Jim Hargrove

The photos Mr. Walton repeatedly shows us don't look identical to me, and it is easy to manipulate these things. He urges us to do the math and notes that $10k dollars in 1947 are $92k today. But his math fails to show us that the roughly $10k he is referring to comes from a rough total of Marguerite's supplemental income for a 12 year period, from 1939 to 1951. That averages out to a little over eight thousand dollars per year in today's dollars, plus whatever she had from sporadic minimum wage jobs. That's the kind of income that allows ownership of two or three homes simultaneously? Really? But since Mr. Walton and Mr. B are so interested in repeating photos, let's ask again how "Lee Harvey Oswald's" front tooth regrew in his grave. Mr. JENNER. But you do remember that you attempted to help him when he was struck in the mouth on that occasion; is that right? Mr. VOEBEL. Yes; I think he even lost a tooth from that. I think he was cut on the lip, and a tooth was knocked out. And before anyone claims Voebel seemed uncertain about the missing tooth, let's just review his use of the word "think" during his WC testimony. Yes. Well, I think one of them was in the same grade as Lee. The fight, I think started on the school ground, I think John was a little smaller, a little shorter than Lee. Well, I think Oswald was getting the best of John, but I think I just went on home and everybody went their way, and Oswald I think, was a little in front of me I think that was what brought it all about. I think this was sort of a revenge thing on the part of the Neumeyer boys I think he even lost a tooth from that. I think he was cut on the lip, and a tooth was knocked out. I don't think he was that good I don't think he was a great pool player I think I met her one time I think the legal age here is 18 I think in a way I understood him better than most of the other kids I think they have gotten worse I think we were in the same grade, I think we were. .... and on and on. Ed Voegel says “I think” or “think” nearly a hundred times during his testimony. It seems to be part of the way he talked.

Megathanks, DJ. I wanted to dig up the testimony myself, but there's a limit to how much time we can all devote to this stuff, no? No doubt you'll agree that Dulles seems to have known the details of the Oswald Project and took a number of steps to bury them. Including some we'll probably never know about. One typo you might want to correct in your post above (emphasis added by me) Obviously, you meant "he is skipped ahead to summer 1948...." Thought you might went to fix the typo in your post since this stuff is confusing enough as is for most people, even experienced researchers and WC critics.

The secret to all this is 101 San Saba in Benbrook, which Marguerite purchased on July 7, 1947. Before then, she was signing/cosigning mortgages for modest homes one at a time, living in them, and then selling them. With San Saba she purchased the home in her own name and apparently never lived there (John Pic said he didn't know anything at all about San Saba), or lived there a matter of weeks. Immediately afterward, Marguerite and the boys moved to 1505 8th Ave. in Fort Worth. The Warren Commission told us that Marguerite sold the San Saba house to Otis Carleton just a few months after she bought it, explaining a possible brief stay, but the Tarrant County land records show that Otis Carleton did not purchase 101 San Saba from Marguerite Oswald until four years later, on November 1, 1951. While she still owned the San Saba house, she bought a new home at 7408 Ewing in Fort Worth in 1948, also just in her name. And she purchased a third home, also in her name only, at 4833 Birchman in Fort Worth in 1951. So, what happened in the summer of 1947 that changed Marguerite's financial picture so dramatically? As John shows by examining county records, school records, and the recollections of Otis Carlton and neighbor Georgia Bell, for the first time ever we have Marguerite Oswald and her son(s) living in two different places at the same time: 101 San Saba in Benbrook and 1505 8th Ave. in Fort Worth. The Oswald Project had begun, and someone appears to have begun receiving some taxpayer dollars, helping her to own multiple homes simultaneously. The summer of 1947 is critical. From Harvey and Lee, p. 29: Robert Oswald testified at length about the first half of 1947, but when Warren Commission attorney Albert Jenner began to ask Robert about the summer of 1947 Com-­ mission member Allen Dulles, the former Director of the CIA, asked for an adjourn­- ment.86 W hen Robert's testimony resumed Attorney Jenner said, "This brought us through the summer of 1948, I believe. Am I correct?"87 Robert Oswald answered, "That is correct, sir." With the aide of Allen Dulles and Attorney Albert Jenner, testimony from Robert Oswald about the summer and fall of 1947, and any reference to 101 San Saba, were avoided.

