Jim Hargrove

Whether you believe in one Oswald or an operation involving more than one, the case that the young man who “defected” to Russia in 1959 was a U.S. spy is a central issue in Harvey and Lee. I’ve listed earlier 20 reasons supporting that conclusions and, before that, a short section from Harvey and Lee that demonstrates the laws broken by “Lee HARVEY Oswald” as part of his operation. I’ll repost that excerpt immediately below.

No, I don't think HARVEY Oswald (the DPD LHO) knew about the assassination in advance. He was set up to be the fall guy. Had he known about the hit, he probably would have stayed away from the Book Depository that day.

Thank you, Michael! LHO sure had a doppelgänger working around him in 1963! And LHO didn't kill JFK, right? Everyone here knows that. LHO was a patsy, right?

At any rate, I'm awfully sorry that the H&L critics are so unhappy with me but, really, it isn't my fault that "Lee Harvey Oswald" was a U.S. Intel project. On the previous page, I quoted John's write-up showing the laws Lee HARVEY Oswald clearly broke on his false defection to Russia. That he wasn't prosecuted indicates his activities were approved by the U.S. government. But there is so much more.... 20 Facts Indicating the Oswald Project Was Run by the CIA 1. CIA accountant James Wilcott said he made payments to an encrypted account for “Oswald or the Oswald Project.” 2. Antonio Veciana said he saw LHO meeting with CIA’s Maurice Bishop/David Atlee Phillips in Dallas in August 1963. 3. A 1978 CIA memo indicates that a CIA operations officer “had run an agent into the USSR, that man having met a Russian girl and eventually marrying her,” a case very similar to Oswald’s and clearly indicating that the Agency ran a “false defector” program in the 1950s. 4. Robert Webster and LHO "defected" a few months apart in 1959, both tried to "defect" on a Saturday, both possessed "sensitive" information of possible value to the Russians, both were befriended by Marina Prusakova, and both returned to the United States in the spring of 1962. 5. Richard Sprague, Richard Schweiker, and CIA agents Donald Norton and Joseph Newbrough all said LHO was associated with the CIA. 6. CIA employee Donald Deneslya said he read reports of a CIA "contact" who had worked at a radio factory in Minsk and returned to the US with a Russian wife and child. 7. Kenneth Porter, employee of CIA-connected Collins Radio, left his family to marry (and probably monitor) Marina Oswald after LHO’s death. 8. George Joannides, case officer and paymaster for DRE (which LHO had attempted to infiltrate) was put in charge of lying to the HSCA and never told them of his relationship to DRE. 9. For his achievements, Joannides was given a medal by the CIA. 10. FBI took Oswald off the watch list at the same time a CIA cable gave him a clean bill of political health, weeks after Oswald’s New Orleans arrest and less than two months before the assassination. 11. Oswald’s lengthy “Lives of Russian Workers” essay reads like a pretty good intelligence report. 12. Oswald’s possessions were searched for microdots. 13. Oswald owned an expensive Minox spy camera, which the FBI tried to make disappear. 14. Even the official cover story of the radar operator near American U-2 planes defecting to Russia, saying he would give away all his secrets, and returning home without penalty smells like a spy story. 15. CIA Richard Case Nagell clearly knew about the plot to assassinate JFK and LHO’s relation to it, but the CIA ignored his warnings. 16. LHO always seemed poor as a church mouse, until it was time to go “on assignment.” For his Russian adventure, we’re to believe he saved all the money he needed for first class European hotels and private tour guides in Moscow from the non-convertible USMC script he saved. In the summer of 1963, he once again seemed to have enough money to travel abroad to Communist nations. 17. To this day, the CIA claims it never interacted with Oswald, that it didn’t even bother debriefing him after the “defection.” What utter bs…. 18. After he “defected” to the Soviet Union in 1959, bragging to U.S. embassy personnel in Moscow that he would tell the Russians everything he knew about U.S. military secrets, he returns to the U.S. without punishment and is then in 1963 given the OK to travel to Cuba and the Soviet Union again! 19. Allen Dulles, the CIA director fired by JFK, and the Warren Commission clearly wanted the truth hidden from the public to protect sources and methods of intelligence agencies such as the CIA. Earl Warren said, “Full disclosure was not possible for reasons of national security.” 20. President Kennedy and the CIA clearly were at war with each other in the weeks immediately before his assassination, as evidenced by Arthur Krock's infamous defense of the Agency in the Oct. 3, 1963 New York Times. “Oswald” was the CIA’s pawn.

