TWO MARGUERITE OSWALDS -- NEW DETAILS

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Questions for Sandy Larsen and Jim Hargrove.

Where did "Harvey" live from September, 1953 until January, 1954? Why does the school record for "Harvey" show 809 French St.? And since "Lee" also attended Beauregard, where are his records?

[W. Tracy Parnell]

While we are waiting for Jim and Sandy to respond, I propose a new series called "Harvey & Lee Howlers." In this series, I'll examine some of the more dubious claims made by Armstrong in his book. Of course, when working with Armstrong, there are many levels of "dubious." Here is the first post:

On May 1, Youth House Psychiatrist Renatus Hartogs, a colleague of Dr.Kurians, examined Lee Harvey Oswald...
Dr. Hartogs' physical description of Oswald as a well-built boy was consistent with descriptions of Lee Oswald by fellow students of Ridglea West Elementary School
in Fort Worth a year earlier. It is also consistent with New York health records that recorded Oswald's height at 5-foot-4-1/2, less than a month after his interview with Dr.
Hartogs. But Dr. Hartogs' physical description of the Oswald he interviewed was in sharp contrast to the boy interviewed by Dr. Kurian, who described Oswald as a 13-year-old youth who appeared quite small for his age, and stood no more than 4-foot-6 or 4-foot-8 (Dr. Kurian was 5-foot-7). In 1965 Dr. Hartogs wrote a book titled "The Two Assassins" in which his physical description of Oswald was in sharp contrast to his physical description of Oswald in 1953. The "well-built boy," as described by Dr. Hartogs in his 1953 report, was now described as "A slender, dark-haired boy with a pale, haunted face ..... I remember thinking how slight he seemed for his thirteen years. He had an underfed look, reminiscent of the starved children I had seen in concentration camps." Dr. Hartogs' two very different physical descriptions
of Oswald remain unexplained and he appears to be describing two different boys.

Question for Jim, David and Sandy-is Armstrong really trying to convince us that Hartogs saw both Harvey and Lee and how did that work?

Edited March 10, 2017 by W. Tracy Parnell

[Jim Hargrove]

3 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Questions for Sandy Larsen and Jim Hargrove.

Where did "Harvey" live from September, 1953 until January, 1954? Why does the school record for "Harvey" show 809 French St.? And since "Lee" also attended Beauregard, where are his records?

For much of 1953, Harvey and phony Marguerite lived at 825 E. 179th St. in the Bronx. Harvey was enrolled at PS 117, and then Youth House, and then PS 44.  During this same period, LEE and real Marguerite lived at 1455 Sheridan, also in the Bronx, while Lee attended PS 44.

During the spring and summer months of 1953, Harvey’s truancy and run-ins with New York authorities were starting to get out of hand, which would eventually result in demands for court appearances late in the year.  I suspect that Harvey’s handler(s) began to worry that identification requirements in NYC courts for “mother” and/or “son” would threaten to expose the Oswald Project still in its early stages.

That’s probably why phony Marguerite and Harvey fled to North Dakota in the summer of 1963.  Left to handle the mess were real Marguerite and her real son Lee, who eventually solved the problem by fleeing also.

By September 1953, Harvey and phony Marguerite had moved to New Orleans and began living at 126 Exchange St.  Harvey began his full semester as a part-time student at Beauregard.  A few months later, faced with trying to tidy up the mess Harvey and phony Marguerite had made in NYC, real Marguerite and Lee also also fled to New Orleans, where they first stayed with her  genuine sister Lillian Murret at her little frame house at 809 French St.  

In January ‘54, on or around the start of the second semester of the 1953-54 school year, Lee entered Beauregard School, and was assigned home room 303 on the third floor.  (Harvey’s homeroom was in the basement cafeteria.)   Since Lee was briefly with the Murrets, that’s probably why the Beauregard records listed 809 French St. as his address.  He soon moved to 1454 St. Marys St. in New Orleans and continued to attend BJHS.

[Jim Hargrove]

TO TRACY PARNELL:

I’ll be happy to have a discussion with you about Hartogs, Kurian and Youth House, but first I want answers from you that I have been asking for days.

