Paul Jolliffe

David, Let me see if I've got your gist here: 1.We should consider whether the woman caller did not connect Gardos and Blair as "Oswald's" father and uncle, but instead as two distinct pairs of men. Hmm. Well, she mentioned "Hungarians and Communists", and Gardos (both Hungarian and Communist) and Blair (Communist) fit. And she seemed to imply a connection between them and "Oswald's" father and uncle, but we have no explicit statement as to that, so your hypothesis is still (remotely) possible. 2. If the Gardos/Blair pair were distinct from "Oswald's" father and uncle, then it would seem that all four were Communist and three of the four were Hungarian. And therefore, little "Oswald" was Hungarian. 3. I agree that Margaret Keating is of interest as a possible "Marguerite" imposter. However, the only image we have of her simply does not fit. She's not our "Marguerite". So, unless the photographic record has been manipulated (possible), that's a dead end. https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/102795476/margaret-emma-keating 4. I am not so interested in how the woman caller came to know of Mrs. Jack Tippit (albeit, that is a good question) as to why she made the call. Did she really believe the Hungarians and Communists were about to take over the government? Did she really think little "Oswald" (from Yorkville) was some sort of super-duper secret agent, upon whose marksmanship rested a giant conspiracy plotted by foreigners and Reds? If she was not referring to Hungarians and Communists as the "Group from New York" intending to take over the government, then who? I don't know what she thought, but why didn't she call the authorities? Of whom was she so afraid? Hungarians and Communists in NYC in 1963? 5. I agree completely that the mystery of how this woman knew/believed that the Dallas "Oswald" was the same little boy whose father and uncle were NYC communists is something that we need to solve. I asked that same question weeks ago. I posed that it would have been impossible for any outsider to look at the face of a 24-year old man and be certain that he was the same little boy she'd known from 15 years earlier. Yet, she was so certain that she made this frantic call to Mrs. Tippit and identified "Oswald" as the son of a Hungarian Communist who had once lived in Yorkville! That meant, I argued, that our caller could only have been certain about "Oswald's" identity if . . . she had known him when he used the name "Oswald". If she had known him as a boy under a different name, it would have been impossible for her many years later then to recognize him as "Oswald"! I believe you tend to agree with my speculation that the 1940's connection between the little boy ("Oswald") and the real Lee Harvey Oswald could only have been made by someone who actually physically saw both boys. And that could only have been Edwin Ekdahl, the real Marguerite's third husband. When Ekdahl notified his contacts (formal or informal) in the national security apparatus about the apparent physical similarity between the two boys, the "Harvey" project was born. This had to be before Edwin and Marguerite split up in the summer of 1947 and divorced in 1948. This means that the name "Oswald" was given to the mysterious little Hungarian boy by 1947, if not by 1945. This means our woman caller knew him then. After the summer of 1947, our little "Oswald" was bopping around down south with the Marguerite imposter. (It's either that, or our "Oswald" was really named Oswald all along, and not only did he (somewhat) bear a physical resemblance to the real Lee Oswald, but he also had the same birth name? No. In the real universe, that is not a possibility worth pursuing. Relying on such coincidences to explain the assassination of the president is beneath serious discussion . . .) 6.Thanks in part to John Butler's work, we can now say with certainty that little John Gardos was NOT our "Oswald" (Harvey.) If the caller was right that little "Oswald's" father and uncle were Hungarians in Yorkville (and I think that it is very likely that little "Oswald" did live there for a bit, although I agree the FBI report only implies that and does not explicitly state that), then it is entirely plausible to me that the Yorkville Hungarian community would have been abuzz in the 1940's about Emil Gardos's deportation.(Regardless of whether the woman caller believed that Emil Gardos was "Oswald's" father, or not.) A older Yorkville Hungarian woman such as John Pic's mother-in-law, Margaret Fuhrman, would be an excellent candidate for our mysterious woman caller in 1963. She may well have been vaguely aware of the "Harvey" project by 1952/53, and she plausibly could have assumed (wrongly) that "Oswald" was the biological son of Emil Gardos back in the mid '40's, before "Oswald" was placed with "Marguerite." Margaret Fuhrman would have had no specific knowledge about the missions in which the dual "Oswald" identities were used, and therefore might well have guessed wrong in a phone call in 1963, but she was right in her belief that the plot involved people once connected to the Yorkville Hungarian community. According to John Pic's sworn testimony, Margaret Pic and her husband had been living in Yorkville "a good many years" and maybe since the birth of their eldest daughter in 1924. If Margaret Fuhrman was indeed the mysterious woman caller in 1963, then that would explain the absolutely bizarre series of questions posed to John Pic by WC attorney Albert Jenner at the beginning of Pic's testimony: Mr. JENNER. Give the full name of your wife including her married name, children, if any, ages and names and where born. Mr. PIC. My wife’s maiden name is Margaret Dorothy Fuhrman. My eldest is John Edward Pic, Jr., 14 May, 1952. My daughter, Janet Ann Pic, 18 October 1954; James Michael Pic, 22 February 1960. Mr. JENNER. Your wife Margaret is-she was born where? Mr. PIC. New York City, sir. Mr. JENNER. Her parents are native Americans as well as she? Mr. PIC. No, sir; they are not. Mr. JENNER. What do you know of them? Mr. PIC. Her father died; I never met the man while we were going together. Her mother and father were separated. Her mother was born in Hungary, I think. Her father was also sir. Mr. JENNER. What do you understand as to when they came to this country? Mr. PIC. I have never inquired. It has probably been mentioned but I have forgotten. Mr. JENNER. Was it your impression they had been here a good many years? Mr. Pic. Yes, sir; they have seven children. The eldest being in her forties, I am pretty sure. Mr. JENNER. I see. When you met your wife she was living with her mother? Mr. PIC. Yes, sir. Mr. JENNER. Where? Mr. PIC. 325 East 92d Street, New York City. Mr. JENNER And you were at that time in the service? Mr. PIC. Yes, sir; U.S. Coast Guard, assigned to U.S. Coast Guard Cutter Rockaway.

