Mark Stevens

As if on cue, Mr. Hargrove enters and does the exact thing, literally everyone knew he was going to do. Never mind the witness statements in my right hand, what about these school records in my left? No Mr. Hargrove, not on to the details. How about back to the questions you've been asked and which you continue to avoid? STOP DERAILING CONVERSATIONS. ADDRESS POINTS AT HAND. THEN MOVE ON TO THE NEXT POINT. Will you, Mr. Hargrove, answer the question that has been put forth multiple times and please stop answering a question which wasn't even asked? I will gladly discuss the topic of the school records with you. I will not though allow you to continue to use "sleight of hand" to divert from the conversation at hand and wiggle out of answering questions presented to you. Also, while you ask about "retractions," you clearly made an error. Where is your retraction? You clearly accused me of putting words in peoples mouths, then righteously exclaimed how none of you would dare to make such an assertion without evidence (lollerskates) when it was quite clearly made. At no point have you retracted or corrected that statement, like all your errors you just move on like you didn't actually say the words you actually said. The point being is that often mistakes are made which aren't addressed, especially by the people making them. It does in no manner mean a mistake wasn't made because you didn't acknowledge it.

It would have to be for him to read this, and everything else, and then make the following post... This alleged "overwhelming evidence" has been discussed, or at the least attempted to be discussed numerous times. It quickly devolves into diverting topics when they become untenable. Anytime the witness statements are rightfully questioned, it quickly becomes a mastectomy argument or school record argument. All points can be addressed, stop derailing conversations, address points at hand, and then move on to the next points. Apparently you missed the part where I clearly quoted Dr. Norwood who made the assertion that there were a total of 6 eyewitnesses. Since, you apparently missed it, I quote him here again: You have quoted this post, thanked him for what he wrote in it, then turned right around and told this forum he didn't write the words in it. This highlights the cornerstone of what I, and many others who do not believe the H&L tale constantly tell you and other H&L proponents attempt to explain as the root of all of this, the consistent misreading and misrepresentation of what actually has been said. No sir, I did not put words in anyone's mouth. I guess this another, "articulated conclusion" from the H&L crowd. Which Marguerite? Besides, if she's part of some government conspiracy why should her words be trusted? Why would you use the words of a government agent who literally lives a daily life of lying to everyone about the core nature of who she is, why she exists, and her purpose on earth as the words of a person who shouldn't be trusted to tell you the sky is blue? The minor issue of your cognitive dissonance aside, I can't comment fully since I can't find the article "My Values Different, Defector Told Mother." What I can safely state is that when LHO was in 8th grade coincided with his time in NYC, in which he did in fact have truancy issues. At no point have I questioned whether she said that. I don't think any logical person would question whether she said that. What is being questioned is what qualifies her to say that. You know, what evidentiary fact, how she knew the person was LHO, which establishes the ultimate fact that she saw LHO walk across the parking lot? When someone asks her "how did you know that was LHO"? Is her reply, "Oh when I saw the picture on TV I realized it looked like the same guy." Or, did she state "Oh, I talked to Lee everyday I knew it was him." Also, it is important to note the fact that she allegedly saw LHO enter the front apartment when the person (HLO) lived in the rear apartment according to Armstrong. If HLO, or anyone for that matter, lived in the rear apartment, they would not under normal and common circumstances enter into the other residence, or hang out on that porch without some pre-existing relationship. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/evidentiary_fact We can also state, that weighed against the totality of all evidence, as highlighted ad nauseum, this amounts to literally nothing more than either the mistaken, or fabricated memories of a single person. A person who also states he has no knowledge of Oswald attending the school. Finally, we've arrived at the unimpeachable credentials and reporting history of the storied Ft. Worth Star-Telegram. For the 2017 article there are schools with named teachers and students who can remember him, but only nameless, faceless students and teachers regarding Stripling. This in no way provides evidence of anything other than people (what people?) thinking something. Without any tangible information to actually discuss, what are we to discuss? Some unknown amount of people remembering something? Surely time can be better spent on something which can be tangibly proven in one regard or another. If other information comes to light which identifies "who" remembers him and "what" they remember (outside of the 6 which have been discussed ad nauseum), then this should just be moved on from instead of constantly brought up when it is a position that cannot really be "attacked" or "defended" All we can prove is the newspaper said some people remember some things without clarifying who those people were, or what they believed. For the 2002 article, it states "Yet a 1956 student would become the school's best-known. For a few weeks - his mother moved several times across Fort Worth - a boy walked to Stripling from a home nearby." Unless I am mistaken (which we all know I have been, at least I admit it), in 1956 LHO was attending Arlington Heights. If he was walking to Stripling, it was to catch the bus. Why though would you use this, if the case in point is LHO/HLO attending in 1954? What point does it make? Will you continue to unabashedly use it? Or, will you at least modify your stance to "While this doesn't actually have anything to do with LHO/HLO attending Stripling at all, much less in 1954, it does have Stripling and Oswald in the same sentence. Close enough?" The other 4 articles, from 59-64 all likely reference the same error in reporting made in the original 1959 article. The wording is too similar not not have the same source. Eventually what you have is the same error being referenced in different years. Not a whole new round of investigative reporting each time a new story popped up. Every time they wrote an article and found it fitting, they inserted the blurb from the 1959 article into the new report. This isn't anything wild or crazy, newspapers make mistakes (as referenced and evident in their "Yet a 1956 student" error), and they also use archival information when reporting on historical characters on a fairly regular basis. Lee Harvey Oswald is likely the "best-known student" at almost every school he went to. Not because we was "well known at school," but because he was involved in (and accused of) the assassination of an American President. In agreement with Mr. Bojczuk below, I'm going to have to ask the same. Can you take the six witness statements and explain how I was wrong? I await your articulated conclusion.