Mr. Parnell sums up Marguerite’s income in addition to her extremely low paying jobs and comes up with a total of $17,400 covering a period extending from 1939 to at least 1951, on average less than $1500 per year. From that figure he deducts none of the expenses that would need to be covered for herself, three children, and seven different homes owned at various times, also not including mortgage payments. But he considers this suitable income for her to enjoy ownership of three homes simultaneously while living in a fourth.

Mr. Parnell is the clear winner when the contest involves cherry-picking data. Marguerite was so poor in the early 1940s that by late 1942 all three of her children were in orphanages. On January 3, 1942 Marguerite removed John and Robert from school and placed them in the Evangelical Lutheran Bethleham Orphan Asylum located at 5413 North Peters Street in New Orleans. She tried to place Lee there as well, but the home wouldn't accept him because he was just two years old. On December 26, 1942, after Lee had lived at the Murret's home for 7 months, Marguerite successfully placed him (now at the age of three) in the same Evangelical Lutheran Bethleham Orphan Asylum with John and Robert. Marguerite was too poor to house and feed any of her three children. Robert E. Lee Oswald had died in 1939; the insurance payout Mr. Parnell includes in her assets of the late 1940s was clearly long gone before Marguerite had to place all her children in an orphanage due to her extreme poverty. In the past, Mr. Parnell has claimed Marguerite was hiding her fortune from the authorities, but, of course, he offers no evidence whatsoever. Her marriage to Ekdahl helped temporarily but soon dissolved; the small settlement hardly could have enabled her to become so successful she could own three homes in her own name and live at other addresses as well. What bank in the 1940s would give a cash-strapped single mother like her mortgages to buy three homes? What bank would do that today? Marguerite was clearly not a successful businesswoman at any point in her life, but at the start of the Oswald Project she flourished like one. How many of us here own three homes and live in a fourth?

Thank you, James. Understanding Ruby's pivotal and long-suppressed role in the assassination is critical to understanding exactly who was behind it.

Mr. Parnell wants us to believe that the $5000 insurance money Marguerite got for Robert Sr.'s death was available to her to help purchase these homes, when in fact her financial straights in the early 1940s clearly indicate that it was gone by then. And, of course, 101 San Saba, which should have been the springboard for Marguerite’s career as a Real Estate tycoon, was sold for a huge loss four years after she purchased it. From “The Early Lives of Harvey and Lee”: In the summer of 1947, while Marguerite Ekdahl (Oswald) and her son LEE were living on 8th Avenue in Ft. Worth, another Marguerite Oswald and a young boy ("HARVEY Oswald") were living in Benbrook, a suburb of Ft. Worth. In June, 1947, Georgia Bell and her husband, Walter, purchased a property in Benbrook and began building their home directly across the street from a house in which Mrs. Oswald and the young boy were living (101 San Saba). Georgia, who lived at 100 San Saba for the next 50 years, remembered that Marguerite Oswald and the young boy lived at 101 San Saba from May through Thanksgiving, 1947. Tarrant County land records confirm that Walter and Georgia Bell purchased their property in June, 1947. Tarrant County land records also confirm that Marguerite C. Ekdahl purchased 101 San Saba on July 7, 1947. Shortly after purchasing this property, the short, heavy-set Marguerite Oswald impostor and young HARVEY moved in and stayed until Thanksgiving. Marguerite C. Ekdahl rented out this property for the next four and a half years and then sold it on November 6, 1951. Nine days later (November 15, 1951) she purchased a small home at 4833 Birchman in Ft. Worth, rented it out for a year and a half and sold it on April 27, 1953 while she was living in New York. The WC thoroughly researched the addresses where the Oswald family lived and the properties owned by Mrs. Oswald. But for some unknown reason they never reported, or intentionally failed to report, that Mrs. Oswald owned 4833 Birchman. The tall, nice-looking Marguerite C. Ekdahl purchased 101 San Saba in July, 1947, but she may have never lived at this address. I showed Georgia a photo of the "Marguerite Oswald" impostor standing in front of a kitchen sink. Georgia said, "That's her, short and fat just like I remember her. She was not a very nice person." I then showed Georgia a photo of tall, nice-looking Marguerite Oswald standing next to Edwin Ekdahl on their wedding day, taken only two years earlier. She replied, "I don't know who that is." Georgia remembered buying groceries for the short, fat, Mrs. Oswald, taking her to the store, and remembered that the young boy played with neighborhood children. She remembered that a neighbor, Lucille Hubbard, drove Mrs. Oswald to pick up some clothes from another house when she got a job as a nurse. Mrs. Hubbard confided to Georgia that Marguerite had furniture and lots of clothes stored at this house which was located "across from Stripling School." We shall soon see that this may be the same house in which 15 year old HARVEY and Marguerite were living in the fall of 1954, while HARVEY was attending Stripling Junior High. This was also the house where the short, fat Marguerite Oswald impostor was living on November 22, 1963. The summer and fall of 1947 is the earliest known confirmation that two different Oswald families were living at two different locations at the same time. Robert Oswald discussed family matters in detail during his WC testimony, but when asked about the summer of 1947 commission member Allen Dulles, former Director of the CIA, asked for an adjournment. Dulles was likely concerned that Robert, like John Pic, would say that his family was living at 1505 8th avenue during the summer of 1947, which would conflict with a 2nd Oswald family living at 101 San Saba at the same time. Dulles' request for an adjournment strongly suggests that he had intimate, detailed knowledge about the backgrounds of HARVEY and LEE. When Robert Oswald's testimony resumed he was questioned about events that occurred beginning in the fall of 1948. No further questions were asked about the summer of 1947. THE MARGUERITE OSWALD IMPOSTOR AND HARVEY WERE LIVING AT 101 SAN SABA IN BENBROOK FROM JULY THROUGH NOVEMBER, 1947 WHILE MARGUERITE (OSWALD) EKDAHL WAS LIVING WITH LEE (AND ROBERT AND JOHN DURING THE SUMMER) AT 1505 8TH AVENUE. MORE IMPORTANT, HOWEVER, WAS THAT 101 SAN SABA WAS OWNED BY MARGUERITE (OSWALD) EKDAHL AND WAS RENTED TO THE MARGUERITE OSWALD IMPOSTOR FOR 6 MONTHS. THESE TWO WOMEN KNEW EACH OTHER IN 1947. Mrs. Hubbard said that Marguerite, while living on San Saba, also had furniture and “lots of clothes” at a house “across from Stripling School.” This was surely 2220 Thomas Place which, as Dr. James Norwood has pointed out, “Over the course of nearly two decades, this was a home base (or “safe house”) for the Marguerite Oswald imposter.” She was living there at the time of the assassination.

