For Jim/Judyth

Jack White · April 6, 2010

Like the numerous others who have grown tired of this thread, I have

now found it counterproductive to read and/or reply to the 10,000+-word

daily treatises on the JVB stories and how accurate and marvelous

the research is. I have received over a half-dozen emails from researchers

saying what a waste of time the Jim/Judyth thread has become, and they

refuse to read any new postings. I now join them

I am starting this new thread which I hope will be limited to a single

subject....which Jim/Judyth have suggested:

"THE ERRORS OF JOHN ARMSTRONG."

Both have the book Harvey & Lee. I ask that if they wish to address

these "errors" that they do so in this thread, and with the following

limitations:

Address only "error" in one posting, thusly:

Error: LHO's Missing Tooth, cite pages in H&L.

Why Armstrong Is Wrong (100 words or less).

or:

Error: LHO Could Not Drive.

Why Armstrong Is Wrong (100 words or less).

I will then copy each posting and forward it to Armstrong for a reply,

which I will post here.

This is the ONLY thread in which I will respond to any postings

about JVB or H&L.

This might contribute something to the investigation.

Jack

April 6, 2010

JIM RESPONDS TO JACK ABOUT "HARVEY & LEE": THE "INDEX" ERROR

Let me say that I am just the least bit taken aback by your cavalier attitude

toward the "hunting photo", which has been among those you have used to

establish the existence of "Lee" as a person separate from "Harvey", whom

you insist was the person Judyth knew in New Orleans--the one who was

born in Hungary, could not drive, intellectual and interested in philosophy,

and all that, while "Lee" was the one who was hot-tempered, uninterested

in Marxism and could not speak Russian. You observe that the man in the

"hunting photo" does not look like "Harvey", which is true, but then almost

any random photo of an adult male would not look very much like "Harvey":

The "hunting photo" is NOT my photo, but was a personal photo allegedly

taken by Robert when he took Lee hunting just before Lee "departed

for New Orleans" for his defection. I copied the photo from LEE, written

by Robert Oswald. The way a Marine handles a rifle is not necessarily

indicative of what he would do when out hunting. Not everyone behaves

according to any preconceived notion. I have no opinion on the veracity

of the photo. It may be genuine, it may be faked. But it does not resemble

the LHO of Dealey Plaza.

I am also disturbed by your source, which is Robert, after I have explained

that he appears to be a prime candidate for impersonating his bother and

for publishing a phony book about him, including fake photographs. You do

not seem to appreciate the depth of instruction provided by the Marine Corps

with respect to the proper handling of weapons. It is not something you can

"turn on and off" like a spigot. It is a set of habits deeply ingrained within a

recruit that they are required to maintain. That you should have "no opinion"

of the veracity of the photograph raises extremely disturbing questions, not

just about the photograph but about the methodology behind "Harvey & Lee".

You have insinuated that, if Judyth or I do not know that the "Oswald ID" you

and John featured on the cover of HARVEY & LEE is fake, then we have no

qualifications for undertaking a study of the adequacy of your research on

this subject. And, of course, as you observe, it is featured on the cover:

On the inside flap, however, the immediate images that one encounters are these,

albeit with the order of the images reverse, "Harvey" to the left, "Lee" to the right:

where, as you may or may not know, Judyth has questioned the authenticity of the

image you label "Lee", suggesting that his face appears somewhat bloated, which

not only does not resemble the man in the "hunting photo" but, if you consider her

take on how it may have been produced, actually does resemble the man whom you

have labeled "Harvey" in the Oswald arrest photo. Where, if she is correct, then one

of the key pieces of photographic evidence that you have advanced to establish the

existence of "Harvey & Lee" tends to merge into two photos of one man, "Harvey".

From the photo image, I infer that you and John are well aware of the possibility of

forged documents and other forms of fakery in the documentary records, where, as

I have asked before, the methodology used to sort out the authentic from the non-

authentic requires consideration. You have told me (independently) that John only

relied upon "public sources", which guaranteed that these documents were genuine.

But that only establishes that they were "genuine documents" as physical entities,

not with respect to their actual contents. Indeed, in the Introduction to HARVEY &

LEE, which I find quite fascinating, John offers a brilliant explanation of the process

followed by the FBI to take evidence from Dallas, launder it and return it, and then

stage an elaborate "retaking of evidence" to create the impression that it was being

taken into possession by the FBI for the very first time! Which is a brilliant scheme.

I am less impressed, however, by the assertion on fourth page of the unnumbered

Introduction in relation to the role of Allen Dulles as a member of the commission,

who "was so successful that there is no reference to the CIA or Central Intelligence

Agency in the index to the Warren Commission's 26 volumes". Persumably, what

John means is the 26 volumes of supporting evidence rather than the 888-page

WARREN REPORT (1964). But while THE WARREN REPORT has an index, the 26

volumes of supporting evidence does not. And having just checked a copy that

was published by the United States Government Printing Office, I find an entry

for "Central Intelligence Agency, 22, 245, 258, 259, 266, 269, 272, 274-275,

279-280, 284, 305, 309-310, 327, 359, 365, 371, 433-434, 438, 456, 459,

461,463-464, 659-660, 748, 762, 777". So what in the world is going on here?

