Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile

[Jack White]

Roswell.....hmmmmmm......could it be.........?

[Barb Junkkarinen]

No problem, Jim. I have a great imagination, just checked, no Howard in there. I am good with that. :-) If you read what I wrote though, you'll see it was the subject I said I am not interested in discussing further just now ... maybe later after the book comes out. I have my reasons.

Thanks for responding. I appreciate it. Would you believe he felt similarly inclined toward you? It must be difficult to imaginel

HOWARD PLATZMAN COMMENTS ON BARB'S RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Been nice, Howard ... I chose to thoroughly respond to you here. It's not a subject that I am interested in discussing any further at the moment, perhaps after her new book comes out. If you should choose to come on the Ed Forum in person then, I may or may not have responses to anything you might post. But I am decidedly not interested in another Fetzer channeled discussion. Be well.

Edited April 6, 2010 by Barb Junkkarinen

[Barb Junkkarinen]

Roswell.....hmmmmmm......could it be.........?

LOL! Love it, Jack.

[Dean Hagerman]

Roswell.....hmmmmmm......could it be.........?

[David Andrews]

FYI, Roswell Park Cancer Institute in Buffalo was named, some time previous to 1963 (and, I believe, prior to the Roswell UFO incident), Roswell Park Hospital, in honor of turn-of-the-century surgeon Dr. Roswell Park, who had founded this early cancer research and treatment facility under another name in 1898.

Park's other claim to fame lay in being pressed into service to tend the dying president William McKinley, assassinated in Buffalo in 1901.

Edited April 6, 2010 by David Andrews

[Kathleen Collins]

And now Kathy is making extremely strong claims about Robert not having been

Lee's brother when they are actually virtually identical twins. You don't have to

be a geneticist to see that something VERY STRANGE is going on here. I think

the boat is being rocked and there are those who are very, very upset about it.

Just give it a little more thought.

Jim

It's my opinion that the photo of the 2 "brothers" standing near a table with Marina in the picture is fake. I had a good source for this statement. That's all I can say. I wonder if Jack agrees.

Kathy C

[Kathleen Collins]

Voebel meet LEE in the fall of 1954. Voebel talks about how LEE loved to fight--not to

start them, but to finish them--and that he thought LEE had lost a

tooth in one of the first fights he knew him to have. He was hit in

the mouth by a boy named Robin Riley.

JUDYTH COMMENTS ON A PROBLEM WITH "HARVEY & LEE" AND THEIR MISSING TEETH

NOTE: Hopefully, in the course of my posting, I have kept everything straight and Jack White

will come back to explain all this away on behalf of his and John's theory of "Harvey & Lee".

Otherwise, it would appear to be a problem with the history of Harvey and Lee's missing teeth.

JUDYTH COMMENTS:

There is something peculiar going on here.....

According to Jack White's statements:

1. LEE Oswald (taller) is supposed to have stayed in New York when Marguerite brought "Harvey" (shrimp) back with her.

2. "Harvey" is enrolled at Beauregard, not Lee, where, to support this, Jack has told us that:

a ) Myra D, girls' gym teacher, stated the boy was a shrimp and asked to be called "Harvey" even though his friend,

b ) We have a record that Lee Oswald was a student there and had a homeroom on the 9th floor, but Myra D says no, her

homeroom had Lee in it, in the basement...her word against the record

c ) Armstrong asks if Oswald shrank some 6-8 inches

3. But then we are shown a photo of "LEE" (It HAS to be Lee because this is no "shrimp"-- and he has had a tooth knocked

out...It's described by Ed Voebel, by the way, who therefore HAD TO KNOW BOTH HARVEY AND LEE IF MYRA D'S FILMED

INTERVIEW IS TO BE BELIEVED.

4. But what? We have BOTH HARVEY AND LEE ENROLLED AT BEAUREGARD? What about the records brought up earlier

about other schools, showing Oswald could not be in both at once? Now we have BOTH Oswalds in the SAME school at once?

5. Then we are shown a photo of Lee -- er -- Harvey -- 'also' with a tooth out and told it is in a different location. However,

this photo on the left appears to have come from the Ferrie-Oswald camp-out photo....And when you blow that up, please

correct me if I'm wrong, but where's the missing tooth?

This is very strange, people.

Are we to believe that BOTH of these youngsters EACH lost a permanent tooth?

What about the exhumation photo that shows a rotated tooth, but no lost tooth?

We need to see satements from the book, ID's about the provenance of this photo supposedly showing HARVEY with a

DIFFERENT tooth out, and we have to ask ourselves why has nobody noticed that LEE and HARVEY are thereby attending

the same school-Beauregard.

And anyone who states that this thread is of no imporance when we are uncovering so many problems with HARVEY and

LEE simply isn't reading the thread. Those, too, who say I have not answered the questions thrown my way, have simply

not read the threads. This is not some game where people decide whether to 'believe' me or not. This is deadly serious,

and the truth will be buried unless somebody stands up and says, "Wait a minute. The truth is more important than my

feelings. The truth is more important than whether you like me or not. The truth is even more important than friendships."

The truth can mean we can get the case solved instead of saing it can never be solved.

Unless you bury the witnesses who speak the truth.

