Jump to content
The Education Forum

EVIDENCE FOR HARVEY AND LEE (Please debate the specifics right here. Don't just claim someone else has debunked it!)


Jim Hargrove
 Share

Recommended Posts

Jonathan is correct. I'm not sure what point John Butler was trying to make, but his post certainly does not answer my question. Perhaps he could have another go, and explain exactly what he was getting at.

Here's the problem that the 'Harvey and Lee' folks have so far failed to solve:

The hypothetical masterminds behind the hypothetical 'Harvey and Lee' scheme needed to come up with a false defector who understood Russian and had a convincing American background.

What made them decide to implement a complicated and implausible long-term scheme involving two unrelated boys who they hoped would grow up to become virtually identical, and two unrelated women who already happened to be virtually identical, when a far more straightforward alternative was available?

What process of reasoning would have led them to that decision?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

9 hours ago, Robert Charles-Dunne said:

which would be rather normal for a traveling consultant

Convenient?  Seems a huge stroke of good fortune and one cannot fault her for jumping on a man who seemed a good thing.

which again would be rather normal for a traveling consultant.

on people who died ten years previous

you don’t know whether he was one of the “most well-paid,” only that he was paid well.  Presumably because he was a hell of good traveling consultant.

Couldn't agree more with your praise for EBASCO.  Top points to them for microfilming documents even ten years after an employee died.  Had they not done so, perhaps we wouldn't know even what little we do. 

Which would be highly suspect, right?

Your mileage may vary.

You admit that multiple mysterious addresses are indeed connected to Harvey and Lee, which is what we're discussing at the moment. If you don't want to find it suspicious, that's your call. But, by your own admission, there were mysterious multiple addresses for Ekdahl, and the existence of mysterious multiple addresses for Harvey and Lee is what we are debating at this point. I guess you concede that point?

Ekdahl was a well-paid professional who just happened to have no fixed address for ten years and just happened to work for a big company that couldn't or wouldn't reveal the records of where he worked in a ten-year period. Again, very convenient.

Where did the sources regarding Fort Worth come from anyway, and why wasn't that information provided by Ebasco? It was just luck, I suppose. The information just happened to fall anonymously from the sky. Information that was apparently floating around freely in Fort Worth, but not recorded in the New York City office records of Ebasco.

Of course Marguerite would have jumped on her good fortune. Marrying a well-paid professional man who endlessly travels? Sign her up! And think about lucky Ekdahl, working at cities all over the country, and just happening to fall for a single mom of three in Fort Worth. I'd say he got lucky too. She's quite the catch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Didn’t we just go through this?  In fewer words?

4 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:

You admit that multiple mysterious addresses are indeed connected to Harvey and Lee, which is what we're discussing at the moment.

I’ve “admitted” no such thing.  Said nothing about H&L’s addresses; only Ekdahl’s.

4 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:

If you don't want to find it suspicious, that's your call. But, by your own admission, there were mysterious multiple addresses for Ekdahl

No, by my own admission, I found nothing suspect in a traveling consultant having more than one address in the ten years he worked for EBASCO.  You keep trying to characterize it differently, but I’m perfectly capable of saying what’s on my mind, rather than have you put false words in my mouth.

It is “mysterious” to you.  For me, no sale.  Like you said, “it’s my call.”  And I’ve made it.

4 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:

and the existence of mysterious multiple addresses for Harvey and Lee is what we are debating at this point. I guess you concede that point?

Debate H&L addresses all you like.  Shouldn’t be necessary at this late date, if you’ve got everything sussed.  Speaks for itself, really.  But I’ll concede that you debate addresses I’ve not mentioned.  Have at it.

4 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:

Ekdahl was a well-paid professional who just happened to have no fixed address for ten years and just happened to work for a big company that couldn't or wouldn't reveal the records of where he worked in a ten-year period. Again, very convenient.

It’s only “convenient” when viewed through the H&L-coloured lens.  For those of us who do not wear such a lens, there’s no “convenient” mystery to explain.  

There was a time in my life when I had legal addresses in 3 cities in two different countries.  It was due to the nature of my business then that I split time between them.  So, which of my 3 addresses was real?  I’d say whichever one I was residing in at the time.  H&L Holy Writ would say that my having 3 addresses means I didn’t really live at two of them because.... who does?

