Marina Oswald

[Michael Hogan]

I've been to Copenhagen many times John.

Actually central Kopenhagen does stink at some times of the year

Thanks John. Now we can tell when Mr. Farley is there.

Doesn't it bother you that you are in the company of Vincent Bugliosi, the Warren Commission, and the COPENHAGEN STINKER himself, Lee Farley?

This is an INSIDE joke. I told Mr. Farley in an email that he is NOT FIT to lick Marina's boots.

It is the ARGUMENT that matters, not the person making it.

Carroll must be just the type of member John Simkin hoped to attract when he started this Forum.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Carroll must be just the type of member John Simkin hoped to attract when he started this Forum.

Yes, but only in his wildest dreams.

I doubt if if he started this forum to elicit input from a dope-addled ignoramus like Mike Hogan. (Yes Mr. Hogan, I know about your addled ways)

[Michael Hogan]

Carroll must be just the type of member John Simkin hoped to attract when he started this Forum.

Yes, but only in his wildest dreams.

I doubt if if he started this forum to elicit input from a dope-addled ignoramus like Mike Hogan. (Yes Mr. Hogan, I know about your addled ways)

It is the ARGUMENT that matters, not the person making it.

[Don Jeffries]

I was just about to castigate Lee Farley for unleashing a juvenile comment about diapers towards Ray, but then Ray let his nastier side get the better of him again, and referred to Mike Hogan as "drug addled."

The childish name calling on this forum is really getting out of hand. There are way too many posters who resort to this. Can't we at least be civil?

[J. Raymond Carroll]

It is the ARGUMENT that matters, not the person making it.

Since the only arguments Mike Hogan ever makes are variations on the Warren Report, who needs him?

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Can't we at least be civil?

How about you QUIT BEING A JERK and be civil towards Marina, who may be reading this forum

[Don Jeffries]

Ray,

You are sometimes very difficult to be civil to. Again, the name calling. I'm a "jerk" for questioning the inconsistent and fanciful testimony of Oswald's wife? Were Harold Weisberg and the other early critics, who first analyzed her ridiculous testimony, also "jerks?"

I assure you it is possible to make your points without resorting to immature tactics.

At least you didn't call me a "dope addler." I think you were way over the line with that comment and need to immediately apologize to Mike for it.

Do other moderators agree with me about that?

[Michael Hogan]

Ray,

You are sometimes very difficult to be civil to. Again, the name calling. I'm a "jerk" for questioning the inconsistent and fanciful testimony of Oswald's wife? Were Harold Weisberg and the other early critics, who first analyzed her ridiculous testimony, also "jerks?"

I assure you it is possible to make your points without resorting to immature tactics.

At least you didn't call me a "dope addler." I think you were way over the line with that comment and need to immediately apologize to Mike for it.

Do other moderators agree with me about that?

Don, I would hope the moderators leave this thread as is.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Were Harold Weisberg and the other early critics, who first analyzed her ridiculous testimony, also "jerks?"

Anyone who attacks Marina is a JERK, to put it mildly. And anyone who wants "ridiculous" should just read some of YOUR posts.

At least you didn't call me a "dope addler.

Anyone attacking Marina deserves a stronger epithet than that.

Marina was AN INNOCENT VICTIM in this crime, and ANYONE who attacks her is on the side of the perpetrators, knowingly or not.

I addressed the supposed inconsistencies in her testimony at the beginning of this thread, in response to the malicious nonsense of Michael Hogan and others, but apparently that has fallen on some deaf ears, because now I am reading the same garbage from you.

Weisberg described Roy Kellerman as a "conscientious public servant" or words to that effect, although Kellerman RICHLY deserves to be one of the leading suspects. So Weisberg was nowhere near infallible. I interviewed Harold Weisberg extensively, in letters and phone calls and at his home in Maryland, and Harold didn't have a clue about the identities of JFK's killers --NOT A CLUE.

The same applies to anyone besmirching Marina today, they don't have a clue. NOT A CLUE.

Greg Parker seems to think that some recollection by a guy who once lived in Moscow about something he REMEMBERS hearing, is EVIDENCE that Marina's marraige was a SHAM. And that will lead us to naming the assassins?

I was wrong to mention Mike Hogan's pot-smoking in connection with his addled brain. It is unreasonable to blame the pot.

And as for the COPENHAGEN STINKER, whose bio reveals that he came to this forum with no other clue than to besmirch Marina, well DON"T GET ME STARTED.