Indeed, one might have supposed that someone who was tackling a project of

this magnitude would have known that in 1965, Sylvia Meagher published her

SUBJECT INDEX TO THE WARREN REPORT AND HEARINGS AND EXHIBITS, as

the introduction to ACCESSORIES AFTER THE FACT (first published in 1976)

explains. Even that arch enemy of truth about the assassination, Max Holland,

has acknowledged the absence of an index for the supplemental volumes: "In

2005, I wrote an article that criticized the Commission for its neglect of the

Government Printing Office, and failure to observe the venerable practice of

publishing supplementary volumes with underlying documents, depositions,

and testimony (not to mention an index)" <http://hnn.us/articles/124755.html>.

Which leads me to ask if Holland is a more reliable source than John Armstrong!

Not to belabor the point, but you have no warrant in taking for granted that the

documents and records that John Armstrong vacuumed up from "public sources"

are authentic in relation to their content as well as their existence as documents.

Unless you can authenticate the content of those documents, then we have what

most students of the assassination would call "a serious problem". And when we

factor in the propaganda expertise of Frank Wisner and his mastery of the media,

where he referred to his capacity to manipulate it to his will--CBS, NBC, ABC, The

New York Times, The Washington Post, and all that--as "The Mighty Wurlitzer", I

am more than a little floored by your reluctance to address the problem. Because

if we don't know which have authentic content and which do not, then what you

and John provided is only a starting point and not the answer to "Harvey & Lee".

The "hunting photo" is NOT my photo, but was a personal photo allegedly
taken by Robert when he took Lee hunting just before Lee "departed

for New Orleans" for his defection. I copied the photo from LEE, written

by Robert Oswald. The way a Marine handles a rifle is not necessarily

indicative of what he would do when out hunting. Not everyone behaves

according to any preconceived notion. I have no opinion on the veracity

of the photo. It may be genuine, it may be faked. But it does not resemble

the LHO of Dealey Plaza.

Jack

JIM COMMENTS ON THE ALLEGED "HUNTING PHOTO OF LEE"
Let me state that his "hunting photo of Lee" categorically falsifies your

theory. "Lee", of course, on your scenario, was in the Marine Corps. I

can assure you that no one who had ever served in the Marine Corps

would hold a rifle or shotgun in the manner shown here. They would

have the weapon across their arms, cradled with the end pointed up-

ward. They would never display the casual, grab-ass behavior that is

displayed by the "Lee" of your photograph, which, as I have observed

before, looks like a completely phony photo in any case. But once a

man has served in the Marine Corps and acquired a minimal degree of

competence with a rifle, they would not handle a long gun as shown.

Either the man in the photo is not your "Lee" or the photo is a phony.

I will reply to your questions in segments, because the forum format is
not good for a "mass reply".

Segments to follow.

Jack

Jack,
OK. Let's see if we can sort some of it out together. By "you guys", I am

referring to you, John Armstrong, and David Lifton, whom I have taken

to be the leading experts on Lee Harvey Oswald. I know that John and

you believe there were two, one "Lee", the other "Harvey", and that the

one Judyth knew in New Orleans was the one to whom you refer to as

"Harvey". According to Dawn Mededith, the one you call "Lee" (not the

one whom Judyth knew) was short-tempered, non-intellectual and could

not speak Russian, while the one you call "Harvey" was mild-mannered,

intellectual and fluent in Russian. You say the one called "Harvey" was

born in Hungary and liked the name "Harvey", while Judyth's says that

he was born in Louisiana, had a slight Cajun accent, and hated the name

"Harvey". So we know that at least some of this has to be wrong. OK?

I do not know if Lifton believes there were "two Oswalds", but I rather

suspect he does not. So what we know about "Oswald" is very obscure.

Now, in this new post you say that you have been suggesting for years

that Robert was involved in framing "Harvey", the man Judyth knew in

New Orleans as "Lee", who, according to you, was not his brother, even

though they looked enough alike that they were virtually "dead ringers"

for one another. In addition, in a recent post, you make this observation:

Today, 05:23 PM

Post #674

Super Member

****

Group: Members

Posts: 7127

Joined: 26-April 04

Member No.: 667

Robert Oswald, of course, knew that Harvey was not his brother, and to this

day he "cooperates" with the perpetrators, as does Marina...for safety reasons.

Robert, Marina and Ruth Paine are the only remaining living persons who

knew both Harvey and Lee. If they were to tell what they know, the case

would be solved.

Robert likely was an unwitting participant. Because both he and Lee were

Marines, and they looked very much alike, the military had photos and

records of both to use in creating confusion in the official record. I am

fairly certain that photos of Robert were in some cases used to portray

Lee. Of course Robert was ASTOUNDED when the assassination happened

and Harvey was named the assassin. What he had assumed was a rather

benign assignment of Lee took a very terrible turn. Read his testimony for

his reaction to the event.

Jack

So here are my questions:

(1) The man who died, according to you, was "Harvey", whom Judyth

knew as "Lee" and who was shot to death by Jack Ruby on 24 November.

(2) Although Robert was the brother of the one you call "Lee" and not of

the one Judyth knew and Ruby shot, they were "dead ringers" of each other.

(3) According to your latest, #678, you have always insisted that Robert

was involved in framing the man that Judyth knew and that Ruby shot.

