Jump to content

Marina Oswald


Recommended Posts

Ray,

Do you know if Marina ever met a woman by the name of Shirley Williamson who headed up a collection fund for Marina post assassination? Williamson was also a part-time investigator.

If Marina did meet her and spoke about it, I would certainly be interested if she formed any opinions.

Cheers,

James

Edited by James Richards
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 120
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

I'm not Mr. Hogan, but the claim is in Marina's HSCA deposition:

Q. When was the first time when you were living in Dallas that you saw that Lee owned a rifle?

A. I really don't remember the day or month.

Q. No the day or month but what was the first occasion? What were the circumstances when you saw it?

A. I don't remember. What is the first time you remember seeing the rifle currently?

A. I believe it was in Dallas but I would not be sure. I would not swear it it. Believe me, I tried to remember my best recollection.

Q. I am just asking now that you do remember, what was the circumstance? was it in a closet? Was he holding it? What was the first time you currently remember seeing the rifle, any rifle?

A. Well, the things flash in my memory right now of him going out after dark wearing a raincoat and he told me that he was going to practice in some shooting range. I don't mean that was the first time as I see it flashing right now.

Q. It may not be the first time but you remember one incident when he was in the raincoat?

A. Yes.

Q. And you saw the rifle at that time?

A. I am not saying that is the first time.

Q. But you saw it at that time?

A. And down in New Orleans he was sitting in the dark on the porch.

Q. The time you saw him in the raincoat, was that before you moved to New Orleans or after?

A. I believe it was in Dallas because it was quite hot outside. I mean it was very silly for somebody to put a raincoat over your body in such hot weather.

Q. It was not going to rain that day?

A. No.

Q Did you see the rifle or did you ask him, "Why are you wearing a raincoat?"

A. I probably did but I do not remember the conversation.

Q. Did you ask him where he was going to go practicing?

A. Well, he said that you can take a bus and go somewhere but I don't know where.

Q. Did you see the rifle itself at that time?

A. I don't remember if it had any cover to it. I don't remember.

Q. It was at night after--

A. I was after dark.

Q. After dark.

A. It was very dark but whatever time, it started getting kind of in between.

Q. Did you ask him how he could go target shooting in the dark?

A. It never occurred to me.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo4/jfk12/marinade.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ray,

Do you know if Marina ever met a woman by the name of Shirley Williamson who headed up a collection fund for Marina post assassination? Williamson was also a part-time investigator.

If Marina did meet her and spoke about it, I would certainly be interested if she formed any opinions.

Cheers,

James

James, It is actually a long time since I last spoke to Marina, and I do not like to trouble her unneccesarily about this subject. This is something I never discussed with her. All I know about Shirley Williamson is what I read in James Martin's Warren Commission testimony.

I would not be suspicious of those who sympathised with Marina in the aftermath of the assassination, though I am not suggesting that that your curiosity amounts to suspicion.

Jim Garrison, however, was highly suspicious about those who donated to Marina, and he questioned her extensively about this during her Grand Jury testimony. My favorite moment is where Marina, after being repeatedly interrogated about who she thought made the largest contribution, said she thought it must have been a Church. This stopped Garrison in his tracks.

According to the New York Times of Nov. 25, 1963, the first person to start a fund for Marina was a housewife in Belfast. Citing an AP report, the Times story says "An Irish housewife today began a fund to help the widow of Lee H. Oswald. The housewife, Jane Addy, said she wanted to "put into practice what President Kennedy himself always preached, brotherhood and tolerance" by helping "the woman nobody wants."

It seems that some members of this forum do not share President Kennedy's ideals, at least as those ideals were interpreted by Mrs. Addy.

I am also sending you a private email.

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.

I HAVE REQUESTED FOUR TIMES THAT THE MODERATORS REMOVE

THIS ABUSIVE POSTING, BUT SO FAR THEY REFUSE TO REMOVE IT

OR EMAIL ME THE REASONS WHY THEY REFUSE.

IT IS FULL OF LIES AND DISTORTIONS. IT STARTS OFF BY SAYING

I HAVE A WEBSITE. I HAVE NO WEBSITE.