From Dr. James Norwood's article, "Lee Harvey Oswald: The Lengend and the Truth," on HarveyandLee.net. See especially the fourth paragraph below. Following the death of her husband, Robert E. Lee Oswald, in 1939, Marguerite was virtually destitute. Her precarious financial situation led her to place her young son Lee in an orphanage in 1942. Yet by the late 1940s, her situation had turned around so completely that she was now residing in middle-class neighborhoods and was even purchasing properties solely in her name. In July, 1947, Marguerite purchased a small house at 101 San Saba in Benbrook; in August, 1948, she purchased a new home at 7408 Ewing in Fort Worth; and in November, 1951, she purchased a small house at 4833 Birchman in Fort Worth. During the period of 1947-51, there were three purchases of homes and a grand total of six different addresses at which Marguerite was residing. It is no small accomplishment to be a homeowner in the early twenty-first century. But it was also difficult in the post-Depression years of the 1940s. So, what explains Marguerite’s change in fortunes? The change may be explained by the Oswald Project. In allowing the government to use the name of one of her boys for a surrogate “Lee Harvey Oswald,” as well as her own name that would be shared with another woman, Marguerite Claverie Oswald likely made a Faustian bargain, first with the OSS and subsequently the CIA. To a large degree, her life and the lives of her children were controlled by the government undoubtedly in return for monetary compensation. Between 1947-51, Marguerite purchased three different homes in the Fort Worth area. By early 1951, she was apparently making payments on and maintaining the three properties concurrently. During this period, she also experienced a financial setback from a divorce in which, according to John Pic's Warren Commission testimony, Marguerite came out on the losing end of the court's decree, despite the alleged philandering and physical abuse of Edwin Eckdahl. Pic recalled that "I was told by her that she was contesting the divorce so that he would still support her. She lost, he won." (WCH, XI, 29) With no monthly payments from Eckdahl, Marguerite was completely on her own in financing the three homes during this four-year stretch. This raises the concern about how she could have made the down payments, met monthly financial obligations, and sustained the upkeep of the three properties, while continuing to pay rent at other residences. The timing of the earliest evidence of the two Oswald boys and the two Marguerites during the pre-New York years begs the question of how Marguerite came into the funds to enable her to play Monopoly on this scale. Part of her bargain was that the family would constantly be on the move. Of course, the purpose of the moving in the 1940s and ‘50s had nothing to do with the JFK assassination. In this first stage of the documentary record, the goal was to make it difficult for Soviet intelligence to trace the whereabouts of “Lee Harvey Oswald,” once he had defected.