First, give me a real explanation for how school records clearly indicate that Harvey Oswald attended school part time in New Orleans at the same time Lee Oswald attended school full time in NYC for the full fall semester of 1953.  Don’t just say it is an error.  Explain how full records can come into being that list course names, attendance records, and passing or failing grades.  How does this type of error occur?

Second, explain to me why you choose to declare that witnesses interviewed by John Armstrong are wrong or ly1ng without any evidence at all except to say they can’t be right because there was only one Oswald.  That’s almost always the only argument you’ve got.  Then explain to me why you believe in the integrity of the FBI reports and testimony, even though I’ve put up a half-dozen or so examples of J. Edgar Hoover and his FBI’s clear dishonesty.  Why do you believe the FBI and not John Armstrong’s witnesses?  Only one of the two has been proven to be dishonest, and that isn't John Armstrong.

I’ll put up the FBI Treachery post again if you’ve forgotten it.  Please give me some answers that make sense to these two questions.

Edited March 10, 2017 by Jim Hargrove

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Quote

 

By September 1953, Harvey and phony Marguerite had moved to New Orleans and began living at 126 Exchange St.  Harvey began his full semester as a part-time student at Beauregard.  A few months later, faced with trying to tidy up the mess Harvey and phony Marguerite had made in NYC, real Marguerite and Lee also also fled to New Orleans, where they first stayed with her  genuine sister Lillian Murret at her little frame house at 809 French St.  

In January ‘54, on or around the start of the second semester of the 1953-54 school year, Lee entered Beauregard School, and was assigned home room 303 on the third floor.  (Harvey’s homeroom was in the basement cafeteria.)   Since Lee was briefly with the Murrets, that’s probably why the Beauregard records listed 809 French St. as his address.  He soon moved to 1454 St. Marys St. in New Orleans and continued to attend BJHS.

 

I want to take this one step at a time. In September, 1953 "Harvey" moved to NO and lived at 126 Exchange. CE 1413, p. 817 is supposed to be "Harvey's" school record. but why does it say 809 French? "Lee" lived at 809 French briefly not "Harvey" as you point out. 

Now, besides CE 1413, p. 817, what are the records that lead you to believe that "Harvey" attended Beauregard part-time while "Lee" was in NYC?

As for your other question, the witnesses are not necessarily lying, people can believe all sorts of things, especially when confronted with a "witness recruitment program."

[W. Tracy Parnell]

49 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

That’s probably why phony Marguerite and Harvey fled to North Dakota in the summer of 1963.  Left to handle the mess were real Marguerite and her real son Lee, who eventually solved the problem by fleeing also.

Two questions-why North Dakota of all places and where is the document Armstrong allegedly saw that shows Mosby's handwritten notes say "North Dakota" instead of New Orleans?

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/parnell/h%26l4.htm

[Jim Hargrove]

Since Tracy can't seem to remember this, I’m reposting below the PS 44 record from New York City, and below that the Beauregard cumulative record, and below that two pages from an FBI report analyzing the Beauregard data.  NYC PS 44 records clearly indicated that LHO attended more than 62 school days (and was absent three and a fraction days) for the semester beginning 9/14/53 at the NYC school.

 

 



 

Page 10 of the FBI report summarizes the attendance data in the “Absent,” “Tardy,” “Left” and “Re-Ad” columns, which are explained, according to the FBI agents, starting at the bottom of page 10 and continuing to page 11 by William Head, assistant principal at Warren Easton High School, who received the Beauregard records for incoming students.  The FBI’s summary of Head’s explanation has caused Greg Parker and Tracy Parnell to argue against David Josephs and me for years, because Head seemed to say two contradictory things.

At the bottom of page 10, the FBI indicates he said that the “Re ad” column stood for “Re Admitted” and “would represent a total listing of the school days for a given school year.”  But later in the very same paragraph, now at the top of page 11, the report indicates that Head said a school year regularly consisted of 180 days and that “school days in any given year must not fall below 170” and that “therefore the numbers listed opposite this abbreviation indicated the number of school days that Oswald attended for a given school year.”

So which is it?  Does the “Re-Ad” column represent the number of school days in a school semester or year, or the number of days a student actually attended during that period?