I HEREBY DEMAND, BEFORE ALL FORUM MEMBERS, THAT MR. CARROLL

BE ADMONISHED AND THAT THIS OBJECTIONABLE POSTING BE

REMOVED!

I hope other forum members will support my efforts to enforce

forum rules and decorum. This is a vicious personal attack by someone

deficient in the facts.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

I'm not Mr. Hogan, but the claim is in Marina's HSCA deposition:

Q. When was the first time when you were living in Dallas that you saw that Lee owned a rifle?

A. I really don't remember the day or month.

Q. No the day or month but what was the first occasion? What were the circumstances when you saw it?

A. I don't remember. What is the first time you remember seeing the rifle currently?

A. I believe it was in Dallas but I would not be sure. I would not swear it it. Believe me, I tried to remember my best recollection.

Q. I am just asking now that you do remember, what was the circumstance? was it in a closet? Was he holding it? What was the first time you currently remember seeing the rifle, any rifle?

A. Well, the things flash in my memory right now of him going out after dark wearing a raincoat and he told me that he was going to practice in some shooting range. I don't mean that was the first time as I see it flashing right now.

Q. It may not be the first time but you remember one incident when he was in the raincoat?

A. Yes.

Q. And you saw the rifle at that time?

A. I am not saying that is the first time.

Q. But you saw it at that time?

A. And down in New Orleans he was sitting in the dark on the porch.

Q. The time you saw him in the raincoat, was that before you moved to New Orleans or after?

A. I believe it was in Dallas because it was quite hot outside. I mean it was very silly for somebody to put a raincoat over your body in such hot weather.

Q. It was not going to rain that day?

A. No.

Q Did you see the rifle or did you ask him, "Why are you wearing a raincoat?"

A. I probably did but I do not remember the conversation.

Q. Did you ask him where he was going to go practicing?

A. Well, he said that you can take a bus and go somewhere but I don't know where.

Q. Did you see the rifle itself at that time?

A. I don't remember if it had any cover to it. I don't remember.

Q. It was at night after--

A. I was after dark.

Q. After dark.

A. It was very dark but whatever time, it started getting kind of in between.

Q. Did you ask him how he could go target shooting in the dark?

A. It never occurred to me.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo4/jfk12/marinade.htm

This testimony from the 1970's doesn't do much to help Mr. Hogan's claim that Marina was the star witness behind the Warren Commission's allegations in 1964. Indeed it doesn't do much to prove anything, let alone that Marina ever claimed that Lee ever actually practised firing the rifle, or even that he had any ammunition to practice with. At best it it shows only that, by the late 1970's, Marina remembered, or thought she remembered, that Lee SAID he was going to practice. This is not something she told the Warren Commission, of course, but no doubt (closet) members of the Warren Commission cult selectively believe that memory improves with time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I HAVE REQUESTED FOUR TIMES THAT THE MODERATORS REMOVE

THIS ABUSIVE POSTING, BUT SO FAR THEY REFUSE TO REMOVE IT

OR EMAIL ME THE REASONS WHY THEY REFUSE.

IT IS FULL OF LIES AND DISTORTIONS. IT STARTS OFF BY SAYING

I HAVE A WEBSITE. I HAVE NO WEBSITE.

I HEREBY DEMAND, BEFORE ALL FORUM MEMBERS, THAT MR. CARROLL

BE ADMONISHED AND THAT THIS OBJECTIONABLE POSTING BE

REMOVED!

I hope other forum members will support my efforts to enforce

forum rules and decorum. This is a vicious personal attack by someone

deficient in the facts.

Jack

I apologise to jack White for accusing him of having his own website. The website I cited appears to be run by Rich DelaRossa. As anyone can see for themselves, however, this website does offer Jack White's spurious videotapes for sale, at a nickel less than $40 a pop. http://www.jfkresearch.com/

He's not getting any of my hard-earned money.

To the esteemed moderators of this forum: Jack White has set himself up as an expert witness on the photgraphic evidence in this case. Anyone who sets himself up as an expert witness must be prepared to face fair comment, and I respectfully submit that my comments on Jack White's public position should be considered fair comment, whether you agree with them or not. I don't think any fair-minded reader of this thread will come away with the belief that I have anything strictly personal against Jack White

In fact, I think he is more to be pitied than laughed at.

