Oswald's marriage: true love or a mission for KGB or CIA?

First topic message reminder :

GRIBBLE & KIRSCH
On April 28, 1961, two American exchange students from Moscow University walked into the US Embassy and announced their intention to marry Soviet women.

The names of the students were Charles Gribble and Leonard Kirsch.

Officials at the Embassy tried, unsuccessfully, to talk them out of this course of action, and immediately notified the State Department of the situation via telegram. State in turn contacted Professor Robert Byrnes, head of the Inter-University [Student Exchange] Selection Committee.[1] Byrnes, a "former CIA officer", was known for his strict moralistic views and obsession with security. No-one with a leftist or promiscuous background need apply.[2] Leonard Kirsch had been "guilty" on both counts. A working class rake from Pittsburgh, Leonard, as well as his father, were the subject of files pertaining to labor union involvement. His application, initially rejected by Byrne's committee, was eventually accepted, but only after the vocal intervention of his Harvard professors.[3]

States reply to the Embassy included Byrnes' assessment that he could not "overemphasize concern and desire for Gribble and Kirsch reconsider matter in terms their whole future life and happiness. Committee strongly hopes students would seriously reconsider, particularly in view (a) difficulty and possible inability for wives obtain exit permits (what would students do if wives cannot leave?) (b) fact emotions may mislead one in strained emotional and physical environment such as experienced by exchange students in U.S.S.R. (Is this time and place to make such important life-long decision?) (c) possible motivations of girls other than or in addition to normal feelings of love including possible desire find means of leaving U.S.S.R. or possible police control of girls (d) possibility for police pressures and dangers to families of girls who remain in U.S.S.R. and through them on girls and ultimately on their husbands." State agreed, and recommended that the Embassy should continue "serious efforts" to discourage the marriages.[4] On May 4, Ambassador Thompson spoke personally with Gribble and Kirsch.

Gribble agreed to postponing his wedding for at least a year. Kirsch however, would not have his plans put off.[5]

THE KIRSCH WEDDING
Leonard Kirsch married a sensitive young woman named Elena Anisimova Knyazkina.[6] She was a specialist in Portuguese literature whose father had fought with the White army against the Bolsheviks.[7] The ceremony was held in the ornate Palace of Marriages the same day that permission was granted and the marriage license issued; May 17.

Marriages in the Palace were held at an assembly line pace; about a half hour allotted to one after another, inclusive of a reception.[8] This particular reception, notwithstanding the country of origin of the groom, was unremarkable, except for one thing: the presence of someone dressed in a stylish suit, cut too well to be of Soviet origin. Moreover, he was not recognizable to the Best Man; fellow exchange student, Loren Graham or his wife, Pat.

Curious as to his identity, the Grahams walked over and struck up a conversation with him. During the course of the conversation, they learned he was an official from the US Embassy; that the embassy "wanted to know about all marriages between US and Soviet citizens, since frequently they led to diplomatic negotiations about place of residence", adding that "this was the second marriage between an American man and a Soviet woman he'd attended". He named this other American as Oswald, and that the wedding had taken place in Minsk. The Grahams would recall the Oswald name after the assassination of JFK, but apart from that, placed no meaning on the conversation with the official. Not drawn by the controversies stirred up over the years regarding the 35th President's untimely demise,  the possible significance of what they had been told remained far from their minds; far from apparent.

That situation would change, if only to a degree, in 1982.[9]

PRISCILLA JOHNSON McMILLAN                 
It was after chairing a seminar at Harvard in the spring of '82 that Loren Graham found himself beside Priscilla Johnson McMillan. Knowing she was the biographer of Marina Oswald, and trying to make what he thought was just small talk, he recounted the story of meeting an Embassy official at a Moscow wedding reception, and how the official had told them of his attendance at the Oswald wedding. Though McMillan's strong response could have been accurately forecast by anyone who has studied this case, to Graham, her questioning his memory of it was entirely unexpected. He nevertheless assured her he was certain of what he'd been told, and the circumstances in which the conversation had taken place. McMillan replied that she hoped the "believers in conspiracy never get hold of this", explaining that there had been speculation about Oswald meeting with American officials while in the USSR, but that the Warren Commission, based on what it had learned from government personnel, had concluded nothing of the sort had taken place. For good measure, she added that Marina had said nothing of any Embassy official being at her wedding.[10]  

THE OSWALD WEDDING
Lee and Marina were married in Minsk on April 30, 1961. The records show that the embassy did not know of this until receiving a letter from Oswald on May 25.[11] If Oswald was only considered to be a confused young man who had tried to defect, then knowledge of a pending marriage should have elicited the same response made in the cases of Gribble and Kirsch; a concerted effort to disuade him. In fact, his case would have been seen as an even more urgent one, given that (a) his citizenship status was complicated (according to the embassy, at any rate) and (b) he had already commenced steps toward returning to the US. What would not happen is the charade of only finding out about the marriage almost a month later, in what was merely an aside in a letter from Oswald about being repatriated. If the US Embassy knew of the wedding all along, and covered up this knowledge, it points to the marriage being made not in Heaven, but in the corridors and ante-rooms of at least one, if not both superpowers.

