One Question re: Two Oswalds

[Sandy Larsen]

4 minutes ago, Mark Knight said:

So where is Lee today?

Simple question.

And where had he been since 1963?

 

 

Simple answer.... we don't know.

Obviously loose ends like that would have been cleaned up one way or another after the operation became compromised. The CIA certainly would not have allowed everybody to go their merry ways.

If it were my job to wrap it up, I would have enrolled Lee and the real Marguerite in a secret witness program.

I don't know how relatives close to the real Marguerite were dealt with. For example, when seeing the fake Marguerite in newspapers.

 

[Mark Knight]

Qui habeus corpus?

Who has the body? Where is the box? 

We know that comedian Vaughn Meador's career ended on November 22, 1963. So did the career of the false Oswald? So he was never seen again...

[Sandy Larsen]

2 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

You can't deal with the fact that you're incapable of giving innocent explanations to what the hard evidence shows.

Really?  Remind me again:  You did WHAT to determine whether the Mystery Money Order really should have had bank endorsements?

 

What did I do? I found the regulations indicating that postal money orders require bank stamps!

Which you were never able to refute. You just came up with some theory on how you thought Federal Reserve member bank should operate! And nothing to support your belief.

 

Quote

You did WHAT to determine whether the P.S. 44 / Beauregard Junior High Educational Records Mystery really exists or is easily explained by state and local educational officials in NY and LA? 

I didn't have to do anything... I just pointed out that the school records show Oswald taking classes at both PS 44 in NYC and Beauregard in New Orleans during fall term 1953. Anybody capable of reading charts can see that.

That is the debate you and I had where you conceded. The impression I got was that you do have trouble reading charts.

 

 

Edited April 17, 2018 by Sandy Larsen

[Jim Hargrove]

21 minutes ago, Mark Knight said:

Qui habeus corpus?

Mark,

I think the birth LHO probably died soon after the assassination of JFK, but John may disagree.  To just begin looking at the possible answers to your question, Google this:

donald o norton and john armstrong

 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Obviously loose ends like that would have been cleaned up one way or another after the operation became compromised.

But no cleaning up beforehand, thereby leaving the 8,000 "clues" on which Armstrong bases his theory?  Odd, huh?  Those wacky conspirators - geniuses on Monday, Wednesday and Friday, the Three Stooges on Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday.

 

21 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Which you were never able to refute. You just came up with some theory on how you thought Federal Reserve member bank should operate! And nothing to support your belief.

No, I came up with a plethora of federal regulations, Federal Reserve bulletins and case law by which I, as a practicing lawyer for 35 years, demonstrated that endorsements would not appear on a 1963 money order deposited in a bank that was a member of the Federal Reserve system.  You, as a pretend lawyer and H&L apologist, came up with a convoluted interpretation that you insist is preferable to mine.

21 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I didn't have to do anything... I just pointed out that the school records show Oswald taking classes at both PS 44 in NYC and Beauregard in New Orleans during fall term 1953. Anybody capable of reading charts can see that.

That is the debate you and I had where you conceded. The impression I got was that you do have trouble reading charts.

To paraphrase Mark Twain, the reports of my concession have been greatly exaggerated.  Where in the world did you get that idea?  I left you and anyone who agrees with you with a challenge to contact state and local educational officials in NY and LA and see if they agree those records show simultaneous attendance at those two schools.  Those "incapable of reading charts" include Greg Parker, Little Old Lance and a veritable army of folks.  Before declaring victory, contact those state and local educational officials - I triple dog dare you.

Edited April 17, 2018 by Guest

[Michael Clark]

23 hours ago, Mark Knight said:

.......I don't doubt there was at least one imposter sighted during 1963, ..........

Mark, in the last 10:00 minutes of this video, during a Q&A, one can see that the consensus for two Oswald's is expanding, going back to his time in Russia.

 

[Jim Hargrove]

HarveyandLee.net

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Lance,

If you'd like to give the name calling a break and do some actual online research, try Googling this:

          lee harvey oswald and donald o norton

You will learn that John did a vast amount of research into the subject of what may have happened to LEE Harvey Oswald, but in the end decided the results were not worth including even in a book in excess of a thousand pages.  My personal feelings are that the man born as LEE Harvey Oswald didn't survive long after the assassination of JFK.

I turned up gems such as this (from the Deep Politics forum):

Donald O. Norton of Stowe, Ohio was born in 1949 -- which makes him
10 years younger than Lee Oswald. And, it would have made him 14
in 1963. That would seem to rule out Norton being the birth Oswald,
right?

