Jump to content
The Education Forum

Marina Oswald


Recommended Posts

"The Man convinced against his will

Is of his own opinion still"

Proverb.

Marina Oswald Porter was once persuaded by the authorities that they had overwhelming evidence that her late husband, Lee Oswald, had murdered JFK. She is older and wiser now. She now believes, just as she believed at first, that her husband spoke the truth when he said he was innocent.

MARINA AND JIM GARRISON

On this forum Marina Oswald Porter has been accused, at least by implication, of committing perjury at the trial of Clay Shaw. She told the jury that her husband never wore whiskers or a beard, giving the lie to Perry Russo's claim. She further testified that her husband was home with her and their child, June Lee, every evening during the period in question, with the sole exception of the night he spent in jail, again giving the lie to Russo's claims.

Q: Was he absent from home any night when he might have been visiting with someone else?

A: No.

Q: Was he always home?

A: What did you say?

Q: Was he at home at night all the time?

A: Yes, sir

(Clay Shaw trial transcript)

Those who accuse Marina have difficulty explaining what motive she might have had to lie. One member suggests that she lied "to protect herself," but does not specify exactly what it was she needed to protect herself against. The neccessary inferences that flow from the accusation that Marina lied at the Clay Shaw trial are serious indeed, so that this allegation constitutes attempted character assassination of the worst kind imaginable.

Anyone who reads the transcripts of the Clay Shaw trial and the preliminary hearing should be able to see that Garrison was deluding himself. Marina's testimony was just the final proof. I have no doubt that Garrison set out with good intentions, but it is said that good intentions are the stuff that pave the road to Hell.

Garrison, by all accounts, was a man with great charisma, and some JFK assassination researchers looked to him as their authority figure. Mark Lane is perhaps the leading example of a prominent JFK researcher who succumbed to Garrison's spell, just as he later fell under the influence of Jim Jones, and was lucky to escape the Guyana massacre.

Other assassination researchers were able to see through Garrison's self-delusion. Sylvia Meagher sounded the first warnings, while Harold Weisberg and David Lifton soon repented their initial involvement in Garrison's enterprise.

I do not know how many researchers still believe that "Garrison must have something," but I have no doubt that the number will keep dwindling.

Marina's testimony was the truth, and therefore it will stand the test of time.

MARINA AND THE WARREN COMMISSION

It has been asserted on this forum that Marina's Warren Commission testimony was "the most detrimental" to her husband's defense. This seems to be a widespread misconception.

Approximately 99.9% of Marina's testimony was and is irrelevant and immaterial to the assassination of JFK or the murder of JD Tippit, and would have been inadmissable at her husband's trial for either of these crimes, even leaving aside the question of spousal immunity. The fact that nearly all of Marina's testimony is irrelevant and immaterial is, of course, no reflection on Marina. It is entirely the fault of her interrogators. [Edit: The Warren Commission persisted in asking Marina questions about her personal life, questions that were clearly not designed to elicit any evidence that might be material or even relevant to the assassination].

Stories like the Walker statements made by Lee, whether serious or in jest, or the Nixon story, whether serious or in jest, would never have been admissable under the law then, and they would not be admissable under the law today, and for very sound logical reasons. They may be an endless source of fascination for lovers of gossip, but they have no logical tendency to tell us anything about who killed JFK or who killed JD Tippit.

So what's left? Well not much, really. Marina did take the backyard photos, which prove just about nothing, and she did believe that Ruth Paine had unknowingly brought the rifle from New Orleans. As Wesley Liebeler pointed out, however, despite Marina's belief (perhaps "impression" would be a better word), nobody on this planet could put that rifle in that garage before the assassination.

Marina did provide material testimony that tends to exonerate her husband, (I will discuss that at a future time) but the entire thrust of her testimony was that she had no personal knowledge of either of the murders of which her husband was accused, and she has said the same thing ever since.

MARINA AND ME

When I posted that I had met Marina and that I consider her a friend, some forum members jumped to the conclusion that my views were colored by these feelings of friendship. If they had only asked me, I would have told them that these views were formed before I ever met Marina.

