|
Post by Michael Capasse on Jan 16, 2020 15:50:55 GMT -5
Objective Marina: Accomplished Feb 10, 1964 | Afternoon Session
Mrs. OSWALD. The 27th. That morning I had acted as interpreter for an FBI agent, and Mr. Mike Howard said, "Would you like us to get a Russian interpreter?" And he said, "No, Mrs. Oswald is doing fine." And he took the testimony from me as an interpreter. So, you see my daughter-in-law did understand English and answered me in her Russian broken English, because the FBI man was satisfied.
So when Marina shrugged me off, I thought right away that she thought--because I had to use the name Lee so many times- -that I was hurting her husband, and maybe that is why she felt this way. So I thought maybe I am just imagining things. So I waited quite a while, I would say half an hour. 1 went to Marina again. And she walked away and shrugged me off.
So I walked into the living room, where my son, Robert Oswald, and the Secret Service were and I said to Robert, "Robert, something is wrong with Marina. She won't have anything to do with me." He said, "I know why. Marina has been offered a home by a very wealthy woman" --all of this was done without my knowledge "by a very wealthy woman who will give her children education, and she didn't know how to tell you."
I said, "Well, Robert, why didn't you tell me?" Of course when I said it, I was emotionally upset. I said, "Robert, why didn't you tell me?" He said, "Because just the way you are acting now."
I said, "What do you mean the way I am acting now? I am acting in a normal fashion. You are telling me that you are taking my daughter-in-law and my grandchildren away from me, and I have lost my son, and my grandchildren and daughter are going to live with strangers. This is a normal reaction." "Well, that is why we didn't tell you. We knew you would take it that way."
And that is the last time I have talked to my daughter-in-law, Marina. And that is the rift between Marina and I. There is no rift, sir? We were going to live together. But this home was offered Marina--and I will present this in evidence.
Now, Mr. Gregory is involved. Mr. Gregory did all the Russian talking. They all knew better but me. And I have more to the story. Yes, here it is. And there are other offers Marina had--other offers. So I was not able to be around Marina. The Secret Service saw to it. And they gloated.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Capasse on Jan 16, 2020 15:52:43 GMT -5
Stop Check | SummaryThis seems like a good place. That was only some highlights from her first day. There is a lot to take in, and it's all over the place. Let's try to put it in perspective. One thing very peculiar at the start, is the phone call involving Mrs. Paine. Marguerite answered the call from Paine, and when she passed the phone to Marina, the two spoke in Russian only, and when Marguerite asked Marina about the call, Marina shrugged her off. This is concerning because it directly involves the securing of an attorney for Lee. Mrs. Paine promised her an attorney from the ACLU, actually Lee's second choice. (later sent away from him)It leads to something Marguerite feels she needs to make apparent to the commission, conspiracy.But she can only demonstrate a certain dynamic within the circle of friends, pushing her away. She is very clear about the fact that Marina is only acting like she doesn't understand English. Lee, making obvious excuses as to why she shouldn't suspect this. And Mrs. Paine and Marina both know there was a rifle in the garage as early as Oct 63? Marguerite seems to confirm they may have. With sympathy cards pouring in from all over the country, suddenly there was a lot of money involved. Money she did not get, and of which, she never knew how much. Money that was rightfully hers. Her mail was being stopped, and copied, her telephone calls were being recorded. She had done nothing wrong. She had received assurance from the Chief Justice that her son was not the subject of this investigation, Yet she is being monitored like a criminal because of her outspoken stand on her son's innocence. Marguerite has files and press clippings. She is aware of various GOV agencies have a file on her son. In May 1964, The commission was brought a file on Lee Harvey Oswald, as held by the FBI. It was refused into evidence. Early on Hoover needed assurance from Marina, that she would cooperate, if she did not she was threatened with deportation. Marguerite had to be split from Marina, in order to get that assurance, and quiet down all this talk of conspiracy. Once Marina was given a house, Marguerite's vision of putting the family back together were crushed. Marguerite was out. Marina was locked away for 8 weeks, with no outside contact, manipulated into what she says on the stand. Those same things end up being a thorn in the side of the commission, in later memos re: concerns she had lied. Meanwhile Marguerite's overbearing personality was used against her [marguerite] by Robert and the agents around Marina.
But then, why should this be? - Think about it. If there is only Lee Oswald, and Marina knows some things, and she testifies these things. And there is no evidence of conspiracy, as the WC findings conclude. Then why should Marguerite even be out? Can the Oswalds be a family in this new house after Marina testifies? Is Marguerite allowed her rightful ownership to these fruits given by the country in sympathy for them both? OR is there a stipulation Marina must stay away from Marguerite?