Actually, it is Mr. Bojczuk who is constantly changing the subject. Whenever evidence for Two Oswalds is presented, he just says it can't be because of the exhumation. Or, he misrepresents the evidence and then argues against his own misrepresentation.

Wow, the H&L critics sure are busy calling me names! Funny how that doesn’t make the evidence go away, for example.... The IMPOSSIBLE 1953 school scenario: Harvey at Youth House for truancy followed by Beauregard JHS in New Orleans while Lee has good attendance both semesters at PS 44 in NYC. John Pic's inability to recognize clear photographs of his own brother. The refusal of the Social Security Administration 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." 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. The Bolton Ford incident while Harvey was in Russia. Marita Lorenz's secret testimony describing Lee Oswald with anti-Castro operatives in Miami and the Everglades while Harvey was in Russia. The impossible answer(s) to the simple questions: Could Lee Harvey Oswald drive a car? Did he have a drivers license? The well documented appearance of Lee Oswald in the balcony of the Texas Theater soon after the murder of J.D. Tippit with the simultaneous arrest of Harvey Oswald on the main floor of the same theater. The behavior of the FBI in the first 48 hours of the "investigation," during which the Bureau confiscated many of "Lee Harvey Oswald's" school records and employment histories before even determining if there was an assassination conspiracy or if other government officials were targeted.

Much of the reason for the enormous USG cover-up in this case stems from the simple and utterly obvious fact that the Oswald Project was connected to U.S. Intelligence. Lee HARVEY Oswald was a spy. From Harvey and Lee: Oswald violated two US laws and should have been prosecuted 1st violation. Oswald's request for a hardship discharge in 1959 was based upon his claim that his "mother" was partially disabled and unable to work. He represented to the Marine Corps that he needed a dependency discharge so that he could return to Texas and take care of her. But Oswald obtained a passport before he was discharged from the Marine Corps, never took care of his "mother," and within a few weeks had "defected" to the Soviet Union. Oswald's false representations violated Sec. 883. Article 83, of the Uniform Code of Military Justice-fraudulent separation from the armed forces lty false representation: TITLE 10- ARMED FORCES Subtitle A- General Military Law PART II- PERSONNEL CHAPTER 47- UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE SUBCHAPTER X - PUNITIVE ARTICLES Sec. 883. Art. 83. Fraudulent enlistment, appointment, or separation Any person who - (1) procures his own enlistment or appointment in the armed forces by knowingly false representation or deliberate concealment as to his qualifications for that he did violate US law. enlistment or appointment and receives pay or allowances thereunder; or (2) procures his own separation from the armed forces by knowingly false representation or deliberate concealment as to his eligibility for that separation; shall be punished as a court-martial may direct. (Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 66.) It did not matter how long Oswald had been out of the country, he should have been charged with falsely misrepresenting his eligibility for separation. -------------------------------------- 2nd violation. When Oswald visited the US embassy in Moscow on Saturday, October 31, he had not prepared nor signed a "Certificate of Loss of Nationality," which was required in order for him to legally renounce his citizenship according to the Expatriation Act of 1907. This "legal formality" made his oral renunciation to Richard Snyder meaningless, but allowed KGB listening devices within the Embassy to pick up the conversation. His appearance at the Embassy also gave him an excuse to leave his US passport with Richard Snyder, which prevented it's probable confiscation by Soviet authorities. Oswald did not violate US law when he attempted to renounce his citizenship, but when he told Richard Snyder that he INTENDED to give military secrets to the Soviets, he did violate US law. Oswald should have been detained at the Embassy, charged with espionage for INTENDING to disclose military secrets, and returned to the US to face trial. And, because he "defected," the law required a full and complete investigation by the US Attorney General. The AG was required to file a brief because it was a matter of National Security, regardless of the seriousness of "the act." As the SS Maasdam sailed into port, there was nobody waiting to arrest Oswald for falsely misrepresenting his eligibility for separation from the Marine Corps or arrest him for threatening to give military secrets to the Soviets. Researchers are correct in suggesting that failure to arrest Oswald either at the US Embassy in Moscow or upon his return to the US was a good indication that he was linked with US intelligence. --from Harvey and Lee, pp. 393-394, Copyright © 2003 by John Armstrong. All rights reserved.

