She said that she spent the night of the 22nd back at Ruth Paine's house and that Marguerite Oswald was there as well. She said that Ruth and Marguerite got into a loud argument.
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. It appeared to be a quarrel, but what they quarreled about, I don't know.
Mr. RANKIN. And after the quarrel, did you leave there?
Mrs. OSWALD. I went to my room. But then I showed Lee's mother the photograph, where he is photographed with a rifle, and told her he had shot at Walker and it appeared he might have been shooting at the President. She said that I should hide that photograph and not show it to anyone.
On the next day I destroyed one photograph which I had. I think I had two small ones. When we were in the hotel I burned it.
Mr. RANKIN. Did you say anything to her about the destruction of the photographs when she suggested that?
Mrs. OSWALD. She saw it, while I was destroying them.
The official story has it that the police came back the next day, the 23rd, and found the Backyard photos in a box in the garage. So, was there another Backyard photo in Marina's room? And, the next day, the 23rd, Marina destroyed that photo? If so, then why didn't she also destroy the copies that were in the garage? What was the point otherwise?
She said that she learned that Lee had been shot when she was in route driving to the home of Chief Curry. At first, she was told it wasn't serious; then they told her it was serious; and then they told her he died. I'm quite amazed that she talked about this without a shred of emotion. She simply NEVER got emotional. At times, she seemed a little frustrated- frustrated that she might not be expressing herself correctly or not saying exactly what was expected of her- though she always tried to hit the mark. But, she NEVER got emotional in talking about her tragic husband.
Then, she was reminded that she did not at first believe her husband had done it. But, did she now believe that he did? She said yes. Then, they wanted to know what changed her mind. She referred to "facts" that she had learned but without specifying them. She only spoke in generalities.
She was asked the logical question that if Lee had done it for the notoriety, then why did he deny it and why did he try to escape. And she said that he probably did do it for the notoriety, but once he did it, it's only natural to seek to escape. But, that only repeated the conundrum.
Then, she was asked to confirm an emotional outburst of Lee's in New Orleans in which he cried and said that he was lost. And she did. Then there was this:
Mr. RANKIN. Did your mother-in-law ever indicate that she had some particular evidence, either oral or documentary, that would decide this case?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, she always said that she has a pile of papers and many acquaintances.
Mr. RANKIN. Did you ever ask her to tell you what it was that would be so decisive about the case?
Mrs. OSWALD. I would have liked to ask her, but I didn't speak any English. And then I didn't believe her. What documents could she have when she had not seen Lee for one year, and she didn't even know we lived in New Orleans?
I knew that Marguerite had no connection with Lee and his family when they were in New Orleans, but according to Marina, Marguerite didn't even know that they had moved there. Am I the only one who thinks that's strange? The Marguerite of fame was NOT Lee's mother. She wasn't anybody's mother. JOHN ARMSTRONG IS RIGHT. THERE WERE TWO OSWALDS AND TWO MARGUERITES. READ HARVEY AND LEE.
Mr. RANKIN. Do you know of any time that your husband had money in excess of what he obtained from the jobs he was working on?
Mrs. OSWALD. No.
Mr. RANKIN. He had his unemployment insurance when he was out of work. Is that right?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.
Mr. RANKIN. And then he had the earnings from his jobs, is that right?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.
Mr. RANKIN. Now, beyond those amounts, do you know of any sum of money that he had from any source?
Mrs. OSWALD. No.
I posted this for the people who think Lee received $200 month from the FBI. It's dis-info.
Mr. RANKIN. Do you know whether your husband knew Jack Ruby before the killing?
Mrs. OSWALD. He was not acquainted with him. Lee did not frequent nightclubs, as the papers said.
Mr. RANKIN. How do you know that?
Mrs. OSWALD. He was always with me. He doesn't like other women. He didn't drink. Why should he then go?