If anyone would like an insight into Marina's beautiful Russian soul, I would suggest they read the letter she wrote in August 1964, begging that Jack Ruby's life be spared.

English translation shown here:

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...Vol16_0476a.htm

Edited by J. Raymond Carroll
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 120
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Relatives of the infamous are frequently seduced by theories of innocence. Sadly, Marina has fallen under the spell of the buffs in recent years. She used to be a sympathetic figure. Used to be.

As a counter defector in a counter intelligence game, MARINA was handled

by individuals in the SOVIET: USA cold war, fascists and white russians,

marine/military observers and RUTH PAINE, MICHAEL PAINE, GEORGE DEMORENSCHILDT

handled this Soviet elite family defector and wife of a program counter defector.

HIS DEATH IS THAT OF A FALSE LOST ASSASSIN

a false lost assassin, according to the 1953 US CIA manual, is a false assassin (patsy)

who is then killed, or LOST>

As the defecting widow of a counter-defecting cold war lost false assassin,

the pressures of existence render MARINA OSWALD testimony nearly useless,

whatever sympathy we have for her as a person,

her reliability is utterly compromised, by intrigue, persuasion and intimidation.

:ph34r::ph34r::(:ph34r::ph34r:

Edited by Shanet Clark
Link to comment
Share on other sites

J. Raymond Carroll has re-introduced a subject that was discussed extensively several days ago in two separate threads.

In those, Mr. Carroll wrote:

If Robert's post (Robert Howard did not even mention Marina Oswald) gives an accurate picture, it seems that (John) Armstrong has joined the chorus of those who cast aspersions on Marina Oswald Porter, one of the victims of the horrible events of November 22nd, 1963. I had the privilege of meeting Marina, a very lovely and charming human being. Of course Marina is a woman, with all the obstinacy and contrariness that comes with the territory, but for any man to suggest that there is something sinister about Marina -- it makes me wish that duelling was still legal.

Mr. Carroll engaged in several criticisms of John Armstrong's research, even though he readily admitted that after attending a conference he "formed serious doubts that Armstrong's work would shed any light upon the assassination of JFK. Consequently, I have not followed the development of Armstrong's theory with any great enthusiasm, and I have not (yet) read his book."

And although he thanked Shanet Clark for posting a link to a website that dealt with Armstrong's theories, it is evident that Mr. Carroll did not give those theories even a cursory reading. At the bottom of the home page was an invitation to begin the GRAND TOUR of evidence. On the very first page of evidence was this a picture and discussion of Oswald's missing tooth. http://home.wi.rr.com/harveyandlee/Tooth/Tooth.htm

Just a few days later, Mr. Carroll asked for someone to post a picture of Oswald's missing tooth, making it clear that he did not make even a token effort to look at the evidence for Armstrong's claims about two Oswalds. Yet this did not dissuade him from doubting that Armstrong's work "would shed any light upon the assassination of JFK." Anyone that has actually taken the time to study Armstrong's research knows differently.

It was this type of intellectual curiosity that allowed Mr. Carroll to vigorously debate Armstrong's documented citations that Oswald and Ruby were seen together prior to the assassination. When it was pointed out, that if only one of the sightings were true, it could be important, Mr. Carroll ignored the point entirely ("".....That would make an awful lot of people who supposedly saw these two men together before the assassination -- too many to be believable, IMHO.")

He then went on to great lengths to give us his views on the unreliablility of eyewitness testimony when it comes to strangers. Another equally unconvincing reason that Mr. Carroll gave for the impossibility of Ruby and Oswald being seen together is that any such meetings would have been clandestine therefore....well...never mind. Lost on Mr. Carroll was the fact that many of the witnesses knew Jack Ruby. Mr. Carroll had such strong opinions about research he had not even bothered to read. I was beginning to see a pattern.

I suppose all this disparagement of Armstrong's research was simply to invalidate any claims that Armstrong made about Marina Oswald.

