The Far-Reaching Influence of “Harvey and Lee”

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Jim also writes that I

Quote

must declare that only the mastoidectomy is relevant to the case of two Oswalds

Jim has misunderstood what I've been saying. Different aspects of the 'Harvey and Lee' theory fail for different reasons, but the mastoidectomy is noteworthy for two things.

Firstly, the fact that the body in Oswald's grave had undergone a mastoidectomy operation proves that the theory John Armstrong put forward in Harvey and Lee is wrong.

The biographies of Armstrong's two fictional characters are a central part of his theory. He claimed specifically that the body in the grave was not that of the imaginary doppelganger who had undergone the operation. But the exhumation report showed that the body in the grave had in fact undergone the operation. Armstrong was wrong.

Secondly, it appears to show that Armstrong was dishonest. He knew that his fictional biographies were wrong, because in his book he cited the scientists' report of the exhumation. But he went ahead and included the biographies in his book anyway.

Not only did he claim to be true something he knew to be false, but he failed even to mention the existence of the mastoidectomy defect, a crucial fact that disproved his theory. By doing so, he misled his readers.

Armstrong's apparent dishonesty leads to two questions that have been following Jim from thread to thread, and which he has avoided answering many times:

Since Armstrong knew about the defect, he must have misled his readers deliberately. Would Jim agree that this shows Armstrong to be dishonest? If not, what alternative explanation can Jim put forward for Armstrong's behaviour?

[Jim Hargrove]

Mr. Bojczuk nearly every day for years has used the mastoidectomy to declare his case closed.  To do so, of course, he must declare that only the mastoidectomy is relevant to the case of two Oswalds, that there are no other explanations for the mastoidectomy, and that all the other evidence is irrelevant, a “distraction.”  

Let’s consider just a handful of other examples of the evidence for two Oswalds.

1.  Way back in 1948, one LHO was living at 101 San Saba in Benbrook while the other was at 3330 Willig St. (and then 7408 Ewing) in Fort Worth.

2. In 1953 the Russian-speaking LHO (Harvey) was sent to Youth House for truancy, fled to Stanley, North Dakota to avoid further entanglement with the NYC legal system, and started attending Beauregard JHS in New Orleans that fall, all the while the American-born LHO (Lee) had good attendance both semesters at PS 44 in NYC.

3.  During the fall semester of 1954, Harvey attended Stripling School in Fort Worth while Lee attended Beauregard School in New Orleans,.

4. By the mid-1950s, both Oswalds had various sometimes conflicting jobs, which eventually required the FBI to destroy all the original employment (and school) records for both young men and to create a false employment and education legend.  The Social Security Administration refused to corroborate the Official Story® of "Oswald's" pre-1962 income, offering instead "Copies of three pages of the Warren Commission Report regarding employment of Lee Harvey Oswald prior to service in the Marine Corps."

5. The Marine Corps records are a gold mine: My favorite chronicles Harvey Oswald's trip to Formosa (Taiwan) while Lee was being treated for VD in Japan.  Other examples from USMC unit diaries and testimony show how the two LHOs associated with completely different groups of Marines both early and late in their enlistment periods.

6. While Russian-speaking HARVEY was in the Soviet Union, American-born LEE was active briefly as an agent provocateur in NYC, working with Marita Lorenz and anti-Castro Cubans in and around Florida, visiting Bolton Ford dealership in New Orleans, and much more.

7.  One Oswald never had a driver’s license and could not drive while the other had a valid Texas driver’s license and could drive, including doing work for Jack Ruby in 1963 involving cars.

8.   American-born LEE Oswald appeared in Baytown, TX on Labor Day weekend in 1963 attempting to purchase rifles from Fidel Castro’s friend and gun supplier Robert McKeown.  At the time, Russian-speaking HARVEY Oswald and his family were on holiday with the Murrets at Lake Pontchartrain in Louisiana.