The answer is right before us in the documents shown above.  In the actual Beauregard cumulative record for LHO (top document above), look at the very last entry on the far right under the “Re-Ad” column.  It shows a total of “168” days for the 1954-55 school year.  Tracy Parnell wants you to believe that number, like the numbers in the “Re-Ad” column for the previous school year, represent the number of total days in the school year.

But that can’t be!  Head indicated that Louisiana law dictated a minimum of 170 school days in a school year, and so if we’re to believe Tracy’s interpretation, every student report card at Beauregard for the 1954-55 school year was evidence that Louisiana law was being broken.  On the other hand, using my interpretation (that the “168” indicated the actual days LHO attended school) we can make perfect sense of these numbers.  Adding Oswald’s 168 days of attendance and his 12 absences comes out to exactly 180 days, just what Head said comprised a typical Beauregard school year!

The “Re Ad” column clearly indicates the number of days a student actually attended school.  So let’s look at the first semester of the 1953-54 school year at Beauregard.  It indicates that Oswald attended 89 days and was absent once, for a total of 90 school days.

For the 1953 fall semester at PS 44 in New York, Oswald attended 62 and a fraction days and was absent three and a fraction days for a total of 66 school days accounted for.  Add those 66 days to the 90 days from Beauregard and you get at total of 156 days, equivalent to nearly an entire school year! Despite whatever spin Tracy cares to put on this, the NYC and Louisiana school records for fall semester starting in 1953 clearly show two Lee Harvey Oswalds attending two different schools at the same time!

As to Parnell's question, Why does the French St. address appear on the Beauregard record, I'm anxious to hear his explanation.  Clearly, real Marguerite and Lee Oswald were in NYC during the earliest semester covered by this cumulative record, and not at the Murrets. Two schools, two cities, two Oswalds.
 

 

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Jim,

I was just asking if there was anything other than the documents you posted previously. Apparently there isn't, but thank you for posting these all together so we can see them. As I have explained and as Parker has explained in the past numerous times, the issue is simply how the documents are interpreted. The H&L guys have shown their way which is based on what Head told the FBI, that is not right. Greg Parker has offered another way to read these records in his book and has kindly posted an excerpt here:

https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1361-creating-mayhem-with-historical-records

We know when LHO started at Beauregard because it says January 14, 1954 under "originally admitted." We also know that this is supposed to be "Harvey's" record so there is no reason for it to say 809 French since you just told us he lived at 126 Exchange. Another point is since according to you guys the FBI had no problem changing records, why did they let Head's explanation stand and risk people like yourselves later exposing the plot?

But, I think we need to move on to other issues. You guys have a theory and we have countered it. Everyone can decide who they want to believe at this point. I'll post a summary of the issue when I get time.

[W. Tracy Parnell]

We are all familiar with the concept of Occam’s Razor-the simplest explanation is likely correct. With that in mind:  

To accept the H&L scenario regarding the NYC/Beauregard school records you must:

Believe the explanation of Wilfred Head to the FBI. Seems reasonable. But since the H&L team believes the FBI falsified records whenever necessary, why would they allow Head’s explanation to be released to the public where it could be later discovered by the H&L sleuths and thus reveal the plot?

Believe that although “Harvey”, according to H&L, moved to 126 Exchange and entered Beauregard in September, 1953, the record says he started January 13, 1954 and lived at 809 French St.

If you believe the above, you have to believe that either “Harvey” also lived at 809 French, or that the records were falsified. If you believe the former, you have to explain how Lillian Murret could risk having both “Harvey” and “Lee” live with her at different times. After all, anyone could happen by her place and she would have to explain “Harvey” being a long lost relative to someone who could potentially know better. If you believe the records are falsified, you have to show how and who was in on the plot to do this. You also have to explain what happened to “Lee’s” records.

Believe that no one noticed that there were two boys named “Oswald” attending the same school-one named Lee and one named Harvey. We know that the name Harvey was used because that is what Armstrong’s star witness Myra DaRouse stated. Why was “Harvey” never recorded in school photos or documented in any other way? Remember, LHO was in yearbooks and candid photos that eventually became available. What was to stop anyone with a camera from taking a picture and exposing the plot or documenting “Harvey” in some other way?