High level authorities in the United States government were aware for many years of the distinct possibility of two “Lee Harvey Oswalds.” As early as 1960, Hoover wrote, “there is a possibility that an imposter is using Oswald’s birth certificate....” In the hours after the assassination, before determining whether the assassination involved a conspiracy or if other members of the federal government were targeted, FBI agents descended on the schools and employers of the teen-aged Lee Harvey Oswald confiscating records that never appeared again as originals. Why? Because evidence for two Oswalds clearly went back to the 1950s. For example, in 1953 Lee HARVEY Oswald was sent to Youth House for habitual truancy from a NYC school. Documents collected by the FBI and published by the Warren Commission seemed to say that Youth House personnel saw this Oswald as a “well-built” and “well-developed” boy. But this was an invention of the FBI. Both Dr. Milton Kurian and Dr. Renatus Hartogs of Youth House said later that the Oswald they met was a slight, underdeveloped kid. Dr. Kurian said the Oswald he met (HARVEY) was no more that 4’ 6” or 4’ 8” tall, even though NYC records made less than a month later would indicate Oswald’s height as 5’ 4 1/2” tall (that was Lee). In a letter to Jackie Kennedy written in early February 1964, Dr. Kurian described Oswald as a “slender, underdeveloped boy.” Dr. Renatus Hartogs, Milton Kurian’s associate at Youth House, also described little Harvey in sharp contrast to the reports the FBI produced. Dr. Hartogs said that the Oswald he met was a “slender, dark-haired boy” with “an underfed look, reminiscent of the starved children I had seen in concentration camps.” The size difference between the two Oswalds decreased in the decade between Harvey’s Youth House appearance and the assassination, but it continued for the whole time. When LEE Harvey Oswald was was released from the Marine Corps, his height was 71” (5’ 11”) and his weight was 150 lbs. But on a slab in the Dallas morgue, Lee HARVEY Oswald’s height was just 69” (5’ 9”). These were measurements made by medical professionals, not casual observers. After the publications of the Warren Commission, many of the earliest and best critics pointed to the likelihood that two Oswalds were involved in events leading up to the assassination. For example, in her 1967 book entitled Accessories After the Fact, Sylvia Meagher had an entire section devoted to two Oswalds. The H&L critics want to make all this and so much more go away pointing to the exhumation and the HSCA Vol. VII. Looking at the preponderance of evidence, it is clear that those results were fixed in one way or another, just as so much in this case was. Why? Because it was clear that the Oswald Project was a product of U.S. Intelligence, and U.S. Intelligence was intimately involved in the assassination of JFK. See my next post.

Of course, Mr. Laverick knows full well that no one posts more documentary evidence here than I do. He just wants to be angry at me, and he wants to call me a hypocrite for posting a link to the subject matter of this entire thread. And Mr. Laverick wants to call me not only a hypocrite but a coward as well because I dare to point out that the overwhelming preponderance of evidence presented by me and others in this thread shows that the exhumation results were fixed, maybe not by the people involved in the exhumation, but more likely by the people charged with preparing and preserving the evidence. Mr. Laverick is apparently more interested in involving the Queen of England in this case than in discussing anything other than the exhumation.

If anyone reading this wonders why so many people here are working so hard to discredit the subject of this thread, just click the link below. HarveyandLee.net

More important may be the fact that Beauregard didn’t know the New York City school Oswald attended, and so it is unlikely it obtained any records at all from it. There were four or five PS 44s in the five boroughs of NYC, and none of them was named “PS 44 Byron Jr. High,” as indicated on the New Orleans cumulative records. H&L critics will just say mistakes happen, but I think there is a better explanation, which is that Beauregard was deliberately given the wrong NYC school information. Why? You have to look at the full picture. John Pic told the Warren Commission that in the fall of ‘52 his brother enrolled in a school a school just a few blocks from his Manhattan apartment. In his book, Robert Oswald said "Lee entered the 8th grade at P.S. 44 on Columbus Avenue at 76th St." This school is William J. O'Shea Junior High School, PS 44 in Manhattan, and is 2 1/2 miles from Pic's apartment. But the Warren Commission/FBI puts Oswald, at this time, at Trinity Lutheran School and PS 117 in the Bronx, and then at P.S. 44 in the Bronx, all eight miles or so from Pic’s apartment. Assuming John Pic and Robert Oswald were right, it was LEE Oswald who attended school in Manhattan at least part of the time that HARVEY went to school in the Bronx. And it was HARVEY who was perpetually truant and soon in trouble with NYC authorities. All of this may have been more easily untangled but right after the assassination, after Judge Florence Kelley gave the FBI original NYC school records of Oswald's attendance, the originals all disappeared and the FBI soon gave the Warren Commission photographs of the documents. HARVEY Oswald and his caretaker had to flee New York City because a scheduled court appearance over his truancy would have been too dangerous. His caretaker mother could barely remember any of the details of her “son’s” alleged biography, and who knows what HARVEY might have said to a judge. LEE Oswald and Marguerite soon had to flee New York as well, and for a very simple reason. HARVEY Oswald had been perpetually truant, not LEE. When hauled into court for truancy, can you imagine how angry LEE would have been? The solution for both problems was found in New Orleans.

