W. Tracy Parnell

So true!

Michael is, of course, correct in his assessment of the photos. It couldn't be more obvious they are the same person. You can't expect them to line up perfectly due to differences in the position of the head (tilt) and the fact that individuals do change slightly over time. But they are the same man.

At last we agree Jim!

As you say, this 17k is in addition to her salary. Additionally, when she was married to Ekdahl, you can bet he was paying most of the bills. She only made around $2000 a year when she worked-would you dispute that? So $1500 a year is a nice supplement. I don't know about the three homes business, that could be a misreading of the situation by Armstrong. But if true, she was probably renting the homes she wasn't in.

Now you're just being silly. She was not a savant-she lost money on one deal and broke even on one. But she made the equivalent of about three years salary at her typical rate of pay. The H&L people would have you believe that is no explanation for Marguerite's situation other than she worked for the CIA. Marguerite was not rich of course. But through a combination of real estate profits, support payments, a divorce settlement, insurance money and her own employment (and her sons later) she was able to get by. As always, there is an alternate explanation for those who are willing to consider it.

I've shown you the proof. Based on John Armstrong's own research, She made $6590 in real estate and that is not counting all of her rental income. Now, why don't you write an article that shows I am wrong with sources? And BTW, I never said she "ran a con" to make money. She played the part of a poor widow to gain sympathy, but she was not as poor as she made out.

The first place she bought (1010 Bartholomew) was probably with insurance money. Thereafter she did as I said and bought other places with real estate profits.

It is easy to criticize. If you would like to demonstrate how my article is in error please do. I don't have a citation to a document off the top of my head, but Armstrong makes reference to them in the early part of H&L. Jim's statements that she was poverty stricken are based almost completely on the fact that she put her children in orphanages. The idea that she could have been a somewhat cold and detached mother who was looking for free babysitting and room and board is not considered. Instead, the fact that she was able to own real estate while in "dire poverty" "proves" that she was working for the CIA and other alternatives are not considered. This is how the H&L gang operates, The purpose of my article is to offer other alternatives and in this case Armstrong's own research is the source.

Thanks Michael. As I show in the article based on Armstrong's own documents, the idea that Marguerite was destitute is not accurate. With her real estate profits and other income, she was able to get by quite well. Her placing the kids in the orphan home was more a matter of convenience than anything. Jim's entire narrative above is based on "cherry picking" of witnesses statements, some of whom, like Bell, were speaking years after the events.

She bought real estate by selling other real estate. As stated in the article, the source was John Armstrong's own documents at Baylor.

http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/04/marguerites-finances.html

Another video by Stan Dane, a (mostly) serious one this time-scroll down: https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1603-lillian-murret-the-dentist

Well, you are partly wrong Bernie . We have Sandy's word that he is taking all of this "evidence" to an investigative journalist. I'll be waiting for a report on that.

If someone was intent on proving a "double Sandy Larsen" theory, you could very well have records that could seem to lend credence to their ideas. Of course, nobody is pursuing such a theory concerning you so we'll never know (no jokes for Sandy's sake please :)).

When Voebel told the story to the WC, why didn't he say, "and BTW I know for a fact he had missing teeth from that incident?" Instead he made the qualified statement that he thought he had a missing tooth.

As I have tried to explain, in any collection of data or evidence you will find things that do not fit. In a case in New York, over 2000 people "saw" 2 escaped convicts where they could not have been. That didn't prove they were there, it proves people will say anything for various reasons. Jim lists 10 things that "prove" 2 Oswalds. But it would be surprising if you didn't find that many anomalies out of the millions of pieces of Information in this case.

You have been provided with alternative explanations over and over again and you simply refuse to accept them. And don't bother asking me to provide them, they have been provided continually on this forum dating back to 2015. But these discussions serve a purpose for you. They provide attention and a chance to get new converts such as Sandy.

IMO, an optical illusion is why you think you see any teeth missing. It could be coupled with dirt on the negative for all I know. But if he lost 2 or more teeth this fact would have been common knowledge and mentioned by someone.

Sandy is pushing the position that the exhumation was faked-the mastoid defect was created by the doctors. Perhaps that is not your position. What is the "official" position at this point?

Whatever happened to saving server space and using your own site?

As I have said Sandy, take your evidence to a journalist and be sure to let us know when you do. And while you're at it, why don't you contact Norton and DiMaio and tell them you think they are in on the plot? I'd be interested in their reaction.

As I said, Lillian was sometimes confused during her testimony. At one point, she couldn't even get the names and ages of her siblings right. The testimony of anyone should be taken with a grain of salt until you have other facts to verify it. In this case, you gave the qualified testimony of one other person and a grainy old photo. If the WC attorneys had any reason to do so, they could have quickly destroyed your myth of a missing tooth. There was no reason of course. But I see 3 missing teeth. What are you going to do about this "fact?"

But at least some of those people could be expected to mention, even if not asked, that he had a missing tooth right in front. That would be something that might come up in conversation.

Why would they be asked? Absolutely no reason for the WC or the FBI to ask anyone about a "missing tooth" since no one but Voebel ever said that. Voebel's testimony is an "outlier" in the millions of pieces of evidence in the JFK case. You know what scientists and investigators do with an outlier? They disregard it. First the "preponderance of evidence" showed that LHO had a missing tooth and now it shows only that Voebel said he did? While we're on the subject, remember Voebel only "thought" that he had a missing tooth so that is a qualified statement. Any good lawyer could have gotten him to back off of that in a minute. But they didn't bother because it was irrelevant. BTW, you didn't answer my other point. I can see the anomaly in he photograph to which you guys are referring. I KNOW it is not a missing tooth because there is a mountain of evidence that says it isn't. But if I were unfamiliar with the case, I might look at the photo and agree with you. But I also might say the gap looks larger than just one tooth. I might think it was three teeth. How would you then address this "fact" that I see three teeth missing?

Just wondering, how many times are you going to post the same thing?