Strangely enough, I believe John Armstrong himself has several homes.  Which top secret CIA experiment is he trying to hide by keeping more than a single dwelling?

4 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:

Where did the sources regarding Fort Worth come from anyway

Presumably the Bureau asked its informants, and checked with EBASCO employees.  Now that we’ve learned something from it, you’d like that to evaporate.  Best of luck to you.

4 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:

and why wasn't that information provided by Ebasco?

Asked and answered, twice.

4 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:

It was just luck, I suppose. The information just happened to fall anonymously from the sky. Information that was apparently floating around freely in Fort Worth, but not recorded in the New York City office records of Ebasco.

You then complain about all the things we don’t know about Ekdahl’s career thanks to EBASCO hiding his vital career trail information.

When in fact, ALL we know about his time with EBASCO came from EBASCO.  

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10548#relPageId=3&search=ebasco

You know the line that says “... the microfilm of the employment of EDWIN A. EKDAHL was incomplete but did reflect the following....”  

Some reason his record couldn’t have been scuttled completely?  Because, you know, CIA and such?  Top-secret doppelganger project...

4 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:

Of course Marguerite would have jumped on her good fortune. Marrying a well-paid professional man who endlessly travels? Sign her up! And think about lucky Ekdahl, working at cities all over the country, and just happening to fall for a single mom of three in Fort Worth. I'd say he got lucky too. She's quite the catch.

Rich people marry poor people all the time.  Had it been a good marriage it would have lasted longer than it did.  And homely people marry each other all the time, each hoping to receive something  from the other.  So?

Edited by Robert Charles-Dunne
typo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/22/2021 at 10:24 AM, John Kowalski said:

Will be looking forward to reading the updates.

Do you know if he has found any connection between Edwin Ekdahl and ONI?

John,

I asked John A. about this and he said no, he had found no direct evidence for that.  It is interesting, though, that Marguerite once worked for the U.S. Navy.

As Mr. Zartman is showing, though, the secretive nature of Mr. Ekdahl’s many travels, coupled with his uh… surprising support for the Oswald family,  certainly leaves open the possibility that he was associated American intel.

The updates are continuing.  The longest in this batch, by far, are for The Early Lives of Harvey and Lee.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

I asked John A. about this and he said no, he had found no direct evidence for that.  It is interesting, though, that Marguerite once worked for the U.S. Navy.

It's also interesting that Ekdahl joined the navy during WWI and worked at the New London Connecticut Experimental Station. This station developed submarine detection devices that could be used by the navy to locate and destroy German U-boats. I would not be surprised if the ONI had some connection to, or an interest in the work been done there.

After the war he departed for Shanghai China, which was known as a mecca for intrigue. He was employed by a company called Amos & Bird which was an dried egg exporter. This company was bought out by Midland Packing. His passport applications indicated that he was going to travel to Japan as well. What would an egg company want with an electrical engineer? Maybe his employment was a cover for collecting technological developments in China and Japan pertaining to the military. As an engineer he would be qualified to evaluate these type of developments.

ONI cover jobs were known as "cloaks." There is a good possibility that Ekdahl's cloak was an electrical engineer working for an American Company in China. Below is a quote from The Office of Naval Intelligence the Birth of Americas First Intelligence Agency 1865-1918 by Jeffrey M Dorwat:

p.138 “Naval intelligence did not rush a safe cracker to Peking but displayed unusual ingenuity in covering its Far Eastern agents with clever cloaks. A female employee of Bonwit Teller & Company toured Asia on a clothes-buying trip while collecting information for ONI. At the same time, Welles hired the curator of mammals at the American Museum of Natural History as an operative for China. The office supplied him with $4.00 a day and instructions to transmit messages to Gillis in invisible ink. “It is hoped good use can be made of his abilities and cover,”

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jim Hargrove said:

John,

I asked John A. about this and he said no, he had found no direct evidence for that.  It is interesting, though, that Marguerite once worked for the U.S. Navy.

As Mr. Zartman is showing, though,

Sorry, Jim.... but could you point out where Denny Z. is “showing” any of what you subsequently claim on his behalf?  I’ve been reading Denny’s stuff and I seem to have missed it.

(And, just for clarification, I’ve liked much of what I’ve read from D.Z.  Don’t want to seem like I’m picking on him, when my issue is with the Holy Writ.)

