Monday, January 29, 2024

Marina Oswald THREATENED THE LIFE of Hugh Aynesworth. Source Hugh Aynesworth 11/29/1966 letter to Hollis McCombs of Life Magazine

 Marina Oswald THREATENED THE LIFE OF HUGH AYNESWORTH.

Source on this: Hugh Aynesworth Nov. 29, 1966 letter to Hollis McCombs of Life Magazine.

Hugh Aynesworth: "I've even received death threats from Europe (and from Marina)."

Hugh Aynesworth had sex with Marina Oswald. Source on this is Hugh Aynesworth to JFK researcher Shirley Martin, 1964: 

http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/A%20Disk/Aynesworth%20Hugh/Item%2001.pdf

Below: Hugh Aynesworth Nov. 29, 1966 letter to Holland McCombs of Life Magazine:

Page 1:



Page 2: (Marina Oswald death threat to Hugh Aynesworth below)




Sunday, January 21, 2024

Donald Trump has a ZERO percent chance of winning the 2024 presidential race

 "Donald Trump has a ZERO percent chance of winning the 2024 presidential race" 

by Robert Morrow  - January 21, 2024:

A big reason for that is that in a lot of swing states DEMOCRATS control the governorships, secretary of state positions, legislatures and state Supreme Courts, which means there is no one there in positions of high power in swing states to let Trump CHEAT to win the election. There is no Trump state Supreme Court in these states that will allow him to cheat.

The other big reasons Trump is a sure-fire loser are: 1) Abortion is a huge issue and it is not going away 2) Trump is an election Liar (not merely denier) and he tried to overthrow the government 3) Trump's negatives are rock solid and high and will always be higher than Biden's or Kamala Harris's or any other Democrat's negatives and that is the determinative factor in this race.

So what if 45% or 46% of the country votes for Trump? He is still going to lose the electoral college and he has no one in power to help him cheat to win the swing states. Trump's 47% of the popular vote in the 2020 election is his forever high water mark and he only got that because of the power of incumbency. Biden got 51% of the popular vote in 2020.

Ever heard the expression "Close but no cigar" or "Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades?"

The best Trump can do is "make it close" but there is an impenetrable barrier to him winning 2024 presidential and that is his rock-solid forever and permanent negative ratings.

A recent NH poll had Biden at a pathetic 38% approval rating and he was still handily beating Trump in a head-to-head race. So what if 25-30% of the USA are hardcore Trump supporters? 53% of the USA permanently and forever totally hates Trump - they are SCARED of Trump - which is why Trump can't win. The GOP base is "angry" but the Democrats and independents are SCARED of Trump and "scared" trumps "angry" in the 2024 U.S. presidential race.

Even if Biden dies while on the ballot, the Democrats will will. Even if Kamala Harris somehow the Demo nominee the Democrats will win. Normally, if the economy collapses the opposition party will ease win a presidential race. Not so in 2024 where Trump's completely toxic high negatives will "trump" any sour economic news. Trump's revolting and criminal behavior has made the Democratic party bullet proof in presidential elections.

The coin flip for the 2024 election reads on one side "Democrats will win" and on the other side "Donald Trump will lose."

The only way Joe Biden could lose the presidential race would be to publicly do something so criminal, revolting and disgusting that would cause voters NOT to vote for him even if they would never vote for Trump. Biden would have to do something like chainsaw puppies up into little pieces on the White House lawn or rape a 4-year-old boy in the ass on the White House lawn in order for Trump to have a CHANCE of winning. 

Biden, wearing diapers and drooling from the mouth and smoking crack with Hunter Biden on the White House lawn would not be enough for Trump to actually win the election.

The odds of Biden actually doing something so evil and criminal and disgusting in a public place are so low that Donald Trump effectively has a ZERO percent chance of winning the 2024 presidential election.