Marguerite Oswald was not a crazy person. She felt very strongly about her son's innocence. Members of the commission spoke in a tone expecting her to prove everything she says. In fact, all she has are instances that should require the commission to look further into the people around Lee in the weeks prior to the assassination. They ignore her, ridicule, refuse to see her files, and are very careful NOT to ask her questions that scope in further investigation. There is no one to guide her narrative onto a chronology, or any logical linear fashion. It can only be intentional. Just as we are left with a mish-mash record of testimony, not collated by time, subject, or person, So is the testimony of Marguerite Oswald, an abstract of rambling stories to satisfy those that take the time to actually read it. It does nothing to further prove that Lee Oswald was the lone assassin. It only raises questions about others involved.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Capasse on Jan 21, 2020 11:03:51 GMT -5
Feb 10, 1964 | Afternoon SessionAfter discussions about the house, the subject turned to Marina's relatives in the Soviet army, to letters that reference that, to the document/letters the Secret Service had taken from her. Marguerite was sure it had to do with Marina's other name.. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Testimony Mr. RANKIN. Now, with regard to Exhibit 183, which bears the date October 22, 1959, in error, with October 30, 1961, as the postmark on the envelope, I wish to call the Commission's attention to this reference. "Marina's maiden name was Prusakova. Her aunt and uncle's address in Minsk is" --and then the address is set out in Russian. And then continuing the same sentence-- "they don't speak any English. However, her uncle is an Army colonel soon to retire." Mrs. OSWALD. And that I would think would be the letter that the Secret Service was one of the letters that the Secret Service, as I previously stated, had. Now, may I say something here? Marina uses two names--Prusakova and Nikolaevna. Whether she was married before, or whether she uses two maiden names, I do not know. But I have a record of both names. Mr. RANKIN. I offer in evidence Exhibit 183. Representative FORD. Mr. Rankin, don't we have a record of those two names? Isn't one her maiden name and the other by her mother--and the other by her stepfather? Mr. RANKIN. That is the record we have. That is what Mrs. Marina Oswald testified to. She testified in regard to Nikolaevna.. And the other name appears on her papers as the father. Mrs. OSWALD. But now Lee has said in one of those letters that her name is Nikolaevna. But then when he asked me in one of the letters to get an affidavit of support that Marina could come to the United States, that name appeared--Nikolaevna. Yet there are a couple of letters where he refers to her name as Prusakova. And I have it in his handwriting-when he gave me the slip of paper for the baptism he used Prusakova Marina Prusakova Oswald. He did not use the name in the letters. That is what I find peculiar. Mr. RANKIN. The explanation was that the Prusakova was the identification of the father, which is often done. And she explained that. with regard to the child they did not want to name June Lee Oswald with your son's name, if you recall--that is your son did not want that. But the Russian Government insisted that the father's name had to be shown. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ All this is well and good, and is probably true.What the commission is ignoring, and Marguerite makes clear, "...when he asked me in one of the letters to get an affidavit of support that Marina could come to the United States, that name appeared--Nikolaevna."