1 hour ago, Jim Hargrove said:

the secretive nature of Mr. Ekdahl’s many travels

Again with this “secretive nature of his travels?”  Upon what do you base this flaccid canard?  

How “secretive” can travels be when one brings one’s wife?

Seems to me if he were taking his indiscreet wife on his travels - as we’ve seen in this very thread - she must likewise have been given a TOP SECRET double-oh prefix.  Would I find those in ONI files since she purportedly worked for the US Navy?

1 hour ago, Jim Hargrove said:

coupled with his uh… surprising support for the Oswald family

What’s surprising is that you assume he supported them.  Testimony was given that Marguerite paid for the sons’ military academy stays.  Testimony was also given that she grew increasingly disenchanted with Ekdahl precisely because he was too tight with a dollar.  When they traveled, she wasn’t even provided with small amounts for incidentals, and instead constantly had to ask for whatever she needed.  

The generosity to which you allude may not be quite as boundless as you imply.  It certainly didn't include the sons.  And, turns out not so much for the wife, either.

You DO know all of this, don’t you Jim? 

1 hour ago, Jim Hargrove said:

certainly leaves open the possibility that he was associated American intel.

ANYONE might possibly have an association with US Intel.  Do you have the slightest evidence - by which I mean any single thing - to indicate Ekdahl has such an Intel affiliation?  If so, please provide it.  If not, a simple “no” will suffice.

Hey, my dad’s been dead for over a decade, and his employment records are incomplete, so he must have been the Man From U.N.C.L.E. right?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The H & L detractors sound pretty much the same.  Are they the same person?  Or, perhaps people working in the same group sharing ideas?

I'm just wondering?  Can't be true or is it?  Why does Robert Charles-Dunne have a photo that does not show his face.  I am pretty sure he is who he says he is, but the lack of a photo identity might mean something or not?  Just curious.

Is this a good definition of Gaslighting?:

"Gaslighting is an insidious form of manipulation and psychological control. Victims of gaslighting are deliberately and systematically fed false information that leads them to question what they know to be true, often about themselves. They may end up doubting their memory, their perception, and even their sanity. Over time, a gaslighter’s manipulations can grow more complex and potent, making it increasingly difficult for the victim to see the truth."

 

Edited by John Butler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, John Butler said:

The H & L detractors sound pretty much the same.  Are they the same person?  Or, perhaps people working in the same group sharing ideas?

You mean like when Larsen, Josephs, Newbie, Hargrove, Butler et al, organize their responses to critics?  

I don’t believe I’ve ever exchanged an email with Jeremy, or Jonathan, or Mark or.... Can you say the same?  Project much, JB?

28 minutes ago, John Butler said:

I'm just wondering?  Can't be true or is it?  Why does Robert Charles-Dunne have a photo that does not show his face.  I am pretty sure he is who he says he is, but the lack of a photo identity might mean something or not?  Just curious.

Well, as everyone knows, my photo is indistinct in order to hide my true identity as a shape shifting space lizard entity, who works for US intel but gets paid by Nabisco.

 

28 minutes ago, John Butler said:

Is this a good definition of Gaslighting?:

"Gaslighting is an insidious form of manipulation and psychological control. Victims of gaslighting are deliberately and systematically fed false information that leads them to question what they know to be true, often about themselves. They may end up doubting their memory, their perception, and even their sanity. Over time, a gaslighter’s manipulations can grow more complex and potent, making it increasingly difficult for the victim to see the truth."

This is the single best description I’ve yet seen of the H&L Syndrome.

Project much, JB?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John Butler writes:

Quote

The H & L detractors sound pretty much the same.  Are they the same person?  Or, perhaps people working in the same group sharing ideas?

For the record, I've never communicated privately with Robert, Jonathan, Tracy, Bernie, Mark, or any of the other "H & L detractors" who haven't yet been banned from this forum.

As far as I'm aware, they are all separate people and they are all real: none of them is a Russian-speaking Hungarian refugee doppelganger with sloping shoulders and a 13-inch head. Also for the record and as far as I'm aware, none of us has got together and tried to suppress criticism by persistently complaining to the moderators.