John, I reject completely your assertion "false in one, false in all." So do you! After all, the woman caller asserted that Gardos and his "son" (our "Oswald"/Harvey) were in Yorkville in the 1950's. That was impossible: Gardos was deported in 1949. Yet, you and I agree that although the woman did not have the right years, that by itself did not completely invalidate her call! You have not understood what I have been arguing all along: the key to the FBI document was NOTin whether "Oswald"/Harvey was the biological son of Emil Gardos. Instead the importance of the FBI document was that it demonstrated some kind of relationship between Gardos and "Oswald"/Harvey, a relationship the FBI was desperate to hide! It's entirely plausible to me that the "Oswald" killed by Jack Ruby in Dallas was Hungarian by birth. You and I agree that the way the FBI hot-potatoed the report of the mysterious woman's call to Mrs. Jack Tippit showed that the FBI was very, very concerned about this woman's information. Further, we know the FBI hid that information - they knew instantly that the woman was referring to Emil Gardos and Fred Blair. (By the way, it turns out that the highly suspicious asterisk over and the underlining of the name "Emile Kardos" on the report itself actually was done by the FBI, not John Armstrong! Someone at the FBI recognized the importance of that name immediately, and marked up the original copy!) The FBI hid that information in two ways: 1. They corrupted Emil Gardos's name ("Emile Kardos"). They also corrupted the name of the publication with which Louis Weinstock was associated ("Woman's World"). 2. The FBI then classified the report on this call to make sure the American public would never know of it. And indeed, had Congress not changed the law in the 1990's, we would not know of it today! Even so, it took some real diligence on John Armstrong's part to dig it out of NARA twenty five years ago! So what does this mean? Well, if we are right that the FBI knew/feared there was something to the woman's claim, then our "Oswald" (Harvey), really was associated with Emil Gardos for a period in the 1940's in Yorkville. Further, we can reasonably conclude that the nature of that relationship was something that appeared familial and paternalistic to an outsider - the caller believed Gardos was the little boy's father. John, you and others have been speculating that somehow Emil Gardos's real flesh and blood son, John, might have been the boy (our "Oswald"/Harvey) to whom the woman referred. OK, that is your right to speculate. However, as I pointed out weeks ago, that was mighty unlikely: it meant that Emil and Grace had to be willing to abandon their little son to the care of strangers in a country to which they could not easily return, if ever. The psychological implausibility of that scenario made it extremely, extremely unlikely. (Maybe not completely impossible, but so unlikely as to warrant severe skepticism.) Nonetheless, you and others were hot to pursue it. Fair enough. If John Gardos was indeed our "Oswald"/Harvey, then he was killed in Dallas in 1963. On the other hand, if John Gardos was not our "Oswald"/Harvey, then it would be entirely plausible that he would have accompanied his parents to Hungary in 1949 and lived there. Thanks in part to your tracking down Russ Geck, we now know that is exactly what did happen. Mrs. Russ Geck had a father, John Gardos. Mrs. Russ Geck's grandparents were Emil and Grace Gardos. Just as the 1966 FBI report stated (the one which the FBI had that bizarre reaction to a possible visit to the US by Grace Gardos and her little son), the son of Grace Gardos and Emil Gardos was very much alive and with his mother in 1966. So, now we have two overwhelming pieces of evidence that little John Gardos absolutely could not have been "Oswald"/Harvey! However, as I have now stated plainly many, many times, that does not invalidate the basic thrust of the woman caller's information, nor our suspicions of the FBI's reaction to that call! After all, what was the deepest, darkest secret about the JFK assassination? That the accused dead patsy was NOT who all of officialdom claimed him to be! Unraveling his true identity would lead right into the national security state and probably straight to the ultimate sponsors of the assassination! No, come hell or high water, the killers and their abettors within and without the government would stop at nothing to hide that fact! So, since "Oswald"/Harvey was NOT the biological son of Emil Gardos, then there is only one other possibility: Emil and Grace Gardos (and their real son, John) were his caretakers for a bit in Yorkville in the 1940's. The woman caller saw them together and made the natural (but wrong) assumption that our little boy "Oswald"/Harvey was their other son. Were Emil and Grace Gardos the type of folks who might have looked after a small boy WWII refugee/orphan from Hungary for a few months or longer in the mid 1940's in Yorkville? It seems possible to me. But this is why Russ Geck's wife (what is her first name, again?) could be hugely important: she just might, might, might, have some stories passed from her father about her grandparents and their activities in Yorkville in the 1940's. And maybe, if we are incredibly lucky, some of those family stories might include something about the little boy from Hungary for whom they were foster parents for a bit. But, John, please stop with the "false in one, false in all" nonsense. Not even you believe that.