9. In October 1963, two different young men, both claiming to be “Lee Harvey Oswald,” appeared before Texas Employment Commission employee Laura Kittrell, the first on October 3 and again a few days later, the second on October 22.   Ms Kittell told the HSCA’s Gaeton Fonzi that the second Oswald “looked the same,” and had “the same general outline and coloring and build, but there was something so different in his bearing.”

10. While the other Oswald was elsewhere, LEE Oswald visited the Sports Drome Rifle Range on Oct. 26, Nov. 9, Nov. 10, and again on Nov. 17, several times creating a scene and once shooting at another guy's target;

11. On Nov. 2 one LHO visited Morgan's Gun Shop in Fort Worth.

12. Also on Nov. 2 LEE Oswald visited the Downtown Lincoln Mercury dealership where he test drove a car at recklessly high speeds saying he would soon come into enough money to buy a new car.  (Remember that Russian-speaking HARVEY Oswald did not have a driver’s license.)

13. On Nov. 6 or 7 LEE Oswald visited the Irving Furniture Mart for a gun part and was referred by the ladies there to the shop where Dial Ryder worked.

14. On Nov. 15, LEE Oswald went to the Southland Hotel parking garage (Allright Parking Systems) and applied for a job and asked how high the Southland Building was and if it had a good view of downtown Dallas.

15. On Nov. 20 “Oswald” hitch-hiked on the R.L. Thornton Expressway while carrying a 4 foot long package wrapped in brown paper and introduced himself to Ralph Yates as “Lee Harvey Oswald,” discussed the President's visit, and asked to be dropped across the street from the Texas School Book Depository (where Russian-speaking “Lee Harvey Oswald” was already working).

16. On Nov. 22, both LHOs were in Dealey Plaza.  One left in a bus and then a taxi; the other got into a Nash Rambler station wagon.

Each of the 16 topics above, and others, can be discussed in more detail.  Details for all are provided at HarveyandLee.net, and in even greater detail in the Harvey and Lee book.  Of course, the H&L critics want everyone to believe this is all a distraction.  It is not a distraction.  It is EVIDENCE!

[Jonathan Cohen]

2 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Mr. Bojczuk nearly every day for years has used the mastoidectomy to declare his case closed.  To do so, of course, he must declare that only the mastoidectomy is relevant to the case of two Oswalds, that there are no other explanations for the mastoidectomy, and that all the other evidence is irrelevant, a “distraction.”  

Let’s consider just a handful of other examples of the evidence for two Oswalds.

No. Let's not. How about, for once, actually addressing the mountain of evidence Jeremy has posted in this thread which completely destroys the entire H&L theory, instead of posting the same list of totally irrelevant talking points OVER and OVER again? Even simply saying, "I am not sure how to reconcile the mastoidectomy evidence" would at least be intellectually honest and grist for actual debate and discussion.

Edited August 10, 2020 by Jonathan Cohen

[James Norwood]

25 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

How about, for once, actually addressing the mountain of evidence Jeremy has posted in this thread which completely destroys the entire H&L theory, instead of posting the same list of totally irrelevant talking points OVER and OVER again? 

Once again, you are wrong, Jonathan.  Jim Hargrove and I are presenting evidence.  It is users like Jeremy who write screeds, as opposed to analysis of the evidence. 

The evidence for the two Oswalds is overwhelming and cannot be dismissed in tract writing.  For example, I raised the topic of the manuscript of Laura Kittrell in which she identified two men claiming to be Lee Harvey Oswald whom she interviewed at the Texas Employment Commission.  In response, a user named Charles Dunne responded with a quote from the Bible!  I'm not making this up; he quoted from Scripture in an effort to derail a perfectly good discussion topic.

The idea of this thread is to discuss the far-reaching influence of the Harvey and Lee evidence on major scholars, as identified at the top of this thread.  The "irrelevant talking points" are coming in the way of tract writing from you, Jeremy, and Charles Dunne.
 