John,

Have you had a chance to refine your thinking on the matter I raised earlier? I'm curious to see what relevance Frank Wisner has to the question I asked. By the way, you can brush up your knowledge of Wisner and his émigrés at https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t2419-the-mullberry-bush#36830.

Here's a reminder of the question you and the other 'Harvey and Lee' folk have so far been unable or unwilling to answer:

If those hypothetical masterminds actually existed, and if they really did set up a long-term double-doppelganger scheme, they must have decided that that scheme, despite being very complicated, was more suited to their needs than the very straightforward alternative I described earlier. Why, in your opinion, did they choose the double-doppelganger scheme rather than the other one?

I'd be interested to learn your view of this. Being a 'Harvey and Lee' enthusiast, you must have considered the question. What conclusion dd you come to?

What reasoning would have led those hypothetical masterminds to make that decision?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/25/2021 at 1:28 PM, Jonathan Cohen said:

This doesn't answer Jeremy's question. Just because the "talents" of Eastern European refugees were "exploited" after World War II, how does that in any way support the specific implementation of a long-term doppelganger project involving the variables Jeremy outlined above (two boys who maybe, just maybe, would grow up to look identical, two identical mothers, etc.) ?

The use of the double man or double spy is ancient and not something of the present.  It is a useful spy technique.  Twins are best or triplets.  Or, people that resemble each other closely, like the Oswalds.  The reasoning behind having such a tool in your spy bag of tricks is obvious.  One twin does something say in New York.  Gets blamed for it.  But, has an alibi in Los Vegas established by the other half.  Twin or look alike in New York goes free.  Consider the Bolton Ford incident. 

WWII was the beginning of espionage on a national level in the US.  I believe it was Simpson, Secretary of State, in the 30's said gentlemen don't read others mail.  However, we did have a long term intelligence agency that did most of the spy work before the OSS.  This was the ONI, Office of Naval Intelligence.  Many believe Oswald was a tool of the CIA and the ONI,  and believe his military service in the Marines was more than likely supervised by the ONI.

I will repeat again:

On 6/25/2021 at 9:58 AM, John Butler said:

From Harvey and Lee via Jim Hargrove:

Frank Wisner was a Wall Street lawyer and during WW II worked for the Office of Strategic Services (predecessor of the CIA). After World War II ended thousands of Eastern European refugees were brought to the United States under his supervision. National Security Council (NSC) records show that Wisner, the CIA's director of clandestine operations, oversaw the re-location of thousands of anti-Communist exiles to the United States as a means of rewarding them for conducting secret operations against the Soviets. Wisner became the CIA and State Department’s expert on European war refugees, and secretly subsidized the refugee relief organizations that brought these Eastern Bloc refugees to the United States throughout the 1940s and early 1950s.

Wisner and his group recognized they could use these Eastern European immigrant's knowledge, customs, and familiarity with their respective homelands. Wisner asked the National Security Council (NSC) to sanction the “systematic” use of such refugees, and they (the NSC) agreed. The NSC soon issued a top-secret intelligence directive (NSCID No. 14), which even today remains "classified," that authorized both the FBI and the CIA to find and jointly exploit the knowledge, experience, and talents of well over 200,000 Eastern European refugees resettled in the USA. The CIA soon contacted the Displaced Person's Commission (DPC), which worked closely with the leaders of refugee organizations in the USA. DPC chairman Ugo Carusi sent a memorandum to all refugee organizations in the USA that read: “We would like to advise that the U.S. Commission [DPC] has a formal agreement with the CIA to cooperate in every possible way to facilitate their programs. It is, therefore, altogether desirable that local representatives of the voluntary agencies and State Commissions and Committees make available to fully identified CIA agents the addresses of displaced persons.”

I might add as a foot note that along with Frank Wisner, Allen Dulles was involved with this.  He was stationed in Switzerland as the most important OSS agent.  Switzerland and Dulles were the main conduit of refugees into the US during the war years.

  

Edited by John Butler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

It was Lee Oswald who visited Robert (Oswald his brother)and Vada in September ...  (September 1959)

Armstrong writes on page 249 of H&L

Quote

 

On page 395 of H&L Armstrong he writes: 

June 14- Ar rival  in Fort  Worth 
On June 14 at 7:30 pm Robert Oswald picked up Marina,  HARVEY (not Roberts brother), and June at Love Field in  Dallas. 

