New Book On Oswald By Paul Gregory.

[Jonathan Cohen]

38 minutes ago, Michael Griffith said:

"For an extended period of time"??? He only knew Oswald for four months. Another red flag about his story is that he says Oswald's Russian was not good. Leaving aside the question of how Gregory could have judged Oswald's Russian skills, other Russian speakers who knew Oswald said he spoke the language well. 

In the context of Oswald's itinerant life, anybody who knew him for that amount of time has to be considered to have known him well. I just don't understand why people here are so quick to instantly dismiss this man's recollections.

[Joe Bauer]

2 hours ago, Lawrence Schnapf said:

i have not read the book but the foregoing suggests to me someone trying to make sweeping conclusions using broad strokes based on limited information and likely influenced my his father's role. 

I agree. Paul Harvey doesn't even mention the Syliva Odio incident.

And what psychoanalytical take does Gregory prescribe to explain or dismiss Oswald's world press announced "I am just a patsy" shout?

 

[James Norwood]

13 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

Gregory states in the latter part of his interview that Oswald's Russian language skills were not good. Yet, in the beginning part of his spiel he mentions his Siberia born father giving Oswald a "To Whom It May Concern" reference letter vouching for Oswald's Russian language skills after presumably listening to Oswald speak. ???

Gregory's father's native language was Russian. He gave free classes at the city library. 

If Oswald's Russian was as poor as Paul Gregory claimed they were, why would his father give Oswald such a reference letter?

Joe,

You and Michael Griffith are raising important questions about the statements made by Paul Gregory related to Oswald’s Russian language skills.

It is instructive to compare this recent interview alongside the Warren Commission testimony given by Gregory about Oswald’s Russian-language proficiency, wherein Gregory recalled that “Oswald understood more than I did and he could express any idea, I believe, that he wanted to in Russian.”   (Warren Commission Hearings, Vol. IX, p. 149)  He also observes that Oswald would make grammatical errors when he spoke, which might be explained by his dyslexia, which Gregory refers to on multiple occasions in the interview.

On November 10, 1962, Oswald sent a postcard to Gregory, advising him of his new address at 602 Elsbeth Street in Dallas.  The writing was a lengthy run-on sentence.  Because Oswald’s English grammar was so poor and because he confused the word “too” for “to” and because there was a perfect complimentary close written in Russian, Gregory concluded that Marina had written the note.  As it turned out, Oswald’s feelings were hurt because Gregory did not believe Oswald was writing to him personally.  I have included an image of the postcard in my article on Oswald’s Russian language proficiency, which may be read at:  http://harveyandlee.net/Russian.html 

Gregory’s Warren Commission testimony conflicts with the description given in his 2022 interview, in which Gregory believes that Oswald was a genuine defector with no prior preparation in Russian language studies.  In the interview, Gregory characterizes Oswald’s Russian language skills as “exactly what it was for someone who spent three years in the Soviet Union.”  But for the Warren Commission, Gregory stated that Oswald was “completely fluent” in Russian and spoke with “a very strong accent.” (p. 149)  Gregory’s Russian-speaking father speculated that the accent was Polish.  The accent is never mentioned in the 2022 interview. 

How may the discrepancies and omissions between Gregory’s Warren Commission testimony and his interview be explained?

In the interview, it becomes abundantly clear that Gregory has a personal agenda in writing about Oswald.  His father, the linguist Peter Paul Gregory, had written a generic letter of recommendation for Oswald, who possessed a good enough aptitude in Russian that Gregory Sr. believed him “capable of being an interpreter and perhaps a translator.”  As explained in the interview, both the father and son regretted that they had become involved in any way with the alleged presidential assassin.  In the interview, Gregory calls their involvement “a black spot on the family.”  In an attempt to keep the family image untainted, Gregory is now making every attempt in his power throw Oswald under the bus of history. 

[Pat Speer]

2 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

In the context of Oswald's itinerant life, anybody who knew him for that amount of time has to be considered to have known him well. I just don't understand why people here are so quick to instantly dismiss this man's recollections.

I agree. His recollections are almost certainly of interest. But his impressions of Oswald are not to be relied upon, IMO. 