Edited February 2, 2010 by J. Raymond Carroll

[John Dolva]

Hey, it was during the time (of my last visit, previously had been as a kid in summer and I recollect no unpleasant smells) when autumn couldn't decide whether it was summer or winter ie lots of freezes and melts and it was in old Kopenhavn where lots of old digs and little pubs are. All that aside, this vitriol here or anyhwere just clutters things up and hampers progress. A venting abuse sub forum would be helpful.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Hey, it was during the time (of my last visit, previously had been as a kid in summer and I recollect no unpleasant smells)

when autumn couldn't decide whether it was summer or winter ie lots of freezes and melts and it was in old Kopenhavn where lots of old digs and little pubs are. All that aside, this vitriol here or anyhwere just clutters things up and hampers progress. A venting abuse sub forum would be helpful.

And don't we also need a sub-forum for those who want to write little essays like HOW I SPENT MY SUMMER VACTION?

[John Dolva]

Sure, it would be unfair to do otherwise, it's as relevant as anything else.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Sure, it would be unfair to do otherwise, it's as relevant as anything else.

Certainly more relevant than attacking one of the innocent VICTIMS in this unsolved crime, as is the custom of Lone-Nutters and a few misguided members here.

[John Dolva]

We all have different perspectives on persons.

When I forst floated RRC as an oddity it was met by a scornful remark by GPH and a general silence and a few years later a superb effort by Duke and others showed good cause to doubt him.

Whether that makes him a conspirator or not is another issue.

One question I've been wanting to ask, and you seem to be the person who can answer it. What does, if anything, Marina have to say about Oswald first infatuation in the USSR?

[Greg Parker]

Other exceptions. A statement not specifically covered by any of the foregoing exceptions but having equivalent circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness,

Like the Excited Utterance I mentioned earlier. That has a "guarantee" of trustworthiness, because the speaker had no time to reflect.

Your "professor", on the other hand, had plenty of time to reflect. He had A BOOK TO SELL about his time in Moscow, and it was a pretty boring book without Lee Oswald, wasn't it?

That's just grasping at straws, Ray. Firstly, he mentioned the episode to Priscilla Johnson McMillan many years prior to writing the book. Secondly, the episode takes up but a few sentences in the book, and isn't mentioned in reviews. Suggesting he made it up to help sell his book just shows your eagerness to avert your eyes from anything which may throw a different light on Marina than the one you want to see.

if the court determines that ( A ) the statement is offered as evidence of a material fact;

A material fact here would be anything tending to show us who assassinated JFK. Can you show that the assassination was even planned in 1961?

A material fact here could include showing Oswald was involved in intelligence work.

the statement is more probative on the point for which it is offered than any other evidence which the proponent can procure through reasonable efforts.

So before you can offer this HEARSAY in evidence you have to show that you made reasonable efforts to find some statement by the embassy official in question.

A statement by him is not necessary. I was thinking more along the lines of trying to find a guest register for the Oswald wedding. If one does not exist, or cannot be found, then by default, the hearsay is the most probative evidence on the point for which it is offered.

Do you even know who the embassy official in question was, and what efforts have you made to take his statement, assuming he is alive, or to to find any written statement he EVER MADE on this subject?

You are completely misreading the requirement. If, at some point in time, the official made a written statement mentioning he was at Oswald's wedding, Prof. Graham's evidence would hardly be necessary.

In that same spirit, I invite you to point out my blind spot, Ray.

That's too easy Greg. You are IN THRALL to the plotters of the assassination, the Warren Commissioners, and their accusations against Lee Oswald and his wife.

LOL! What accusations did the WC make against Marina? That she wasn't a very good witness was about the extent of it. I'm not making any accusations against Marina wrt the assassination, btw, so you can drop that from your repetoire of pretexts for riding to the defence of the fair damsel!

Doesn't it bother you that you are in the company of Vincent Bugliosi, the Warren Commission, and the COPENHAGEN STINKER himself, Lee Farley?

LOL! Doesn't it bother you that the only way you can handle this is to attack me with completely loopy comments like the above and accuse Prof Graham of making up a story to help sell his book? And since you're a defender of the fairer sex, you should know that you're also accusing Prof Graham's wife of lying, since she was also present at the time the official made the statement, and verified that it happened as her husband recalled.

You appear to be incapable of evaluating evidence in relation to Marina in a dispaasionate and objective manner where there is even the slightest chance it may show her to be anything less than a complete cleanskin, and possibly a saint-in-waiting to boot.

Edited February 2, 2010 by Greg Parker