Essay: The Mystery of Marina Oswald

[Jon Banks]

Excerpt:

Let's recap here:

1. Marina, part of the Soviet upper-middle class, reasonably educated and an attractive young woman, meets Lee Harvey Oswald and is so smitten by him that she agrees to marry him in a little over a month ? two weeks of which he spent courting her from a hospital bed.

2. The Soviet government grants Marina permission to marry him in the span of 10 days, despite the fact that this is an MVD colonel's niece marrying a U.S. defector.

3. Oswald immediately decides to head back to the United States, and in spite of her uncle's supposed objections ? and Prusakov could have stopped this dead in its tracks if he wanted ? she is granted permission to leave the Soviet Union in the company of an American defector. The time between her formal request and receiving permission is a matter of weeks.

If the Warren Commission has the facts right ? and we think they do ? then this is clear: the Soviet government wanted Marina and Oswald to marry and they wanted them to go together to the United States. That is crystal clear. Now, we take a leap, but a reasonable one: The only agency in the Soviet Union with the ability and interest to get this done was the KGB. If Marina wasn't KGB, she did one hell of an imitation.

Endless questions flow from this, ranging from what the mission was to why the U.S. embassy permitted Marina into the country. This now enters into the realm of speculation. However, one thing is clear to us: Any theory as to what happened on Nov. 22, 1963, that does not take into careful account the role of Marina Oswald is inherently flawed. This includes the Warren Commission's own findings. If Lee Harvey Oswald killed John F. Kennedy, there has been no adequate explanation of Marina Oswald's role in this.

The only way to dismiss the Marina question is to make the following three assertions:

1. You have to believe that Marina, the attractive MVD princess, took one look at Oswald and said, "I've got to have that man."

2. You have to argue that obtaining permission in 10 days for an MVD colonel's live-in niece to marry an American defector was no big deal.

3. You have to argue that getting an exit permit from the Soviet Union for Marina in the space of six weeks in 1961 was no big deal.

If ever there was a cooked-up marriage, this was it. Now, how this fits into the assassination story is too speculative to bother with ? but that no explanation is possible without building this into the story is obvious.

There has been tremendous focus on Oswald's stay in the Soviet Union and speculation that his defection might have been part of a CIA plot. That is not inconceivable, although the purpose of the plot is opaque. There has been focus on Washington's decision to readmit Oswald, even though he had renounced his U.S. citizenship. All of this has focused attention on the CIA, but there has not been equal attention paid to the extraordinary story of Marina Prusakova's marriage to Oswald and her exit from the Soviet Union.

This does not necessarily clear things up, but in our mind, it sets an additional hurdle that any theory must pass over. The eagerness of the Warren Commission to pass over the strange marriage of these two is one of the reasons we have little confidence in the analysis it contains. The fact of the marriage raises questions of whether Oswald was, simply in the context of his marriage, involved in a conspiracy. If he was the only gunman ? which we doubt ? he still was not alone.

https://worldview.stratfor.com/article/mystery-marina-oswald

[Howard Gee]

"If he was the only gunman ? which we doubt ? he still was not alone."

So they doubt he was the only gunman, but even if he was, he still was not alone ?

And that's based on his marriage.

Who writes this crap ?

[Richard Rubio]

Statfor is a think tank out of TX I believe, I've known of them for a few years. They want to charge others for their services. I think they want to claim some expertise in foreign policy but I think from what I've seen, they don't have a great batting average but you end up having to subscribe to them to find out what they think in a lot of cases anyway.

Even if one is not into conspiracies, I'm sure there are conspiracy theorists with integrity. I believe there are some in this forum in fact. So, when there are books out of hundreds of pages by CTs on the JFK assassination, might I be looking and think, "oh, boy, this is what Stratfor thinks!".

If one can post them having a good record in what they do, I would pleasantly, accept the correction.

[Jon Banks]

"If he was the only gunman ? which we doubt ? he still was not alone."

So they doubt he was the only gunman, but even if he was, he still was not alone ?

Even if Oswald was the only shooter in Dealey Plaza, it doesn?t mean he was not part of a Conspiracy.

It?s not that complicated if you read slowly...

[Richard Rubio]

The Atlantic on Stratfor and before one reads it, let's remember,  maybe Stratfor has some good writers and it doesn't all apply to the analysis by the Atlantic. Maybe the article above is correct. I'd just be cautious using stratfor.

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/02/stratfor-is-a-joke-and-so-is-wikileaks-for-taking-it-seriously/253681/

[Jon Banks]

Statfor is a think tank out of TX I believe, I've known of them for a few years. They want to charge others for their services. I think they want to claim some expertise in foreign policy but I think from what I've seen, they don't have a great batting average but you end up having to subscribe to them to find out what they think in a lot of cases anyway.

Even if one is not into conspiracies, I'm sure there are conspiracy theorists with integrity. I believe there are some in this forum in fact. So, when there are books out of hundreds of pages by CTs on the JFK assassination, might I be looking and think, "oh, boy, this is what Stratfor thinks!".

If one can post them having a good record in what they do, I would pleasantly, accept the correction.

I believe their expertise is in the areas of Foreign Policy and National Security. So commenting on Marina?s background in the Soviet Union seems to be within the realm of their expertise...

[Jon Banks]

The Atlantic on Stratfor and before one reads it, let's remember,  maybe Stratfor has some good writers and it doesn't all apply to the analysis by the Atlantic. Maybe the article above is correct. I'd just be cautious using stratfor.

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/02/stratfor-is-a-joke-and-so-is-wikileaks-for-taking-it-seriously/253681/

They?re entitled to their own opinions. Everyone has one. I have my own opinions about the Atlantic.

Do you want to comment on the content of the essay?

[Howard Gee]

So Saint Patsy's marriage to Marina is evidence of a conspiracy ?

With whom ?

He wasn't alone ?

Who was he with ?

They doubt he was the only shooter ?

Based on what ?