Getting back to Marina, Mr. Carroll wrote the following about me:

But what troubles me is the brutality inherent in Mr. Hogan's attacks upon an innocent person who was victimised first by the assassins who killed JFK and her husband, then by the enormously callous forces of the Federal Government , and now, it seems, even some researchers on this forum can't wait to throw stones at her.

And:

Mr. Hogan, do you really think that throwing stones at a helpless and innocent woman will make you some kind of hero? Would you like to add some insults to her children also, assuming you think they would not be sufficiently insulted if they had the misfortune to read the remarks you have already posted on this forum?

When I pointed out to Mr. Carroll that I did not attack Marina Oswald, but had confined myself to posting what Weisberg, Meagher, and Epstein wrote about Marina Oswald's testimony to the Warren Commission forty years ago, Mr. Carroll responded:

Mr. Hogan, if you have nothing to contribute beyond regurgitating what others had written 40 years ago, then you really don't have a helluva whole lot to contribute to this inquiry, now do you?

In his relentless efforts to criticize Jim Garrison, this does not stop Mr. Carroll from stating: "Other assassination researchers were able to see through Garrison's self-delusion. Sylvia Meagher sounded the first warnings, while Harold Weisberg and David Lifton soon repented their initial involvement in Garrison's enterprise."

I know hypocrisy and double standards when I see it.

Speaking of hypocrisy and double standards, when Bruce Cormier said that he "voted for every Kennedy he could, every chance he got," Mr. Carroll made the snide remark that, " Since it is a secret ballot, no one can ever refute (or confirm) this particular claim." As if Mr. Cormier would lie about something like that. Later Mr. Carroll remarked: "You have betrayed yourself, Mr. Cormier, and in the process you have made explicit your contempt for this forum."

As he insinuated Mr. Cormier may be lying about whom he voted for, why should we believe Mr. Carroll when he claims:

When I posted that I had met Marina and that I consider her a friend, some forum members jumped to the conclusion that my views were colored by these feelings of friendship. If they had only asked me, I would have told them that these views were formed before I ever met Marina.

Well, I'm willing to give Mr. Carroll the benefit of the doubt and take his word for it. Unlike he was willing to do for Mr. Cormier on such a simple matter.

Mr. Carroll's willingness (eagerness?) to bring up the subject of Marina Oswald's veracity in her testimony to the Warren Commission again seems to be at odds with his declarations of how much he hates to see "an innocent person attacked." If that was the case, why didn't he leave the subject to rest? Most of us don't doubt that Marina Oswald has a "beautiful Russian soul." Many of us do see her as a sympathetic figure, a victim of history, a person that was in the wrong place at the wrong time. I saw Marina Oswald on the Oprah Winfrey show, and found her to be strong and likeable. I felt sorry for what she has had to endure. I understood that in 1963, she was up against dark and powerful forces, forces that manipulated her for their own purposes.

Unfortunately, Mr. Carroll is unable to distinguish that people that point out (rightly) that her Warren Commission testimony is full of contradictions and impossibilities are not "attacking a defenseless widow" as much as they are trying to better understand a mystery that has perplexed us for four decades.

Mike Hogan

Edited by Michael Hogan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Carroll engaged in several criticisms of John Armstrong's research......

In his relentless efforts to criticize Jim Garrison....

Unfortunately, Mr. Carroll is unable to distinguish that people that point out (rightly) that her Warren Commission testimony is full of contradictions and impossibilities are not "attacking a defenseless widow" as much as they are trying to better understand a mystery that has perplexed us for four decades.

Mike Hogan

It seems that Mr. Hogan is a devotee of the cult of Jim Garrison, and also a devotee of the cult of John Armstrong. Is it any wonder, therefore, that he is so perplexed?

Edited by J. Raymond Carroll
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bravo, Mike...you have accurately depicted Mr. Carroll.