Sincerely,

Robert Morrow        Austin, TX    512-306-1510

"The World's Leading Public Intellectual"

Sunday, January 7, 2024

Jackie Kennedy's Cartoon's prove she knew all about Lyndon Johnson's and Sam Rayburn's Blackmail of JFK at the 1960 Democratic convention

 Jackie Kennedy’s cartoons from the 1960 campaign show a cartoon of “Texans” Lyndon Johnson and Sam Rayburn shaking hands with JFK and the big Texan LBJ is squeezing a tiny frail JFK’s hand to the point that it hurts:

 https://www.thedailybeast.com/jackie-kennedys-jfk-cartoons-1

 Hat tip to author Sean Fetter who pointed this out in his book Under Cover of Night: The United States Air Force and the Assassination of John F. Kennedy

 That means Jackie knew all about the threats and blackmail tactics that LBJ and Sam Rayburn used to force JFK to Johnson on the 1960 Demo ticket as VP



The above cartoon shows two burly Texas Rangers strong arming a skinny, weak John F. Kennedy. Those two big, burly, dominating Texas Rangers are Lyndon Johnson in the middle and Sam Rayburn on the left. Lyndon Johnson is shown not just shaking JFK's hand but rather "crushing" JFK's hand to the point of pain. This 1960 campaign cartoon by Jackie proves that she knew all about the blackmailing that LBJ and Sam Rayburn did on John Kennedy to force JFK to include Lyndon Johnson on the 1960 Democratic ticket as Vice President.







JFK is in a rush to get on an airplane and he is with his daughter Caroline who obviously does not want him to go.


JFK is giving a speech in the above Jackie cartoon













The Jackie cartoon above makes fun of how skinny JFK was


Saturday, January 6, 2024

Lone Nutter Kryptonite: "5 feet 10 inches, 165 pounds" - Absolute proof Lee Harvey Oswald was a pre-selected patsy for the JFK assassination

       What I am relaying is no original research of mine; I found out about this through the stellar research of Bill Simpich. And beyond that, this material has been out in the JFK research community for decades.

Friday, December 29, 2023

While married CIA media asset Hugh Aynesworth was slobbering on Marina Oswald in 1964, the FBI was wiretapping Marina from Feb. 29 - March 12, 1964

 

While married CIA media asset Hugh Aynesworth was slobbering on Marina Oswald in 1964, the FBI was wiretapping Marina Oswald from Feb 29, 1964 to March 12, 1964. FBI field surveillance began on Feb. 24, 1964

 Hugh G. Aynesworth and the Assassination of JFK - Page 7 - JFK Assassination Debate - The Education Forum (ipbhost.com)

 

Hugh Aynesworth said that met Marina Oswald in February of 1964

As paparazzi stalk her, Kennedy assassin's widow lives quiet Dallas-area life (dallasnews.com)

QUOTE

"I think she's been a very good mother in raising those kids," said Hugh Aynesworth, author of the new book, November 22, 1963: Witness to History, who first met her in February 1964. Her children got a break, Aynesworth said, when she married Kenneth Porter in 1965. It allowed them to live their lives under a new identity.

“But still, going through school, they had some difficulties,” Aynesworth said.

All the while, their mother tried as hard as she could to live a normal life, working for more than 20 years, Aynesworth said, at the now-defunct Army Navy Surplus Store in the 4400 block of McKinney Avenue in the Uptown section of Dallas, just a few miles from where the president was killed.

UNQUOTE

The FBI was tapping the phone of Marina Oswald's home at 629 Beltline Road, Richardson, TX from Feb. 29, 1964 to March 12, 1964. The FBI had an operational microphone inside the house from March 2, 1964 to March 12, 1964.

The married Aynesworth had a habit of bragging that he had sex with Marina Oswald (see Shirley Martin 1967 letter to Jim Garrison; she spoke with Aynesworth in 1964)

So what are the odds that the FBI was wiretapping married Hugh Aynesworth's affair with Marina Oswald. I put those odds at HIGH.

JFK researcher Shirley Martin’s letter (5-20-1967) to Jim Garrison regarding Hugh Aynesworth who said he had sex with Marina Oswald

http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/A%20Disk/Aynesworth%20Hugh/Item%2001.pdf

Here is the text of the Shirley Martin letter to Jim Garrison:

May 20, 1967

Dear Mr. Garrison:

I am so sorry that Newsweek chose Hugh Aynesworth to use in its rebuttal of you.