POSTSCRIPT
Professor Loren Graham was contracted prior to the writing of this article, but was unable to recall any details above and beyond what is contained in his book. Leonard Kirsch returned to live in the US after his wife was issued an exit visa in 1962. He died suddenly of a heart attack in 1977, age 42.

Attempts are now being made to find out if a guest registry was made at the Oswald wedding, and if so, where a copy might be found.

ENDNOTES
[1] Department of State, Central Files, 511.613/5-261. Confidential; Priority. Drafted by Martens (EUR/SES) and approved by SOV, OEE and Siscoe (EUR/SES).

[2] Moscow Stories by Loren R Graham, p218.

[3] Id. p 217.

[4] Department of State, Central Files, 511.613/5-261. Confidential; Priority. Drafted by Martens (EUR/SES) and approved by SOV, OEE and Siscoe (EUR/SES).

[5] Ibid

[6] Warren Commission Exhibit 2756.

[7] Moscow Stories by Loren R Graham, p 47.

[8] Id. P 49.

[9] Id. 50 - 51. The Best Man in Soviet ceremonies was actually known as the First Witness. The mention of concern over marriages and possible disputes over country of residency adds credence to Graham's account - for this was one of the main issues Nixon placed on the table in his meetings with Kruschev in '59.

[10] Ibid. That evening, Graham asked his wife what she recalled of the conversation. Her memory matched his. Asked if it might be possible that the official had only said he'd heard of the Oswald wedding, Pat Graham conceded it was barely possible, but that she really had no doubt he said he'd attended. In fact, since the embassy claimed not to have known about the Oswald wedding until 8 days after the Grahams met this official, the only other way they could have known prior to that would be through contact agents in the Soviet bureaucracy - which seems unlikely - and at the very least - still amounts to a cover-up for reasons unknown.

[11] Warren Commission Exhibit 252.

rogerhucek wrote:Thanks for that explanation of your comments, Greg. The narrative element of this whole thing sometimes seems to get lost. The question of who these people actually were seems crucial in making sense of what happened.

I remember reading that Ruth & Michael Paine had info on right-wing groups as well in those file cabinets somewhere. I think that's important in understanding what they were up to-- as anti-communist, intelligence-connected, well-to-do, liberal normies.

 
You git it, Roger.

greg parker wrote:

rogerhucek wrote:Thanks for that explanation of your comments, Greg. The narrative element of this whole thing sometimes seems to get lost. The question of who these people actually were seems crucial in making sense of what happened.

I remember reading that Ruth & Michael Paine had info on right-wing groups as well in those file cabinets somewhere. I think that's important in understanding what they were up to-- as anti-communist, intelligence-connected, well-to-do, liberal normies.

 
You git it, Roger.

To me, overall context is important.
 
You have the Oswalds, Russia, etc., etc. You have this dodgy woman Ruth Paine who is interested in/speaks Russian intimately involved, entangled in everything.
 
Was Russian a common language to learn? No. Not even today. Russian was a language only people in the intelligence community would be interested in. Was Ruth Paine part of intelligence? Until proven otherwise, I say yes.
 
And so on and so on and so on.
 
All of this matters not a whit unless and until some goddamned authority actually does their fucking job and conducts a competent and thorough investigation. A no-holds barred investigation where everything is on the table and nothing is off-limits. You don't have to be some tinfoil hat wearing weed-smoking dipshit to ask legitimate, probing questions.
 
I know, I know, preaching to the choir here.
 
But I hope to see resolution to this in my lifetime. If it does happen, ROKC will play a part in it all.

You said it Stan. If anything's gonna happen either ROKC will make it happen or it will be in the very front of the front line when it does.
Most folks in this so called JFK research community seem happy enough discussing the current fashion trends in tin foil. What's the well dressed paranoid fantasist wearing around town this season.
The Lemkin Collection produced by his famous couture house in Prague.
Summer/ Autumn 2019..A natty tin foil bowler hat with detachable antennae t give it that retro Roswell spaceman look.
Or the tin foil deerstalker( available in fetching faeces brown or gerbil pink). What all the best dressed A list posters detectives and smart forensic linguists are wearing down Sanibel way.
Or else they're busy checking under their fucking beds for CIA ninja cat assassins or alternatively( and this might come as a bit of a shock) they're happy enough regurgitating the same old long debunked bullshit.
Whats the fucking point arguing with DVP about the SBT?
What got you nowhere yesterday ain't suddenly gonna get you somewhere today.
Unless your Vary Juddufki and you have time sensitive genitals..
You can go anywhere and be anyone in history all you need is t twist upon the magic Trine Day copyrighted interstellar gusset.
One day you're with Lee in New Orleans in the summer of 63..
Next your frolicking with Henry VIII thru the Hampton Court Maze..it wasn't fucking Anne Boleyn he divorced Catherine of Aragon for it was Judy Ann Vary.
Those mindless CIA dupes know fuck all about Tudor England.

alex wilson wrote:You make a cogent and compelling case Greg.
The Odio Incident is still something I'm on the picket fence about. Its so rich with nuance and suggestion. A crazy gringo marine with a grudge against JFK.. Plus it's one of the holy cows of conspiracism.
But then again maybe that's where everyone has been going wrong; bowing down t graven images just because they appeared to be holy. To me its the height of folly not t mention hypocrisy just t cling t a fact simply because it hints at conspiracy. I still believe someone was trying t set Lee up but i am by no means certain. I'm trying my best t follow the evidence t where IT leads. Not where I'd like it t lead

The Odio incident stripped back to the component parts.