So, she denied that her husband had any connection with Jack Ruby. But, I think it's very noteworthy that she said her husband only had eyes for her. It's also significant that he didn't drink, nor did he smoke tobacco. And I think we can be sure that he wasn't smoking reefers or taking any other intoxicants.
Now this is weird:
Mrs. OSWALD. I consulted with my attorney, whether I should bring this up. This is not a secret. The thing is that I have written a letter, even though I have not mailed it yet, to the attorney--to the prosecuting attorney who will prosecute Jack Ruby. I wrote in that letter that even--that if Jack Ruby killed my husband, and I felt that I have a right as the widow of the man he killed to say that, that if he killed him he should be punished for it. But that in accordance with the laws here, the capital punishment, the death penalty is imposed for such a crime, and that I do not want him to be subjected to that kind of a penalty. I do not want another human life to be taken. And I don't want it to be believed because of this letter that I had been acquainted with Ruby, and that I wanted to protect him.
It is simply that it is pity to--I feel sorry for another human life. Because this will not return--bring back to life Kennedy or the others who were killed. But they have their laws, and, of course, I do not have the right to change them. That is only my opinion, and perhaps they will pay some attention to it.
What the mudder-ruck? Jack Ruby didn't kill Kennedy; he killed her husband. Shouldn't she have said that killing Jack Ruby wasn't going to bring Lee back? How could she refer to "Kennedy and the others" when the person Ruby killed was her husband?
After that, they went into her childhood in Russia. Now I know why she was so close with that aunt and uncle. It's because she never knew her biological father, though she had a step-father. But, her mother died quite young, and then her aunt and uncle became her surrogate parents. They are the ones she was sending those cheery letters to, totally devoid of any hint or revelation that "Alek" had turned into a maniac who was beating her and shooting at people.
Oh, and I just thought of something: Remember the tug of war at the bathroom door in which her strength overcame his for 3 full minutes? Well, if she was that strong in comparison to him, how could he beat her up? I mean: Why didn't she use her superior strength to put a stop to it?
Then there was a lot of minutia about her life in Russia, leading up to her becoming a pharmacy tech and meeting Oswald at dance in Minsk. She did not know that he was an American. That's how good his Russian was. This 9th grade dropout supposedly taught himself Russian that well.
And I'll point out that one of the many signs of a non-native speaker is his slow speed. I can speak some Spanish, but I can't speak fast the way native speakers do. And it's the same with Russian. So, when she met him, he was speaking Russian as fluidly, as quickly, and as freely as a native speaker. Did I mention that he was a 9th grade dropout?
They asked her why he went by Alec in Russia, and she said that Lee is a cumbersome name for Russians to speak, so he changed it.
Bull. Lee is one syllable. You just place your tongue behind your upper teeth and drop it as you exhale. It's an easy vocalization for anyone to make. John Armstrong suspects that Alec Hidell was Oswald's real name.
She said that he said good things about America and defended the U.S. to Russians.
Mrs. Oswald: What I liked about him? He was very neat, very polite, not the way he was here, not as you know him here. And it seemed that he would be a good family man. And he was good.
I suppose she meant not the way you know him here- as in: psychopathic maniacal murderer. How considerate of her not to say it. Wouldn't want to besmirch his good name.
In Russia, everyone who knew Oswald spoke well of him and vouched for his stability, civility, and soundness of mind. Nobody said he committed any violent acts or had any inclination to commit violent acts.
Mr. RANKIN. Did he say anything about his mother during this period in Russia?
Mrs. OSWALD. This was before we were married. I had once asked Lee whether
he had a mother, and he said he had no mother. I started to question him as to what had happened, what happened to her, and he said that I should not question him about it.
After we were married, he told me that he had not told me the truth, that he did have a mother, but that he didn't love her very much.
I have no reason to think anybody coached her to say that. How many people who have a mother deny that they do? The Marguerite you know wasn't Oswald's mother.
Mr. RANKIN. Did he go hunting while he was there?
Mrs. OSWALD. We only went once, with him and with my friends.
Mr. RANKIN. Was that when he went hunting for squirrels?