[Jonathan Cohen]

34 minutes ago, James Norwood said:

Jim Hargrove and I are presenting evidence.
 

Uh huh. So when challenged on the cornerstone of the entire H&L theory -- the fact that the body in Oswald's grave had undergone a mastoidectomy operation -- Jim Hargrove instead rattles off a dozen-plus statements that have nothing to do with the specific question at hand? That is evidence of.. what exactly?

[James Norwood]

27 minutes ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Uh huh. So when challenged on the cornerstone of the entire H&L theory

I'm sorry, but the mastoidectomy operation is not the "cornerstone" of any theory.   It is only one minor component of the evidence and one that I have not even given much consideration, given the overwhelming amount of much more significant data.

What I am interested in primarily is the complete body of evidence pointing to the existence of two Oswalds.  

If you are looking for a single component of the evidence that might be considered a cornerstone, it would be Oswald's proficiency in the Russian language at such an early age.  How do you or the other users attacking the two Oswald evidence account for Oswald's skills in speaking Russian?

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

1 hour ago, James Norwood said:

2 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

How about, for once, actually addressing the mountain of evidence Jeremy has posted in this thread which completely destroys the entire H&L theory, instead of posting the same list of totally irrelevant talking points OVER and OVER again? 

Once again, you are wrong, Jonathan.  Jim Hargrove and I are presenting evidence.  It is users like Jeremy who write screeds, as opposed to analysis of the evidence. 

If it were evidence of anything, you should provide it to the proper authorities.  But you don’t, because it actually isn’t.

If it were, Forum members would be able to determine that for themselves.  

Without page after page of largely non-responsive derp being fired off whenever a valid question cannot be answered. 

You think people don’t notice your collective MO?  

You think Forum members don’t see you retreat from threads started by your opponents, to allow them to disappear?  (And with non-responsive “rebuttals” that don’t actually rebut, but lots of advice on how critics should improve their writing style.  Pot meet kettle.)

You think Forum members don’t notice when you abandon your own threads, because you cannot sustain them, in the face of withering questions for which you have no plausible answer?  

You think Forum members don’t notice that, bereft of actual verifiable evidence, you often introduce non-relevant ‘coulda’ or “mighta” maybes?   

Where is the massive audience you think this topic deserves?  If it’s not here, where might one be able to find it?

 

1 hour ago, James Norwood said:

The evidence for the two Oswalds is overwhelming and cannot be dismissed in tract writing.  For example, I raised the topic of the manuscript of Laura Kittrell in which she identified two men claiming to be Lee Harvey Oswald whom she interviewed at the Texas Employment Commission.  In response, a user named Charles Dunne responded with a quote from the Bible!  I'm not making this up; he quoted from Scripture in an effort to derail a perfectly good discussion topic.

Why yes, I did quote from the Bible.  And had you known it was a famous Bible verse, you perhaps wouldn’t have called it a cliche.

But because you didn’t have a clue, and now that you have called it a cliche, you have no choice but to double down on the vitriol.  

Whether one believes in the Bible or not, it is a book full of all manners of political intrigue, commission of crimes, and contains quotes of great wisdom, even if stripped of their religious background.  

Which you apparently don’t know.  You should.  You’d find things of interest.

But you say my citing a Bible quote was a way to “derail a thread?”

The fact that you are ignorant of a famous quote doesn’t mean it was cited to derail a thread.

But your response did make you look.... um.... less than aware.  (Is that a sufficiently charitable characterization?)

A recurring issue I note.

I may also quote from Shakespeare in the future.  Or is the Bard off limits because you'd interpret that as trying to derail your thread?  Maybe Richard III with the two princes in the tower.  Or As You Like It, which does have a woman impersonating a man.  Hell, yeah.  Maybe we can shoehorn Nancy Lee Oswald into the mix, after all

1 hour ago, James Norwood said:

The idea of this thread is to discuss the far-reaching influence of the Harvey and Lee evidence on major scholars, as identified at the top of this thread.  The "irrelevant talking points" are coming in the way of tract writing from you, Jeremy, and Charles Dunne.