I have been arguing all along that the Gardos/mysterious woman story must have had something to it, otherwise the FBI wouldn't have buried it! But again, please STOP focussing on the woman caller's allegation that "Oswald" (Harvey) was Emil Gardos's "son", and therefore the Dallas "Oswald" was little John Gardos, and that therefore, Russ Geck on the other side of the world is up to something if he won't respond to strangers accusing him of guilty knowledge that somehow his father-in-law is the accused or real assassin of President Kennedy! That's so goofy on its face! I wouldn't respond to that either! At first, it was not unreasonable for us to wonder if Gardos's own biological little son, John, could later have become "Oswald", murdered on 11.24.63. However, since we now have not one, but TWO very stong pieces of evidence that little John Gardos was very much alive after 1963 (the FBI memo from 1966 and now Mrs. Geck's own father, thanks to John B's work), we can conclude, beyond any doubt, that our "Oswald" (Harvey) could not have been little John Gardos. Our "Oswald" was murdered in 1963. John Gardos was not. He grew up and eventually fathered Mrs Russ Geck. Therefore, John Gardos was not "Oswald" (Harvey.) We now need to focus on identifying what was the nature of the brief relationship between Emil Gardos and that mysterious little boy in Yorkville in the mid 1940's. So, in the (unlikely?) event that anyone is able to get any kind of response again from Russ Geck, we need to know if John Gardos ever said anything about having a "foster" brother in his youth. I would bet serious money John Gardos had a "foster" brother (or someone who might have been mistaken for one) when he was a little boy with his parents in Yorkville.

It appears we may be talking at cross purposes here: you and I agree a rifle was carried out of the TSBD on the afternoon of 11/22/63. No one disputes that "a" rifle was found in situ! Exactly what that rifle was, how it got there, to whom it belonged, etc. are the issues about which we disagree. If you believe (on the basis of zero evidence) that it was "Oswald" who carried it there, that's your perogative. But neither you nor anyone else has the slightest shred of evidence to prove that. (No there were no fingerprints, no there were no eyewitnesses, no there was no paper sack/bag on the sixth floor.) Yes, you bet Marina was a xxxx! But don't take my word for it. Read it for yourself. Straight from the Warren Commission, the very people who so desperately needed her to make the case against her dead husband. This is from Norman Redlich's infamous February 28, 1964 memo to J. Lee Rankin: "We cannot ignore, however, that Marina Oswald has repeatedly lied to the Service, the FBI and this Commission on matters which are of vital concern to the people of this country and the world." https://books.google.com/books?id=ikT8OK5XqY8C&pg=RA1-PA126&lpg=RA1-PA126&dq=norman+redlich+to+j.+lee+rankin+february+28.+1964&source=bl&ots=hDtLnhj4kx&sig=ACfU3U2PMINOxe7f1TqWEt-TFPRWEq_bgg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwifp8_s69jmAhVEHM0KHXjEBMoQ6AEwAXoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=norman redlich to j. lee rankin february 28. 1964&f=false

Rob, It is not up to you or I to explain how the Mannlicher-Carcano came into the possession of the FBI on the evening of November 22, nor to explain anything relating to that rifle. The Backyard Photos story has been worked over extensively elsewhere. Suffice to say, nothing is certain about the provenance of those photos. Even the Warren Commission couldn't come up with a plausible, complete story - they knew nothing of 133-C! It was up to the Warren Commission to show, step-by-step, document by document, exactly how "Oswald" came to order, pay for, store, practice with and finally possess that rifle on November 22, let alone how, when and where he "hid" it up until 12:30 pm in the TSBD. Not only could they not do it, they had to resort to asking Marina to "identify" the Mannlicher-Carcano as belonging to her husband! This, of course, was absurd. Why? In her words "all guns look the same to me" . . . Now, I'll give you this: the George DeMohrenschildt claim that he spotted a rifle in "Oswald's" closet in April has always bothered me. Nevermind that DeMohrenschildt was a CIA spook, assigned to babysit the asset/patsy "Oswald" for a few months in late 1962/early 1963; nevermind that only his "suicide" prevented his sworn testimony before a Congressional Committee about "Oswald"; nevermind that he seemed genuine in his fondness for "Oswald" and even wrote that "Oswald" was a patsy (!) in his manuscript; no, set all that aside. DeMohrenschildt seemingly wrote in sincerity that he had seen a rifle (type/caliber/manufacturer unknown) in the "Oswald's" closet in April of 1963. He could well have been lying, but there is a chance he was telling the truth. If he was truthful, we don't have the slightest idea what that rifle was, nor where it went for the next seven months. Nor did the Warren Commission. They had exactly zero evidence to link that rifle to "Oswald" that summer and fall. And honestly Rob, nor do you. Your speculation that somehow Wesley Buell Frazier had it in his trunk for months before he and "Oswald" met is beyond illogical. Yet you think I'm the one posing a bizarre conspiracy for which there is no evidence?

