A Couple of Real Gems from the "Harvey and Lee" Website

[Sandy Larsen]

16 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Sandy,

I sent your post to John and he wrote back with the following (your comments in black, John's in red):

Jim,

I'm having trouble reconciling some things when the Oswalds were
living in NYC.

By studying everything, it seemed to me that it was HARVEY who was
mostly absent from school in 7th grade, and not LEE. YES, ABSOLUTELY !! And it seemed
that it was FAKE Marguerite who was the unfriendly one who went from
job to job. OF COURSE. But now I find myself doubting this conclusion, because
John Pic's testimony seems to suggest quite the opposite.

John Pic's testimony is here.

I've always thought that Pic was either largely unaware of the
Oswald Project, or at least wasn't in a position (or not willing) to
play along with it in his WC testimony. However, in hist testimony
he talks about his brothers' truancy and psychological problems, and
about his mother frequently changing jobs. His testimony tells me
that I've got it backwards... that it was really his mother who
couldn't hold onto a job, and really his brother LEE who was truant.
NO, PIC KNEW HIS BROTHER LEE. HE TOLD THE WC THAT HIS
BROTHER ATTENDED A JHS AT 89TH/90TH BETWEEN 2ND &
3RD AVENUE (BUT THIS IS MANHATTAN, NOT THE BRONX).
PIC ALSO FAILED TO IDENTIFY THE BRONX ZOO PHOTO AS HIS
BROTHER.

Either that or he was fibbing in his testimony and going along with
the official story. That is to say, he was really referring to the
FAKE Marguerite and HARVEY when speaking of his mother and brother.

What is your take on this? PIC FAILED TO IDENTIFY SEVERAL OF
HARVEY'S PHOTOS AS HIS BROTHER, INCLUDING A PHOTO OF
HARVEY HANDING OUT FPCC LITERATURE IN NEW ORLEANS.
PIC KNEW, ABSOLUTELY, BUT WAS NOT WILLING TO DISCLOSE
MUCH.

NOW, LET ME TELL YOU SOMETHING INTERESTING. ROBERT OSWALD
TOLD THE WC THAT HIS "BROTHER" ATTENDED STRIPLING JHS IN
FT WORTH. BUT THIS WAS HARVEY, NOT LEE. ROBERT'S TESTIMONY
LEAD ME TO STRIPLING, AND STUDENTS WHO REMEMBERED HARVEY
IN THE 9TH GRADE (WHILE LEE WAS ATTENDING BEAUREGARD JHS IN
NEW ORLEANS. NOW, WHAT AM I SUPPOSED TO THINK WHEN ROBERT
WROTE IN HIS BOOK (LEE, BY ROBERT OSWALD) THAT HIS BROTHER
ATTENDED A JHS NEAR 68TH & COLUMBUS (SORRY, NOT SURE OF THE
EXACT ADDRESS, BUT IT IS IN HIS BOOK). NOW, GUESS WHAT JUNIOR 
HIGH SCHOOL IS NEAR THIS ADDRESS?? 

LEE WAS ATTENDING PS 44 IN THE BRONX, WITH A GOOD ATTENDANCE
RECORD. HARVEY MAY HAVE BEEN ATTENDING A JHS NEAR 68TH &
COLUMBUS (OR COLUMBIA) IN MANHATTAN. CAN YOU GUESS THE 
NAME OF THIS SCHOOL ?????

IT IS PS 44 (IN MANHATTAN). THERE WAS A PS 44 IN ALL 5 NEW YORK 
BURROUGHS IN THE 1950'S.

SANDY, YOU ARE ON THE RIGHT TRACK. JUST KEEP FOLLOWING
THE EVIDENCE. AND LOOK AT THE YOUTUBE VIDEO OF DR. MILTON
KURIAN, A PSYCHIATRIST WHO INTERVIEWED HARVEY IN APRIL,
1953. HARVEY TOLD DR. KURIAN THAT HIS "BROTHER" WOULD
OFTEN SUBSTITUTE FOR HIM IN SCHOOL. NOW, AT THIS TIME 18
YEAR ROBERT OSWALD WAS IN THE MARINES AND PIC WAS IN
THE COAST GUARD AND MARRIED. WHO WAS HARVEY'S "BROTHER?"
I THINK YOU KNOW THE ANSWER.
 

Jim,

Thanks for getting that response from John.

