Marina Oswald

[Jonathan Cohen]

15 hours ago, Pamela Brown said:

He did not live with Marina on their return to Texas, and tried to have her sent back to the USSR. 

 

I find your interpretation of these events to be highly illogical. Although his behavior was erratic, Oswald was not trying to "distance himself" from his wife. If anything, he was doing whatever he could to find work and support his family, as evidenced by Marina having joined him in New Orleans as soon as he got a job there.

[Pat Speer]

2 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

David Von Pein said:

 

You think Marina's testimony was the sole basis for the WC finding LHO guilty of two murders? Come now. Let's not forget about the dozens of other things pointing to Lee Oswald's guilt, outlined here:

 

To my understanding, you are correct in that Marina never disavowed her statements as to fact, in relation to the byp, etc. But your claiming she backed away from her belief her husband acted alone as a lone nut because she was under the influence of crazed theorists is incorrect, IMO.

At the time of the WC, she was in the dark about much of her husband's activities, and the activities around him, that later led her to believe he was not some lone nut.

As but a few examples...

She did not know that the CIA had asked DeMohrenschildt to keep tabs on her husband.

She did not know Ruth Paine's family had ties to the CIA. 

She did not know that the tapes and photos of her husband in Mexico City were not him, and that he may have been impersonated. 

She did not know about the Odios' claims Lee came to their door in the company of anti-Castro Cubans. 

She did not know about Veciana's claims he saw Lee meet with a CIA handler.

 

By the 1980's, when she changed her opinion as to her former husband's guilt, she was presumably aware of all of this. It was not unreasonable for her to change her mind under the circumstances. The strange behavior she'd seen upfront now had an explanation--Lee was a low-level agent of some sort, or trying to be such an agent. 

 

[Lawrence Schnapf]

Marina cannot really formally disavow her statements to the WC because they were made under oath.   But it is clear she no longer believes the official story.

She was the single most important witness for the WC. Only she could have authenticated the BYPs, that Oswald was in possession of rifle and that he was the author of the so-called "walker note". Without her testimony, the WC could not make a case against Oswald- as flimsy as it was.

Had there been a trial, the "so-called evidence" would have been subject to a number of challenges that could have resulted in either some of the key evidence being ruled inadmissible or subject to a a jury instruction. This is one reason why 6 of 7 mock trials held by law schools or bar associations since 1967 have resulted in aquittal or hung jury.

In the 2017 mock trial at the South Texas College of Law in Houston, Bill Simpich and I had prepared motions objecting to admission of a number of pieces of evidence. Because of time constraints, we consented to allowing all evidence to be admissible. Despite waiving such objections, we still got a hung jury.    

[Lawrence Schnapf]

David- Marina was the single most important witness in a case marked by flimsy circumstantial evidence. she alone could authenicate the BYP, verify that Oswald was in possession of the alleged assassination rifle and she alone could substantiate the Walker business.

she gave testimony under oath so I'm sure she knows she cant formally recant her testimony since that could expose her to perjury charges. she has done what she can without crossing the line that could lead to prosecution   

[David Von Pein]

6 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

She did not know that the CIA had asked DeMohrenschildt to keep tabs on her husband.

Of course this shouldn't be on your list, since it never happened.

[Pat Speer]

9 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Of course this shouldn't be on your list, since it never happened.

Are you disputing that Moore talked to DeMohrenschildt, or that he asked him to keep tabs on Oswald? 

[David Von Pein]

1 minute ago, Pat Speer said:

Are you disputing that Moore talked to DeMohrenschildt, or that he asked him to keep tabs on Oswald? 

Yes.

 

[Pat Speer]

1 minute ago, David Von Pein said:

Yes.

 

So both? You are stating as fact that J. Walton Moore never talked to DeMohrenschildt about Oswald? Based on what? 

[David Von Pein]

[Mark Ulrik]

2 hours ago, Lawrence Schnapf said:

she gave testimony under oath so I'm sure she knows she cant formally recant her testimony since that could expose her to perjury charges. she has done what she can without crossing the line that could lead to prosecution   

Then how about informally? Do you really think that an octogenarian like Marina would be prosecuted for "coming clean" in a case like this? Wouldn't a good lawyer be able to negotiate some kind of immunity deal for her? If she really felt there was something that needed to be recanted, it would certainly be of great value to have the record corrected, and most people would probably be sympathetic if she had a good reason for delaying the reveal for almost 60 years.

Edited April 18, 2023 by Mark Ulrik

[Lawrence Schnapf]

she has already said in TV and news articles that she does not believe Lee killed the president. 

Normally, a reasonable prosecutor would not pursue an 80-year old woman for perjury over a 60-year old case. But she is from USSR and the mere fear of being prosecuted would be enough to dissuade her.

Bill Simpich and I offered to bring a court of inquiry petition in 2017 on behalf of her and the Oswald daughters to try to get Lee's arrest expunged on the grounds of lack of probable cause. She did not want to get involved at this point in her life so we did not pursue it. 

[Ron Bulman]

3 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

Moore was an overt CIA employee. . .   He was not part of a covert or clandestine operation.  

If he's a CIA employee, assumption of the second part is a moot point.

[Pat Speer]

4 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

So you refute my point by confirming my point? 

2 + 2 = 4.

Moore was CIA. Moore spoke to DeMohrenschildt about Oswald.

It doesn't mean Oswald worked for the CIA or even that DeMohrenschildt worked for the CIA. 

But Marina's subsequently finding out Lee's "best friend" had discussed him with a CIA employee might very well have made her think there was more to the assassination than just Lee. That is the point I was making.

And it cannot be reasonably disputed. 

 

[David Von Pein]

14 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

So you refute my point by confirming my point? .... Moore was CIA. Moore spoke to DeMohrenschildt about Oswald.

Your point isn't confirmed at all via the book excerpt I provided. In fact, just the opposite. Because (via Bugliosi's research) the only "Moore/DeMohrenschildt" timeframe involved was from 1957 to 1961, which was BEFORE DeMohrenschildt ever even met Lee Oswald. So what makes you think there was any discussion about Lee Oswald between Moore and DeM. during that 1957-1961 time period mentioned by Bugliosi (which was a period when Oswald was either in the Marine Corps or in Russia)?

 

Edited April 18, 2023 by David Von Pein

[Lawrence Schnapf]

First- Vince was a very good lawyer and he does alot of parsing of selective facts in his book. His book was a brief for the prosecution so he interpreted facts in the best possible light for the case of the lone gunman while disregarding or dismissing inconvienent facts or those that were not consistent with the narrative he supported . He makes lots of sweeping assertions using broad strokes and wide brushes.  It is not a true objective statement of the facts. (I have lots of notes in the margins where I counter many of his statements.)

In addition, terms like "informant", "employee" or "agent" have very different meanings so you need to make sure that you guys are talking about the same role of a particular person.  Moore clearly was an employee of the CIA . i suggest you guys "describe" the relationship you think DeMohrenschildt had with the CIA instead of using one of those commonly misunderstood terms.  Then see if that relationship falls in or outside the statement Bugiolsi was making.--IMHO