Sunday, July 31, 2016

Dr. Louis Jolyon West visited Timothy McVeigh 12 or more times?
12? You can't tell me that was to evaluate him. And, West lived in L.A. which means that he was getting on planes to make those visits. He also got on a plane to visit and evaluate Jack Ruby. Why didn't the government get a local psychiatrist? We got shrinks in Austin, and I'm sure they had them in Dallas. What was so special about West that it was necessary to use him to determine Ruby's sanity? I found out that West did put Jack Ruby on psychiatric drugs, although Ruby fought it and called it poison. And, West was a big fan of LSD. He once killed an elephant with it, although not intentionally. 

So, they flew in a psychiatrist to see Ruby and McVeigh. That's how important it was that they had to fly in a special shrink? Well then, what about Marina Oswald? Didn't she need a shrink? After all, she was severely traumatized. She had been living with a monster. Didn't he shoot the President of the United States and a police officer? Didn't he shoot at General Walker? Didn't she have to struggle with him to keep him from going out to shoot Nixon? Didn't he pressure her to help him hijack a plane to Cuba at gunpoint? Didn't he beat her repeatedly? Didn't he put out a burning cigarette on her naked skin? Just try to picture that. It makes you shudder, doesn't it? - if you believe it. 

So, didn't Marina need a psychiatrist to deal with all the trauma she had been through?  She was in "protective custody", and it is standard to do medical exams on such persons.  I assume they had her see a GP or internist, and I think it's very likely they had her see a psychiatrist as well.  

And here's why: What her "protective custody" was about was to, first, find out how adaptable she was. Could she adapt to and adopt as her own the story they were telling about Oswald in all its particulars? And secondly, to prep her to testify to the Warren Commission. 

And in a way, they are the same thing except that at the time of the assassination, I don't know that anyone realized there was going to be a Warren Commission. Reportedly, LBJ was pressured into it after the fact. 

In a word, they had to find out how "cooperative" Marina was going to be, and we're talking about a psychological process. So, I think they must have had a psychological expert size her up and determine her attitude, her willingness, and just how open her mind was to suggestion.    

Oswald did NOT go to Mexico City. He did NOT order or own a rifle. He did NOT pose for the Backyard photos. He did NOT shoot at General Walker.  All of these things are false, yet they all became part of Marina Oswald's memory. 

Some think it was a simple matter of her consciously lying- sizing up her best advantage, putting her finger up to the wind to see which direction it was blowing, and going along with the winning side. But, I just don't think so. I don't think it was as simple as that. I think there was a psychological process involved. I think that, at some level, her mind was twisted to adopt and accept the stories about Oswald that she told.   

And there was nothing normal about her psychology, and I mean during her Warren Commission testimony. Here she was, presumably a grieving widow. It was just 3 months since her husband was killed. That's not long.  And besides the trauma of his death, and Kennedy's, and Tippit's, there were all the other traumas that preceded all that in her life with Oswald. And here they were dredging it up again, having her relive it. So, how could she be so unemotional in talking about it? It's not the normal affect of a woman who had just lost her husband and was recalling horrible events with him. She was so matter-of-fact about it all. It isn't normal.

You know she was called back by the HSCA. And by that time, it was all the harder to talk about this stuff.  Here she is wading through the part about locking Oswald in the bathroom. Even the interrogator is having trouble buying it. And he's not hostile to her either. He's just trying to make it work, but it's difficult. 

Mr. McDONALD. All right, now the book "Marina and Lee" states that somehow you lured him into the bathroom, and then slipped out and held him in there.
Mrs. PORTER. Yes.
Mr. McDONALD. Tell us how that happened?
Mrs. PORTER. Well, it was easier to remember details when you were working so many years ago on the book than right now.
Mr. McDONALD. Try, if you could.  At this time he had the handgun on his person, and he was preparing to go out?
Mrs. PORTER. Yes, I guess.
Mr. McDONALD. And how did you get him into the bathroom?
Mrs. PORTER. Well, we wrestle or whatever you call it. You try with the time passing by not to--it is easier to forget the bad things of your life that bring memories back, so I cannot describe you the fight that we have, you know, in such scrupulous details that you wanted me to.
Mr. McDONALD. But do you recall getting him, maneuvering him into the bathroom?
Mrs. PORTER. Yes.
Mr. McDONALD. How normally--well, was he stronger than you?
Mrs. PORTER. Of course.
Mr. McDONALD. So how did you get him into the bathroom?
Mrs. PORTER. First of all, I was very angry and that maybe give me more energy and I was determined just that I am going to keep him there,and maybe he give in after a while. Maybe he was just trying to make me angry and see where he stand with me. If he really want--I mean he was much stronger than me. If he really wanted to, he could overpower me, definitely.
Mr. McDONALD. I see. And then the book says, and other testimony, that you held him in. You held the door shut.
Mrs. PORTER. The door for a while, yes.
Mr. McDONALD. Did he try to pull the door open?
Mrs. PORTER. But not for very long, yes.
Mr. McDONALD. Did he appear to be pulling very hard?
Mrs. PORTER. Well, it was hard for me to hold on to it. I don't know, if he try his best, you know, or how much power he used.
Mr. McDONALD. Is it your testimony that in your opinion if he really had wanted to get out, he would have been able to?
Mrs. PORTER. I think so.
Mr. McDONALD. Thank you, Mrs. Porter. Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions at this point. 

So, she said that she "wrestled" Oswald into the bathroom, and McDonald replaced that word with the vaguer term "maneuvered" but I don't claim to know what either of them meant or were thinking. Then, to account for her ability to overcome Oswald at the door, she tried to say that her anger gave her super strength, but no, I don't think so. I don't buy it. But then, she changed it: she made it that Oswald just wasn't using all his strength. But, I don't buy that either. But, the interrogator, Mr. McDonald, was looking for solid ground that he could land on. And, I think he decided that this was the best he was going to get. So, he went with the idea that Oswald could have overcome her, if he wanted to. And she went along with it. It seemed to be what he wanted, and it was good enough for her- anything to end the discussion. 

But, it makes no sense. Oswald would never have done that. The plain truth is that the whole story has zero credibility and should be rejected out of hand. 

Keep in mind that the original story, as told the Warren Commission was that Marina "had locked Lee in the bathroom for the entire day" to prevent him from shooting Richard Nixon. But then, somebody realized that you can't actually lock someone in the bathroom, that a bathroom door only has an internal lock, not an external one. So, since the story was already out there, they tweaked it to her manually locking him in the bathroom through sheer physical strength. But, ultimately, it led to the ridiculous, untenable exchange that we have above between Marina Oswald Porter and Mr. McDonald. 

That it's false is obvious, but how did they get Marina to say it? And I don't mean to the HSCA in 1978 but to the Warren Commission in 1964. How did they flatten her emotional response? What mind-bending techniques were used on her, and was she given any drugs? 

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.