The post I just posted at 10:14 Central was began around 3pm Central. I migrated between it and other activities. The same was true then, likely anyways. In any event, I did make some serious errors in a post I made, which could be the one you are referencing. Many were due to not paying attention, and others were due to my own confusion (some confusion from the not paying attention part). I do plan on editing the post in a manner that references the mistakes while correcting them. "Mark couldn't even get a simple date right." is definitely ironic though, considering the post I just made referencing James' inability to correctly identify a date. Much of which comes from Armstrong and H&L dogma which does the same.

You're right in that you've all provided some articulated conclusions, articulated in the sense that they bend and turn as necessary. I of course disagree and believe it is you who is not looking at the carefully enough at what the "eyewitnesses" stated. Based on the evidence (I'm guessing we are both talking about the same general evidence without knowing specifically which documents you are referring to) I see nothing that suggests anything remotely near the existence of two separate Oswald's. You are intentionally bending this statement to meet your needs. Context is incredibly important: Mr. JENNER. And, at that time, I take it your brother Lee was attending Arlington Heights High School? That would be 1952?Mr. OSWALD. Just a minute, please.In 1952 Lee was 13 years old. He would be attending W. C. Stripling Junior High School then.Mr. JENNER. I see. For the school year 1951-52?Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir. Junior high school there was from the seventh to the ninth grades. And as soon as he was through with his sixth year, he started attending W. C. Stripling Junior High School.Mr. JENNER. As soon as he finished the sixth year at Ridglea Elementary School, he entered W. C. Stripling High School, as a seventh grader?Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir--junior high school. You intentionally left out the qualifier that disqualifies this statement from being used in your argument, the years. The statement you are referencing does not even pertain to the years you are referencing and have stated this all pertains to; "the time he was enrolled in the school was fall 1954" and "In fall 1954, Harvey attended part of the ninth grade at Stripling..." Never mind the fact that we have already proven that you intentionally misled by omitting key portions of Robert Oswald's testimony to suit your needs and that the testimony does not even reference the fall of 1954 What exactly were these "total of six"(!) eyewitnesses, eyewitness to? Kudlaty: eyewitness to the transfer of records allegedly pertaining to LHO to FBI personnel; eyewitness to "did not know or remember Oswald; thought Oswald attended 9th grade..." Not really possible to confirm or refute. Something I guess you have to weigh against the totality of the other evidence and make your own conclusion on. It is clear though that Kudlaty did not actually know of Oswald's attendance at the school and his knowledge was solely the alleged records. With this in mind it is hard to use his statements as "eyewitness accounts of Oswald's presence at Stripling" when he never actually saw Oswald attending the school. Schubert/Tubbs: eyewitness to seeing Oswald walk across the playground when she was 12, 40 years after the fact. No context of how she knows the person walking across the playground and into a house he doesn't actually live in (according to Armstrong he lived in the rear house). It is important to know how she knew the person walking across the playground was LHO in 1954. What relationship did she have to be able to look across the playground and say "oh hey, that's Lee walking home for lunch, strange he's walking into that house when he lives in the rear, but hey Lee's a weird guy." Or, did she see a photo on TV 9 years after the fact, and get asked about it 40 years after the fact, and think it looked like a guy who walked into that house way back then? There is an easy way to get some semi clarity into this statement. That would be her comments regarding Delbert McClinton. Contact him, ask him if he remembers hanging out at this house with anyone. He is alive, one of you H&L proponents could put a real nail in the coffin with a statement from him saying oh yeah, me and Lee used to hang there often. Galindo: eyewitness to "it was 'common knowledge' that Lee Harvey Oswald attended Stripling." To the best of my knowledge, this is the totality of his knowledge of LHO and Stripling. Is there some context I'm missing, much like with Schubert/Tubbs, this context of how it was "common knowledge" is important. Also, since according to H&L proponents a total of six eyewitnesses can place LHO as attending Stripling, common knowledge doesn't seem to really fit. Summers: eyewitness to thinking he taught Oswald in the 7th grade. Again, to the best of my knowledge this is the totality of Summers' knowledge, he thought he taught LHO in the 7th. Never mind the fact that merely thinking something does not make it true nor me an eyewitness to the thought, this statement does not even reference the years in question. Again, you intentionally mislead by even including this statement when it does not even pertain to the years. Pitts: eyewitness to "when he and some of the neighborhood boys played touch football in his front yard, Lee Harvey Oswald would stand on the porch at 2220 Thomas Place and watch." Again, this is the totality of Pitts' knowledge of LHO attending Stripling. This totality is actually him knowing absolutely nothing about LHO attending the school. His knowledge is strictly limited to remembering a boy who resembled LHO standing on the porch of 2260 Thomas Place watching them play. Never mind the fact that according to Armstrong, HLO lived in the rear apartment, and would be unlikely to be sitting on the porch of a house he didn't actually live in. If you live in the rear apartment of a front/rear duplex, there is clear separation of a porch. It would not be shared, the rear tenant would not hang out on the front porch and definitely would not just walk into the front apartment, without some preexisting relationship which allowed this type of behavior. Gann: eyewitness to attending 9th grade at Stripling with LHO; seeing LHO shoot basketballs on the courts. He falls into the same category as Schubert/Tubbs. This needs some kind of context which explains whether Gann saw LHO on a photo on TV 9 years after the fact, and got asked about it 40 years after the fact, and thought it looked like a guy who walked into that house way back then, or information which explains that he knew him because they conversed daily, or were in a study group, or _anything_at_all_ which helps explain his statement. We started with a total of six eyewitnesses who "clearly recalled Oswald attending Stripling Junior High School." Based on your previous statements, during 1954. What we are left with though, is something a little different than that. I'm not saying they have to be ignored. They though are not eyewitnesses. What they are is 1 eyewitness to LHO attending the school in 1954 (Kudlaty), 1 eyewitness to LHO attending in 1952 (Summers), 3 people who at best remember someone they think might be LHO going to the school (Schubert/Tubbs, Galindo, Gann), and 1 person who saw him at a house across the street (Gann). Take it for whatever it may be. This mishmash of ambiguity and unclear, unhashed characters is not though a total of six eyewitness to LHO attending Stripling. Exclaiming otherwise is disingenuous, at best. Articulated conclusions indeed. Please let me know if you believe that I have misread or misstated any of the above evidence.

Again, either I am misunderstanding (and no one has yet corrected me) or the goal posts are being moved to suit the argument. As I understand the "debate" it centers upon whether LHO and HLO were both attending 2 separate schools for the school year 52-53. According to H&L proponents, during this time LHO? was in Ft. Worth attending Stripling and HLO? was in NYC attending school there. Is this not the debate? If not, then I completely misread something and I'll just take a seat, if so then please address my points as they relate to the 52-53 school year and what I understand the debate to be about.

I believe you're referring to megalomania. Related (fitting?):

I don't find it too curious. To me it's nothing more than probability theory at work. For instance the first 3 numbers I typed showed results, the next 3 of 5 did not. With enough reporting, you're bound to get almost every iteration of number, you know, based on the law of probability and all... With that being said, it's possible that I've contracted COV19. While I personally think it's something else (strep throat) I have to be tested before I can be allowed back to work. I have a test today at 2:00, say it will take 3-5 days for results.