Look closely at this post, people. HOW MANY OSWALDS ATTENDED BEAUREGARD? IS IT POSSIBLE THEY BOTH LOST

A PERMANENT TOOTH? IS IT POSSIBLE THAT BOTH BOYS ARE REALLY THE SAME PERSON AND THAT SOMEBODY HAS

CREATED AN ENORMOUS BOOK BASED UPON A LOT OF INTERVIEWS AND PHOTOS, BUT WITHOUT MAKING PROPER

DISTINCTIONS, SUCH AS THAT BOTH BOYS COULD NOT BE A BEAUREGARD AT THE SAME TIME, BOTH COULD NOT

HAVE LOST PERMANENT TEETH AT THE SAME TIME. AND IT SEEMS THAT SOMEBODY IS RETOUCHING PHOTOS HERE,

BLOATING PHOTOS THERE. AND IN GENERAL, SOMEBODY HAS BEEN DUPED BY SOMEBODY, SOMEWHERE.

NAYSAYERS, YOU DON'T HAVE TO READ THIS THREAD. CALL ME NAMES LATER. BUT JUST FOR NOW, PLEASE LET US

WORK TOGETHER TO GET TO THE BOTTOM OF THIS.

JVB

quote name='James H. Fetzer' post='188900' date='Apr 5 2010, 05:24 PM']

JUDYTH COMMENTS ON JIM'S RESPONSE TO JACK AND BARB ABOUT "THE MISSING TOOTH"

NOTE: Jack writes in post #912 about the "blockbuster" post,

Just what is this blockbuster post about a missing tooth?

It is covered in great detail in Harvey & Lee...pages 91-92. Jim and

Judyth may be surprised to learn that it was LEE who had the

missing tooth...NOT HARVEY. (It was Harvey that JVB knew.)

So what is the JVB blockbuster? Armstrong DOCUMENTS IT

BY INTERVIEWING A CLASSMATE, Ed Voebel, who was present

during the fight between LEE and Robin Riley, who punched

Lee in the mouth. If the JVB version of the blockbuster differs

from this, it is FALSE.

Voebel told John that Riley knocked out an LHO tooth. It was on

the schoolyard of Beauregard Junior High School. That's it.

Jack

In post #914, he posts this graphic attributed to J. Pruitt in 2002:

JUDYTH COMMENTS:

Believe it or not, the 'blockbuster' matter is here, because one of the persons -- 'Harvey' or "Lee' -- was supposed to

have no front tooth. Yet we have no later photos showing a missing front tooth in either 'collection' so far as I am aware.

IT'S A BIG DEAL THAT LEE SAVED HIS TOOTH BECAUSE THIS SHOWS NO 'TOOTH' DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 'HARVEY'

AND 'LEE' AFTER ALL...

The argument is that "Harvey" was returned to New Orleans. The photo at he school cannot be "Lee" as Armstrong

says a puny "Harvey" is going to school here. Yet the boy in the photo with the tooth out is obviously a big boy.

Here is the argument as I see it so far:

1) Armstrong says the teacher Myra D describes a small, puny boy who wants to be called "Harvey" -- but she is shaky

on other memories, such as homeroom record showing "Harvey" in a different classroom for home room, describing

"Exhchange Alley" and a "ballroom" instead of pool hall...She also mentions Voebel as "Harvey's" friend -- who always

called Lee "Lee."

So this is shaky to use as 'evidence' that "Harvey" is at Beauregard.

2) We have the photo of Lee Oswald and Dave Ferrie at camp, showing a "Harvey" who has grown a heck of a lot in a

short period of time...In fact, he is at the New York height....

3) We have the earlier photo of who is supposed to be "Harvey" showing off his lost tooth at Beauregard...But now, he is

called LEE -- because he is obviously not a shrimp?

Please tell me what is going on here. I do not have the book. Is Armstrong saying that "Harvey" returned from New York

with Marguerite, and is described as a "shrimp" by the elderly teacher, and as wanting to be called "Harvey" but somehow

in the same school we have "Lee" showing off a missing tooth?

Or is this supposed to be "Harvey" showing off a missing tooth?

I am curious to know, because the person in the photo is Lee H. Oswald, and he is not a shrimp. Can Jack explain what

we are looking at here, better, so I can understand? Because he said LEE was left behind in New York, and LEE and HARVEY

are registered at different schools...etc.

Can Jack make us a timeline?

For I have information about the school records that is quite different. It is based on information Lee gave about why they

left New york, when they left, and when thy arrived in New Orleans.

Meanwhile, this issue is important because....

LEE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN EXHUMED, MARINA WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PUT THROUGH ALL OF THIS, EXCEPT FOR EVERYONE

INSISTING 'HARVEY' WAS NOT LEE, THAT (HARVEY/LEE) HAD A MISSING TOOTH AND -- WORSE -- THAT THE MUMMIFICATION

PROCESS THAT HELD TOGETHER THE SKULL WOULD BE INTERPRETED TO MAKE A MORTICIAN (WHO IS NOT A DOCTOR OR A

FORENSIC ANTHROPOLOGIST) THINK THE CRANITOMY NEVER HAPPENED AND THAT THIS MUST BE SOMEBODY ELSE'S SKULL,

BECAUSE IT DID NOT FALL APART.

THEY DID NOT UNDERSTAND THE PROCESS THAT I EXPLAINED IN AN EARLIER POST ABOUT PARTIAL MUMMIFICATION AND

CALCIFICATION THAT SEALS UP SUTURES.