Hmmmmmm, well no, not exactly. Suppose for a moment that a
Donald O. Norton was born in 1949 in Stowe, Ohio in a dysfunctional
family. He went to school there, and he had a real birth certificate and
a real Social Security #. Then something happened -- perhaps he
was killed or MIA in Viet Nam.

If after Lee Oswald killed Tippit, he was to be given a new identity
(name, birth certificate, SS#, etc) rather than given him a bogus,
made up identity what if they gave him Donald O. Norton's ID? All
"they" would need to do was obscure the details of Norton's death.

Few researchers, it seems, are able to grasp this possibility.

"Suppose" and "perhaps" and "possibilities that few researchers are able to grasp" are the lifeblood of fringe conspiracy theories.  I will acknowledge that Armstrong did do some investigation into the possibility that Norton was "Lee" (or "Lee" was Norton or however it was supposed to have worked).  However, this was not the response I received when I originally posed the same question Mark has posed.

[Sandy Larsen]

6 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

27 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Which you were never able to refute. You just came up with some theory on how you thought Federal Reserve member bank should operate! And nothing to support your belief.

No, I came up with a plethora of federal regulations, Federal Reserve bulletins and case law by which I, as a practicing lawyer for 35 years, demonstrated that endorsements would not appear on a 1963 money order deposited in a bank that was a member of the Federal Reserve system.

No, you did NOT demonstrate that the 1963 money order would not have endorsements (bank stamps). That is only what you BELIEVE! You said so yourself in the original thread, and I quote:

I believe that when a PMO was deposited by a payee (such as Klein's) at a bank that was a member of the Federal Reserve system (such as First National Bank of Chicago), the depository bank simply packaged the PMO as a cash item and transmitted it to its Federal Reserve regional bank (in this case the one in Chicago).  There was no need for a Federal Reserve member bank to "endorse" (i.e., stamp) the PMO - the member bank was simply transmitting the PMO to its regional Federal Reserve bank. (Source, see #8)

 

 

6 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

  You, as a pretend lawyer and H&L apologist, came up with a convoluted interpretation that you insist is preferable to mine.

 

Convoluted interpretation? No, I only QUOTED the regulation. Here is is again:
 

Proof that Postal Money Orders required Bank Stamps in 1963

First you need to understand that Federal Reserve Bank requirements are set forth in "circulars" that are issued to member banks. My source for this fact is the Federal Reserve Banks' commercial website, specifically this page:  https://www.frbservices.org/regulations/operating_circulars.html . On that page it is stated:

"Federal Reserve Financial Services are governed by the terms and conditions that are set forth in the following operating circulars."

FRB Circular 4928, dated August 18, 1960, dealt with Postal Money Orders in 1963. Here is a link to that circular:

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/docs/historical/ny%20circulars/1960_04928.pdf

I will now quote the pertinent parts of the circular. You need only read the parts I've highlighted in red.

 

Items which will be accepted as cash items

 

1. The following will be accepted for collection as cash items:

 

(1) Checks drawn on banks or banking institutions (including private

bankers) located in any Federal Reserve District which are collectible

at par in funds acceptable to the collecting Federal Reserve Bank. The

“ Federal Reserve Par List,” indicating the banks upon which checks will

be received by Federal Reserve Banks for collection and credit, is fur­

nished from time to time and a supplement is furnished each month

showing changes subsequent to the last complete list. This list is subject

to change without notice and the right is reserved to return without

presentment any items drawn on banks which may have withdrawn or

may have been removed from the list or may have been reported elosed.

 

(2) Government checks drawn on the Treasurer of the United States.

 

(3) Postal money orders (United States postal money orders; United

States international postal money orders; and domestic-international

postal money orders).

 

(4) Such other items, collectible at par in funds acceptable to the

Federal Reserve Bank of the District in which such items are payable, as

we may be willing to accept as cash items.

 

o

o

o

 

Endorsements

 

13. All cash items sent to us, or to another Federal Reserve Bank

direct for our account, should be endorsed without restriction to the

order of the Federal Reserve Bank to which sent, or endorsed to the

order of any bank, banker or trust company, or with some similar

endorsement. Cash items will be accepted by us, and by other Federal

Reserve Banks, only upon the understanding and condition that all

prior endorsements are guaranteed by the sending bank. There should

be incorporated in the endorsement of the sending bank the phrase,

“ All prior endorsements guaranteed.” The act of sending or deliver­ing a

cash item to us or to another Federal Reserve Bank will, however,

be deemed and understood to constitute a guaranty of all prior

endorsements on such item, whether or not an express guaranty is

incorporated in the sending bank’s endorsement. The endorsement of

the sending bank should be dated and should show the American

Bankers Association transit number of the sending bank in prominent

type on both sides.