Believe that Ed Voebel knew both “Harvey” and “Lee” and never became suspicious. Voebel never mentioned to authorities after the assassination that he had known not only LHO but another Oswald boy named Harvey. Why wouldn’t he think this information was relevant? BTW, Armstrong thinks Voebel was one of the “mystery deaths” but they waited until 1971 to do the job for some unexplained reason.

To accept that there was only one Lee Harvey Oswald you must:

Believe that Head could have been wrong and the explanation Greg Parker offered is reasonable. 

Edited March 10, 2017 by W. Tracy Parnell

[Jim Hargrove]

15 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Jim,

I was just asking if there was anything other than the documents you posted previously. Apparently there isn't, but thank you for posting these all together so we can see them. As I have explained and as Parker has explained in the past numerous times, the issue is simply how the documents are interpreted. The H&L guys have shown their way which is based on what Head told the FBI, that is not right. Greg Parker has offered another way to read these records in his book and has kindly posted an excerpt here:

https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1361-creating-mayhem-with-historical-records

We know when LHO started at Beauregard because it says January 14, 1954 under "originally admitted." We also know that this is supposed to be "Harvey's" record so there is no reason for it to say 809 French since you just told us he lived at 126 Exchange. Another point is since according to you guys the FBI had no problem changing records, why did they let Head's explanation stand and risk people like yourselves later exposing the plot?

But, I think we need to move on to other issues. You guys have a theory and we have countered it. Everyone can decide who they want to believe at this point. I'll post a summary of the issue when I get time.

Tracy has provided a link above to Greg Parker’s latest version of his ever-changing explanation of the overlapping NYC/New Orleans school records for “Lee Harvey Oswald.”  Near the end of his screed Mr. Parker writes, “Anyone with two firing brain cells and without a turd to polish and sell….” and “you should soon be able to see your own faces in that feces.”  Nice associates you have, Tracy!

The rest of Mr. Parker’s write-up is about as relevant as his scatologies, but he does debut a tiny new line of thought.  It is entirely contained in the following sentence:

The point is that though the Re Ad figure equates to the number of days attended in the 54-55 school year, the assumption that this would also be the case for the 53-54 year is incorrect because Oswald was not enrolled for the entire period.   

Hey, don’t take my word for it, follow Tracy’s link above and see for yourself.  Mr. Parker wants us to believe that the number of days attended (as listed in the “Re Ad” column in the Beauregard cumulative record) had one meaning in the 54-55 school year, and an entirely different meaning the previous year.

Tracy, I’ve asked you again and again and again to explain, in your own words, how this “error” as you refer to it could have occurred.  How does an entire school semester, including course names, attendance records, and pass or fail marks get invented out of thin air?  Mr. Parker clearly does not have the answer you claim.

I’d be happy to provide short, clear descriptions in my own words of how the Beauregard record could have been created, at least one possibility not involving FBI malfeasance.  The fact that you can’t or won’t do the same speak volumes.  

Edited March 11, 2017 by Jim Hargrove

[Jim Hargrove]

Tracy’s comments are in black, my responses are in red.

 

To accept the H&L scenario regarding the NYC/Beauregard school records you must:

 

Believe the explanation of Wilfred Head to the FBI. Seems reasonable. But since the H&L team believes the FBI falsified records whenever necessary, why would they allow Head’s explanation to be released to the public where it could be later discovered by the H&L sleuths and thus reveal the plot?

 

The FBI made a mistake and missed it. This entire cover-up was led by the FBI, and they did a reasonably good job, but they inevitably made mistakes. Striking an entire human being off the official record is a complicated task, even for an organization with the talent and resources of the FBI. We are reconstructing what happened based on evidence the FBI failed to hide or correctly modify.

 

Believe that although “Harvey”, according to H&L, moved to 126 Exchange and entered Beauregard in September, 1953, the record says he started January 13, 1954 and lived at 809 French St.