Sylvia had what was known then as Grand Hysteria. According to Gaeton Fonzi, this caused her to lose consciousness when reality got too painful.  But that really isn't an accurate description at all. Moreover, the "diagnosis" was made by Lucille Connell. 

In fact, the American Psychiatric Association stopped using the term "hysteria" in 1952 and was dropped from the official Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders in 1980. But as far back as the second century, Galen described the condition as affecting "widows, and particularly those who previously menstruated regularly, had been pregnant and were eager to have intercourse, but were now deprived of all this"  Sylvia was not a widow - but she was separated and this is probably an overall accurate description of Sylvia and thus the "diagnosis".  There was certainly sexual tension between her and Father Machan - with Connell competing also for his attention. The closest you could describe someone like Sylvia now is "overly-emotional" or a "drama queen". 

Sylvia by her own admission, had her whole life  controlled by Connell during this time, so it is important to understand exactly who Lucille Connell was. She was a member of the Mental Health Association, had strong interests in psychology, mind control and brainwashing. Additionally, she was a Bircher, a Rosicrucian and worked for the Catholic Cuban Relief even though not a Catholic.  

And it was Connell who tipped off the FBI about Odio.

One of the initial suspects as one of the Cubans was Osvaldo Aurelio Pino Pino who was a member of the Right Wing Alpha 66 who were opposed to the Left Wing JURE who they claimed to represent and who Sylvia and her family were involved with.  Sylvia in fact testified that  "all the Cubans knew that I was involved in JURE, but it did not have a lot of sympathy in Dallas and I was criticized because of that."

They were not from JURE at all, but according to Sylvia they did have a lot details. She stated,  "He gave me so many details about where they saw my father and what activities he was in. I mean, they gave me almost incredible details about things that somebody who knows him really would or that somebody informed well knows." This kind of detail could only have come from an intelligence source. 

Sylvia also said in testimony that the one called "Leopaldo" was tall. Osvaldo was over 6'. 

The American was called "Leon" and had the beginnings of a beard and mustache. 

We have a Leon living at the N. Beckley boarding house who eventually became a cop and whose statement to the FBI was entirely contradicted by James Watson, his alleged room-mate. Leon had been in the Navy and had done some acting - including playing the man who designed and taught the Marines unarmed combat manual. 

Sylvia had told Machan that the name "Oswald" was never mentioned. And although she testified he was introduced as "Leon Oswald", she repeatedly said after that that the name Oswald was not mentioned. 

She was also unable to identify Oswald in photos as being the Leon she met.

One more thing from her testimony. She said she worked in Irving. If she worked in Irving, you can bet Connell spent time in Irving. In fact, it would have been the Catholic Cuban Mission that lined the job up for her.

My conclusions 
I think Leon Lee, Lucille Connell and the Paines were working on Cuban operations - one of which was aimed at bringing JURE down and that this was the real reason for the visit to Sylvia.

After the assassination, Connell has used her control over Sylvia to convince her that the visitor was Lee Oswald - when in fact, she was recalling two different first names - Leon and Osvaldo.  The threats to JFK and Castro were made not to implicate Oswald in the assassination, but to implicate JURE as a threat. But Connell would now turn the facts to implicate Oswald as the JURE triggerman in the assassination. 

We do know that there was a passing similarity between Oswald and H LEON Lee.