Robin Ramsey’s review of H&L, linked above, always struck me as a good one considering his brief exposure to the book. I’ve been studying it for nearly 15 years and I’m still surprised by elements of it. On this forum, I’m betting that only David Josephs and James Norwood may know as much or more about it than I do. Sandy Larsen is well on his way, but it’s a long, long road. Two points I'd like to talk about: First, Mr. Ramsey complained about the lack of editing and numerous typos. Although Barry Krusch’s widely distributed pdf of the book was done with great care, the OCR procedure introduced more typos than are present in the print edition. John first typed the lengthy manuscript in the U.S. When he found how much it would cost to have the book printed here, he traveled to China to seek a less expensive solution. After finding a cost-effective Chinese printer, he discovered that the pagemaker software he used to create the manuscript was incompatible with anything available in China, nor could he find anyone able to convert it. He ultimately retyped the entire manuscript while still in Asia. John had never before worked as a writer nor as (or with) an editor, and so there are quite a few typos and grammatical errors in the book, which was typeset electronically from his manuscript. John’s misuse of apostrophes, as one example, is widespread, his rationales for their use utterly unfathomable, at least by me. But I’ve never seen a grammatical error in the book that interfered with comprehension. How John managed to get the printed books out of China is a funny story, but instead of going through that here I’d like to discuss another one of Mr. Ramsey’s observations: that H&L is unable to prove, “however plausible it may be,” that the “CIA killed JFK and framed Oswald….” I think H&L makes an excellent case--proof or something approaching proof--for that very premise. Mr. Ramsay would probably agree that even the official cover story for “Lee Harvey Oswald” sounds like an intelligence operation. Some researchers ask us to believe that “Oswald was a spy in his own mind” or a “CIA wannabe.” But the story of an unpunished Marine “defector” with U-2 knowledge who said he’d tell the Russkies everything he knew and, just a few years after returning to the US without so much as an official de-briefing, was given the OK by State to travel to Cuba and Russia AGAIN just smells like a spy game. Even without documentary proof, the spy story is just visceral. If you look at it honestly, how could it be anything else? How did “Marguerite Oswald” have enough money to own three homes simultaneously in the early 1950s? How did poor, poor Marguerite afford a housekeeper in New York City? And how did “Lee Harvey Oswald,” always poor as a church mouse, have enough saved non-convertible military scrip to travel to Russia and stay in first-class hotels and order a top-flight private Intourist guide in Moscow? Brick by brick, John builds his case that the Oswald saga only makes sense as an Intelligence operation. He makes an even better case that the set up of Oswald as JFK’s assassin working for Cuba, and Oswald’s silencing, was directed by CIA’s David Atlee Phillips. Phillips’ actions trying to tie Oswald to Cuba and Castro are well known. But what John discovered beyond that brings us directly to Jack Ruby. Ruby, he found, was more deeply involved in the assassination than we previously thought. Ruby’s activities running guns to Cuba were long suppressed. Does anyone doubt the CIA had to know all about that? Is it not an amazing coincidence that two of the musicians in the little Carousel Club trio decided to share a house 15 miles away from their work, but in direct view of Ruth Paine’s house? And how about all those witnesses who placed Ruby at the TSBD at the time of the assassination, including the confidential informant who said Ruby invited him there to “watch the fireworks.” After it was clear that “Oswald” had survived long enough to be taken to Dallas Police headquarters, Ruby announced that he would be spending much of the night at Gorden McLendon’s KLIF radio station. And who was McLendon’s lifelong friend, since grade school days? None other than David Atlee Phillips. Together in the 1970s, the two men founded the Association of Former Intelligence Officers. I’d sure like to know what Phillips related to Ruby to make him kill Oswald in front of live television cameras. Must have been an offer he couldn’t possibly refuse. As to the whole Mac Wallace business referred to above, whatever else you care to say about LBJ, he was not an idiot. Putting his associate Mac Wallace on the 6th floor of the TSBD would have risked immediate exposure.