 

American-born LEE Oswald, briefly living with the Murrets at 809 French St. probably enrolled at Beauregard at the start of the 2^nd semester on 1/13/54. We can’t say for sure how Russian-speaking HARVEY’s info from the previous semester got onto LEE’s cumulative record, but it clearly did and there are several reasonable guesses as to how. One is that an office worker at Beauregard who took LEE’s enrollment information started to file it and then noticed the previous semester’s info for the exact (or nearly exact) same name. Logically assuming it was the same student, the fall semester info was added to LEE’s spring semester enrollment info, all the data eventually being transferred to the cumulative record.

 

Or, equally likely, some FBI flunky created the whole record designed to merge the identities of two different students and didn’t remember or know about the NYC conflict.

 

If you believe the above, you have to believe that either “Harvey” also lived at 809 French, or that the records were falsified. If you believe the former, you have to explain how Lillian Murret could risk having both “Harvey” and “Lee” live with her at different times. After all, anyone could happen by her place and she would have to explain “Harvey” being a long lost relative to someone who could potentially know better. If you believe the records are falsified, you have to show how and who was in on the plot to do this. You also have to explain what happened to “Lee’s” records.

 

You need to least make an effort to comprehend the analysis you are trying to debunk, Tracy. The records that exist today are almost entirely Lee’s. Lee stayed briefly at 809 French St., was in homeroom 303 on the third floor, as the records show, while Harvey was in the homeroom in the basement. The question is, how did Harvey’s records from the spring semester get on Lee’s cumulative record? I’ve suggested two possibilities immediately above, and I’ve been asking and asking for you to give one in your own words, but you won’t.

 

Believe that no one noticed that there were two boys named “Oswald” attending the same school-one named Lee and one named Harvey. We know that the name Harvey was used because that is what Armstrong’s star witness Myra DaRouse stated. Why was “Harvey” never recorded in school photos or documented in any other way? Remember, LHO was in yearbooks and candid photos that eventually became available. What was to stop anyone with a camera from taking a picture and exposing the plot or documenting “Harvey” in some other way?

 

Look at photographs of the Beauregard school building. It was, and remains, a big school. If you have a “Lee Harvey Oswald” on the third floor and a “Lee Harvey Oswald” or “Lee H. Oswald” in the basement, who’s going to notice, except perhaps the central office record keepers, which may explain the cumulative record we have now. And as I’ve said many times, Russian-speaking Harvey Oswald clearly only had half a life. Time and again he was given a taste of American-born Lee Oswald’s world, and soon removed, probably to avoid as much as possible showing up on official records, in yearbooks, and the like. Harvey was probably pulled out of Beauregard and placed in Stripling for the very reasons you describe.

 

Believe that Ed Voebel knew both “Harvey” and “Lee” and never became suspicious. Voebel never mentioned to authorities after the assassination that he had known not only LHO but another Oswald boy named Harvey. Why wouldn’t he think this information was relevant? BTW, Armstrong thinks Voebel was one of the “mystery deaths” but they waited until 1971 to do the job for some unexplained reason.

 

No, you’re misrepresenting the facts again, Tracy. It was Ed Voebel’s father, not John Armstrong, who told the HSCA he thought his son’s death was suspicious. It was Ed’s father who said his son’s doctor asked if the kid had been around poisons recently.

 

To accept that there was only one Lee Harvey Oswald you must:

 

Believe that Head could have been wrong and the explanation Greg Parker offered is reasonable.

 

Greg Parker has not offered any explanation at all. Again, why don’t you try?

[W. Tracy Parnell]

Time to move on from this subject Jim. I have offered a simple explanation for the records, you don't accept it which is understandable since you would have to give up the H&L fantasy. The members here can decide. Now, it is time for another edition of "Harvey and Lee Howlers." We saw that Jim would not answer howler #1, which has Armstrong inexplicably trying to convince us that Renatus Hartogs saw both Harvey and Lee.

Howler #2

After Harvey's "defection" the short, dumpy, heavy-set "Marguerite Oswald" imposter kept a low profile and avoided interviews with the press, for fear that people who had known the real Marguerite Oswald might realize that she was a different person. She soon left Fort Worth and began to work in small towns in north Texas. NOTE: If a photograph of the "Marguerite Oswald" imposter had appeared in Fort Worth newspapers following his "defection," then anyone who had known the tall, nice-looking Marguerite Oswald in Dallas during the past few years would have realized she was a different woman.