In the summer of ‘64 I had a long talk with Mr. Aynesworth, introducing myself to him as a friend of a relative to General Clyde Watts, ex-Major General Edwin A. Walker's close friend and attorney (Oxford). Mr. Aynesworth mistakenly assumed that I was a political conservative and immediately deluged me with disgusting anti-Kennedy stories. ("Kennedy needed a trip to Dallas like a hole in the head," etc.) At the same time Mr. Aynesworth heaped what seemed to me to be inordinate praise on the city of Dallas, the Dallas police (Lt. George Butler, Captain Fritz, Chief Curry, etc.), and the Dallas Morning News (for which newspaper Aynesworth was working at the time). He confided, too, that Tom Buchanan (Paris) was a "fairy" and detailed for me a number of extremely slanderous alleged incidents in the life of Mark Lane. In addition, Mr. Aynesworth definitively labeled Mr. Lane a "communist."

Aynesworth was extremely bitter that Merriman Smith had won the Pulitzer for his coverage of the assassination. Aynesworth sarcastically remarked that Smith "did nothing and saw less" on the day in question, whereas he, Aynesworth was "...the only reporter in America to make all four big scenes." (1) In addition, Aynesworth boasted that a Commission attorney had already confided to him (in July) what the Commission verdict was to be (in September). Oswald would be named, but according to Aynesworth it was in reality "...a communist plot. Warren will do a cover-up for Moscow."

Aynesworth insisted that Marina had had an affair with him after the assassination, and that during this period she had revealed to him that she and Ruth Paine had shared a Lesbian relationship prior to November 22, 1963. Aynesworth also declared that he had been on 10th Street "looking down on the Tippit murder scene at 1:05pm, not later than 1:10..." on November 22nd. (2) Needless to say, the "only reporter in America" to be in on all four "big scenes" was NOT called to testify before the Warren Commission, which did, however, call Thayer Waldo, Fort Worth reporter, because he had been in the police basement when Ruby shot Oswald. (3)

Finally, I have the statement by an employee of the Dallas Morning News that Aynesworth was deliberately and ILLEGALLY given the allegedly stolen Oswald diary story by a Commission attorney who was in Dallas on business at that time. Earl Warren later put the FBI on the trail of this illegal "leak", but as was to be expected no discoveries were made.

This, then, is the man chosen by Newsweek to rebut you. What a pity Newsweek's taste is so concentrated in its tail.

- Sincerely,

(Mrs.) Shirley Martin

Box 226

Owasso, Oklahoma                                 

cc: 10

1

Dealey Plaza, 10th Street, Texas Theatre, Dallas police basement.

2

Thus negating the Commission claim that Oswald. shot both Kennedy and Tippit.

3

Waldo's testimony is pertinent in regard to Lt. Butler (not called by Commission.)


Bill Simpich on the Illegal FBI surveillance of Marina Oswald in February and March of 1964

 

JFK Facts https://web.archive.org/web/20160715074519/https:/jfkfacts.org/why-marina-oswald-could-sue-the-fbi-for-illegal-surveillance-today/

 

Original web link:

 

https://jfkfacts.org/why-marina-oswald-could-sue-the-fbi-for-illegal-surveillance-today/

 

Question: Why isn’t the FBI spying on Marina Oswald better known?

Answer:  Because much governmental effort has gone into making sure that it is not better known.

Why? Maybe because Marina Oswald and her children–alive and living in Texas–have solid grounds for a lawsuit.

Before my research, I knew vaguely about a 1975 New York Times report on how the FBI admitted tapping and bugging Marina’s conversations.  “Electronic surveillance,” the Times reported, was “based upon written approval of the Attorney General of the United States. The Government contended then that in national security cases, court approval was not required“.

That was true. It wasn’t until 1972 that the Supreme Court ruled in the US v. Keith case that “national security” was not a sufficient basis to conduct a search without a warrant.

But no one has ever seen transcripts of the surveillance of the wife of the accused assassin of JFK, a fact first noted by author Lamar Waldron in his book Legacy of Secrecy .

Nor has anyone has ever heard the tapes of this surveillance.

But we know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the U.S. government spied on Marina Oswald after the assassination of JFK.

The results were not reassuring to Hoover’s insistence that Lee Oswald was solely responsible for JFK’s murder.

Dallas FBI agent Jim Hosty confirmed in his book that Marina was surveilled and he added a convincing detail:  His FBI fellow agent Anatole Boguslav translated the Russian comments into English.