So the double name has significance in the affidavits needed to get her out. That leads to questions of Marina's eligibility to come to the United States, based on her past membership in Komosol (Communist Party)For Marina Oswald’s ability to obtain a non quota immigrant visa, it was necessary to determine that she was not and had not been affiliated with a Communist organization on other than an involuntary basis. She told the commission that she was a member, and that her Uncle was very upset she was leaving the group to go to the United States. This is not an involuntary membership as a child or teenager. That is current. The report admits the law prevented admission of anyone who is, or was, a member of (or) affiliated with a communist organization unless the alien established to the satisfaction of the consular officer when applying for a visa that such membership was involuntary or necessary to life the alien was under 16 years of age. The report does not state that Marina was eligible to enter the United States. Even after the State Dept [not only allowed but paid for his return trip] had a snag that would not allow her to come directly from USSR... but Lee insisted she come...so both had to come west thru Brussels...still the report will not state: Marina was eligible to enter the United States Then the WCR concedes had her membership in the Konsomol become known to the State Department after her denial of such membership it is possible she would have been excluded from the United States on the grounds of willfully misrepresenting a material fact. [source: Weisberg]++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ MarinaMr. RANKIN. Mrs. Oswald...Will you state your name, please? Mrs. OSWALD. Marina, my name is Marina Nikolaevna Oswald. My maiden name was Prussakova Mr. RANKIN. Was your uncle a member of the Communist Party? Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, he is a Communist. Mr. RANKIN. Did you belong to any organizations during this period in Minsk? Mrs. OSWALD. First I was a member of the Trade Union. Then I joined the Comsomol, but I was discharged after one year. Mr. RANKIN. Do you know why you were discharged? Mrs. OSWALD. I paid my membership dues regularly, and at first they didn't know who I was or what I was, but after they found out that I had married an American and was getting ready to go to the United States, I was discharged from the Comsomol. They said that I had anti-Soviet views, even though I had no anti-Soviet views of any kind. WCR
"Marina testified that when the news of her visit to the American Embassy in July reached Minsk, she was dropped from membership in "Komsomol," the Communist Youth Organization, and that "meetings were arranged" at which "members of the various organizations" attempted to dissuade her from leaving the Soviet Union. " [page 707]Marguerite brought the double names to their attention as part of an affidavit regarding Marina's eligibility. The commission heard that from Marina a few days before, ignored Marguerite, printed half the truth, and decided not to conclude,Marina was a voluntary member of a communist party, and was therefore ineligible for a visa to the United States.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Capasse on Feb 14, 2020 11:50:58 GMT -5
Marguerite OswaldFeb. 11, 1964 | Afternoon SessionMrs. Oswald had preparatory meetings with Lee Rankin in early Dec 1963. She testified over three days Feb 10-12, 1964 Two of those days were broken up into morning and afternoon sessions. On Feb. 11th her attorney had a morning commitment, so it was a 2 pm only.
When that session began, NY Attorney Mark Lane was in the room.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Left Lane
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Doyle has said that if you are her attorney he is not. And Mr. Doyle is doing this as a public service. We must respect his views in the matter.
Mr. LANE. I see. I did explain to Mr. Doyle before I came into the room exactly what the situation was. It was not until now that I understood his response. Under those circumstances, I wonder if I might confer with Mrs. Oswald for just a minute or two.
The CHAIRMAN. All right.
Mr. LANE. Under the circumstances, since I do have to leave and I will not be able to be here for the rest of the afternoon's session and for subsequent sessions--under those circumstances, since Mr. Doyle will not remain on jointly with me, I will at this time withdraw.
Mark Lane was a pain-in-the-ass. He put things in to the record the Commission was trying to avoid. This NY attorney was well aware of proper procedures in the fairness of law. The Warren Commission wanted nothing to do with him.
The session began with Rankin, again, asking Marguerite for the absolute proof. She explained very clearly, and reminded him of what she told them the day before. She sees it in the way she is treated vs. the way Marina is coddled. In the way they ignore herself or not give any consideration to her State Dept. files. She is the loudest voice for Lee's legal rights, and no one will listen.
She was very upset the day before. Tensions were running high at the end of the session.
She brings this issue up again. She had made it clear to Rankin, and the Commission,
she was promised protection she did not get.
Whether she deserves this or not, is not the point. It was promised by Sorrells and Rankin. Rankin throws that back in her face as part of a ridiculous plot to kill the president.When Marguerite is clear, that is not what she meant at all, Rankin tosses in Marina.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ WC Testimony
Mr. RANKIN. Mrs. Oswald, could you tell us first now, while you are fresh,
about this conspiracy that you said that you knew about?
Mrs. OSWALD. Yes--If you would like me to do it now.
I was going to lead up to all the fundamentals, to my way of thinking.
I have no proof, because naturally if I did I don't think we would be here. But I feel like there is a lot of speculation about everything. My way of thinking is because the involvement of myself at Six Flags and the way I was treated,
as I have already put into the testimony, and as I stated yesterday, also,
that I was supposed to be under protective custody, and I was not. I wonder why I didn't have protective custody, why I am not important enough,
with papers out of the vault, and appearing before the hearing, that Mr. Sorrels, head of the Secret Service,
didn't give me protective custody, even though you, yourself, Mr. Rankin, required it. These are the things I have to face that to me are very unusual
Mr. RANKIN. Well, it is such a serious charge to say that these two Secret Service men and your son and-I didn't understand for sure whether you included anyone else in your charge--were involved in a conspiracy to assassinate the President. Mrs. OSWALD. No, no---- Mr. RANKIN. And your daughter-in-law.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Capasse on Feb 14, 2020 11:51:28 GMT -5
Marguerite OswaldFeb. 11, 1964 | Afternoon SessionMrs. OSWALD. No, no---- Mr. RANKIN. And your daughter-in-law.the intent becomes nasty as she makes it clear, that is not what she meant at allWe don't know the tone or the pace at which these questions were asked. As this authority went thru this process with her, they gave no weight or credence to what she said. The WC had no intention of contacting The State Dept. for any cross reference to this matter. They refused to look at her file that raised the question. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ WC TestimonyMrs. OSWALD. That is not my statement. I said I thought that we have a plot in our own government, and that there is a high official involved. And I am thinking that probably these Secret Service men are part of it. Now, I didn't say in a conspiracy--make it as strong as you did. I have made it strong.
