." You can't get much more subjective than that or, in my opinion, much closer to the truth. There are much larger issues, of course, that involve subjectivity in journalism— indeed the very largest issues of the day— and for a publication such as my own, which has no editorial page, they can pose a problem. The news magazines ....(endquote) (quote)http://www.maryferre...edys_Ghost#fn_2 ... [2] Declassified documents show that Dallas reporter Hugh Aynesworth was in contact with the Dallas CIA office and had on at least one occasion "offered his services to us." The files are chock full of Aynesworth informing to the FBI, particularly in regard to the Garrison investigation. See for example an account of lengthy FBI meeting with Aynesworth on 26 Apr 1967 re: Garrison and 5 May 1967 Domestic Intelligence Division note. See also a CIA 27 Dec 1967 account of a phone call in which Aynesworth is said to have offered to secure documents "extracted" from Garrison's files (by William Gurvich). Also of note is a message Aynesworth sent to George Christian at LBJ's White House, in which Aynesworth wrote that "My interest in informing government officials of each step along the way is because of my intimate knowledge of what Jim Garrison is planning." See Jim DiEugenio's Hugh Aynesworth: Refusing a Conspiracy is his Life's Work. : http://www.ctka.net/aynesworth.html(endquote) http://www.maryferre...edys_Ghost#fn_2.......................... [1] Soviet expert and former journalist Priscilla Johnson McMillan has admitted she applied to work for the CIA in 1952, though she later withdrew her application and was never hired. In her HSCA testimony, declassified in 1993 (see part 1 and part 2), she said that she had only two witting contacts with CIA officers, the latest in 1962. However, either her witting contacts were more extensive than admitted, or she was unwitting of the CIA status of some of those with whom she dealt (or perhaps "don't ask, don't tell" was the modus operandi). An 11 Dec 1962 CIA report of a meeting with Priscilla Johnson stated that she "had been an OO source" (OO: Office of Operations) and had been "selected as a likely candidate to write an article on Yevtushenko in a major U.S. magazine for our campaign." Another CIA document states that she was approved for debriefing under Project [**]DINOSAUR on 3 May 1963. Another contact report from among the many CIA files relating to Ms. Johnson dates from early 1964. See Peter Whitmey's Priscilla Johnson McMillan and the CIA for more information, though that was written in 1994 before many of the documents were available. Ms. Johnson was also involved with Marina Oswald in the unlikely finding of a bus ticket, months after Marina's possessions had been searched by the Dallas Police and the FBI, finally providing "proof" that Oswald had indeed traveled to Mexico City. Commissioner Russell found the story of the bus ticket discovery difficult to believe - see 5WH601-603. http://www.maryferre...30&relPageId=42 Please compare Priscilla Johnson Mcmillan's suspicions about her father Stuart Johnson's sudden death in 1969, as she stated them in her 1978 HSCA testimony, classified by the CIA for the subsequent fifteen years, with what we now know.: (quote)http://www.realhisto...jfk/pmcmil1.htm HSCA Testimony ............................ [At this point 9 pages in a row are missing, with a sheet saying "Access Restricted" - Authority CIA (said HSCA but that was crossed out and "CIA" substituted.) Info withheld becuase of not Security-Classified Information, but "Otherwise Restricted Information" is checked (those were the only two options.) Her testimony has over 40 still classified pages. But it's clear she met with the CIA.] .......................................................................... [This woman recalls next to nothing in this whole 100+ page interview. She says "I do not recall" more times than Oliver North!! Funny how she can recall everything Marina told her though - right? She was also one of the few to testify before the HSCA with her lawyer at her side, interfering now and then throughout.] 1.) Eleanor Lansing Thomas was the sister-in-law of Hugh Aynseworth's editor at Newsweek, Osborn Elliott. 