 

And that is, what Robert Lee Oswald has to say on the evening of Nov. 25.11.1963 when interviewed by SS Agent Howard at SIX FLAGS HOTEL: 

Quote

 

Question, by J.M Howard US-Secret Service: During this time (when Robert last saw his younger brother, September 1959 and the day he picked up his younger brother at Dallas Lovefield nearly three years later) ... during this time did you notice any change in him as you remembered him before he went to Russia? 

Answer, Robert Lee Oswald: No, Sir I did not. HE APPEARED TO ME AT THAT TIME TO BE THE BOY I HAVE ALWAYS KNOW. 

(...)
Question, SS agent Howard: Did he (LHO) ever mention to you(after LHOs return to the US) that he was distress or upset about anything that had happened to him to the point where he might become violent?

Answer Robert Lee Oswald: No, Sir, I did not. AND I RESTATE MY FEELINGS AT THE TIME TAT HE RETURNED TO THE UNITED STATES IN THE YEAR 1962 TO ME HE WAS THE BOY I HAD ALWAYS KNOWN, OLDER, BUT STILL THE SAME ... 

 

It was his brother Lee Harvey Oswald  who Robert Lee Oswald  saw in September 1959 (they were rabbit hunting together for  last time), and it was his brother Lee Harvey Oswald he picked up at Lovefield/Dallas at June 14th 1962 ... and Lee harvey Oswald was acc. to his brother ... THE BOY I HAD ALWAYS KNOWN ... 

But Armstrong know better: Lee left his brother in September 1959 and some Lee- impostor HARVEY ( a Hungarian born refugee who spoke Russian, Hungarian and English, raised in New York) came back in 1962 ... of course  ...

Robert Lee Oswald was the last close relative who saw his brother LHO (at a hunting trip mid September 1959)just days before he went to Russia. And he was the first close relative who saw LHO when he picked him(and Marina) up at Lovefield airport June 14th 1962 ... an acc. to hom:  HE WAS THE BOY I HAD ALWAYS KNOWN ...Robert Lee Oswald said that on November the 25th 1963 about 30 hours after the murder of his brother in his first interview with government officials. Not once but twice ... 

 

Edited by Karl Kinaski
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/27/2021 at 10:01 AM, John Kowalski said:

It's also interesting that Ekdahl joined the navy during WWI and worked at the New London Connecticut Experimental Station. This station developed submarine detection devices that could be used by the navy to locate and destroy German U-boats. I would not be surprised if the ONI had some connection to, or an interest in the work been done there.

I think you're being generous with that assessment, John. I can't see any situation where naval intelligence wouldn't be working hand in hand with the engineers making the submarine detection equipment. Of course, I am sure there are those here who will insist that Ekdahl was just mopping floors.

On 6/27/2021 at 10:01 AM, John Kowalski said:

After the war he departed for Shanghai China, which was known as a mecca for intrigue. He was employed by a company called Amos & Bird which was an dried egg exporter. This company was bought out by Midland Packing. His passport applications indicated that he was going to travel to Japan as well. What would an egg company want with an electrical engineer? Maybe his employment was a cover for collecting technological developments in China and Japan pertaining to the military. As an engineer he would be qualified to evaluate these type of developments.

ONI cover jobs were known as "cloaks." There is a good possibility that Ekdahl's cloak was an electrical engineer working for an American Company in China. Below is a quote from The Office of Naval Intelligence the Birth of Americas First Intelligence Agency 1865-1918 by Jeffrey M Dorwat:

 

 

p.138 “Naval intelligence did not rush a safe cracker to Peking but displayed unusual ingenuity in covering its Far Eastern agents with clever cloaks. A female employee of Bonwit Teller & Company toured Asia on a clothes-buying trip while collecting information for ONI. At the same time, Welles hired the curator of mammals at the American Museum of Natural History as an operative for China. The office supplied him with $4.00 a day and instructions to transmit messages to Gillis in invisible ink. “It is hoped good use can be made of his abilities and cover,”

Excellent post and relevant analysis, in my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Three observations about people not believing in the H&L theory because of the complexity involved:

First, in my opinion it's not that complex, at least not at the beginning. It just involves some cold hearts and long-term logistical planning. The 2018 documentary film "Three Identical Strangers" demonstrated a real-life twin experiment (in that case triplets) that dated back to their babyhood. Private scientific experiments and projects are often preceded by military ones.