I BELIEVE THESE ARE IMPORTANT ISSUES AND THAT THE INFORMATION IS IMPORTANT.

PLEASE REREAD WHAT IMPLICATIONS ARE AT STAKE HERE.

THE HARVEY AND LEE MATTER -- WE NEED TO FIND OUT MUCH MORE ABOUT INTERVIEWS, ETC.

I AM CONCERNED THAT MYRA D WAS GUIDED TO SOME OF HER STATEMENTS, SUCH AS SAYING LEE WANTED TO BE CALLED

"HARVEY", SINCE LEE'S FRIEND, ED VOEBEL, CALLED HIM "LEE".

IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE....

SOMEONE WISER THAN I AM CAN PERHAPS EXPLAIN WHY LEE WOULD HAVE ASKED HER TO CALL HIM 'HARVEY,' AS I KNOW LEE

DISLIKED HIS MIDDLE NAME.

I HAVE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE RECORDS AT STRIPLING AND BEAUREGARD WHICH WE HAVEN'T DISCUSSED YET.

I guess my analysis of the mummification process, and how calcification of the cranial suture where the bone was sawed, and

jellyfying of the scalp tissues in the partial mummification would hide the suture and also hold the top of the cranium secure with

the rest of the cranium...was not absorbed the readers...The exhumation should not have taken place if people had understood

how blood drained from the face changes the contours of the face drasically...the TERRIBLE job done by the mortician I shall not

comment further upon...But in the end, they exhumed poor Lee...

JVB

JIM REPLIES TO JACK AND BARB ABOUT "THE MISSING TOOTH" AND MUCH, MUCH MORE

I have now read pages 91-92 of HARVEY & LEE, which seem to imply that "Lee" suffered a permanent

loss of tooth. What struck me is that the alleged difference between "Lee" and "Harvey" is explainable

by the scenrio Judyth has sketched of the tooth having been restored. Are there records of either of

the alleged "Oswalds" having a false tooth? Are there adult photos of "Lee" as opposed to "Harvey",

because I have considerable reservations about the photo studies that have been discussed, where it

seems to me, apart from a few that do not belong in these sets, they may all be of the same person.

Reading more of HARVEY & LEE, I am getting a better sense for why Jack finds it impossible to even

talk about these things without making explicit his reference to "Lee" or to "Harvey", because John is

relentless in his usage of those names. It seems to me that Judyth's knowledge of the man she knew

in New Orleans--whom Jack and John call "Harvey"--does not depend on the refutation of the possible

existence of the other, but clearly does call into question some of the traits attributed to him, including

his place of birth, whether he could drive, and such, but not necessarily refuting their entire scenario.

It would certainly be a good idea, however, if one or the other of you were more responsive to some

of the points upon which Judyth appears to possess superior knowledge, such as Jack's false claim

that he was "undesirably discharged" (post #904), his false claim about the "index" in his attempt to

shield John from my criticism (posts #777 and #925), his false claim that we do not know how Lee

traveled to New Orleans (post #926), and his false claim about "Harvey" being unable to drive (post

#928), for example, which undermines any prospect for rational discussion of all of this (post #785).

I also believe that Judyth has raised legitimate questions about the photographic record that should not

be swept under the rug, as post #704, #830, #876, and #878, are serious contributions. I know her to

extremely gifted and knowledgeable about the man she knew in New Orleans and her arguments, such

as her eye color study in post #736, are brilliant and deserve to be acknowledged. I am deeply troubled

Robert's role in all of this has not been examined with more diligence. Posts as early as #469, #676, #679,

#689, #800, and especially #813 offer indications of the reasons for my suspicions. Perhaps David Lifton

will take pains to track Robert's role relative to his brother, which appears to me to be the key to the case.

There are obvious disadvantages to my becoming involved in this, since I have not been exposed to the

interrogations of Judyth in the past. For that very reason, however, I believe I have a contribution that

others cannot make. Sometimes a fresh look with a new pair of eyes can make a difference. I believe

that she has not been given a fair shake in the past, which I am attempting to provide here. And that I

am not immersed in the conception of "Harvey & Lee" also grants the intellectual freedom to consider a

different pair of "Oswalds", Robert and Lee, which I would like to believe may provide the stimulus for a

new look at the other brother who, in my estimation, is the ideal candidate to have impersonated Lee.

So why did you bring it up again now, right after this blockbuster about Lee's missing tooth? You trade in trivia, while Judyth is making major contributions. Linda has it right: You post nothing significant because you have nothing significant to post. Your conduct here is utterly transparent.

Oh please. There are many issues being discussed in this thread. I was responding to something Pamela said ... and used that as an example for her to tell us all how I "cherrypick" ... as I had posted it many many pages and posts ago, so it was already here.

But, I do stand in awe ... for you actually seem unaware that the debate over the "two Oswald's" .... Harvey vs Lee, the 2 schools, etc... and yes, the tooth ... is very old news! Your "blockbuster" has been discussed and discussed over the years. How can you really not already know this stuff ... and that it has been hotly debated over the years? Funny ... I even found an exchange Doug Weldon and I had on the issue in 1999 ... when someone else mentioned putting a tooth in milk so it could be put back into the socket. Ah, but it's Judyth's "blockbuster" that is the news and importance here, you'll say!

But this is not the first time Judyth has written/spoken about this ... she has on Rich's forum, on BlackOp and on the moderated group. Back as far as at least 2002.