The transcripts and the tapes are still missing — a scandal that needs to be addressed as the National Archives prepares to release 3,600 still-secret JFK documents by the legally-mandated deadline of October 2017.

Hosty’s account indicates that the Dallas FBI office initially had custody of the tapes, with orders not to erase them.

Where are the tapes now?  No one knows. I suspect that at least the transcripts are hidden inside informant files that have never been turned over to any investigative agency.

What the tapes revealed

 

Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy approved the wiretapping of Marina Oswald’s phone in 1964

 

I unearthed some FBI documents that explain why these tapes and transcripts have not been turned over.

The surveillance of Marina recorded statements that went directly to the question of her husband’s guilt or innocence in the murder of JFK— yet the FBI halted the surveillance less than two weeks after it began, saying that the results were “insignificant”.

This evidence was not provided to the Warren Commission.

The documents also show that although Attorney General Robert Kennedy did provide approval to tap Marina’s phone, he never gave the FBI permission to plant microphones (“bugs”) inside her home.

This newly-discovered information gives Marina and her family the right to file a new suit against the FBI and certain officials for violation of their constitutional rights.

The contents of the newly-discovered files

On the Mary Ferrell Web site, I found three folders of FBI material that are highly relevant to the JFK story.

Folders U-10 and S-3 discuss the wiretapping and bugging of Marina Oswald’s home from February 27 to March 12, 1964. Folder O-11 is a file on Marina that begins during February 1964.

These three folders tell us that although the phone tap and bugs were revealing some important first-hand information–such as the doubts of Marina and Oswald’s brother Robert that Lee shot JFK– the surveillance was shut down based on the FBI’s inexplicable claim that nothing of significance was being learned.

On February 24, 1964, Warren Commission chief counsel J. Lee Rankin asked J. Edgar Hoover for a “stake-out” of Marina’s home with “discreet physical surveillance”. This memo, and others in this folder, are within Hoover’s famous “JUNE” mail file, conducted when he wanted to conduct technical surveillance.

(Note to researchers: See the second page of this FBI June mail file for “special storage”, and page 190 on “records management”).

On February 24 1963, field surveillance began, and agents surreptitiously monitored Marina’s movements.

RFK never gave the FBI permission to plant microphones inside her home .

The next day, February 25, we see Bobby Kennedy’s signature approving Hoover’s proposal for a wiretap on her home on 2/25/64.

Bill Sullivan, the head of domestic intelligence for the Bureau, wrote on the 25th that “the practical thing to do is to place the installation in her new home…and then give this coverage adequate time to see if anything relevant can be developed.”

However, for reasons unknown, the FBI exceeded the terms of RFK’s approval of the tapping of Marina’s phone.  On February 27, the FBI obtained “internal approval” to plant bugs inside Marina’s home–without asking the Attorney General.

The microphones were planted throughout the house- – from the attic to the bedroom — on the night of February 28, hours before Marina was going to move in to her new home. The phone tap was installed on February 29 by Special Agent Nat Pinkston.  The bugs became operational on March 2.

Although the plan was to conduct surveillance indefinitely, the whole operation was shut down for no plausible reason by March 12.

A decade later, an FBI memo admitted that the bugs installed by the FBI were never approved by RFK. The FBI justified its actions by citing “general authority then existing” for its action.

There was no such “general authority.” If he Bureau had no court order authorizing the planting of microphones inside Marina’s home, the bugging was clearly illegal.

If RFK had approved of the bugs, their legality would be a closer question. Without RFK’s approval, the FBI was clearly breaking the law as it was understood in 1964.

Robert Oswald was overheard doubting his brother’s guilt

A report by FBI special agent Milton Newsom discusses what was picked up on Marina’s phone and the microphones inside the house. The results were not reassuring to Hoover’s insistence that Lee Oswald was solely responsible for JFK”s murder.

Newsom’s report shows that:

–at that time Robert Oswald, Lee’s brother, was saying that he thought Lee was innocent. Later Robert Oswald would say he had no doubt about Lee’s guilt.

–Marina went back and forth on whether Lee was guilty.

–Marine said  that she didn’t remember the package that Lee’s neighbor and co-worker Buell Wesley Frazier claimed Lee brought with him to the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD) that fateful Friday morning.

On March 11, Marvin Gheesling, a senior FBI counterintelligence agent in Washington, tipped off Lee Rankin, chief counsel of the Warren Commission, about some of what was learned about the conversation in Marina’s house.