As I stated before, Marina is a very sympathetic figure,

a victim of dark forces which used her and discarded

her. She has made the best of it. Her many lies in the

past are understandable, given her circumstances. In

effect, she has put the past behind her. She rightly, all

along, has defended the innocence of the man she

married. I think she now understands that he was

not the real Oswald, but part of a sophisticated

intelligence operation.

An Armstrong cult??? Get real, Carroll. Armstrong

has exposed the truth. You belong to the cult of the

ignorant. You don't need to defend Marina. She can

do that better without people like you.

Jack

Edited by Jack White
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't need to defend Marina. She can do that better without people like you.

Jack

Actually, Mr. White, there is no one quite like me. I am a completely unique person, just like everybody else.

In a recent post on the John Armstrong thread (Mr. White is a disciple of St. John's) Jack White wrote:

There is no question in 2006 that...

...Marina in Russia had an association with intelligence

...Marina's association with LHO was an "assignment"

Jack

For once, Mr. White may be correct when he wrote: "You don't need to defend Marina...."

If these are the best accusations you can can make against Marina, Mr. White, without a scintilla of evidence that I have seen so far, then Marina really needs no defense against accusations from "people like you."

Edited by J. Raymond Carroll
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't need to defend Marina. She can do that better without people like you.

Jack

Actually, Mr. White, there is no one quite like me. I am a completely unique person, just like everybody else.

In a recent post on the John Armstrong thread (Mr. White is a disciple of St. John's) Jack White wrote:

There is no question in 2006 that...

...Marina in Russia had an association with intelligence

...Marina's association with LHO was an "assignment"

Jack

For once, Mr. White may be correct when he wrote: "You don't need to defend Marina...."

If these are the best accusations you can can make against Marina, Mr. White, without a scintilla of evidence that I have seen so far, then Marina really needs no defense against accusations from "people like you."

Nobody (except Carroll) doubts that in the 60s, Marina told

many lies as a matter of self-preservation. She was in a

precarious position not of her own making. She has moved

on and now admits to being a different person than she was

then. She now admits that she was a victim of things beyond

her control. She believes that the real identity of her husband

is not known by her. The evidence is overwhelming that

the birth Oswald was NOT her husband. The identity of her

husband is NOT known...unless she is lying about that too.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She believes that the real identity of her husband

is not known by her. The evidence is overwhelming that

the birth Oswald was NOT her husband. The identity of her

husband is NOT known...unless she is lying about that too.

Jack

Marina’s current views can be found on Jack White’s own website at http://www.jfkresearch.com/marina/marina.htm

No one should be surprised to discover that Marina’s actual views bear no resemblance to the views attributed to her by Jack White.

When Lee Oswald was arrested and falsely accused of murdering JD Tippit and JFK, he was shown a photograph, taken by Marina in the backyard of their Neely Street apartment, of himself holding a rifle. The photograph had no real probative value, of course, but Lee was smart enough to realize that the photo could be highly prejudicial. Any lawyer would have advised him not to admit that the photo was authentic, and Lee did exactly what any lawyer would have advised him to do. He told the police they would have to prove that the photo was genuine.

Enter Jack White. I have no doubt that Jack White started out with the best intentions, but of course good intentions are the stuff that pave the road to Hell.

Jack White thought he was a photo expert, and he did have some experience in the field. He claimed that, in his expert opinion, the backyard photos were fake, and that Marina lied when she said she took the photographs herself. There were inconsistencies in Marina’s statements: She was not sure what month she took the photos, she was not sure how many photos she took, and she was not sure where she was standing when she took the photos. It seems that, just because you have a camera in your hand, that does not automatically mean that you suddenly develop a photographic memory.

In due course, experts appointed by the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) demonstrated that the backyard photos were genuine and that Marina had told the truth.

Like Jim Garrison, Jack White was laughed out of court. Like Jim Garrison, Jack White refused to take his medicine like a man, and he began to make up stories designed to prove that Marina was a xxxx.