He says a lot of stuff I already know and mostly don't disagree with. Unfortunately he completely ignored my concern. I mean, didn't he? I'm wondering why it is that Pic in his WC testimony is obviously talking as though his mother is the fake Marguerite and his brother is HARVEY. I don't see where John addresses that in his response. Maybe because of the way I worded it?

Pic talks about a Marguerite who can't keep a job and who lost one job due to body odor. He talks of a LHO who is truant and is having psychological problems. This is an issue that needs explaining. I'm not saying it kills the theory, only that it needs a logical explanation.

Maybe the real family and fake family did things together as a large family unit, and in that way knew a lot about each other. Maybe the fake Marguerite was thought of as a second mother, and HARVEY as an extra brother. (I was in a situation like that as a young teenager myself. My best friend was like a brother and his mother was like a mother to me.) And so when talking about his "mother," PIC would say only things that pertained to his second mother. And when talking about LHO, he spoke only of his adopted brother HARVEY.

Could this be it? There has to be an answer.

 

[W. Tracy Parnell]

3 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Could this be it? There has to be an answer.

Careful Sandy. This type of speculation and deviation from the Armstrong doctrine could get you excommunicated. Seriously, there is an answer-the theory is nonsense. 

[Jim Hargrove]

Sandy,

The last paragraph of John’s note refers to Dr. Kurian’s recollection that HARVEY told him his “brother” often substituted for him in school.  The Marine and Coast Guard employment of Robert and John Pic—as well as their significant age differences—shows that the brother substitute couldn’t have been either one of them.  If it was LEE who was doing the substituting, how could he not have a truancy problem, despite what the clearly bogus NYC school records seem to indicate?  Unraveling NYC is no easy task, although as you and David have shown, it is provable that the school records have been fabricated.

 

[Jim Hargrove]

4 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

As can be seen on the left (or right) school record, Oswald entered P.S. 44 late, on March 23. Using David's chart below, I count that there were 65 days available for Oswald to attend spring semester. However, he was dismissed 17 of those days to attend Youth House. That leaves 48 days available to him to attend. Therefore, had he not missed a single day, his records would have shown he attended 48 days.

However -- AND THIS IS REALLY AMAZING -- Oswalds records show that he attended an astonishing 110.5 days! That is more days than are available in a whole term!!

But it's worse than that. Oswald did miss some days... 16.5 days according to the school record above. So he really attended only 48 - 16.5 = 31.5 days.

So Oswald attended only 31.5 days but got credit for 110.5 days! Where did that extra 79 days come from??

 

I have a working hypothesis, one that is very similar to what happened in the Beauregard Junior High School case, where HARVEY's records were apparently merged with LEE's.

Here's what may have happened. HARVEY attended P.S. 117, missed more days than he attended, and got failing grades. He transferred to P.S. 44, was truant, went to Youth House, and finished out the spring term with several absences. In all he was in attendance for only 31.5 days, as David's chart shows. He then disappeared from P.S. 44. Perhaps he attended a different school in the fall of 1953. But he did not attend P.S. 44.

See that middle school record above? HARVEY's final record at P.S. 44 would have looked almost like that. The only difference is that it would show the number of days present at P.S. 44 as 31.5 and the number of days absent as 16.5, as discussed above. There would be no scores for P.S. 44 classes written in, as HARVEY attended so few days. Now try to visualize this record so that you'll be able to see how it will later be merged with LEE's record.

LEE also attended P.S. 44 in the spring of 1953, as well as in the fall. However, he didn't transfer in from P.S. 11 7like HARVEY did. As a result he got a school record sheet that begins at P.S. 44. It looked very little like HARVEY's record sheet. It contained only the two columns of P.S. 44 passing grades we see in the left (or right) record above. Now try to visualize LEE's record.

Now, later on somebody (the FBI?) discovered that there were two records for the same person, our LHO. The person decided to copy the scores over from one of the records to the other so that there would be a single, complete record. If you visualize the two records, it will become obvious why the person decided to transfer the data from LEE's record over to HARVEY's and not vice versa. It's because, to that person, it looked as though somebody had accidentally created a new record (LEE's) for Oswald rather than appending the new P.S. 44 data onto the prior (HARVEY's) record, as should be done.So the person proceeded to do just that. He copied LEE's data over to HARVEY's record.

