Witnesses to LHO' posession of the MC rifle

[Paul Trejo]

6 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Paul:

I hate to tell you but it is a crime to lie to a government agent.  Maybe you don't know that but its true.

And to say that somehow "sworn testimony" to the WC which came months later is somehow sacrosanct, but her initial statements are not is simply you tapering her story to fit your module.

One test of this is simply this question:  did the WC ever bring charges against anyone for perjury? Not that i know of.

The only time there was even a mention of this was when Griffin was called off and Warren backed down with Dean.  So excuse me if I and everyone else does not take the "sworn testimony" before the WC seriously.  It certainly should not be taken more seriously than initial statements.  Since we know from declassified documents  that the WC testimony was massaged, and then baked before it was presented.  There are many, many examples of this, and Marina is one of them.  The junior lawyers on the WC did not even want to use her.  When Wesley Liebeler found out that nine months later she and Priscilla Johnson  were still coming up with remnants of Oswald in Mexico he just about had a heart attack.

As most people, except PT, would.  

The idea that Marina told the truth to the WC was not even believed by them, and certainly not by the HSCA.

James,

The hypocrisy of this position is obvious.   Here is a wife, who is frantic because her husband is under arrest for the murder of the President, and she denies everything.  This is a "crime" according to you.

Yet others in your camp say that because Marina was married to LHO, nothing she said to the US Government was admissible!   

What hypocrisy.

The truth is that Marina Oswald denied anything and everything when she was first arrested by the FBI, and she was clearly freaked out about their harsh treatment of her -- their threats of deportation -- and James Hosty's claims that she was a secret KGB agent and all that nonsense.

Get real.  What American wife wouldn't be freaked out about it?  What jury in America would convict her?  Not one.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited February 21, 2017 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

On 2/18/2017 at 1:57 AM, Joe Bauer said:

Regards Marina Oswald accepting Ruth Paine's offers of assistance, perhaps it was simply because no one else was offering that level of help which Marina desperately needed since her life with Oswald was so unstable and her relationship with Lee was so stressing.

I think Marina at that time was also looking for any way to seperate from Oswald because he was more and more doing and saying things that were scaring her.

Staying with Ruth Paine ( who also had young children ) gave Marina and her young daughter some needed normalcy and stability, especially in her last months of pregnancy and a break from this marital stress.

When someone is feeling that desperate, they will often take help from persons offering it, even though they may not personally like them.

Years ago, my wife and I ( with two of our own adolescent children ) took in a 17 year old girl with baby who was in a similar situation as Marina.

We knew her single mother and the fact that her family was totally dis-functional and could not help her like we could. She stayed with us for about a month and moved on. I knew this girl felt horrible having to live with us. Not because she didn't like us...but because she wanted to be in a situation where she wasn't dependent on anyone. She was embarrassed that she and the girl's father were just so poor and unable to take care of themselves on the most basic level. 

I believe that Marina did not like Ruth Paine, but she needed her at the time that she lived with her. And "as soon as she was able"  she moved on to other living accommodations...and of course the donation money started pouring in.

And here is an added stress on Marina and Lee;  other persons ( males) besides Lee showing Marina attention and generosity because they were very attracted to her physically more than for just humanitarian reasons. Bouhe for one. I think Oswald sensed this ( and probably Marina's openness to this ) and felt very insecure and even angry about it. 

What always disgusted me was the reported boast by Hugh Aynesworth that he seduced Marina and bedded her. If so, what a rat!

And don't forget that Lethario Norman Mailer. He was smitten with Marina after personally meeting her even in her middle age years. He spoke glowingly about her intelligence and added something like...she had the most beautiful blue eyes. They shined like blue diamonds.

Marina's youthful beauty certainly made her a more compelling and sympathetic character in this story. If she looked like a cold-war era poster depicted Russian peasant woman ( Like Kruschev's wife or even Oswald's mother )  she would not have received anything close to what she did after all her exposure in the national and even international media imo.