White had already developed the theory that photographs of Lee Oswald, taken over the course of his short lifetime, showed two different people. Experts appointed by the HSCA demonstrated that this was nonsense, but Jack was undeterred. In recent years Jack was joined by a researcher named John Armstrong, a smart idiot who combed the record in an effort to support Jack’s theory. Armstrong has now abandoned this project and, according to Jack White himself, he is now a building contractor in Hawaii, and he believes that internet discussions are a waste of time. I am not surprised.

If anyone cares to search the internet, they will find that Armstrong’s research has been found wanting by real researchers, among whom is Doug Horne, one of the most distinguished members of this forum.

All this does not stop Jack White from coming to this forum to cast aspersions on an honest woman, Marina Oswald Porter. Jack White claims, without producing a shred of evidence in support, that Marina was a Soviet agent who married Lee Oswald “on assignment” from the KGB. By saying this, he wants us to believe that Marina is an unnatural person, a woman who betrayed her very womanhood, and Jack White also wants to cast a shadow on her children’s birthright.

Jack White is a disgrace to the JFK assassination research community, while Marina Oswald Porter will go down in history as a woman of truth, honor and dignity.

Edited by J. Raymond Carroll
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both the Warren Commission and the House Select Commitee asked Marina the stupidest questions, but she never shied away from the literal truth. This is from one of Marina's HSCA depositions:

Q. But when you first got off the train in Amsterdam, what was the first thing that Lee did?

A. I don't know. I guess picked up the suitcases.

Edited by J. Raymond Carroll
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In his book Harvey & Lee, John Armstrong discusses Marina Oswald's confusing and contradictory statements about Mexico. The following passages are excerpted (pps 699-702) directly from Armstrong's account:

Following the assassination, Marina resided briefly at the Inn of Six Flags in Arlington, Texas, where she was interviewed by the Secret Service. When asked if Lee came back with her (from New Orleans), Marina said, "No, he did not come back with me. He remained in New Orleans for another two weeks in hopes that he would find another job, and then he came to Dallas." (WC Document 344)

On November 29, 1963, Marina told FBI agents (Heitman & Boguslav) that Oswald was going to find work and if he could not find work, he would return to Dallas. During the same interview, Marina said she did not know anything about any trip that Oswald may have made to Mexico City. Marina volunteered that to her knowledge Oswald had never been to Mexico. When asked by the agents why she said that, Marina told the agents that she figured they were interested in that because it was on TV. (WC Document 1781)

On December 5, 1963 Marina said that Oswald never mentioned that he was making plans to go to Cuba, nor did he mention that he made application for a visa to go to Cuba. When Marina left New Orleans with Ruth Paine in September, Oswald said nothing about going to Mexico or Cuba. (WC Exhibit 1401)

On December 10, Marina was interviewed by SS agent Leon Gopadze who wrote, "Concerning Lee Oswald's being in Mexico City and his visits to the Cuban and Russian Embassies, Marina Oswald stated that she had no prior knowledge of Oswald going to Mexico City. (SS report of Leon Gopadze, 12/10/63)

On December 11, 1963 Marina Oswald was again interviewed by the Secret Service, and advised that she had no prior knowledge of Oswald going to Mexico City.

On January 16, 1964, Marina said that Oswald did not tell her where he purchased a silver bracelet, which he gave her as a gift, and that she definitely did not know he had been to Mexico prior to his return to Dallas. (WC Exhibit 1820)

On January 17, 1964, Marina said that Oswald had not told her anything whatsoever about his intentions to go to Mexico. She said that he had not told her upon his return to Dallas in early October 1963, that he had been to Mexico. (WC Exhibit 1821)

On February 3, 1964, Marina was interviewed by the Warren Commission and her story changed completely. She told the Warren Commission that Oswald was very interested in going to Cuba. She said, "He was even interested in the airplane scheduling, with the idea of kidnapping a plan. But I talked him out of it." During her testimony the following discussion occurred:

Mr. Rankin: "Had he discussed with you the idea of going to Mexico City?"

Marina: "Yes."

Mr. Rankin: "When did he first discuss that?"

Marina: "I think it was in August."