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

I HAVE REQUESTED FOUR TIMES THAT THE MODERATORS REMOVE

THIS ABUSIVE POSTING, BUT SO FAR THEY REFUSE TO REMOVE IT

OR EMAIL ME THE REASONS WHY THEY REFUSE.

IT IS FULL OF LIES AND DISTORTIONS. IT STARTS OFF BY SAYING

I HAVE A WEBSITE. I HAVE NO WEBSITE.

I HEREBY DEMAND, BEFORE ALL FORUM MEMBERS, THAT MR. CARROLL

BE ADMONISHED AND THAT THIS OBJECTIONABLE POSTING BE

REMOVED!

I hope other forum members will support my efforts to enforce

forum rules and decorum. This is a vicious personal attack by someone

deficient in the facts.

Jack

I apologise to jack White for accusing him of having his own website. The website I cited appears to be run by Rich DelaRossa. As anyone can see for themselves, however, this website does offer Jack White's spurious videotapes for sale, at a nickel less than $40 a pop. http://www.jfkresearch.com/

He's not getting any of my hard-earned money.

To the esteemed moderators of this forum: Jack White has set himself up as an expert on the photgraphic evidence in this case. Anyone who sets himself up as an expert must be prepared to face fair comment, and I respectfully submit that my comments on Jack White's public position should be considered fair comment, whether you agree with them or not. I don't think any fair-minded reader of this thread will come away with the belief that I have anything strictly personal against Jack White

In fact, I think he is more to be pitied than laughed at.

Another lie by an obvious asshole*. I no longer sell videotapes. They are not available

on the DellaRosa website at $40 or any price. When I used to sell them, they were only

$25, which barely covered cost plus mailing. They will soon be made available free online.

This guy is delusional*. I am the only person selling my videos. Anyone else doing

so is doing it illegally. Anyone charging $39.95 is doing so without my permission and

selling illegal copies...and is not "sharing" with me. Why is this guy making up this stuff?

I suggest that this guy be given the TIM GRATZ treatment. He cannot distinguish

between a sphincter and a geological cavity. He has no business on a forum of

serious researchers. He is a provocateur whose only purpose is distraction and

dissention using slanderous personal attacks and lies*.

His "apology" is clearly phony. What a jerk*.

Jack

*this is obvious FAIR COMMENT!

PS...I am still waiting for the moderators to remove the objectionable posting

or tell me why. Ignoring my request is unfathomable. Do they not read messages?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I no longer sell videotapes. They are not available

on the DellaRosa website at $40 or any price. ... Anyone else doing

so is doing it illegally. Anyone charging $39.95 is doing so without my permission and

selling illegal copies...and is not "sharing" with me. Why is this guy making up this stuff?

This is from De La Rossa's website:

Fake

For many years photoanalyst Jack White has studied the famous "backyard photos" of LHO and has proved without a doubt that they are clever forgeries ...

$20.00

+

$5.oo s/h

Jack White has reached startling conclusions that will rewrite the history of the JFK assassination, This video reveals a world of secret agents,false identities, photo forgeries, official misconduct, murders & even body switches.

1991

I now owe an apology to Mr. De La Rossa. He is not charging $40, as I mistakenly reported, and one of his Jack White videos has already been sold. I know of no reason to doubt, however, that Jack White was paid his lawful royalties.

PS...I am still waiting for the moderators to remove the objectionable posting

or tell me why. Ignoring my request is unfathomable. Do they not read messages?

Mr. White, you should know that the two gentlemen who moderate this forum are educators. Educators have the cushiest jobs in the world. For nine months of the year they sit around, like George Bush did on 9/11, reading books to the students. Then they go on vacation for the whole Summer, while the real citizens work their butts off to make the world go round.

If Andy and John are not hiking in Spain, they are probably kayaking in the fjords of Norway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jack,

In the many years that I have been associated with this JFK assassination business, starting way back on the Weberman forum, you have always been fair and tolerant.

This is the first time, that I am aware of, that you gave both barrels to someone.

In light of the personal attacks you have endured over the years.....in my opinion, it was inevitable that it would happen and, in this case, it was long overdue.