2.) This is an excerpt from the New York Times reporting about the death of Prisicilla's father Stuart Johnson, excerpted from the full article displayed below.: ....Fell Leaving House A widower who lived alone, he had dined last night at the home of Mr. and Mrs. James A. Thomas at 7 Wood Lane in neighboring Locust Valley. As he stepped out of the house to get into his car, according to his hosts, he fell to the walk. They said they helped him to his feet, and, although he appeared dazed, he insisted on driving home... 3.) James A. Thomas was the brother of Eleanor Lansing Thomas who was the sister-in-law of Osborn Elliott. 4.) In the Clover Dulles wedding article displayed below, it is stated that Clover Dulles's (daughter of former CIA director, Allen W. Dulles) maid of honor was Clover's cousin, Eleanor Lansing Thomas. Eleanor's brother, James A. Thomas, must also have been a cousin of Clover Dulles and her father Allen. 5.) Priscilla Johnson Mcmillan informed the HSCA in transcribed statements classified and withheld by the CIA for the fifteen years following her 1978 testimony, that she believed that the circumstances of her father Stuart's death were covered up. James A. Thomas, a cousin of Allen W. Dulles and the brother of Osborn Elliott's sister-in-law, was reported to be the person most involved in the cover up described by Priscilla Johnson McMillan in statements she had made to the HSCA. (endquote) The problem I have with the assertions of Osborn Elliott, Hugh Aynesworth, Priscilla Johnson Mcmillan, and other information displayed above is this.: My research into the Mr. James A. Thomas who was the last to see Priscilla Johnson's father alive, after hosting Stuart Johnson for dinner at his Locust Valley home in 1969, and in this obit of Thomas's brother-in-law, I discovered that John Elliott was the brother of Newsweek editor in chief, Osborn Elliott. This also means that Osborn Elliott's sister-in-law, Eleanor Lansing Thomas, is the woman who was the matron of honor in Clover Dulles's wedding, and was also employed in the mid 50's by John Foster Dulles.: http://educationforu...=75#entry252435 Now there is also the knowledge that Aynesworth enjoyed the full support of his editor who was the brother-in-law of Clover Dulles' matron of honor, who was the sister of the last man to see Priscilla Johnson's father, alive. https://www.google.c...iw=1440&bih=723 ELEANOR THOMAS IS WED IN LONDON; Former Vogue Editor ... New York Times - Jul 28, 1956 Isabel ratto.wa.9 the bride s only : attendant. Osborn i Elliott eras the man for his Brother: r . . .' `he. is--a graduate of the Chapin Schbol--and Bernard Collees. Saying goodbye to ad legend Jock Elliott | News - Advertising Age http://adage.com/art...elliott/105186/ Nov 7, 2005 – David Ogilvy once remarked that the man who would replace him at the ... His survivors include his wife, Eleanor Thomas Elliott, his brother Osborn and numerous nieces ..... New York Times - March 30, 1969 Stuart Johnson Dies After Fall http://educationforu...=75#entry252435http://boards.ancest...1/mb.ashx?pnt=1 Source: Berkshire Eagle Friday, March 24, 2000 James Thomas Jr. BECKET -- James A. Thomas Jr., 76, of Becket died Tuesday afternoon at Laurel Lake Center for Health and Rehabilitation in Lee. Born in New York City on Dec. 9, 1923, son of James Augustus and Dorothy Quincy Read Thomas, he was a 1941 graduate of Deerfield Academy. He received his bachelor of arts degree in 1945 from Yale University and his law degree from Yale Law School in 1948. He had resided in Becket since 1984. He leaves his wife, the former Susan Norton; three sons, James Thomas of New York City, Ranald M. Thomas of Minneapolis, and Skeff Thomas of Pitman, N.J.; four daughters, Cameron Thomas of Lexington, Augusta Thomas of Cambridge, and Eleanor Thomas and Dorothy Thomas, both of New York City; two stepsons, William H. Stewart of Washington, and Douglas Stewart of Louisville, Colo.; a stepdaughter, Penelope Eagan of Sun Valley, Idaho; a sister, Eleanor T. Elliott of New York City, and 15 grandchildren. Jul. 26, 2002 - 7 WOOD LANE 11560 - Newsday.com http://longisland.ne...l.php?id=904027 Seller: ELEANOR THOMAS. Buyer: HULL, ELLEN, 7 WOOD LANE, LATTINGTOWN, NY. School District: Locust Valley. Village: Lattingtown. County: Nassau http://articles.lati...al/me-elliott23 John "Jock" Elliott Jr., former chairman of the leading advertising agency Ogilvy & Mather and an authority on the history of Christmas, has died. He was 84. Elliott died of a cerebral