Mrs. OSWALD. If he marked it down in his notebook that he went hunting for squirrels, he never did. Generally they wanted to kill a squirrel when we went there, or some sort of a bird, in order to boast about it, but they didn't.
So, though he spoke of hunting in Russia with a shotgun, which is very different from the Carcano carbine, it was only once, and he didn't hit anything. Did he even take a shot? Basically, he did no shooting at all between his last dismal shooting performance in the Marines in 1959 and the 22nd November 1963 developments. The claims of him having practiced in Dallas or New Orleans are all completely unsubstantiated. I know of no shooting at all that he did post-Marines. Yet, someone was going to make him a sniper? It is wacky beyond words. The Mafia or the CIA were going to have Oswald shooting at that limo, where he could just as easily have shot Jackie as Jack? It's ridiculous and absurd.
She was asked if Lee was concerned that he would be prosecuted by the US government if he returned to the U.S., and she said he was concerned. But, how concerned could he have been? If he really thought that, he would not have come back, right? He wasn't coming back to go to prison, was he?
Then, they showed her Lee's "Historic Diary" and she confirmed that it was his handwriting. Doubts about that abound to this day. I'm a doubter.
She said that he read both English and Russian newspapers when he was in the Soviet Union, but that he attended no schools. Wouldn't she know about it if he was taking Russian language instruction? The fact is: he already spoke Russian like a native on the day they met, and he was in no need of instruction. That's because he, like she, was a native Russian speaker; he learned it as a child. Read John Armstrong.
Mr. RANKIN. Mrs. Oswald, you have told us considerably about your husband's unhappiness with the United States and his idea that things would be much better in Cuba, if he could get there. Do you recall that?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.
Mr. RANKIN. Do you recall what he said about what he didn't like about the United States?
Mrs. OSWALD. The problem of unemployment.
Mr. RANKIN. Anything else?
Mrs. OSWALD. I already said what he didn't like that it was hard to get
an education, that medical care is very expensive. About his political dissatisfaction, he didn't speak to me.
Mr. RANKIN. Did he ever say anything against the leaders of the government here?
Mrs. OSWALD. No.
And of course, that includes Kennedy. At no time did Oswald say anything bad against Kennedy. The idea that he would decide on the spur of the moment and for no reason at all to kill Kennedy is preposterous, and that's exactly why they had to come up with the Walker incident. They were claiming that Oswald was utterly psychotic, but they realized that claiming that he flipped out just in time for the assassination without any antecedents might be a hard sell. And that's why they needed the Walker incident- desperately.
Then they went over the Backyard photos again and addressed the issue as if for the first time. This time, she said she took them two weeks before the Walker incident. The first time she said she took them in late February or early March- before Lee even had the rifle. If you read John Armstrong and Gil Jesus, you'll know that Lee never ordered a rifle. But officially, Lee didn't go home with the rifle for the first time until March 25; supposedly. But, perhaps she was coached about that between sessions, and this time she gave a date that sounded feasible.
Then she was shown the Minox camera:
Mrs. OSWALD. This is a Russian camera.
Mr. RANKIN. Is that the camera you used to take the pictures you have referred to?
Mrs. OSWALD. I don't remember exactly whether it was an American camera or this.
Doesn't it seem like she should know which camera she took the pictures with?
Then they showed her this picture of the homemade paper bag for transporting the rifle:
She didn't recall seeing it. They pointed out that it turned brown from the chemical applied to do the fingerprint test. But, look at the shape of it. It looks like a long rectangle, right? Take a ruler to it if you need to. Compare it to this pyramidal shaped bag, claimed to be the same bag.
Can you see that that bag was wider at the bottom than it was at the top? How many disconnects does it take to destroy the official story of the JFK assassinations? Exactly one. And how many do we have? I'd have to bring in my accountant.
This is one of the last things she said:
Representative BOGGS. Did you consider your husband a normal man in the usual sense of the term?
