The Truth About Oswald's Birth Certificate

[W. Tracy Parnell]

http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-truth-about-oswalds-birth.html

John Armstrong and his followers believe there is something funny about CE 800 which is Oswald's birth certificate. This piece rebuts their assertions.

[Thomas Graves]

1 hour ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-truth-about-oswalds-birth.html

John Armstrong and his followers believe there is something funny about CE 800 which is Oswald's birth certificate. This piece rebuts their assertions.

 

Tracy,

Don't you realize that this proves the bad guys were planning on using Truman Capote, too?

--  Tommy

 

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Yes Tommy, I guess they had him on standby!

[W. Tracy Parnell]

My article has now been updated with information provided by noted researcher Paul Hoch regarding the origin of the Hoover/impostor theory.

[Gary Murr]

Thank you for this pertinent and well researched article, Tracy, and it is nice to see that you were in contact [?] with Paul Hoch, as you indicate a very good researcher and someone whom I have known for a long time.

Much appreciated,

 

Gary Murr

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Thanks very much Gary!

[Jim Hargrove]

 

Tracy,

 

I’m not sure what the significance of this is supposed to be. Neither John nor I are contesting the fact that a Lee Harvey Oswald was born on October 25, 1939 to Marguerite Claverie and Robert E. Lee Oswald. Following is the full write-up from Harvey and Lee. What is it you find incorrect?

 

==================== Quote On ======================

 

Lee Harvey Oswald

 

Two months after the death of his father Lee Harvey Oswald was born, on

October 18, 1939. He was delivered by Dr. Bruno F. Mancuso at the Old French Hospital

in New Orleans. A birth notice was listed in the "Records of the Day" section in the

Times-Picayune on October 26, 1939.

 

NOTE: The short, dumpy, heavy-set "Marguerite Oswald" told the Warren Commission,

"His father's name was Robert Edward Lee, he was named after General Lee. The

family's name is Harvey--his grandmother's name was Harvey. And so he was named Lee

Harvey Oswald.''²²

 

The Recorder of Births, Marriages, and Deaths in New Orleans Parish recorded

Oswald's birth in Book 207, Folio 1321. The record on file is a "Declaration of Birth"

for Lee Harvey Oswald, was witnessed by Harvey F. Oswald, and dated October 25,

1939. This declaration is NOT a birth certificate. A "Declaration of Birth" is a document

that was used when births occurred outside of a hospital and without an attending phy-

sician, such as births that occurred on a rural farm. A "Certificate of Birth" was routinely

issued for children born in hospitals or delivered at a private home by a physician, es-

pecially in a large city such as New Orleans. A "Certificate of Birth" should have been

issued by either the Old French Hospital or Dr. Bruno F. Mancuso within a day of

Oswald's birth. A birth certificate for Lee Harvey Oswald has never been made public.

 

NOTE: After the assassination Dallas Police detectives found a document that has been

incorrectly identified as Oswald's birth certificate. This document is listed as item #448

in Warren Commission Exhibit 2003 and identified as "Birth Certificate# 17034." This

document is NOT a birth certificate nor is it the "Declaration of Birth" mentioned above.

Item #448 is merely an acknowledgment by the New Orleans Parish Office of Records of

Births, Marriages and Deaths that Oswald's birth was recorded in Book 207, Folio

1321. ^52-03 Upon payment of a small fee, anyone can obtain such a certificate.

 

The original "Declaration of Birth" has never been found, nor was a copy published in

the Warren Volumes. The FBI obtained a copy of this document from an unknown source,

which was released by the FBI along with thousands of other JFK related documents in

1978.

 

--from Harvey and Lee, pp. 16 & 17, Copyright © 2003 by John Armstrong

 

 

===================== Quote off ===========================

 

What should be investigated is Phillip Corso’s claim to Richard Russell that as noted below by John, also on page 17 of Harvey and Lee.