Rob, There is simply no credible evidence that our "Oswald" ever purchased or possessed the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle. The entire WC version of the rifle's provenance is completely phony. (That subject deserves an entire book in its own right. ) Further, there is no evidence that "Oswald" stored any rifle or firearm at Ruth Paine's home in Irving. The laughably phony WC version has an unwitting Ruth Pained somehow taking the rifle with Marina from New Orleans while our "Oswald" was (supposedly) in Mexico City. The rifle, allegedly wrapped in a blanket, was unknowingly packed into Ruth Paine's car in New Orleans, driven to Dallas, unloaded from the car, placed on the floor of the garage, and then lay there for weeks. Remember, the official version is that '"Oswald" never touched it after leaving for Mexico City - all of the above was done by an unwitting, Quaker pacifist who did not allow firearms into her home, yet somehow she personally handled that blanketed rifle multiple times over a period of days but had no idea she held a rifle! This scenario is absurd on its face and is not worthy of serious intellectual comment. "Oswald" owned no rifle in Dallas. He had nothing of the sort stored in the Paine garage. He had no rifle to bring to the TSBD, ever.

David, Yes, I noticed that 4801 Victor does not exist any longer. The corner lot looks as if it once contained a house, and there is a driveway to nowhere, but, as you noted, that driveway is on N. Prairie. However, like the Linnie Mae Randle house on 5th Street in Irving, which also had a side driveway to a different street (Westbrook), 4801 Victor probably faced Victor and had a driveway that ran sideways to N. Prairie. Thanks for clarifying the original Crockett school name change. Could Marguerite, her three sons and her new husband have lived in the Victor house after it sold in late June for the better part of three months? That seems implausible - I know sellers don't necessarily vacate on the closing date, but three months seems a long time. Did they slide into the Worth Hotel for an extended stay shortly after the June 29 sale?

Rob, No offense, but this belated statement from Frazier about "Oswald" bringing in a rifle to the TSBD is even lamer that the Warren Commission's attempt to put a rifle in "Oswald's" hands that morning when entering the TSBD. Remember, they had to resort to lying about Jack Dougherty's testimony - they claimed that Dougherty testified that he saw "Oswald" enter the TSBD, but they claimed that Dougherty couldn't remember anything in "Oswald's" hands when in fact, Dougherty testified to exactly the opposite! Dougherty was definite: "Oswald" had nothing in his hands when he entered the TSBD that morning! From the Warren Report: "One employee, Jack Dougherty, believed that he saw Oswald coming to work, but he does not remember that Oswald had anything in his hands as he entered the door.160 No other employee has been found who saw Oswald enter that morning.161" Yet, from the Warren Commission's own evidence, the direct testimony of their own, cited witness, Jack Dougherty: Mr. Ball: Do you recall him having anything in his hand? Mr. Dougherty: Well, I didn't see anything, if he did. Mr. Ball: Did you pay enough attention to him, you think, that you would remember whether he did or didn't? Mr. Dougherty: Well, I believe I can--yes sir--I'll put it this way; I didn't see anything in his hands at the time. Mr. Ball: In other words, your memory is definite on that, is it? Mr. Dougherty: Yes sir. Mr Ball: In other words, you would say positively that he had nothing in his hands? Mr. Dougherty: I would say that -- yes sir. Mr. Ball: Or, are you guessing? Mr. Dougherty: I don't think so. Mr. Ball: You saw him come in the door? Mr. Dougherty: Yes. Mr Ball:The back door on the first floor? Mr. Dougherty: It was in the back door . . . https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=35&search=dougherty#relPageId=387&tab=page Even the Warren Commission admitted that they had no witness who could attest that "Oswald" ever possessed/made/transported any paper sack of any length at any time ever inside the Texas School Book Depository! However that throwdown rifle (possibly but not certainly the infamous Mannlicher-Carcano) entered the TSBD, it wasn't in the hands of our "Oswald"!

David and Rob, Doesn't it come down to how much weight we assign to the co-workers' statements, (albeit many of them somewhat vague and belated)? On Rob's side we have no explanation from the WC about how our "Oswald" commuted everyday between 1026 N. Beckley and the TSBD. If he rode a bus or walked, the lack of any witnesses at all is suspicious. (Did the FBI even try to find any such witnesses? If not, why not?) So, the possibility that Frazier picked up "Oswald" much more regularly than previously assumed is plausible. On the other hand, none of the witness statements are from men who would seem to be in the habit of speaking precisely (Jarman could not remember Frazier's name, Shields didn't know who did the hollering out the window which he may or may not have heard, Norman never made any claim that Frazier drove "Oswald" to work everyday, etc.) So, the evidence that Frazier actually did drive "Oswald" to and from 1026 N. Beckley daily is not strong. To me, the gist of the Frazier mystery is the package/sack supposedly carried into the TSBD by "Oswald" that morning. As I re-read Frazier's testimony, I could not help but get the feeling that Frazier's whole recounted dialog about "curtain rods" was repeatedly forced and phony. I don't think those conversations happened. (Which is why our "Oswald" so adamantly denied bringing in or saying anything about "curtain rods" to Frazier!) Remember, "Oswald's" denial was so vehement, forceful and persuasive that the DPD went back out and re-interviewed Frazier, this time complete with a polygraph. The results of that polygraph have never seen the light of day, and I believe that Frazier failed. George O'Toole wrote a whole book about this episode back in the 1970's. He reached the same conclusion - Frazier lied about the "curtain rods" sack. Late Friday night, the Dallas Police learned that the FBI was confidant they could make the case/frame "Oswald" alone, and therefore, no back-up patsy was needed. Frazier was released. "Oswald" carried no rifle into the TSBD and Frazier knew it. But a way to get the "rifle" into "Oswald's" hands as he entered the TSBD was needed, and the "curtain rods" story would do it.