Then perhaps you should invite these “major scholars” you speak of to contribute here.

If they are “major scholars” perhaps they can answer the questions asked here that make you flee.  

Maybe “major scholars” could do better than the minor ones resident here.

[James Norwood]

17 minutes ago, Robert Charles-Dunne said:

Then perhaps you should invite these “major scholars” you speak of to contribute here.

If they are “major scholars” perhaps they can answer the questions asked here that make you flee.  

Maybe “major scholars” could do better than the minor ones resident here.

I raised the question about Oswald's Russian language skills, and you responded by talking about "major" and "minor" scholars.  That is an example of what I mean by derailing a conversation.

So, I will repeat my question:

In plain English, can you explain how, when, and where Oswald developed his proficiency in the Russian language?
 

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

1 hour ago, James Norwood said:

I raised the question about Oswald's Russian language skills, and you responded by talking about "major" and "minor" scholars.  That is an example of what I mean by derailing a conversation.

You're the dude who mentioned "major scholars."  Who are they?  Why not invite them here?  Maybe they can answer the questions you cannot.  Or are we disallowed from knowing who the hell you mean?

3 hours ago, James Norwood said:

The idea of this thread is to discuss the far-reaching influence of the Harvey and Lee evidence on major scholars, as identified at the top of this thread. 

Remember that comment?  Who are they?  Invite them to participate here.  Seems like you could use some reinforcements. 

1 hour ago, James Norwood said:

So, I will repeat my question:

In plain English, can you explain how, when, and where Oswald developed his proficiency in the Russian language?

Yes, I can.  And it doesn't require pre-teens to be scouted and swapped out for a decade.

So you'd simply dismiss it as a screed, or long rambling filibuster, as you always seem to do with anything for which you have no meaningful or significant retort.

You seem to think your repeated, recurring unwillingness to engage points raised here - legitimate and valid ones, no matter who might post them - goes unnoticed.

You merely rattle off some face-saving slurs and then evaporate.

Maybe the major scholars you have in mind can do better?  Ask them.  Let's see if they can answer questions instead of avoiding them.

And maybe they wouldn't lose their cool if somebody quoted the Bible or Shakespeare.  Whereas you seem derailed by such "cliches."

[Jonathan Cohen]

1 hour ago, James Norwood said:

In plain English, can you explain how, when, and where Oswald developed his proficiency in the Russian language?
 

You guys sure like to start the same thread over and over again, don't ya? Here are plenty of perfectly logical, alternative explanations for how Oswald developed his Russian skills, in a thread Sandy created and in which you posted repeatedly, back in ... 2017.

Now then. In plain English, can you address how H&L adherents rationalize the fact that the body in Oswald's grave had undergone a mastoidectomy operation?

Edited August 10, 2020 by Jonathan Cohen

[James Norwood]

I certainly do not consider Paul Trejo's responses as "perfectly logical, alternative explanations."  The 2017 thread that you linked primarily brings up Paul's rationale that Oswald learned Russian through "immersion," yet he offered no evidence for the immersion other than Oswald's stay in Minsk.  But the evidence points to Oswald primarily speaking English during his stay in the Soviet Union.  And it does not account for how Oswald had competency in the Russian language prior to traveling to the Soviet Union in 1959.

Neither you nor Charles Dunne have answered my question.

So, for the third time and without digressing into other topics or engaging in personal invective:  can you explain how, when, and where Oswald developed his proficiency in the Russian language?

Edited August 10, 2020 by James Norwood

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Jonathan Cohen writes:

Quote

How about, for once, actually addressing the mountain of evidence Jeremy has posted in this thread which completely destroys the entire H&L theory, instead of posting the same list of totally irrelevant talking points OVER and OVER again?