 

A FINAL NOTE ON OSWALD'S BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Following the as-

sassination of President Kennedy, former Army Intelligence officer Colonel Phillip James

Corso was asked by Senator Richard Russell (a member of the Warren Commission) to

conduct a discreet inquiry into the assassination. Within a short time Corso reported back

to Senator Russell that there were two birth certificates in the name of Lee Harvey Oswald

and they had been used by two different people. Corso cited his sources as Francis Knight,

head of the US Passport Office in Washington, DC, and William 0. Sullivan, head of

the FBI's Domestic Intelligence Division.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Its all laid out in my article Jim. Besides hinting that something funny is going on, Armstrong says that the document (a copy of which is found in CE 800) is not a birth certificate. I make the case that there was a logical progression-Harvey Oswald filed an affidavit (which Armstrong calls a declaration of birth). The reason he had to do this probably had something to do with the death of Robert Sr. Next, a birth certificate was issued (the same day as the affidavit). Finally, a newspaper birth notice appeared. Along the way I look at things like the myth of the Hoover/Impostor theory which researcher Paul Hoch shows actually originated with an agent named Good and not Hoover as Armstrong (in his TFD article only not the book) and numerous CT books would have you believe.

Edited January 7, 2017 by W. Tracy Parnell

[Sandy Larsen]

On 1/5/2017 at 0:36 PM, W. Tracy Parnell said:

http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-truth-about-oswalds-birth.html

John Armstrong and his followers believe there is something funny about CE 800 which is Oswald's birth certificate. This piece rebuts their assertions.

That is not a rebuttal. It's a disagreement on whether or not CE 800 is a birth certificate. I'm with Armstrong, Hargrove, Bugliosi, and the Warren Commission on this one... CE 800 is not a birth certificate. It certifies that Oswald was born on Oct. 18, 1939. But in spite of that it's not a birth certificate.

 

Here is a New Orleans birth certificate:

 

Here is the back side of the certificate showing that it is a certified true copy of the birth certificate

 

Here is the receipt you get when you register a birth. Notice its resemblance to CE 800:

 

(Source)

[W. Tracy Parnell]

First, let’s remember what is driving this whole debate. It is John Armstrong and people like him who think there is something (and that something is never specified of course) wrong with the Oswald birth documents. In his book, Armstrong states:

Quote

The record on file is a "Declaration of Birth" for Lee Harvey Oswald, was witnessed by Harvey F. Oswald, and dated October 25, 1939. This declaration is NOT a birth certificate … A birth certificate for Lee Harvey Oswald has never been made public… This document [CE 800] is NOT (emphasis in original) a birth certificate nor is it the "Declaration of Birth" mentioned above.

 

Bugliosi summed up the situation perfectly:

Quote

Armstrong, a committed conspiracy theorist, writes ominously that “a birth certificate for Lee Harvey Oswald has never been made public,” the implication being that if it exists, the unnamed conspirators are suppressing it (instead of destroying it) because the certificate itself holds some kind of a key (along with a thousand other keys) to the assassination, which, of course, is nonsense.

 

Now we have Jim Hargrove saying that Armstrong is not disputing Oswald’s (or “a” Oswald’s) birth date. So why is Armstrong wasting good trees and everyone’s time if he isn’t disputing Oswald’s birth date? The answer is that he is trying to create doubt about the veracity of the documents so that readers (who tend to disbelieve the official version of events anyway) will think something fishy is going on without having to go to the trouble of defining what that something is. That is the context of this debate. I am trying to explain to people that Armstrong is playing them for a fool with this entire affair.

A good example of what I am talking about come from Duncan MacRae’s forum from a CT named Rob Caprio. He says:

Quote

Can anyone point me to this [BC] in the WC's twenty-six volumes? Thanks!  [next post-Caprio again answering his own question] It can't be found because the WC did not include it. Why? They also did not include tax returns for LHO. Again, why? If he was a simple "lone assassin " as claimed, why all the subterfuge with his personal documents?