Jim, I'm pretty confused by what point your post is supposed to have. You also continue to post facts which go against the basic premise of your argument. I'm not sure if you are aware of this, or are just ignoring it. Examples... Kudlaty: "did not know or remember Oswald; thought Oswald attended 9th grade..." This isn't the argument that you are presenting; that Kudlaty is adamant LHO attended in the 52-53 school year. (unless I'm mistaken about what exactly your argument is) Summers: "had Oswald as a student-thinks it was 7th grade" This whole operation is true because 30 years later some guy thinks Oswald was a student of his? No documents, photos, or even a tangible belief from Summers, just thinks? Gann: "does not remember LHO at Arlington Heights remembers Oswald(?), believes it was 9th grade, remembers Oswald shooting baskets....;..-gave me the following names of classmates who knew Oswald: ....knew nothing.....knew nothing..." First, what exactly does "does not remember Oswald...remembers Oswald mean? Again, 9th grade, which is not the 52-53 school year you are making a spectacle about (unless again, I am mistaken about what exactly your argument is). As far as shooting baskets, is there some extra context to this statement? Did he recall it during 3rd period gym class? Did he recall seeing LHO on a court shooting baskets during school hours? Was this court inside or outside of the school? I spent my youth playing basketball on courts at schools, many of which I attended and many of which I didn't. Without some context, this comment is pretty pointless. Gann then goes on to give a list of names and not one recalls Oswald, I would stop using that as evidence in my case, it isn't helping to further your cause. I should add that 2 of the 4 names of classmates given were in fact not classmates but faculty. The classmates "knew nothing" and there is no indication of what the faculty may have known, but since it isn't "I taught LHO in my class at Stripling in 1952" then I'm going to go out on a limb and say what they had to say was nothing of any substance. Schubert/Tubbs: "says teacher (Mr. Connor) thinks that LHO may have gone to jr high at Dagget... -knew Oswald; remembers him well; says he lived across street from Stripling in a white house with a porch; says LHO attended 9th grade at Stripling;....one friend of Oswalds was a musician, plays harmonica, sometimes with Willie Nelson - Delbert McClinton;...says she has a directory of students at Stripling she believes that that Oswald signed that directory" First, living across the street from a school and walking to and from that school in no manner indicates attendance at said school. As a bus rider, and as a father with boys who ride the bus, I and they have had, and do walk to one school which a bus is boarded to another school. My 17 year old walks to a Jr. high school about a block away and boards a bus to his high school which is about 2 miles away. Are you telling me that because you have seen my 17 year old walk to and from this school, your contention is that he attends it? Before we moved both my boys walked to an elementary school 2 blocks away and one boarded a bus to his Jr. high school and the other boarded a different bus to his high school. This practice has been the norm since I was riding buses in elementary through high school and was the same in all cities I lived in as a child and all cities my children have lived in. As far as McClinton goes, from a biography of Arlington Heights High School... "Arlington Heights High School was established in 1922 and hosted 715 students in its inaugural year. The current building was built in 1937. Originally, students from this area attended Stripling High School in the 1920s, which is now a feeder middle school. At that time, students at Heights were referred to as "tea-sippers," a nickname Texas A&M Aggies used to call Texas Longhorns because UT students were more likely to be doctors and lawyers, while Aggies were more likely to go into ranching and related fields. Heights was generally wealthy and white until the late 1960s, hosting many children of notable Fort Worthians such as the Belknaps and Dickeys, as well as Governor Connally's children. Other notables such as John Denver, Betty Buckley, Delbert McClinton, Lee Harvey Oswald, Bill Paxton and more recently Blake Brokermeyer, James Rowland Murphy, III, ("Jim") as well as former Steeplechase President William Ratliff also attended Arlington Heights. African American students attended Como High School, which no longer exists and was merged with Arlington Heights at its closing. Students at Arlington Heights referred to their school as 'the hill' because it sat up higher than the surrounding area at the time." So, while Tubbs may have saw LHO with friends, they were not friends who attended Stripling. Then she believes she has a directory LHO signed. Where is this directory. Surely it's been produced by now. Unless I'm misunderstanding your basic premise, which I understand to be that one LHO attended school in TX for the 52-53 school year at Stripling, and another attended in NYC at the same time, these "facts" you've presented do not bolster your position, but instead actually erode it.