Gheesling did not tell Rankin that the tap and the bugs were the source.

Gheesling took pains to avoid letting Rankin know about a conversation between Marina’s business manager (and paramour) James Martin with the Russian translator Ilya Mamantov.

Mamantov was brought into the case by Army Intelligence on the afternoon that JFK was killed. Mamantov believed Oswald was a Soviet agent. He proceeded to obtain a questionable statement from Marina on the night of November 22, 1963 that she recognized the rifle found on the sixth floor of the TSBD as belonging to Lee.

Martin told Mamantov that “Marina understands English pretty well” and that she didn’t need a translator. That news would have caused shock waves at the Warren Commission, which had been given the impression that Marina had little comprehension of English-language conversations going on around her.

The FBI claim that ‘no significant results’ had been obtained was nonsense.

The FBI claimed there was a major problem with the surveillance: it was picking up attorney-client communications between Marina and her attorney William McKenzie.

In the past, the FBI had not considered that as a problem.  McKenzie had already assured the FBI that he would assist them in “spot checking” her activities that were not direct attorney-client communications.

McKenzie also told Rankin that he would get a waiver of the attorney-client privilege from his clients about anything they knew about JFK’s assassination –and he had it in writing within days after the bugging began.

There is no denying that the information they were obtaining was of great importance.  The FBI claim that “no significant results” had been obtained was nonsense.

What can be done today?

A lot.

I will take action to see if these tapes or transcripts of Marina Oswald remain in the possession of the FBI’s “informant files“, as indicated in the documents I reviewed. The FBI did not turn over any such material to the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) in the 1990s.

I will also challenge the FBI’s refusal to provide these documents and the rest of the informant files to the ARRB or the other investigative bodies that have demanded that all relevant evidence be turned over.  This is part of a pattern that I will discuss in my follow-up article.

Warren Commission in the dark

Marina’s love life also was an area of potential embarrassment for all concerned. After her husband’s murder in policy custody, she became romantically involved with her business manager James Martin, with whom she discussed the pros and cons of marriage which might lessen the possibility of her deportation.   Marina was vulnerable to pressure due to her immigration status.

Chief counsel Rankin was informed that the surveillance of Marina would be ended.  The FBI recommended that Agent Newsom’s report not be given to the Warren Commission, in order to avoid public criticism of the Bureau for tapping Marina. Hoover wrote that the Commission was trying to embarrass his agency. The story remained hidden.

When the New York Times story broke the story a decade later, Warren Commission assistant counsel David Belin said that it was “horrible” that the Commission was not informed about the FBI’s actions.

Legal implications in 2015

Since the failure to obtain RFK’s permission to plant bugs in Marina’s home has been revealed for the first time, the argument can now be made that the FBI cannot claim reasonable belief of compliance with the law prior to the 1972 court decision that court approval is required in order to use hidden microphones.

The statute of limitations only begins to run in a setting where a reasonable person would learn about it.   Media publication is considered to be such a setting.

The time to sue on the telephone tap would have begun with publication of the Times story in 1975, and the statute of limitations has long since run on that subject.

The time to sue on the bugging of Marina’s home, however, has arguably just begun with the publication of this story revealing RFK’s failure to provide permission.

Dick Russell has written about how Marina has expressed interested about filing suit to try to take effective action in reaching resolution in the JFK case. I wonder if she is still interested?

My legal opinion is that Marina Oswald – and maybe even her two children, who resided with her at the time – are now free to file a lawsuit against the FBI and certain officials for the planting of the bugs.

Wednesday, December 27, 2023

CIA media asset & Dallas Morning News reporter Hugh Aynesworth offered to show a blackmail sex tape of Marina Oswald to JFK researcher Rachel Rendish

 

Hugh Aynesworth offered to show Texas-based JFK assassination researcher Rachel Rendish a blackmail sex tape of Marina Oswald. Rachel’s 12/27/23 email to me on this topic

Rachel Rendish is a longtime JFK assassination researcher based in Texas. She lives reasonably close to Dallas in the north Texas area. Rachel used to be very good friends with Marina Oswald who was quite repulsed when Rachel mentioned that she had been one of Ilya Mamantov's students at Southern Methodist University in Dallas. Ilya Mamantov's was one of the interpreters who was recruited to speak for Marina Oswald and Marina felt that Mamantov would often twist her words to portray Oswald in the most negative light.