The GLOCO station, where Tippit was sitting in his car, was directly across the street from where McWatters' bus was scheduled to stop shortly before 1 pm. Tippit was probably waiting for Harvey, because when the bus failed to appear... Tippit became alarmed, quickly left the GLOCO station, and began driving south on Lancaster. A minute or two later, at 12:54 PM, Tippit reported his position as Lancaster and 8th. He then turned right on Jefferson Blvd and drove two miles (3-4 minutes) to the Top Ten Record Store. Tippit parked his patrol car, hurriedly entered the store, and asked store clerk Louis Cortinas for permission to make a phone call. Tippit said nothing during the call, hung up the phone, hurried out to his car, and drove north across Jefferson Blvd. (circa 1:00 PM). A few minutes later Earlene Roberts saw a police patrol car drive slowly past HARVEY Oswald's rooming house at 1026 N. Beckley. The police car was most likely driven either by Officer Tippit or by Capt. Westbrook with Officer Croy.NOTE: The author believes that on 11/22/63 the conspirators were given orders, and expected to follow those orders. If Tippit was waiting for HARVEY Oswald at the GLOCO Station, then it may have been Tippit who drove slowly past his rooming house at 1026 N. Beckley. --from HarveyandLee.net/November/November_22.htm

Well said, Sandy. John did some serious detective work to try and date Voebel's photograph, but in the end could only approximate the date. From Harvey and Lee:

Oswald’s Proficiency in the Russian Language

Do you mean like this?....

That's what I thought, Bernie.... How did "Lee Harvey Oswald" grow that new front tooth in his grave?

Excuse me? My version accepts the Roger Craig/Nash Rambler observations in their entirety!