Related: https://www.digitalspy.com/movies/a32892855/the-wasp-network-true-story-cuban-five-ending-explained https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Five

Thanks for the clarification Tracy. I do agree that people can confuse timelines, especially 12 years after the fact. I do believe, based on later testimony from Robert, that he was mistaken about this school. Robert's initial statement (which I believe is just being taken out of context by H&L supporters at this point): Mr. JENNER. And, at that time, I take it your brother Lee was attending Arlington Heights High School? That would be 1952? Mr. OSWALD. Just a minute, please. In 1952 Lee was 13 years old. He would be attending W. C. Stripling Junior High School then. Mr. JENNER. I see. For the school year 1951-52? Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir. Junior high school there was from the seventh to the ninth grades. And as soon as he was through with his sixth year, he started attending W. C. Stripling Junior High School. Mr. JENNER. As soon as he finished the sixth year at Ridglea Elementary School, he entered W. C. Stripling High School, as a seventh grader? Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir--junior high school. Mr. JENNER. Now, the condition that you described as to Lee shifting for himself during the daytime, when your mother was away working and you were away working, and your brother John was in the Coast Guard, continued, I take it, when he began attendance and while he was attending W. C. Stripling Junior High School? A few pages later Robert states: Mr. JENNER. During that 3-year period, what contact did you have with the members of your family, and with particular reference, if you can give that first, with your brother Lee his writing you, you writing him? Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir; we were corresponding infrequently, I would say--not very many letters between I and Lee direct when I was in the service, especially the first part of my tour in the service. In 1952, after traveling from Camp Pendleton, Calif., to Jacksonville, Fla. I did have a 10-day leave. They were in New York City at that time. Mr. JENNER. This was then some time in 1953, I take it? Mr. OSWALD. No, sir--1952. Mr. JENNER. 1952? Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir. This was---- Mr. JENNER. You mean your mother and Lee that is the period of time they were in New York City? Mr. OSWALD. That's correct. Mr. JENNER. Living there. Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir. Mr. JENNER. Did you see them? Mr. OSWALD. No, sir; not at that time. I spent my leave in Fort Worth, because I did not feel I had enough time to travel to New York and down to Jacksonville, Fla. After completing metalsmith school at Millington, Tenn., I took a 10-day leave. Mr. JENNER. Fix the time. Mr. OSWALD. This was July or August of 1953. I had my orders to go to Miami, Fla. I took a 10-day leave and left Millington, Tenn., by car and came to New York City and spent 10 days in New York with Lee, mother, John, and his family. Mr. JENNER. Where did you stay? Mr. OSWALD. At mother's apartment, with Lee, in the Bronx some place I do not recall the address. Mr. JENNER. What, if anything, did you learn at that time regarding Lee's attendance or nonattendance in school? Mr. OSWALD. Nothing on that, sir. This was in the summer time. Lee, of course, was home and not supposed to be in school. And I do not think anything was brought up that I recall about whether or not Lee had been attending school regularly or not. Mr. McKENZIE. Can we go off the record? Mr. JENNER. Yes. What I take from this is a huge misunderstanding of what Robert said and also taking those comments out of context. My take is this: In 1951-1952 LHO was 12 and attended 6th grade at Ridgelea. (turned 12 in Oct. '51) In 1952 LHO would have turned 13 and would have entered into the 7th grade at Stripling for the 1952-53 school year had the family continued to reside in Ft. Worth. So while Robert does state "In 1952 Lee was 13 years old. He would be attending W. C. Stripling Junior High School then." he is referencing a hypothetical. Oswald did not turn 13 until October of 1952, by that point they were already in NYC. So while LHO was "13 in 1952," it was only for 2.5 months. My fairly basic understanding of the school records seems to show LHO entering into the 7th grade in 1952, which would have put him at Stripling had they continued to reside in Ft. Worth. Since they moved, he enrolled in a different school, at or before the beginning of the school year. If you look at Robert's comments in context, his "mistake" becomes clear as do all of comments and what they truly mean as well as the timeline.

Honestly, I don't follow the H&L discussions because I don't buy it and I more or less skim these topics at this point. But, I believe at least one valid point has been presented and I haven't seen any real discussion on this point, if there has been some discussion feel free to point me towards it. The point would be Robert Oswald's multiple statements that LHO went to Stripling. As I follow the debate, the crux of the matter seems to be whether this school was actually attended. Even if Kudlaty is negated, what negates Roberts multiple statements in this regard? He seems clear in his recollections, and if we give face value trust to most other statements of Robert, why would this one be dismissed? Or have I somehow missed other information on this topic?