Mr. Rankin: "Did he tell you why he wanted to go to Mexico City?"

Marina: "From Mexico City he wanted to go to Cuba - perhaps through the Russian Embassy in Mexico somehow he would be able to get to Cuba."

Mr. Rankin noticed that Marina's testimony contradicted a portion of the letter that Oswald allegedly wrote to the Soviet Embassy in Washington.

Mr. Rankin: "You noticed where he said in this letter, 'I had not planned to contact the Soviet Embassy,' did you not?"

Marina: "Why hadn't he planned that?"

Mr. Rankin: "That is what I am trying to find out from you. Did he ever tell you that he didn't plan to visit the Soviet Embassy?"

Marina: "This (Oswald's alleged letter to the Soviet Embassy) is not the truth. He did want to contact the Embassy."

Mr. Rankin: "And he told you befiore he went to Mexico that he planned to visit the Soviet Embassy, did he?"

Marina: "Yes." (WC testimony of Marina Oswald, 1 H 23)

As can be seen Marina's ever-changing stories about Oswald in Mexico read like a nightmare. It was from these, and many other contradictory statements, that caused several Warren Commission staff members to say that she was just a xxxx. (Armstrong)

Garrison Investigation

In 1967 Marina Oswald Porter was questioned about Mexico City by the New Orleans Grand Jury in connection with the Garrison investigation into President Kennedy's assassination.

Question: "How soon before you left New Orleans did Lee tell you he was going to Mexico City?"

Marina: "How soon? He told me before I left New Orleans he was going to Mexico, he was talking about going to Mexico City before I went from New Orleans to Irving."

Question: "How long before you went from New Orleans to Irving?"

Marina: "One month, I don't remember."

HSCA testimony

In 1978 Marina was questioned by the HSCA and asked why her story about Oswald's visit to Mexico City had changed:

HSCA: "Why did you not give the FBI this information when they interviewed you back on November 29, 1963, approximately a week after the assassination?"

Marina: "At that time I did not really have the country to go to....I thought if I tell them that I knew about Mexico. I would be responsible just as well for what he did."

HSCA: "As late as January 22, 1964 you were still denying that you knew Lee was going to Mexico when you lived in New Orleans, but about 10 days after that you testified before the Warren Commission that you did know of the trip."

Marina: "I tried to protect myself, sir."

HSCA: "Were you pressured to change your testimony between those dates? That is just a 10 day period there. Did the FBI or the Secret Service or anyone suggest to you to change your testimony there?"

Marina (unbelievably): Well, I don't remember....I did not want to talk about the FBI, but do believe that one of the FBI agents, he brought something that looks like it came from Mexico and, little by little, in the questioning, I had to confess that I did know."

HSCA: "When did you first learn of his planned trip to Mexico City? When did you first know about that?"

Marina: "Shortly before I left for Dallas with Ruth Paine....He told me about his plans to go to Mexico City and to visit the Cuban Embassy over there."

(Recall that Michael Paine was asked by Wesley Liebler if he knew of Oswald's trip to Mexico City. Paine replied, "There was no conversation among anyone at that time about Oswald having been to Mexico...No, it was a complete surprise to Ruth and myself." (2 H 405)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Carroll,

Nobody is accusing Marina of anything. In every instance where someone has a problem with her testimony, it is not she, it is her handlers, who are blamed for allowing, or convincing, her to give that testimony.

Marina has had to live with a nightmare everyday of her life since 11/22/1963. I doubt very seriously that any one of us here at the forum think of her as anything but a victim.

There is no need for defending Marina at all. She was, and still is, in a situation not of her own making.

Chuck

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Recall that Michael Paine was asked by Wesley Liebler if he knew of Oswald's trip to Mexico City. Paine replied, "There was no conversation among anyone at that time about Oswald having been to Mexico...No, it was a complete surprise to Ruth and myself." (2 H 405)

Before she left New Orleans, Marina promised her husband that she would tell no one about his trip to Mexico, and she kept that promise until the day she made a higher promise, before God, that she would tell the truth to the Warren Commission.