But I am under the impression that possibly there is a leak in our own government. And when I come to these papers-and I specifically yesterday morning asked about Senator Tower. Now, I am not throwing any reflection on Senator Tower. But he made the statement in the paper that he had a letter from the State Department saying that Lee had renounced his citizenship.
Now, you see, I don't have that paper with me. I had it yesterday morning. But his whole quotes-- the dates and everything of the letter that he was supposed to have had is not in correspondence with the dates that I have from the State Department papers which you gentlemen know that I have all these papers from the State Department. Nothing corresponds with what I have.
So I wanted to know and see this letter that Senator Tower claims he has. It could have been that it was an error in newspaper reporting, and I will say in slang he could have shot his mouth off, because he said he would not help the boy when the boy wrote him the letter.
A letter received by Texas Senator John Tower, from Lee Oswald, from Russia, in Dec 1961. At the time Lee was trying to get himself, and his wife out of the USSR. Tower forwarded the letter to The State Dept., they said, do nothing. The questions Marguerite brings up, pertains to whether Lee had actually renounced his US citizenship prior. She has documents from the State Dept. that show, what has been reported and documented is otherwise conflicting. They wont look at it.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Letter to a Senator
Representative FORD. Mr. Chairman, I saw the letter that Lee Harvey Oswald wrote to Senator Tower the day after the assassination.
And I believe I also saw the response that he received from one of the agencies of the Federal Government.
Senator Tower had the original of the letter. If it is not in our Commission files, I am sure it is available for the Commission files-- along with whatever exchange of correspondence he had with the Department of State concerning the matter. Mrs. OSWALD. Well, now, what is of utmost interest to me in this particular case is if there is such a letter,
and it does not correspond with anything that I have, I would like to know who in the State Department wrote this particular letter. Representative FORD. I would not know who in the State Department wrote the letter.
I would suspect it was the Assistant Secretary for Congressional Affairs, Fred Dutton, I believe. Mrs. OSWALD. I am not suspecting, because I have many, many letters from the State Department,
and I also have something else that I will present that maybe would be another party involved. There is very conflicting testimony. You must realize that I went to Washington in 1961 and was in conference with three officials. And this was another Administration. Now, I don't know much about politics, gentlemen. But I do know a little from the news. Lee's defection was in one Administration--right? And now this is of another Administration, the Kennedy Administration.
And there could be a leak in the State Department. That is not impossible. So I have two instances that I, myself, am not satisfied. Mr. RANKIN. A leak is so much different from a conspiracy to assassinate the President, though. Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, but this leak--this could be the party involved in the assassination of the President-- the high officials I am speaking of, I cannot pin it down to one sentence, gentlemen. Mr. RANKIN. Well, you named the Secret Service men, two of them. Mrs. OSWALD. That is right Right there. He stultifies it. It is obvious the proper thing to do, would be to examine the documents. She already made it clear it was not what she meant.
Rankin brings it up again, and continues with that line of questioning.
Mr. RANKIN. Now, do you have anything that shows you that either of those men were involved in the conspiracy to assassinate President Kennedy?
