W. Tracy Parnell

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

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.