I especially appreciated the sphincter/geographical reference....a true classic! I will add it to my own very short list of witty retorts. :lol:

Keep smilin' Jack, these guys come and go, remember?

Chuck

I no longer sell videotapes. They are not available

on the DellaRosa website at $40 or any price. ... Anyone else doing

so is doing it illegally. Anyone charging $39.95 is doing so without my permission and

selling illegal copies...and is not "sharing" with me. Why is this guy making up this stuff?

This is from De La Rossa's website:

Fake

For many years photoanalyst Jack White has studied the famous "backyard photos" of LHO and has proved without a doubt that they are clever forgeries ...

$20.00

+

$5.oo s/h

Jack White has reached startling conclusions that will rewrite the history of the JFK assassination, This video reveals a world of secret agents,false identities, photo forgeries, official misconduct, murders & even body switches.

1991

I now owe an apology to Mr. De La Rossa. He is not charging $40, as I mistakenly reported, and one of his Jack White videos has already been sold. I know of no reason to doubt, however, that Jack White was paid his lawful royalties.

PS...I am still waiting for the moderators to remove the objectionable posting

or tell me why. Ignoring my request is unfathomable. Do they not read messages?

Mr. White, you should know that the two gentlemen who moderate this forum are educators. Educators have the cushiest jobs in the world. For nine months of the year they sit around, like George Bush did on 9/11, reading books to the students. Then they go on vacation for the whole Summer, while the real citizens work their butts off to make the world go round.

If Andy and John are not hiking in Spain, they are probably kayaking in the fjords of Norway.

I got an e-mail from Andy just last week.

I doubt that he is away anywhere right now.

Chuck

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jack,

In the many years that I have been associated with this JFK assassination business....

Keep smilin' Jack, these guys come and go, remember?

Chuck

I have seen quite a few people come and go from the JFK assassination research community, and I'm going back long before Weberman's forum, but I have seen only a very few who thought of it as a "business."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jack,

I'm sure you realize that very few, if any members respect the type of attacks generated from someone who is not able to recognize something as simple as who owns a website or how much a video sells for.

The integrity of someone that makes scurrilous attacks against a woman he has never met, and whose book he has never read, then goes back and edits his post later because the references he made bordered on libel speaks for itself. Anyone who has followed these threads knows that this self appointed "defender" of Marina Oswald has made hypocrisy a staple in his posts. Despite member after member telling him that no one is attacking Marina Oswald, he cavalierly persists in making unfounded and ridiculous charges, and readily engages in the same behavior that he mistakenly ascribes to others.

He was the one who introduced the thread on Marina Oswald, when several others already already existed. His motives for doing so are obvious.

With each succeeding post, he outed himself as to how woefully uninformed he was about the history of the assassination President Kennedy.

Although the vast majority of Forum members rightfully resist comment, or could care less.....those that read these threads know the score.

Mike Hogan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Members,

I am not an expert on anything excecpt my own business.

I live in the counrty. When I smell a skunk there is always one around. No other animal creates that distinctive odor.

Mr. Jack White has my vote. The current "smeller " should be chastised for his treatment of such a serious and devoted researcher as Mr. White.

What ever her reasons, it does make a difference what Marina said AND when she said it. If someone doesn't understand this concept they shouldn't even be a novice researcher like me.

Marina could be a creation of the Bard in one of his plays. I am certainly sypathetic with her lot in life.

But I do believe she was playing both sides against the middle in late '63 and in '64. Who could blame her?

Not me { and I believe } not most of this forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. White, you should know that the two gentlemen who moderate this forum are educators. Educators have the cushiest jobs in the world. For nine months of the year they sit around, like George Bush did on 9/11, reading books to the students. Then they go on vacation for the whole Summer, while the real citizens work their butts off to make the world go round.

If Andy and John are not hiking in Spain, they are probably kayaking in the fjords of Norway.

Andy and myself have been at a conference in Toulouse for the last week. We have therefore been unable to moderate the Forum. Even so, it is impossible for us to read and delete every attack one member makes on another. In fact, we are reluctant to delete anybody's postings. It would indeed be a full-time job deleting attacks on Jack (although he is not slow to attack others). Recently I have received several emails from members calling for other members to have their postings of membership of the forum deleted. I have to warn you that I am very unlikely to resort to this form of censorship. As someone who had their membership deleted from Jack White's friends forum, I am not very sympathetic to his calls to censor members who criticise his theories.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jack,

In the many years that I have been associated with this JFK assassination business, starting way back on the Weberman forum, you have always been fair and tolerant.

