The Far-Reaching Influence of “Harvey and Lee”

[James Norwood]

2 hours ago, Mark Stevens said:

I again ask everyone. Is Norwood genuinely summarizing my points? Is he giving me honest criticism and feedback?  Is he giving genuine rebuttal to questions and topics I actually presented?

Mark,
It is obvious that you have not read my detailed rebuttal to your points.  Here again is my rebuttal.  Readers can easily make up their minds by reading it and making up their own minds as to whether or not the following is "genuine rebuttal."

James Norwood’s Point-By-Point Rebuttal of Mark Stevens, “The Stripling Episode - Harvey & Lee: A Critical Review”

(1)  Newspaper Coverage of Stripling:  It is a fact that Stripling Junior High School was identified in newspapers as one of the schools attended by Lee Harvey Oswald.  The critic attempts to discount this evidence and faults the reporters for not interviewing teachers and students to verify that Oswald actually attended classes at Stripling.  But when Stripling was first mentioned in the papers in 1959, the focus was on a United States Marine who had defected to the Soviet Union.  The reporters had no obligation to visit the schools to confirm Oswald’s status as a student.  The schools he attended were facts surrounding the greater story of a local boy turned traitor.  In his section on Frank Kudlaty, the critic returns to the newspaper evidence to speculate that “another possibility is that the local FBI was aware of newspaper articles referencing a Marine defector from Fort Worth who attended Stripling” and the article prompted the FBI to pay a visit to Stripling Junior High School to confiscate the school records.  In other words, the newspaper evidence was credible enough for the FBI to lead them to Stripling, but not good enough for the critic to take seriously today. The critic has failed to offer any proof that the newspaper reporting about Stripling was erroneous.    

(2)  Robert Oswald:  Robert Oswald has been a notoriously unreliable eyewitness to history, as apparent in his pseudo biography Lee—A Portrait of Lee Harvey Oswald by His Brother Robert Oswald (1967).  To both newspaper reporters and in his Warren Commission testimony, Robert mentions Stripling as a school attended by his younger brother.  But in his book Lee, Robert studiously avoids mentioning Stripling, while identifying the names of other schools that his brother attended:  Benbrook Elementary School, Ridglea West School, Junior High School No. 117 in the Bronx, Beauregard Junior High School, and Warren Easton High School in New Orleans.  With no reference to Stripling, Robert moves on to Lee Harvey’s enlistment in the Marines on October 24, 1956.  Robert’s pre-assassination statement that his younger brother attended Stripling, as well as his Warren Commission testimony sworn under oath, must be factored in to the complete body of Stripling evidence.  The critic has failed to offer a plausible explanation for why Robert would identify Stripling on multiple occasions to the press and to the Warren Commission, then omit it in his book.     

(3)  Videotaped Interview with Frank Kudlaty:   Stripling Vice-Principal Kudlaty, a man of unimpeachable character, describes in the video interview the transaction he made with FBI agents when he surrendered the file on the student Lee Harvey Oswald that had been maintained in the school’s administrative office.  The critic works up a tortured argument in the attempt to downplay the FBI’s visit to Stripling by suggesting that “on the morning after the assassination the FBI sent agents to all local schools in areas Oswald lived.”  This astonishing statement begs the question of why, one day following the assassination of an American president, the nation’s most powerful law enforcement agency would be expending this much effort to track down school records of the alleged assassin.  Much time is spent by the critic in pure speculation on what might have been included in Oswald’s academic file, when Kudlaty admitted that he only had time to glance at the file before the agents arrived to collect it.  It is obvious that the crucial information that the FBI wanted expunged from the documentary record was that Oswald had been enrolled in a public school in Fort Worth during the academic year 1954-55.  Otherwise, why were the contents of the file never disclosed to the Warren Commission, and why did the file vanish from the historical record?  It is unfortunate that in his zeal to undermine the testimony of Kudlaty, the critic is missing a golden opportunity to understand a key point about the JFK assassination, which is how the FBI was rewriting history in the days and weeks following the event.  One salient point emerges from the testimony of Frank Kudlaty:  he was called in to work on a Saturday morning to hand over to FBI agents the school records related to Lee Harvey Oswald, and the eyewitness has consistently maintained the same account over the years.  The critic is unable to undermine that unassailable fact.         

Note:  It takes a careful reading of the first 120 pages of Harvey and Lee to understand that, for years, Oswald was being intentionally moved around from school to school in order to create confusion and to avoid the exposure of two boys using the same name and attending different schools concurrently.  During the period of 1954-56, there were three consecutive instances in which Oswald enrolled in a school, then suddenly dropped out.  The goal of the constant moves was to keep the two boys separate and buy time until they reached the age when they could permanently drop out of school and enlist in the Marines.

