Jump to content

Marina Oswald


Recommended Posts

If ever there was a cooked-up marriage, this was it.

Yes, indeed. But it was not KGB.

See: http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/jf...nivance-t26.htm I don't think it would be possible to get a more disinterested witness than Loren Graham.

Although I have not spelled it out in the linked post, I believe both the Oswald and Kirsch marriages were part of a sub-project of one of the SR projects in operation at the time. The purpose of this subproject was to have US citizens marry KGB agents and bring them back to the States.

Joan Mellen also touches on the issue here http://www.joanmellen.com/oswald.html

Think this was impossible? Think again. Nixon had what in hindsight were fruitful discussions with Kruschev and Mikoyan on the problem of marriage between citizens of both countries and the consequent problems of country of residence. These discussions took place from early to mid '59.

If Marina was working for the KGB then why in the hell was she allowed to leave Russia with LHO and then proceed to live in the USA for the rest of her life?

The KGB had no more say in the matter of Marina leaving the country than they did in Oswald staying - which they were against.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 120
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

In Greg Parker's article on the linked forum, he writes:

Lee and Marina were married in Minsk on April 30, 1961. The records show that the embassy did not know of this until receiving a letter from Oswald on May 25.[11]

Good old Alik. He presented them with a

fait accompli

If Oswald was only considered to be a confused young man who had tried to defect, then knowledge of a pending marriage should have elicited the same response made in the cases of Gribble and Kirsch; a concerted effort to disuade him
.

Futile closing the stable door, in Oswald's case.

If the US Embassy knew of the wedding all along, and covered up this knowledge, it points to the marriage being made not in Heaven, but in the corridors and ante-rooms of at least one, if not both superpowers.

I think that's a pretty big IF . Do you have a scintilla of EVIDENCE to support this arbitrary and subjective SPECULATION Greg?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Oswald was only considered to be a confused young man who had tried to defect, then knowledge of a pending marriage should have elicited the same response made in the cases of Gribble and Kirsch; a concerted effort to disuade him
.

Futile closing the stable door, in Oswald's case.

Not so, Ray. Not if they knew about it.

If the US Embassy knew of the wedding all along, and covered up this knowledge, it points to the marriage being made not in Heaven, but in the corridors and ante-rooms of at least one, if not both superpowers.

I think that's a pretty big IF . Do you have a scintilla of EVIDENCE to support this arbitrary and subjective SPECULATION Greg?

I like you, Ray. But regardless of when you became smitten with Marina (before or after you met her), you have a huge blind spot concerning her, to the point of discussion being almost pointless. The EVIDENCE is in my post. It is in the form of hearsay presented in the book, MOSCOW STORIES by Prof Loren Graham. Unlike you, Prof Graham is a completely disinterested party. He had no idea what he was told had any importance until years later when he mentioned the episode to Priscilla Johnson McMillan. And no one should be spooked by the word "hearsay". There are exceptions to the rule, and I have no doubt, should it come to it, Prof Graham's testimony would be allowed.

There is no SPECULATION here. If Prof Graham wrote the truth, there are no "ifs" or "buts" about it - the embassy knew in advance that Oswald was getting married and then covered up that knowledge until Oswald mentions it, amost as an aside, in a letter. Once you accept the embassy knew and then covered up knowing, the inevitable conclusion must be that they, or an agency of the US government, were involved in this mating game.

Your only alternative explanation is that he lied (simply being mistaken is not a viable option, since how does one mistake hearing how an embassy official attended the wedding of someone named Oswald in Misnk?). You are then left to explain why a sane and rational academic with no obvious axe to grind would make up such a thing.

Edited by Greg Parker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Oswald was only considered to be a confused young man who had tried to defect, then knowledge of a pending marriage should have elicited the same response made in the cases of Gribble and Kirsch; a concerted effort to disuade him
.

Futile closing the stable door, in Oswald's case.

Not so, Ray. Not if they knew about it.

If the US Embassy knew of the wedding all along, and covered up this knowledge, it points to the marriage being made not in Heaven, but in the corridors and ante-rooms of at least one, if not both superpowers.

I think that's a pretty big IF . Do you have a scintilla of EVIDENCE to support this arbitrary and subjective SPECULATION Greg?

