Greg Parker Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 John M. Tidd was a CIA analyst. He is not me. Related? Not suggesting anything, just curious, and I won't read anything into a non-reply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 (edited) BUMP Edited March 18, 2015 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon G. Tidd Posted March 18, 2015 Author Share Posted March 18, 2015 Greg, I am not John M. Tidd, a CIA analyst. I'm Jonathan G. Tidd. A different person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Parker Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 Greg, I am not John M. Tidd, a CIA analyst. I'm Jonathan G. Tidd. A different person. Thanks Jon. I got that the first time. I asked if you were related to the analyst. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 Greg, I am not John M. Tidd, a CIA analyst. I'm Jonathan G. Tidd. A different person. Thanks Jon. I got that the first time. I asked if you were related to the analyst. Greg. That's strictly on a need-to-know basis. --Tommy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 (edited) Steven, one critical factor that your attack on Marina Oswald overlooks is that English was her second language. Therefore, English errors in her communication must be carefully accounted in any testimony she gives. You haven't shown that you have even understood her sentences -- yet you are very quick to judge Marina Oswald. All the attacks on Marina I've seen on this thread are superficial and ill-considered. Let's see something with real substance for a change. Otherwise, get over it. Marina Oswald told the truth to the Warren Commission while under oath. You cannot solve the JFK murder if you refuse to accept valid testimony, people. Wake up. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo Edited March 18, 2015 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 (edited) ...Lee Farley has written here that Marina trashed herself before the Warren Commission. She did, I agree. But I believe she believed she had to give the hated (from her perspective) FBI what it wanted from her, or she'd be deported. I don't believe anything Marina has said about her husband. I do think she's been screwed over. Well, Jon, you say you agree that Marina Oswald "trashed herself" before the WC. Yet that is an insult, plain and simple, to Marina Oswald. She presents her WC testimony as a sworn oath. Your position calls her a xxxx, and yet complains that "she's been screwed over." IMHO, calling Marina Oswald a xxxx is the real way to screw her over. You should present some evidence for your view, Jon, before resorting to such lengths. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo <edit typo> Edited April 4, 2015 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Brancato Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 Even the WC lawyers questioned Marina's veracity. Even Robert Oswald thought Marina was made to think she was in danger of deportation. Some of her stories are ridiculous. It was not a language problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 (edited) Even the WC lawyers questioned Marina's veracity. Even Robert Oswald thought Marina was made to think she was in danger of deportation. Some of her stories are ridiculous. It was not a language problem. Well, Paul B., I disagree, obviously. Robert Oswald's opinion on the JFK murder is almost worthless. He still agrees with the "Lone Nut" theory -- so why would anybody refer to Robert Oswald? As for the WC lawyers, they're SUPPOSED to question all witness veracity. No big deal. They finally accepted her sworn testimony. All criticisms of Marina's sworn testimony that I've seen here amount to mere complaints over her English skills. If you have a story in mind, Paul B., please share it here -- and please stop calling Marina Oswald a xxxx until you have proof. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo <edit typo> Edited April 4, 2015 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Brancato Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 Oh please. How about her locking Oswald in the bathroom so he wouldn't go out and kill Nixon? The main thing is that its very convenient to quote sworn testimony and take it for granted that its the truth, even though you have been shown many times where it wasn't, and you are of course aware of that, and that you pick and choose what to believe or not believe. You are sure that DeM is being honest in regards to the Walker/rifle story, yet you would disagree on his written assessment of who Oswald was. But what comes through loud and clear to me and many others is that Marina, DeMohrenschildt, the Paines, Volkmar Schmidt, other Russians, all supported the basic story that Oswald was a wacko loner who was up to no good, who tried to kill and wanted to kill, who beat his wife. It was character assassination after the fact, very convenient, and timely for the Warren Commission, who had it as their goal to find Oswald guilty of murder without accomplices. Well, even you agree that he was not guilty, so why are you so willing to believe the sworn testimony of these witnesses? Robert is full of it, but that doesn't negate everything he ever said, and I think it interesting that he picked up on the pressure being put on Marina. He was certainly in a position to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Gaal Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 Oh please. How about her locking Oswald in the bathroom so he wouldn't go out and kill Nixon? // Brancato @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ What can I say ...........>>>>>>> ditto......Its a LOL. If the door doent fit (goes wrong way) you must acquit !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVZD-HsFLGI Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon G. Tidd Posted March 18, 2015 Author Share Posted March 18, 2015 Paul Trejo, Certain parts of Marina'a Warren Commission testimony leap out at me. One is when she asks the Commissioners whether she's telling them what they want her to say. Another is when she testifies that after the Walker shooting, Oswald buried his rifle in the ground. That just can't be true. Unless some third party got hold of the rifle and cleaned it of the dirt and other debris that would have gotten into it. Oswald is not reported to have had a cleaning kit for the rifle. Even if he had the right equipment to clean the rifle, its barrel showed no signs of recent cleaning as of 11-23-63. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted March 18, 2015 Share Posted March 18, 2015 Oh please. How about her locking Oswald in the bathroom so he wouldn't go out and kill Nixon? The main thing is that its very convenient to quote sworn testimony and take it for granted that its the truth, even though you have been shown many times where it wasn't, and you are of course aware of that, and that you pick and choose what to believe or not believe. You are sure that DeM is being honest in regards to the Walker/rifle story, yet you would disagree on his written assessment of who Oswald was. But what comes through loud and clear to me and many others is that Marina, DeMohrenschildt, the Paines, Volkmar Schmidt, other Russians, all supported the basic story that Oswald was a wacko loner who was up to no good, who tried to kill and wanted to kill, who beat his wife. It was character assassination after the fact, very convenient, and timely for the Warren Commission, who had it as their goal to find Oswald guilty of murder without accomplices. Well, even you agree that he was not guilty, so why are you so willing to believe the sworn testimony of these witnesses? Robert is full of it, but that doesn't negate everything he ever said, and I think it interesting that he picked up on the pressure being put on Marina. He was certainly in a position to do so. Again, Paul B., ESL is the answer to the Nixon snafu. Ron Lewis said that in New Orleans, Lee Harvey OSWALD, his ex-Marine buddy, liked to push people's buttons. To that end, said Ron Lewis, after OSWALD got Lewis a job with GUY BANISTER, spying on the Long Campaign for Governor, which pleased Ron, OSWALD began to threaten the Long family, directly to Ron. Ron Lewis, by the way, is quite confident that OSWALD was innocent of the JFK murder. Ron Lewis believes that Roscoe White was one of the JFK shooters that day -- because, as he claims, OSWALD named Roscoe White to him in casual conversation, in the context of Dallas, and Ron thought that Roscoe was a funny name and made a joke about it. That said, Ron also claims that OSWALD bothered Ron for a full week about helping OSWALD hijack an airplane to Cuba. OSWALD was genuinely upset during that week -- visibly disturbed. That was the same week that Marina later said OSWALD just sat and cried alone in their kitchen. Marina wasn't trying to confirm Ron Lewis -- she never even heard of Ron Lewis. But their stories match on this point -- and on the point that Lee Harvey OSWALD liked to tease people on the topic of Assassination. OSWALD teased Ron Lewis about assassinating Mr. and Mrs. Long in New Orleans. He didn't mean it. So, I have no problem whatever believing Marina's story that OSWALD teased her about assassinating Nixon. OSWALD didn't mean it -- but he did have weapons -- and he had nothing better to do with his time, since he was Unemployed most of 1963, and collected UEI benefits for most of the year -- lots of time on his hands. That said, the attorney who questioned Marina on this topic was rude and hasty -- and showed her no patience just because English was her second language. He danced rings around her. He had one agenda, she was trying to tell her story, but he kept interrupting her and putting words in her mouth. (That is very confusing to a person with ESL.) The whole story about the bathroom scene and so on with regard to Nixon is easily understood if we realize that OSWALD was simply teasing Marina -- getting a rise out of her. It's EMINENTLY believable. Sincerely, --Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon G. Tidd Posted March 18, 2015 Author Share Posted March 18, 2015 Tidd, I understand, is a somewhat common English surname. It's an uncommon U.S. last name. John M. Tidd is one person. To my knowledge, I, Jonathan G. Tidd, am unrelated to him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted March 19, 2015 Share Posted March 19, 2015 (edited) Paul Trejo, Certain parts of Marina'a Warren Commission testimony leap out at me. One is when she asks the Commissioners whether she's telling them what they want her to say. Another is when she testifies that after the Walker shooting, Oswald buried his rifle in the ground. That just can't be true. Unless some third party got hold of the rifle and cleaned it of the dirt and other debris that would have gotten into it. Oswald is not reported to have had a cleaning kit for the rifle. Even if he had the right equipment to clean the rifle, its barrel showed no signs of recent cleaning as of 11-23-63. OK, good, Jon, let's look at this for a minute. (1) As a certified ESL instructor (UC Santa Cruz Extension, 2002) I recognize that even many educators lack sensitivity when dealing with people whose second language is English. You cite a moment when Marina asks the Commissioners whether she's telling them what they want her to say. We can discuss this in further depth when you actually quote the words you infer here, but one should immediately point out that this is a common question by a person with ESL. It doesn't mean what it sounds like, usually. Remember that Marina was only just getting used to the idea that the FBI was not like the KGB. It's more complicated than you're making it. (2) As for the story that OSWALD buried his rifle -- what makes you think that Marina came up with that lie? It's far more likely that Lee Harvey OSWALD told Marina that lie, and that she believed and honestly repeated it. Of course it's a lie -- but why blame Marina for it? (3) Marina reported that in New Orleans, Lee OSWALD would often spend part of an evening or weekend afternoon cleaning his rifle on their apartment porch. She did not say what kind of tools he used for that -- as if she would even recognize them. This doesn't suggest that Marina is lying -- not even slightly. You're going to have to do better than that, Jon, to keep your dignity yet accuse Marina Oswald of lies and perjury. You might have heard that Marina herself, and her daughters, read the FORUM from time to time. Do you really want to call her a xxxx in public with such paltry arguments as these? Sincerely, --Paul Trejo Edited March 19, 2015 by Paul Trejo 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