 

 

THEREFORE...

Postal money orders did indeed require bank endorsement stamps in 1963.
 

The truth is that bank endorsement stamps were ALWAYS required on postal money orders throughout the 20th century. Even before the Federal Reserve System was set up. I have located legal documents dated 1911, 1925, 1960, 1969, and 2000 showing so.

 

 

[Sandy Larsen]

Lance,

You should be ashamed of yourself. You know that my "proof" is not convoluted. It isn't even an interpretation. All I did was quote the regulation.

PLUS, you know that I am right! You agree with me. The only difference between my claim and yours is the theory you have added regarding how FR member banks collect PMOs differently than non-member banks.

 

[Guest]

Sandy, for God's sake, give it a rest.  You are so far off topic for this thread that my head is spinning.  Food stamp coupons and assorted other items are likewise cash items that are processed through the Federal Reserve - do you think they require bank endorsements?  The portion of the circular you have quoted is simply over-inclusive, which is not uncommon.  In practice, everyone would know that items which by their nature obviously do not require bank endorsements need not be endorsed.  As I pointed out to you previously, by regulation a postal money order can have only one endorsement; what we are really talking about are bank stamps, which are not deemed endorsements and which I do not believe are required when a Federal Reserve member bank simply pays a money order and forwards it through the Federal Reserve system for reimbursement.  You are making a common layman's mistake of thinking you understand how to read statutes and regulations and coming up with an interpretation whereby 2 + 2 = 14.  I cannot tell you how many times (quite a few) that I, AS A HIGHLY EXPERIENCED LAWYER, have very carefully analyzed a set of statutes and regulations and determined what I was CERTAIN needed to be done - only to have those at the agency smile and say, "Yeah, we know that's what it says, but that's not the way it works in practice.  Here's what you actually have to do."  End of discussion - I am not going to continue to humor you.

When I say "I believe" I mean "I believe as an experienced (now retired) lawyer who knows how to read statutes and regulations, understands the basics of commercial paper, has represented and sued banks, and has spent an inordinate amount of time researching this specific issue."  This does not mean I am infallible - as stated above, real-world practices often turn out to be quite different from my best legal conclusions - but it likewise does not mean my belief is on a par with that of a layman named Sandy Larsen who is determined for some reason to go down with the Good Ship Harvey and Lee.  As every lawyer (and judge) knows, the Case From Hell is one where your opponent is a pro se character who thinks he's smarter than the lawyers and knows how to read and apply cases, statutes and regulations.

By the way, whatever happened to Lee and Marguerite II?  Is that relevant to this thread anymore?

Edited April 17, 2018 by Guest

[Sandy Larsen]

33 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

Sandy, for God's sake, give it a rest. 

 

If you want to challenge but not be challenged, then YOU give it a rest.

 

[Gene Kelly]

Mark:

John Judge and Mae Brussell believed that Lee (the Oswald who survived) was one Donald O. Norton who stayed on the move but hung his "hat" (and dyed red hair) in Jupiter and Avon Park FLA.   He ran a fishing bait & tackle shop, but allegedly kept on the move.   he also had something to do with a Las Vegas retirement home (perhaps a safe house) for former intelligence operatives. 

Gene

 

[Jim Hargrove]

Years ago, I decided that Donald O. Norton was NOT the person born as “Lee Harvey Oswald.”  I brought him up only because some people wondered if researchers gave any thought as to what happened to the birth Oswald.

In fact, John Armstrong spent considerable time and money traveling to Jupiter, Florida and other places to examine this very question and he ultimately decided not to even mention it in his thousand page book.  Real evidence just isn’t there.  John also got a picture of Norton, and it doesn’t look much like the Russian-speaking Oswald.  Anyone interested can probably just search for Norton at Baylor's John Armstrong Collection and find the photo.

Bear in mind, though, that there are two Donald Nortons who come up in this case,  Donald O. and Donald P. 

Donald P. was with the CIA.

My personal opinion is that the man born as “Lee Harvey Oswald” probably didn’t live long after the assassination of JFK, probably not much longer than the Russian-speaking Oswald, but that is just a guess. 

[Steve Thomas]

8 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

My personal opinion is that the man born as “Lee Harvey Oswald” probably didn’t live long after the assassination of JFK, probably not much longer than the Russian-speaking Oswald, but that is just a guess. 

Jim,

 

There was also a rumor that he was flown to Mexico and killed down there. Something about the Yucatan? Sorry, I can't offer any specifics.

Like I said, it was just a rumor.

 

Steve Thomas