Sure. I hope others will check this too. The two docs are below. They're a little hard to read, but can be enlarged. We're interested in the first semester of the 1953-54 school year. NYC school on top, New Orleans beneath it.

The whole point of the "Oswald Project" was to give a Russian-speaking youth a U.S. identity so he could "defect" to the Soviet Union and hide his Russian fluency from those around him. The identity he was given was of a boy who had undergone a mastoidectomy. At the time, it had nothing to do with the Kennedy assassination. It’s amazing how Mr. Bojczuk feels compelled to misrepresent John Armstrong’s work before he tries to debunk the misrepresentation. John and I think HARVEY may have had a mastoidectomy in New York City when he was about 14 years old (which is an estimate since we don’t know his exact birthdate). Louise Robertson told the FBI that she was hired as a housekeeper for “Marguerite” and Marguerite said that she and her son came to New York so the kid “could have mental tests at Jacobi Hospital, Bronx, NY.” That would be the time Harvey could have been given the mastoidectomy.

A few problems.... There are no PS 44 records published in the Beauregard file, and the one indication of "PS 44" is misnamed "Byron Jr. High." Since there are multiple PS 44s in the various NYC boroughs, how would the Beauregard know where to get the data? And if it somehow it did get the data, why does the first semester line indicate none of the PS 44 courses Oswald attended?

Following the suggestion by Mathias to ask an educator here to look at the school documents, I tried to send a message to James Gordon but was told he cannot receive messages.

Hi, Mathias, That sounds like a good idea. I'm sending a note to James Gordon to see if he, or someone he knows, can take a look at these docs for us. Thanks for the suggestion.

I’m not necessarily saying that the exhumation was faked, though I don’t rule it out. But there are other possibilities. I have explained to you any number of times that any organization that would deliberately poison hundreds and probably thousands of unsuspecting Americans with LSD just to see what might happen wouldn’t think twice about giving a young boy an unnecessary mastoidectomy simply to make his medical records match those of the boy he was being prepared to impersonate. Why wouldn’t they? Who could stop them? Review public documents about the MK ULTRA project for an overview of the morality of our CIA, at least back in the 1950s and early ‘60s. And why was Marina compelled to sign all those documents back in 1964 about her late husband’s grave, at least according to Vincent Di Maio, who you just called “one of the most respected experts in his field?” Now he is suddenly a careless rumor monger? Marina apparently believed the casket might be empty, and so she obviously suspected something was up. You, on the other hand, are well practiced at seeing nothing suspicious in anything that is even remotely connected to this entire matter. You obviously feel that yelling “HSCA” and “Norton Report” and “science” with every post gives you carte blanche to ignore all the rest of the evidence in this case, but that only motivates me to post even more evidence for your Johnny-one-note protestations.

Yeah, but they just say "Norton Report" and "HSCA" and try to make it all go away. I guess it works for them... but not for me. ABSOLUTELY! I find fake photos of me going to places I've never been before all the time. And the phony audio recordings… they don’t even sound like me... but the CIA says it is me... so who am I to argue, right? Yeah, he must be a real Svengali out to make the Big Bucks just waiting for Kennedy conspiracy writers. You know... he wasn't making much in the oil business and as a custom home builder so.... Oh, wait, one of my favorite dopplegangers is stopping by to take me to lunch. Doesn't everyone have a doppleganger or two who looks just like him? Gotta run….

What a convenient argument you have. You ignore a busload of evidence so you can just rubber stamp each post you make with "HSCA" and "Norton Report." The HSCA has been shown repeatedly to be dishonest, and the Norton Report hardly excludes all the possible ways a second Oswald was involved in all of this. And you call this science.