It makes you wonder who he thinks he's going to convince by repeatedly avoiding awkward questions. Let's bombard them with Scripture until they see the light! Praise Armstrong! Why is Jim trying to make 'Harvey and Lee' look even more like a fundamentalist cult?

At the tail end of page 12, I pointed out the five main tactics of the 'Harvey and Lee' believers when confronted by criticism they can't answer:

(a) Ignore the alternative explanations that the critics have given.
(b) Repeat the claim that has just been contradicted, as though the alternative explanations don't exist.
(c) Change the subject by throwing in a few unrelated 'Harvey and Lee' talking points.
(d) Try to get the critics banned (copyright James Norwood).
(e) Cut your losses, abandon the thread, and start a new one at tactic (b).

Sure enough, Jim followed the script in his very next post, just four posts after the one in which I described his modus operandi.

I'd guess it's only a matter of time before they cut their losses on this one and start yet another 'Harvey and Lee' propaganda thread.

Quote

Even simply saying, "I am not sure how to reconcile the mastoidectomy evidence" would at least be intellectually honest and grist for actual debate and discussion.

Intellectual honesty! Good luck with finding any of that. The believers know that once they admit a weakness with something as central as the biographies of the two fictional doppelgangers, the whole pile of nonsense collapses. "Actual debate and discussion" is the last thing they want.

Incidentally, in the thread you linked to, it only took James Norwood three pages before he went running to the teacher, complaining about someone who had dared to disagree with him. What's the matter with the guy? Why is he so afraid?

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

James Norwood writes:

Quote

It is users like Jeremy who write screeds, as opposed to analysis of the evidence.

Since the 'Harvey and Lee' believers have used the word 'screed' more than once recently, I decided to dust off my old hardback dictionary, to see if the word possessed a meaning of which I was unaware:

Quote

screed (skri:d) n 1. a long or prolonged speech or piece of writing. 2. a strip of wood, plaster, or metal placed on a surface to act as a guide to the thickness of the cement or plaster coat to be applied. 3. a mixture of cement, sand, and water applied to a concrete slab, etc., to give a smooth surface finish. 4. Scot. a rent or tear or the sound produced by this. [C14: probably a variant of Old English scrēade SHRED]

(Collins English Dictionary, 3rd edition, 1991)

A "long or prolonged ... piece of writing" is what I guess they find objectionable. The post of mine that James objected to contained ... let me just add it up ... 255 words. Was that too much for James to take in at one sitting? I notice that his reading comprehension skills are somewhat lacking when it comes to "Charles Dunne" (real name: Robert Charles-Dunne).

Jim's reply to my post contained 836 words. Does that count as a screed? It looks like three-and-a-bit screeds, if you ask me.

Of course, the objection isn't really to the number of words, is it? What the believers are objecting to is having to face up to a serious problem with their beloved yet nonsensical theory. John Armstrong's variation on the old Oswald doppelganger notion was debunked by solid scientific evidence two decades before he published his book. You can understand why they don't like to be reminded of this.

Quote

It is users like Jeremy who write screeds, as opposed to analysis of the evidence.

As for "analysis of the evidence", that is precisely what I was doing, and precisely what Jim avoids doing by repeatedly depositing piles of 'Harvey and Lee' talking points.

Jim seems to be under the misapprehension that the strength of the evidence is determined by its quantity. If I put forward 16 pieces of evidence and the unbelievers only put forward 15, I win! I'm certain he isn't really as stupid as his behaviour makes him look.

Jim surely understands that you can't argue against the mastoidectomy evidence by piling up a load of talking points that have nothing to do with the mastoidectomy evidence. Again, he is reduced to doing this because his only other option is to admit that Armstrong was wrong and apparently dishonest.

Since James is so keen on "analysis of the evidence", let's see what he can do with the mastoidectomy evidence. So far, three 'Harvey and Lee' believers, including the guru himself (praise be unto him!), have offered three analyses, each of them faulty:

1 - John Armstrong: the doppelganger who underwent the operation was not the doppelganger who was buried in Oswald's grave. We know this is incorrect, because it is contradicted by solid scientific evidence. Armstrong himself knew that what he wrote was incorrect.