I should address one other possibility, no matter how remote: there is a chance that the real Buell Wesley Frazier drove an "Oswald" impersonator to the Oak Cliff service station in April of 1963, and really was a witness to Robert Taylor's purchase of a rifle from "Oswald." In offering this alternative, I am not suggesting that Frazier had any knowledge of or complicity in any plot to kill JFK, merely that he was acquainted with people who (unbeknownst to him) were not only killers, but who also were willing to sacrifice Frazier in their deadly scheme. Further, the April rifle transaction would not seem to be part of a plot to implicate our "Oswald" as JFK's killer, but rather something else. Maybe (maybe!) it was even what it seemed to be - a way for a cash-strapped young man to make some money by selling a rifle. (Bizarre as it may seem to us today, apparently buying or selling a rifle from/to a stranger at a gas station in Texas in 1963 was not unusual!) If the opportunity arises, perhaps someone could ask Frazier about any other acquaintances he had in the Irving area. Someone very "Frazier-esque" drove an "Oswald" to the Oak Cliff gas station in April, long before the real Frazier and "Oswald" had crossed paths. Frazier testified that he had moved from Huntsville to Dallas some time before starting work at the TSBD on September 13, 1963. It was WC attorney Joseph Ball who told Frazier that he'd come up from Huntsville in September of 1963 (not the other way around): Mr. RALL. How did you happen to get that job? ,\lr. FRAZIER. Well, I went to see, first I come up there and started looking for a job and couldn’t find one myself so I went to one of these employment agencies and through that a lady called up one morning, I was fixing to go out and look for one, I was looking for myself in the meantime when they were, too, and so she called up and gave me a tip to it if I was interested in a job like that I could go over there and see about that and for the time being I wasn’t working and needed some money and so I did and I went over there and saw Mr. Truly, and he gave me an interview, and then he hired me the same day I went over there. Mr. BALL. You say you came up, you mean you came up from Huntsville? Mr. FRAZIER. That is right; yes, sir. Mr. BALL. That was in September 1963? Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir; it was. Mr. BALL. Looking for a job around Dallas? Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir . . . It seems to me that it's at least a vague possibility that Frazier here could have been in Irving with an "Oswald" well before starting at the TSBD in September. Maybe just a visit, perhaps to find a job. In any event, it would not seem impossible that naive young Frazier might have crossed paths with an "Oswald" imposter several months before meeting our "Oswald" at the TSBD in October of 1963. That may explain Roy Truly's strange question to Frazier: had Frazier ever laid eyes on "Oswald" before "Oswald" started at the TSBD? FRAZI'ER. I first heard, I never really did know his name, we just called him Lee around there. But the first time I ever saw him was the first day he come to work. Mr. BALL. Had you heard he was coming to work before he came to work? Mr. FRAZIER. I will say, you know, talking back and forth with the bossman all the time and from being around and getting along real fine and so he told me, I assume the day after he hired him that he was going to have him come in on Monday and he asked me had I ever seen him and I told him then no; I had never seen him.

John, I doubt you'll hear from him again, but I hope I am wrong. If, by some miracle, he does respond then ask him if he has any information about any connection, no matter how tenuous or brief, between Emil Gardos and/or Grace Gardos and/or Fred Blair and any small boy (besides his own biological son John) in Yorkville in the 1940's. Could any of them have been a caretaker, a foster parent, a temporary custodian, an attendant, etc. to provide refuge for any little boy or boys for any duration in the 1940's? We have excellent reasons to believe there was something to the mysterious woman's phone call. Russ's honest response should satisfy us that John Gardos was NOT our "Oswald." Yet our "Oswald" very likely was indeed in the company of these people in Yorkville for a bit in the 1940's. If he were not, then the FBI and the Warren Commission would have addressed that in their "Speculation and Rumors" section of the Warren Report 55 years ago. Instead, that phone call was hot-potatoed immediately right up to the top of the FBI food chain. And then it was buried forever, until Congress changed the law in the 1990's and compelled its declassification. No, there was DEFINITELY something to that call. And Russ Geck may be our last, best hope of getting at the truth.

Yes, but despite being a mechanic, Richard Taylor did not claim certainty about the year for the Chevy. Other than the year, Taylor accurately described the basic issue with Frazier's Chevy Bel Air - the generator didn't work well. Taylor accurately described Frazier physically! Taylor was also certain that "Oswald" or a man who strongly resembled him came to the service station in April of 1963. Anyway, the evidence that Frazier was being impersonated - by name at the rifle range! - with "Oswald" in the weeks and months before the assassination would seem to be compelling. The Warren Commission wanted nothing to do with Taylor's rifle - the simplest thing in the world would have been for them to order the FBI to trace Taylor's rifle. Yet they did not! They did not want to know about this rifle, and they sure didn't want evidence that their carefully contrived narrative about "Oswald" was false!

John, Respectfully, I don't think demanding that he provide "proof" that John Gardos was still very much alive for decades is going to work out well. Russ Geck was kind enough to respond truthfully to a stranger. That's good enough for us. However, he might still be able to clear up the following (which I have always suspected was much closer to the heart of the matter anyway): Ask him if he has any reason to believe that Emil Gardos, Grace Gardos, or Fred Blair could have been temporary foster caretakers in 1945 -47 for any small children refugees from Eastern Europe. Were they at all the type of people who might have been especially concerned with the plight of refugee orphans after WWII? Did they have any connection to any organizations that might have had such hunanitarian interests? When Emil and Grace (and presumably young John) were all living in Yorkville, did any of Emil's activities involve anything that led our mysterious woman caller to conclude (erroneously) that Emil was the biological parent of a Russian-speaking little boy from Europe? Did Fred Blair live or visit Yorkville at any time in the 1940"s? Do Russ Geck or his wife have any information about Louis Weinstock?