There was only one problem in doing this. And that is that there were TWO FIELDS that both had data, and they conflicted. Those were the Days Present and the Days Absent fields. Not understanding why there would be any such numbers at all on HARVEY's  record, and seeing that the number on HARVEY's record was rather small anyway (only 31.5), he decided to just add the numbers together.

As a good student, LEE had only a few absences. To make this work out, let's say that his record showed 79 days of attendance. This is not too far from a full term. Adding that to the 31.5 on HARVEY's record gives a total of 110.5 days of attendance. So the guy erased the 31.5 and replaced it with 110.5. Which is what we see on the merged record, above.

And that is the reason we see a school record that radically conflicts with HARVEY's known truancy problem, and why we see an impossibly large number for days attended in the spring of 1953. That is, according to this hypothesis.

 

And this is yet another reason why all of "Oswald's" original school and employment records had to disappear!

 

[Sandy Larsen]

19 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Sandy,

The last paragraph of John’s note refers to Dr. Kurian’s recollection that HARVEY told him his “brother” often substituted for him in school.  The Marine and Coast Guard employment of Robert and John Pic—as well as their significant age differences—shows that the brother substitute couldn’t have been either one of them.  If it was LEE who was doing the substituting, how could he not have a truancy problem, despite what the clearly bogus NYC school records seem to indicate?  Unraveling NYC is no easy task, although as you and David have shown, it is provable that the school records have been fabricated.

 

Jim,

So are you saying that you think both the boys were (or might have been) truant?

BTW, that thing about one brother substituting for the other did come to mind, even before John mentioned it. In fact it's one thing that made me wonder if HARVEY and FAKE Marguerite were spending a lot of time with LEE and the REAL Marguerite, like an extended family..

 

[David Josephs]

Well embraced Sandy....

One thing I'd like to throw in... I have a difficult time with your assumption that a child has 2 different PERM RECORDS simply because he changed schools.

That's the point of a permanent record... one place for everything that occurs to a child while in NYC middle schools. 

I would suggest the concept of FBI alteration and creation of documents for it is the FBI report which claims Oswald attended 200 of 210 available days.

[Jim Hargrove]

David and Sandy,

Here's the page from Robert Oswald's book that mentions the Manhattan school:

 

[Jim Hargrove]

13 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Jim,

So are you saying that you think both the boys were (or might have been) truant?

BTW, that thing about one brother substituting for the other did come to mind, even before John mentioned it. In fact it's one thing that made me wonder if HARVEY and FAKE Marguerite were spending a lot of time with LEE and the REAL Marguerite, like an extended family..

 

Beyond Robert, who clearly moved back and forth between the pairs, I can’t think of any evidence at all for the extended family business.  What else can we do but follow the evidence?  The “brother” NYC school substitution Dr. Kurian recalled Harvey talking about, however, could provide a hint to Lee’s possible truancy, but that still doesn’t explain Pic’s characterization of Marguerite.  I’m puzzled by it.

What isn’t puzzling, though, is the increasingly clear evidence that school records from NYC, New Orleans, and Fort Worth were both destroyed and fabricated in order to make two Lee Harvey Oswalds appear to be one.  Ditto for the employment records.  The Marine records are even clearer.  The evidence for two Oswalds in the weeks prior to the assassination, of course, is famous (or infamous).  Filling in the other details, considering all the disinformation we’ve been handed, isn’t easy.

[Jim Hargrove]

John just sent me this census page from 51-52 that indicates a “Harvey Oswald” was born to a “Marguerite Ekdahl” on October 19, 1938.  (According to the WC, “Lee Harvey Oswald” was born on Oct. 18.)  Note John’s note about Marguerite’s use of the name “Oswald.”
 

Anyone care to make a theory about this?  Just a series of weirdly familiar mistakes?

[W. Tracy Parnell]

16 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

John just sent me this census page from 51-52 that indicates a “Harvey Oswald” was born to a “Marguerite Ekdahl” on October 19, 1938.  (According to the WC, “Lee Harvey Oswald” was born on Oct. 18.)  Note John’s note about Marguerite’s use of the name “Oswald.”
 

Anyone care to make a theory about this?  Just a series of weirdly familiar mistakes?

Yes I have  a theory. It is obviously a typo.

Edited June 24, 2017 by W. Tracy Parnell

[David Andrews]

Jim, has John ever considered why John Pic took an angry attitude in his WC testimony?  One couldn't read his emotions from the transcript, but the WC counsel brings the attitude up to Pic and threatens Pic with the law and the military authorities if he doesn't cooperate.  This may be the only instance in the WCR where a witness receives this treatment.