alex wilson wrote:Also I wasn't suggesting for a moment Marina was involved with the assassination. She was merely a passenger. Flotsam helplessly carried on the rising tide, blown by a restless wind  towards an immortality of sorts .But i definitely think she knew enough t know the Warren Commission was a travesty.
She would know enough about the Show trials- about Vyshinsky and Ulrikh, about Zinoviev and Kamenev admitting t preposterous crimes- t know she was witnessing political theatre of the highest and the lowest order. The cynic and the survivor eclipsed the grieving widow. And the good man who no shoot anyone quickly became the violent wife beating malcontent. Why should she destroy her life defending a dead man?
Plus she had two daughters. Would she want them t go back t what she had escaped from? No, she played along. Learned her lines then attempted t vanish into comfortable obscurity.
Parasites like Lifton make me sick. Circling her like a slimy under sexed octopus, trying t weave her into his morbid fantasies. Compare Eds quietly respectful demeanour t Liftons grotesque bombast.
Lifton is the Dean Koontz of JFK research. Regardless of their intentions( and with several notable exceptions) the post Oliver Stone generation of "researchers" did more harm than good. They turned this case into a lurid tabloid side show. Without ROKC Prayerman would have ended up on the dungheap of their fetid overheated imaginations; along side Wyatt Greer- the fastest gun in the West, the toupee wearing Jack Ruby lookalike, Loveladyfied Lee and good ole Harvey..the Hungarian doppelganger with a song in his heart and a fake mastoidectomy scar on his neck..maybe one of Vary Juddufkis undead relations got their teeth into him before she did..
I digress again Marina was a victim. Another one of the countless millions of faceless( and not so faceless) victims sacrificed before the altar of  the Janus headed monster/ demi god  that was the Cold War.
She did what she had t to survive. She knew too well the power of a hostile state.
Perhaps as she sat before Warren Dulles et all she heard the ghost of Stalin whispering in her ear;" Do you know how much the USSR weighs?" hed once asked an ashen faced interrogator who hadn't managed t beat a confession out of a particularly recalcitrant prisoner.
I think Marina knew full well how much the good ole US of A weighed.
I think she could feel it start t press down on her waif like shoulders when she inquired of the august gentlemen before her if she was telling them what they wanted t hear.
Greg, this is an extremely valuable thread and one i think should be expanded upon.
I've got t b honest here, I haven't properly studied this aspect closely in over 3 years. I'm  basically running on memory, half remembered snippets of conversations and vague recollections of paragraphs. Padded out with great sweeping generalities.
It was stumbling across the Soviet Criminal Code that reignited my interest.
If you're kind enough t humour me and  give me a couple of weeks in my spare time i can re read the notes i made, re check my sources and contact a few people. Then with your permission maybe i could write an essay/ timeline on the site. Maybe on this thread, if no one has any objection. Detailing what's known of Marinas background, her family, Uncle Ilyas true rule( the MVD had a very precise role at this time. His official job title was almost certainly an euphemism for monitoring the ports and the mood of the workers). I
Perhaps with your permission i could expand this; an overview of the Soviet intelligence agencies at this time. The hierarchy and their preferred methods of operating. Off the top of my head i can recall 3 seperate incidents from this particular era- late 50s/ early 60s-  of Westerners( 2 Americans and a Brit) being compromised in honey trap operations. This puts Marina and her putative role in their proper context.
Basically you've convinced me Oswald was sent t the USSR on a time sensitive mission. As a courier. That makes perfect sense. Marina was used as bait t see if if he had been given any other missions.
I think it was pretty much a wait and see scenario. Each side trying t figure out what the other was up to. Pretty low level stuff. The intelligence community equivalent of flipping burgers.
Oswald- snitch low grade provocateur and courier- maintaining the facade for the next mission. The mission that was hi jacked and subverted by the plotters.
You're spot on too about the Paines. Salandrias essay when he describes them almost toying with him is deeply sinister.
The Paines especially Ruth were obviously deeply implicated. Remember what we were talking about? About how the first generation of OSS /CIA officers were trained by and heavily influenced by British methods?
The right sort of chap or in this case chapess, right families, right schools made of the right stuff. The ancient ties bonded by blood, the tap on the shoulder;" i say would you be interested in serving your country?"
The Paines fit that profile exactly. The arrogant WASPish blue bloods who believe their duty is t rule. T them Kennedy was the living personification of everything they despised. The jumped up arriviste.
Anyway i digress.
With your permission again I'd like t expand on some of your work. Purely from a Soviet perspective. I really genuinely believe we could craft a narrative, on both the macro and micro levels, that would be a quantum leap regarding the understanding of just who exactly Lee and Marina were.


I think with your in depth understanding of Oswald and my knowledge( however rusty) of and background in Soviet history we could collaborate on something that really important.
Maybe i could email you my essay/ timeline then we could proceed from there?

"The cynic and the survivor eclipsed the grieving widow. And the good man who no shoot anyone quickly became the violent wife beating malcontent."

Brilliant.

Let's do this.

here's a bit more to chew on. Was saving it for other work, but what the hell...

RFE/RL: How did you meet Lee Harvey Oswald? What was your first impression of him?


Stanislau Shushkevich: You know, contact with foreigners was forbidden back when I was doing scientific research. But I was very curious. And the party organization [at the Minsk radio factory] tasked me, a non-Party member, to work with an American. To be honest, I found it very interesting. So, it was with great pleasure that I agreed. Although, knowing our system, I made it seem like it wasn't the best thing for me to do and I wasn't quite prepared for that. But actually I was curious.
===============

RFE/RL: Could he say in Russian, "I have so many sisters or brothers"?



Shushkevich: Yes, he was able to say that.



RFE/RL: And what would he say?



Shushkevich: He didn't say anything about that. And we weren't supposed to ask. You see, you can't even imagine what it was like, following orders from the Party Committee.



[Oswald] never talked about where he had lived or how he had found himself in Europe. That was completely forbidden to talk about.

====================

RFE/RL: From the limited contact that you had with Oswald, was it possible for you to make any conclusions about his temperament?

Shushkevich: You know, it was possible. I got the impression that he was a very calm person. He produced the impression of a hard-working man.

But he also seemed to have very strong habits that weren't suitable for studying Russian -- especially with the accents in Russian words. I would teach him to say, "Ya DOO-ma-yu" ("I think"), but he insisted on saying, "Doo-MAH-yu." We would be going over the tenses, and he kept saying, "Ya Doo-MAH-yu." You see, I simply could not get him to say, "DOO-ma-yu." Besides that, he never showed any other habits.

