Witnesses to LHO' posession of the MC rifle

[Mark Knight]

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.

[James DiEugenio]

DIck Russell is a genius and that explains why Mark cannot find the FBI report.

 

Sounds logical to me.

[Lawrence Schnapf]

10 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Marina Oswald told the truth while she was under oath.

Buddy Walthers and James Hosty wanted to accuse Marina Oswald of being a "sleeper" KGB agent -- but that was because both of them were involved in the murder of JFK and the attempt to frame LHO as a Communist.

Anybody who still wants to accuse Marina Oswald of being a Communist has simply not read her testimony carefully.

Marina Oswald hated the USSR, and would do anything to get to the USA, where she could finally rent her own apartment and get some privacy.  Marina was raised by her grandmother, who was an aristocratic lady in old Russia.  She taught Marina to worship God in the Orthodox Church and to despise Communism -- which she did.

Once in the USA, Marina got lots of friends in the Dallas Russian Expatriate Community, which was violently Anticommunist as well as violently Antifascist.  Marina was really beloved.  They showered her with charity and gifts -- especially George Bouhe, who helped to promote the Orthodox Church there in Dallas.  Marina got her baby June baptized at the Russian Orthodox Church in Dallas -- despite the objections of LHO.

The main reason that LHO and Marina Oswald fought was because George Bouhe gave Marina more things that LHO could afford to give her.

The reason that Ruth Paine got involved with helping Marina Oswald was because Marina was pregnant, and LHO was out of work.  Heck, LHO was out of work three times from July 1962 to July 1963.  He could not hold down a job.  In September 1963, when Ruth Paine came to get Marina Oswald and baby June, LHO was out of work again, and Marina Oswald was eight months pregnant, and had no health insurance, and had not even seen a doctor.

Marina Oswald's life is an open book -- and it is a simple story.  A college educated Russian girl who would do anything to get to the USA, married this hight-school drop-out Marine with a good story, who turned out to be a bloke who could not hold down a steady job, no matter what.

It's really a simple story.  Anybody who still wants to press (1) LHO's rifle; (2) Mexico City; and (3) Ruth Paine has simply not done the reading of (i) the Warren Commission volumes; and (ii) the Lopez Report.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

The reason we have rules of evidence is to ensure use of reliable testimony/evidence. Marina's testimony "evolved" over time and was inconsistent. she was called back 4 times. Both Willens and Shenon's books discuss the frustration that the WC had with her testimony. Her testimony was the critical to linking her husband to the key evidence. She told the NY Times in Nov 1964 that she feared being deported if she did not cooperate with the government. She was a young mother with two babies and a non-citizen. Faced with the prospect of telling the truth about her dead husband or protecting her babies by telling the government what it wanted to hear, she did what any mother would have done. You choose to believe her testimony at the risk of your pursuit of the "truth".    

[Lawrence Schnapf]

On 2/15/2017 at 9:04 PM, Michael Clark said:

Bingo! Thank you Lawrence. To be sure.... She would not have been able to, or she could not have been compelled to..... testify?

the privilege would have belonged to her husband and his defense team could have prohibited her from testifying. 

[Michael Clark]

1 minute ago, Lawrence Schnapf said:

the privilege would have belonged to her husband and his defense team could have prohibited her from testifying. 

Thank, you. I started to look it up myself, then realized That I would not know if what I found would be the case in Dallas, in 1963.

[Lawrence Schnapf]

Just now, Michael Clark said:

Thank, you. I started to look it up myself, then realized That I would not know if what I found would be the case in Dallas, in 1963.

the privilege was in effect in texas in 1963. 

[Lawrence Schnapf]

12 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

BTW, let me objectify specifically what I mean about the lack of cross examination in the WC proceedings.  Especially in regards to Marina. And when we are talking about cross examination, it does not necessarily apply to court proceedings.  In any fact finding arrangement there should be this kind of colloquy, and there usually is.

With Marina, just for starters, she should have been asked about her background in the USSR.  What I mean by this is that even the White Russians who were interviewed by the WC were puzzled at how she was allowed to leave with a military defector at the same time he left the country.  This was usually not the case.  She also should have been asked about her activities in Leningrad which were quite interesting and which Warren had heard about.  And she also should have been asked about her ability to speak English and when she developed it.  For, even at the time, there were rumors she spoke English much better than what was popularly accepted.  When and where did she acquire this, and if it was in the USSR, why would a pharmacist need to speak English there?

And I should add, the Southern Wing was actually pretty curious about this whole area of inquiry.  And so was  Warren.  But it was kept from the public.