 

That thread ended up being 27 pages. That’s a lot of time and bandwidth for a non-issue.

http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,13200.0.html

Sandy, you say I am wrong and CE 800 is not a BC. Where is it then? There are only two documents in the record that could qualify-the two being discussed here. And what is the significance if I am wrong? We know what day Oswald and everyone else thought he was born from numerous documents. When do you think he was born, what is your proof that it was any other day and for what purpose was this charade undertaken?

What document was Oswald’s official birth certificate? I maintain it was CE 800. Who else thought CE 800 was Oswald’s birth certificate? Oswald and his mother did for starters. We know this since “BC # 17034” (the number on CE 800) is listed as proof of age for entry into the NYC schools (22 H 693; CD 28 4). While I have found no other documents that specially give the number 17034, it is common sense that the same document was used as proof of birth throughout Oswald’s life. What document did the DPD think was Oswald’s birth certificate? CD 800 (see 24 H 343) What document did the FBI think was Oswald’s birth certificate? In most cases, CD 800 (see, for example, CD 735, 44). In at least one case, they thought Armstrong’s “declaration of birth” from Harvey Oswald was (FBI 105-82555 Oswald HQ File, Section 6, p. 205-6).

I still maintain that CE 800 was Oswald’s birth certificate or he thought it was and used it throughout his life as such. I can tell you with complete certainty that either CE 800 or the Harvey Oswald affidavit is the birth certificate. If someone can show I am wrong and produce some other document, I will update my article to reflect that fact.

Regarding the documents you show here-they are from 1909 which is 30 years removed from Oswald and that is possibly significant. The first image that you say is a birth certificate looks like an affidavit to me and actually bolsters Armstrong’s argument for the “declaration of birth” business. This was a home birth and such a document would be used in the manner Armstrong suggests-to declare that a child was born outside of a hospital as is the case here. If this image indeed shows a birth certificate (the source is a genealogy site-who knows if they know what they are talking about, anyone can put anything on the Internet) then I would say the Harvey Oswald affidavit is really Oswald’s birth certificate and not CE 800.

The second image you have just certifies that it is a true copy, nothing else. Harvey Oswald’s affidavit has similar language at the bottom. There is a major difference between the third Image and CE 800. The third image is obviously a receipt and states that fact (it starts “received from”). But both CE 800 and the Capote document say “this is to CERTIFY that LHO/Capote … was born etc.” The format of the documents is similar but all birth, marriage and death certificates from New Orleans in this time period share that format as an Internet search will show.

 While I still believe CE 800 was Oswald’s BC, I will admit that the Harvey Oswald affidavit could be considered the birth certificate. But both documents show the same date of birth and Armstrong/Hargrove are apparently not disputing that date. What Armstrong is trying to do is muddy the waters and make people believe there is something nefarious going on in the case of Oswald’s BC. Whatever the exact truth, Oswald was born on October 18, 1939-period. But I will say this-if I am wrong about CE 800, somebody better contact AbeBooks and tell them they are selling a fraudulent birth certificate for 35 K.

[Guest]

I'm not going to dive into this as I did with the Postal Money Order silliness because my interest in Harvey & Lee is less than zero, but my late dad was born in New Orleans in 1908, I am an experienced lawyer, and I did sleep in a Holiday Inn Express a few weeks ago and thus am qualified to pontificate on almost any topic.

As a preliminary matter, remember that Louisiana is a civil law state - it is the only state whose laws are based on those of France.  I could not find the 1939 Louisiana statutes online, but the current Louisiana birth statutes are similar to those of other states.  A law review article indicates some extensive modernization occurred in 1940.  The phrase "declaration of birth" (or "affidavit of birth") does not appear in the current Louisiana statutes (but it does in the current statutes of Quebec, which I'll touch upon briefly).  Louisiana is also a "closed" state - vital records newer than 100 years may be accessed only by the subject and close relatives.  However, an investigative body like the WC could have obtained LHO's birth certificate if it had been deemed significant.