He never showed any emotion. His punctuality was spotless. Our lesson was always at 18:05 at the laboratory of the radio factory and he was always there on the dot.

==================

RFE/RL: Did he seem to be an intelligent person?

Shushkevich: He was a rather closed person and it was hard to tell how educated he was. But his knowledge of Russian was pretty decent and he could exchange views when Sasha [Rubenchik] and I started teaching him, that's for sure. We never asked him about anything else, it was forbidden.

==================
it is my absolute conviction that they found a passive, calm, compliant boy, and used him as the guilty one. As for the conclusions of the Warren Commission, I don't believe them one bit. I have studied them and I don't think [the assassination] was the work of my student.



https://www.rferl.org/a/interview-transcript-oswald-shushkevich-belarus-soviet/25172632.html

it is my absolute conviction that they found a passive, calm, compliant boy, and used him as the guilty one

Exactly

Thanks Greg for the fascinating info.
You're really making me reconsider the Odio Incident. Due t Fonzis work i always assumed it was beyond reproach.
I'd never read the interview either. Really interesting insights. Especially when he discusses Oswalds linguistic capabilities. This area in particular is shrouded in so much myth and disinformation. The old Monterey Language Institute canard is still even wheeled out from time t time.
If he had the application and the talent( and perhaps the personality quirks of a high functioning Aspie) it was perfectly possible for Oswald t learn Russian.
I was reading through the H and L Holy Scrolls again and was amazed and disgusted by Armstrong's methodology.
So many of his conclusions regarding Oswald have unilaterally and unquestioningly been accepted.
I see Prayerman as the tip of the spear. The sharpened point that will slash through over half a century of fantasy and obfuscatory bullshit.
Once the breach is made then we can establish a beach head and begin dismantling the half centuries worth of fantasy ,wishful thinking, disinformation and downright bad research.
The thing that really strikes me, again and again, when i read the research here( and if I'm being honest when i first joined my overall view of the case was far closer t the Orthodox Conspiracy narrative than I'd care t admit) is how easily everything fits together. Apparently disparate pieces slide naturally into place and a cogent picture emerges.
No need t massage, manipulate or create imaginary doppelgangers or fleets of magical photo alteration trucks.
I'm deadly serious when i say the research here is the closest t a professional unbiased non politicised investigation this case has ever had.
And that it has been accomplished with humour, self deprecation and an ability t admit mistakes makes it all the more praiseworthy.
It raises many uncomfortable questions too.
I think the whole disinfo agent shtick is mostly bullshit. Used t camouflage ineptitude and bolster the fragile egos of self proclaimed warriors.
"See how important we are" they titter triumphantly" ..important enough for the shadow government t send waves of multi headed disinformation breathing hydras into out midst"
If these so called experts, loaded down with PhDs and garlanded with self praise, had actually removed their heads from assorted assholes and stopped chasing chimeras with vanishing mastoidectomy scars they could have solved this years ago.
I'll re read everything i can find about Senora Odio with fresh eyes.
And hopefully, work and the Ashes permitting, I'll make a start on my essay/ timeline over the weekend.

Love the thinking behind the Odio incident being something of a scared cow in the research community. I'd love a concrete and broad overview of all Odio's testimony. I believe Warren and Co. did try seducing her? (perhaps we should ensure that was the case as well, no sarcasm intended!) and going through this mess to seemingly prevent her from testifying (if I had to guess?) and could it be possible that the Anti-JURE op at her house could've been piggy backed by conspirators or does the evidence simply rule that out. Are we certain (more certain than not) that Odio never received that later phone call post-visit? Just musings and thanks guys for the very good discussion and evidence presentation as always.

greg parker wrote:

alex wilson wrote:Also I wasn't suggesting for a moment Marina was involved with the assassination. She was merely a passenger. Flotsam helplessly carried on the rising tide, blown by a restless wind  towards an immortality of sorts .But i definitely think she knew enough t know the Warren Commission was a travesty.
She would know enough about the Show trials- about Vyshinsky and Ulrikh, about Zinoviev and Kamenev admitting t preposterous crimes- t know she was witnessing political theatre of the highest and the lowest order. The cynic and the survivor eclipsed the grieving widow. And the good man who no shoot anyone quickly became the violent wife beating malcontent. Why should she destroy her life defending a dead man?
Plus she had two daughters. Would she want them t go back t what she had escaped from? No, she played along. Learned her lines then attempted t vanish into comfortable obscurity.
Parasites like Lifton make me sick. Circling her like a slimy under sexed octopus, trying t weave her into his morbid fantasies. Compare Eds quietly respectful demeanour t Liftons grotesque bombast.
Lifton is the Dean Koontz of JFK research. Regardless of their intentions( and with several notable exceptions) the post Oliver Stone generation of "researchers" did more harm than good. They turned this case into a lurid tabloid side show. Without ROKC Prayerman would have ended up on the dungheap of their fetid overheated imaginations; along side Wyatt Greer- the fastest gun in the West, the toupee wearing Jack Ruby lookalike, Loveladyfied Lee and good ole Harvey..the Hungarian doppelganger with a song in his heart and a fake mastoidectomy scar on his neck..maybe one of Vary Juddufkis undead relations got their teeth into him before she did..
I digress again Marina was a victim. Another one of the countless millions of faceless( and not so faceless) victims sacrificed before the altar of  the Janus headed monster/ demi god  that was the Cold War.
She did what she had t to survive. She knew too well the power of a hostile state.
Perhaps as she sat before Warren Dulles et all she heard the ghost of Stalin whispering in her ear;" Do you know how much the USSR weighs?" hed once asked an ashen faced interrogator who hadn't managed t beat a confession out of a particularly recalcitrant prisoner.
I think Marina knew full well how much the good ole US of A weighed.
I think she could feel it start t press down on her waif like shoulders when she inquired of the august gentlemen before her if she was telling them what they wanted t hear.
Greg, this is an extremely valuable thread and one i think should be expanded upon.
I've got t b honest here, I haven't properly studied this aspect closely in over 3 years. I'm  basically running on memory, half remembered snippets of conversations and vague recollections of paragraphs. Padded out with great sweeping generalities.
It was stumbling across the Soviet Criminal Code that reignited my interest.
If you're kind enough t humour me and  give me a couple of weeks in my spare time i can re read the notes i made, re check my sources and contact a few people. Then with your permission maybe i could write an essay/ timeline on the site. Maybe on this thread, if no one has any objection. Detailing what's known of Marinas background, her family, Uncle Ilyas true rule( the MVD had a very precise role at this time. His official job title was almost certainly an euphemism for monitoring the ports and the mood of the workers). I
Perhaps with your permission i could expand this; an overview of the Soviet intelligence agencies at this time. The hierarchy and their preferred methods of operating. Off the top of my head i can recall 3 seperate incidents from this particular era- late 50s/ early 60s-  of Westerners( 2 Americans and a Brit) being compromised in honey trap operations. This puts Marina and her putative role in their proper context.
Basically you've convinced me Oswald was sent t the USSR on a time sensitive mission. As a courier. That makes perfect sense. Marina was used as bait t see if if he had been given any other missions.
I think it was pretty much a wait and see scenario. Each side trying t figure out what the other was up to. Pretty low level stuff. The intelligence community equivalent of flipping burgers.
Oswald- snitch low grade provocateur and courier- maintaining the facade for the next mission. The mission that was hi jacked and subverted by the plotters.
You're spot on too about the Paines. Salandrias essay when he describes them almost toying with him is deeply sinister.
The Paines especially Ruth were obviously deeply implicated. Remember what we were talking about? About how the first generation of OSS /CIA officers were trained by and heavily influenced by British methods?
The right sort of chap or in this case chapess, right families, right schools made of the right stuff. The ancient ties bonded by blood, the tap on the shoulder;" i say would you be interested in serving your country?"
The Paines fit that profile exactly. The arrogant WASPish blue bloods who believe their duty is t rule. T them Kennedy was the living personification of everything they despised. The jumped up arriviste.
Anyway i digress.
With your permission again I'd like t expand on some of your work. Purely from a Soviet perspective. I really genuinely believe we could craft a narrative, on both the macro and micro levels, that would be a quantum leap regarding the understanding of just who exactly Lee and Marina were.


I think with your in depth understanding of Oswald and my knowledge( however rusty) of and background in Soviet history we could collaborate on something that really important.
Maybe i could email you my essay/ timeline then we could proceed from there?

"The cynic and the survivor eclipsed the grieving widow. And the good man who no shoot anyone quickly became the violent wife beating malcontent."

Brilliant.

Let's do this.

here's a bit more to chew on. Was saving it for other work, but what the hell...

RFE/RL: How did you meet Lee Harvey Oswald? What was your first impression of him?


Stanislau Shushkevich: You know, contact with foreigners was forbidden back when I was doing scientific research. But I was very curious. And the party organization [at the Minsk radio factory] tasked me, a non-Party member, to work with an American. To be honest, I found it very interesting. So, it was with great pleasure that I agreed. Although, knowing our system, I made it seem like it wasn't the best thing for me to do and I wasn't quite prepared for that. But actually I was curious.
===============

RFE/RL: Could he say in Russian, "I have so many sisters or brothers"?



Shushkevich: Yes, he was able to say that.



RFE/RL: And what would he say?



Shushkevich: He didn't say anything about that. And we weren't supposed to ask. You see, you can't even imagine what it was like, following orders from the Party Committee.



[Oswald] never talked about where he had lived or how he had found himself in Europe. That was completely forbidden to talk about.

====================

RFE/RL: From the limited contact that you had with Oswald, was it possible for you to make any conclusions about his temperament?

Shushkevich: You know, it was possible. I got the impression that he was a very calm person. He produced the impression of a hard-working man.