My apologies, this is actually STS-115. Ray's mention of the video triggered my memory. Here's the video...

Yes, STS stands for Space Transportation System. This can explain the numbering convention better than I can https://www.nasa.gov/feature/behind-the-space-shuttle-mission-numbering-system. You can find a list of shuttle flights here https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/launch/orbiter_flights.html.

If I'm correct in my thinking this is STS-135.

Here is a link to the other parts. https://www.opednews.com/articles/THE-JFK-CASE--OSWALD-AND-by-Bill-Simpich-100315-5.html

While I'm open to the possibility of a missing tooth, I'm not able to follow the same lines of reasoning as you. For instance, why the insistence that the above document snippet refers to a failed prosthesis. Could it be just as likely the failed refers to the exam? Maybe he had cavities and did not pass a dental exam. Can you provide anything that definitively shows the failure refers to a prosthesis? Similarly, this all seems to hinge on Voebels statement that he "thinks" Oswald "might" have lost a tooth. That statement also means he thinks he might NOT have lost a tooth. Equal weight should be given to that...

I'm not sure if you're familiar with this. tom cruise tooth While that is as much of a joke as anything, people can have a shift in the alignment of their teeth which could cause one to line up in the center. I am beginning to think it could be something in his mouth or on a tooth vs. a missing tooth though.

