02-05-2014, 03:08 AM
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]