But he also seemed to have very strong habits that weren't suitable for studying Russian -- especially with the accents in Russian words. I would teach him to say, "Ya DOO-ma-yu" ("I think"), but he insisted on saying, "Doo-MAH-yu." We would be going over the tenses, and he kept saying, "Ya Doo-MAH-yu." You see, I simply could not get him to say, "DOO-ma-yu." Besides that, he never showed any other habits.

He never showed any emotion. His punctuality was spotless. Our lesson was always at 18:05 at the laboratory of the radio factory and he was always there on the dot.

==================

RFE/RL: Did he seem to be an intelligent person?

Shushkevich: He was a rather closed person and it was hard to tell how educated he was. But his knowledge of Russian was pretty decent and he could exchange views when Sasha [Rubenchik] and I started teaching him, that's for sure. We never asked him about anything else, it was forbidden.

==================
it is my absolute conviction that they found a passive, calm, compliant boy, and used him as the guilty one. As for the conclusions of the Warren Commission, I don't believe them one bit. I have studied them and I don't think [the assassination] was the work of my student.



https://www.rferl.org/a/interview-transcript-oswald-shushkevich-belarus-soviet/25172632.html

Simply brilliant Greg and Alex. You will not find this stuff anywhere else. Humbled is how I feel.

BC_II wrote:Love the thinking behind the Odio incident being something of a scared cow in the research community. I'd love a concrete and broad overview of all Odio's testimony. I believe Warren and Co. did try seducing her? (perhaps we should ensure that was the case as well, no sarcasm intended!) and going through this mess to seemingly prevent her from testifying (if I had to guess?) and could it be possible that the Anti-JURE op at her house could've been piggy backed by conspirators or does the evidence simply rule that out. Are we certain (more certain than not) that Odio never received that later phone call post-visit? Just musings and thanks guys for the very good discussion and evidence presentation as always.

I think Connell was part of the JURE sting. She was a Bircher and they were aligned with Alpha-66 - which is what Osvaldo belonged to. After the assassination... she knew full well who the visitors were but when Sylvia thought Leon might be Oswald, she set about using psychology and whatever other "mind control" tricks she had to convince her it was and used those first names to reinforce it. She could now lay the assassination at the feet of a JURE supporter... Lee Oswald. This attempt would be killed off before it got anywhere by the adoption of the Lone Nut scenario.

If this was part of a pre-planned plot to set Lee up why would they
a) Call him Leon and not Lee?
b) Have him with a short beard and faint mustache, which is very unOswald-like?
c) time it so that it crossed over with what was going down in MC?

I'm sure some theorists have tried to answer at least the latter - and I'm sure it makes James Bond look like Gomer Pyle.

With that last comment about the phone call... I never meant to suggest that never happened.  Maybe it did, maybe it didn't. Connell was also into hypnotism --- and "overly-emotional" types are the most susceptible to hypnosis and the power of suggestion...

In fact, in the 19th century, hypnosis was being used to both induce "hysteria" and modify it among female psychiatric patience. It was quickly realized back then that such highly emotional types were the most easily hypnotized.
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=3U1nDAAAQBAJ&lpg=PA86&ots=pdQC8RuwyK&dq=%22grand%20hysteria%22%20hypnosis&pg=PA85#v=onepage&q=%22grand%20hysteria%22%20hypnosis&f=false

 Note that Sylvia tells the HSCA that she thinks Connell phoned the FBI about the incident because she feared she was losing control of her (Sylvia) because she (Sylvia) was getting stronger.  She is viewing this through her own perspective though, and does see the bigger picture. By this time, she was seeing a real psychiatrist, and he no doubt was trying to sever Connell's influence on her. 

Anyhoo... this is all just my take on what I see in the evidence. It makes better sense to me than it being a plot using a bearded Oswald "double" who forget's his name is supposed to be Lee, not Leon and who goes there at a time when Lee is supposed to be in MC.

I would be amazed if among Connell's library on "mind control" and brainwashing, she never had any books on Charcot.

 

Mick wrote:Simply brilliant Greg and Alex. You will not find this stuff anywhere else. Humbled is how I feel.

Thanks Mick.  Alex is lucky insofar as Russian history goes, given his family background. But there is more to it than that. He himself has an elephantine memory for history, a  pug sized appetite for facts and a Burnsian ability to write.

I got nothin' 'cept stubbornness and a psychotic hatred of mysteries and bullshit. But sometimes that's enough. 

Apart from that, I can't reiterate enough the importance of all contributors here. Your work is not exempt from that. Not by a long way.  we - as a group - are ripping this case a new arsehole blowing a fresh wind...