Completely defying all logic, Armstrong makes it seem like this situation would have only existed in 1959 and that by 1963 sufficient time would have elapsed for people to forget. This is nonsense, of course, and anyone who had known the “tall, nice-looking Marguerite Oswald” at any time in her life through 1958 when she supposedly disappeared would have come forward when they saw the “impostor” on TV or in the newspapers and reported that this Marguerite was a phony. This, of course, never happened and several people who knew the “real” Marguerite testified before the WC or gave FBI statements.

http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-two-marguerites-part-2.htm

 

[Jim Hargrove]

7 hours ago, W. Tracy Parnell said:

Time to move on from this subject Jim. I have offered a simple explanation for the records, you don't accept it which is understandable since you would have to give up the H&L fantasy. The members here can decide. Now, it is time for another edition of "Harvey and Lee Howlers." We saw that Jim would not answer howler #1, which has Armstrong inexplicably trying to convince us that Renatus Hartogs saw both Harvey and Lee.

Tracy,

Do you really think anyone who bothers to read significant portions of this long thread won’t notice your third-rate debate tricks here? You have not “offered a simple explanation” for the overlapping New York City/New Orleans school attendance records, or even a complicated explanation of those records, or any explanation at all.  All you do is claim to have done so when you in fact haven't, point to other websites, point to other threads on this site, and try to make it all go away.  You have no explanation.  Greg Parker has no explanation.  And neither of you can man up enough to face it.

Fine.  I’m going to continue to bring this up again and again, as well as your obvious unwillingness to condemn the FBI’s proven malfeasance in the Kennedy case.  But for now, let’s discuss what I’m calling…

PARNELL’S PRATFALL #1

Since you bring up the book above, let's begin by seeing what John ACTUALLY wrote about Drs. Renatus Hartogs and Milton Kurian.  See my next post for the three-page excerpt from Harvey and Lee. The write-ups on the two doctors comes near the end; the rest is for context.  At the appropriate places I've added document images from the CD accompanying the book.

[Jim Hargrove]

The Warren Commission tries to investigate Oswald's childhood

 

After the assassination the Warren Commission assigned a young staff attorney,

John Hart Ely, to locate, gather, and organize information on the background of Lee

Harvey Oswald and his family. Ely, like so many US citizens in the early 1960s, trusted

our government and the FBI.

 

Ely was a young attorney, not an investigator, and depended upon the FBI to

interview Oswald's friends, classmates and relatives, and furnish their reports to the

Commission. A few months into his work, after receiving only a handful of FBI reports

relating to Oswald's background and early life, Ely became concerned. He communi­-

cated his concerns about the FBI's apparent lack of investigation into Oswald's back­-

ground with fellow Warren Commission attorneys.

 

A short while later John Ely read articles in Life Magazine and found that re­-

porters had interviewed Oswald's grammar school classmates in Fort Worth. He could

not understand why the FBI had not interviewed those same people and began to re­-

alize that the FBI had not conducted a thorough investigation into Oswald's background.

 

Ely compiled a list of 13 people who had been interviewed by Life Magazine

and, on March 20, 1964, wrote a memo to Wesley J. Liebeler. Ely wrote, "once again let

me urge that we should not have to rely upon Life Magazine for such a list. The FBI

should undertake a systematic investigation and interview of Oswald's closest school

friends."²⁶ Copies of the memo were sent to Warren Commission Attorneys Rankin,

Willens, Jenner and Meek. ^53-02

 

 

Ely continued to gather FBI reports, Warren Commission testimony, Commis­-

sion documents, Secret Service reports, etc. in an attempt to piece together the life and

background of Lee Harvey Oswald and his family. Ely wrote hundreds of pages of

memorandums which were used in preparing the Warren Report, that are now located

in the National Archives.

 

Assembling, sorting, analyzing, and writing memorandums and a final report on

Oswald's background left Ely little time to resolve discrepancies. From his memoran­

dums it is apparent that Ely was aware of certain discrepancies in Oswald's life, but it

is not known if he realized their significance or made any attempts to resolve them.

