The last time she saw her husband before the assassination was the night before. He implored her to move back to Dallas with him, to restore their family unit, and she, reportedly, said she wasn't ready. So, she turned him down. And he was, apparently, nice about it. If he had started yelling at her, Ruth Paine would have heard it, and she certainly would have reported it. It would have been great for the story, don't you think?
And then, immediately after that, Marina slept with Oswald, and I mean in the same room, the same bed, presumably with all the biblical implications. So, I figure they must have been getting along. I have to think that she was moved and touched by his offer. And over time, assuming there was no assassination, she probably would have gone along with it. I mean, after all: How long would anybody want to live with Ruth Paine?
But, after the assassination, Marina Oswald was effectively arrested and incarcerated. She wasn't put in jail but rather the Inn of the Six Flags in Dallas. But, it was effectively a prison. She was not free to come and go. And, Marina told the woman who eventually became her friend, Madeleine Brown (who was LBJ's lover and the father of her son Stephen) that she, Marina, was sexually abused by her watchers, although we don't know if it was by FBI, Secret Service, or both.
Source: OIC senior member Pat Shannan was told that directly by Madeleine Brown when he was a guest in her home. And guess what? Pat never disappeared. He never slipped into Madeleine's garage to dismantle anything.
So, Marina was held captive starting November 22, 1963, but until when? I haven't been able to find hard information on that, but I have been told, from a reliable source, that it was close to the time of her first testimony to the Warren Commission, which was on February 23, 1964. That is 73 days. I said: Seventy-three days!
What on Earth could they have been doing with her and to her for 73 days? And I mean besides the sexual stuff.
As for getting her story, they could have done that in a matter of hours. How much was there to tell? She wasn't Oswald's accomplice. They wouldn't have allowed that. That's because Oswald was the Lone gunman, with the emphasis on "lone."
So, whatever she could say could have been obtained in a matter of hours.
Let's do a comparison to the widow of the alleged Boston bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev. Her name is Katherine Russell.
Katherine Russell never spent a day or a night in custody. Not in a jail, not in a hotel, not anywhere. I have been told that she underwent a total of about 12 hours of questioning, which she did with her lawyer present and constantly protecting her rights. It appears there was never any real threat of charging her with complicity. Like the young Marina, Katherine Russell is very pretty. I'm pointing it out because it is a parallel.
I'm sure the FBI agents would have fought with each other about who was going to get to guard her at the hotel- if it came to that.
But, of course, it didn't come to that because it was a different time, and Katherine is a native-born US citizen, so there was no threat of deportation. Her parents are successful; her father, a physician, was an officer in the Navy; and I am sure that they obtained her legal representation of the highest caliber. So, authorities questioned her without detaining her, and when it was over, it was over.
But, returning to 1963, the big question is: how long did it take for investigators to learn everything that was pertinent from Marina?
I should think 12 hours would have been sufficient in that case too. You want to double it to 24? OK, I'll grant it just to keep the peace.
So, why was it necessary to hold Marina in captivity for 73 days or close thereto?
Think about it: It could not have been about asking Marina anything because she would have run out of things to say in less time than that if she included every memory from her childhood.
It wasn't about asking Marina. It was about telling her.
You need to think of Marina Oswald as an MK-Ultra subject.
That's what they were doing. They were programming her. They were brainwashing her. That is, when they weren't doing that other thing I mentioned. And, it's important to mention it because it's a facet of "trauma based mind control" a widely recognized entity.
Note that, at the Warren Commission, Marina had a lawyer at her side, John M. Thorne, and I don't know anything about him. At the time, she had begun living with her agent, who was helping her make money from her situation, Jim Martin, and his wife and kids. But, in the words of the vernacular, Martin was screwing her too. (Marina)
OK, so we're ready to begin. I'm only going to cover the things I think are worth mentioning. There are a lot of trivial details in this testimony, what I call filler.
First, General Counsel for the Warren Commission Lee Rankin pointed out that he had the records of 46 interviews that Marina had undergone with the FBI and the Secret Service. And, it was acknowledged that there may have more than that.
But then, he started questioning her as if he had no information at all. He really started from scratch. It's like he was reinventing the wheel. I guess he wanted to hear it from her directly.