I like you, Ray. But regardless of when you became smitten with Marina (before or after you met her), you have a huge blind spot concerning her, to the point of discussion being almost pointless. The EVIDENCE is in my post. It is in the form of hearsay presented in the book, MOSCOW STORIES by Prof Loren Graham. Unlike you, Prof Graham is a completely disinterested party. He had no idea what he was told had any importance until years later when he mentioned the episode to Priscilla Johnson McMillan. And no one should be spooked by the word "hearsay". There are exceptions to the rule, and I have no doubt, should it come to it, Prof Graham's testimony would be allowed.

There is no SPECULATION here. If Prof Graham wrote the truth, there are no "ifs" or "buts" about it - the embassy knew in advance that Oswald was getting married and then covered up that knowledge until Oswald mentions it, amost as an aside, in a letter. Once you accept the embassy knew and then covered up knowing, the inevitable conclusion must be that they, or an agency of the US government, were involved in this mating game.

Your only alternative explanation is that he lied (simply being mistaken is not a viable option, since how does one mistake hearing how an embassy official attended the wedding of someone named Oswald in Misnk?). You are then left to explain why a sane and rational academic with no obvious axe to grind would make up such a thing.

The entire LHO/Marina episode was an intelligence operation...perhaps a joint one.

LHO was a CIA false defector. Marina was counter intelligence. Both were acting on

orders.

Greg is on the right track.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great, thought provoking post, Lee. I don't know how anyone can look at the circumstances of Oswald's whirlwind courtship of the very attractive Marina, and their hasty exit back to the USA, and not see something suspicious. Oswald's defection and return home has always drawn the skeptical attention of researchers. In my view, every aspect of that should be scrutinized keenly, including his marriage to Marina.

We've debated the subject of Marina's credibility on this forum a few times before. I would suggest that anyone with an interest re-read Harold Weisberg's Whitewash books, especially Whitewash II. He analyzes her testimony far better than I, or anyone else on this forum, ever could.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The EVIDENCE is in my post. It is in the form of hearsay presented in the book, MOSCOW STORIES by Prof Loren Graham.

Now there's a contradiction in terms. Hearsay is not evidence.

And no one should be spooked by the word "hearsay". There are exceptions to the rule,

There are a number of important exceptions to the rule. Here's one example: At the time of the shooting Joe Marshall SMith heard a woman cry: "THey're shooting the president from the bushes."

Now that woman was not identified and called to testify, but yet Smith would be allowed to testify about her statement under the well-recognized exception to the hearsay rule known as Res Gestae, or Excited Utterance.

But I defy you to name an exception that would allow Graham's statement into evidence. THe FACT is that Graham's statement is simply hearsay, and NOT EVIDENCE.

There is no SPECULATION here.

Speculation is a claim that is unsupported by EVIDENCE, and that is EXACTLY what you've got here.

you have a huge blind spot concerning her, to the point of discussion being almost pointless.

I say this in the spirit of fellowship, Greg, but maybe you should cast the beam out of your own eye before you look for the mote in mine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Growing up in the middle of this in a neutral country that neverthelass often took the side of the underdog like Ho, the ANC, the PLO and did indeed welcome american defectors from Vietnam while volvos and saabs were being firebombed in the US Ive got a totally different view of the word defect. AFA I'm concerned he was merely travelling, albeit under strict conditions. Only patriotic americans called it a defection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually central Kopenhagen does stink at some times of the year. It's so bloody old. A millinea of accumualtion of detritus. Out in the country though it's wonderfully bracing at the same time. And the people are amazing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL, Lee. (sorry Raymon I do enjoy your posts very much, always sharp, and often funny. Makes me miss Ron Ecker less. Where is he btw?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For an individual, any individual, with a knowledge of the JFK case in 2010 to frame Marina Oswald as simply a victim of history has to be one three things:

a. Deluded

b. A denier of evidence

c. A believer in so many coincidences that they stretch credulity to the point past fracture

If a person then adds to their opinion of Marina's total innocence post assassination an opinion that Ruth Hyde Paine is innocent then they are, by my own definition, TAKING THE PISS!!

I for one am not going to sit here and let someone who is writing this garbage TAKE THE PISS out of me or future generations of people researching this case. This needs to be called out for what it is and I'm surprised it wasn't done in no uncertain terms when it was first posted in 2006. UTTER UNADULTERATED NONSENSE.

