Alistair Briggs

I don't have any real 'first hand' knowledge on the subject, I can only dig out what I can find online really. What I did come across was that an 'undesirable discharge' would come under the banner of 'Other Than Honourable' - in terms of whether that was 'about as bad' as a 'dishonourable discharge', my research leads me to believe that it wasn't quite as bad, but still bad. http://military-law.lawyers.com/veterans-benefits/discharges-and-their-effect-on-veteran-benefits.html Just on this whole subject, On January 30th 1962 (although he erred and put the year as 61) Lee wrote his letter to John Connally. By that time Connally had resigned as Navy Secretary, he did 'acknowledge' the letter though and forwarded it to his successor Fred Korth - the Navy responded to Oswald advising him that no change of correction to his status was warranted. (I will try and find a copy of the letter online, if not I can type it out from a book I have. ) On March 22nd 1962 Lee wrote another letter. Here is a quote from the book The President And The Provocateur by Alex Cox pg98 about it; .The last part of that makes me chuckle a bit. Lee is clearly so annoyed at having his 'honourable discharge' changed and he is adamant that it shouldn't have been changed - presumably he would want to do eveything in his power to do so, and yet he is only 'prepared' to appear in person at a place in his area. lol Anyway, it's an interesting topic.

No worries. I will certainly keep my eye out for the 'not long after'. It's one of these things I really had to think about as I had never really thought about what hand one eats with, I'm right handed. If I was having a bowl of soup and using just a spoon I would use my right hand to lift the spoon to eat. If I was having a plate of chips and was using just a fork I would use my right hand to lift the fork to eat. If I was having a steak using a knife and a fork, I would use the knife in my right hand and the fork in my left (and would use the left hand to lift the fork to eat). I doubt I am alone in doing it that way. lol I do feel that the 'writing' is the more important thing in determining whether someone is left or right handed. So yeah there is a contradiction there between Marguerite (who says Lee wrote left hand) and Robert (who says Lee wrote right hand). How often would either of them have had a chance to have seen Lee write? I don't know. Could one of them just be wrong about it? I don't know. I do think that Robert, in his WC testimony on this matter, seems assured of what he is saying and that makes me feel that what he is saying is correct about Lee writing right hand. The two things that Karl pointed out earlier, whilst not unequivocally proving Lee to be 'right handed', they certainly point in that direction imo. Just to ask, Jim, is it important for him to be left or right handed? Regards

I think Marguerite has been quite clever with it actually. She seems to have realised that if she was truthful, and said that she had been previously married but separated whilst pregnant with John Pic and divorced not long after that and then married someone else within months of being divorced, it could have 'painted' the kind of situation that, someone like Carro, could have thought was quite 'telling' in regards to the 'behaviour' of Lee... ... to avoid that Marguerite told a 'small' lie to 'paint' a picture of 'happy families'. Not only did she say that it was her first marriage, she had to change the year of that marriage to fit in the birth of her first born, and the easiest way to do that was to use the marriage year of her first marriage (but keep the marriage date of the second marriage) and then it would, by inference, mean that all 3 children were the son of Rovert Edward Lee Oswald. Margaurite married Edward John Pic on August 8th 1929. Marguerite married Robert Edward Lee Oswald on July 20th 1933 By changing the year then this, makes sense... and would suit her purpose (of 'happy families') ...

From reading through the WC testimony of Robert Oswald, he seems very assured and credible with regards to Lee being right handed. Is it strange then that Marguerite would say Lee was left handed? Perhaps! However, Marguerite says " Lee was left handed. Lee wrote left handed and ate right handed. " - what does 'ate right handed' mean? Yeah I will certainly keep an eye out for that... wait, don't you mean it the other way round? I was under the impression that Lee's father died two months before he was born - can't say I have ever come across anything saying it was 'soon after'. btw I noticed another 'error' regarding the Carro document; Now that is not true on two fronts. First, Marguerite had previously been married and secondly one of the children was from that previous marriage. Woah, I just had a thought that would explain what she had done there. I will come back to it... EDIT: Sorry meant to say that Robert E Lee Oswald had also been previously married (to Margaret Emma Keating) EDIT 2: Marguerite was also married another time, to Ekdhal from May 1945 till June 1948, she went back to using the name Oswald!

It's true, Sandy never said that he 'did'... He only said he 'might'. lol

Blame the Mother. Apparently when Oswald was first 'discharged' from the marines it was on a 'hardship discharge' (which apparently is honourable). Because Oswald, when trying to enter Russia, said he was willing to divulge Navy secrets his discharge was changed to a 'undesirable discharge'. The Navy wrote to Oswald to tell him, using his last known address. His Mother recieved it, and then subsequently wrote Oswald to tell him it had been changed to 'dishonourable discharge'...