There could be an answer here in his papers at UCLA. https://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/c84j0hcd/ There appears to be a wealth of quite possibly unseen and unknown Ruby information contained in his seemingly large collection of Ruby related files: box 160, folder 1 Ruby, Jack--Court transcripts. 1965. box 160, folder 2 Ruby, Jack--Legal counsel (Sol A. Dann) (1 of 4). 1964-1965. box 160, folder 3 Ruby, Jack--Legal counsel (Hubert Winston Smith) (2 of 4). 1964. box 160, folder 4 Ruby, Jack--Legal counsel (Joe H. Tonahill) (3 of 4). 1964-1966. box 160, folder 5 Ruby, Jack--Legal counsel (miscellaneous) (4 of 4). 1964-1965, 1967. box 160, folder 6 Ruby, Jack--Penal code and other legal material. ca. 1963-1965. box 160, folder 7 Ruby, Jack--Will probate hearing. 1967. box 160, folder 8 Ruby, Jack--Medical and legal clippings and articles. 1963-1965, 1968. box 160, folder 9 Ruby, Jack--Psychiatric examination (LJW) (1 of 8). 1964-1965. box 160, folder 10 Ruby, Jack--Psychiatric examination (Andrew S. Watson) (2 of 8). 1965-1966. box 160, folder 11 Ruby, Jack--Psychiatric examination (Werner Tuteur) (3 of 8). 1965. box 160, folder 12 Ruby, Jack--Psychiatric examination (Manfred S. Guttmacher) (4 of 8). 1963-1964. box 160, folder 13 Ruby, Jack--Psychiatric examination (Roy Schafer) (5 of 8). 1964. box 160, folder 14 Ruby, Jack--Psychiatric examination (W.R. Beavers) (6 of 8). 1964-1965. box 160, folder 15 Ruby, Jack--Psychiatric examination (Martin L. Towler) (7 of 8). 1963-1964. box 160, folder 16 Ruby, Jack--Psychiatric examination (Walter Broomberg) (8 of 8). 1963, 1965. box 161, folder 1 Ruby, Jack--Institute for Juvenile Research report. 1964. box 161, folder 2 Ruby, Jack--Working notes concerning Ruby. ca. 1964. Scope and Contents note Perhaps labeled "Marcia's working notes." box 161, folder 3 Ruby, Jack--Correspondence concerning Ruby medical evaluations. 1964-1965. box 161, folder 4 Ruby, Jack--Warren Commission testimony (1 of 2). 1964. box 161, folder 5 Ruby, Jack--Warren Commission testimony (2 of 2). 1964. box 161, folder 6 Ruby, Jack--Polygraph test. 1964. box 161, folder 7 Ruby, Jack--Autopsy report. 1967. box 161, folder 8 Ruby, Jack--Elizabeth (Libby) Price draft of Ruby monograph (Policeman at His Elbow), chapter 4 version 1 (1 of 2). ca. 1975 [?]. Scope and Contents note Unclear whether Price or LJW was main author of monograph. box 161, folder 9 Ruby, Jack--Elizabeth (Libby) Price draft of Ruby monograph, chapter 4 version 1 (2 of 2). ca. 1975 [?]. box 161, folder 10 Ruby, Jack--Elizabeth (Libby) Price draft of Ruby monograph, chapter 4 version 2. ca. 1975 [?]. box 161, folder 11 Ruby, Jack--Libby Price draft of Ruby monograph, chapter 5, rough draft (1 of 2). ca. 1975 [?]. box 161, folder 12 Ruby, Jack--Elizabeth (Libby) Price draft of Ruby monograph, chapter 5, rough draft (2 of 2). ca. 1975 [?]. box 161, folder 13 Ruby, Jack--Elizabeth (Libby) Price draft of Ruby monograph, continuation of chapter 5. ca. 1975 [?]. box 161, folder 15 Ruby, Jack--Elizabeth (Libby) Price draft of Ruby monograph, chapter 5, draft (1 of 3). ca. 1975 [?]. box 161, folder 16 Ruby, Jack--Elizabeth (Libby) Price draft of Ruby monograph, chapter 5, draft (2 of 3). ca. 1975 [?]. box 162, folder 1 Ruby, Jack--Elizabeth (Libby) Price draft of Ruby monograph, chapter 5, draft (3 of 3). ca. 1975 [?]. box 162, folder 2 Ruby, Jack--Elizabeth (Libby) Price's notes on conversations with Eva Grant. 1967. box 162, folder 3 Ruby, Jack--Transcription of LJW interview with Eva Grant. before 1967 [?]. box 162, folder 4 Ruby, Jack--Transcription of LJW and Elizabeth (Libby) Price interview with Eva Grant and Joe Johnson. 