Rachel Rendish had dealings with Hugh Aynesworth as she came across him in the Dallas area in her JFK assassination research.

Below Rachel Rendish tells the time that Hugh Aynesworth offered to show Rachel a blackmail sex tape of Marina Oswald. Rendish says this occurred sometime in 1994/1995/1996 period.  Below is the text of the email that Rachel Rendish sent me on 12/27/2023 at 11AM CST:

Rachel Rendish:

QUOTE

So Robert this what I want to say. 

Over the years I have been told some crazy dooky about Aynesworth. If half of it is true we are looking at a very bad person.

 

Hugh may be dead but sometimes the bad things a person did need to be known and live on in minds of others for a little bit of justice for their victims.  During one of my Daryl Howard Marina Porter visits I had been delicately told the details of Marinas personal life after the assassination.  She was lonely and terrified and covering by partying spending money and men often felt the needed to take a shot at her. After all a trophy story.  Hugh was one of those. Scoring points for his agency checks living as an Intel asset he could appear to be a great journalists. It's not hard to do when your being guided by the agency. 

 

One night a rebel JFK historian called me to run up to Prego Pasta House. Aynesworth was in the bar. A perfect time to visit in person.  I jumped at the chance. I walked in and was introduced and I wanted to ask him a question about Ted Bundy. My friend also mentioned I was interested in the women of the Jfk case. Hugh was asked to debrief Bundy while incarcerated. Also write a book on him. I asked Hugh if Bundy mentioned Pullman Wa?  One night our family was finishing dinner when Cheryl Friar crashed thru the front door. Pale and gagging straining to say a man tried to put her in his VW. My dad jumped up and walked with her down the road but no one was there. He took her home. Later we realized her description fit Bundy. Cheryl had lovely long red hair and she fit his target. Hugh said he faintly remembered  Bundy saying something about WSU but he would have to check his tapes. Then he moved the conversation to The assassination. Who have I interviewed? I always kept that vague and he asked about Marina.  I told him yes I had a few chances to talk with her. What do you think of her? I told him.my mother always felt bad for her and actually Marina and I had a miraculous and disastrous first meeting. All in all I think she is the most important witness standing. I liked her. Tapping the bar he turned and whispered he had something he would like to show me.  He had a film that might change my opinion of her. I surprised him. Oh yes I know all about that film and how you boys set her up.  She said that was the item you always used for blackmail. I have absolutely No Interest in seeing it. He was stunned. Paula his wife came in and gushed awhile about her wonderful husband.  That was the end of it. I had another occasion to put him on the spot at a PI meeting. I asked about the chain of evidence being broken when and how he gained access to sell Oswald’s diary to Life Magazine.  I think it should be mentioned that he was key in blackmailing and controlling Marina Oswald Porter for decades. Hugh got us all where we are today. He should be recognized. 

 UNQUOTE

Robert Morrow 3/2/2013 post on Hugh Aynesworth at Education Forum

Hugh G. Aynesworth and the Assassination of JFK - Page 6 - JFK Assassination Debate - The Education Forum (ipbhost.com)

QUOTE

About a year or two ago I got Hugh Aynesworth on the phone and I asked him (after other questions) "Did you ever sleep with Marina Oswald?" (Another JFK researcher told me it was a possibility.)

His answer: no, but it was available if I wanted it and I think she was sleeping with her body guards.

Then I asked him, what did you think when you first saw the Zapruder Film? Doesn't that prove there was a shooter from the front (because of the back head snap) and doesn't it prove their was a conspiracy? His answer I can't not precise recall but it was quite lame - something about he had already gone down the lone nutter path and it was too late change (I am paraphrasing here).

I also asked Aynesworth - about that story of Oswald wanting to assassinate Richard Nixon, did you get that from Marina Oswald first or did you get it from somewhere else. Aynesworth's answer - he heard about that story from somewhere else first.

My opinion is Oswald/Nixon story was a fabrication by the government and they used Aynesworth to feed it to Marina Oswald and then act like it came from her. It was all about the posthumous frame up or pin-it-all on Oswald.

UNQUOTE