Marina was asked the date she arrived in the US, and she said June 13, but she wasn't sure if it was 1961 or 1962. Hmm. Now that's weird, considering it was only 1964.
Rankin asked for a lot of details about her trip to the US, including what time the ship from Amsterdam arrived in New York.
What time? Now, why would he have to know that? What difference did it make?
And it was followed by detailed questions about what they did in New York for 24 hours. In fact, the questions were so detailed, I can't imagine what else the FBI and Secret Service could have asked her to fill up 46 or more interviews.
But, when they got to Texas, she said they spent about 2 months living with his brother Robert in Ft. Worth, during which time Lee did not find a job. But then, he found one, and they went to live with Marguerite for a few weeks, and then he was able to obtain an apartment for them to have their own place.
By the way, Marina said that Lee did not love his mother which doesn't surprise me since she wasn't really his mother. And if you have any doubt about that, then you explain why Marguerite wasn't present at the Oswald family Thanksgiving in 1962 at Robert's house. Here, it was a gathering of her three sons and all of her grandchildren, and she wasn't there? When she lived in the area? When she hadn't seen her eldest son John in who knows how long? So, why wasn't she there? I know. Do you? It's because John Pic was there, and he certainly would have recognized his own mother, which she was not.
Here's the video of the Thanksgiving. Why is Marguerite missing?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gHVz5PYwzM
Their first apartment was on Elsbeth Street. She described the life. It was modest of course, very modest, but otherwise quite ordinary and wholesome. She was asked if Lee took any schooling at that time, and she said he took a course in English or typing. But, as they continued talking about it, it seems that it was definitely typing.
In January 1963, they moved to an apartment on Neely Street. Just think, we're already within 10 months of the assassination. Rankin kept asking her about guns, and so far she's not reported any.
I'll point out that up to this point, she hasn't said anything incriminating about Oswald. But, it's about to happen because next Ranken asks her about: the beatings. So now, we are getting into some paydirt as far as the Commission was concerned. Now, it was time for Marina to fulfill.
Mr. RANKIN. Did you have any differences with your husband while you were at Neely Street?
Mrs. OSWALD. No. Well, there are always some reasons for some quarrel between a husband and wife, not everything is always smooth.
Mr. RANKIN. I had in mind if there was any violence or any hitting of you. Did that occur at Neely Street?
Mrs. OSWALD. No. That was on Elsbeth Street.
Mr. RANKIN. Do you recall what brought that about?
Mrs. OSWALD. Not quite. I am trying to remember. It seems to me that it was at that time that Lee began to talk about his wanting to return to Russia. I did not want that and that is why we had quarrels.
Mr. RANKIN. Did you have discussions between you about this idea of returning to Russia?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. Lee wanted me to go to Russia. I told him that that--Lee wanted me to go to Russia, and I told him that if he wanted me to go then that meant that he didn't love me, and that in that case what was the idea of coming to the United States in the first place. Lee would say that it would be better for me if I went to Russia. I did not know why. I did not know what he had in mind. He said he loved me but that it would be better for me if I went to Russia, and what he had in mind I don't know.
Mr. RANKIN. Do you know when he first started to talk about your going to Russia?
Mrs. OSWALD. On Elsbeth Street.
Mr. RANKIN. Do you remember any occasion which you thought caused him to start to talk that way?
Mrs. OSWALD. No, I don't
Mr. RANKIN. Do you know why he started to hit you about that?
Mrs. OSWALD. Now, I think that I know, although at that time I didn't. I think that he was very nervous and just this somehow relieved his tension.
Mr. RANKIN. Did you observe sometime when you thought he changed?
Mrs. OSWALD. I would say that immediately after coming to the United States Lee changed. I did not know him as such a man in Russia.
Mr. RANKIN Will you describe how you observed these changes and what they were as you saw them?
Mrs. OSWALD. He helped me as before, but he became a little more of a recluse. He did not like my Russian friends and he tried to forbid me to have anything to do with them.
He was very irritable, sometimes for a trifle, for a trifling reason.
Mr. RANKIN. Did he tell you why he did not like your Russian friends?
