W. Tracy Parnell

Answer-no because he was a deadbeat who missed so many days of school in NYC he was declared a truant. So attending a minimum of classes was nothing new to him.

I don't have to explain anything that someone says with no proof to back it up, especially 30-40 years after the fact. If Kudlaty was so concerned that the FBI "misappropriated" records, why did he wait to say anything? Answer-He never believed anything was amiss, but then Armstrong got to him during his "witness recruitment program" and convinced him he was an important part of history and who doesn't want to hear that? On the bright side, from Jim's perspective anyway, I see he has a new H&L devotee in you Sandy, and you are offering to do website work for him as well. So welcome aboard.

And that is why we know that the witnesses are wrong (BTW, most are not lying but simply mistaken) But with the documentary evidence right in front of him, guess what Jim will believe?

There is nothing at Baylor that I can see, just more unsourced references to the same allegations about "Siguorette." However, I found the document where he apparently got it from at Mary Ferrell: http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10461&relPageId=16&search="siguorette" It is still unclear to me what the original source is, but it is apparently in the NYC records somewhere or was at one time. It is still completely obvious to me that "Siguorette" rhymes with Murret and that someone just copied it down wrong. As for Armstrong, someone should explain to him that when you write a book or even an article that people expect you to reference your statements. In this case, the nearest citation for his "Siguorette" claim refers the reader to Carro Exhibit 1 which we already know does not contain that name. I honestly wish I had kept a list of the mistakes, typos, incorrect or non-existent citations in the book. If I didn't know better, I would think that he was "jealous" of the information he had obtained while researching the book because of the time and cost involved and willfully tried to "make researchers work" to find it. And honestly, Jim's statements here do nothing to persuade me away from that idea.

It should be remembered that Marguerite had no problem lying when it suited her purposes. This could explain her statement that her marriage to LHO's father was the first for both of them. Just a small lie so she didn't have to reveal the actual situation to Carro as she resented NYC's involvement in her affairs anyway. Another lie she told was LHO was "captain of the baseball team." So there is a reasonable explanation for at least some of the inaccuracies.

Everybody desires attention, it is a human trait. Kudlaty may correctly have a memory of somebody asking about documents and with Armstrong's help that turned into something more. Without proof it is all speculation.

White could have had something to do with it, since he was a friend of Kudlaty. But the main thrust probably came from Armstrong who gets a hold of these people years and years after the fact and influences them with his theories. He does not approach them in an objective manner as has been discussed by Lifton, Parker and others so no need to repeat it. The people you mention are probably thinking of Robert and of course they want to be a part of history so they "remember" LHO. As for the records being "stolen" it is a good story but meaningless without substantiation.

She has never disavowed anything that she testified to before the WC or HSCA to my knowledge or that she told McMillan. She simply believes (or wants to believe) from reading books etc. that LHO was innocent. She still says (and the evidence shows) she was beaten.

Nobody had to do anything they didn't want to. If you read the testimony, they are all advised they could have a lawyer if they wanted. So, if they thought they were being pressured they could get a lawyer and tell their story exactly as they wanted with the lawyer's guidance. I know there is no way I would say anything I didn't want to under those circumstances. And sworn testimony is just that-testimony given under threat of perjury. I would like to ask all the naysayers here to conduct a mock trial with the following setup: A woman who says she was abused. 8 witnesses who saw the bruises. A witness who says he saw the physical and emotional abuse first-hand. Now give all the participants false names so the JFK assassination would not enter into it. Now honestly tell me what you think the result of the mock trial would be?

More evidence against the "tall" Marguerite: http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/02/pauls-shoe-store.html

Yes, he was 43.

I left out Robert, that was an oversight on my part which I admitted. As for Carro, no evidence, but I believe it is a reasonable assumption.

I wasn't referring to Robert, just the witnesses that Armstrong spoke to years after the fact. Robert probably assumed that LHO went to Stripling because he did. One example of a miscommunication between Carro and Marguerirte was her sister's name was listed as Lillian Sigourette (can't remember the spelling). It should be obvious that Sigourette rhymes with Murret and that is how Carro heard it and wrote it down. A simple mistake and the fact that there are so many of them indicates a problem with that particular interview for whatever reason. I've mentioned her WCT testimony before. She was a nervous woman who was reading from a document that may have contained mistakes that confused her even more. Armstrong went to TCU so he may have the document-he should release it so we can see what she was working from.

There is no evidence that LHO attended Stripling other than witness testimony from 30-40 years later. Kudlaty was a friend of Jack White and White probably gave him some of the ideas he had about the case. The fact that many discrepancies occurred during the Carro interview suggests that there was a communication problem there.

Here is a minor debunking of the new assertion by Jim and Armstrong that the "Fake" marguerite had slanted eyebrows. I say minor because it is a silly idea in the first place. The orientation of ones eyebrows will change with facial expression. http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/02/more-marguerite-silliness.html

Jim, None of that explains why Robert Oswald, who was in on the plot, would say anything about LHO at Stripling which the plotters were trying to conceal.

Here's a better question. If Robert were in on some kind of plot, why volunteer any information about Stripling or anything else for that matter? Why not just keep quiet? Apparently, Robert and the "fake" Marguerite were not coached very well by their CIA bosses. Marguerite the "spycatcher" ran around for years saying the most ridiculous things. This article has just a small sampling: http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/02/the-two-marguerites-part-3.html

No, he's dead.

The tallest he was listed is 5' 11". Why would anyone underestimate their height or allow it to be?

That's what, an inch and maybe 20 pounds at most? Not hard for me to understand anyway. My wife can't estimate anybody's height or weight.

So it's more about his ties to certain people than the fact you don't believe him?

It's a sworn affidavit. He didn't specifically say what the "playacting" referred to.

It's nonsense it what it is. You have a woman that states she was abused. You have her mother in-law who agrees with her. BTW, that mother-in-law normally makes every excuse in the world for her son. You have a first-hand witness to the abuse (Kleinlerer) who makes two statements to it. That is pretty much all you would need to convict in a court of law. "When Oswald came to move his wife, he slapped her in the face and caused her to go into another room crying." http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=95646&search="kleinlerer"#relPageId=193&tab=page "I entered the house. Marina was in the living room with her child in her arms. We had just begun to discuss the matter of moving the next day when Oswald observed that the zipper on Marina's skirt was not completely closed. He called to her in a very angry and commanding tone of voice just like an officer commanding a soldier. His exact words were, "Come Here!", in the Russian Language, and he uttered them the way you would call a dog with which you were displeased in order to inflict punishment on him. He was standing in the doorway leading from the living room into another room of the house. When she reached the doorway he rudely reprimanded her in a flat imperious voice about being careless in her dress and slapped her hard in the face twice. Marina still had the baby in her arms. Her face was red and tears came to her eyes. All this took place in my presence. I was very much embarrassed and also angry but I had long been afraid of Oswald and I did not say anything." The following is not physical abuse but it certainly is emotional abuse: "I remember that Oswald and Marina were seated at the dining table eating. We were sitting there talking with Mr. George Bouhe when suddenly Oswald noticed there was no butter on the table. He rose red faced and angry and in our presence rudely and in a domineering and overbearing manner, and as though Marina was a mere chattel, proceeded to vigorously reprimand her. It was like a sergeant bullying a new recruit. We were all embarrassed and shocked." http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ../testimony/kleinler.htm You have de Mohrenschildt, who see the bruises and confronts LHO who then tacitly admits the abuse. You have others who see the bruises. You have an apartment manager who heard the fighting. So you have a first-hand witness, the statements of the victim and a mountain of circumstantial evidence. How much more do you need? The argument that no one called the police is disingenuous. That was a very different time and people believed (especially in a conservative community) in minding their own business. The argument that Marina made excuses such as running into a door-we have never heard that before have we? The victim often makes excuses for the abuser. Now, if you want to argue that Marina overstated the abuse after the fact for example in Marina & Lee, that is a reasonable position since we only have her word for those incidents. But there is no serious argument that she wasn't abused. Except that you folks need to show LHO was a non-violent, normal guy who was setup (or whatever theory you are pushing).

Ok thanks for the clarification. Not sure how Ralph is going to take this though.

Jim, Another problem I see is that you are now contradicting what you said as recently as January 28 in this thread where you claimed these were two Marguerites. Now you are saying they are the "real" Marguerite who never wore glasses. What gives? http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/23336-jim-hargrove-are-these-photos-of-the-the-tall-attractive-marguerite-oswald-or-the-short-dumpy-marguerite-imposter/&page=7