Uh-huh. And is that the same kind of professionalism he and his associates brought to the exhumation? The most significant points we raise about this case involve the credible and unrelenting evidence that two young men shared the same or a very similar identity for a decade or so and one of them became the patsy for the assassins of JFK. You admit that you are unable to debunk many of these examples and simply fall back on the Norton Report and the HSCA Volume VII, saying that’s all the evidence you need. But we have given you a number of examples of how the HSCA simply lied when cornered about the evidence, including evidence of two Oswalds, and I have offered several possible ways the Norton Report could be accurate as far as it goes, but that there could still have been two LHOs entangled in the assassination, as in fact there were. You, however, are apparently unable to discuss most of the other evidence and have a practiced unawareness of what a Federal cover-up can really entail. What happened to all that Greg Parker evidence you repeatedly said debunked Oswald’s simultaneous attendance at schools in New York and New Orleans? I demanded time and time again that you put that evidence here, and when you finally started doing so, Mr. Parker just disappeared. Where is it? I know. You don’t have to talk about it because you’re not Mr. Parker and because of the Norton Report. Neither that--nor you--begins to explain all this evidence.

Uh-huh. And is that the same kind of professionalism he and his associates brought to the exhumation? The most significant points we raise about this case involve the credible and unrelenting evidence that two young men shared the same or a very similar identity for a decade or so and one of them became the patsy for the assassins of JFK. You admit that you are unable to debunk many of these examples and simply fall back on the Norton Report and the HSCA Volume VII, saying that’s all the evidence you need. But we have given you a number of examples of how the HSCA simply lied when cornered about the evidence, including evidence of two Oswalds, and I have offered several possible ways the Norton Report could be accurate as far as it goes, but that there could still have been two LHOs entangled in the assassination, as in fact there were. You, however, are apparently unable to discuss most of the other evidence and have a practiced unawareness of what a Federal cover-up can really entail. What happened to all that Greg Parker evidence you repeatedly said debunked Oswald’s simultaneous attendance at schools in New York and New Orleans? I demanded time and time again that you put that evidence here, and when you finally started doing so, Mr. Parker just disappeared. Where is it? I know. You don’t have to talk about it because you’re not Mr. Parker and because of the Norton Report. Neither that--nor you--begins to explain all this evidence.

Perhaps it is as Mr. Parnell says, but few cases call into question expert opinions more than this one. In my post above I noted that “both Oswalds were in the USMC and so the dental records of Classic Oswald should match at least SOME Marine Corps records.” That may be the case here, but when there is so much evidence for two Oswalds, it is hardly logical to assume the Norton Report is the final word on the matter. For example, in his article entitled Digging Up Lee Harvey Oswald, Dr. Vincent Di Maio, who was involved in the exhumation and is no CTer, wrote this: “Marina was haunted by a 1964 visit with government agents who had asked her to sign a stack of cemetery papers without explanation. With only a basic understanding of English, Marina came to believe that her late husband’s remains had been disturbed somehow. She’d grown morbidly suspicious that he’d been secretly removed.” What was that all about? Why would government agents require Marina to sign a whole stack of cemetery papers the very year after her late husband was buried? Could the other Oswald have been murdered and his body placed in the grave? Or is it more likely that the second Oswald was given an unnecessary mastoidectomy so their health records would match? Mr. Parnell tells us there were no dissenting opinions to this article expressed in follow-up editions of the peer-reviewed Journal of Forensic Sciences. I’ll try to check that on my own. In the meantime, here’s a Fun Fact…. Many or most of the original photographs from the exhumation are now, if memory serves, in the hands of none other than John Armstrong. During one of his many meetings with Marina, she greeted him carrying an envelope containing them and said something like, “Here, take these.” She has serious doubts about the whole official story.