2 - Sandy Larsen: both doppelgangers underwent the operation. Unfortunately, Sandy has produced neither a second set of medical records nor a second doppelganger with a mastoidectomy defect, so that's the end of that idea. (Incidentally, is it true that Sandy is now a full professor?)

3 - Jim Hargrove: the doppelganger who underwent the operation was the one who was buried in Oswald's grave. Promising, but Jim has failed to explain how his speculation fits with the rest of the 'Harvey and Lee' nonsense. He needs to rewrite the biographies of the two fictional characters, something that may not be possible.

Would James Norwood like to have a go? It involves some "analysis of the evidence", so I'm sure he'll be keen to add his opinion, fully supported by relevant evidence, of course. If John Butler is reading this, let's see what he has to say, too.

When James has done that, perhaps he can do what Jim has been reluctant to do, and tell us what he thinks of Armstrong's apparent dishonesty in failing to mention the mastoidectomy defect on the body in Oswald's grave. As I put it in the post Jim deliberately avoided answering:

Quote

Since Armstrong knew about the defect, he must have misled his readers deliberately. Would Jim agree that this shows Armstrong to be dishonest? If not, what alternative explanation can Jim put forward for Armstrong's behaviour?

(Oh dear. I think I've done another screed. James won't be pleased.)

[Jim Hargrove]

4 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

It makes you wonder who he thinks he's going to convince by repeatedly avoiding awkward questions.

Mr. Bojczuk needs only to look at the first page of this topic to see that John A. hardly needs any help from me or anyone else here to add to the impact of his research.  H&L data is widespread in this field.

In his daily posts whining about the mastoidectomy and John’s coverage of it, Mr. Bojczuk always fails to acknowledge that we have discussed this before, pointing out numerous ways it can be resolved in the H&L framework.  Among the possible explanations,

It was Russian-speaking Harvey, not American-born Lee, who had the mastoidectomy all along.  Hoover just altered a report or two to make the medical histories match.

The same fine people who brought children and the MKULTRA program together decided it was their patriotic duty to drill a small hole in a kid’s skull by his ear (a mastoidectomy) in order to make the medical histories match.   It was "Marguerite's" housekeeper in New York City who said the child was getting mental tests at Jacobi Hospital, at the very time he was so often truant from PS 117. She, or the FBI agent describing her remarks, obviously meant the hospital that pre-dated Jacobi at the same location.

Both young men may have acquired the procedure naturally, since mastoidectomies were once far more common than they are now.

Of course, Mr. Bojczuk wants to talk only about the mastoidectomy and to declare all other evidence for two Oswalds a “distraction,” but his wish is hardly my command.   

Let’s continue to look at some other evidence for the two Oswalds.

1963: Harvey in New Orleans, Lee in Dallas

In the summer of 1963, when the Russian-speaking Lee HARVEY Oswald was in New Orleans pretending to be a pro-Castro commie, a lot of people saw American-born LEE Harvey Oswald hanging around with Jack Ruby in Dallas.  Among these people were Dorothy Marcum, Francis Irene Hise, Helen Smith (“Pixie Lynn”) , Dixie Lynn, Kathy Kay, and others.

Journalist Dorothy Kilgallen wrote in the New York Journal American (June 6, 1964): “It is known that 10 persons have signed sworn depositions to the Warren Commission that they knew Oswald and Ruby to have been acquainted.”

A few months ago Gary Shaw sent John A. a 10-page FBI report on a 1977 interview with a Ruby employee named Odell “James” Estes.  Estes told the FBI he worked at the Carousel Club from the last week in June until Sept. 2, 1963. 