David, WC Exhibit 1874 is evidence that the real Marguerite and little Lee did indeed live at 4801 Victor Street in Dallas in 1944 and 1945. I suspect they were there until Marguerite moved to Fort Worth in October of 1945. Lee, who apparently had never attended any school before, then started at Benbrook Elementary on October 31, 1945, which would seem to square with a family trip to Boston and Mississippi in September of 1945, as John Pic, Jr. said. What makes you suspect they were not living on Victor in 1944 and 1945? In any event, these movements would seem to be of the real Lee Oswald, his real brothers, the real Marguerite and her husband, Edwin A. Ekdahl. One minor question: when Marguerite wrote that Robert had last attended Crockett Elementary in Dallas, surely it could not have been located 16. 2 miles away from 4801 Victor in 1945, could it? (Today's Crockett is 16.2 miles away, according to Google Maps.) https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh23/pdf/WH23_CE_1874.pdf What I don't understand is why a thrice-married woman, fresh off a bitter divorce in which she successfully petitioned the judge to "restore" her name (Marguerite C. Oswald) to her, would still use the name "Ekdahl" as late as 1949.

Larry, Can anyone here ask Buell Wesley Frazier what he thinks about the fact that Warren Commission document 1546, page 140, has him driving "Oswald" to the rifle range weeks before the assassination? I know that Buell Wesley Frazier did no such thing, but the remarkable fact remains that two men pretended to be "Frazier" and "Oswald" at the gun range! Garland Slack told the FBI that "Oswald" was driven to the Sports Drome Rifle Range by "Frazier". https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11941&relPageId=146&search=frazier Further, the Oak Cliff mechanic, Robert Taylor, gave a statement to the FBI that he bought a rifle from "Oswald" in April of 1963. What interests me is that Taylor believed that "Oswald" was driven to the gas station in a 1959 Chevy (with battery problems!) by a 20 year old man with dark hair and a thin face. Since Buell Wesley Frazier drove a 1959 Chevy with battery problems, was about 20, had dark hair, a thin face and lived a few blocks away, I believe that not only was our "Oswald" being impersonated, but so too was Frazier! Finally, remember that Captain Fritz tried like hell to browbeat Frazier into some sort of a confession to abetting "Oswald" on Friday night. According to Frazier, Fritz was "red faced" and storming mad when Frazier refused to sign a pre-written "confession." https://www.richmond.com/buell-wesley-frazier-a-commute-with-oswald-then-a-harsh/article_a9be7f2e-fb7f-5357-91c9-605df00641f7.html Slack's statement, Taylor's statement, and Will Fritz's actions on Friday night would all seem to be evidence of a plan to implicate Frazier with "Oswald" as co-patsies. (This would have been prudent on the conspirators' part - the assassination would likely require multiple patsies to cover all the shooting angles needed to kill JFK.!) What does Buell Wesley Frazier think of the evidence that a plan to frame him as a co-conspirator with "Oswald" was in place?

It seems that the earliest known sightings of "Oswald" (Harvey) and "Marguerite" are within weeks of the real Marguerite's separation from Ekdahl in July of 1947. Ekdahl's divorce lawyer, of course, was the spooky and well-connected future NAVSEC and Washington power-broker, Fred Korth. (Did Edwin tell his lawyer/buddy Korth in July of 1947 about his crazy wife with her three sons, one of whom resembled the Yorkville boy? And did Fred then relay this info to folks at ONI or the OSS who then started the "Oswald" project that fall?)

David, The 1949 Maguerite Ekdahl/Oswald/Ekdahl name thing is strange. Especially since she had asked the judge on June 24, 1948 to restore her name as "Marguerite C. Oswald". This was granted. Marguerite received $1,500 from Edwin A. Ekdahl when they officially divorced, which apparently he was glad to pay to be rid of her. (The FBI report has a typo in it: it claims that Edwin left the house, never to return again, in July of 1948. It is clear however from the report that it was July of 1947. ) https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xHX_CxD7cBorTO4h-TgksZmZI2V1l3U-/view

John K., 1. According to the FBI report, Mrs. Jack Tippit herself stated that her husband, Jack, was a "distant relation" to J.D. Tippit. (The two men were not brothers, but they may have been cousins on some level.) 2. Mrs. Jack Tippit spoke with an inquisitive reporter shortly after the assassination, and on 11/25/63, an article appeared in the Norwalk Weekly in Connecticut. We don't know for certain how the mysterious woman caller knew of the Tippit connection, but the newspaper interview was probably it. http://harveyandlee.net/Harvey Who/Tippit-FBI_Graphical.htm

David, I cc'd you on my email to John A. and the question of the provenance of the asterisk and the underlining, so hopefully we'll have an answer soon. That's a good question about how the mysterious woman caller became aware of a Norwalk, Connecticut article about Mrs. Jack Tippit. I agree that if the woman caller was living in NYC at the time, then it would be unlikely she would be aware of what was published in a small Connecticut weekly paper. Nonetheless, the woman claimed to Mrs. Tippit that she was "from New York" and wanted to make an untraceable local call, lest she be tracked down and killed. So maybe she really was from NYC, and, unlikely as it seems, she really did read the Norwalk paper? That is fascinating stuff about Marguerite and "Nancy Lee Oswald". I'll have more to say later . . .