It really astounds me that you seem to think this is some new groundbreaking news on Judyth's part ... and that you are so unaware of her story over the years. Yet you chastise others as if you are teaching them!

Her story was a little different then ... changed in midstream when a problem with her chronology was pointed out. First she had LHO telling her all about how Ferrie had slugged him and at least loosened the tooth after a CAP gathering at Ferrie's house (in her post here now she says LHO rode with Ferrie on a Harley to Ferrie's house after a CAP gathering) and then a week later it was knocked out by someone at school. She notes there was a famous photo showing it. The problem is that the photo was taken, and the school incident occurred, months before LHO attended CAP meetings and met Ferrie.

At one point she has Ferrie telling LHO about milk, at another time she has an unnamed person at school advising him to put the tooth in milk.

I did a post in 2004 that includes a chronology of it all ... something Dave Reitzes had put together of quotes and posted in 2002. Looks like most of this story was related by Judyth on the jfkResearch forum ... and Dave had those posts.

It is long, so here is the link for anyone who is interested. I could post it all here, but if this works for everyone, there is no need.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassi...r%3Ajunkkarinen

Kind of a wonder that Judyth wanted to delve back into this one, especially with the new change, though she did now say she may have mixed up some small details. :-)

I'm trying to wade through all this. I was a dental assistant for 3 years. You put the tooth in milk. And the dentist sews it back in. -- old days. Today, they would implant the tooth or cement a fake tooth along with a root-canaled good tooth or 2 and then crown them. In other words the dentist would make a bridge. If the root canal didn't take in the other 1 or 2 teeth, it would turn brown. --Or else the broken tooth would stay in and probably turn brown.

It is my belief that the "missing" tooth belonged to Lee, not Harvey.

Kathy C

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

JUDYTH EXPRESSES CONCERNS OVER JOHN ARMSTRONG'S RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

NOTE: I will be posting pages 91-92 and page 532 tomorrow, which will provide a reference

for pursuing the question that Judyth mentions initially and that several prior posts discuss.

JUDYTH COMMENTS:

Seeing that we have HARVEY and LEE at the same school, as per photos and teacher descriptions,

and now even have mssing teeth for both (impossible, nearly), it is time to start a chronology

showing where LEE shows up.

Jack said LEE was left behind in New York and that Marguerite substituted HARVEY for LEE and

brought him to New Orleans.

Lee was then supposed to be registered a a different school than Harvey.

But now, it turns out they are both at Beauregard.

WE NEED TO CONSTRUCT TIMELINES FOR HARVEY AND LEE AND WHERE ARMSTRONG REPORTS

THEM.

I AM HAVING PROBLEMS WITH ARMSTRONG.

HE SAYS HE FLEW TO ARGENTINA AND GOT A REPORT FROM A ZIGER SISTER THAT LEE WAS A

REAL 'SHRIMP. YET PETER WRONSKI SHOWS LEE WAS NOT -- IT WAS AN OPTICAL ILLUSION --

AND THE PHOTO OF LEE FISHING -- HE IS DESCRIBED AS A SHRIMP, THOUGH HE IS ON A SLOPE..

 

WE HAVE THE SUSPICIOUS FILM (WHERE IS IT?) OF A TEACHER WHOSE PUPIL ASKS HER TO CALL

HIM "HARVEY", EVEN THOUGH THE FRIEND MENTIONED, VOEBEL, CALLS HIM 'LEE' -- AND WE HAVE

A PHOTO OF LEE THAT SHOWS HE WAS THE HEIGHT HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN -- WHICH WAS LATER

USED, IN PART, TO SHOW THAT "HARVEY" WAS ALSO MISSING A TOOTH AT APPROXIMATELY THE

SAME TIME AS "LEE" -- AND THEY ARE NOW BOTH AT THE SAME SCHOOL.

I WAS INTERVIEWED ONLY ONCE AND VERY BRIEFLY BY ARMSTRONG, WHO SAID WHEN I REPORTED

I WAS NOT PREGNANT, BUT POSED AS MARINA, HE DECIDED THAT I WAS NOT WORTH ANOTHER

INTERVIEW -- EVEN THOUGH, HAD HE ASKED, I WOULD HAVE EXPLAINED THAT I POSED AS MARINA

BEFORE SHE ARRIVED IN TOWN, AND AT OTHER TIMES IN THE FRENCH QUARTER, WHERE SHE NEVER

WENT -- AND THAT WHEN SHE FINALLY VISITED HERE WITH RUTH PAINE, LEE DID NOT ACCOMPANY

HER THERE, PROBABLY BECAUSE HE FEARED THAT SOMEONE WOULD RECOGNIZE THAT HE WAS NOT

WITH 'MARINA' AND HAD A PREGNANT WIFE! SO HE REMAINED ALONE AT THE APARTMENT.

ARMSTRONG CULLED ME BASED ON HIS OWN IDEA OF WHAT I SHOULD HAVE LOOKED LIKE TO POSE

AS MARINA AND NEVER LOOKED AGAIN BEFORE PUBLISHING HIS BOOK. AS FOR ME, I REMEMBER

NO SUCH QUESION AT ALL AND BARELY RECALL THAT HE MAY HAVE CALLED ME -- I AM NOT EVEN

CERTAIN THAT HE DID.

I FIND THE INTERVIEW CAPACITY OF ARMSTRONG QUESTIONABLE. THIS IS NOT PERSONAL.