(4) In your earlier, #674, however, you state (a) that Robert likely was an

unwitting participant and ( was astounded when "Harvey" was fingered.

(5) Now, if Robert was helping to frame "Harvey", how could he possibly

have been astounded when "Harvey" was blamed for the the assassination?

(6) Reading his testimony for his reaction to the event sounds like a waste

of time when we know that (a) he "found" the Imperial Reflex camera no one

had been able to locate in the Paine's garage; ( he had an affair with Marina

following her husband's death; and, © he move into a nice, new brick home,

which he previously could not have afforded. What speaks louder to you?

(7) Moreover, Judyth has shown that, when you correct for distortion, the

images of "Lee" and of "Harvey" tend to converge, which suggests to me

that, while there may have been "two Oswalds", they are not adequately

identified as "Harvey & Lee" but instead more plausibly as "Robert & Lee":

So my question for you, my friend, is how can you reconcile what I have

just presented, especially your claims (i) that Robert was involved in the

framing of "Harvey" and (ii) that he was an unwitting participant who was

"astounded" when "Harvey" was fingered as the assassin? I don't get it.

It is plausible to me that Robert was impersonating Lee on some occasions.

And I hope you are not going to suggest that Robert "found" the Imperial

Reflex camera, had an affair with Marina, and purchased a new brick home

because he had to "play along" with the perpetrators "for safety reasons"!

Jim

Who are the YOU GUYS you refer to?
What are your questions?

I have always said that Robert Oswald participated in the framing of Harvey.

Harvey was not his brother, so he cooperated in framing him. Now what is

your question about this opinion? Are you saying I am wrong about Robert?

I have long said that some photos of "Lee" are really of Robert. Are you

disputing this? Your questions are not clear.

It is clear to me that Robert helped frame "LHO". I have said this for about

thirty years. Are you disputing this? I do not understand your accusation.

Jack

JIM HAS MORE QUESTIONS FOR JACK ABOUT ROBERT OSWALD:

In post #469 on page 32, Judyth made the following observations:

I knew that Lee was aware of and even wanted impersonations. We covered up our tracks very well and after Lee left Reily, I could never dare meet him outside there anymore.

Just trying to say, when you know the man, you know some things simply aren’t true.

Then it's easy to find what is true and present it.

Lee told me he even had a relative there. In New Orleans, two of his relatives were working for Reily when he was, and one worker describes a relative as smoking who was actually Lee, as Lee mentioned his male relative smoked.

People should notice that the boy is leaning back...the photo itself has been altered slightly around the nose ...as many other photos, as well...also, though this is supposed to be the Bronx Zoo, Robert Oswald has a fuzzy memory on a lot of stuff, and remember, Lee was visiting John Pic's home, not Robert's, in New York.

Robert has committed various errors and told lies as well, due to his affair with Marina shortly after Lee's death.

He 'found' the damning Imperial Reflex camera in the PAINE garage that had been so thoroughly searched...

Right after being caught with Marina....

Robert then moved into a nice new brick house that he could not have afforded before then.

Then catch what Robert has to say about his brother Lee as the assassin of JFK during a PBS "Frontline" interview:

(http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sh...ews/oswald.html)

Robert Oswald:

In your mind, are there questions about whether Lee shot President Kennedy?

There is no question in my mind that Lee was responsible for the three shots fired, two of the shots hitting the president and killing him. There is no question in my mind that he also shot Officer Tippit. How can you explain one without the other? I think they're inseparable. I'm talking about the police officer being shot and the president. You look at the factual data, you look at the rifle, you look at the pistol ownership, you look at his note about the Walker shooting. You look at the general opportunity -- he was present. He wasn't present when they took a head count [at the Texas School Book Depository].

I watched the deterioration of a human being. You look at that last year -- his work, his family, trying to go to Cuba, trying to go back to Russia. His wife is wanting to go back to Russia. Everything is deteriorating.

You look at all the data there, and it comes up to one conclusion as far as I'm concerned -- the Warren Commission was correct.

JIM'S COMMENTS ABOUT THE ALLEGED "EXPERTS" ON LEE HARVEY OSWALD:

These observations suggest to me that Robert was a key player in framing Lee. This is quite outrageous. You guys are supposed to be the "experts" on Lee Harvey Oswald and I have to learn about Robert having what appears to be motive, means, and opportunity to frame him from Judyth? And you guys have the nerve to challenge her background and her competence and her qualifications? The situation here is entirely outrageous. This woman appears to me to be doing more to solve the case in relation to Lee Harvey Oswald than you and John Armstrong and David S. Lifton put together.

Lee and Robert were almost as interchangeable as twins.
Jack

April 6, 2010

JUDYTH RESPONDS TO JACK ON THE "INDEX" AND WHETHER LEE COULD DRIVE

NOTE: This is troubling, Jack. Judyth corrected you when you criticized her about

Lee's "discharge", but you have yet to admit she was right and you were wrong.

Here is another case in which she is correcting you. I hate to say it, Jack, but it

sees to me, based upon this thread, that Judyth is better at this than Jack White.

JUDYTH REPLIES:

"The Index of Names" in Vol. XV of the Warren Commission Hearings is not a true

index.