[Sandy Larsen]

On 6/22/2017 at 1:05 PM, David Josephs said:

One thing I'd like to throw in... I have a difficult time with your assumption that a child has 2 different PERM RECORDS simply because he changed schools.

David,

Yes, that is an assumption on my part. It doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

But what about Stripling? They had a copy of Oswald's record there. Doesn't that indicate that schools do keep a copy of the record that they pass on to the next school?

BTW, Greg Parker claims that schools didn't keep school records... the school district did. And that that proves that Oswald's record at Stripling could not have been taken by the FBI.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

On 6/22/2017 at 3:30 PM, Jim Hargrove said:

David and Sandy,

Here's the page from Robert Oswald's book that mentions the Manhattan school:

 

 

Jim,

Robert says that Marguerite looked for a new school for Lee and that he entered P.S 44 (in Manhattan) on September 14. That implies he was attending another school prior to that. What school was that? (According to the book.)

 

[Sandy Larsen]

21 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Beyond Robert, who clearly moved back and forth between the pairs, I can’t think of any evidence at all for the extended family business.  What else can we do but follow the evidence?  The “brother” NYC school substitution Dr. Kurian recalled Harvey talking about, however, could provide a hint to Lee’s possible truancy, but that still doesn’t explain Pic’s characterization of Marguerite.  I’m puzzled by it.

What isn’t puzzling, though, is the increasingly clear evidence that school records from NYC, New Orleans, and Fort Worth were both destroyed and fabricated in order to make two Lee Harvey Oswalds appear to be one.  Ditto for the employment records.  The Marine records are even clearer.  The evidence for two Oswalds in the weeks prior to the assassination, of course, is famous (or infamous).  Filling in the other details, considering all the disinformation we’ve been handed, isn’t easy.

I agree... it's like trying to figure out Mexico City.

But the Pic characterization problem is, in my view, an isolated one that should have a simple answer. The problem is self contained... at least that's the case if it is accepted that primarily only one of the Oswalds had truancy problems, and primarily only one of the Marguerites had employment problems.

I can think of only five possible explanation for Robert's mischaracterizations:

1. My "extended family" scenario.
2. It is actually LEE (not HARVEY) who had the truancy problem. (This doesn't explain the Marguerite employment problem. But I paid less attention to Pic's testimony regarding her, so perhaps that's not really a problem.)
3. The FBI went to town altering Pic's testimony. (This doesn't sound so absurd considering the real possibility that Pic's testimony was largely inconsistent with the official story.)
4. Pic was extensively coached, and did an excellent job of lying.
5. There were two Pics. (Maybe even two Roberts). And it was the fake one who testified.

Can anybody think of any other possibility that would account for Pic's wrong characterization of LEE and REAL Marguerite?

IMO, #4 would have been too difficult, #5 is too ridiculous, and #2 probably doesn't work for Marguerite. That leaves #1 and #3.

#3 certainly seems a lot more likely than #1. Though the alterationist likely would have had to be a professional story writer. Pic's testimony sounds very real to me.

Another possibility is a combination of #2 and #3. If it is LEE who was the truant one, that would explain Pic's characterization of LHO. (This is #2.) Any problem with Pic's characterization of Marguerite could be fixed through alteration. (This is #3.) Let's call this Possibility #6.

My favorites -- those that I think are feasible-- are:

      3. The FBI went to town altering Pic's testimony.
      6. It was LEE with truancy problems. And Pic's testimony regarding Marguerite was tweaked as necessary.

I know that there is evidence that the boy with truancy problem was HARVEY. But remember, there is also evidence that the boy was LEE. Is the evidence that it was HARVEY so great that we are sure it was he who was the truant one?

 

[Sandy Larsen]

4 hours ago, David Andrews said:

Jim, has John ever considered why John Pic took an angry attitude in his WC testimony?  One couldn't read his emotions from the transcript, but the WC counsel brings the attitude up to Pic and threatens Pic with the law and the military authorities if he doesn't cooperate.  This may be the only instance in the WCR where a witness receives this treatment.

David,

I didn't read all of Pic's testimony. What did he say that got him in trouble?

You say that you can't read his emotions. Maybe not in all of it. But I recall in the parts I read that he sure had a sour attitude toward his mother.