Thanks Mick and Greg.
And both of you sell yourselves way short. Way, way short.
Greg's assembled an unique group of individuals here, prepared t eschew petty ego driven squabbling t focus their disparate talents on the common goal. Wildly diverse individuals united and driven by their desire t cut through the bullshit and concentrate on the facts. Different perspectives, different experiences, different talents: the same goal.
Here we encourage each other instead of wearing each other down with our various agendas. T me that's something worth celebrating
That ROKC produces far and away the best research on the web and can do it with humour, self deprecation while having the courage t admit mistakes is something very fucking special indeed.
Just look at this one thread..compare the work here t any other forum.
Ed forum resembles the safe area at an amnesiacs convention with Caddy providing the entertainment for the kids..Mr Punch as a sewer dwelling down at the heel right wing hack..DPF is like eavesdropping on a session of group therapy for the clinically paranoid( half the session is wasted attempting t catch the CIA trained killer bluebottles buzzing round Lemkins chronically unwashed dungarees) Der Forum is like wandering through the German war cemetery on Verdun with a persisent beggar whose "best friends with every stiff buried here" waving his Pickelhauber helmet under your nose.."just a few coppers mein herr".
As for the Imaginarium..well what can you say? Doyle and Iacoletti revamping the Spanish Inquisition for the 21st century..Iacoletti turning the thumbscrews or placing Brian's dainty pink sandalled leg in the Spanish Boot while he squeaks "metadata..metadata"..LarryTrotterImage a skeletal figure, bearded and in rags, driven insane after spending 40 years chained in a dungeon.."So as it goes..as it so goes"..he mumbles..
I don't give a fuck who calls me a back slapper its a privilege t post here..amongst people i really respect. It was lurking here that really re ignited my interest in the case. I found it distasteful t find myself on the same side as charlatans, wannabe demagogues and true believers . T paraphrase Bonaparte- it is but a small step from the Jefferies t the Von Pein.
ROKCs provides a haven for serious minded folk who understand the serious potency of humour. A well aimed barb is the perfect weapon t puncture a flatulent buffoon. Combine that with the peerless research, the cutting edge work on Prayerman, the expert dismemberment of the Frankenstein like abominations that - H and L, 2FLRE, Ralph Yates, Neely St t name but a few- that lurched thru JFK dom wearing their bolts like the Emperor wore his new clothes...
Greg's created a unique site here. A multi faceted unkillable troll punkbot..
P.S...i forgot t thank you for posting all that fascinating info Greg, I'd never seen that interview before and the stuff on Odio/Connell is dynamite.
I'm really starting t re evaluate the whole Odio Incident. But that's good. Often new insights are born out the ashes of old certainties.
That's the one, most important thing I've learned here at ROKC; accept nothing, challenge everything. Forget preconceptions and look at the facts instead. With fresh eyes.
It's the height of intellectual dishonesty not t examine your own deepest held beliefs with at least the same rigor you reserve for the beliefs of others.
Too many conspiracy friendly facts have been given a free pass.
Hence nearly 56 years of running into one dead end after another.

Alex:

     "That's the one, most important thing I've learned here at ROKC; accept nothing, challenge everything. Forget preconceptions and look at the facts instead. With fresh eyes.
     "It's the height of intellectual dishonesty not t examine your own deepest held beliefs with at least the same rigor you reserve for the beliefs of others.
     "Too many conspiracy friendly facts have been given a free pass.
     "Hence nearly 56 years of running into one dead end after another."


The simple summation of what is wrong with the research community and how ROKC attempts to get it back on track.

Well said!

So I've been reading Flip de Mey's The Lee Harvey Oswald Files and there's a lot I take issue with, including his use of Priscilla Macmillan's book, but there's some interesting details of Ruth Paine's apparent obsession with Marina I wasn't familiar with, including Ruth's assertion to Marina that it was perfectly normal in the USA at the time for married couples to live apart, and presumably to co-habit with someone of the same sex. (No, it wasn't in 1963 and particularly not in conservative Texas.)

It's remarkable how hard Ruth worked to get Marina living with her and to keep her there. Not surprisingly many have wondered if Ruth had or was attempting to have a lesbian relationship with Marina. How else could the relationship between a woman who was, I believe, working for the CIA and attempting to be another woman's handler be interpreted by the vast majority of people who were not intelligence assets? There was (and still is) not a category of relationship in normal society to fit that sort of one in besides a homosexual one.

We'll probably never know, but I wonder if Ruth's motivations for approaching Marina in the sexually suggestive way that she did had a lot more to do with Ruth's professionalism as a low-level spy than with her personal predilections.

Let me explain: Marina from the day she entered the USA practically screamed "swallow"-- Soviet intelligence asset hired to seduce and in this case marry a target, Lee Harvey Oswald. I don't think she was ever activated once she was in the US, but I feel fairly certain that any US government spook worth his or her security clearance or with any experience in counterintelligence could look at her and guess that that was what she was, a swallow.

(Why the US government ever let her in in the first place is a mystery to me, but they did. Maybe the agencies responsible were concerned with gathering intelligence and thought they could learn something but letting her do her thing; I don't know.)

Anyway, if one presumes that Ruth Paine too viewed her as a swallow and was tasked with becoming her handler, or even with using her as the handle with which to grab Lee, she might have relied on either conventional wisdom or psychological profiling of the time that many prostitutes (which, to be blunt, Marina was) due to their work are less than interested in men in their personal relationships. Maybe Ruth profiled Marina as a closeted lesbian.

And that would be why she approached Marina the way she did-- persistently-- not able with the sexual mores of the time to proceed more openly with what was a kind of seduction. Maybe Ruth was not a lesbian per say but she had a task as an intelligence asset to perform.

Does all that sound plausible? What do people think?