[Joe Bauer]

2 hours ago, James Norwood said:

Joe,

You and Michael Griffith are raising important questions about the statements made by Paul Gregory related to Oswald’s Russian language skills.

It is instructive to compare this recent interview alongside the Warren Commission testimony given by Gregory about Oswald’s Russian-language proficiency, wherein Gregory recalled that “Oswald understood more than I did and he could express any idea, I believe, that he wanted to in Russian.”   (Warren Commission Hearings, Vol. IX, p. 149)  He also observes that Oswald would make grammatical errors when he spoke, which might be explained by his dyslexia, which Gregory refers to on multiple occasions in the interview.

On November 10, 1962, Oswald sent a postcard to Gregory, advising him of his new address at 602 Elsbeth Street in Dallas.  The writing was a lengthy run-on sentence.  Because Oswald’s English grammar was so poor and because he confused the word “too” for “to” and because there was a perfect complimentary close written in Russian, Gregory concluded that Marina had written the note.  As it turned out, Oswald’s feelings were hurt because Gregory did not believe Oswald was writing to him personally.  I have included an image of the postcard in my article on Oswald’s Russian language proficiency, which may be read at:  http://harveyandlee.net/Russian.html 

Gregory’s Warren Commission testimony conflicts with the description given in his 2022 interview, in which Gregory believes that Oswald was a genuine defector with no prior preparation in Russian language studies.  In the interview, Gregory characterizes Oswald’s Russian language skills as “exactly what it was for someone who spent three years in the Soviet Union.”  But for the Warren Commission, Gregory stated that Oswald was “completely fluent” in Russian and spoke with “a very strong accent.” (p. 149)  Gregory’s Russian-speaking father speculated that the accent was Polish.  The accent is never mentioned in the 2022 interview. 

How may the discrepancies and omissions between Gregory’s Warren Commission testimony and his interview be explained?

In the interview, it becomes abundantly clear that Gregory has a personal agenda in writing about Oswald.  His father, the linguist Peter Paul Gregory, had written a generic letter of recommendation for Oswald, who possessed a good enough aptitude in Russian that Gregory Sr. believed him “capable of being an interpreter and perhaps a translator.”  As explained in the interview, both the father and son regretted that they had become involved in any way with the alleged presidential assassin.  In the interview, Gregory calls their involvement “a black spot on the family.”  In an attempt to keep the family image untainted, Gregory is now making every attempt in his power throw Oswald under the bus of history. 

I'll read Gregory's WC testimony to compare against what he says in this interview regards Oswald's proficiency in Russian.

To feel their interaction with Oswald was a black spot on their family and hiding from being asked about it sounds so insecure...and is kind of betraying Marina too.

Ruth Paine never tried to hide or distance herself from the Oswalds. She shared everything she knew about Marina and Lee her whole life. She was secure enough to not feel she was tainted by her involvement with them.

[Jonathan Cohen]

17 minutes ago, Joe Bauer said:

I'll read Gregory's WC testimony to compare against what he says in this interview regards Oswald's proficiency in Russian.

To feel their interaction with Oswald was a black spot on their family and hiding from being asked about it sounds so insecure...and is kind of betraying Marina too.

Ruth Paine never tried to hide or distance herself from the Oswalds. She shared everything she knew about Marina and Lee her whole life. She was secure enough to not feel she was tainted by her involvement with them.

So what? Do you expect everyone who ever interacted with Oswald to process his connection to the Kennedy assassination in the exact same way?

[Allen Lowe]

8 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

If you’d have listened to the interview, you’d hear him say he is suspicious of Jack Ruby’s role in the assassination. The larger point is that people here are lamely dismissing Gregory out of hand while totally ignoring the unique perspective provided by his rare, close proximity to the Oswalds at a critical period. 

Unique perspective? intimate friend? Four months worth, and his father knew Marina? This wreaks of lone-nut desperation. It’s really hard to argue with you guys, as I’ve said before, when the bar is set so low for the non-conspiracy side. Come on, give us something. I feel like we are reading your “research” off the back of a cereal box.