IT IS A SIMPLE FACT THAT WE HAVE A LEAST THREE INCIDENTS WHERE THE METHOD OF

INTERVIEW LED TO RESULTS THAT ARE INCONSISTENT WITH FACTS:

1) A TEACHER WHO RECALLS A SHRIMP WHO WANTED TO BE CALLED HARVEY, WHO REALLY

CANNOT PROVE OSWALD WAS ACTUALLY IN HER HOMEROOM CLASS;

2) AN INTERVIEW WITH A ZIGER SISTER HARD TO DUPLICATE, BUT WRONG HEIGHT REPORTED

FOR OSWALD, AS PER PETER WRONSKI'S WORK IN THE USSR; AND,

3) AN INTERVIEW WITH ME WHERE I WAS DISMISSED FROM CONSIDERATION BECAUSE I WAS

NOT PREGNANT, NO QUESTIONS ASKED TO EXPLAIN.

ALL PERHAPS DONE IN GOOD FAITH, BUT ALL SOMEHOW NOT AS THEY SHOULD BE....

Edited April 6, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Kathleen Collins]

which appears to be contradicted by the denture of the skull that was later exhumed:

"There was some worry that the

tooth would turn black, but it did not. It was saved." [Judyth]

I never saw a tooth turn black or heard of one before this. If the nerve died it would turn brown.

I'm glad you blew up the picture. For the first time I noticed Lee had a pen in his right hand, possibly making him right-handed. But Harvey -- was he also right-handed or left-handed?

Kathy C

[Kathleen Collins]

One more thing about what dentists sometimes did for a person missing a front or easily-seen tooth. They made the patient a "flipper." A flipper was not a good device. It had a roof to it and the fake tooth would replace the missing one. It was a horrible contraption -- you might as well wear dentures. And when they didn't fit -- oh my God.

Kathy C

[Mike Williams]

One more thing about what dentists sometimes did for a person missing a front or easily-seen tooth. They made the patient a "flipper." A flipper was not a good device. It had a roof to it and the fake tooth would replace the missing one. It was a horrible contraption -- you might as well wear dentures. And when they didn't fit -- oh my God.

Kathy C

Kathleen,

Is this like a bridge?

Mike

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

From John Armstrong, HARVEY & LEE (2003), pages 91-92 and page 532:

 

                                                                                   

Edited April 6, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

JIM ASKS A MODEST QUESTION REQUESTING CLARIFICATION

Jack,

You have suggested I read HARVEY & LEE, which I am doing with considerable astonishment. I am very glad you are reasserting here that it was LEE who lost his tooth. I have just posted pages 91-92 and page 532 from HARVEY & LEE. I find it of more than passing interest that it states that HARVEY moved to Ft. Worth in June 1954 and his friend, Edward Voebel, never saw him again (p. 91).

That fall, LEE enrolled at the same junior high school HARVEY had been attending. Voebel knew him, too, and remembered that LEE liked to fight -- not starting them, but ending them. And that on one occasion, LEE was hit by Robin Riley. His tooth was knocked loose and he even lost it. Indeed, Lillian Murret remembered that Marguerite had to take him to the dentist and she (Lillian) paid for the bill herself (p. 92).

What I find odd about this, Jack, is that Lillian was the aunt of HARVEY, not of LEE. So what is LILLIAN MURRET, with whom HARVEY will stay when he comes to New Orleans (p. 532), doing paying a dental bill for LEE? You have made much of the missing tooth and that, because the body exhumed from the grave did not have a missing tooth, it could not have been LEE. So why is HARVEY'S AUNT paying for LEE'S DENTAL BILL?

Judyth, of course, has already responded about whether or not HARVEY

--the man she knew in New Orleans--could drive including this reply:

Lee Harvey Oswald could drive. Unless you now include the entire

Murret family as knowing "Lee" as well as "Harvey", how does Mr.

Armstrong explain these records:

April/May 1963 - Oswald drives his uncle Murret's car. (WC Vol 2, pp.

503-504) Oswald's cousin, John Murret, let him drive his car sometime

between May and July. (WC Vol 8, p. 151)

Judyth Baker has also stated to researchers that Oswald could drive, and

did so, with her, on three occasions. One such occasion has entered the

record:

The opening remarks at he Clay Shaw trial mention that occasion, saying

it was not Marina Oswald with Oswald at that time, and that the

prosecution wished they knew who the woman was, that she would stand

forth.

At that time, Judyth Baker was in bed trying to save a pregnancy, and

they had no TV or newspaper access. She did not know about this appeal.

Since it was LEE who had the tooth knocked out, not HARVEY, as you make very clear, why was HARVEY'S AUNT LILLIAN PAYING FOR LEE'S DENTAL BILL? And if she knew that "MARGUERITE" had taken him to the dentist, DID LILLIAN ALSO KNOW LEE'S MOTHER "MARGUERITE", TOO? If there is an answer to this question, I want to know. I want to get this straight.

Not only do we have EDWARD VOELBEL knowing both HARVEY and LEE, who were enrolled at the same junior high school consecutive semesters (but not at the same time), but LEE has a tooth knocked out, of which LILLIAN, who is HARVEY'S AUNT, is aware, even knowing that "MARGUERITE", LEE'S MOTHER, had taken LEE to the dentist, for which LILLIAN PAID?