(4)  Videotaped Interview with Fran Schubert:  The critic attempts to undermine Fran Schubert’s description of Oswald as both “cocky” and “nondescript” from her experience of him as a fellow student at Stripling.  Yet this paradoxical thinking is perfectly in keeping with the fragmentary impressions she would have retained of a student whom she had only passed in the halls and noticed occasionally on the playground.  She confidently recalls the academic year 1954-55 as the time when she witnessed Oswald attending the school.  She certainly may be forgiven for uncertainty about identifying the season in a state that does not have clearly defined winters, but she does note the time she remembers Oswald occurred in one of the colder months.  In a more detailed conversation with John Armstrong than the short video interview, Schubert recalled seeing Oswald cross the street to go home for lunch:  “The one thing I remember clearly was him walking home for lunch….it made me mad that he could go home for lunch and I couldn’t.”  Living across the street from the school, young Oswald clearly had a perk that made the memory of him leaving the campus at lunchtime stand out in Schubert’s mind.  The three main points recalled by Schubert are (a) Oswald was a fellow student at Stripling whom Schubert passed in the halls and saw on the playground; (b) the timeframe that Oswald attended Stripling was clearly identified as 1954-55 at a time when Schubert was in the eighth grade; and (c) Oswald would leave the school grounds at lunchtime to walk across the street to his home at 2220 Thomas Place.  The critic fails to offer a persuasive rationale for why Schubert’s recall would be inaccurate on these three points.

Note:  The sources for the following eyewitness testimony of Doug Gann, Bobby Pitts, and Mark Summers are from interviews personally conducted by John Armstrong in the 1990s.  Citations from the interviews appear in the book Harvey and Lee and are carefully documented in endnotes.  Armstrong’s work product in conducting the interviews is documented in the massive Baylor University archive.  Armstrong tape recorded all of the interviews and still retains the complete audio recordings of these interviews.

(5)  Doug Gann:  Gann’s testimony complements that of Fran Schubert, and he recalls actually attending classes with Oswald at Stripling, possibly in the same home room.  He also recalls shooting baskets on the courts after school.  Like Schubert, he also recalls Oswald living across the street from the school.  Inexplicably, the critic dismisses the entirety of Gann’s testimony with the blanket statement, “there does not appear to be any record of Gann’s statements.”  The record is the interview he gave to John Armstrong!  The critic then writes this extraordinary statement: “For me to state with good conscience that Gann saw Oswald, I would have to know how he made the distinction and identified the person as Oswald.”  Here, the critic appears one step removed from stating that all eyewitness testimony is existentially invalid.  If Gann took classes with Oswald and played basketball with him, it naturally follows that he knew the boy’s name and “identified the person as Oswald”!  The fact remains that Doug Gann’s recall is precisely what one would expect from a short-lived acquaintance with a schoolmate with whom he shared classes and shot baskets.  The critic has failed to offer any reasonable explanation for why Gann is not a bona fide eyewitness.

(6)  Bobby Pitts:  Bobby Pitts’ testimony is important for two reasons:  (a) he explicitly recalled Oswald living at 2220 Thomas Place and (2) he recalled the time frame as the academic year 1954-55.  The critic challenges the veracity of Pitts’ testimony, arguing that because Pitts was not a student at Stripling at the time, “how did he know this was Oswald?”  The answer is simple:  Pitts resided next door to Oswald at 2224 Thomas Place.  From his perspective as a neighbor, Pitts observed Oswald sanding on the porch at 2220 Thomas Place watching the group playing touch football.  The critic continues to grasp for ways to undercut the testimony when he writes that “any person who resided in the rear apartment would not ‘hang out’ on the front porch of the apartment, which would be part of the front apartment.”  But the critic has no knowledge of the layout of the duplex and whether or not the front porch may have been shared communally by the two tenants.  Fran Schubert recalls the porch at 2220 Thomas Place as “large.”  It could have just as easily been a place where both residents could “hang out.”  The researcher should not be under the obligation to verify the use of a front porch by the tenants of that building; rather, he is only reporting what Pitts conveyed to him in the interview.  Pitts’ testimony corroborates that of both Fran Schubert and Doug Gann with the clear and distinct recall of Oswald residing at 2220 Thomas Place.  At the time, Pitts was not a student at Stripling, so he could not verify that Oswald was attending school there.  But Schubert, Gann, and Kudlaty are eyewitnesses that do recall Oswald as a Stripling student.  The critic has failed to demonstrate any flaws in Pitts’ basic recall of his experience.