Joe,

Thanks very much for this sensitive and realistic portrayal of Marina Oswald.  I agree with you in every detail here.

Obviously, the CIA-did-it CTers cannot stand for Marina Oswald to be defended because they need to knock her down to make room for their fictions.

But your realism here is a breath of fresh air.  I appreciate your writing here very much.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

On 2/17/2017 at 2:21 PM, Mark Knight said:

Once again, you miss my point by a mile.

Dick Russell repeated WHAT HE WAS TOLD. Dick Russell has produced NO MORE EVIDENCE THAT THE FBI WAS ACTUALLY NOTIFIED than you have.

Dick Russell said he was TOLD they were notified.  Dick Russell told the truth, that this is what he was TOLD.

BUT if there is no evidence that such a report was ACTUALLY made, then what Russell was told is HEARSAY.

What part of that do you NOT understand?  Seems to be fairly simple to me.  If we can't PROVE that Oswald was reported to the FBI as Russell was told, HOW DO WE KNOW IT REALLY HAPPENED?  Russell simply reported that he was TOLD this...NOT that it actually occurred and he had PROOF of such.

Mark,

Do you really think that Dick Russell is so shallow that he would simply believe anything he was told and repeat it?

I don't.  

Also, what reason in the world would a wealthy woman like Natalie Voshinin have for lying to Dick Russell?  

Also, nobody else asked Natalie the brilliant questions that Dick Russell asked her -- and she testified for the Warren Comission.

So, no, Mark -- IMHO it's you who's missing the point.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited February 21, 2017 by Paul Trejo

[Mark Knight]

Ok, Paul.

PROVE that Mrs. Voshinin notified the FBI.  Find a report.  I'll wait.  Just because she told Dick Russell she made a report, that's not PROOF she made a report.

"...what reason in the world would a wealthy woman like Natalie Voshinin have for lying to Dick Russell? "  Come on, Paul.  That is NOT "proof."  People lie for MANY reasons, Some lie for NO reason.  AM I SAYING SHE LIED? Not exactly; I'm saying that I've found no EVIDENCE--remember EVIDENCE?--that she was telling the truth.

Show me some EVIDENCE.  NOT "he said/she said." Find a report that the FBI filed on the call.  Hell, just find a call log that shows the FBI even received a call from her.

EVIDENCE, Paul.  You make your case with EVIDENCE.

[Paul Trejo]

2 minutes ago, Mark Knight said:

Ok, Paul.

PROVE that Mrs. Voshinin notified the FBI.  Find a report.  I'll wait.  Just because she told Dick Russell she made a report, that's not PROOF she made a report.

"...what reason in the world would a wealthy woman like Natalie Voshinin have for lying to Dick Russell? "  Come on, Paul.  That is NOT "proof."  People lie for MANY reasons, Some lie for NO reason.  AM I SAYING SHE LIED? Not exactly; I'm saying that I've found no EVIDENCE--remember EVIDENCE?--that she was telling the truth.

Show me some EVIDENCE.  NOT "he said/she said." Find a report that the FBI filed on the call.  Hell, just find a call log that shows the FBI even received a call from her.

EVIDENCE, Paul.  You make your case with EVIDENCE.

Mark,

I don't know why you're riding me in public.  I've already said that my EVIDENCE is the genius of Dick Russell.  I've already said that I don't have further evidence, and I would be pleased to find some, or to have some assistance from somebody else to find further evidence.  

Until and unless somebody else comes forward with further evidence that Natalie Voshinin called the FBI on Easter Sunday 1963, as she told Dick Russell (1992), with the news that Lee Harvey Oswald was possibly the shooter at General Walker on April 10, 1963, then I will, arguendo, presume three possibilities:

1.  That the FBI reports about Natalie Voshinin calling them on Easter Sunday 1963 have been withheld from the public on exceptions of the FOIA, and will be released this year on Thursday 26 October 2017, when the JFK Records Act comes to maturity.