 

One discrepancy known to Ely is contained in a letter written by Dr. Milton

Kurian, a New York Psychiatrist and former president of the American Psychiatric As­

sociation, to Jackie Kennedy after the assassination. ^53-03 Dr. Kurian told Mrs. Kennedy

that while working with the New York Court system, in March 1953, he interviewed

young Oswald in his office. W hen John Ely reviewed the letter, he realized that Dr.

Kurian had interviewed Oswald several weeks before Oswald appeared in court and was

remanded to the Youth House.

 

 

 

Ely wrote, "he (Kurian) states that the interview (with Oswald) occurred toward

the end of March, 1953; however, in view of the fact that he refers to a report from Youth

House which had been prepared prior to his seeing the boy, it must have been later in

that year."²⁷ Ely, without ever contacting or interviewing Dr. Kurian, concluded the

doctor must be in error and did no further checking. Had Ely telephoned Dr. Kurian,

the good doctor could have told him about his meeting with Lee Harvey Oswald. Ely

should have made the call.

 

NOTE: If Ely did not have the time to interview Kurian, he could have asked the FBI

to interview him.

 

In 1964 Ely wrote a 26-page memorandum about Oswald's life from 12/26/42 to

9/28/56.²⁸ The memorandum contained information from Oswald's interviews with pro­-

bation officer John Carro, Psychiatrist Renatus Hartogs, social worker Evelyn Strickman,

psychologist Irving Sokolow, and staff reports from Youth House, but did not mention Dr.

Kurian.

 

It is difficult to understand why Ely would not be interested in the professional

opinion of a New York psychiatrist who was the past president of the American Psychi­-

atric Association, and had interviewed young Oswald in 1953. Ely never bothered to

telephone or contact Dr. Kurian, even though Kurian's letter, stating clearly that he had

interviewed Oswald, was in his file.

 

Dr. Milton Kurian

 

In 1997 I telephoned Dr. Milton Kurian at his home in Leeds, MA and listened

carefully as he described his interview with Lee Harvey Oswald in 1953. Dr. Kurian

clearly remembered the interview as it occurred on his last day of work for the Domestic

Relations Court as he was cleaning out his desk.

 

Dr. Kurian remembered that his receptionist opened the door to his office and

asked if he had time to see one of the probation officers. Dr. Kurian explained the event

as he remembered, "I was soon in conversation with a young probation officer who was

extending himself in order to assist a boy in trouble. The probation officer had a report

from the Youth House where the boy had seen a psychologist. The probation officer was

anxious to understand the findings and recommendations contained in the report so that

he could formulate a recommendation to the judge of the Domestic Relations Court."²⁹

 

After Dr. Kurian read the report, he remarked to the probation officer that it was

often difficult to review another person's work. He explained that he always felt more

comfortable speaking directly with the individual before passing judgment. The pro­-

bation officer then escorted a slender, underdeveloped young boy into Dr. Kurian's of­

fice and introduced him as Lee Harvey Oswald.³⁰

 

Dr. Kurian was surprised when told that Oswald was 13 years old as he appeared

quite small for his age and stood no more than 4-foot-6 or 4-foot-8 (Dr. Kurian was 5-

foot-7.

 

NOTE: Oswald's height of 4-foot-6 or 4-foot-8 was in sharp contrast to New York school

records, which are published in the Warren Volumes and list Oswald's height a month later

(May, 1953) at 5-foot-4-1 /2. ^53-04

 

 

Dr. Kurian said, "Young Oswald slowly entered my office and looked behind the

door and around the small room as if expecting to find someone else. He was very quiet

and introverted. I began speaking with him in order to see if he would furnish informa­-

tion about himself.

 

He told me about his mother's 5 marriages (the tall, nice-looking Marguerite

Oswald was married 3 times) and how his step-fathers, with the exception of one man,

were cruel to him (the only step-father Oswald knew was Edwin Ekdahl when Oswald

was 6-8 years old). He spoke of his brothers who he said often provoked him to the point

of 'blind rage.' One brother would hold his head at arms length and would laugh as

young Oswald flailed the air in an attempt to strike his brother. He explained that he

never went to school but, on occasion, his brother would substitute for him and take his place

in school. "³¹

 

NOTE: Dr. Kurian was unaware that Oswald's two brothers were much too old, and

physically too large, to substitute for their 13-year-old brother in the 7th grade. Robert,

the closest brother in age to Lee, was almost 19 years old and in the Marines. John Pic

was 21 years old, married, and in the Coast Guard. W ho was the young boy who occa­-

sionally took Oswald's place in school? It was certainly not one of his brothers.