Much of the LHO discussion that I found on the Internet seemed to be based on the current Louisiana statutes.  The suggestion was made that for an in-hospital birth the hospital simply prepares the certificate (or at least provides the information), whereas for an out-of-hospital birth someone in attendance must make a "declaration of birth."  Here is what the current statute actually says (in relevant part):

§45. Preparation of birth certificates; by whom made

A. When a birth occurs in a hospital where prior arrangements for delivery had been made or in route thereto, the person in charge of the institution or his or her designated representative shall obtain, or make a reasonable effort, as defined in R.S. 40:44, to obtain the personal data, prepare the certificate, secure, or make a reasonable effort, as defined in R.S. 40:44, to secure the signatures required, and file the certificate as directed in R.S. 40:44. The physician or other person in attendance shall provide the medical information required by the certificate and certify to the facts of birth within seven days after the birth. If the physician, or other person in attendance, does not certify to the facts of birth within the seven day period, the person in charge of the hospital shall complete and sign the certificate.

B. For births occurring outside of hospitals, the certificate shall be prepared and filed by the physician, midwife, or other person in attendance at the birth, or, if not so attended, by one of the parents who shall file it with the local registrar. If neither of the parents of the newborn child, unattended by either physician or midwife, is able to prepare a birth certificate, the local registrar shall secure the necessary information from either of them or from any person having direct knowledge of the birth and prepare and file the certificate in accordance with duly promulgated regulation as provided in R.S. 40:33(C).

CE 800 appears to be evidence of birth that is provided to the individual to serve the same function as a copy of a birth certificate.  You will note that it states "Keep this for future reference," which a birth certificate obviously would not.  Under the current Louisiana statutes, an individual may obtain either a copy of his birth certificate or a short-form certificate.  CE 800 may be the 1939 equivalent of a short-form certificate or it may simply be what you received in 1939 when you wanted a copy of your birth certificate.

Here are the current Quebec requirements, Quebec law likewise being derived from France:

Every birth that takes place in Québec must be declared to the Directeur de l'état civil. The Directeur de l’état civil draws up the act of birth and registers the birth in the Québec register of civil status. The act of birth is drawn up using:

the Attestation of Birth, filled out by the physician or midwife;

the Declaration of Birth, filled out by the child’s parents (online electronic declaration of birth service or print version of the Declaration of Birth form).

So in Quebec both an attestation by the doctor and a declaration by the parents are required in order to register every birth.  Perhaps this was the situation in Louisiana in 1939.  What Sandy is calling a "birth certificate" from 1909 above actually appears to be just another declaration like Harvey Oswald's, certified as a true copy in 1972.  It may be that in the New Orleans Parish of this era the births were simply registered in a master register on the basis of a declaration - i.e., that there was no "certificate" per se.  If so, then the fact that the declaration of Harvey Oswald is the only document would not be suspicious.

Here is yet another example, described as a "birth certificate" from 1901 in the archives of Tulane University (where I would hope they know what they are talking about):  You will note (if I have copied it properly) that it is identical to what Sandy is calling merely a "receipt."

Birth cert - Copy.bmp

Based on the above, my guess would be that in the Louisiana of 1939 a "birth certificate" was merely a little document like this showing proof of registration, which would be given to the parents (or perhaps Harvey, in LHO's case).  Note that, unlike CE 800, the Tulane sample (like Sandy's) does not have the "Keep this for future reference" notation - which leads me to suspect that CE 800 is something like a copy that could be used to obtain a passport or for other official purposes.

As seems to be par for the course, fans of Harvey & Lee are simply finding mysteries where there are none.  This seemingly could all have been (or still be) easily solved by inquiries to the Louisiana department of vital records, as opposed to speculating.

I just checked what I have from my birth in Arizona in 1950.  I have an original "Birth Certificate" from the hospital that was given to my parents.  I have an original "Certificate of Birth" from the Arizona Department of Health, Division of Vital Statistics that was given to my parents.  And I have a certified copy of my "Certificate of Birth" that I obtained many years later from the Division of Vital Statistics - which is ostensibly a photocopy of my "Certificate of Birth" from 1950 but looks NOTHING like it.  Birth cert - Copy.bmpAll of which I am finding pretty suspicious.