Are you telling me that LILLIAN was not only HARVEY'S AUNT but also LEE'S AUNT? And that LILLIAN knew not only HARVEY'S MOTHER, who was named "MARGUERITE", but also LEE'S MOTHER, who was also named "MARGUERITE"? As Judyth has asked above, are you and Armstrong telling us that the entire MURRET FAMILY knew both HARVEY and LEE?

Jim

Jim...you make so many errors here that I do not have time to respond to

them. I have a doctor appointment in two hours.

But...IT WAS LEE WHO HAD THE TOOTH KNOCKED OUT, NOT HARVEY.

FERRIE KNEW HARVEY, NOT LEE. IF FERRIE KNOCKED OUT A TOOTH

OF HARVEY, IT IS UNKNOWN, SINCE THE EXHUMATION PHOTOS SHOW

HARVEY. JOHN DOCUMENTS THAT LEE LOST THE TOOTH IN A FIGHT AT

BEAUREGARD JUNIOR HIGH. HE DID NOT "RESTORE" THE TOOTH USING

MILK.

JOHN HEAVILY DOCUMENTS THAT HARVEY COULD NOT DRIVE. IT WAS

LEE WHO COULD DRIVE.

It is very difficult to respond to false allegations, even if I had time.

Jack

Edited April 6, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

JUDYTH OFFERS SOME REFLECTIONS ON PAGES FROM HARVEY & LEE:

Please note that, in the posted material quoted from Armstrong's book, a

distinction has to be drawn between Ed Voeble's testimony of having known

"LEE" and Myra DaRouse's reports about "HARVEY", which are highly suspect:

1) At no time did Ed Voebel say that he had ever met HARVEY OSWALD.

2) Voebel only mentions LEE Harvey Oswald.

3) Voebel had an opportunity to make the distinction because MYRA DAROUSE

tells us that she drove HARVEY home.

Voebel could have tesified that he visited the Oswald apartment over the pool hall

and that he played pool and shot darts with "Harvey." But he did not. Instead, he

always used the name "Lee".

Where was that apartment? On Exchange place, which Myra DaRouse called

"Exchange Alley".

But Voebel describes visiting LEE at his apartment above the pool hall (erroneously

described as a 'ballroom' by Myra). He makes it clear that it was Lee.

Are we expected to believe that LEE and HARVEY were living at the same address?

Does Armstrong's belief that HARVEY attended Beauregard depend solely on the witness,

Myra? Armstrong mentions, convincingly, many school records about LEE--but where are

HARVEY'S records ?

We have a teacher who says she drove HARVEY to LEE's apartment.

I have already explained that Lee H. Oswald told me he saved his tooth in some milk.

I know that his tooth was loosened in a fight with Dave Ferrie, but that it did not fall out

at that time. People can haggle about the date, whether Lee's tooth was knocked out

before or after the fight with Ferrie. The point is, Lee saved his tooth and told me so.

The tooth is not missing in the skull of LHO because it was saved.

The CAP photo, when blown up 400%, shows 'two' missing teeth...But what we are really

seeing is a trick of light, because Lee's front tooth and his bicuspid stand out more than

his other teeth. There are no photos of "Harvey" with a missing tooth. The photo of "Lee"

with the missing tooth only shows us that it had been knocked out, not lost forever.

SOME TESTIMONY MADE BY SYDNEY EDWARD VOEBEL OF CONCERN TO DETERMINING

IF HE EVER KNEW 'HARVEY':

There is no doubt that "LEE" lived above the pool hall at Echange Alley/Exchnage Place.

Mr. Voebel.

at Lee's, and we would play darts and pool. Lee's the one who taught me to play pool.

In fact, he invited me to come and play pool with him. He lived over the top of the pool hall.

Mr. Jenner.

And did you accept his invitation?

Mr. Voebel.

Yes; that's when we played darts.

Mr. Jenner.

You played darts and you shot pool also; is that right?

Mr. Voebel.

Yes, sir.

Mr. Jenner.

Where was that?

Mr. Voebel.

On Exchange Alley.

Mr. Jenner.

Exchange Alley?

Mr. Voebel.

Yes; or Exchange Place, whatever you call it.

WE CONCLUDE THAT "HARVEY" LIVED THERE, TOO, FROM MYRA DAROUSE'S OWN,

PARALLEL DESCRIPTION.

IF THAT IS THE CASE, EITHER MYRA'S MEMORY IS DEFICIENT CONCERNING LEE H. OSWALD'S

HEIGHT, OR SHE HAS BEEN UNDULY INFLUENCED SOMEHOW TO RECOLLECT SOMEONE WHO

WANTED TO BE CALLED 'HARVEY' WHO HAD HE SAME FRIEND -- VOEBEL -- AND WHO LIVED

AT THE SAME ADDRESS AS 'LEE'.

FURTHERMORE, ABOUT 'LEE' BEING READY TO FIGHT, BUT NOT 'HARVEY' -- ONLY A PORTION

OF VOEBEL'S TESTIMONY IS SHOWN -- THAT LEE WOULD NOT BACK DOWN FROM A FIGHT.

BUT FURTHER UP IN VOEBEL'S TESTIMONY WE READ:

Mr. Voebel.

.... He had the sort of personality that I could like. He was the type of boy that I could like,

and if he had not changed at all, I probably still would have the same feeling for Lee Oswald,

at least more so than for the Neumeyer brothers....