Mrs. OSWALD. I will answer that emphatically no. What I have stated is the way they treated me, sir. I elaborated the way these two men treated me--correct? I did that testimony yesterday. So I have to consider these two men. I will put it that way.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Capasse on Feb 17, 2020 11:37:52 GMT -5
You No Have JobFeb 11, 1964 | Afternoon SessionMr. RANKIN. Let's consider Marina Oswald. Do you have anything that will show that she was involved in any conspiracy to assassinate President Kennedy? Mrs. OSWALD. I feel like Marina is involved and also Mrs. Paine, yes. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ WC TestimonyMrs. OSWALD. The story yesterday at the Six Flags, when I said to you Marina shrugged me off, and the second time she shrugged me off. The second time she said-and I would not say it now unless I had told Mr. Jack Lengett (reporter friend)-she said, "You no have job." In other words, since Marina was being offered a home, then you go to--"You don't have job." Before she was satisfied to take $863 and live with me. I was giving her my money and giving her my love. And then, "You no have job." Lee could not give her the things she wanted, what he told her about America. And Marina now has become discontented with me. I don't mean now--I mean at the Six Flags. Mama always had a big heart. I quit a job to help these children, and that is perfectly all right. That is my nature. But then, when she has somebody else, you are pushed aside. I am trying to show this. And, as I go along--I cannot help but face this, gentlemen, it is a fact. I cannot help but face these things. So I am under the impression-and this is speculation, like anything else circumstantial evidence, let's say. I am just a layman. She can't say it enough. Things were set, what happened? Marina was ready to stay a family, someone got between that.
Once again she brings up the ruse of Marina not speaking English. She thinks back on these, remember the secret Russian talk on the phone with Mrs. Paine. Or Mrs. had promised her an attorney from ACLU for her son, but then neglected to help. When Robert testified, he loudly voiced his suspicions of Paine(s). Both were ignored.
Examples she echoed from the day before, fall upon deaf ears. She repeats a few times, the change on Marina's disposition. Now, the sudden requirement of an established job, and Marina won't look at her.
She is the only one, with such a conviction of his innocence at this early stage. A mother knows her son better than anyone, and she believes he got in trouble. Over his head. She has every reason to be suspicious of both the Paines.
Then at Six Flags, immigration steps in on Marina with deportation threats, and losing her children. Marguerite had no job at the time, but has always been able to work hard to support herself and others. Here, it was decided out from under her, and Robert knew.+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Mostly CircumstantialMrs. OSWALD...That is what you have against my son. Nobody saw him with a rifle shoot the President. So you have mostly circumstantial evidence. I have to think of all these things, who might be involved in this. The Secret Service men, surely you will admit, did not guard our President properly. Now, that was also stated in the newspaper by, I think it is, Secret Service Judge Baughman-- am I saying that right? He is the one that--how Lee got out of the building, and why the President--there are many, many people that wonder. So I, too, am wondering. So I say that President Kennedy was improperly guarded. And I am not the only one that says that, sir. So I have to consider that. I have to consider the way I, myself, was treated at Six Flags for the three days. When I came here today--I have these notes, something very important about that particular incident at Six Flags, to back up my story with a witness. You don't have to take my word for it.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Capasse on Feb 17, 2020 11:38:21 GMT -5
This Particular HouseFeb 11, 1964 | Afternoon SessionThere is no absolute proof of a conspiracy she can provide, and Rankin knew it. Although she was right, re: the Secret Service did not guard the president properly. Once again, she brings the direct and valid point to ask the Paines. When did Michael or Ruth know there was a rifle in their garage? Marina knew. This was brushed aside as a mistaken package of camping equipment being stepped over or moved. Check Mrs. Paine's calendar.Marguerite admits, Lee may be involved somehow, but doesn't believe it. Instead, she sees evidence of framing, from the inner circle of his so called friends. She can't put her finger on it, exactly, and yet only from that house, comes so much. And here again is Rankin, "what is your evidence?" - "where is your proof?"..+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ In this GarageMr. RANKIN. What else is there now in regard to Marina that caused you to think she conspired to kill President Kennedy? Mrs. OSWALD. Yes--because everything is laid out in Mrs. Paine's home and Marina's home. The gun was in the garage. Mr. RANKIN. Well, that doesn't make Marina do it, does it? Mrs. OSWALD. No, but Marina told the police that the gun was there the night before. She saw the gun in the garage the night before. She didn't see Lee take it that morning. But she made a statement that she saw the gun the night before. The pictures of Lee with the rifle came from that home. If Lee is going to assassinate the President or anybody else, is he going to have photographs laying all around with the gun? No, sir. There is no document from Marina that says she knew there was a gun the day before. Marina swore she had seen the stock of a rifle, about 2 weeks before. The pictures of Lee with the gun did not come from that house, that was Neely St, Dallas.