No worries, happy to be of assistance. Regarding; See the WC Carro exhibit, is there a better version of it online than this one here - http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/pdf/WH19_Carro_Ex_1.pdf EDIT I just found this - http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ../jfkinfo3/exhibits/carro1.htm I presume that Carro typed that up from his notes after his 'interview' with Marguerite. Do those notes still exist? Is it known whether they were written in longhand or shorthand? Anyroads, I was trying to find where each of the following came from... (in brackets is the ones I have located thus far). She gave Lee Oswald's father's name as Robert Lee Harvey (Carro exhibit) She said Lee's father died at age 45 (Carro exhibit) She gave her marriage date as July 19, 1929 (Carro exhibit) She said she formerly owned a house in Corning, Texas (Carro exhibit) She gave Lee Harvey Oswald's birth date as October 19 (Carro exhibit) She said Lee was baptized at the Trinity Lutheran Church in New Orleans (Carro exhibit) When she was asked whether Lee's father was right or left handed she replied "I do not remember, sir" (WC) (I will need to come back to the following two as I haven't yet located them. she was the youngest of 6 children She gave her sister's name as Lillian Sigouerette .

Just on that note, here is the part of Marguerite's WC testimony for context...

Steve you might be able to help with this, https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1317#relPageId=662&tab=page Mrs James L (Dottie) Lovelady (who was absent from work on the day of the assassination) is that Billy Nolan Lovelady's wife, sister or mother? Has to be his mother surely, I think. Was his wife not Patricia Ruth Lovelady. Argh. lol EDIT: Ah now wait, I just found this from the 1940 census... https://www.ancestry.com/1940-census/usa/Texas/James-L-Lovelady_5h2c5y James L Lovelady was Billy Nolan Lovelady's older (by one year) brother. Dottie Lovelady was married to the brother of Billy Nolan Lovelady... Ah that makes sense now. (I think). Billy Lovelady was married to Patricia Ruth (nee) Conner (but she didn't work at the TSBD). hmmm EDIT 1.1 The Elena Hall named as 'daughter' in that census wasn't a daughter, she was actually a lodger (and apparently a male). EDIT 2 From the 1940 census https://www.ancestry.com/1940-census/usa/Texas/Patricia-Ruth-Conner_5hc9tx Patricia Ruth Conner was the daughter of Vida Lee Conner and James William Conner. (no mention of a son Jim Conner, but he would no doubt have been born after that census). At least that gives the fathers name though of James William Conner. EDIT 3 Jim Conner also says he worked in the TSBD (over the summer holidays) EDIT 4 Just to avoid any potential confusion, the claim of 'My dad was a Dallas Police Officer' was not made by Jim Conner, (he was just responding to Helen Schmidt who started a thread here.

I was just reading a couple of things written by June Porter (Oswald) from 1983 (which can be found here) Couple of things I felt worth sharing... and

*Just as a point was Robert Edward Lee Oswald not 43 when he died. Jim, these kind of things fascinate me. You posit the question of 'would anyone here make those kinds of mistakes about their own backgrounds?' Not I, but I do know some people who certainly make some of those mistakes (dates of birth or ages for example)...

Cheers Paul, That is very interesting indeed. The 'without a reason' is quite the qualifier to the 'I did not know Lee to be a dangerous man'.

Paul, with the utmost of respect I can't find that in his WC testimony at all...

Yeah, sorry I wasn't overly clear in the comment from which you qouted; my earlier comment on the topic is more clear as to the time;

See the first 'black eye' that Bouhe said he saw, that is probably the same one that Margurite saw also (the time fits in well)... the 'second' one Bouhe mentioned (but didn't see) was at a different time... granted Mrs Meller gives no answer to whether she saw 'bruises'... and sure Bouhe may be 'making it up' about it being a 'black eye'... but she does say that Marina said that 'he beat her' - and that's a diiferent incident from when she mentions the 'walking in to the door'... Sandy you are doing a good job.

I understand you feeling defensive about it... ... personally, rather than take your word on this matter or someone else's word on the matter, I have been doing my own 'homework' on it and there seems to be a lot out there pointing towards Oswald being a 'lousy husband' - not just in terms of 'physical' things. - and not just in terms of the 'Russian community'. In fact reading more and more about Oswald's whole life quite a picture is painted... ... I feel pity for him to be honest (despite what he may or may not have done).