hemorrhage Oct. 29 at a hospital in Mount Kisco, N.Y., said his wife, Eleanor Thomas Elliott.... ....In addition to Eleanor, his wife of 49 years, Elliott is survived by his brother Osborn, a former editor of Newsweek magazine. Eleanor Thomas Elliott, Barnard Figure, Dies at 80 - New York Times http://www.nytimes.c.../06elliott.html Dec 6, 2006 – Eleanor Thomas Elliott, an advocate for women's rights who successfully fought Columbia University's attempt to take over Barnard College in . http://www.maryferre...97&relPageId=13 Edited April 21, 2013 by Tom Scully Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted April 22, 2013 Share Posted April 22, 2013 (edited) Consider that the guy who posted time after time that he found Terri William's "eyewitness accounts" credible and compelling and claims to believe with all his heart that Walker and white supremacists assassinated JFK and posts that Earl Warren, the WC commissioners and senior staff, LBJ, and nearly every serious person in government, business, and journalism knew that the guilt of the assassins must be covered up to avert a new civil war in the U.S., also believes the following anomolies are "too loosey goosey". He exhibits not the slightest doubt that Marina Oswald and Priscilla Johnson have said and done nothing curious or influencing a further need for investigation and analysis. No, nothing to see here, Paul has solved the case, move along. <snip pages of hyperlinks> Tom, I certainly don't claim to have solved the JFK case. However, I did expect the Forum to offer a more supportive environment for my challenges to the WC's Lone Nut theory. Now, I don't happen to see anything spooky about the testimony of Marina Oswald, or the exploitation of her testimony made by Priscilla Johnson McMillan some years later. As Marina said -- "I told everything to the Warren Commission and I told everything to Priscilla Johnson -- but I never read her book." This explains why the stories we get from both the Warren Commission and Johnson's 1977 book, Marina and Lee, are virtually identical, except that Johnson's journalistic style is far more readable than the Warren Commission stenographers'. If you see something spooky (CIA) in their testimony, Tom, please make that plain in a single paragraph, or a single page of your own text. You can add all your hyperlinks in subsequent posts -- but pretty please -- I'd like to see your views in your own words. People can see, very clearly, what I'm trying to prove. But what is it, specifically, that you're trying to prove? Would you kindly just blurt it out without hyperlinks, for a change? Regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos> Edited April 22, 2013 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted April 22, 2013 Share Posted April 22, 2013 (edited) Paul, ...But since the whole Nixon thing is total and complete BS that even the Warren Commission didn't buy it, I have no idea why we're even discussing it really. You do realise that it is almost universally accepted that Marina was talking out of her ass on this, don't you? I think you should consider polling forum members to find out whether or not your claim that the “majority” of folks accept her testimony is actually true. Because I suspect you are actually in the minority. As I pointed out to you, the commission knew she was a xxxx and I'd like to see you prove your claim that Rankin “did not express such concerns after the proceedings were completed.” Does this also apply to commission staff member Freda Scobey who wrote a memo to Senator Russell recommending that Marina be cross-examined because she had “directly lied on at least two occassions”? How about the HSCA staff members who compiled a 29 page report on many of Marina's contradictory statements, noting that “Marina's testimony is so full of confusion and contradiction that without the catalystic element of cross-examination it reads like a nightmare.” When it came to the Walker shooting, HSCA staff concluded that Marina's testimony had “all the weight of a handful of chicken feathers”. Doesn't sound like they gave her too much credence, does it? And there is another, some would argue more plausible, way to look at Marina's evolving testimony. And that is that Marina was telling the truth up until the point that she was cut off from the outside world and threatened with deportation