+- Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora)
+-- Forum: Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: JFK Assassination (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-3.html)
+--- Thread: Earl Warren question (/thread-12462.html)
Earl Warren question - Peter Lemkin - 02-05-2014
Jim Hargrove Wrote:Peter Lemkin Wrote:While Marina was telling many lies or fibs and changing her story for a long time, it was NOT she dictating the 'story line'....she was given an intelligence-connected 'interpreter' who often mis-interpreted what she said to conform with the 'official version'; she was surrounded by intelligence-connected people and kept secluded. They primed her with her 'story' and 'history' for herself and Oswald. Her rendition at one moment didn't match that at other moments because she was telling so many untruths it was hard to remember what was said before. I don't think this part of the charade was meant to signal anything, nor to say 'yeah we killed him and there is nothing you can do about it!', etc [as perhaps the public execution at high-noon in broad daylight in a major city; then totally lied about and not investigated, but covered-up and the patsy murdered and his murderer silenced, etc. could be interpreted]. It was simply a ham-handed attempt at a total cover-up. They thought everyone would forget about it, not notice the changes and contradictions - the impossibilities and lies. They never thought 50 years on we would still be on the case and that they would still have to ACTIVELY cover it all up.
Now, Marina believes Oswald was innocent, a patsy silenced, and the whole thing was covered-up from 'on high'; but she avoids speaking to her elaborate prior misstatements, and prefers to just remain silent about them. She too was a victim of the events in more ways then I'm even hinting about here.
Well said, Peter. Thank you!
[size=12]Jim[/SIZE]
Thanks for the thanks. I had the privilege to meet Marina a few times in person, and have a period of letter exchanges with her on both the major event of her life, as well as on just normal things in life. She is aware she was used. She is aware the Oswald she knew was set-up for the 'fall'. She is aware she told untruths and wasn't even consistent with them. She is aware she was threatened and coerced into playing along with the official scenario. She is aware that the conspiracy that killed JFK came from a variety of very powerful sources. She is no fool! On the 30th anniversary in Dallas I had obtained a DPD permit to speak with a PA system in Dealey Plaza, Penn Jones and others spoke. Marina originally told me she would speak, as well...but at the last minute she declined, but instead gave me a powerful statement to read out and say it was hers [it was!]. It was a strong statement against the official lies, and that the Oswald she knew was totally innocent of the murder of JFK and of anyone else. It spoke to a conspiracy at the highest levels and a cover-up of the Truth. Sadly, I don't have a recording/transcript of my reading that and the original is in storage far away, or I'd put it up here. Since then, to the best of my knowledge, Marina has not changed her position, but does keep in the background. She feels that being too visible and too vocal about what she knows could be dangerous to herself, and to her daughters and their families.
She is very well read on the better books on analysis of the conspiracy - and of course, many of the details she knows first hand.
I found Marina, in private, to be quite forthcoming. The one thing she would NOT speak to were any intelligence connections she might have had [and I believe she had low-level ones] in the USSR [and likely a 'sleeper' position to watch the American agent she married]. Again, I think this is for her own protection and that of loved ones. She feels she has been used and had a hard time. She wants the Truth to come out, but has left it to others to lead the charge. I'd love her to be more 'front stage', but understand her position - which is a very personal one.
Earl Warren question - Dawn Meredith - 02-05-2014
Drew Phipps Wrote:Haslam's story is more believable without Judyth Baker.
Many would agree with you. I can only vouch for what the news articles said. And this was well before her New Orleans days.
I find a lot of what she says questionable too. I was at one time- over 10 years ago -a supporter but no longer.
John Armstrong asked me a month or so ago to ask her if she would be willing to submit to a poly. He would pay for it and she could choose her own. I private messaged her on fb .
She did not reply. John also told me that when he talked to her she told him that many mistook her for Marina in NO. Who was very pregnant at the time. He asked her if she looked very pregnant and her reply was to hang up.
Dawn
Earl Warren question - Albert Doyle - 02-05-2014
It could be Judyth Baker was a real witness who has now developed Fetzer syndrome.
Marina is caught half-way. She could blow the Whitworth incident wide-open by telling the truth about Liebler suborning perjury but doesn't. She probably made deals not to talk and doesn't want to suffer the consequences of breaking them.
Earl Warren question - Tracy Riddle - 03-05-2014
Peter Lemkin Wrote:I found Marina, in private, to be quite forthcoming. The one thing she would NOT speak to were any intelligence connections she might have had [and I believe she had low-level ones] in the USSR [and likely a 'sleeper' position to watch the American agent she married]. Again, I think this is for her own protection and that of loved ones. She feels she has been used and had a hard time. She wants the Truth to come out, but has left it to others to lead the charge. I'd love her to be more 'front stage', but understand her position - which is a very personal one.
I agree that she likely was a sleeper agent. It was the only way the Soviet authorities would allow her to marry an American and leave so easily. I think she also spoke English better than she claimed back then. There's a clip of her on YouTube being interviewed in January 1964 by a Texas reporter, and her English is very good. It's amazing, because at the same time the WC was supposedly using interpreters during her testimony.
Earl Warren question - Drew Phipps - 03-05-2014
It is a well known phenomenon that persons who know more than 1 language tend to have difficulty understanding English after their arrest.