The other three areas I would have asked her about were 1.) the rifle,  2.) Mexico City and 3.) Ruth Paine.

Concerning the first: Why did she change her story from never seeing a scoped rifle before, which is what she said in November, to "That is the fateful rifle of Lee Harvey Oswald" before the Commission?

Concerning the second:  Why did she first say in November that Oswald had never been to Mexico City, and then later on changed her story to , "Oh yes, he had been."

And with the third: Why was she all chummy with the Good Samaritan (Aka Ruth Paine), for several months, and then, after the assassination, the relationship was more or less terminated. And I would have used that to ask about how and when and why did she get associated with PJM.

Anyway, to my knowledge, none of these last three areas were addressed by the WC.  And they seem to me of paramount importance.  And only the first was covered by the Southern Wing, but only in a rudimentary way. And BTW, do not think that the lawyers on the WC did not understand all the problems Marina was creating for the WR.  They did.  And some of them did not want to use her to the degree she was used.  But they were overruled by the management level on orders from the Troika i.e. McCloy, Ford and Dulles. The Troika understood how much they needed her to make their paper thin case against the dead Oswald, especially in the Walker instance.  And again, its not like the problems with her were not at all aired;  in addition to the junior lawyers, like Ball, who called her unreliable, Scobey, Russell's legal assistant, went further and called her a xxxx.  Even Redlich, who authored a large part of the WR, and who overruled Ball, even he called her a xxxx.  But used her anyway. (Reclaiming Parkland, p. 111)  

And this is my point.  If there is no informed and vigorous cross examination, then what is the forensic worth of the proceedings? 

 

 

 

If she had been allowed to testify at trial, a good defense lawyer would have completely shredded her testimony. she was an unreliable witness who would have been caught in conflicting lies and contradictory stories. the classic question to her would have been "were you lying then or are you lying now".  we would love to have her testify at our upcoming mock trial-to finally set the record straight for history and her daughters.....

[Joe Bauer]

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.

 

[James DiEugenio]

Joe: You have not been here that long.  This has all been hashed out awhile ago.  Let me make  4 points.

1. The whole rigamarole about Oswald being a chronic wife abuser was exposed long ago by a guy who used to post here, but does not anymore: Robert Charles Dunne.  In a tour de force of analysis and research, he showed that all those stories spread by the White Russians about Oswald beating up his wife, and this was the reason they were all so friendly toward her, that was all based on a foundation of quicksand. Robert went through all the testimony in the volumes on this point, and guess what, it came down to one source.  Everyone else was based on this one source. A mite bit fishy? 

2. Ruth Paine's excuse for playing Good Samaritan with Marina--to the point of penning a note asking her to come live with her three weeks after they met--was the whole Russian language angle.  But weren't all the White Russians that her and Michael knew pretty good Russian speakers anyway?   Didn't Ruth have a Russian tutor already named Dorothy Gravitis? BTW, Ruth actually taught Russian at this time at a private boy's school.

3.  In light of the above facts, I think its important to recall that this whole White Russian/ Ruth Paine nexus came about because of the Baron, George DeMohrenschildt. He later confessed that there was no way in the world he would have ever cozied up to the Oswalds if he had not been instructed to do so by J. Walton Moore, the CIA chief in Dallas.   Ruth Paine also said that it was through George that she met the Oswalds.  Further, after the fact, Moore tried to cover up his closeness with the Baron. But the HSCA exposed this as a sham by Moore.  He and George were quite friendly, and there was a quid pro quo for him nuzzling up to Oswald. (Destiny Betrayed, second edition, pgs. 153, 155)

4. JIm Garrison was very interested in the Paines.  He was  puzzled as to why the relationship was severed between Ruth and Marina after the assassination, but yet, Ruth was still smuggling stuff to Marina that tended to incriminate Oswald.  So when she appeared before the Shaw grand jury, Marina was asked if she was still friendly with the Good Samaritan.  She said no she was not.  She had been advised by the Secret Service to stay away from Ruth, since "she was sympathizing with the CIA."  When asked to elaborate on this point, this was the colloquy that followed:

Marina: Seems like she had friends over there and it would be bad for me if people find out connection between me and Ruth and CIA.

Question: In other words, you were left with the distinct impression that she was in some way connected with the CIA.

Marina: Yes. (Jim Douglass, JFK and the Unspeakable, p. 173)

Keep all this in mind when PT goes on one of his rants about there being no basis for a CIA plot, but rather we should all investigate General Walker, who had no relationship with Ruby, Oswald, or the White Russians.