It only qualifies as a list of names within the volumes.

There are no city names, such as New Orleans, San Francisco, Chicago, or Dallas.

There is no Moscow. No Minsk.

There are no agency names, such as FBI, CIA, or ONI.

It cannot be said that an 'influence' was exerted to omit the CIA when there are also

no place names, city names, street names, etc. There is no Reily's or JCS menioned.

This is not a true index--it is only a list of names --and the list of

names happens to be incomplee.

For example, Wlliam I. Monaghan, of Reily's, reads reports aloud on

several pages for the FBI, but he's not listed.

Jim...turn ON your comprehension. READ THE BOOK. See the Armstrong documentation for yourself
instead of incorrectly IMAGINING what the documentation is. You are COMPLETELY WRONG! If you read

the book you will see why...if you try.

And you are WRONG about the INDEX to the 26 volumes. It is in Volume XV. And EACH volume has

a Table of Contents in the front of each book. I must admit the volumes are poorly arranged and

the indexes and contents are not logically done. AND in the INDEX, citations for LEE HARVEY OSWALD

are omitted (I guess there were TOO MANY to index.).

Please read H&L. It contains answers to most of your questions. By speculating about what it says,

you are providing FALSE INFORMATION to those who have not read the book.

Jack

JIM REPLIES TO JACK ABOUT WHETHER LEE COULD DRIVE

READ THE BOOK! READ THE BOOK! So I start reading the book and discover right away the assertion that Allan Dulles was so clever in manipulating the Warren Commission with regard to the CIA that "in its 26 volumes, the name of the CIA does not even appear in its index"! Maybe you missed the post in which I observed (1) that the 26 supporting volumes does not even have an index and that (2) that the 888-page summary report, known as THE WARREN REPORT, does have an index, where the CIA is listed at least two dozen times! That is not the kind of discovery that inspires confidence in HARVEY & LEE.

Moreover, Armstrong's methodology appears to have been to vacuum up every document he could find in the public domain. You have told me that meant the existence of these documents could not be challenged because they are all in the public domain. But when I asked what principle of selection had been used to determine which were not only (3) authentic documents but also had (4) accurate content, you remained silent. It is as though you and John were oblivious of "The Mighty Wurlitzer' being played by Frank Wisner to flood the media with stories concocted by and managed by the CIA!

Now I discover that, in relation to the question of whether or not the man Judyth knew in New Orleans could or could not drive, you offer (what you imply to be) the definitive testimony of Ruth Paine and of Marina Oswald, yet at the bottom of the post, you include a table with the names of THIRTY-TWO other witnesses who have reported that they had either seen him drive or knew he had the ability to drive. I am sure you are going to resolve this contradiction by appealing to "Harvey" and "Lee". But, frankly, Jack, this looks like a ruse to draw attention from the real "two Oswalds", Robert and Lee!

So far as I am able to discern, HARVEY & LEE begins with a blunder and was created in fashion that was methodologically unsound--at least to the extent to which no effort appears to have been expended to sort out the true documents from the false, the accurate records from the inaccurate, and the genuine photos from the fake. IF YOU WANT ME TO TAKE ANY OF THIS SERIOUSLY, YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE TO ADDRESS THESE QUESTIONS. How can anyone claim to be an expert on the assassination when they do not even know the difference between the 26 supporting volumes and the summary report?

Why you display such an arrogant and insulting attitude toward Judyth when this book to which you constantly refer commits such a grievous blunder from scratch is beyond me. And to continue to insist that there actually were "two Oswalds" when Judyth has already shown that some of the photos that you have taken for granted are suspect and when the documentary trail on which you rely may have been deliberately created as a false history so the man she knew could eventually return to a normal life in society simply astounds me. Judyth has her flaws, no doubt, but your position is hopelessly indefensible.

Marina Oswald and Ruth and Michael Paine all told the Warren Commission in no uncertain terms that Lee Harvey Oswald did not drive an automobile and did not have a driver's license. But John Armstrong has found many witnesses who said Oswald did drive, including a former employee of the Texas Department of Public Safety License Records Department who issued a signed statement to a Garrison investigator stating that she had processed Oswald's returned driver's license after he was killed. This article explores these seeming contradictions.

Marina Oswald repeatedly told the Warren Commission that her husband did not drive. For example:

Mrs. OSWALD. Never. No; this is all not true. In the first place, my husband couldn't drive, and I was never alone with him in a car. Anytime we went in a car it was with Ruth Paine, and there was never--we never went to any gun store and never had any telescopic lens mounted.

Mr. RANKIN. Did the four of you, that is, your husband, you, and your two children, ever go alone any place in Irving?

Mrs. OSWALD. In Irving the baby was only 1 month old. I never took her out anywhere.

Representative FORD. Did you ever go anytime----

Mrs. OSWALD. Just to doctor, you know.

Representative FORD. Did you ever go anytime with your husband in a car with the rifle?

Mrs. OSWALD. I was never at anytime in a car with my husband and with a rifle. Not only with the rifle, not even with a pistol. Even without anything I was never with my husband in a car under circumstances where he was driving a car. (WC V, 401)

Michael Paine also indicated several times that Lee Harvey Oswald did not drive. For example:

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you ever see Oswald drive a car?