 

Edited January 8, 2017 by Guest

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Quote

Based on the above, my guess would be that in the Louisiana of 1939 a "birth certificate" was merely a little document like this showing proof of registration, which would be given to the parents (or perhaps Harvey, in LHO's case).  Note that, unlike CE 800, the Tulane sample (like Sandy's) does not have the "Keep this for future reference" notation - which leads me to suspect that CE 800 is something like a copy that could be used to obtain a passport or for other official purposes.

Lance,

So what you are saying is that CE 800 was as close to a BC as Oswald had? Is there any chance that the Harvey Oswald affidavit is a BC? In your opinion what would be the purpose of the Harvey Oswald affidavit? Edit-never mind I just reread it and understand what you saying.

Edited January 8, 2017 by W. Tracy Parnell

[Sandy Larsen]

31 minutes ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

First, let’s remember what is driving this whole debate. It is John Armstrong and people like him who think there is something (and that something is never specified of course) wrong with the Oswald birth documents. In his book, Armstrong states:

Bugliosi summed up the situation perfectly:

 

Now we have Jim Hargrove saying that Armstrong is not disputing Oswald’s (or “a” Oswald’s) birth date. So why is Armstrong wasting good trees and everyone’s time if he isn’t disputing Oswald’s birth date?

How do you know that the birth date is in question? Maybe the existence of the "True" birth certificate is.  I think it's a perfectly good and valid question to ask why the WC didn't get a certified copy of Oswald's "True" birth certificate. Like the one I posted above.

One of Armstrong's sources said that if a baby was born outside a hospital, the birth could be reported to the county. If I understood and recall correctly, in that case there would not be a birth certificate, and a "birth declaration" like CE 800 would be used instead. If so, that begs two questions. First, given that certified copies of "True" birth certificates could (and can still) be ordered, then it's only reasonable to conclude that there are situations where said certified copies are required. So if a person wasn't born in a hospital and doesn't have a "True" birth certificate, how would that person comply in situations requiring a certified copy? I believe I have the answer for that. If such a person ordered a certified copy, what he would get is his "birth declaration" (like CE 800) copied onto special "security" paper, and stamped on the back declaring it to be a certified copy. Note that in that case, the certified copy of the "birth declaration" would be the birth certificate. (If I am right about this.)

The other question would be, why wouldn't Oswald have a "True" birth certificate, given that he was born in a hospital?

An irregularity seems to exist here, and John Armstrong points it out. There's nothing wrong with that.

The answer is that he is trying to create doubt about the veracity of the documents so that readers (who tend to disbelieve the official version of events anyway) will think something fishy is going on without having to go to the trouble of defining what that something is. That is the context of this debate. I am trying to explain to people that Armstrong is playing them for a fool with this entire affair.

A good example of what I am talking about come from Duncan MacRae’s forum from a CT named Rob Caprio. He says:

 

That thread ended up being 27 pages. That’s a lot of time and bandwidth for a non-issue.

http://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,13200.0.html

Sandy, you say I am wrong and CE 800 is not a BC. Where is it then? There are only two documents in the record that could qualify-the two being discussed here. And what is the significance if I am wrong? We know what day Oswald and everyone else thought he was born from numerous documents. When do you think he was born, what is your proof that it was any other day and for what purpose was this charade undertaken?

What document was Oswald’s official birth certificate? I maintain it was CE 800. Who else thought CE 800 was Oswald’s birth certificate? Oswald and his mother did for starters. We know this since “BC # 17034” (the number on CE 800) is listed as proof of age for entry into the NYC schools (22 H 693; CD 28 4). While I have found no other documents that specially give the number 17034, it is common sense that the same document was used as proof of birth throughout Oswald’s life. What document did the DPD think was Oswald’s birth certificate? CD 800 (see 24 H 343) What document did the FBI think was Oswald’s birth certificate? In most cases, CD 800 (see, for example, CD 735, 44). In at least one case, they thought Armstrong’s “declaration of birth” from Harvey Oswald was (FBI 105-82555 Oswald HQ File, Section 6, p. 205-6).