Bernie, Thank you for, however briefly, initiating an almost civil discussion. Without a sense of irony, I’ll play it as if you mean it for now. If you’ll suspend your disbelief of the two Oswalds for just a couple of minutes, I’ll try to show you how the WC version and the Nash Rambler sightings make perfect sense. Briefly, the reason we think Harvey Oswald DID take that crazy bus and taxi ride (while Lee got in the Nash Rambler) is that Harvey was ordered to do so, and he almost certainly had been following orders for that entire horrible day. He went out of his way to take the bus because he had been ordered to do so and was quite possibly going to be met by Tippit at the GLOCO station directly on the bus route. There’s more evidence, but the real proof this was all part of a plan is the fact that U.S. Army employee Stuart Reed managed to take excellent color photos of McWatters’ bus #1213 and the front of the TSBD right around the time of the assassination, and then he captured Harvey’s arrest in front of the Texas Theater. That was not just luck; it had to be planned. McWatters didn’t remember Harvey at all (would you expect a bus driver in that situation to?) but Whaley DID remember him, just as you would expect a taxi driver to remember his sole passenger. No doubt you are well aware of how strong the evidence is for the Nash Rambler ride. I won’t bother discussing it here. John makes his case for the two Oswalds leaving the TSBD here: Harvey and Lee Depart the TSBD Knowing full well that the Nash Rambler escape would lead researchers to totally reject the bus and taxi ride, John concluded the write-up above with a list of reasons for what he called the “Naysayers” to consider. Here it is: III. NAYSAYERS There are some people who believe the bus ride never happened, and that the entire story of the bus ride was fabricated. In order to reach their conclusions these people focus attention on witnesses whose memories are less than perfect, and then continuously criticize these people in an attempt to destroy their credibility. These people often misread witness statements and testimony. They criticize documents without thoroughly understanding what they are reading. Their cited "sources" are often not sources at all and, in some cases, are non-existent. They (naysayers) do this in an attempt to develop and promote their own preconceived ideas and theories. However, when their work is closely scrutinized, it becomes apparent that many of these naysayers have not done their homework. For example: Naysayers criticize bus driver Cecil McWatters because he could not positively identify Oswald as a passenger on his bus. Naysayers ignore McWatters' description of this one passenger and his clothing—a man who rode in the middle of the bus for only 4 minutes. These naysayers forget there were perhaps dozens of bus passengers on several of McWatters' bus runs on 11/22/63, yet they endlessly criticize him for not remembering details about this one passenger. Naysayers criticize the testimony and memory of Milton Jones, who remembered Oswald as a passenger and remembered his light blue jacket and grey pants. Naysayers conveniently forget that Oswald sat behind Jones, and only saw Oswald for a few seconds when he boarded and got off McWatters' bus. Naysayers criticize the testimony and memory of Oswald's former landlady Mary Bledsoe, who described Oswalds dark brown shirt, the hole in the sleeve, and the missing buttons very well. Naysayers believe that Oswald changed the shirt he wore to work at his rooming house before he went to the theater, relying on the reports of Kelley and Bookhout. Therefore, naysayers criticize Bledsoe because her description of the shirt matches the shirt Oswald was wearing at the theater when arrested. Naysayers claim that Oswald changed his shirt at his rooming house, citing the reports of Kelley and Bookhout, who wrote that Oswald removed a reddish-colored, long-sleeved shirt with a button down collar and placed it in the lower drawer of his dresser. The problem with their reports is that Oswald did not own a reddish-colored, long-sleeved shirt with a button down collar. He did own one, and only one, reddish-brown shirt, but this shirt did not have a button down collar (CE 150) and this was the shirt Oswald was wearing when arrested in the Texas Theater. All of Oswald shirts were listed in DPD inventory. In the Warren Volumes these shirts are photographed and identified as WC #150 & 151 & 152-all long sleeved, and not one shirt is reddish-colored, long-sleeved, with a button down collar. WC # 153 & 154 & 155 & 160 are all short sleeved shirts. Oswald could not have removed a reddish-colored, long-sleeved shirt with a button down collar, because he didn't own such a shirt. Oswald did remove one shirt and put it in his dresser drawer, as he told Capt. Fritz. This was his dirty white t-shirt, soiled around th HarveyandLee.net HarveyandLee.nete collar. Naysayers criticize Mary Bledsoe and say that she did not see Oswald on the bus, because she saw “only a glimpse of him.” Naysayers forget that Oswald rented one of 3 bedrooms in her home and she saw him on a daily basis only 5 weeks before the assassination. He talked on the telephone constantly and interrupted her naps. Mrs. Bledsoe remembered that Oswald often spoke in a foreign language on her telephone. She was very familiar with Oswald's face and physique. Mrs. Bledsoe only needed a “glimpse” of Harvey Oswald to recognize him instantly. Naysayers constantly criticize Bledsoe and Jones and Whaley for their less than perfect memories. But Oswald was only in their presence for a mere 4-6 minutes. Naysayers conveniently forget that Bledsoe and Jones and Whaley all remembered that Oswald wore light colored grey pants on the bus and taxi. Oswald told Capt. Fritz that he had changed his dirty trousers (light colored grey pants) in his room. When arrested, Oswald was wearing very dark pants. His dirty light colored grey pants were later found in his room by police. How could Bledsoe and Jones and Whaley have known Oswald was wearing light grey pants on the bus/taxi unless they had personally seen him? Naysayers claim that McWatters never gave Oswald a bus transfer. If McWatters never gave bus transfer #004459 to Oswald, then perhaps naysayers would care to explain why Dallas Police called the Dallas Transit Division Superintendent. Explain how Mr. F.F. Yates was able to immediately identify McWatters as the driver who issued the bus transfer. Do the naysayers expect us to believe that Dallas Transit supervisors were coerced into going along with a fabricated story that the bus ride never happened? Naysayers ignore the fact that transfer #004459 came from McWatters' transfer book. They ignore McWatters' testimony that he remembered giving a transfer to Oswald and a transfer to a blond haired lady when both were getting off the bus. Naysayers ignore Mary Bledsoe's testimony that she spoke briefly with the blond lady when McWatters gave her a transfer. How would Oswald know about a blond-haired lady on McWatters bus unless he had ridde HarveyandLee.netn on that bus? Naysayers claim the bus transfer at the National Archives does not have a crease in the middle, so it was never folded and put in Oswald's pocket. Naysayers ignore the fact that National Archivist Steve Hamilton confirmed that the bus transfer has a crease in the middle, indicating that it had at one time been folded. Naysayers question the number of transfers given out by McWatters on 11/22/63. They know the first transfer McWatters issued was #004452, and they know the police found transfer #004459 in Oswald's