Mr. PAINE. No; I did not. (WC II, 413)

In her Warren Commission testimony, Ruth Paine stated that as late as the weekend before the assassination of JFK, Oswald had failed to obtain a learner's permit so that he could eventually acquire a valid Texas driver's license.

Mr. JENNER. You did talk with him on the telephone?

Mrs. PAINE. That is my recollection. I am certain that I talked with him, that he was surprised that he didn't need a car. I had to tell him that he didn't need a car to take with him to take his test.

Mr. JENNER. Take his initial test?

Mrs. PAINE. Take his test, and suggested that he go from Dallas himself to take this test. Then he called us Saturday afternoon of the 16th to say he had been and tried to get his driver's permit but that he had arrived before closing time but still to late to get in because there was a long line ahead of him, the place having been closed both the previous Saturday for election day and the following Monday, the 11th, Veterans Day. There were a lot of people who wanted to get permits and he was advised that it wouldn't pay him to wait in line. He didn't have time to be tested.

Mr. JENNER. Could you help us fix, can you recall as closely as possible the day of the week, this is the weekend of the assassination, was it not?

Mrs. PAINE. The weekend before.

Mr. JENNER. The weekend before, and this conversation you are now relating that you had with him in which he said that he had gone to the driver's license station, when did that conversation with you take place?

Mrs. PAINE. That conversation was with Marina, and she told me about it.

Mr. JENNER. When did she tell you about it?

Mrs. PAINE. He called her, it must have been Saturday afternoon, soon after he had been, he went Saturday morning and they closed at noon.

Mr. JENNER. I see. This was the weekend he did not come out to Irving?

Mrs. PAINE. This was the weekend he did not come out. (WC II, 516)

Edited April 6, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

April 6, 2010

JUDYTH RESPONDS TO JACK ABOUT WHETHER "HARVEY" COULD DRIVE

NOTE: This appears to be four for four for Judyth as opposed to Jack on

Lee's discharged, the index, how we know he took a bus to New Orleans

and now whether or not he could drive. Judyth appears to be right about

all four and Jack wrong, even though he would never acknowledge that.

JUDYTH REPLIES:

Jack White writes:

Read the book. It was HARVEY that JVB knew. Harvey could not drive.

LEE (the REAL Lee) COULD DRIVE. Armstrong documents 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.

Baker was the woman in the Kaiser-Frazer seen by Garrison witness Mary Morgan,

daughter of Reeves Morgan, a state representative and an employee at the East

Louisiana State Hospital where Oswald and Baker were headed August 31, 1963,

when they stopped at the barbershop in Jackson (Lea McGeHee also testified that

HE saw a woman in the Kaiser-Frazer automobile at that time, not sitting at the wheel).

After finishing duties at the hospital, Oswald and Baker, prior to their return to New

Orleans, stopped at the Morgan residence, just after sunset, where Mary, going outside

to stand on the poirch, saw a woman (Baker) sitting in the car Oswald had been driving

as her father spoke inside the house with Oswald inside. Mary would soon leave for college

classes.

This is on the witness record.

Baker has always stated Oswald could drive, but preferred not to because his driver's

license had been left behind in Texas. He did not tell Marina he could drive because she

would have insisted on their purchasing a car. He put off all such requests because he

was posing as a "dissatisfied worker" who could be sent to Cuba safely on such pretexts.

Car ownership and prosperity were not good ways to get disenchanted with the capitalist

system. His pro-Castro activities in New Orleans enhanced this image.

JVB

JIM RESPONDS TO JACK WHITE WITH A FEW QUESTIONS OF HIS OWN

That does appear to be a lapse. But I'm not sure what to make of it, since in the

same post discussing Robert she explains that Lee received an "undesirable" and

not a "dishonorable" discharge, as you are observing here. I'll ask her about this.

I have two questions for you. In post #756, you remark, relative to the question

of Lee's driving ability, you state (categorically), "I do NOT GRANT that JVB knows

more about Lee's driving than John Armstrong". Aren't you simply assuming this?

In particular, IF JUDYTH'S STORY IS CORRECT AND SHE ACTUALLY DROVE PLACES

WITH THE MAN SHE KNEW AS "LEE", WOULD YOU THEN GRANT THAT SHE KNOWS

MORE ABOUT LEE'S DRIVING THAN JOHN ARMSTRONG? Would you admit as much?

Howard Platzman and I had an interesting conversation today. He told me that he

and Martin Shackelford subjected Judyth to multiple forms of questioning and that,

when "60 Minutes" took an interest, CBS also conducted an investigation of its own.

Martin obtained a copy of Mary Ferrell's chronology of the activities of the man she

knew as "Lee" in New Orleans, but he did not share it with her. He spent a lot of

time asking her about what Lee was doing on specific dates and she answered him.

She was very successful in matching the Ferrell chronology. Martin thought that he

had nailed her on mistakes on two occasions. But it turned out that those were days

when the Ferrell chronology was blank. So Judyth apparently was filling in the blanks.

Is there any quantity or quality of evidence such that, were it to be produced, would

be sufficient to convince you that there is the POSSIBILITY that Judyth might be "the

real deal", even if you could care less and can't imagine why it should matter at all?

[[JVB: Robert should know that Lee was not discharged, but placed in the Marine
Reserves, a bit early...]]