Second, we're trying to reverse-engineer the entire "Oswald Project", and then criticize the logic behind it. We truly don't know if the plan was changed at some point or points in time, or what all the intended goals were.

Finally, it seems to me that not believing in it because it's unnecessarily complex when there was a much easier alternative is akin to not believing in animation because it's far easier and more cost-effective to point a camera at an actor for an hour and come away with an hour of footage than it is to pay a dozen or more people to work for weeks sitting at drawing boards drawing and coloring every frame.

As John Butler pointed out above, the concept of lookalike spies was not at all a new one in 1963, and in my opinion it doesn't seem to be completely out of the realm of possibility that there could have possibly been a relatively sophisticated attempt at creating a better lookalike spy starting in the early 1940's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John Edward Pic:

Quote

Mr. JENNER - Do you see somebody in that picture that appears to be your brother?
Mr. PIC - This one here with the arrow.
Mr. JENNER - The one that has the printed arrow?
Mr. PIC - That is correct, sir.
Mr. JENNER - And you recognize that as your brother?
Mr. PIC - Because they say so, sir.
Mr. JENNER - Please, I don't want you to say--
Mr. PIC - No; I couldn't recognize that.
Mr. JENNER - Because this magazine says that it is.
Mr. PIC - No, sir; I couldn't recognize him from that picture.
Mr. JENNER - You don't recognize anybody else in the picture after studying it that appears to be your brother? When I say your brother now, I am talking about Lee.
Mr. PIC - No, sir.

-

Quote

Mr. JENNER - Then right below that is a picture of a young man standing in front of an iron fence, which appears to be probably at a zoo. Do you recognize that?
Mr. PIC - Sir, from that picture, I could not recognize that that is Lee Harvey Oswald.
Mr. JENNER - That young fellow is shown there, he doesn't look like you recall Lee looked in 1952 and 1953 when you saw him in New York City?
Mr. PIC - No, sir.
Mr. JENNER - Commission Exhibit No. 284 do you recognize anybody in that picture that appears to be Lee Oswald?
Mr. PIC - No, sir.
Mr. JENNER - There is a young fellow in the foreground-everybody else is facing the other way. He is in a pantomime, or grimace. Do you recognize that as Lee Harvey Oswald?
Mr. PIC - No, sir; looking at that picture and I have looked at it several times--that looks more like Robert than it does Lee, to my recollection.
Mr. JENNER - All right. On Exhibit No. 286, the lower right-hand corner, there is another picture. Do you recognize that as your brother Lee in that picture?
Mr. PIC - Yes, sir; that is about how he looked when I seen him in 1962, his profile.
Mr. JENNER - Do you recognize the person, the lady to the right who is pointing her finger at him?
Mr. PIC - No, sir; I don't.
Mr. JENNER - Exhibit No. 287 is two figures, taking them from top to bottom and in the lower right-hand corner, do you recognize those?
Mr. PIC - No, sir; I don't.
Mr. JENNER - Neither one of them?
Mr. PIC - No, sir. The lower one appears to me to look like Robert rather than Lee. The upper one, unless they tell me that, I would never guess that that would be Lee, sir.
Mr. JENNER - All right. Exhibit No. 288, there is ill the lower left-hand corner, there is a reproduction of a service card and a reproduction, also, of a photograph with the head of a man. Do you recognize that?
Mr. PIC - That looks to me approximately how Lee Oswald looked when I seen him Thanksgiving 1962.
Mr. JENNER - Directing your attention to Exhibit, Commission Exhibit No. 289, do you recognize any of the servicemen shown in that picture as your brother Lee?
Mr. PIC - No, sir; I do not recognize them.
Mr. JENNER - Exhibit No. 290, the lower left-hand corner there is a photograph of a young lady and a young man. Do you recognize either of those persons?
Mr. PIC - He appears to me as Lee Harvey Oswald in 1962 when I seen him.
Mr. JENNER - And the lady?
Mr. PIC - She is his wife, Marina, sir.
Mr. JENNER - Commission Exhibit No. 291, at the bottom of the page, there is a picture of a young man handing out a leaflet, and another man to the left of him who is reaching out for it. Do you recognize the young man handing out the leaflet?
Mr. PIC - No, sir; I would be unable to recognize him.
Mr. JENNER - As to whether he was your brother?
Mr. PIC - That is correct.