Richard Russell, John Cooper and Hale Boggs KNEW, and I mean KNEW, what Marina Oswald was and you get a good feel for what they KNEW by reading her Sunday September 6th 1964 testimony where she was grilled and almost came apart.

We are expected to believe that:

Marina Prusakova is visiting her friend in a Leningrad apartment block where Robert Webster happens to be living before she meets another U.S. defector? Please!

Marina Prusakova is allowed to court a U.S. defector in the Soviet Union without a reason? Yeah right, tell me another one.

Marina Prusakova takes an American Defector back to her Uncle's house, who happens to be a MVD colonel? Another, give me another...

Marina Prusakova is allowed to marry an American Defector and then within a six week period applies for and is granted exit during the height of the Cold War? Utter bollocks!

The U.S. allow her into the country out of the goodness of their heart with her traitorous husband? I'm sorry you lost me on point one!

An article from Stratfor in 2003: I don't agree with it all but they seem to have Marina nailed.

The Mystery of Marina Oswald

November 24, 2003

Summary

With the passing of the 40th anniversary of the JFK assassination, STRATFOR pauses to consider one of the less-examined aspects of the case: Marina Oswald. Her connections to the Soviet intelligence apparatus and odd marriage to Lee Harvey Oswald are seldom factored into any theories surrounding the assassination. However, the facts of the case make it clear that the Soviet government wanted Marina Prusakova and Oswald together in the United States.

Analysis

The 40th anniversary of President John F. Kennedy’s assassination has prompted the usual round of articles and TV programs examining the assassination and theories of what actually happened. The speculation is endless — not because people are searching for meaning in a meaningless world, as one TV program suggested. Rather, the speculation is endless because the official explanation offered by the Warren Commission is difficult to believe. That may have been the way it happened, but it is not a genuinely satisfactory explanation.

We don’t have problems with the idea that Lee Harvey Oswald was a shooter, but we do have problems with the idea that he was the lone gunman. There are four crucial points that, for us at least, make it extremely unlikely that Oswald was operating alone:

1. Oswald had a beautiful, unobstructed shot from the Texas Schoolbook Depository building in Dallas as the presidential motorcade approached. He passed on a perfect shot, choosing instead to allow the motorcade to turn left and proceed below his window, and then took a much more difficult shot with his view partially obscured by a tree. Why would he have done that if he were acting alone?

2. The idea that he took three shots with his bolt-action Italian rifle in the elapsed time (a few seconds) — taking out Kennedy with the head shot — is just outside the box of credibility. No matter how we strain, we can’t get there.

3. The trajectory of the bullet that was supposed to have hit the president and Texas Gov. John Connolly similarly strains credibility.

4. The idea that Jack Ruby, a strip club owner and connected guy, went to the Dallas police station on an impulse and was so overwhelmed by uncontrollable rage at the death of his president that he shot Lee Harvey Oswald strains our credulity beyond its limits. Ruby was a lot of things, but sentimental was not one of them. Ruby looked out for Ruby. Whatever brought him to the station and to kill Oswald was not uncontrolled emotion.

There are lots of other things, but for us, these four issues — taken together — make it very difficult to buy the Warren report. We can probably explain away any one of these aspects, but the four things taken together with other anomalous facts create a critical mass of doubt.

The only strength of the Warren Commission report is the weakness of the alternative explanations:

1. Kennedy was killed by the American Mafia because Bobby Kennedy came after them, despite the fact that Joseph Kennedy had cut a deal with Sam Giancana over the West Virginia primary and the graveyard vote in Illinois. This is a reasonable explanation, except for the fact that it leaves no explanation for Oswald’s role in the president’s killing.

2. Kennedy was killed by Cuban Intelligence because the Kennedys tried to kill Fidel Castro. This is an interesting theory, except that it doesn’t explain where Jack Ruby fits in.

3. Kennedy was killed by the CIA because he wanted to pull out of Vietnam. This one suffers from the fact that the evidence that Kennedy wanted to pull out of Vietnam is pretty skimpy and the greater fact that, in 1963, Vietnam was one of a dozen foreign policy issues out there. The idea that the agency was so passionate about Vietnam that operatives would kill the president over it is just silly.

4. Cuban exiles killed Kennedy over the Bay of Pigs and the pledge not to invade after the Cuban missile crisis. The problem, again, is Oswald.

5. Hybrids of more than one of these theories. These make for interesting reading, but the problem is that all of the hybrids wind up involving dozens of people from multiple groups, none with any reason to trust each other. How do you keep a hybrid from leaking?

The only way some of these theories work is if Lee Harvey Oswald was not involved or somehow was, in his words, made into a “patsy.” For any of the conspiracy theories to work, Oswald would either have had to be an innocent victim, had someone else masquerading as him or been part of a conspiracy that his own background didn’t easily bring him into. It really all comes down to who Lee Harvey Oswald was — a subject that has garnered endless speculation.

Far less speculation has gone into what is, in our view, a significantly neglected aspect of this story: Marina Oswald. From STRATFOR’s standpoint, she is at least one of the keys to whatever happened on Nov. 22, 1963. Our image of Marina Oswald, dating back to the days following the assassination, is that of a simple, frightened young woman, stunned by what had happened and in way over her head. That image of a more or less innocent bystander has remained intact for 40 years, even though the facts have consistently pointed to her being a much more important figure in the story.

Marina Oswald — born Marina Prusakova — met Lee Harvey Oswald in Minsk, where he worked in an electronics factory after having defected to the Soviet Union in 1959. She was then 19 years old. Her father had been killed in the war; she lived with her stepfather in Archangel, in the far north of Russia, before moving to Moldova as a small child and then to Leningrad at age 12. In 1955, she entered the Pharmacy Technikum for what the Warren Report called “special training.” She received a diploma in pharmacology in June 1959 and then was assigned to a job in a warehouse, which she quit after a day.

Two months later, she moved to live with her uncle in Minsk, the capital of Belarus. Her uncle was a colonel in the MVD — the Russian Interior Ministry security service. At that time, the agency — which was a mixture of a national police force and the FBI — carried out several functions, from running large parts of the Gulag to serving as an internal security force. According to the Warren Commission, Col. Prusakov was head of the local lumber industry, which would have certainly made him part of the Gulag apparatus and therefore part of the security structure. With a rank of colonel, he clearly had substantial responsibilities. According to the Warren Commission, Prusakov “… had one of the best apartments in a building reserved for MVD employees.”

In Minsk, Marina finally got a job in the pharmacy of a hospital. At the same time, she joined Komsomol, the Communist youth organization — a fairly common thing to do and something that her uncle, given his standing in the government apparatus, certainly would have expected her to do. She had a good many friends when, seven months after moving to Minsk, she was introduced to Lee Harvey Oswald. They had one date — at a dance. Immediately after the dance, Oswald was taken ill and checked into a hospital, though not the one where Marina worked. Marina visited him often in the hospital, although they had met only twice prior to his hospitalization. She was able to visit him outside of regular visiting hours, according to the Warren Commission, because of her uniform. Oswald was hospitalized from March 30 until April 11. It is not clear what illness kept him hospitalized for almost two weeks, but he was cared for at an ear, nose and throat clinic: He apparently had the mother of all sinus headaches.

According to Marina’s testimony to the Warren Commission, Oswald visited her regularly at her uncle’s apartment after his release. The Commission makes a point of saying that “they were apparently not disturbed by the fact that he was an American and did not disapprove of her seeing him” This is an important point. Oswald was an American defector, clearly regarded with suspicion by Soviet Intelligence. Marina’s uncle was a colonel in the MVD. Having American defectors visit his apartment in 1961 should have concerned him a lot. He would certainly report it to his superior. An American FBI official entertaining his niece’s Soviet defector boyfriend in 1961 would certainly be cautious about its effect on his pension; however, Prusakov apparently was not concerned.

Now it gets interesting. On April 20, a little more than a month since their first meeting, Oswald proposes to Marina. She accepts and they are married on April 30. Let’s pause here. Marina Oswald is an attractive young woman. She holds a diploma in pharmacology from a first-rate technical school in Leningrad. Her uncle is a senior official in the MVD. Lee Harvey Oswald is a foreign defector, without any real future and — we are handicapped here by our glandular bias — not a great looker or sharp dresser. But he must have been a hell of a dancer, because they were married about six weeks after they met with much of the courtship having taken place in a hospital.