The purpose of this forum is to facilitate the solution to an infamous murder. Unless Mr. Hogan has evidence that what Marina said about Mexico is material, or even relevant, to the assassination of JFK, I do not see the point to his last post, unless it is simply a gratuitous attempt to smear Marina.

Nobody is accusing Marina of anything. Chuck

Mr. Robbins, perhaps you missed Jack White's posts on this and other threads. Jack White most certainly accuses Marina, and has been doing so for decades.

Sometimes the accustions are made indirectly, by neccessary inference. Supporters of Jim Garrison indirectly accuse Marina of committing perjury at the trial of Clay Shaw. If Marina told the truth, then Jim Garrison's whole case was a delusion. In order to believe that Jim Garrison "had something," you have to believe that Marina committed perjury. Given all the implications, this is a very serious accusation indeed.

The movie JFK was widely praised in the research community, and has some worthwhile material. Of course it is well-acted and well-directed, but it is at one level a gigantic libel of Marina, though fortunately the libel is only visible to those familiar with the record in the Clay Shaw trial.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Harvey & Lee, John Armstrong writes:

Following the murder of her husband Marina was taken by the Secret Service to the Inn of the Six Flags in Arlington, Texas. The manager of the Inn, James Herbert Martin, became friendly with Marina and invited her to move into his home (with his wife and children) on November 29. A week later Marina authorized Martin to handle her personal and business affairs and in February, 1964 he accompanied Marina to Washington, DC. Marina told the FBI that she had a brief sexual encounter with Martin, but the affair soon ended. When Martin told the Commission about his affair with Marina, Chief Justice Earl Warren ordered that portion of his testimony be stricken from the record. (italics Armstrong's)

While Marina was in Washington, DC, an unknown entity named Onajet Productions rented a small office in the Samuel Goldwyn Studios in Hollywood, CA on February 8. The company, also known as Tex-Italia Films and Cinema International Productions, was headed by Charles Lasater, George V. Douglas, and Wesley B. Blankenship, but never made a single film.

On February 10, Marina moved out of Martin's house and into Robert Oswald's house in Denton, Texas. The following day she moved to the Declan Ford residence at 14057 Brookcrest in Dallas and signed a contract with Tex-Italia films. The unknown company agreed to pay Marina $75,000 for worldwide movie and TV rights, $7500 for each film appearance, and $1500 for each personal appearance. Within a few months Marina had received $132, 350 from the unkown company, and her willingness to provide testimony to the Warren Commission that implicated her dead husband in the assassination became obvious....

....Shortly after signing the contract with Marina, Tex-Italia films was asked to leave Samuel Goldwyn Studios for failure to pay rent on their small office. On April 24, 1964 SA Leslie Warren completed an investigation into Tex-Italia films and wrote, "Indices of the Los Angeles office reflect no other pertinent information that could be indentified with the names Charles Lasater, George V. Douglas, or Wesley B. Blankenship. In otherwords, these men were probably not using their real names and monies paid to Marina by the unknown Tex-India films company came from unknown sources. (Italics Armstrong's)

On June 5, 1964 Hoover wrote a letter to J. Lee Rankin of the Warren Commission and advised:

"For your information, this Bureau is conducting no investigation regarding the commercial ventures or contract negotiations of Marina Oswald in connection with our investigation of Lee Harvey Oswald."

Marina soon became the star witness for the Warren Commission, who used her questionable and contradictory testimony to convict her husband in the eyes of the public. It was Marina who allegedly took, and sold the questionable "backyard photos." It was Marina that claimed that Oswald target practiced with a rifle, knew about the Walker shooting, knew about his visit to Mexico City, and knew that he kept his rifle in the Paine's garage. (Italics Armstrong's)

When Marina testified before the Warren Commission her convoluted testimony was reviewed by staff attorneys and compared with the numerous statements she gave to the Secret Service and FBI agents. Commission staff member Fredda Scobey wrote a memo to Commission member Senator Russell and said, "Marina directly lied on at least two occasions," and advised that she be cross examined.