Jus throwing this out there... Skepticism is a good thing indeed. (see the 'hijacking a plane' and 'threatening Nixon', I don't buy that stuff for one second. See the 'shooting at Walker', I'm undecided on it. See the 'prone to violence', I have read plenty of 'evidence' that points that way) With regards to the 'domestic abuse' (whether physical or not), I am not seeing any link between that and the thought of making Oswald guilty of assassinating JFK. Despite the gossip that no doubt took place and the lack of 'first hand witnesses' (of which there appears only to be one), there were a number of 'second hand witnesses' who saw bruises, but it also goes beyond the physical side of things. Even if there were only a limited number of times that there was anything 'physical', there is certainly a lot more pointing to 'problems' in their marriage. Enough to surely point towards Oswald being at best a pittable husband and at worst 'guilty' of domestic abuse... ... even taking the '3rd hand' (or more) 'witnesses' with a heavy does of skepticism. There's no smoke without fire. Anyway, There is also no real correlation between all those who make mention of Oswald being 'prone to violence' and the WC trying to 'convict Oswald in absentia'... To illustrate what I am meaning, here is some of the testimony from M F Tobias... Despite the best efforts of Mr Jenner wanting to make a case that Oswald could have used a rifle there, Tobias doesn't budge an inch. That speaks highly to the credibility of Tobias in my opinion. Jenner seems to be pushing him to say that Oswald had a rifle, but Tobias is more than clear that neither him nor anyone else there saw any such thing. The credibility of Tobias is important when it comes to the next relevant part... Tobias may not have been a first hand witness to the 'domestic troubles', perhaps not even a second hand witness, but nevertheless he has no reason to just 'make it up'. Yeah maybe the WC were trying to 'convict Oswald in absentia', but they didn't do a great job of doing that. I used the example of Tobias there, but there are plenty of other ones also who don't fall for the WC's attempts to 'convict' Oswald. I agree. There are 2 events (at least) of 'physical' abuse - Marguerite saw bruises in October, Elena Hall saw bruises in July. In terms of things pointing to 'domestic abuse' (to whatever extent) it goes much deeper than that - the Tobias thing comes from the March. What other things point to Oswald being prone to 'violence' throughout his life? There are enough things out there that whether or not they are 'exaggerated' or not overly 'accurate' still point to Oswald not exactly being an 'awesome dude'... ... seen as there is not always a direct correlation between being 'prone to violence' and 'killing someone' I don't understand why there are so many people who want to 'wave' it all away and paint Oswald as being someone we should 'respect' when there is so much out there pointing to the oppossite (regardless of whether he was or wasn't guilty of shooting JFK).

Cheers, I will have a look at it as soon as I can.

I'm somewhat reluctant to ask this question... but... why unfortunately?

lol good old Daily Star lol I mean the photo has been on his wiki page since 2013. lol It' source was this artilce also from 2013. lol Anyway, a very interesting photo. Cheers.

Oh I can assure you that I didn't 'fall for it', and that should have been already (partially) evidenced by when I posted the part of Anna Meller's testimony that Robert hadn't put in his list. I think you might have missed my point from the totality of my earlier comment, which to be fair, was my fault as I 'underplayed' my point somewhat... But anyway, of course I wasn't around back then, so forgive me for not being up to speed on everything. In the last day however I have started doing my own digging around all these 'witnesses' and, as I said earlier; Perhaps I should have clarified more... but there is a reason I put 'wife beater' in single quotation marks. As you know there is a lot of things to get through and it takes a bit of time to read through all the testimony of all the people, I'm not all the way through yet. I will say though, I have come across many interesting things about some of these people (including ones not on Robert's list of 19). But yeah, anyway, I can assure you that I didn't 'fall for it'. Regards P.S. let me know the name of the 7 you have (privately if need be) just in case I have missed one of them.

Apparently so. lol I did come across an explanation of it from Greg Parker at the ROKC forum from 2012 here; I can understand that. Don't think you are confused. The (first) fight was with Neumeyer. A day later (maybe two days) Lee was 'sucker punched' (in retaliation?). Was his tooth actually knocked out? I'm not sure to be honest. Voebel doesn't sound overly sure imo when he says "I think he even lost a tooth from that. I think he was cut on the lip, and a tooth was knocked out."

Is that corroborated by anyone else...

Yet, from the testimony of Voebel...

Is it possible to know when and where that happened? I had a look to see what I could come up with and some time between Mid September and early October 1962 at Mercedes Street Fort Worth is what I deduced but I really don't know...