Lee Harvey Oswald received an UNDESIRABLE DISCHARGE from the Marines.

Read the book. It was HARVEY that JVB knew. Harvey could not drive. LEE (the REAL Lee) COULD DRIVE.

Armstrong documents this.

JVB might be more believable if she DIDN'T fill in all the blanks. Where there are blanks, she inserts

herself.

In another thread, I commented that I WAS ALWAYS PUZZLED that years ago when I first read

the WR and other books, I was struck by the lack of investigation of how and when LHO got to

NOLA from Dallas. He suddenly decided to leave his pregnant wife and go to look for work in

New Orleans; why not look for work in Dallas? But the FBI and WC did not document when, why

or how this happened. So JVB FILLS IN THIS BLANK by saying he took a bus. How does she know?

She claims he told her he took a bus...and nobody can dispute her because there is no record.

Jack

April 6, 2010

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.

Since I am responding to your concerns and concede that my description may have been overblown,

how about reciprocating in relation to the question that Howard has raised about your having found

the abstract of a paper that Judyth had said she had presented, but which--like every other claim she

has made--has been vigorously disputed by someone on this forum or elsewhere? Would you be so

kind as to summarize the content of the paper whose abstract you discovered? That you have found

substantiation for some of her claims leads me to believe you may not be as biased as I have thought.

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. :-)

April 6, 2010

JUDYTH REPLIES ABOUT "HARVEY" AND "LEE" AND THEIR RESPECTIVE HEIGHTS

NOTE: Here is another example where Judyth's argument about heights deserves to be

taken into account. Yet in none of the illustrations I have offered in my last post has

anyone acknowledged that Judyth was making good points or that she was correct!

JUDYTH COMMENTS:

We have a witness who states that Lee Oswald was much shorter, wanted to be called

"Harvey" and lived on Exchange Alley over a ballroom.

We can calculate the approximate height of Lee Oswald, using geometry, when he was

attending Beauregard at the same time that a teacher, Myra DaRouse, said Lee was in her

8th grade homeroom (the only homeroom she held). She has some strong memories of Lee.

But there are problems with her account:

Discrepancies

1) The name "Harvey":

DaRouse said that Lee wanted to be called "Harvey" -- a name Lee told JVB he actually

disliked. But Ed Voebel, whom she mentions as an 'only' friend, (though at least one

other friend is in the records) -- Voebel did not call his friend "Harvey." Voebel called

him "Lee. "

2) "...so I asked him where he lived, and he said on Exchange Alley, down near the river.

So I drove him down, and it was kind of a disgusting place. And I was very glad I didn't

live there. And he lived upstairs over a ballroom (69)."

But Lee (Jack's "Harvey") told me he lived above a pool hall.

And Voebel, I just found out, said the same:

Mr. VOEBEL: He lived over the top of the pool hall.

Mr. JENNER. ... Exchange Alley?

Mr. VOEBEL. Yes; or Exchange Place, whatever you call it.

Notice that Voeble corrects (WC) Jenner and says "Exchange Place..."

In 1963, at least, residents of "Exchange Alley" usually called it "Exchange Place." For

example, Mildred Sawyer:

WC testimony: Mrs . MILDRED SAWYER, 126 Exchange Place, New Orleans,. Louisiana

furnished the following information: ... November 27, 1963....

Would Lee have been more likely to ask the teacher to take him to "Exchange Place"

rather than to "Exchange Alley"?

The Warren Commission liked "Exchange Alley" as it denigrated the address, and it is best

known by that name to researchers today. Did the old lady hear the name "Exchange

Alley" before she was filmed? How much was said between the lady and the researcher

before she was interviewed? Contamination of witnesses is common by researchers who try

to obtain information that they want...sometimes they may ask leading questions or supply

names to 'refresh the memory.'

4) DaRouse also said she held a homeroom in the basement -- the only homeroom she ever

held -- for the 8th graders, but a record exists showing Lee Oswald was on a 3rd floor 8th

grade homeroom roster. I have seen an argument that this is a (naturally) hand-written

record, but who would change Lee Oswald's 8th grade homeroom record, as to which floor

he was on, and why?

"...John Armstrong had recently found a report card or a school record of some kind --

actually a registration card -- for Oswald in the eighth grade that listed his homeroom

as room 303, a room on the third floor. I asked her if that could be consistent with her

homeroom rollcall in the basement; could she have been assigned room 303 despite

actually using the stage in the basement? "No, 303, that's the ninth grade," she said.

"You mean the whole third floor was for the ninth grade?" "Right." Yet this registration

form at the National Archives said Oswald was in room 303 in the eighth grade."

The former teacher said the "whole third floor" was "for the ninth grade"

but the registration card showed Lee Oswald in room 303 for the 8th grade.

Oddity: This teacher said she only had ONE home room throughout her teaching at that

school...She only teaches girls in PE, but 'somehow' made friends with Lee Oswald, who

wanted to be called "Harvey." Yet she does not quite describe his residence correctly.

A record shows the 8th grade was on the third floor, not in the basement, and she

describes the boy about 8 inches shorter than he was described in New York.

She is elderly, however. Did a researcher 'refresh' her memory for her? God forbid.