OK — it may have been uncontrollable love at first sight. Stranger things have happened, we suppose. The problem was that in order for Marina to marry Oswald, they needed to get special permission from the state, because he was a foreigner. That would have been true if he were the head of the Polish Communist Party. But Oswald wasn’t just a foreigner, he was an American defector. Given the Soviet bureaucracy, someone in Moscow was going to have to sign off on this one — and it had to have kicked off one heck of a security review in her uncle’s office, but permission nevertheless was granted in 10 days.

If that is hard to believe, try the next one. After about a month of marriage, Oswald tells Marina that he’s tired of the Soviet Union and wants to go home. She apparently says “whatever” and they start making arrangements to leave the Soviet Union. At this point, she told the Warren Commission, her aunt and uncle became upset and stopped speaking to her. A great deal has been made of the U.S. Embassy’s willingness to allow Oswald to return to the United States, but not nearly enough has been made of the fact that the Soviets permitted not only Oswald, but also Marina, to leave the country.

In October, while this was going on, Marina decided to take her annual vacation. According to the commission, Oswald and Marina agreed that she needed “a change of scenery.” Having been married less than six months, she took a three-week vacation by herself to visit an aunt in Kharkov. Kharkov in October is not the greatest place to visit, but off she went.

When she returned, she pursued her exit visa. She met with an MVD colonel, Nicolay Aksenov, who had to approve the exit permit. Marina thought that the interview might have been granted because her uncle was also an MVD colonel, but that makes little sense if her uncle opposed her departure. On Dec. 25, 1961, about six weeks after applying, she received her exit visa from the Soviet Union, as did Oswald. Marina told the Commission that she was surprised to receive permission. That is an understatement — what happened was unheard-of. Although the Warren Commission tried to argue that these things were not that uncommon, they just were.

Let’s recap here:

1. Marina, part of the Soviet upper-middle class, reasonably educated and an attractive young woman, meets Lee Harvey Oswald and is so smitten by him that she agrees to marry him in a little over a month — two weeks of which he spent courting her from a hospital bed.

2. The Soviet government grants Marina permission to marry him in the span of 10 days, despite the fact that this is an MVD colonel’s niece marrying a U.S. defector.

3. Oswald immediately decides to head back to the United States, and in spite of her uncle’s supposed objections — and Prusakov could have stopped this dead in its tracks if he wanted — she is granted permission to leave the Soviet Union in the company of an American defector. The time between her formal request and receiving permission is a matter of weeks.

If the Warren Commission has the facts right — and we think they do — then this is clear: the Soviet government wanted Marina and Oswald to marry and they wanted them to go together to the United States. That is crystal clear. Now, we take a leap, but a reasonable one: The only agency in the Soviet Union with the ability and interest to get this done was the KGB. If Marina wasn’t KGB, she did one hell of an imitation.

Endless questions flow from this, ranging from what the mission was to why the U.S. embassy permitted Marina into the country. This now enters into the realm of speculation. However, one thing is clear to us: Any theory as to what happened on Nov. 22, 1963, that does not take into careful account the role of Marina Oswald is inherently flawed. This includes the Warren Commission’s own findings. If Lee Harvey Oswald killed John F. Kennedy, there has been no adequate explanation of Marina Oswald’s role in this.

The only way to dismiss the Marina question is to make the following three assertions:

1. You have to believe that Marina, the attractive MVD princess, took one look at Oswald and said, “I’ve got to have that man.”

2. You have to argue that obtaining permission in 10 days for an MVD colonel’s live-in niece to marry an American defector was no big deal.

3. You have to argue that getting an exit permit from the Soviet Union for Marina in the space of six weeks in 1961 was no big deal.

If ever there was a cooked-up marriage, this was it. Now, how this fits into the assassination story is too speculative to bother with — but that no explanation is possible without building this into the story is obvious.

There has been tremendous focus on Oswald’s stay in the Soviet Union and speculation that his defection might have been part of a CIA plot. That is not inconceivable, although the purpose of the plot is opaque. There has been focus on Washington’s decision to readmit Oswald, even though he had renounced his U.S. citizenship. All of this has focused attention on the CIA, but there has not been equal attention paid to the extraordinary story of Marina Prusakova’s marriage to Oswald and her exit from the Soviet Union.

This does not necessarily clear things up, but in our mind, it sets an additional hurdle that any theory must pass over. The eagerness of the Warren Commission to pass over the strange marriage of these two is one of the reasons we have little confidence in the analysis it contains. The fact of the marriage raises questions of whether Oswald was, simply in the context of his marriage, involved in a conspiracy. If he was the only gunman — which we doubt — he still was not alone.