Estes said he saw “Lee Oswald” at the Carousel Club many times during his employment there, including in Jack Ruby’s office.  He said he once drove Oswald to Love Field and even took two overnight fishing trips with Oswald to a lakeside cabin near Mineral Wells.  He described lengthy talks with this Oswald.  Since he (Estes) stopped working at the club on Sept. 2, he was quite certain that the two fishing trips, just a week apart, were both in August 1963.

Of course, in August 1963, Classic Oswald® was still in New Orleans.  Despite this depiction of “Oswald” being in New Orleans and Dallas simultaneously, an FBI cover memo states that Estes was “willing to submit to a polygraph examination” and “talked very coherently and did not evidence the mannerisms frequently associated with a mentally disturbed individual.”  It should be noted that although the 1977 FBI report indicated Estes was “80 percent blind,” in 1963 he could see well enough to drive a car.

A 10-page report on Odell Estes’ FBI interview can be read on the Mary Ferrell site at the link below:

ODELL ESTES FBI REPORT

[Jim Hargrove]

17 hours ago, James Norwood said:

So, for the third time and without digressing into other topics or engaging in personal invective:  can you explain how, when, and where Oswald developed his proficiency in the Russian language?

Apparently not.  John A. interviewed a number of Marines who said, prior to being stationed for the last time in California, LHO was NOT studying Russian, had no time to do so, and gave no indication of understanding the language.  And yet, he got more Russian questions right than wrong in a military language exam that, according to Vincent Bugliosi, was designed for native speakers.  He got essentially the same grade (‘poor’) in the Russian language exam as he got in English comprehension tests.  And this was before he ever set foot in the Soviet Union.

Oswald clearly spoke Russian and read Russian literature in the Marines prior to his false defection to Russia.  In his affidavit of June 6, 1964, Erwin Donald Lewis, stationed with Oswald at MACS-9 in California, swore that “It was a matter of common knowledge among squadron members that he could read, write, and speak Russian.”

 

While in Russia, Oswald pretended his Russian was so bad he needed a translator.  And yet Marina testified that he privately read “Russian classic writers” in Russian.

Mr. McDONALD. Did he read a lot when he was in the Soviet Union? 
Mrs. PORTER. Yes. 
Mr. McDONALD. What kind of books did he read there? 
Mrs. PORTER. Novels mostly. 
Mr. McDONALD. What kind of novels? 
Mrs. PORTER. What you call maybe as classical novels, some Russian classic writers. 
Mr. McDONALD. The novels or the books that he read in the Soviet Union, were they in Russian?

Mrs. PORTER. They were in Russian; yes.

When he returned to the U.S., the White Russians in and around Dallas were amazed at his fluency in the language attained in the 2-1/2 years he spent there.  In his manuscript I AM A PATSY! I AM A PATSY!  Russian immigrant George De Mohrenschildt, who Harvey in 1963 called his closest friend, described his amazement at Harvey’s Russian fluency.

 

For those who can’t see the graphic above, here’s what the main paragraph from this page of De Mohrenschildt's manuscript says:

Incidentally I never saw him interested in anything else except Russian
books and magazines. He said he didn't want to forget the language -
but it amazed me that he read such difficult writers like Gorki, Dostoevski,
Gogol, Tolstoi and Turgenieff - in Russian . As everyone knows Russian is
a complex language and he was supposed to have stayed in the Soviet Union
only a little over two years . He must have had some previous training and
that point had never been brught up by the Warren Committee - and it is
still puzzling to me. In my opinion Lee was a very bright person but not
a genius. He never mastered the English language yet he learned such a dif-
icult language! I taught Russian at all level in a large University, and
I never saw such a profficiency in the best senior students who constantly
listened to  Russian tapes and spoke to Russian fiends. As a matter of
fact American-born instructors never mastered Russian spoken language as
well as Lee did.

De Mohrenschildt would have made a fascinating witness at the HSCA hearings and, in fact, in early 1977 the HSCA sought to interview him. But on March 30 he was found in his home with a shotgun blast to his head.