Yet, there is too much other evidence from this house. She is very clear, the people around him must know more than they are saying.++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ WC TestimonyAnd there is too much evidence pointing to the assassination and my son being the guilty one in this particular house. All through the testimony, sir, everything has come from this particular house. And so I am a thinking person, I have to think. Mr. RANKIN. Why does that show that Marina had anything to do with the conspiracy?. Mrs. OSWALD. Well, we are speculating, let's say. Marina is not happy. Lee can't give her any money and things. And she has made friends with these Russian folks that have cars and homes. . And they are not happy because this Russian girl doesn't have anything. They are not happy about that. And I am trying to show the disposition of the girl. I love my daughter-in-law even now. Believe me, it is a sore spot to have to say this. But I have to face these facts of what I know.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Capasse on Feb 17, 2020 11:38:42 GMT -5
Consider ThisFeb 11, 1964 | Afternoon SessionBy Feb 11, 1964, the members had been struggling for about 3 weeks with the issue of Lee being a government agent. It was a serious matter for them, with many diversions. Now, here they are, right in the middle of it. Check the dynamics of what happened here. They have the woman on the stand. They can ask her any question they want based on documents and information they already know. The Feldman article referred to Western Union payments, and Agent Hosty. [dare not mention his name]They lead every other witness in the direction needed by the questions they asked. That was consistent, except here. When Marguerite brings up, she had already suspected Lee was an agent, they take no direction in questioning based on whatever they have, or what they already know, or what they need to know. None.Instead they challenge her, calling it a serious charge, forcing that, the only answer to be considered, will need to be rock solid. Knowing that she cannot produce this, they taddle her along like a child. Let the clock run out. When she is done, she will be done. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ WC TestimonyMr. RANKIN. What else do you have that shows that she had any part in the conspiracy to assassinate the President? Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. I am under the impression that probably she I think Lee is an agent. I have always thought that, and I have as much circumstantial evidence that Lee is an agent, that the Dallas police has that he is a murderer, sir. Mr. RANKIN. What do you base that on? Mrs. OSWALD. Well, I am going to tell my story. I have it all there. That is what I base it on. Mr. RANKIN. Can you tell us in summary? Mrs. OSWALD. No, sir, I don't think I want to tell it to you that way, because I cannot, almost. Mr. RANKIN. That is a very serious charge, that he was an agent, too. Mrs. OSWALD. Well, fine. So all right. If I feel that way, sir, don't I have the right, the American way, to speak up and to tell you what I feel? Isn't that my privilege? Mr. RANKIN. Yes. But can't you tell us what you base it on? Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, sir, I will, as I go along, sir. Mr. RANKIN. Is that the only way you can tell it? Mrs. OSWALD. I don't see how I can say to you I know he is an agent, and I have papers. I want to tell the whole story. I still have more papers. I have documents that I know you do not have, sir.
|
|
|
Post by Tom Sorensen on Feb 17, 2020 17:19:21 GMT -5
Marguerite OswaldFeb. 11, 1964 | Afternoon SessionMrs. OSWALD. No, no---- Mr. RANKIN. And your daughter-in-law.the intent becomes nasty as she makes it clear, that is not what she meant at allWe don't know the tone or the pace at which these questions were asked. As this authority went thru this process with her, they gave no weight or credence to what she said. The WC had no intention of contacting The State Dept. for any cross reference to this matter. They refused to look at her file that raised the question. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ WC TestimonyMrs. OSWALD. That is not my statement. I said I thought that we have a plot in our own government, and that there is a high official involved. And I am thinking that probably these Secret Service men are part of it. Now, I didn't say in a conspiracy--make it as strong as you did. I have made it strong.
But I am under the impression that possibly there is a leak in our own government. And when I come to these papers-and I specifically yesterday morning asked about Senator Tower. Now, I am not throwing any reflection on Senator Tower. But he made the statement in the paper that he had a letter from the State Department saying that Lee had renounced his citizenship.
Now, you see, I don't have that paper with me. I had it yesterday morning. But his whole quotes-- the dates and everything of the letter that he was supposed to have had is not in correspondence with the dates that I have from the State Department papers which you gentlemen know that I have all these papers from the State Department. Nothing corresponds with what I have.
So I wanted to know and see this letter that Senator Tower claims he has. It could have been that it was an error in newspaper reporting, and I will say in slang he could have shot his mouth off, because he said he would not help the boy when the boy wrote him the letter.
A letter received by Texas Senator John Tower, from Lee Oswald, from Russia, in Dec 1961. At the time Lee was trying to get himself, and his wife out of the USSR. Tower forwarded the letter to The State Dept., they said, do nothing. The questions Marguerite brings up, pertains to whether Lee had actually renounced his US citizenship prior. She has documents from the State Dept. that show, what has been reported and documented is otherwise conflicting. They wont look at it.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Letter to a Senator
Representative FORD. Mr. Chairman, I saw the letter that Lee Harvey Oswald wrote to Senator Tower the day after the assassination.