Edited February 18, 2017 by James DiEugenio

[Paul Brancato]

Great posts. I would add something, maybe a minority pov. Oswald might have needed the separation because he was working undercover. I think the vanishing files on Cubans discovered in the first search of Ruth's home on 11/22, Oswald being seen at an Alpha 66 safehouse in Dallas, his clearly provocatory actions in New Orleans, his use of the Hidell alias, and his friendship with DeMohrenschildt, all point in this direction.

[James DiEugenio]

Thanks Paul.

And that is a good point.

And if you can believe it, I never thought of it quite that way.  But maybe that is why Oswald went along with it when they returned to Dallas. Not knowing of course, what was waiting around the bend for him.

Edited February 19, 2017 by James DiEugenio

[Michael Clark]

On 2/17/2017 at 9:23 AM, James DiEugenio said:

BTW, let me objectify specifically what I mean about the lack of cross examination in the WC proceedings.  Especially in regards to Marina. And when we are talking about cross examination, it does not necessarily apply to court proceedings.  In any fact finding arrangement there should be this kind of colloquy, and there usually is.

With Marina, just for starters, she should have been asked about her background in the USSR.  What I mean by this is that even the White Russians who were interviewed by the WC were puzzled at how she was allowed to leave with a military defector at the same time he left the country.  This was usually not the case.  She also should have been asked about her activities in Leningrad which were quite interesting and which Warren had heard about.  And she also should have been asked about her ability to speak English and when she developed it.  For, even at the time, there were rumors she spoke English much better than what was popularly accepted.  When and where did she acquire this, and if it was in the USSR, why would a pharmacist need to speak English there?

And I should add, the Southern Wing was actually pretty curious about this whole area of inquiry.  And so was  Warren.  But it was kept from the public.

The other three areas I would have asked her about were 1.) the rifle,  2.) Mexico City and 3.) Ruth Paine.

Concerning the first: Why did she change her story from never seeing a scoped rifle before, which is what she said in November, to "That is the fateful rifle of Lee Harvey Oswald" before the Commission?

Concerning the second:  Why did she first say in November that Oswald had never been to Mexico City, and then later on changed her story to , "Oh yes, he had been."

And with the third: Why was she all chummy with the Good Samaritan (Aka Ruth Paine), for several months, and then, after the assassination, the relationship was more or less terminated. And I would have used that to ask about how and when and why did she get associated with PJM.

Anyway, to my knowledge, none of these last three areas were addressed by the WC.  And they seem to me of paramount importance.  And only the first was covered by the Southern Wing, but only in a rudimentary way. And BTW, do not think that the lawyers on the WC did not understand all the problems Marina was creating for the WR.  They did.  And some of them did not want to use her to the degree she was used.  But they were overruled by the management level on orders from the Troika i.e. McCloy, Ford and Dulles. The Troika understood how much they needed her to make their paper thin case against the dead Oswald, especially in the Walker instance.  And again, its not like the problems with her were not at all aired;  in addition to the junior lawyers, like Ball, who called her unreliable, Scobey, Russell's legal assistant, went further and called her a xxxx.  Even Redlich, who authored a large part of the WR, and who overruled Ball, even he called her a xxxx.  But used her anyway. (Reclaiming Parkland, p. 111)  

And this is my point.  If there is no informed and vigorous cross examination, then what is the forensic worth of the proceedings? 

 

 

 

Jim, My apologies if it seems like I am just splitting hairs here, but...

Cross examination can only exist in an adversarial situation. Marina was not being charged with a crime. There was no prosecution nor a defense. There was no threat of being charged with a crime or even perjury.  Without those elements, there can be no "cross-examination".

I stated that there was no threat of being prosecuted for lying as well, even though the witnesses were testifying under oath, but I really don't know if that was the case. I decided to make the point anyway because it raised the question, for me, as to whether anyone was charged with perjury for their Warren Comisission testimony. That's something I'll have to look into.

What gets closer to your point, I think, is that there were numerous (countless?) times where there was conflicting testimony. From my reading, I have seen very little attempt to seriously juxtapose conflicting testimony and drill down to get to the truth. That may be what you are calling "cross-examination", or as it were, a lack thereof.