if she didn't tell the story everybody wanted to hear. So she played along. Over time, Marina became something of an expert at telling her interviewer whatever she thought they wanted to hear as even Norman Mailer noted in his travesty of a book. Plus, Marina made a great deal of money out of selling her dead husband up the river. She admitted in her final Commission testimony that she had already received public donations totalling $57,000. (5H604) And according to her “business manager” James Martin, she raked in $132,350 telling her story: MARTIN: Texitalia Films, $75,000 movie and the TV rights, World Wide plus $7,500 plus expenses per film appearance, plus $1,500 per--plus expenses for personal appearance. Contract was signed February 11. Life Magazine was $5,000, North American rights for Lee had photo with rifle and pistol. Stern Magazine, $12,500, story serial rights for Germany and Italy only, with a 70-30 percent reciprocal for serial rights in Europe, 70 percent to Marina. Stern Magazine, $2,650 picture rights on the seven photos with same arrangements as above. REDLICH: Finish the documents. MARTIN: Meredith Press, $25,000 advance on world book rights. London Daily Mirror $2,209 guarantee on 50-50 reciprocal for British Commonwealth rights on rifle photo. Detroit Free Press stole photo and has sold it to foreign news media thereby leaving themselves liable. This Week Magazine, $1,500 for 500-word article. Total is $132,350. (1H496) Food for thought. Martin, the fact that the WC refused to buy Marina's Nixon story makes little difference to reason -- the WC also refused to buy the rich evidence that Oswald had accomplices! Marina's story about Nixon stands or falls on its own merits -- I personally find nothing implausible about it. A man who would beat his wife, who would take a pot-shot at General Walker in his living room at night, and who (according to his New Orleans 1963 summertime pal, Ron Lewis) would take his rifle to a Russell Long rally -- this sort of man would certainly be capable of taking a pistol to a Nixon rally. What's the problem? I understand that that many (not most) JFK researchers refuse to believe Marina Oswald, mainly because they refuse to believe that Lee Oswald shot at General Walker on 10 April 1963 -- despite copious photographic evidence. IMHO their thinking is one-sided -- Either/Or -- either Oswald never shot anybody ever, period, or else he shot everybody he is accused of shooting. period. No middle ground. No further discussion. That's too one-sided for reality. Real life is full of nuances. JFK researchers should be willing to take a nuanced look -- that Oswald could be innocent of the murder of JFK, and yet be guilty of all these other violent activities. Besides, we have information from the 1980's which notes that Roscoe White admitted that he killed J.D. Tippit. We have Walker's lifetime conviction that there were two shooters at him on 10 April 1963. We have plenty of other viable suspects -- so there's no real need anymore to try to portray Lee Harvey Oswald as a gentleman. I say Marina's Nixon story is plausible -- please tell me what parts you find to be implausible. By my reading, Oswald lived in a world that he kept secret from Marina. That world included rough-necks of various shades -- Cuban Exile desperados, CIA assets, Interpen mercenaries, Guy Banister, David Ferrie; also, in Dallas, George De Mohrenschildt, who had war and spy experience in World War Two (on both sides of the war) teamed with Volkmar Schmidt and others to convince Oswald to kill ex-General Edwin Walker, another self-righteous racist run amok. Assassination was apparently on Oswald's mind -- the books he checked out from the library tend to reflect that. Oswald was making friends and influencing people with his rifle. Also -- we clearly disagree on the proportion of JFK researchers who disbelieve Marina Oswald. Although you and I don't make decisions based on majorities or minorities (but on evidence), I agree that it's a fine idea to take a poll on this Forum, to count how many believe Marina fully, and how many doubt at least part of her story. As for proving that Rankin didn't do something, clearly the burden of proof falls on the one who claims he did. As for Alfredda Scobey, you claim knowledge of her memo to Senator Russell which charges that Marina "lied on at least two