And I believe I also saw the response that he received from one of the agencies of the Federal Government.
Senator Tower had the original of the letter. If it is not in our Commission files, I am sure it is available for the Commission files-- along with whatever exchange of correspondence he had with the Department of State concerning the matter. Mrs. OSWALD. Well, now, what is of utmost interest to me in this particular case is if there is such a letter,
and it does not correspond with anything that I have, I would like to know who in the State Department wrote this particular letter. Representative FORD. I would not know who in the State Department wrote the letter.
I would suspect it was the Assistant Secretary for Congressional Affairs, Fred Dutton, I believe. Mrs. OSWALD. I am not suspecting, because I have many, many letters from the State Department,
and I also have something else that I will present that maybe would be another party involved. There is very conflicting testimony. You must realize that I went to Washington in 1961 and was in conference with three officials. And this was another Administration. Now, I don't know much about politics, gentlemen. But I do know a little from the news. Lee's defection was in one Administration--right? And now this is of another Administration, the Kennedy Administration.
And there could be a leak in the State Department. That is not impossible. So I have two instances that I, myself, am not satisfied. Mr. RANKIN. A leak is so much different from a conspiracy to assassinate the President, though. Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, but this leak--this could be the party involved in the assassination of the President-- the high officials I am speaking of, I cannot pin it down to one sentence, gentlemen. Mr. RANKIN. Well, you named the Secret Service men, two of them. Mrs. OSWALD. That is right Right there. He stultifies it. It is obvious the proper thing to do, would be to examine the documents. She already made it clear it was not what she meant.
Rankin brings it up again, and continues with that line of questioning.
Mr. RANKIN. Now, do you have anything that shows you that either of those men were involved in the conspiracy to assassinate President Kennedy?
Mrs. OSWALD. I will answer that emphatically no. What I have stated is the way they treated me, sir. I elaborated the way these two men treated me--correct? I did that testimony yesterday. So I have to consider these two men. I will put it that way. Most interesting walk-through of Marguerite's testimony...I never had the patience to look closely at her statements as she is very hard to follow.
From the quoted part above it becomes obvious that the Commission deliberately failed to enter into evidence the discrepancies (State Department) she offered in print and deliberately failed to run down the leads she provided.
That's a 100% cover-up.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Capasse on Feb 20, 2020 12:11:06 GMT -5
Mistaken McVickarI'm going to take a side step here to demonstrate something. I don't want to go off track, or get too involved with this. It is something very simple on the surface.
It has to do with dates the State Dept has, vs. the dates Marguerite has from them. As Tom indicated there was no admittance in the record of her files, or even what her discrepancies were. She complained each day, there are dates, on his defection, that do not match the State Dept files. When she initially voiced this on her first day, the Chief Justice replied, "I think you will have to leave that to the wisdom of the Commission and its sense of fair play, and what is necessary, all facts considered.""...what is necessary, all facts considered." There are two witnesses, Richard Snyder and John McVickar They worked at the US Embassy in Moscow, State Dept. Consulates. Snyder was the senior, he handled citizenship, McVickar handled visas. They sat in the same room, desk to desk and could hear each others cases. This has to do specifically with the date Marina came in for her exit visa application. I don't know when these guys were called, though it was sometime after April '64 McVickar is first, It goes a bit long here, to demonstrate he was sure of the procedures, and how he continued to doubt and question what he was told. William Coleman is the commission attorney questioning, ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ John McVickar | WC TestimonyForeign Service officer, stationed in the Embassy in the Soviet Union, 1959-61.Mr. COLEMAN. After November 17, 1959, you had no more contact with Oswald until some time in July 1961, is that correct? Mr. McVICKAR. Yes; that is right, and I believe that I didn't have any contact with him in July of 1961. I believe I only had contact with his wife. Mr. COLEMAN. When did his wife come in, in July of 1961? Mr. McVICKAR. Well, as I recall, and as I say, my memory here was completely refreshed by the record, and I see that I have some notes in the file that are undated, but that they were used evidently to write a communication to the Department of State which was dated on August 28, 1961, and so I am confident that this interview must have taken place in say the week before that. I departed from the Soviet Union about the 1st of September, and things were pretty busy, and I can't remember very much more about it than I can see here in the record. I do not really remember this interview, and I can only