Comment by hydroxylGroup
12 years ago
> during which time he attacked her
Still sounds kind of vague. What, precisely, does the word "attacked" refer to?
12 years ago
> during which time he attacked her
Still sounds kind of vague. What, precisely, does the word "attacked" refer to?
That could be polite speak for, "totally lost his shit when when I interrupted a derivation"
If someone trashed my knick-knacks and smashed my furniture for what would be normal personal interactions, I too would ask for a leave of absence.
It's important to remember that before the days of no-fault divorce false allegations of cruelty were commonly made to justify the split to a judge. Both parties to the divorce would agree on the story in advance and testify to the same under oath. It amounted to widespread ritualized perjury and was one of the major deciding factors in the passing of no-fault statutes.
This is all to say, take the allegations of extreme cruelty with a grain of salt.
That would be a form of "threatening" or maybe "menacing", and yeah, it's intimidation, but I wouldn't count it as an attack.
He attacked her, AND he threw bric-a-brak, AND he smashed furniture. Not attacked her by the last two, but in addition. The man was undoubtedly brilliant, spoke well and wrote well.
I don't think it useful, or likely to be accurate, trying to presume his homelife based on his public appearance.
6 replies →
I've had my wife throw items at me. It definitely felt like an attack as opposed to mere threats or menacing.
Reading the letters would help. A physical attack. "Choking"
But I would highly doubt her credibility having read her smear letter and the questioning methods they did those times, and the four years needed for the divorce.
p64: from an "Los Angeles Times" report 7/18/56 "His ex-wife reportedly testified that on several occasions when she unwittingly disturbed either his calculus or his drums he flew into violent rage, during which time he choked her, threw pieces of bric-a-brac about and smashed the furniture."
The other citations left out the choking part literally: "...the appointee's wife was granted a divorce from him because of appointee's constantly working calculus problems in his head as soon as awake, while driving car, sitting in living room, and so forth, and that his one hobby was playing his African drums. His ex-wife reportedly testified that on several occasions when she unwittingly disturbed either his calculus or his drums he flew into a violent rage, during which time he attacked her, threw pieces of bric-a-brac about and smashed the furniture."
I wonder what she wrote on the deleted 13 consecutive pages attachment at the end about his "Evidence of Disloyalty" and "Personality and Character", that the even the FBI decided to delete it. And a second questioning about 2 specific points brought nothing specific, so it was only this famous single letter. I find it interesting how she made up the numbered list of arguments which sound like FBI wordings, probably influenced by the questioning method.
She is summarized by the FBI as "She said that her personal feeling is that FEYNMAN is without character or acceptable moral fiber. She ... emphatically he is not acceptable to her as an appointment to any position with the U.S. Government which would require moral character and emotional stability." (p188) And she refused to furnish a signed statement on these allegations.