Scobey wanted to discuss the subject of Marina's lying before the full Commission, but Chief Justice Earl Warren refused and told counsel J. Lee Rankin not to press the issue. Scobey then prepared a 7-page report and wrote, "Marina's testimony is so full of confusion that without the catalytic element of cross-examination it reads like a nightmare. By her own admission, Marina is a xxxx, and it is her voice that tells us how intensely she disliked the FBI and how she lied to that agency almost uniformly."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Harvey & Lee, John Armstrong writes:

[H]er willingness to provide testimony to the Warren Commission that implicated her dead husband in the assassination became obvious....

As I pointed out at the beginning of this thread, none of Marina's testimony actually implicates her husband in the assassination. Marina testified that she had no personal knowledge about the assassination, and she has said the same thing ever since.

In June 5, 1964 Hoover wrote a letter to J. Lee Rankin of the Warren Commission and advised:

"For your information, this Bureau is conducting no investigation regarding the commercial ventures or contract negotiations of Marina Oswald in connection with our investigation of Lee Harvey Oswald."

Unlike Mr. Hogan, J. Edgar Hoover had an understanding of what constitutes relevant and material evidence.

Marina soon became the star witness for the Warren Commission, who used her questionable and contradictory testimony to convict her husband in the eyes of the public.

Opinion polls show that a majority of Americans DO NOT BELIEVE that Lee Oswald murdered JFK. Since Marina testified that she had no personal knowledge of the assassination, this is just another false accusation by Mr. Hogan. I would not be surprised if he tries to justify himself by saying that it is not really his own idea; it is something he read in a book somewhere.

It was Marina who allegedly took, and sold the questionable "backyard photos."

These photos were her legal property by right of inheritance, and there is nothing questionable about them, except in the minds of members of the Jack White/John Armstrong cult.

It was Marina that claimed that Oswald target practiced with a rifle,

I defy Mr. Hogan to show us where Marina ever made that claim.

knew about the Walker shooting,

Assuming that Lee was not kidding when he spoke about the Walker shooting, how does that have anything to do with the JFK assassination, except in the minds of Warren Commission supporters?

knew about his visit to Mexico City,

I think I addressed that in my last post. Again, how does Marina’s knowledge on this issue have anything to do with the assassination?

and knew that he kept his rifle in the Paine's garage. (Italics Armstrong's)

All due respect to John Armstrong, actually, the evidence shows, as Wesley Liebeler pointed out, that Marina only THOUGHT he kept the rifle in the garage. Her belief (impression) does not mean that the rifle was actually there, and does not go very far towards implicating her husband in the assassination, except in the minds of members of the Warren Commission cult.

When Marina testified before the Warren … Commission staff member Fredda Scobey wrote a memo to Commission member Senator Russell and said, "Marina directly lied on at least two occasions," and advised that she be cross examined.."

This is supposed to corroborate the gospel according to Norman Redlich, which Mr. Hogan posted on another thread. It is nice to know that there are fans of the Warren Commission on this forum, we all love diversity. I think I posted on that same thread that, instead of accusing Marina of lying to the Government, it would be closer to the truth to say that the Government lied to Marina (and to the rest of us).

From what I am seeing of Mr. Hogan’s posts on this forum, and especially in his most recent post on this thread, his agenda is to smear Marina. His agenda seems to have nothing whatsoever to do with solving the assassination of JFK.

I mentioned Dave Reitzes on another thread. I respect Dave Reitzes as a meticulous researcher, and his website is an extremely valuable resource. Having said that, I criticize Dave Reitzes for having been a member of the Garrison cult, then for becoming a member of the John Armstrong cult, and now for being a member of the Warren Commission/ John McAdams cult. In fairness to Dave Reitzes, he joins only one cult at a time.

Michael Hogan, on the other hand, seems to be a member of the Garrison cult, the John Armstrong cult, and the Warren commission cult – all at the same time. Go figure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...