speak about it on the basis of the record. Mr. COLEMAN. Isn't it possible that you saw her on July 11, 1961? Mr. McVICKAR. No; because I think what happened, and I think this is reflected in the record. I think what happened was that Oswald himself came into Moscow and was interviewed by Mr. Snyder on July 10, and that he did not have his wife with him, and that he said that he was going to try to get his wife to come to Moscow in the next few days, so that she could be interviewed in connection with the visa, but that in fact she did not appear until several weeks later, some time in August. Mr. COLEMAN. Are you certain about this, sir? Mr. McVICKAR. This is the best of my recollection, and I am pretty sure that I read something in the record yesterday that indicates that she was not in Moscow at the time he was interviewed by Mr. Snyder in July of 1961. Mr. COLEMAN. Wasn't it possible that Mr. Snyder talked to Mr. Oswald on July 8, which was a Saturday, and that Mrs. Oswald appeared at the Embassy with Oswald on July the 10th, or on July 11th, 2 or 3 days later? Mr. McVICKAR. I won't say that it is not possible, and as I say, I don't remember this. But I very much doubt that I would have interviewed somebody in the middle of July and have not written to the State Department about it until the end of August, and I say that honestly. That was not the way we operated. Mr. COLEMAN. When you had this interview wouldn't she then have to fill out or you would have to fill out a form or some type of petition to get her classified as an alien eligible for an immigration visa? Mr. McVICKAR. This was not the procedure. There is a form of application for a visa, the number of which I forget. But that, under the procedure was filled out by the applicant at a later date. This initial interview was to obtain in effect the approval of the Department of State from the security point of view for the issuance of the visa, and the interview was in connection with preparing a report covering the points that are of concern to the Department in that connection, and this report was prepared by me, sent in on August 28, 1961. Mr. COLEMAN. Sir, I have marked as Commission Exhibit No. 959 a copy of a petition to classify status of alien for issuance of immigrant visa, and it shows it was signed by Lee Harvey Oswald, and that the beneficiary was Marina N. Oswald, and that it was sworn to and subscribed before you on July 11, 1961. I ask you, have you seen that before? Mr. McVICKAR. Well, this is something that I did not recall. But I see that. it was also an enclosure to my document which I sent in on August 28, 1961. Undoubtedly I must then have taken Mr. Oswald's oath on this document on the date specified. This would not have required the presence of his wife, but I am sure then on the basis of what I see here that this must have occurred, but I did not remember it. Mr. COLEMAN. Since you have that document before you, could you then say that there is a possibility that Commission Exhibit No. 945 was written on July 10 or July 11, 1961, rather than in August as you earlier testified? Mr. McVICKAR. I would say there is a possibility, but again I doubt it because for one thing I do recall this item in the record which said that she was not present when he came in to the Embassy in July, and I am confident that there would have been no reason to hold up the type of report made here unless it was that she wasn't available for an interview. But as I say, I couldn't say for sure, but I don't remember, I don't think of any reason that would have caused a delay of this kind unless it had been that she didn't come in. I think it is too bad that I didn't date this note, but I guess I didn't. Mr. COLEMAN. Can we infer from Commission Exhibit No. 959 that you must have seen Mr. Oswald on July 11, 1961? Mr. McVICKAR. Yes; I think this would be a safe assumption, but I don't remember anything about it, and it could have been a very routine thing you see, because the way the work was arranged was that Consul Snyder as the officer in charge handled our matters relating to citizenship, and I handled matters relating to visas, and this was a visa matter and he could very well have asked that I take Mr. Oswald's oath on this petition in behalf of his wife, and it might have a very pro forma thing. But I honestly don't remember this incident; but this sort of thing is never done unless the person is present, unless both signing parties are present. So it would seem to me that this man must have appeared to me and signed this thing and said that it was his legal act, and then I certified to that. Mr. COLEMAN. There is a possibility she was present? Mr. McVICKAR. Well, I think it is possible; but I rather doubt it frankly, and I doubt it on the basis of what I have said before, that I think I recall seeing in the record that she was not present, and that I don't see why this whole procedure wouldn't have gone through much more quickly if she had been, that is all. Mr. COLEMAN. You keep on referring to the fact that you recall seeing this In the record. Could you tell me where you saw it, please? Mr. McVICKAR. Well, I can try to find it. I think the best thing would be if I looked at the Moscow official file. Is that right here? Okay; well, maybe I can find it. Is that all right if I take a minute to look through these papers? Mr. COLEMAN. Yes. (Discussion off the record.) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
|
|