occassions”? But I have Alfredda Scobey's final WC lawyer's report -- dated January 1965 -- and nowhere does it suggest that Marina lied. Are you certain about your source? As for HSCA staff and their subjective opinions -- they were paid to keep this case open -- and anyway nothing matters except hard evidence -- so what was their hard evidence? Or were they just complaining and boasting at the same time? If they had a true complaint, they should have voiced it plainly. Let's see it. Also -- it is cynical to believe that Marina invented her story for the $132,350 that came to her as a result of his her historical position. In point of fact, she would have obtained that money no matter what she said. Because of the fact of JFK moldering in his grave, and Lee Oswald moldering in his grave -- the public would accept anything. She was under no pressure to make up stories for the public -- her money source. Yes, I know some blindly suspect the US Government and the CIA of killing JFK -- but actually we only have hard evidence that they covered-up the plot in the interest of National Security. So my approach is more conservative -- I will accept sworn testimony until I receive a material fact (not mere suspicions or allegations) that such testimony is perjury. Best regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos> Edited April 22, 2013 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted April 22, 2013 Share Posted April 22, 2013 (edited) OK, as promised, I found the official public report about Lee Oswald beating Marina so loudly that his neighbors on Elsbeth street complained. It is actually an FBI report -- an interview with the landlords, Mr. and Mrs. Tobias. Here are the links: http://www.aarclibra...Vol17_0399b.htm http://www.aarclibra...Vol17_0400a.htm Best regards, --Paul Trejo Edited April 22, 2013 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tom Scully Posted April 23, 2013 Share Posted April 23, 2013 (edited) Consider that the guy who posted time after time that he found Terri William's "eyewitness accounts" credible and compelling and claims to believe with all his heart that Walker and white supremacists assassinated JFK and posts that Earl Warren, the WC commissioners and senior staff, LBJ, and nearly every serious person in government, business, and journalism knew that the guilt of the assassins must be covered up to avert a new civil war in the U.S., also believes the following anomolies are "too loosey goosey". ............................ Now, I don't happen to see anything spooky about the testimony of Marina Oswald, or the exploitation of her testimony made by Priscilla Johnson McMillan some years later. As Marina said -- "I told everything to the Warren Commission and I told everything to Priscilla Johnson -- but I never read her book." This explains why the stories we get from both the Warren Commission and Johnson's 1977 book, Marina and Lee, are virtually identical, except that Johnson's journalistic style is far more readable than the Warren Commission stenographers'. .............Tom, please make that plain in a single paragraph, or a single page of your own text. You can add all your hyperlinks in subsequent posts -- but pretty please -- I'd like to see your views in your own words......... .............. Regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos> Consider that the guy who posted time after time that he found Terri William's "eyewitness accounts" credible and compelling and claims to believe with all his heart that Walker and white supremacists assassinated JFK and posts that Earl Warren, the WC commissioners and senior staff, LBJ, and nearly every serious person in government, business, and journalism knew that the guilt of the assassins must be covered up to avert a new civil war in the U.S., also believes the following anomolies are "too loosey goosey". ............................ Now, I don't happen to see anything spooky about the testimony of Marina Oswald, or the exploitation of her testimony made by Priscilla Johnson McMillan some years later. As Marina said -- "I told everything to the Warren Commission and I told everything to Priscilla Johnson -- but I never read her book." This explains why the stories we get from both the Warren Commission and Johnson's 1977 book, Marina and Lee, are virtually identical, except that Johnson's journalistic style is far more readable than the Warren Commission stenographers'. .............. Regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos> Paul Trejo, on 22 April 2013 - 01:51 AM, said: ......Now, I don't happen to see anything spooky about the testimony of Marina Oswald, or the exploitation of her testimony made by Priscilla Johnson McMillan some years later. As Marina said -- "I told everything to the Warren Commission and I told everything to Priscilla Johnson -- but I never read her book." This explains why the stories we get from both the Warren Commission and Johnson's 1977 book, Marina and Lee, are virtually identical, except that Johnson's journalistic style is far more readable than the Warren Commission stenographers'. ................................ People can see, very clearly, what I'm trying to prove. But what is it, specifically, that you're trying to prove? Would you kindly just blurt it out without hyperlinks, for a change? Regards, --Paul Trejo Link to view Mexico City, Page 2 of 3: https://lh6.googleus...HSCAMexico2.jpg Link to view Mexico City, Page 3 of 3: https://lh6.googleus...HSCAMexico3.jpg http://educationforu...er/snapback.pngTom Scully, on 20 April 2013 - 07:41 PM, said: Paul, please post a brief quote of a key, SUPPORTED point you have added to this thread. I am surprised at your objection to "stuffing". Here are links to all of your posts in this thread....in a thread you now describe as "page after page of loosely related quotations." But you have not stepped on this thread Paul. No, not you! Please post a quote of your contribution to this thread that you believe has drawn many of the 185,000 page views here... http://educationforu...er/snapback.pngPaul Trejo, on 21 April 2013 - 12:12 AM, said: With little narrative, you began to post -- by your own count -- 185,000 pages of supporting material to firm up your point -- that yes, the CIA sheep-dipped Oswald. Yet you haven't written write a single page summary yourself -- without hyperlinks -- so that we can plainly see the nuances of your point. http://educationforu...er/snapback.pngPaul Trejo, on 21 April 2013 - 02:56 PM, said: But that causes a major conflict with Tom, evidently, who has posted countless hyperlinks of 185,000 pages (by his count) of supporting evidence that the CIA did it. But his evidence is too loosey goosey. .................................. That is, 185,000 pages of hyperlinks can be used to show anything at all, or to give rise to thousands of more questions. As I've already requested from Tom -- please post one single page of his own text to clearly state his objectives. Tom hasn't done that yet. Regards, --Paul Trejo http://educationforu...er/snapback.pngTom Scully, on 21 April 2013 - 08:14 PM, said: Your obtuseness, feigned or genuine, and your refusal to post the finest example of the contributions you have made to this thread after you have succeeded in stepping on it and stuffing it persuades me to concede. You have pushed me out of here. (quote name='Thomas Graves' timestamp='1366584583' post='272258') Dear Mr. Trejo, What's really interesting is that of the astronomical 186,225 "views" of this thread, only thirty-two (or is it thirty-one?) of the "replies" to it were posted by people other than Scully, and most of those were posted by you, Colby, and myself! LOL. I wonder why only .017% of the "views" have resulted in posts? Could it be that Mr. Scully's posts are just a tad too unwieldy and/or overwhelming to analytically (you know, "break down into smaller parts so you can take a look at them individually") quote and comment upon, or do most people just find them a bit too circumstantial, tedious, detailed, tangental, and obvious... I mean, there's got to be a reason for the low response rate. Sincerely, --Tommy (/quote) Well, Tommy, I never looked at it that way before. With 185,000 views, why a comparatively miniscule number of reponses, when compared with other threads on this Forum? From the IT viewpoint, it might suggest that the counter-app of this thread does not behave exactly the same as other counter-apps on other threads on this Forum. Could the number of hyperlinks in a thread increase the count? Interesting. --Paul Ralph Leon Yates Started by 26 Mar 2013 177 replies 7,009 views Edited April 23, 2013 by Tom Scully Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now