Still, we have evidence that her memory of Lee H. Oswald's height is faulty:

But before we continue, a word about contaminating witnesses, whether accidentally or

purposefully:

An Example about Ferrie witnesses: I protested the contamination of Ferrie witnesses by

Stephen Roy (David Blackburst) who stated he gathered them together to talk (allowing

dissonances to be resolved-- and to be recorded ---but gahering witnesses together should

never be done by an honest researcher --...differences in tesimony vanish when they are

brought together, 'refreshing' each others' memories. When I told Mr. Roy that he had

done wrong, and that the method was reprehensible, he wroe tha he would do it again, that

it wasn;t wrong. Hence, none of the statements collected on tape or in interviews of

"Ferrie witnesses" after 1998 should be considered as pristine and untainted. Needless to

say, Mr. Roy does not like me very much. Wish I had never spoken to him about it...but it

was important to tell him that his methodology was poor.

5) The most important problem with Myra DaRouse is her statement that:

"Well, I'm about 5'3" now, but I was about 5'4" back then, and I would say he came up to

about here [indicating]. I would say he was about 4'8", 4'6", or about 4'8"."

"That small -- 4'6" or 4'8"?"

"Yeah, he was little, scrawny" (70).

"Myra DaRouse saw Harvey every day at Beauregard in 1955. Myra's description of a 4'6" or

4'8" Lee Harvey Oswald in the spring of 1954 differs considerably with his New York court

and school records -- if this is the same Lee Harvey Oswald. In his 1952-53 school records,

in the two columns marked for the seventh and eighth grades, Oswald's height is listed as 64

inches, or 5'4". He has shrunk eight inches or more since leaving New York (71)."

We should not couch comments in this kind of language. It helps prejudice the reader.

The comment should be something like: "We need to find more records about Oswald in this

time zone to see if this description is accurate."

And if we look for more records, here's what we find:

Lee and his friend Ed Voebel were in the Civil Air Patrol in 1955. We have a photo taken

during a CAP summer campout where Dave Ferrie and Lee are shown in the same photo:

Applying geometry and the rules of perspective, and taking into account that both Ferrie

and Oswald have their heads lowered -- and Ferrie is wearing a helmet that adds ~3" to his

height -- that both are standing with feet separated, which also reduces height somewhat

for each, we can calculate well enough -- because we know the size of the helmets -- and

Ferrie's height --to obtain an adequate estimate of Lee Oswald's height. Ferrie measured

at 5' 9". With the above compensations accounted for, we obtain an approximate height for

Lee Oswald between 5' 3" and 5' 4" in the CAP photo. It is doubtful that Lee Oswald grew

some eight inches in a few months.

Conclusion: The photograph has to be considered more accurate than Myra DaRouse.

Jim writes (which I could not locate):
...to distract attention from the blockbuster post I have just made

about the "missing tooth"

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

April 6, 2010

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.

Since I am responding to your concerns and concede that my description may have been overblown,

how about reciprocating in relation to the question that Howard has raised about your having found

the abstract of a paper that Judyth had said she had presented, but which--like every other claim she

has made--has been vigorously disputed by someone on this forum or elsewhere? Would you be so

kind as to summarize the content of the paper whose abstract you discovered? That you have found

substantiation for some of her claims leads me to believe you may not be as biased as I have thought.

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. :-)

April 6, 2010

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

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.

Since I am responding to your concerns and concede that my description may have been overblown,

how about reciprocating in relation to the question that Howard has raised about your having found

the abstract of a paper that Judyth had said she had presented, but which--like every other claim she

has made--has been vigorously disputed by someone on this forum or elsewhere? Would you be so

kind as to summarize the content of the paper whose abstract you discovered? That you have found

substantiation for some of her claims leads me to believe you may not be as biased as I have thought.

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. :-)

April 6, 2010

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....

April 6, 2010

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

Edited April 23, 2010 by James H. Fetzer

David Andrews · April 6, 2010

Post moved to "JVB in Exile" thread.

Edited April 6, 2010 by David Andrews

April 6, 2010

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

April 6, 2010

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

April 6, 2010

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.

April 6, 2010

JUDYTH OFFERS MORE OBSERVATIONS ABOUT THE EVIDENCE FOR "HARVEY & LEE"

NOTE: In an astute email to Judyth, Pamela observes that Armstrong begins and ends

with the thesis that there were two LHO's, rather than objectively examining evidence

and then allowing readers to weigh and evaluate. That is circular reasoning, and it

complicates any discussion, especially something as complex as this. She is right, of

course, as we are in the process of discovering. Here is more about his "evidence".

JUDYTH REPLIES:

JIM: Notice that Armstrong ONLY refers to the alleged "Oswalds" as "HARVEY" and

"LEE", so be sure you bear that in mind in discussing his work.

JUDYTH: ==yes==

JIM: It is an interesting psychological ploy to induce a presumption that there

ACTUALLY WERE two of them, which our new discoveries seriously undermine.

JUDYTH: ==And it's the same-old, same-old that Lifton uses. Repeat something over and

over and the reader, after a hundred pages, believes it. I might add, repeat ANYTHING

often enough and SOMEBODY will adhere to it.==

JIM: I want to nail down this "missing tooth" fiasco by Armstrong, where he has Lillian

Murret paying for "MARGUERITE" to take LEE to the dentist, when she was HARVEY'S

AUNT, yet according to Armstrong, HARVEY HAD ALREADY MOVED AWAY. This is a

colossal blunder that undermines the integrity of his whole story.