Mrs. OSWALD. I don't know why he didn't like them. I didn't understand. At least that which he said was completely unfounded. He simply said some stupid or foolish things.
Mr. RANKIN. Will you tell us the stupid things that he said?
Mrs. OSWALD. Well, he thought that they were fools for having left Russia; they were all traitors. I would tell him he was in the same position being an American in America but there were really no reasons but just irritation. He said that they all only like money, and everything is measured by money. It seems to me that perhaps he was envious of them in the sense they were more prosperous than he was. When I told him, when I would say that to him he did not like to hear that. Perhaps I shouldn't say these foolish things and I feel kind of uncomfortable to talk about the foolish things that happened or what he said foolish things. This is one of the reasons why I don't know really the reasons for these quarrels because sometimes the quarrels were just trifles. It is just that Lee was very unrestrained and very explosive at that time.
Did you read all that? Did you notice something screwy? At first, she spoke of "his wanting to return to Russia" and then it became "his wanting her to return to Russia." She segued from one to the other, smooth as silk, and it went completely unnoticed. She didn't clarify it, and Rankin didn't ask her to.
But, another peculiarity is that there was no mention of the nature and the severity of the beatings. What did Oswald do to her? Did he punch her? Slap her? Twist her wrist? What? And what was the extent of her injuries?
There wasn't a word about that: not from her, and not from Rankin.
But, how can you talk about beatings without talking about what they consisted of?
It isn't normal. A woman who's been beaten describes what happened to her. She describes it graphically because it is registered in her mind graphically. There are no generic beatings.
And what about the motive for the beatings? The only specific thing she cited was Oswald wanting him or her or all of them to go back to Russia. But, that is NOT a typical reason why men beat women. The subject has been studied extensively. Jealousy is the most common reason why men beat women.
I read the memoir of Cynthia Lennon, the first wife of John Lennon. He beat her once when they were dating. They were both art students, and they were at a school dance, and another young man asked her to dance. She agreed and did so. Later that night, John slapped her hard across the face, which knocked her down and tore the skin. She broke up with him over that. They stayed parted for about a month. But then, he went to her and apologized and promised that he would never strike her again. She agreed to take him back, and that's one promise he kept. He never ever struck her again.
Now, that's very typical. As I have reviewed the medical and sociological literature on this: jealousy about other men, accusations from her about other women, any kind of verbal attack on his manhood, any kind of put-down of him in the presence of others, any kind of pressure on him about his drinking or drugging- these are among the most common reasons why men hit women. Heck, just plain drunkenness will cause men to beat women- with very little provocation. But, Oswald didn't drink.
The idea that discussing whether they should move back to Russia or not would incite him to beat her is NOT at all credible.
"You won't go back to Russia, eh? Take that, you bitch."
I'm not buying it.
And again, she didn't detail the violence or the effects of it. And the truth is: it's hard to lie about that- convincingly. You can speak about it generally, but to say something like:
"He belted me in the eye. He gave me a black eye. My own husband gave me a black eye."
If it wasn't true, she'd have a hard time saying it. She'd have to be an actress to say it convincingly. But, it's much easier to talk about beatings in general.
So, Marina was never asked to describe the beatings but only the motives for them. And, at first she said she couldn't recall and was trying to remember. Ladies: if you were beaten by a man, whether he was your husband, your boyfriend, or anyone else, don't you think you would remember it in detail? Marina's whole testimony above is flighty and meandering, with lots of hemming and hawing. She goes from returning to Russia as the reason, to him not liking her Russian friends here, and Rankin is content to let her wander. But then, she finishes by saying that the quarrels were "trifles" but that Lee was "unrestrained" and "very explosive" at times.
Very explosive? Well, how could she use a term like that without stating what he did when he exploded?
My point is that this has all the earmarks of a coaxed, contrived, and scripted testimony. There was nothing of substance in her accusation about Oswald beating her. She didn't provided anything concrete. Imagine if it was a regular court case, either criminal or civil, in which she was subject to cross examination. And she said what she said above? And that's it? Holy Cow! The opposing attorney would have made mincemeat of her. I think he would discredited her completely on this issue and severely damaged her credibility overall.
OK, we'll quit for now and continue tomorrow to analyze Marina's testimony.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.