Mrs. OSWALD. He was always a normal man, but where it concerned his ideas, and he did not introduce me to his ideas, I did not consider him normal.
Representative BOGGS. Maybe I used the wrong terminology. Did you consider him mentally sound?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes; he was smart and capable. Only he did not use his capabilities in the proper direction. He was not deprived of reason--he was not a man deprived of reason.
A normal man? Mentally sound? Reasonable? But what about the Walker shooting attempt and the Nixon shooting intention and the beatings over talking about moving back to Russia? He's beating her, yet she beats him at a tug of war at the bathroom door?
Marina and Oswald must have been very close. She was willing and did come here with him, leaving behind everything and everyone she knew. She had two children with him. They spoke Russian to each other in a country where hardly anyone did. They were together practically all the time. That is, when he wasn't working, he was with her.
He had no friends. He went home to his wife.
They hadn't been separated for long. She came back to Dallas with Ruth Paine in late September, and he got there in early October. So, at the time of the assassination, they had been separated for about 2 months, but at no time were they separated in the usual sense of the word. Usually, a couple who are separated are headed for divorce, and they are living separate lives and acting uncoupled in every sense of the word. Dating other people, etc. But for these two, it was more like they were separated because of the work situation, where he worked in another city and came home on the weekends with no break whatsoever in their marital bond. They were always a couple. There were never any third parties, meaning no other romantic interests for either of them. The fact is: they weren't maritally separated. Not at all. In fact, neither of them had the understanding that this separation was a prelude to divorce.
And although Marina dutifully delivered on the beatings (without specifying what they consisted of), and she delivered on the Walker shooting attempt (with all its unrealism) and on the Nixon shooting intention (with all its unrealism, including the fact that Nixon was not even in Dallas at the time) her overall depiction of Lee was not monstrous at all. But, worse than that, she never showed the least bit of emotional pain in talking about him and the events that happened. She had no difficulty in doing it. But, it hadn't been that long, and the magnitude of the trauma was extreme. Yet, it was all so matter of fact for her. Weird.
She endorsed the Walker shooting incident but never had she mentioned it to anyone prior to the assassination. Why didn't she seek help? She endorsed the Nixon shooting intention, but never had she mentioned it to anyone prior to the assassination. Why didn't she seek help? She endorsed the Mexico trip even though she initially denied it completely. And in talking about everything, including his death, she showed no emotion whatsoever. It just isn't normal.
Marina Oswald was the most damaging witness to Lee Harvey Oswald to the Warren Commission, and by far. She really sold him down the river.
Her entire testimony should be viewed as a show trial in which a prepped witness was perched to recite pre-established testimony in order to railroad the accused in a phony pretense of legality.
Remember that the case against Oswald is without motive. To say that he was going to kill Kennedy for notoriety is insane, so the motive in that case- the thing that prompted him to do it- was insanity. But, they knew it wouldn't be very credible if he went that insane that fast. Hence the need for the Walker incident.
But really, there wasn't much difference between Oswald insanely shooting at Walker and him insanely shooting at Kennedy. Even the Walker attempt was VERY insane.
So, all they accomplished with the Walker incident was to push the sudden insanity back a few months.
The fact is that the one and only time that the Oswald of fame ever got violent with anybody- that we know of- was when he took a swing at the officer in the theater. That's it. All the rest is extremely doubtful to outright preposterous.
I spent hours wading through Marina Oswald's testimony, and the most important thing I learned from it is this:
Now I realize full-well why Marina Oswald does not participate in the JFK truth movement and the Oswald innocence movement. How can she, after having been the most damaging witness to her husband? Marina Oswald was bent and molded into a prosecution witness, just as Buell Wesley Frazier was bent and molded into a prosecution witness. Both of them need to face up to what they did. They need to look in the mirror and be honest with themselves. They need to do Step 9. You know about Step 9 in AA, don't you? Only then can they begin to reverse the terrible damage they did to Lee Harvey Oswald and the grotesque lie they helped foist upon the American people.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.