WE ALSO READ:

Mr. Jenner.

Well, that's what I want, your impression. Would you say there were other boys of the type

of the Neumeyer brothers at Beauregard School while you were attending there?

Mr. Voebel.

Oh, yes; I would say most of them seemed to be troublemakers. In fact, it was almost

impossible to go to school at that time without brushing against somebody or getting involved

in a fight sooner or later. You take me, I am not a fighter, but I had to fight at that school.

KNOWING LEE'S COURAGE, I FIND NO TRUE BELLIGERANCE IN HIS GETTING INTO A FIGHT

AT BEAUREGARD THAT WOULD DISTINGUISH A 'LEE' FROM A 'HARVEY.'

CONCLUSION: MYRA DAROUSE IS NOT A CREDIBLE WITNESS.

FROM HER STATEMENTS, WE CANNOT ESTABLISH THE EXISTENCE OF "HARVEY" AS SEPARATE

AND APART FROM THE EXISTENCE OF "LEE". HER REPORTS ALONE APPEAR TO BE INCREDIBLE.

JVB

Edited April 6, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

[Guest James H. Fetzer]

JUDYTH DISCUSSES THE "MISSING DAYS" OF PAGE 532 IN HARVEY & LEE

NOTE: Judyth has provided further details related to Lee's arrival in New Orleans on April 25 by

her account at April 24 by Armstrong's. They agree that he showed up for an unemployment

office interview on April 29 with John Rachal, who, as David Lifton has explained, reported that

he was nicely dressed, a matter that has been previously addressed. As Armstrong notes, his

whereabouts and activities from the 24th to the 29th are "unknown". Judyth fills in some blanks.

[i will check with Judyth to make sure that everything I am posting here is just as it should be.]

JUDYTH COMMENTS:

Late in 2001 Mary Ferrell gave me her private copy of her well-known and praised LHO chronologies

after I provided information to her regarding the whereabouts and activities of Lee Oswald between

April 26th and May 8th, which were largely a blank in her chronology. I had been unable to afford

to buy a copy. I had no chronology of any kind before that.

Here are some highlights from Researcher Mary Ferrell’s Chronology:

April 23, 1963 (Tuesday) - Marina says that Oswald checks some baggage to New Orleans on his

bus ticket on the day before he leaves. (WC Vol 22, p. 778; WC Vol 23, p. 526)

April 24-29, 1963 (Wednesday - Monday) - Oswald's whereabouts from Wednesday afternoon until

Monday are unknown except for Friday's appearance at the New Orleans office of the Louisiana

Employment Commission. (WC Vol 8, p. 135)

April 28, 1963 (Sunday) - Oswald visits his father's grave in New Orleans. (WC Vol 8, pp. 135-136, 165)

On 11/23/63, the Murrets say that Oswald spent three to five nights at their residence. (WC Vol 23,

p. 718) Mrs. Murret says that Oswald would eat no breakfast; Oswald would take the want-ads; and

Oswald would be gone all day until 5:30 p.m. til 6:00 p.m. looking for a job. (WC Vol 8, p. 137)

April 29, 1963 (Monday) - Oswald writes to Marina at Mrs. Paine's home in Irving. (WC Vol 16, p. 228)

April/May 1963 - Oswald drives his uncle Murret's car. (WC Vol 2, pp. 503-504) Oswald's cousin,

John Murret, let him drive his car sometime between May and July. (WC Vol 8, p. 151)

May 3, 1963 (Friday) - Oswald writes to Marina, who is staying with Mrs. Michael Paine in Irving,

that the employment office will pay him $15.00 or $20.00. He says that his uncle has offered him

a $200.00 loan. (WC Vol 16, p. 230)

There are conflicts to this report, since Mrs. Murret also said Lee stayed with them as early as April

22nd, with another report given as April 29th from Ferrell. However, Mrs. Murret’s statement that

Lee spent only three to five nights at their residence is the most accurate. Obviously Lee would not

check out of the YMCA, stay with his aunt and uncle a few days, then check back into the YMCA, then

go back to his aunt and uncle’s home. He ate a Sunday dinner with them on May 5th. On May 6th or

7th he moved in with them for a few days, primarily to "prove" to his relatives that he was job hunting,

thereby making the acquisition of a pre-arranged job at Wm. B, Reily Coffee Company appear to have

been the result of a job-hunt.

Notes for each date below:

April 23, 1963 (Tuesday) - Marina says that Oswald checks some baggage to New Orleans on his

bus ticket on the day before he leaves. (WC Vol 22, p. 778; WC Vol 23, p. 526)

==This is typical: Lee liked to use lockers to store things ahead of time. He had boxes, a couple of

seabags and a duffle bag, etc. Thererfore, a neighbor such as Eric Rogers saw Lee leave his 4905

Magazine St. address -- reporting two bags -- but was unaware that Lee had already moved other

bags from the apartment and had them eventually stored in a locker at Nuevio Laredo.==

[i hope that someone can check out this lead to see if there are any records about this anywhere.]

April 24-29, 1963 (Wednesday - Monday) - Oswald's whereabouts from Wednesday afternoon until

Monday are unknown except for Friday's appearance at the New Orleans office of the Louisiana

Employment Commission. (WC Vol 8, p. 135)

FILLING IN THE MISSING DAYS -- THIS IS NOT EXHAUSTIVE-- IT OFFERS ONLY A FEW HIGHLIGHTS

OF WHAT HAPPENED ON THE MISSING DAYS, AS IT TAKES A BOOK TO EXLAIN THE DETAILS TO BE

CONFIDENT THAT THESE EVENTS ARE NOT MISINTERPRETED.

