Marina Oswald FBI 10/29 interview

This is from Marina Oswald's WC testimony:


Mr. RANKIN. We have reports of FBI interviews the last part of October, that is October 29, and also November 1, and November 5. We would like to ask you about them, since some of them may have been with Mrs. Paine in your presence or with you.
Do you recall one on October 29th?
Mrs. OSWALD. I don't remember the interview. Ruth interpreted--she talked to them.


Does anyone know anything about this 10/29 interview? I know about Hosty's visits on Nov. 1 and 5, but I don't remember this 10/29 interview.

Steve Thomas

Here you go Steve
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pdf/WH17_CE_830.pdf

Greg,

Thanks.

Steve, there is a related thread on the Ed Forum at the moment where a doc has been posted placing the visit on Oct 27.

Since I can't join that discussion to bring the doc showing the Oct 29 date, would you jump in and post it for them? Would be interesting to see how or if it changes the narrative they are developing. 
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/23278-the-handwritten-letter-compared-with-the-typed-one-et-cetera/&page=8#comment-339518

According to this document, the Oc 29 pretext interviews were done because of the alleged trip to MC.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11177&relPageId=17&search=%22october_29%22%20and%20mexico%20and%20hosty%20and%20paine%20and%20marina

greg parker wrote:According to this document, the Oc 29 pretext interviews were done because of the alleged trip to MC.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11177&relPageId=17&search=%22october_29%22%20and%20mexico%20and%20hosty%20and%20paine%20and%20marina

Greg,

Thank you. I posted a reply in the Ed Forum as you asked.

I went back and looked at CE 829 and 830 (Hosty's reports) and his WC testimony.
He said he did a pretext interview of Ruth Paine's neighbors because her Irving name was not in the Dallas City criss-cross directory.

Somehow I just can't believe that after finding out Oswald had been to Mexico City and being so eager to locate him as a result, that Hosty would fail to ask Ruth Paine if she had a telephone number where he could be reached. In his WC testimony, he said he didn't ask, and Ruth didn't offer.

That just strains belief.

Steve Thomas

Steve Thomas wrote:

greg parker wrote:According to this document, the Oc 29 pretext interviews were done because of the alleged trip to MC.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11177&relPageId=17&search=%22october_29%22%20and%20mexico%20and%20hosty%20and%20paine%20and%20marina

Greg,

Thank you. I posted a reply in the Ed Forum as you asked.

I went back and looked at CE 829 and 830 (Hosty's reports) and his WC testimony.
He said he did a pretext interview of Ruth Paine's neighbors because her Irving name was not in the Dallas City criss-cross directory.

Somehow I just can't believe that after finding out Oswald had been to Mexico City and being so eager to locate him as a result, that Hosty would fail to ask Ruth Paine if she had a telephone number where he could be reached. In his WC testimony, he said he didn't ask, and Ruth didn't offer.

That just strains belief.

Steve Thomas

In my opinion it's all part of  much larger false narrative, Steve - an attempt to cobble together completely false stories in some cases, with innocent explanations for part true stories in other cases. 

This is key to translating Paines non-responsiveness in her testimony where she makes non-denial denials:

Further, you're being asked to tell the "whole truth". Quakers who take not lying very seriously have traditionally still occasionally used not telling the whole truth as a way around that strictness. There are stories about people giving intentionally misleading but not technically false responses to questions like "why would you think that?" and non quakers warning each other to force a quaker into giving a straight answer and not to be misdirected by apparent denials that aren't actually making any claim. So even if you do believe that you should be always telling the truth and nothing but the truth, I'm not sure about the whole truth. 

A classic example is when she is asked by the FBI about a particular phone call (as to whether it was her or not). Her response was not a simple "yes" or "no". Her response was something like "that's a trunk call, so if I made it, I would remember it."

But she did tell outright lies as well. Her divorce papers prove it, unless Michael really was a Jekyll and Hyde character. But now we also have exhibit 2 - the secretary desk movements.