shirt pocket. They claim, correctly, that McWatters gave out 8 transfers (#004452 to #004459). But they then claim that because McWatters told the WC that he gave out only two transfers, that 6 transfers were “missing.” Once again, these naysayers are simply misreading testimony. McWatters told the WC, “Yes, sir; I gave him one [bus transfer] about two blocks from where he got on [at Griffin]...that is the transfer because it had my punch mark on it....I gave only two transfers going through town on that trip [going through town on that trip!] and that was at the one stop of where I gave the lady and the gentlemen that got off the bus, I issued two transfers....But that was the only two transfers were issued [on that ONE trip thru town]. Very simple. McWatters issued six transfers prior to picking up Oswald and the blond lady (prior to 12:40 PM). He then issued a transfer to the blond lady and a transfer to Oswald when they got off the bus (circa 12:44 PM). Oswald told Capt. Fritz and his interrogators about a blond woman asking William Whaley to call her a taxi, just after Oswald got into Whaley's taxi. William Whaley told the WC the same story--that just after Oswald got into the front seat of his taxi, a blond lady asked him to call a taxi for her. How is it possible that Oswald's and Whaley's stories match perfectly, unless this incident actually occurred and was remembered by both Oswald and Whaley? Naysayers conveniently forget that Oswald's reference to a blond-haired lady, which he told to Capt. Fritz and numerous law enforcement officers during interrogations, was also remembered by McWatters, Bledsoe, and Jones. Naysayers criticize William Whaley for saying that Oswald had a silverlike strip on his shirt. Naysayers ignore and intentionally overlook that Whaley also said Oswald was wearing a brown long-sleeve shirt and a t-shirt with a soiled collar. Naysayers criticize William Whaley because he said Oswald's bracelet was a “stretchband,” when it looks like a “chain link” bracelet. But naysayers, once again, should do their homework. Oswald's bracelet is listed on a DPD property form, found in Box 1, folder 8, item 1 at the Dallas Archives. It is identified as "One I.D. stretch band with 'Lee' inscribed.” Naysayers also fail so explain how Whaley could have known that Oswald was wearing any kind of silver-colored bracelet, unless he saw the bracelet himself on Oswald's left arm while riding in his taxi. Naysayers criticize William Whaley when he said that he drove Oswald to Neches and Beckley, because this address is non-existent. Naysayers conveniently fail to remember that Oswald instructed Whaley to drive to the 500 block of N. Beckley. As Whaley was driving south on N. Beckley, Oswald said “this will do.” Whaley then stopped randomly in the street, at an unknown address, and Oswald got out of his taxi. Whaley wrote “500 N. Beckley” in his manifest because that is what he remembered Oswald told him when he first got into his taxi. Naysayers criticize William Whaley because he wrote down the time of Oswald's taxi ride incorrectly in his manifest. Naysayers conveniently forget that Whaley explained to the WC that he always wrote the times of his taxi rides in 15-minute intervals. And said that he often wrote two, three, or four of these entries in his manifest at the same time, long after the taxi rides. Whaley said that when he got back to the Union Terminal he made an entry of the trip (to N Beckley) on his manifest for the day. Naysayers criticize taxi driver William Whaley for naming the number 3 man in the police lineup as Oswald, when he was identified by the police as the number 2 man. Naysayers ignore the explanation that Whaley gave to the WC. Whaley simply said that LHO, walking from left to the right, was the 3rd man brought out for the lineup. From left to right, according to the police, Oswald was the #2 man. Naysayers criticize and criticize these witnesses over the smallest of details, in an attempt to “prove” that the bus and taxi ride never happened. This is the extent of their “research.” Naysayers ignore the fact that Capt. Fritz and many law enforcement officers heard Oswald say that he rode a bus, got a bus transfer, got into a taxi, offered to let a blond-haired lady have his taxi, and paid an 85 cent fare. The facts are that Bledsoe and Jones testified that Oswald was on McWatters bus, transfer #004459 was found in Oswald's shirt pocket, Whaley testified that Oswald rode in his taxi, that Oswald offered to let a blond-haired lady have his taxi, and that Oswald paid 95 cents in taxi fare. Witness testimony and evidence match pretty well with what Oswald told his interrogators. HarveyandLee.net Naysayers criticize, criticize, and criticize these witnesses for not having perfect memories. Yet these naysayers never produce a single document or a single witness by which to prove the taxi and bus ride never happened. Nor can they offer an ounce of PROOF as to what they think COULD HAVE happened—only speculation, fantasies, and daydreams. To these naysayers, I would ask them to simply identify the person or persons who came up with the idea to fabricate a story in which the bus and taxi rider never happened. I would ask them to name the person or persons who had the knowledge, presence, and ability to fabricate such a hoax within hours of Oswald's arrest.. I would remind naysayers that Oswald himself said during his first and second interrogations that he rode a bus, long before the police knew about Cecil McWatters. And Oswald made these statements in the presence of Capt. Fritz, James Hosty, Thomas Kelley, James Bookhout, and numerous officers. These people took notes, made reports, and/or gave WC testimony about statements made by Oswald. These naysayers would have us believe that a person or persons unknown convinced all of these people (SS agents Kelley, Nully and Forrest: FBI agents Hosty, Grant, Odum and Bookout; US Marshall Nash; Capt Fritz, DPD officers Sims, Boyd, Turner, Hall, Dhority, Owens, Leavelle, and Senkel, taxi driver Whaley, bus driver McWatters, bus passengers Bledsoe and Jones, bus and taxi officials) to lie and go along with a fabricated story that the bus and taxi ride never happened. But no matter how much evidence researchers produce to prove that Oswald rode on a bus and in a taxi on 11/22/63, we can be sure that irresponsible naysayers can and will find the most trivial, superficial, and inconsequential reasons to continue their criticism. Rather than nit-pick the statements and memories of witnesses who saw “Lee Harvey Oswald” riding in either the station wagon, bus, or taxi, naysayers should study the overwhelming amount of evidence that shows there were two “Lee Harvey Oswalds” who looked very similar. At 12:40 PM LEE Oswald got into a Nash Rambler station wagon in front of the TSBD, while HARVEY Oswald was getting into McWatters' city bus at Elm and Griffin. An hour and a half later HARVEY Oswald was arrested, handcuffed, and sitting in a room at Dallas Police headquarters. When Capt Fritz pointed to Roger Craig and said to Oswald, “This man saw you leave....what about the car?” Oswald replied, “that station wagon belongs to Mrs. Paine.....” HARVEY Oswald dared not say any more, but his statement about Mrs. Paine and a station wagon shows that he knew a lot more than what he told his interrogators . George Lardner, of the Washington Post, reported that “[CIA Director] Richard Helms told reporters that no one would ever know who or what Lee Harvey Oswald...represented.” In 1977 Helms became the only CIA director to be convicted of misleading Congress. --Above from HarveyandLee.net