I still maintain that CE 800 was Oswald’s birth certificate or he thought it was and used it throughout his life as such. I can tell you with complete certainty that either CE 800 or the Harvey Oswald affidavit is the birth certificate. If someone can show I am wrong and produce some other document, I will update my article to reflect that fact.

Regarding the documents you show here-they are from 1909 which is 30 years removed from Oswald and that is possibly significant.

I highly doubt it. Changes in style would take place over the years. Not much more than that.

The first image that you say is a birth certificate looks like an affidavit to me and actually bolsters Armstrong’s argument for the “declaration of birth” business. This was a home birth...

Oswald was born at home? I thought he was born in a hospital. If he was born at home, and if what I said above is correct, then the CE 800 would indeed be the birth certificate. But not a certified one.

...and such a document would be used in the manner Armstrong suggests-to declare that a child was born outside of a hospital as is the case here. If this image indeed shows a birth certificate (the source is a genealogy site-who knows if they know what they are talking about, anyone can put anything on the Internet) then I would say the Harvey Oswald affidavit is really Oswald’s birth certificate and not CE 800.

I don't know what you mean by "the affidavit."

The second image you have just certifies that it is a true copy, nothing else. Harvey Oswald’s affidavit has similar language at the bottom.

I can't comment any further because I don't know what the affidavit is you speak of. I did see another document in the Baylor files, and it could be that. Plus there is a document that is part of CE 3000 that you mentioned but I couldn't find.

There is a major difference between the third Image and CE 800. The third image is obviously a receipt and states that fact (it starts “received from”). But both CE 800 and the Capote document say “this is to CERTIFY that LHO/Capote … was born etc.” The format of the documents is similar but all birth, marriage and death certificates from New Orleans in this time period share that format as an Internet search will show.

 While I still believe CE 800 was Oswald’s BC, I will admit that the Harvey Oswald affidavit could be considered the birth certificate. But both documents show the same date of birth and Armstrong/Hargrove are apparently not disputing that date. What Armstrong is trying to do is muddy the waters and make people believe there is something nefarious going on in the case of Oswald’s BC. Whatever the exact truth, Oswald was born on October 18, 1939-period. But I will say this-if I am wrong about CE 800, somebody better contact AbeBooks and tell them they are selling a fraudulent birth certificate for 35 K.

 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Lance,

So what you are saying is that CE 800 was as close to a BC as Oswald had? Is there any chance that the Harvey Oswald affidavit is a BC? In your opinion what would be the purpose of the Harvey Oswald affidavit?

Yes, my informed guess would be that CE 800 is what LHO would have called his "birth certificate" and what he would have used to obtain a passport and that sort of thing.  Marguerite probably had the original "birth certificate" (the "receipt" document), which she might well have given to LHO if an original were necessary for some purpose (as it might have been to enter the USSR).  I don't think the Harvey Oswald affidavit is a birth certificate; my guess is that it is what was needed to register LHO's birth with the New Orleans Parish department of vital statistics.  However, I did find one Louisiana governmental site that said they would accept as proof of identity either a birth certificate or a declaration of birth.  So Harvey's affidavit might have served the same function as a birth certificate, but my guess would be that its primary purpose was to get the birth registered.  As with the Postal Money Order endorsement lunacy - which, lucky for you, I believe you missed - it seems to me this could all be solved with some inquiries to Louisiana officials:  What do you get if you order a copy of a birth certificate from 1916?  What do they believe the purpose of a declaration was? 

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Lance,

Thanks for your participation here. At least you are an attorney. The rest of us are just speculating. I doubt Marguerite had any other document such as a birth certificate. The reason I say that is she sold virtually everything she had and something like that would have fetched a good dollar. I didn't miss the PO thread-I read the whole thing. I have been hesitant to contact any officials because I am afraid that once they find out the nature of my interest that will be the end of the conversation. One thing is for sure to me. We know when LHO was born and there is no mystery.