1967. box 162, folder 5 Ruby, Jack--Eva Grant correspondence with LJW. 1965, 1969. box 162, folder 6 Ruby, Jack--Elizabeth (Libby) Price's report and notes on Dallas trip. 1967. box 162, folder 7 Ruby, Jack--Elizabeth (Libby) Price's report on Ruby and the Kennedy family, from conversation with Eva Grant. 1967. box 162, folder 8 Ruby, Jack--Reports and newspaper clippings concerning conspiracy theories. 1967. Scope and Contents note Reports probably by Elizabeth (Libby) Price. box 162, folder 9 Ruby, Jack--Book review report concerning The Trial of Jack Ruby, by Kaplan and Waltz (1965). ca. 1967. Scope and Contents note Report probably by Elizabeth (Libby) Price. box 162, folder 10 Ruby, Jack--Miscellaneous notes concerning Ruby and interviews. ca. 1967. Scope and Contents note Notes probably mostly by Elizabeth (Libby) Price; perhaps some notes by LJW. box 162, folder 11 Ruby, Jack--Chart of Jack Ruby's life (1 of 5). ca. 1967 [?]. Scope and Contents note Probably by Elizabeth (Libby) Price. box 162, folder 12 Ruby, Jack--Chart of Jack Ruby's life (2 of 5). ca. 1967 [?]. Scope and Contents note Probably by Elizabeth (Libby) Price. box 162, folder 13 Ruby, Jack--Chart of Jack Ruby's life (3 of 5). ca. 1967 [?]. Scope and Contents note Probably by Elizabeth (Libby) Price. box 162, folder 14 Ruby, Jack--Chart of Jack Ruby's life (4 of 5). ca. 1967 [?]. Scope and Contents note Probably by Elizabeth (Libby) Price. box 162, folder 15 Ruby, Jack--Chart of Jack Ruby's life (5 of 5). ca. 1967 [?]. Scope and Contents note Probably by Elizabeth (Libby) Price. box 162, folder 16 Ruby, Jack--Notes and correspondence concerning format of monograph A Policeman at His Elbow: Psychiatric Reflections on Jack Ruby Case. ca. 1967. Scope and Contents note Contains chapter outline and index to LJW's Ruby files. box 162, folder 17 Ruby, Jack--Letter from Phyllis Ruby (Mrs. Sam Ruby) to LJW. 1964. box 162, folder 18 Ruby, Jack--"Jack Ruby" article by Edward Linn (and accompanying note from Edith L. Goldman) and press release for "Jack Ruby" by Wills and Demaris. 1968, 1980. box 163, folder 1 Ruby, Jack--Research notecards, contained in 2 envelopes (folder 1 of 4). ca. 1967 [?]. box 163, folder 2 Ruby, Jack--Research notecards, contained in 2 envelopes (folder 2 of 4). ca. 1967 [?]. box 163, folder 3 Ruby, Jack--Research notecards (folder 3 of 4). ca. 1967 [?]. box 163, folder 4 Ruby, Jack--Research notecards (folder 4 of 4). ca. 1967 [?]. box 164, folder 1 Ruby, Jack--Earl Ruby. 1964, 1967. box 164, folder 2 Ruby, Jack--Miscellaneous correspondence. 1964-1965, 1967, 1975. box 164, folder 3 Ruby, Jack--Burleson-Alexander Panel Discussion, WKY Studios. 1967 June 3. Scope and Contents note Report probably by Elizabeth (Libby) Price. box 164, folder 4 Ruby, Jack--Report on newspapers in Dallas, weekend of November 22-24, 1963. ca. 1967. Scope and Contents note Report probably by Elizabeth (Libby) Price. box 164, folder 5 Ruby, Jack--News clippings (1 of 2). 1963-1964, 1967, 1973, 1975, 1992. box 164, folder 6 Ruby, Jack--News clippings (2 of 2). 1964-1968. box 164, folder 7 Ruby, Jack--Andrew S. Watson reprints (1 of 2). 1960. box 164, folder 8 Ruby, Jack--Andrew S. Watson reprints (2 of 2). 1959-1960, 1963-1965. box 3, folder 12 "Jack Ruby". 1978 October 30. Scope and Contents note Folder contains cassette tape recording and typed transcription of LJW's presentation on Jack Ruby given at the UCLA Neuropsychiatric Institute Colloquium October 30, 1978. It would appear as though he had quite the interest in Ruby. If anyone in Southern California could access these.....