 

Dr. Kurian said, "I sensed that Oswald was withdrawn from the real world and

responded to outside pressures to a degree necessary to avoid the disturbance of his

residence in a fantasy world. My impression was the boy was mentally ill, an illness

which actually began in his mother's childhood." Dr. Kurian's conclusion was that

Oswald was a sick boy who belonged in a hospital for children. This was the first and

only time Dr. Kurian saw young Oswald, and the interview occurred on his last day of

work at the Domestic Relations Court. The interview with Oswald was spontaneous

and, as a result, Dr. Kurian made no written record. After the assassination Dr. Kurian

telephoned the FBI, spoke with an agent, and described his interview with young

Oswald in 1953. The agent thanked him, but never re-contacted him nor made any

effort to interview him in person.

 

NOTE: In 1997 Dr. Kurian and his wife, Sue, attended a JFK conference in Dallas.

Kurian spoke briefly about his interview with Oswald in 1953 and answered questions

from the audience.

 

Two reports from the Youth House

 

On May 1, 1953 Evelyn Strickman requested progress reports on Oswald, which

were subsequently written by staff members who worked the day and evening shifts.

CR Caffee wrote, "Lee is a quiet, well developed boy that seems to have adjusted fairly

well to the routine of the floor and house. He gets along well with the rest of the group

and there hasn't been many (sic) occasions for reprimand for altercations and no fights."^53-05

 

But V.F. Rainey, who worked the PM shift, had a different opinion and wrote, "Lee,

as has been reported by way of Special Behavior Report, has been apart both bodily and

mentally from the group and its activities. When he is on the floor, he usually sits to him­

self and reads what ever is available. He does not communicate with the supervisors

other than when he is asked a direct question, and then his answer is very terse." ^53-06

 

Dr. Renatus Hartogs

 

On May 1, Youth House Psychiatrist Renatus Hartogs, a colleague of Dr.

Kurians, examined Lee Harvey Oswald. Hartogs summarized his report on Oswald and

wrote, "This 13-year-old well built boy has superior mental resources and functions only

slightly below his capacity level in spite of chronic truancy from school which brought

him into Youth House. No finding of neurological impairment or psychotic mental

changes could be made. Lee has to be diagnosed as 'personality pattern disturbance with

schizoid features and passive-aggressive tendencies. "'³²

 

Dr. Hartogs' physical description of Oswald as a well-built boy was consistent

with descriptions of Lee Oswald by fellow students of Ridglea West Elementary School

in Fort Worth a year earlier. It is also consistent with New York health records that re­-

corded Oswald's height at 5-foot-4-1/2, less than a month after his interview with Dr.

Hartogs.

 

But Dr. Hartogs' physical description of the Oswald he interviewed was in sharp

contrast to the boy interviewed by Dr. Kurian, who described Oswald as a 13-year-old

youth who appeared quite small for his age, and stood no more than 4-foot-6 or 4-foot-

8 (Dr. Kurian was 5-foot-7).

 

In 1965 Dr. Hartogs wrote a book titled "The Two Assassins" in which his physi­-

cal description of Oswald was in sharp contrast to his physical description of Oswald in

1953. The "well-built boy," as described by Dr. Hartogs in his 1953 report, was now

described as "A slender, dark-haired boy with a pale, haunted face ... I remember thinking how

slight he seemed for his thirteen years. He had an underfed look, reminiscent of the starved chil­-

dren I had seen in concentration camps."³³ Dr. Hartogs' two very different physical descrip­-

tions of Oswald remain unexplained and he appears to be describing two different boys.

 

--from Harvey and Lee, pp. 56-59, Copyright © 2003 by John Armstrong. Reproduced here with author’s permission. 

Document images from the CD accompanying the book are incorporated at the footnoted locations above.

 

 

Edited March 11, 2017 by Jim Hargrove

[Jim Hargrove]

“The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.” 

― Leo Tolstoy