JUDYTH: ==Lillian Murret gives us a clear picture that her sister returned with the same

"Lee" she -- Lillian -- had always known and also loved.==

On page 123 of Vol. VIII, Lillian Murret tells us that her sister, Marguerite, came to New

Orleans with Lee from New York and lived for 2 or 3 weeks with the Murrets.

Mrs. Murret.

Well, that must have been 2 weeks, 3 weeks. She was looking for a place to stay, and Robert

was coming out of the service, and so that's when she found this place over on Exchange Alley

before Robert came in, and she met Robert at my house, and they went right over to the

apartment at Exchange Alley that she had found, but Robert left. He wouldn't stay in New Orleans.

<snip>

Mr. Jenner.

What was Lee doing during that time?

Mrs. Murret.

He was going to school.

Mr. Jenner.

When they came back from New York and stopped at your home and lived with you temporarily,

did he go to school?

Mrs. Murret.

Yes; he did. That's when she enrolled him at Beauregard Junior High.

Jenner reminded Mrs. Murret that Marguerite and Lee had at first lived elsewhere before finding the

apartment at Exchange Place, and it becomes clear that the arrival of Robert from the service is

linked to Lillian's memory about Exchange Alley: Robert didn't like it there and moved to Texas,

which he considered his home territory.

Mr. Jenner.

Now, tell me about Lee Harvey Oswald during the couple of weeks that he spent at your house.

Did you notice any change in him from the time you had known him previously? He would now have

been about 3 years older; isn't that right?

Mrs. Murret.

Yes, sir; like I said, they had just come from New York, and she had told me about him not

wanting to go to school, but she enrolled him over at Beauregard School, which wasn't too far from

my home. It's a school ...

pg. 124

Mrs. Murret.

....on Canal Street, and it's just a few blocks after you get off of the bus from Lakeview, so she

enrolled him there, and she gave him my address for the school, and I think, or I'm quite sure, that

while he was there he was having trouble with some of the boys at the school.

Lillian then describes the problems Lee H. Oswald had at school, and she mentions that he's called

"Lee." she says he didn't start trouble, others did. Here we see the pasaage that Armstrong says

shows the person is "Harvey" -- called a "Yankee" and sitting in the back of the bus.

Within this passage (underlined) we see that Lillian gave Marguerite money to take Lee to the dentist.

In her version, the tooth did not get knocked out, but this may be a separate incident:

Mrs. Murret.

Well, I can only tell you what I was told. I don't know anything myself that happened, but I can

tell you what he told me, or what he told her of what happened. He said that they were calling him

"Yankee," and so forth, names like that, and this one time he got into the bus and he sat in a seat

in the Negro section, which he didn't know, because he had come from New York, and he didn't

know that they sat in special seats, so he just got on the bus and sat down where he could.'

==Armstrong makes an error at this point, saying that the "New York" "Harvey" just didn't know

about the segregated buses, as "Lee" -- raised in the "south" -- would. But he's wrong. Lee had lived

in Texas, prior to moving to New York, and while there were some segregation issues there, the Ft.

Worth area did not have a significant "black" population, as did New Orleans, but, rather, a Hispanic

population of concern. ==

"The bus stopped in front of the school, and you can hardly get a seat anyway, so he just ran to the

bus and jumped on and got a seat, like I said, in the Negro section, and the boys jumped him at the

end of the line. They jumped on him, and he took on all of them, and of course they beat him up,

and so he came home, and that was the end of that. He didn't say anything to me about that.

"Another time they were coming out of school at 3 o'clock, and there were boys in back of him and

one of them called his name, and he said, "Lee," and when he turned around, this boy punched him

in the mouth and ran, and it ran his tooth through the lip, so she had to go over to the school and

take him to the dentist, and I paid for the dentist bill myself, and that's all I know about that, and

he was not supposed to have started any of that at that time."

"Now, at the Beauregard School at that time, they had a very low standard, and I had no children

going there and never did. My children went to Jesuit High and Loyola University, but they did have

a very bad bunch of boys going to Beauregard and they were always having fights and ganging up

on other boys, and I guess Lee wouldn't take anything, so he got in several scrapes like that."

==We do not even have to go that far into it, folks.

When LEE returns to New Orleans, he is supposed to be "Harvey." Yet his aunt always

calls him "Lee." Everybody in New Orleans calls him "Lee". Nobody says, "Welcome back,

Harvey, long time no see." Nobody ever, ever says, "He asked me to call him Harvey."

Just one teacher said that. Upon her elderly shoulders rests the entire thesis that "Harvey"

attended Beauregard. It does not suffice that she mentions Voebel as "Harvey's" friend.

Do you see any record of a "Harvey" at Beauregard?

I don't--show me one in Armstrong's book. The witness clearly says "Harvey" lived where

"Lee" lived. So we are supposed to believe that the "two Oswalds" both attended the same

junior high school and even lived at the same address?==

JVB

For Jim/Judyth

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest James H. Fetzer

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment