W. Tracy Parnell

Alexander Kleinlerer witnessed the abuse first hand, I believe he was the only member of the Russian community to do so: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ../testimony/kleinler.htm That's two.

Good write-up Jim, none of it is true of course, but artfully done anyway. A couple questions: Where did the photo from 126 Exchange St. come from? What happened to the "real" Marguerite? At least we have a firm date on the switch now. Also you guys are still using the 6 foot height for Ekdahl even though I have shown he was 5' 11" at best and probably closer to 5' 10". A lot of material to work with but I am busy on another project right now so I'll just leave a link to my series for those interested: http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-two-marguerites-part-1.html

Sorry Jim, for not labeling it properly. The document begins with a cover letter from Schweiker to Sprague that explains several attachments. The part I am referring to in is a summary of leads developed by Schweiker's staff. As I mentioned to Michael, Fonzi said in his book (which I have read) that Morris was the way he "spelled" the name and that accounted for the change to "Maurice." I still don't see any explanation in his book or anywhere else for "John and Jim." That is what puzzles me. If you can point me to a page in his book that explains this I would be grateful. I have the Kindle version and have searched to no avail. It is possible I missed it though.

I am not asking who you think Bishop was. That is a separate issue. For example, in the HSCA Volume X Fonzi says: "[Veciana] had been directed and advised in his anti-Castro and anti-Communist activities by an American he knew as Maurice Bishop." So Maurice Bishop was the cover name of the person Veciana dealt with. He had a business card with that name as well. But in the document I linked, (and others) Bishop is referred to as "Morris, John or Jim." In his book, Fonzi tries to explain how "Morris" became "Maurice" by saying that was how he "spelled" it. But this does nothing to explain "John or Jim" All of this indicates to me that Veciana was unsure of Bishop's first name and the wording in the document I referenced indicates that. I wonder what else Veciana was unsure of and how the name transformed.

Fonzi states in his book and his write-up for the HSCA that Veciana met a shadowy figure named Maurice Bishop who directed him in anti-Castro and anti-communist activities. However, an HSCA staff summary of leads (as well as other documents) states Bishop's first name is uncertain and may be "Morris, John or Jim." http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=99779#relPageId=5&tab=page My question is how did "Morris, John or Jim" become Maurice?

The reason Goldberg was hired per Shenon: Goldberg had assumed Warren wanted him to write a history of the commission and that his job would be to document the work of the investigation as it went along. No, Warren said. He wanted Goldberg to bring a historian’s eye to the events of the assassination itself and to be a writer and editor of the commission’s final report. The chief justice, he said, wanted a report that read like something other than a cold legal brief.

Part 3 of my series discusses the outlandish assertions of the "impostor" Marguerite and how they relate to Harvey & Lee. http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/02/the-two-marguerites-part-3.html

I think it would be a good idea because there is some confusion about which Marguerite is which. In some cases it is obvious (by looking at the narrative of the theory) but not all.

I did read the debate you are referring to. Since the "CIA did it" theory is probably the most popular, Paul was "ganged up on" IMO and one member's statement does not indicate a victory. I thought his arguments were well presented. LHO did not IMO have the educational background required to be a CIA agent. Other people were sometimes hired by the agency for lesser roles but you are saying he was a full fledged CIA agent and I believe that was all but impossible. When LHO defected, he had money saved from his time in the USMC. The WC did a study and said it was feasible considering his frugal habits. As for the hotels, that was only a couple nights and he changed hotels once probably to save money. I am not "demanding" you do anything with the Marguerite photos. And the photos may be on your website, but they are not identified as to the 2 Marguerites for the most part. It just seems strange that you don't have a composite graphic as you do for Harvey & Lee. That leads me to believe that either the evidence isn't there or you are afraid those like myself will be able to poke more holes in the theory. As for your challenge to rebut your assertions, I will keep it on a to-do list but it is not a high priority right now.

No, I don't believe he was an intelligence agent. As Paul Trejo has pointed out, he doesn't look like such. He doesn't have the educational background, and he never had two nickels to rub together. Wilcott was investigated by the HSCA and his claims were found to be without merit. Trejo did a good job of answering the "21 points" in another thread. I might take a stab at it sometime when I have time. But right now-Jim, you are avoiding my question: When are you guys going to put together a composite graphic of the two Marguerites to go with the one you already have for Harvey & Lee? I think it would be a great addition to your website. if you are not going to why now? What are you afraid of?

Well spotted, Sandy. Looks like the highest number in that street is 2261. It then becomes Ryan Avenue. I stand corrected, Hurley ends and turns into Ryan.

EDIT: For those interested, it is likely that Marguerite never lived at 1410 Hurley and only used the address to receive mail. FBI agent John Fain investigated the matter and found that calls to Marguerite’s listed phone number were to be forwarded to Velma Marlin, a cashier for the Fort Worth Star Telegram, whose listed address was 1410 Hurley. Marlin told Fain that Marguerite was “out of town” and Robert Oswald could probably provide her address. Fain contacted Robert who provided the address of 1111 Herring in Waco. On April 28, 1960, Fain interviewed Marguerite who confirmed her employment in Waco at the Methodist Orphans Home (HSCA Administrative Folder Q-10, 35). Obviously, since Marlin did not know Marguerite’s address when contacted by Fain, she must have been holding her mail rather than forwarding it. What is unclear is why it was necessary for Marlin to hold the mail in the first place since Marguerite had no trouble receiving mail at several rural addresses in Texas in her capacity as a caretaker-nurse. Armstrong gets a couple things wrong in this section of his book though. He writes: Armstrong is trying to imply to the reader that something ominous is going on here. Unfortunately for him, the address does exist as anyone can see on google: https://www.google.com/maps/place/3613+Hurley+Ave,+Fort+Worth,+TX+76110/@32.7180764,-97.3448132,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x864e7185139684b1:0xdcad93f1fc601fe4!8m2!3d32.7180764!4d-97.3426245 Amstrong also says Marguerite "allegedly" moved to Waco. But there is no reason to believe that she didn't. Marlin was holding her mail because she was "out of town." Robert referred the FBI to Waco and Marguerite verified her presence there at the Methodist Orphans Home. Why all these people were lying Armstrong doesn't say.

Jim-another question if you will. Armstrong on page 291-92 of H&L writes that the "fake" Marguerite "allegedly" moved to Waco TX and worked at the Methodist Orphans Home. He goes on to say that he thinks Marguerite never lived at 1410 Hurley but simply received mail there and that Velma Marlin of the FWST lived there. There is no citation so I wondered what the source of this is and what Armstrong believes is the significance.

Thanks Tommy, that makes 3 of us so I don't feel all alone. I have always found you to be very fair minded here. Of course, you can find conspiracy people from all points on the political spectrum. Mary Ferrell was on the right I believe and was suspected of being a plant by some.

Jim, Thanks for the information. I have read part of your CBS material at your website, I honestly didn't remember that story though. I'll go back and take a look sometime.

Lance said "the promotion of a leftist political agenda under the guise of "assassination research" on the part of many." I simply agreed, although since I have no scientific data or the like, I might add the qualifier of "some" to his statement. Other than his involvement in the exhumation, what are DiMaio's biases in your opinion? I am not saying they don't exist, just that I am not aware of them and he is well thought of to my knowledge. You are not saying there is something funny about the exhumation are you?

Thanks for the information Jim. In Armstrong's opinion, did she continue to work in this capacity after the WC hearings? If not, when did this role end?

This has been a privately held theory of mine for a long time, but I am not going to mention any names of course. Great post Lance, but somehow I don't think it will be that popular.

White, who was a mentor to Armstrong, believed there were multiple Marguerites. I might have the posts from the old Dellarosa forum that prove this if I could find them. Of course, he also believed the government was intentionally poisoning the populace with contrails too.

Just for clarity, Armstrong thinks that "Harvey" was the accused assassin of history who was setup as a patsy and killed by Ruby. The "fake" Marguerite was the historic Marguerite who ran around for years promoting various theories, which was an odd thing for a CIA operative to do. The real LHO "may be very much alive" according to the theory and the real Marguerite just vanished. But your main point is well taken. Anyone would have a hard time perfectly recreating their own history much less Marguerite who moved upwards of 50 times or more.

First, let me apologize for saying “insurance document”, I should have said “summary of insurance documents” to be more clear. But I don’t find anything suspicious about the fact the original documents were not put in evidence in this instance. I can’t convince everybody there were not 2 Oswalds. All I can do is provide alternative explanations. My point in all this is if Marguerite Oswald had lived in one house in Fort Worth (or wherever) her whole life, the two Marguerite theory could not exist. As it is, she lived in upwards of 50 different addresses. That gives you and John the ability to do what you do and the theory is very clever in many ways I must say. If it wasn’t you would not be able to convince those that you do, although it is still a small minority even among the conspiracy community IMO. To you, her many addresses represent 2 different people. To me, they are emblematic of a serious mental illness that I believe she passed on to her son. But I am not a psychiatrist so I can’t prove it. If a directory exists that is fine, please do share it with us. But no single record by itself proves anything, much less two Oswalds. All of the evidence has to be examined, as professional investigators do, to determine the truth. For example, Mrs. Taylor provides the “best evidence” of LHO’s move to Fort Worth and the date of the move. However, she also says they later moved to 5th Street in Fort Worth. EDIT: I better follow my own advice. I was looking at 1957 but Taylor must have been referring to 1959 when there are reports of Marguerite on 5th Street or 5th Avenue. That got me off track because there are no reports of 5th St. in '57. So she must have been determined to get her money and followed her for a while. Mrs. Taylor said Marguerite moved out on June 1, 1957. But a summary of records from a Fort Worth bank show Marguerite at West Sixth Street on April 26. Now, I don’t know why she would change her address with the bank if she wasn’t there. It could be an error but it doesn’t seem like it. So we have 3 bits of information from Mrs. Taylor and it looks like one could be wrong and one is somewhat misleading. Now, I would like to get back to the photos. Is Ralph Cinque right that the top right photo represents the “fake” Marguerite?

The constant moves by Marguerite allow Armstrong and his associates to run wild with their theories. When a person has this type of nomadic history, there will be discrepancies in the record. None of these require 2 LHOs or Marguerites to explain. This document shows LHO’s address at the time of his enlistment-Colinwood: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1136#relPageId=675&tab=page Goldring’s may have simply had Marguerite on the books through the end of the month for record keeping purposes. Or it is an error-the type Armstrong isn’t aware occurs in everyday life quite often. Marguerite and LHO and Robert moved to Fort Worth on July 1, 1956 and the records of Mrs. Taylor are the best evidence of that. Dulles simply misspoke and Marguerite, who was under pressure and make many mistakes, agreed with him. Also, Here’s an insurance document that shows Marguerite was in Fort Worth on July 25, 1956: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=57744&search=3830_w+sixth#relPageId=171&tab=page So, she wasn’t in New Orleans. McCracken said that Marguerite lived on West Sixth “about six years ago” which places it in 1957 not 1956. McCracken was right, here is a document that shows Marguerite was living on sixth street that year: http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=57691&relPageId=5&search=3830_west sixth Here’s another one: http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=57745&relPageId=59&search=3830_west sixth Records show LHO’s leave was 1957 as you say and McCracken remembered it correctly and remembered seeing him. Nothing mysterious here.

Sandy, Your observations are well taken. This is why they need to make a photo montage of the two Marguerites with years and other information if they want people to believe this stuff. I don't remember the "fake" Marguerite going this far back before. They say at the website the bottom right photo is the "real" Marguerite. http://harveyandlee.net/Mommies_Dearest/Mommies_Dearest.html So I assume the "real" Marguerite has the "straight" teeth and is on the left at top. But Jim should straighten this out.

Part 2 of my series discusses Armstrong's misrepresentation of the testimony of Myrtle Evans and the improbability that people who knew the "real" Marguerite did not speak out upon seeing the "fake" Marguerite. http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-two-marguerites-part-2.html

Jim, A couple of questions. You are now claiming photos of the "fake" Marguerite go back to 1943 (top right photo)? If I am following this correctly, you are saying the "fake" marguerite had crooked teeth since the bottom right photo has been captioned as the "real" Marguerite previously. I don't remember any mention of the "fake" Marguerite in H&L that early but I could be wrong. Again, why don't you or David do a montage ala Jack White showing all the Marguerites with the year and other information to help the people you are trying to convince of this theory?