John Butler, I appreciate your work on this but I doubt that our mysterious woman caller knew "Oswald" in the 1950's - after all, she associated "Oswald" with Gardos and Blair, neither of whom was in NYC at any time in the 1950's (as far we can tell.) Since Grace (and presumably little John and Emil) were living in NYC by 1942, it is possible the caller's knowledge of that family could date to then. However, there is zero evidence that any Oswald doppelganger project could have existed by then. The real LHO was only three years old, and there is no one in his life who (at that moment in the early 1940's) could possibly have associated him with the Yorkville boy. Such an association is not only possible, but probable between 1945 and 1947 - the very time when Marguerite's third husband, Edwin Ekdahl, was constantly traveling all over the USA, particularly to major east coast cities. He is the only serious candidate to have spotted the resemblance between Marguerite's third son and the Yorkville boy. I believe the "Oswald" doppelganger project was born of his personal observations. Ekdahl told someone who then took operational advantage of this apparent physical similarity. While it is theoretically possible that our mysterious woman caller knew of the "Oswald" project, I strongly doubt it. Such a project would have been on a "need-to-know" basis, and there is nothing in the FBI memo to indicate this woman knew anything. After all, she was deathly afraid of the communists like Gardos! She seemd to think that somehow men like Gardos or Weinstock were somehow behind the assassination! She thought the assassination was but a first step in a master plan to "take over the government"!

John, You and I agree that the key time frame when our mysterious woman caller knew "Oswald" and Gardos is the middle of the 1940's. This is not to minimize the need for further work on "Oswald" in NYC in 1952/53, merely that those years could not have been connected with Gardos (he was no longer in the country), and therefore our caller must have been (understandably) mistaken. I absolutely agree that the FBI's behavior about the call to Mrs. Jack Tippit is so damning to the official narrative: they treated this like a hot potato right up to the top, they knew perfectly well to whom the mysterious caller referred (and then they had the audacity to misspell the name as "Emile Kardos" and also "Woman's World"!!!), and then they classified it forever, only to see the light of day after Congress changed the law in the 1990's. No, all of this proves beyond any reasonable doubt that the FBI knew there was something very important (and essentially correct) about the caller's information - "Oswald" had a very different past than what was then being presented to the American public. None of that could be disclosed to the public. By the way, to further emphasize the point, someone at the FBI hand-wrote a big asterisk right over the name and then underlined"Emile Kardos" on the original FBI memo! Someone knew immediately who "Emile Kardos" really was! They marked it up in dark ink on the original! (See the original FBI report, page two second paragraph) http://harveyandlee.net/Harvey Who/Tippit-FBI_Graphical.htm

Jim, I agree that it is very likely that there were two "Oswald's" and two "Marguerite's" in NYC between 1952 and 1953. But this is irrelevant to our focus on Gardos and the mysterious woman caller. Remember, the mysterious women caller specifically linked "Oswald" with Gardos, his brother-in-law (who could only have been Fred Blair) and/or Louis Weinstock. Gardos had "voluntarily" deported to Hungary by 1950 at the latest, so the exploits of the various "Oswald's" and "Marguerite's" in 1952/53 could not have been connected. No, the mysterious woman caller was focusing on events from the 1940's (although she wrongly believed they happened in the 1950's, a common mistake as people age - time speeds up for all of us.) I argued earlier that the mysterious woman caller must have known the boy from Yorkville by name - it would have been impossible for her in 1963 to recognize "Oswald" by face alone as the same little boy from Yorkville 15 years earlier, if he were using a different name. What name? "Oswald". She knew him as "Oswald" back in the 1940's - that's why she was so certain it was the same young man when she drove to Connecticut to place her call to Mrs. Jack Tippit! We believe the mysterious woman caller knew of the second "Oswald" (Harvey), not the real Lee Harvey Oswald. The real Lee Harvey Oswald's birth mother, the real Marguerite, was married to Edwin Ekdahl between 1945 and 1948. They lived in Texas, although spooky Ekdahl traveled extensively, and seemed to move in the same social circles as elites in Washington, D.C. Back in the 1940's, the only possible way for an intelligence agency to note the resemblance (such as it was) between two unrelated boys would have been for someone to lay eyes on both boys. There just wasn't anyone besides Edwin Ekdahl in the real Lee's life who would have been in position to spot the resemblance between the real Marguerite's youngest son and the Yorkville boy, then in the custody of Emil Gardos. (I think if we agree on that, then whether "Oswald" was actually John Gardos or a recent refugee from eastern Europe becomes less important.) Yet the mysterious woman caller seemingly knew "Oswald" as "Oswald". Therefore, Ekdahl (presumably) had already alerted U.S. intelligence officials to the resemblance between his new wife's third son and the boy with Emil Gardos. This would imply that U.S. intelligence had close tabs on the Gardos family in the 1940's. Well, as we know from the official record, the U.S. government really had been keeping tabs on Emil Gardos for decades (and we know from the 1966 memo that Grace Gardos and her son were still the subject of much interest to the FBI.) Thus, it is certain that the "Oswald" doppelganger intelligence project was up and underway at the time that the mysterious woman caller came in contact with/knew of the boy with Emil Gardos in Yorkville. Since "Oswald's" (Harvey)'s presence down south is pretty well accounted for in 1948/49, it seems very likely that the mysterious woman could only have known "Oswald" in Yorkville sometime between 1945 and 1947. So, to wrap this up, might I suggest that we make a FOIA request for any federal files on Emil Gardos, Grace Gardos, John Gardos and/or any little boy placed with the aforementioned? Such files (especially if they are FBI files) might well contain a wealth of information, including possible photographs. Even if they don't, those files would tell us where little Johnny went to school, whether the Gardos parents ever had custody of a refugee from eastern Europe, etc. We should keep trying to find the school records, but I am not optimistic that any such records (from schools that were torn down decades ago) still exist. But I bet the FBI's "Red" files from the 1940's might yet prove very useful.