THIS REPORT IS REPUBLISHED WITH PERMISSION OF STRATFOR http://www.stratfor.com/

Lee,

You make some astute observations, particularly the seeming incongruity of Marina's getting an exit visa in 6 weeks at a time when departure from the USSR was tightly regulate and the following:

"4. The idea that Jack Ruby, a strip club owner and connected guy, went to the Dallas police station on an impulse and was so overwhelmed by uncontrollable rage at the death of his president that he shot Lee Harvey Oswald strains our credulity beyond its limits. Ruby was a lot of things, but sentimental was not one of them. Ruby looked out for Ruby. Whatever brought him to the station and to kill Oswald was not uncontrolled emotion."

This is one of the truly inadequately explained hurdles that the LN crowd has yet to overcome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Marina was working for the KGB then why in the hell was she allowed to leave Russia with LHO and then proceed to live in the USA for the rest of her life?

Thats one hell of an assignment, one that lasts the rest of your life, im sure the KGB told her after LHO died to just stay in the USA :lol:

Lee let me lay it out for you

A. Marina was not KGB

B. Marina was not involved in the assassination

C. You are deluded

Dean, I'm not suggesting she was involved in the assassination - so you can take out part B of your "laying it out for me".

I'm suggesting the evidence supports the fact she was working for the KGB when she arrived in the U.S. I would assume that's why George DeMohrenschildt was so VERY interested in her. This is an interesting possibility. I would also assume that's why Ruth Paine was so VERY interested in her. Please explain. Post assassination I would assume that's why Priscilla Johnson was so VERY interested in her. Please explain.

I'm guessing in your head Dean, she was able to get out of the USSR in the first place through Moscow oversight and administration errors?

Don't dismiss the evidence through your own series of WHY questions? It doesn't change the FACTS Dean. Those types of questions are akin to Warren Commission defenders asking "Why did LHO leave the TSBD if he was innocent".

Some Soviet Agent's and U.S. Agent's assignments DID last their whole lives or are you oblivious to how the spying game worked 1939-1991? Are you not aware of the Kim Philby, Anthony Blunt and Donald Campbell story? Was JJ Angleton's life not just one big assignment?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The EVIDENCE is in my post. It is in the form of hearsay presented in the book, MOSCOW STORIES by Prof Loren Graham.

Now there's a contradiction in terms. Hearsay is not evidence.

From Wiki: Some statements are defined as hearsay, but may nevertheless be admissible as evidence in court. These statements relate to exceptions to the general rule on hearsay.

And no one should be spooked by the word "hearsay". There are exceptions to the rule,

There are a number of important exceptions to the rule. Here's one example: At the time of the shooting Joe Marshall SMith heard a woman cry: "THey're shooting the president from the bushes."

Now that woman was not identified and called to testify, but yet Smith would be allowed to testify about her statement under the well-recognized exception to the hearsay rule known as Res Gestae, or Excited Utterance.

But I defy you to name an exception that would allow Graham's statement into evidence. THe FACT is that Graham's statement is simply hearsay, and NOT EVIDENCE.

(6) Other exceptions. A statement not specifically covered by any of the foregoing exceptions but having equivalent circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness, if the court determines that ( A ) the statement is offered as evidence of a material fact; ( B ) 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; and ( C ) the general purposes of these rules and the interests of justice will best be served by admission of the statement into evidence.

http://www.courts.state.nh.us/rules/evid/evid-804.htm

There is no SPECULATION here.

Speculation is a claim that is unsupported by EVIDENCE, and that is EXACTLY what you've got here.

The above disposes of that notion. In any case, the hearsay rule does not even apply in some legal settings eg Grand Juries, civil courts etc.

you have a huge blind spot concerning her, to the point of discussion being almost pointless.

I say this in the spirit of fellowship, Greg, but maybe you should cast the beam out of your own eye before you look for the mote in mine.

In that same spirit, I invite you to point out my blind spot, Ray. In the meantime, now that the notion that Prof. Graham's evidence could not be heard has been disposed of, perhaps you can step out from behind that excuse and tell me whether you think he told the truth or lied in his book, and the ramifications of whichever you choose?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

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?

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.

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?

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.

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

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...