Paul, It is the handwritten portion of the document in David's post.

I've been digging into this since I saw the document last night. I, unfortunately lost all of my JFK books years ago when a roof collapsed and destroyed those and other documents, pictures, etc. I believe the answer is in Newman's "Oswald and the CIA." My thoughts are that the person is male (obviously by the wording of the document) and is very likely a person in the Cuban government. I initially believed it to be Luis Alberu Soeto but I don't this is correct. Soeto was apparently already working with the the CIA in 1963, and the documents state the person was not recruited until 1964 I think this could rule out Soeto. I'm still not sold on that though. Document 104-10326-10011 states From (a very old) memory, I believe it was named as Soeto. Document 104-10331-10315 states: Does anyone know who "T/9" is? I'm fairly sure this person is a Cuban who doubled for the CIA, L/9 is Soeto, is T/9 a completely different cryptonym?

Thanks David! Just what I was after.

Does anyone know if these can be downloaded in bulk like the last releases? I would hate to have to download 600+ individual files.

Well the first withheld in full document I opened was on Harvey, just one page of testimony from Bissell. I personally had not previously seen this one, docid-32281870.

Thanks Larrry, I believe document count could be a tricky thing and I'm not sure what exactly everyone is counting as a document. MFF states 3,751 withheld in full. 36,000 (ish) formerly redacted. The tricky part comes to defining how everyone is using "document/record." For example, the file I am currently looking at is a PDF of 142 pages, but it is one file. Of those 142 pages, there are many different records merged into the file. Is the one file counted as a document/record or each of the 142 pages? If it's the pages, we may never truly know unless someone takes on the daunting task of cataloging how many pages are in each PDF and then comparing that. If it is the file its self, then they are well short on promised releases. Based on the spreadsheet included, only 52 of the files released today (and not part of the July release) were previously withheld in full. Including July it is 477. This is a file count though, and each file could have multiple documents if that's how they are being counted (and I believe they are). I wouldn't expect 36,000 + files, but that many documents between the released files. I'm going to jump straight to those formerly withheld in full which were released tonight. * I saw your edit after I posted. That is closer to what I'm seeing in the bulk file.

I was able to get the bulk files to extract and with the bulk file I also have an Excel file as a list. The bulk file had 6,702 files, but the spreadsheet has 6,685. Do you happen to know how many were released in July? After removing what I think are the July releases from the bulk file there are 5,783 files left. The files in my July release folder number 1,132, but I'm not sure if I moved any to other folders. I'm going to start going through them tonight. I'm sure many others are as well, but if there are any particular documents, subjects, etc.. someone would like posted please let me know.