(7)  Mark Summers:  Summers was a gym instructor, math teacher, and war hero who began teaching at Stripling in September, 1950.  He recalled that Oswald was a student in his class in the seventh grade.  But, as the critic points out, this has to be inaccurate because Oswald would have been in the ninth grade in the academic year 1954.  The critic has located an anomaly in Summers’ testimony, as apparent in John Armstrong’s typewritten notes on the Baylor site, which suggest that Summers also recalled teaching Robert Oswald for two years.  On the face of it, this is impossible because Robert only attended Stripling for a single academic year (1948-49), which was one year before Summers began teaching there.  In his written notes taken during the phone interview with Summers and prior to typing up the notes, the single point written by Armstrong was that Summers began teaching at Stripling in September, 1950 and that LHO was student in his seventh-grade class.  The following is a screenshot of Armstrong’s written notes from the Baylor archive:
 

 

I contacted John Armstrong for clarification, and he plans to review his written notes and the audio recording of the complete interview with Summers.  In the interim, I made an attempt to contact Mark Summers myself to learn his story first-hand.  I was able to reach a relative, who informed me that Summers had passed away in 1998.  In his book Harvey and Lee, Armstrong devotes only three sentences to the testimony of Summers.  Based on anomalies in the evidence and the passing of Mark Summers, it is impossible to draw any firm conclusions about whether Oswald was a student in one of Summers’ classes at Stripling.    

(8)  Ricardo Galindo:  In 1993, Armstrong was in touch with the principal of Stripling at the time, Ricardo Galindo, who indicated that it was “common knowledge” that Oswald had attended Stripling.  By “common knowledge,” Galindo presumably means “word of mouth.”  Because Galindo was not the principal at the time the school records were rounded up by the FBI, his testimony carries substantially less weight than that of Frank Kudlaty, who physically handled the records and recalls surrendering them to the FBI agents.  It is not clear why Galindo’s testimony appears to be the capstone piece of the critic’s argument, when it is clearly a much smaller evidentiary piece of the puzzle than that of the eyewitnesses who knew Oswald first hand and recalled specific details about him.

SUMMARY

An objective critic should approach the Stripling evidence impartially, but the bias of Mark Stevens is apparent throughout his review of the evidence.  Stevens uses the same approach to undermining the testimony of the Stripling eyewitnesses that has been used for decades by Warren Commission apologists to discredit “inconvenient” witnesses in Dealey Plaza who heard gunshots fired from behind the picket fence or to impugn the integrity of the medical staff at Parkland who almost universally recalled that President Kennedy had received bullet wounds from shots fired from in front of the limousine.  Stevens offers a valid critique of the anomalies in the interview of Mark Summers.  After I followed up with an interview of a relative and learned that Summers is deceased, I am unable to conclude decisively whether Oswald was a student in Summers’ class at Stripling.  But, for all of the other eyewitness testimony, the evidentiary record is compelling precisely because it is what one would expect about a student who had spent only a couple of months at the school, prior to dropping out.  The recall of shooting baskets, seeing Oswald sitting on a porch, passing him in the halls of the school, or watching him walk across the street to his home at lunchtime, are all examples of the precise kind of memories students would retain about a kid who had spent only a brief time at the school.

CONCLUSION

The most compelling Stripling evidence is (a) the testimony of the school administrator Frank Kudlaty who recalled surrendering the school records to the FBI and (b) that of a student, Fran Schubert, who recalled Oswald attending the school in 1954-55 and living across the street.  In turn, the eyewitness testimony of Doug Gann and Bobby Pitts supports the videotaped interview of Fran Schubert.  Taken together, the eyewitnesses corroborate one another in a way that allows the evidence to coalesce around three main points:  (a) Lee Harvey Oswald attended Stripling Junior High School for a brief period; (b) the timeframe was the academic year 1954-55; and (c) he resided across the street from the school at 2220 Thomas Place.  Newspaper coverage identifying Oswald as a Stripling student and the recall of Stripling by Robert Oswald in both newspapers and his Warren Commission testimony add more weight to a critical mass of evidence placing Lee Harvey Oswald in Forth Worth as a student at Stripling Junior High School for a brief period in 1954-55.

Edited July 29, 2020 by James Norwood

[Mark Stevens]

2 hours ago, James Norwood said:

Mark,
It is obvious that you have not read my detailed rebuttal to your points.  Here again is my rebuttal.  Readers can easily make up their minds by reading it and making up their own minds as to whether or not the following is "genuine rebuttal."

As stated in my original reply that I made without reading your post (more passive aggressive barbs from Norwood).  While you posted a lengthy post, almost none of it pertained to what I wrote. I made this clear when I quoted your sections and responded, something you still refuse to do. If I responded to your quote above with cookbook recipes and said it was a rebuttal, would it make it so? What if it was 4,300 words? Does it being so big (that's what she said) mean something?