John, No offense, but it is inconceivable to me that a genuine United States Marine, stationed at the Naval Air Station Atsugi in 1957-58 under any circumstances could ever possibly write "I was with the American Army", not once, but TWICE in the space of three sentences! I mean, as far as we know, "Oswald" was never associated in any way with the United States Army! He never served on an Army base, he never carried out an Army mission. We don't believe he even knew Army soldiers between 1956 and 1959. Yet there it is: "Oswald" wrote it twice. ' Now, I don't believe he ever served with the Army. I think it is much more likely that he spent a little time in the USMC, but his primary mission/allegiance was to American Intelligence. Perhaps the ONI, perhaps O2, perhaps some other outfit. My point is he was so lackadaisical about his military service that when writing this "autobiography", he made an impossible gaffe, if he were a genuine Marine.

John, I agree that further research is needed. I think this "autobiography" does establish that our "Oswald" was NOT the biological son of our "Marguerite"! (In writing this, "Oswald" not only killed off his "mother", but also his two brothers! This is so psychologically improbable as to be not worth discussing. No, "Oswald" wrote this simple statement because he truly was NOT the brother of either John Pic, Jr. or Robert E. Lee Oswald, Jr. ) I am most intrigued by "Oswald's" own twice-written statement that he was "with the American Army." The American Army? He was a Jarhead, not a Grunt! How could "Oswald" have confused his own branch of service (USMC) with its main rival, the US Army? (Unless, of course, his time in the Corps was largely a sham, and he was really much more involved with intelligence operations than Marine Corps matters . . .) From Quora: Sam Allerton, works at Boeing Answered Oct 2, 2019 "I attempted to answer this on April 8, 2017. Here we go again. Check your sources and resist the urge to believe what the media purports to be true - at least on the first pass. When the media refers to members of the Army, the correct reference is “soldiers”; Navy, “Sailors”; Marine Corps, “Marines”; Air Force, “Airmen”. In 2017, any other reference is incorrect, no matter WHAT the pantywaist media would have you believe. Marines are NOT Soldiers. They are riflemen and amphibious assault experts, meaning they are unsurpassed in attacking land based enemies from the sea. That's what Marines do. Never insult a Marine by calling him/her a “Soldier”. It might be the last mistake you ever make. Never attempt to elevate a Soldier to Marine status by mistakenly calling him/her a Marine. These are two entirely different branches of military service and they are not equal by any stretch of the imagination."

David, One part that bothers me about the call is the fact the woman kept mentioning "brother-in-law", presumably Fred Blair who certainly does fit very well. Yet we have no evidence that Blair and Emil Gardos were both in NYC itogether in the mid-1940's. This doesn't mean they were not there together, merely that we have no evidence. We know that Gardos, after living in NYC for a decade, was out of the country by 1950, so the 1940's (probably before 1947) is the key timeframe. We have no evidence at all that Blair was in NYC at any time. But more importantly, at the time of this woman's call, she was remembering events from at least 15 years before, a time when our "Oswald" was only 6 to 8 years old. What in the world made her connect the 24 year old "Lee Harvey Oswald" in 1963 with the little boy from Yorkville in the 1940's? Why did she associate this boy with Emil Gardos and Fred Blair? If little John Gardos did indeed grow up to become our "Oswald", how in the world would this woman know that, unless he was using the name "Lee Harvey Oswald" back in the 1940's in Yorkville? Yet, how could that be - Emil Gardos would not have already conferred the name "Oswald" on his own biological son at the time this woman caller knew them both! After all, Gardos had not yet been separated from his son! (Actually, we have no evidence they did ever separate, and we have some evidence (the 1966 FBI memo) they never did separate.) On the other hand, if at the time our woman caller knew Gardos and the little boy, and if the little boy was already using the name "Oswald", then that would seem to be evidence that Gardos was some sort of foster figure to the boy. Finally, I find it highly improbable that 15 years later the woman caller could or would have associated the arrested man in Dallas with Emil Gardos from the 1940's, unless she knew the boy by name. There is no way that she could have looked at the face of the arrested man in Dallas and linked him with the boy from Yorkville in the 1940's just on facial characteristics alone. A person's appearance changes as they grow up - as a teacher, I can assure the readership that kids' faces change tremendously every year during adolescence and beyond. She could not have been sure of her identification (yet she was so certain, she drove to New Haven, Connecticut to place the call!) based on physical or facial characteristics alone. No, her identification of our "Oswald" was based on something else - she knew the Dallas man was the little boy "Oswald" from Yorkville because he was still using the same name.