DENTAL RECORDS AND THE NORTON REPORT As I read the report for the first time in years, the obvious take-away is that the dental records of the exhumed “Lee Harvey Oswald” would have been identical to those in USMC records except for the fact that they weren’t, which in part was due to “charting errors” and other anomalies introduced by dumb-ass Marine dentists. The Norton report says as follows: The second question was whether or not all inconsistencies in the dental records could be ex- plained and the records documented as being authentic. Charting errors are common, espe- cially in a dental health record that has entries by many different practitioners as in the mili- tary. In TABLE 3 of the report, which examines each tooth from antemortem and postmortem examinations using the Universal Tooth Numbering System, exactly TWO teeth are described as “identical.” All the others are either “consistent” or “probably consistent.” And to see exactly what “consistent” sometimes means, we only have to go as far as Tooth #1. Tooth #1, the maxillary right third molar, is described as missing by three different antemortem sources and “partially erupted” in the postmortem exam. This would be consistent with a “wisdom tooth,” except for the fact that the antemortem exam included radiographs (probably X-rays) which should have shown a pre-emergent tooth. Tooth #2, the maxillary right second molar, is completely different in the pre- and postmortem examinations due to an antemortem “error in charting” in which Tooth # 2 was confused with Tooth # 3. Other “errors in charting,” to explain why the postmortem observations are completely different from the antemortem charts involve Tooth #13 and Tooth #14. Labelled “consistent” is Tooth # 8 which is considered “normal” in the antemortem side of the chart and “rotated distally” on the postmortem side. Perhaps Marina got the pliers out to give her hubby a good oral argument. Teeth 16 and 17 are “missing” only in the antemortem exams, which, again, might be explained as pre-emergent” wisdom teeth, except they should be visible in radiographs. There are other anomalies on the chart, but Dr. Norton concluded, “After much study of the dental records, it was decided independently by each team member that the dental records were authentic and could be used to support an identification made from the dentition.” It took three years for the Norton Report to be issued after the exhumation was completed. In all that time, are we really to conclude that the decision was made “independently by each team member?” Thanks to David Josephs for bringing the issue of the Norton Report dental records to our attention. Although both Oswalds were in the USMC and so the dental records of Classic Oswald should match at least SOME Marine Corps records, this subject appears to be hardly the slam-dunk Mr. Parnell wants us to believe it is. I’m increasingly reminded of the human hair identification scandal the FBI was caught up in a decade or two ago. Based on the FBI’s junk science, people were actually convicted of serious crimes based on so-called human hair identifcations that, in at least once case re-analyzed using DNA evidence, turned out to be from a dog.

The full title of the book Mr. Parnell has devoted a considerable portion of his life trying to debunk is Harvey & Lee: How the CIA framed Oswald. That massive work demonstrates that what many people consider to be just a young loser named “Lee Harvey Oswald” was actually the complex product of a sophisticated intelligence operation. It would be simpler to pretend that only one young man used that name and became entangled in the plot to kill JFK. It would be easier to show that the CIA was involved in setting up the one-and-only LHO as the patsy in JFK’s murder. But despite all the snide little insults Mr. Parker makes, the truth matters to John Armstrong and it matters to me. The simple fact is that for a period of about ten years leading up to the assassination of President Kennedy, not a year went by, and toward the end not a month went by, which didn’t present clear evidence for both Harvey and Lee Oswald, despite a massive effort by the FBI to suppress the evidence. Mr. Parnell wants us to believe that the HSCA and the Norton Report close the case on two Oswalds, but nothing could be farther from the truth. The evidence is everywhere. For example, in October 1963, the month before JFK was murdered, two young men claiming to be “Lee Harvey Oswald” presented themselves just days apart at the Texas Employment Commission and were interviewed by Laura Kittrell. Miss Kittrell studied the “Lee Harvey Oswald” visits, and realized that two young men were playing the role of one, and gave a thirty page statement to the U.S. Attorney in Dallas. She accurately described known differences between Harvey and Lee. Not surprisingly, the FBI didn’t get around to interviewing her until June 4, 1965. Read more HERE.

H&L critics would like us to believe that the Beauregard/PS 44 records showing that “Lee Harvey Oswald” attended school simultaneously in New York and New Orleans are not what they appear to be. If so, perhaps they would like to explain why, by the very next semester, BOTH Oswalds were attending Beauregard School. In the second semester of his 8th grade year, LEE Oswald attended Beauregard and had room 303, on the third floor of the Beauregard building, as his home room. The surviving LHO records from Beauregard make this clear. John found this Beauregard document at the National Archives indicating his homeroom (HR) was 303. The third-floor room 303 home room was also written on each surviving LHO grade card. This is what the official records show. But one Beauregard teacher from the time thought all this was impossible. Her name was Myra DaRouse. John Armstrong interviewed Myra DaRouse at her home in 1995 when she was 73 years old and still in remarkably good health. She indicated that at the beginning of the 2nd semester (eighth grade), in January, 1954, HARVEY walked into her eighth grade home room, which was not on the third floor, but in the basement cafeteria. The 1953-54 school year was the only year during which Myra had a home room, and she remembered the day she met young Oswald. Myra said, "Well, the first day he came into my homeroom he handed me his file. When I read that his name was Lee Harvey Oswald, I said to him, 'how do you want to be called,' and he told me to call him HARVEY. So, I always called him HARVEY. I knew him only as HARVEY." See John’s three-part interview with Myra DaRouse on YouTube.