Jump to content

Marina Oswald


Recommended Posts

What does, if anything, Marina have to say about Oswald first infatuation in the USSR?

I'm afraid your post contained some cryptic references that I didn't understand John. BUt more importantly I don't understand what infatuation you refer to. Is it his infatuation with Russian literature and Russian music, or his infatuation with another woman or what?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 120
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Yes, there was another woman before Marina, he wrote her name a number of times in his address book I think. From memory she made him know she wasn't interested, but I got an impression he didn't completely get over it. If so, such things can be difficult for the next to cope with. Was it an Elsbeth? I have doubts, it doesn't strike me as a russian name.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A statement by him is not necessary.

But that's EXACTLY what you are trying to introduce as EVIDENCE -- a statement from the embassy official in question. (And if his statement is unnecessary then we are arguing over nothing).

I havn't read this Graham book, and don't intend to. Can you tell us THE NAME of the guy whose statement (second-hand) you are trying to introduce as evidence?

If you can find the guest register for the wedding then YES you will then have EVIDENCE of who was at the celebration.

(but if there was a secret agent there, he probably didn't give his real name)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was it an Elsbeth? I have doubts, it doesn't strike me as a russian name.

I believe her name was Ella. His first Russian infatuation was with his intourist guide (Rimma?), according to Mailer. He got over that apparently, and then came Ella, and he got over that as well, as young men tend to do. He told Marina that he had numerous gilfriends when he was a marine, as described in Priscilla Johnson's book.

And no one should be surprised to hear that I did NOT ask Marina about Lee's previous girlfriends.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How much money did she really make from the assassination?

Talk about a sick mind.

And still CLUELESS after all these years.

Why didn’t she alert the authorities to Lee’s psychopathic behaviour?

No wonder he's so CLUELESS. He's a LONE NUTTER, after all.

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

Ray,

I too had the pleasure of communicating with Harold Weisberg. Dinner at his house was one of the most memorable evenings of my early years. You are right- he was far from perfect. It's not surprising that he declined to name assassins. Almost alone amongst his colleagues, Weisberg refused to speculate on exactly who might have been behind the crime. He did do a great job of exposing the flaws in the official investigation, though. Part of that was his detailed dissection of Marina's absurd WC testimony.

I agree with you about Kellerman. As I've noted, Weisberg wasn't right about everything. I do think, however, that he was right about Marina.

I've never called you names, Ray. I don't call anyone names here- it's juvenile and is supposed to be against the rules of this forum. You're certainly articulate enough to express your views without resorting to gutter tactics. Why are you so mean spirited in your postings?

I've expressed agreement with you several times on this forum. I criticized Lee Farley for referring to you in an uncalled for manner. Your response was to call me a jerk. You have replied to my postings numerous times over the years, and have consistently used a nasty, belittling tone in doing so. What is your problem? Try being civil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Weisberg wasn't right about everything. I do think, however, that he was right about Marina.

Harold Weisberg, may he rest in piece after all his hard work on this case, had no clue about who the killers were.

Marina had absolutely NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with any crime [she was and IS an innocent victim], and if you suspect her then you too are CLUELESS.

Is that "civil" enough for you?

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

Weisberg wasn't right about everything. I do think, however, that he was right about Marina.

Harold Weisberg, may he rest in piece after all his hard work on this case, had no clue about who the killers were.

Marina had absolutely NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with any crime [she was and IS an innocent victim], and if you suspect her then you too are CLUELESS.

Is that "civil" enough for you?

How about PERJURY? Lying to Congress? Obstruction of justice? Espionage? Need I go on?

I agree that Marina is innocent in Oswald's alleged "crimes"...but she could have saved his

life by revealing the truth before Ruby silenced him. But she was too intimidated and frightened.

Marina knows the truth. She is part of the coverup.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Raymond, did Marina have anything unsolicited to say about Ella in any way at any time?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael

Just goes to show that it's easy for some people to target certain individuals in this case as being liars and then hold others up on a pedestal who also perjured themselves under oath.

It doesn't matter the reasons why you were untruthful, either on the stand or to the media, you were helping the people involved in covering it up....

....It's strange Michael - looking at goings on at this forum. You revisit this thread from 2006 and you see the animosity and anger demonstrated between certain members. You look at today's threads and they group together to attack me. It's like watching a blob of mercury separate and then reform in a different design or shape - gets me wondering why the shape-shifting?

....Mr Carroll's perceived "joke" about Marina's boots stemmed from a series of 2-3 e-mails that started with him preemptively warning me off bad mouthing Marina on the forum. Maybe he'll let you in on my answer to his joke at some point in the future - it's far funnier and possibly EVEN TRUE.

I'm a firm believer that you shouldn't really write anything on a board such as this unless you're prepared to look into that person's eyes at some point in the future and say it to their face.

Lee

Lee,

I hope you take this response in the spirit in which it is intended. Hard to believe that it's been three and a half years

since this thread started. During that time not one member has supported Carroll, because his positions are unreasonable

and untenable.

It's obvious that Carroll has appointed himself as Marina Oswald's defender and protector, certainly some sort of fantasy

in his mind.

But his own words and lack of self control have belied him. Emailing you privately and saying that you were not fit enough

to lick Marina's boots and calling me a dope-addled ignoramus speak more about him than I have the inclination to do

right now. If Mrs. Oswald needed anyone to defend her, she could certainly do better.

You've indicated you have gone back and read this thread from its inception. You've seen that I've avoided saying derogatory

things about Marina Oswald. I have posted cited excerpts from researchers and actual testimony by Mrs. Oswald. In reply,

Carroll chose to offer little of substance, preferring flippant and insulting remarks. Not only did he do it to me, but he

did it to others. He's done the same to you.

A lawyer that can only respond to opposing evidence with ugliness and insults has a weak case and won't convince any jury.

My point to you, Lee, is to make every effort to keep your self control when posting in a public forum such as this.

Naturally, it is right to strongly defend your position when necessary, but if your evidence is sound you rarely have

to defend yourself. Whenever you make strong declarations that are controversial, you have to be prepared for

what comes your way.

Don't take Carroll as seriously as he takes himself. Don't argue with him on his level. He wants to get your goat.

Don't let him do it.

Lee, I hope you stick around and keep posting. You've shown that you have a lot of worthwhile thoughts

to add to the discussions.

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"What's the deal with that? Was a purely Russian account taken down to compare to his translation?"

I believe that I read somewhere in Peter Dale Scott's Deep Politics that there were some discrepencies about her translation. Maybe something about the rifle? Sorry I can't be more clear.

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...