Cheers,

Mike

Edited February 20, 2017 by Michael Clark

[James DiEugenio]

Michael:

I understand that point about the lack of formal cross examination in the Commission proceedings.  But let me add, in fact finding proceedings in other venues, like for example in congress, or in administrative hearings, the allowance for a representative or lawyer to ask questions that could be termed as cross examination is quite common.  In fact sometimes its necessary to do so in order to get at submerged or disputed facts.  I know this since i was at some of these administrative hearings during my 30 year career in the education field.  And this is what the Commission called itself, a fact finding body.  (Mark Lane, RTJ, p. 377)

My point is that with the WC--even though they called themselves a fact-finding body-- there was virtually none of this.  Except in the case I outlined above with the Southern Wing and Marina.  If you read the hearings, some of the stuff they let go by is almost incredible. Things that could have easily been checked upon to show as false are not e.g. the weather during Oswald's rifle test.  In virtually all these case, the record was adulterated in one direction: to frame the case against Oswald.  Which is not what a fact finding body does, its what a runaway prosecutor does.

Now, there could have been ways around this lacunae in procedure.  Like letting Mark Lane, or some other lawyer, represent Oswald in abstentia.  This was not done and Rankin personally turned down Lane's request by saying that he did not think it was wise to have outsiders look at their investigative materials. (Letter dated January 23, 1964) In that letter, Rankin also told Lane that their hearings were going to be closed to the public, which is another point Lane objected to vociferously. Although the WC said they had a lawyer there to protect Oswald's rights, this was another lie.  

See, they appointed a guy named Walter Craig, president of the ABA.  He was there to see that the proceedings "conformed to the basic principles of American justice."  (ibid, p. 378)  They said he participated fully in person or through an assistant.  All papers were turned over to Craig for review.  (Hmm, Oswald's defense could not see them, but Craig could?)  The Commission also said that Craig had full rights to cross examine witnesses, to recall witnesses, and to suggest witnesses.  This section closed with the following: "This procedure was agreeable to counsel for Oswald's widow." (ibid) That last statement was simply a lie.  Marquerite wanted Lane to represent Oswald.  And in fact, Craig himself said, "We are not counsel for Lee Harvey Oswald." (ibid, p. 379)

The record shows that, at no time did Craig recall a witness. If Craig ever suggested a witness, there is no record of that. In fact, much of the time, Craig was not even there.  His presence was simply window dressing, or in modern parlance, a CYA device for the WC.  So in that regard, the Commission was not even a fact finding body.  It was a dog and pony show from start to finish.  And when one is talking about the murder of a president, under the most suspicious circumstances, that is really a disgrace.

 

Edited February 19, 2017 by James DiEugenio

[Paul Trejo]

On ‎2‎/‎17‎/‎2017 at 8:26 PM, Lawrence Schnapf said:

The reason we have rules of evidence is to ensure use of reliable testimony/evidence. Marina's testimony "evolved" over time and was inconsistent. she was called back 4 times. Both Willens and Shenon's books discuss the frustration that the WC had with her testimony. Her testimony was the critical to linking her husband to the key evidence. She told the NY Times in Nov 1964 that she feared being deported if she did not cooperate with the government. She was a young mother with two babies and a non-citizen. Faced with the prospect of telling the truth about her dead husband or protecting her babies by telling the government what it wanted to hear, she did what any mother would have done. You choose to believe her testimony at the risk of your pursuit of the "truth".    

Lawrence,

I disagree with your charge that "Marina's testimony 'evolved' over time and was inconsistent."   I am not counting her emotional denials of everything when she was first arrested by the Secret Service and FBI (for her own protection).   That's not sworn testimony.

I'm only talking about sworn testimony.

While Marina was called back four times, she was never found to be in self-contradiction -- it was always a misunderstanding.  For one thing, she used a Russian interpreter for most of her testimony, so some of her statements had to get clarified.  The one point that caused her to come back twice was her claim that George DeMohrenschildt said to LHO regarding the Walker shooting, "how was it you missed?"   This was a fine point -- De Mohrenschildt had said something very close to that, but in jest.  Marina agreed that George said that in jest.  No contradiction was found.

As for threats of deportation, even Robert Oswald testified under oath that he heard the FBI threaten to deport her unless she cooperated with them.  Their "Lone Nut" theory was precious to J. Edgar Hoover.  Not only Marina, but also Robert Oswald, Ruth Paine, Michael Paine and Marguerite Oswald all expressed doubts that LHO could have acted alone in such a scenario as the JFK assassination.   The FBI were not kind to Marina Oswald.  Robert Oswald himself had to step in on one occasion.

Marina Oswald told the TRUTH.   Every word of her sworn testimony is True.  It is mainly the CIA-did-it CT nonsense purveyors who continue to insist that Marina was lying -- because they need to make room for their invented scenarios. 

There is no way to solve the JFK assassination logically without admitting that Marina Oswald told the truth all the time that she was under oath.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited February 20, 2017 by Paul Trejo
typos

[James DiEugenio]

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.

Edited February 20, 2017 by James DiEugenio