2.  That FBI Agent James Hosty personally took the call from Natalie Voshinin, and that since James Hosty was part of the JFK Kill Team (as evidenced by his Oswald-Kostikov accusation in his 1996 book, Assignment Oswald) that he deliberately destroyed that record.

3.  That JFK Researchers, in their backward obsession to prove a CIA-did-it CT, have simply overlooked this FBI report by Natalie Voshinin, and some eager JFK researcher may find it before October of this year.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

[James DiEugenio]

LOL, God you can be funny at times.

 

If someone says they did something, but there is no evidence that they did so, and there should be, they still did it.  And you make up excuses for why its not there.  And you smear others for wondering why they aren't there.

My last reply to anything PT says.  And hopefully we can start an embargo of this blowhard.  Maybe then he will go argue more about Hegel's pernicious influence on philosophy.

[Michael Clark]

52 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

My last reply to anything PT says.  And hopefully we can start an embargo of this blowhard.  Maybe then he will go argue more about Hegel's pernicious influence on philosophy.

Mr. DiEugenio, you might want to wait until Oct, 26. What if turns-out that he called-it, spot on?

You might be forced to say, in a battered Wyle E. Coyote voice.....

"Paul Trejo, Super-Genius!"

xol-xa-xa !!!

[Michael Clark]

Actually, Walker would make a great latter-day Patsy..... an alleged homosexual with no progeny, nor ancestry. Paul might be on-to, or privy-to, more than we know.

I read, today, that Mr. General Walker, had no identifiable ancestry. I can't remember which thread that was in, and I didn't follow the ancestry issue to any resolution, for General WALKER.

Cheers,

Michael

Edited February 21, 2017 by Michael Clark

[Michael Clark]

A good article regarding the rifle, the dimensions and components of the rifle when broken down, the bag, Frazier's testimony and his sister's testimony.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=16234#relPageId=34&tab=page

[Sandy Larsen]

46 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

A good article regarding the rifle, the dimensions and components of the rifle when broken down, the bag, Frazier's testimony and his sister's testimony.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=16234#relPageId=34&tab=page

My overall impressions from reading this rather convincing document are:

1. Buell Frazier lied about Oswald taking a long bag to work.
2. Buell Frazier made it clear that the bag was too small for a rifle to fit.

I cannot figure out why BWF would intentionally do something that incriminates Oswald, and in the same breath try to un-incriminate him.

Okay, having given it some thought, I did think of one possibility: Maybe Oswald actually did take a 2 ft. bag to work. And that fact came out in early interrogations. The authorities picked up on it and decided that that would have been a way Oswald got the rifle into the TSBD. They hadn't found a bag (or they did find Oswald's bag and saw it was too short), so they made their own bag and claimed it was Oswald's, and that they had found it the day of the assassination.

Seems reasonable. But why did Oswald lie about the curtain rods and bag when interrogated?

Also, all the windows already had rods and curtains. Does anybody really believe that Oswald would be replacing the rods?

Which brings me back to the very beginning, that BWF must have lied about this. It's a vicious cycle.

 

[Michael Clark]

36 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

My overall impressions from reading this rather convincing document are:

1. Buell Frazier lied about Oswald taking a long bag to work.
2. Buell Frazier made it clear that the bag was too small for a rifle to fit.

I cannot figure out why BWF would intentionally do something that incriminates Oswald, and in the same breath try to un-incriminate him.

Okay, having given it some thought, I did think of one possibility: Maybe Oswald actually did take a 2 ft. bag to work. And that fact came out in early interrogations. The authorities picked up on it and decided that that would have been a way Oswald got the rifle into the TSBD. They hadn't found a bag (or they did find Oswald's bag and saw it was too short), so they made their own bag and claimed it was Oswald's, and that they had found it the day of the assassination.

Seems reasonable. But why did Oswald lie about the curtain rods and bag when interrogated?

Also, all the windows already had rods and curtains. Does anybody really believe that Oswald would be replacing the rods?

Which brings me back to the very beginning, that BWF must have lied about this. It's a vicious cycle.