-

Quote

Mr. JENNER - How did he look to you physically as compared with when you had seen him last?
Mr. PIC - I would have never recognized him, sir.
Mr. JENNER - All right. Your brother Robert said something along these lines. You had last seen him in 19-- that was prior to this occasion, the last time you had seen him was when he was in New York City?
Mr. PIC - Which was a little over 10 years.
Mr. JENNER - Well, just about 10 years.
Mr. PIC - Yes, sir.
Mr. JENNER - Of course you had seen him in February 1953, I think you said.
Mr. PIC - Right. But we walked in and he walked out.
Mr. JENNER - But you saw him?
Mr. PIC - Right, I had seen him for a moment.
Mr. JENNER - He was then at that particular time in the neighborhood of 13 years of age?
Mr. PIC - Yes, sir.
Mr. JENNER - Now, when you saw him 10 years later he was 23.
Mr. PIC - Yes, sir.
Mr. JENNER - You noticed, did you, a material change, physically first, let's take his physical appearance?
Mr. PIC - Yes, sir. Physically I noticed that.
Mr. JENNER - What did you notice?
Mr. PIC - He was much thinner than I had remembered him. He didn't have as much hair.
Mr. JENNER - Did that arrest your attention? Was that a material difference? Did that strike you?
Mr. PIC - Yes, sir; it struck me quite profusely.
Mr. JENNER - What else did you notice about his physical appearance that arrested your attention?
Mr. PIC - His face features were somewhat different, being his eyes were set back maybe, you know like in these Army pictures, they looked different than I remembered him. His face was rounder. Marilyn had described him to me when he went in the Marine Corps as having a bull neck. This I didn't notice at all. I looked for this, I didn't notice this at all, sir.
Mr. JENNER - He seemed more slender?
Mr. PIC - Yes, sir.
Mr. JENNER - He had materially less hair?
Mr. PIC - Yes, sir.
Mr. JENNER - His eyes seemed a little sunken?
Mr. PIC - Yes, sir.

-

Quote

Mr. PIC - Yes; he and I, all three of us collected stamps. I played chess with Lee quite a bit and Robert, too. We all did this. Played monopoly together, the three of us.

When I approached him on this knife-pulling incident he became very hostile towards me. And he was never the same again with me.
Mr. JENNER - That was the first time he had ever been hostile in that sense towards you?
Mr. PIC - Yes, sir.
Mr. JENNER - And that rupture was never repaired thereafter?
Mr. PIC - No, sir.
Mr. JENNER - Did you have the impression when you saw him on Thanksgiving of 1962 that in the meantime he had become embittered, resentful of his station?
Mr. PIC - Well, sir; the Lee Harvey Oswald I met in November of 1962 was not the Lee Harvey Oswald I had known 10 years previous. This person struck me as someone with a chip on his shoulder, who had these purposes I mentioned, to do something about.
Mr. JENNER - What purposes?
Mr. PIC - To repay the Government and get his discharge changed.

https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/pic_j.htm

-

Robert Edward Lee Oswald:

Quote

Mr. JENNER. Do you recognize any of the persons depicted in that spread picture?
Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir; I do, but only one.
Mr. JENNER. Identify the one you recognize, and locate it in the picture.
Mr. OSWALD. I recognize Lee Harvey Oswald being in the foreground of the picture, approximately in the center of the picture.
Mr. JENNER. Would you identify him with this brush pencil?
Then on Exhibit 288, which is page 74-B of this issue of Life Magazine, there appears at the bottom a reproduction of identity cards. I direct your attention to the left-hand identity card upon which appears a photograph, a reproduction of a photograph. Do you recognize that?
Mr. OSWALD. I would have to say that he appears heavier, his face is fuller, he has more hair on his head, but the eyes and the nose and the mouth are Lee Harvey Oswald's. I had not studied that picture before. But he does seem to be quite fullfaced, if that is the terminology to use there, and much more hair on his head-- there again in relation to the hair I am assuming here this photograph of Lee was taken after he returned from Russia.
Mr. JENNER. I would rather not have you assume anything at the moment. Do you identify that as a reproduction of a picture of your brother?
Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir; I do.

https://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/oswald_r.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...