DJ has done all kinds of original research, both on H&L and, for example, Mexico City. Sandy first got my attention here by remarkable work he did on the uncashed Postal Money Order that allegedly paid for the Carcano from Kleins. I’ve done a few minor things to assist John in his research, but, for the most part, I don’t do original research. I run a website presenting his work. I decided long ago that John had essentially solved this case and that the most important thing I could do was to understand Harvey and Lee well enough to defend it against attackers. John continues to do original research, the latest of which can be seen in a write-up he completed in the last year or so and just completely reorganized last week. Read it here: Escape from the 6th Floor

Oh, Really?

Excerpts from Ed Vobel’s WC testimony (emphasis added) …. Yes. Well, I think one of them was in the same grade as Lee. The fight, I think started on the school ground, I think John was a little smaller, a little shorter than Lee. Well, I think Oswald was getting the best of John, but I think I just went on home and everybody went their way, and Oswald I think, was a little in front of me I think that was what brought it all about. I think this was sort of a revenge thing on the part of the Neumeyer boys I think he even lost a tooth from that. I think he was cut on the lip, and a tooth was knocked out. I don't think he was that good I don't think he was a great pool player I think I met her one time I think the legal age here is 18 I think in a way I understood him better than most of the other kids I think they have gotten worse I think we were in the same grade, I think we were. .... and on and on. Ed Voegel says “I think” or “think” nearly a hundred times during his testimony. It seems to be part of the way he talked.

In an old interview with Bill O'Reilly, Frank Sturgis said he knew there were two Oswalds.

In a radio interview from the 1980s, Harold Wesiberg (author of Whitewash and other books) recalled hearing, in 1965, from a caller to a radio station claiming to be a Marine veteran who knew a second Oswald in the USMC. The caller then came into the station and talked at length. Harold gets into the story about 32 seconds into the recording below.

Good grief! A false front tooth wasn't faked because Harvey Oswald (the guy killed by Ruby) didn't have one. I think the mastoid scar was really there.

Vincent DiMaio admitted that many children from the Word War II era bore the mastoidectomy scar, though I'm inclined to think it was given to him by the LSD-mad CIA in late 1952 or early 1953. It was "Marguerite's" housekeeper, not me, who said the poor schmuck 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. Perhaps Mr. Bojczuk can tell us how "Lee Harvey Oswald's" front tooth regrew in his grave!

Uh-huh. And the fact that the kid who actually took the picture (and sold it to Life magazine) testified that he DID lose a tooth was just... what... an optical illusion? Dirt on the negative?

Exactly! Proof there was only One Oswald is always somewhere else, but never here. Why don't the H&L critics post their secret evidence here, on the JFK Assassination Debate forum, rather than pretend it is somewhere else?