This is the first time, that I am aware of, that you gave both barrels to someone.

In light of the personal attacks you have endured over the years.....in my opinion, it was inevitable that it would happen and, in this case, it was long overdue.

I especially appreciated the sphincter/geographical reference....a true classic! I will add it to my own very short list of witty retorts. :lol:

Keep smilin' Jack, these guys come and go, remember?

Chuck

I no longer sell videotapes. They are not available

on the DellaRosa website at $40 or any price. ... Anyone else doing

so is doing it illegally. Anyone charging $39.95 is doing so without my permission and

selling illegal copies...and is not "sharing" with me. Why is this guy making up this stuff?

This is from De La Rossa's website:

Fake

For many years photoanalyst Jack White has studied the famous "backyard photos" of LHO and has proved without a doubt that they are clever forgeries ...

$20.00

+

$5.oo s/h

Jack White has reached startling conclusions that will rewrite the history of the JFK assassination, This video reveals a world of secret agents,false identities, photo forgeries, official misconduct, murders & even body switches.

1991

I now owe an apology to Mr. De La Rossa. He is not charging $40, as I mistakenly reported, and one of his Jack White videos has already been sold. I know of no reason to doubt, however, that Jack White was paid his lawful royalties.

PS...I am still waiting for the moderators to remove the objectionable posting

or tell me why. Ignoring my request is unfathomable. Do they not read messages?

Mr. White, you should know that the two gentlemen who moderate this forum are educators. Educators have the cushiest jobs in the world. For nine months of the year they sit around, like George Bush did on 9/11, reading books to the students. Then they go on vacation for the whole Summer, while the real citizens work their butts off to make the world go round.

If Andy and John are not hiking in Spain, they are probably kayaking in the fjords of Norway.

I got an e-mail from Andy just last week.

I doubt that he is away anywhere right now.

Chuck

Thanks, Chuck. The idiot mentions that Rich DellaRosa

had two of my videos for sale. THE TRUTH IS THAT I

GAVE RICH TWO VIDEOS TO AUCTION OFF OR SELL

TO HELP HIM COVER EXPENSES OF MAINTAINING HIS

WEBSITE. So the idiot is criticising my generosity in

helping Rich. I received NOTHING for this contribution.

In fact, it cost me postage of about $4 plus the cost of

the videos.

Provocateurs like this have been around for years, as

you say. Either they have mental or emotional problems

or are paid proponents of the WR, in the manner of

Posner. NOBODY IN THEIR RIGHT MIND could be so

passionate about supporting an obvious monstrous

lie and coverup. There are no other motives for such

abusive behavior. About six or seven members of

this forum are such provocateurs. Their full time job

seems to be following me around the internet and

making personal attacks.

I notice in a posting below yours that Mr. Simkin

says he will not delete abusive postings in the manner

of the one under discussion..."BECAUSE JACK WHITE

ALSO ATTACKS OTHERS". This is an absolute

misrepresentation. I only defend myself when others

make unwarranted ad hominem attacks on ME. Mr.

Simkin...A COUNTERATTACK IS NOT AN ATTACK!

You are intelligent enough to perceive such a difference!

Please feel free to delete any message of mine that

you think ATTACKS someone or is otherwise not

appropriate. BUT ALSO DO THE SAME WITH THOSE

WHO ORIGINATE THESE LYING ATTACKS. All violations

of forum rules should be dealt with and decorum

maintained! I do NOT INITIATE attacks on anyone!

I am not aware that Mr. Simkin was ever banished from

the DellaRosa forum, as he claims. I do not remember

him ever posting there, and Rich makes a public posting

when anybody is banned for cause (Thompson, Lamson,

Marsh, Wim, Miller and several others). I check the forum daily,

and have never seen a banishment of Simkin. I cannot

imagine Rich banishing him. Rich only banishes someone

for abusive behavior or trying to sabotage the website.

Twice Rich traced forum failures to some of the above

persons.

Jack

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...