 

Regarding the rods. I won't say that I think he had or did not have curtain rods that day. If he did I think it is reasonable to think that he might have intended to change his Dallas residence that weekend, or possibly take an additional residence or rooming house. Maybe he had a girl on the side, in-town (spy-girl: "baby, I have some curtains for that window, you wouldn't have some curtain rods lying around at home, would you?). A new or alternative residence could be possible given that he almost assuredly was involved in something beyond his plain-Jane, struggling, below-blue-collar life.

Frazier's subsequent life is kind of difficult to dig up. I found info before but cannot find it now. I believe he had a fairly long career in the military and raised two kids. That may have been enough to control, keep watch and keep him quiet about particular elements of his story.

When I read testimony I am often struck by how some witnesses bring a couple nuggets to the official story but otherwise bring nothing, and indeed raise questions. That would serve to keep a story short, sweet, memorable and uncomplicated. Fraziers nuggets were the bag, curtain rods and nothing conflicting with the official line regarding LHO's presence at the time of the assassination.

After LHO was convicted by the police and press, THEN shot, all else is self preservation for Frazier.

 

Edited February 22, 2017 by Michael Clark

[Michael Clark]

I'll have to look-into whether Lee's rooming-house lady testified to when Lee came and went, or whether he stayed elsewhere overnight, in the days prior to 11-22.

[Sandy Larsen]

5 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

Regarding the rods. I won't say that I think he had or did not have curtain rods that day. If he did I think it is reasonable to think that he might have intended to change his Dallas residence that weekend, or possibly taking an additional residence or rooming house. Maybe he had a girl on the side. A new or alternative residence could be possible given that he almost assuredly was involved in something beyond his plain-Jane, struggling, below-blue-collar life.

Frazier's subsequent life is kind of difficult to dig up. I found info before but cannot find it now. I believe he had a fairly long career in the military and raised two kids. That may have been enough to control, keep watch and keep him quiet about particular elements of his story.

When I read testimony I am often struck by how some witnesses bring a couple nuggets to the official story but otherwise bring nothing, and indeed raise questions. That would serve to keep a story short, sweet, memorable and uncomplicated. Fraziers nuggets were the bag, curtain rods and nothing conflicting with the official line regarding LHO's presence at the time of the assassination.

After LHO was convicted by the police and press, THEN shot, all else is self preservation for Frazier.

Maybe Frazier was told (by some military officer)  to say that Oswald carried a bag of curtain rods. But wasn't told what length it was supposed to be. So when asked the length in his questioning, he made up a number... two feet! And then stuck with it.

Another thought... maybe Oswald did take a 2 ft. package with him, whose contents he didn't want to reveal. So when asked by Frazier, Ozzie told him they were curtain rods. What Oswald had in the package may have been something his handler told him to take to the TSBD. But wasn't a rifle.

Either of these would explain why Oswald denied to his interrogators that he brought in the package.

 

 

[Michael Clark]

7 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Maybe Frazier was told (by some military officer)  to say that Oswald carried a bag of curtain rods. But wasn't told what length it was supposed to be. So when asked the length in his questioning, he made up a number... two feet! And then stuck with it.

Another thought... maybe Oswald did take a 2 ft. package with him, whose contents he didn't want to reveal. So when asked by Frazier, Ozzie told him they were curtain rods. What Oswald had in the package may have been something his handler told him to take to the TSBD. But wasn't a rifle.

Either of these would explain why Oswald denied to his interrogators that he brought in the package.

 

 

Who knows what LHO really said about the rods. If he did bring them, he may have suspected something, and made sure that his package couldn't be construed as being long enough to disguise a gun. And like you said, he may have been manipulated into bring something else to work that day.

[James DiEugenio]

It is a good article, I agree.

I used it for Reclaiming Parkland.  Ian's book, No Case to Answer is a creditable effort overall also.

Ian was also the guy who did the experiment of trying to reassemble the MC rifle with a coin.

After struggling for about 15 minutes, he gave up.