==JUDYTH FILLS IN SOME BLANKS ABOUT HIS ACTIVITIES BETWEEN APRIL 25 AND APRIL 29==

This is the area I can fill in. Lee told me he arrived in town "the day before" -- April 25 -- early enough

to visit his relatives afer checking in at the YMCA. He mentioned eating supper with somebody who

would become important later -- David Ferrie. He wasted no time contacting him.

APRIL 26, 1963: Met Lee H. Oswald approx. 8:30 AM at Post Office. He accompanied me to the YWCA.

We spoke for approximately an hour. I did not think I would see him again. It has been suggested

that he was sent to meet me. I have no problem accepting that. I was alone due to misunderstanding

about the timing in coming to New Orleans and had contacted Ochsner's Clinic about my dilemma.

They told me to return to FL, I told them I could not do that. Lee Oswald may have been sent to

watch over me in the tough town.

The fact that he went into Charity Hospital with me and interviewed with Ochsner before I did also

suggests prior association with Ochsner (details in book_. Where Lee Oswald was from 10:00 AM

for the rest of the day includes a trip to his aunt's house (Murrets, 757 French St.) to "borrow a white

shirt" (reported by me in 1999). It seems he obtained a suit, also, as per description at employment

office. Lee's aunt tesified that she was concerned about his attire and closely describes Lee's activities,

the most important being that Lee did not eat breakfast there after moving in with them.

APRIL 27: Lee Oswald appears at Royal Castle where I am working the breakfast rush two-hour shift

as a extra (to get YBWCA rent $$$ as Ochsner was not in town -- he was in South America -- and had

not yet signed my application papers to work with Dr. Sherman, who may have accompanied Ochsner,

as she ofen did to Latin America, due to her fluency in Spanish, the only person on Ochsner's main

staff who could speak it. Lee Oswald rides back with me to town. Other events occur: we eat lunch

with Dave Ferrie and he believes I am the person he requested to help him -- He accepts that they

must have sent a female because he was a homosexual; oher events occur. Fascinated by Ferrie,

we spend the most of the night listening to him teach and preach.

APRIL 28: The Ferrell chronology reports, for people who don't think Lee Oswald could drive, that he's

borrowing cars. Indeed he was, as I have also reported. (Lee would be probably the only New Orleans

boy in the fifies who 'didn't know how to drive'. They rarely took learner's permits -- just hopped in

and drove each other around in whoever had a jalopy. Lee said he drove that early, but had very

little experience until he learned to drive a jeep in the Marines, which he learned in a few hours.

April/May 1963 - "Oswald drives his uncle Murret's car. (WC Vol 2, pp. 503-504) Oswald's cousin,

John Murret, let him drive his car sometime between May and July. (WC Vol 8, p. 151)"

APRIL 28: Disgusted at learning Lee beat his wife, which he admits with shame, I am stuck having to

stay with him because we are already far from the "Y" finding out how to find his father's grave, and

I get lost very easily. He went to see his aunt, but I stayed outside because he was married. We had

borrowed his cousin's car (See the note above in the Ferrell Chronology about borrowed cars.). I was

just wanting to go home when he found out the location of his father's grave. He persuaded me to

get up off the bench and go with him down the row, which was between lots of cluttered tombs, etc.,

to view it. I have described the grave site to researchers: even they had a hard time finding it, and it

was as I described.

I never saw the photo of his father that a cousin said the old aunt gave him, but we were hardly

talking at the time. Things got better that night and we attended a party at Dave Ferrie's, but with

disastrous results. I heard horrible things about JFK from Kenendy-hating Cubans who wanted him

dead.

APRIL 29: Lee took me to meet Guy Banister, who assured me Ferrie was legitimate, the cancer

project was legitimate, etc. We spent the whole day together. By now, Lee has moved me from

the "Y" into the mansion and (Guy) helped out by paying $10 of the rent after Lee (I was with him)

ran money for his uncle (Dutz) from "Town and Country" (Marcello's headquarters). Dutz gave him

$200 and told him to keep it. It was not a loan, as it has been described in the WC.

APRIL 30-MAY 1: Among events: I extracted a promise from Lee that he would not lay a hand on his

wife or I would never see him again. We had no affair but were deeply attracted to each other. My

husband-to-be was failing to write very much and I was not even sure he would show up. Because I

would soon have employment at Dr. Sherman's lab, with housing and stipend, I did not feel pressure

to marry. I actually had had some fears about getting married because my fiance was keeping our

elopement a secret. I did not get along with my parents because I had become an atheist. And my

fiance was a day late arriving without telling me he would be late. He arrived May 1, the day we were

supposed to get married. Lee said he was falling in love with me and begged me not to marry my

fiance. But I was still upset about his treatment of his wife. I stayed on good terms with Lee because

he had promised that, if I would stay his friend, he would never, ever strike Marina again. I felt it was

my duty to be his friend, just to help her. That's how it started. I did not, as one researcher has said,

have an affair with Oswald just prior to marrying my husband. The situation was rather more complex.

Edited April 6, 2010 by James H. Fetzer