So again, since you continue to miss it...

Your points...

(1)  Newspaper Coverage of Stripling:  - While I did discuss "newspaper coverage of Stripling," nothing you mention in your "rebuttal" actually pertains to what I stated. 

"At no point do I fault the paper for not interviewing other teachers or students."

You did not respond to my "criticism" of the newspaper coverage of Stripling. You did not respond to literally anything I stated regarding newspaper coverage of Stripling/Oswald.

(2)  Robert Oswald:  - While I did discuss Robert Oswald, I made no references to his book which is what almost every word in this "rebuttal" pertains to.

You did not respond to my "criticism" of Robert Oswald and how his statements are portrayed in "Harvey & Lee." You did not respond to literally anything I stated regarding Robert Oswald.

(3)  Videotaped Interview with Frank Kudlaty: - Much of this is you asking questions like "why would the FBI go around collecting records" as well as pointing out how the FBI was desperate to cover up Stripling. The only remotely relevant comments to things I actually said was how my "criticism" is just biased speculation when in fact it was Armstrong and Kudlaty who did the speculation. When even that missed the mark. I didn't speculate about was was in the records. Armstrong and Kudlaty did, I discussed what came out of their speculation. 

I also made these key points regarding Frank Kudlaty:

• Quote

   

  • He only glanced at the records.(:37)
  • The records for Stripling were incomplete. (:42)
  • The records he had could have been elementary school records.(1:42)
  • The records only had elementary school records. (2:09)
    • “how did all the records from the elementary school show up and there are none from the junior high school”
  • Health records would have been in the packet. (7:01)
  • Other school records would have and could have been in the packet.(6:01
  • The records were in a 5x7 envelope.(pt. 2, 6:04)
  • The envelope of records was a very thin envelop.(pt. 2, 6:14)(Armstrong, Frank Kudlaty Interview)

I pointed out how many of his comments contradict one another and how in the end he paints a confusing picture of what exactly he gave to the FBI.

You did not respond to literally anything I stated regarding Frank Kudlaty.

(4)  Videotaped Interview with Fran Schubert: - This one was at least nearly on topic to what I stated.Your summation of "The critic fails to offer a persuasive rationale for why Schubert’s recall would be inaccurate on these three points." is inherently flawed. I did offer persuasive rationale and any lawyer or judge would agree. It is you with your inherent bias and belief in "Harvey & Lee" who believes it was not persuasive. That's ok though, we all are entitled to our opinion.

The fact is that in any legitimate situation where Schubert gave "testimony" to these "facts." I, or anyone would be allowed to ask "how did you know the boy was Oswald." If the reply was "I passed him in the halls," we would then be allowed to follow with "how did you know the boy in the halls was Oswald?" If you don't believe this is a basic component of establishing evidentiary fact then I urge you to call a local attorney and ask. Schubert would have to prove she knew the boy was Oswald and not a guy she saw on TV who looked like this kid who went home for lunch when she was in the 7th grade. Asking these questions is basic investigation and not some unreasonable, unheard of thing.

While as you state, she does establish the timeline as "clearly 1954-55" and I do agree. It's still entirely different months. To obfuscate this fact, you mention that she might have been mistaken while lambasting me for saying she is mistaken. 

To further prove my point, this is one of your misleading comments which caused me to reply, and is a legitimate talking point repeated by all H&L supporters on this forum:

Quote

The student eyewitnesses who recalled attending Stripling concurrently with Oswald in the academic year 1954-55 were wrong;

The above is you stating that my contention is that Stripling witness are wrong.

This below is you stating Stripling witnesses are wrong:

Quote

She certainly may be forgiven for uncertainty about identifying the season in a state that does not have clearly defined winters, 

I didn't say she was wrong. I said she was quite certain in her recollection regarding months because she states the boys wore jackets because it was cold. This isn't a mistake on her part. She clearly does not back up Oswald attending Stripling for the months stated in "Harvey &  Lee" and there's nothing you can do to change that. You can try to say she was wrong, but remember, that is you saying she's wrong, not me.

(5)  Doug Gann:  - The same basic truth for Schubert applies to him....The fact is that in any legitimate situation where Gann gave "testimony" to these "facts." I, or anyone would be allowed to ask "how did you know the boy was Oswald." If the reply was "I saw him shooting baskets" we would then be allowed to follow with "how did you know the boy in the shooting baskets was Oswald?" If you don't believe this is a basic component of establishing evidentiary fact then I urge you to call a local attorney and ask. Gann would have to prove he knew the boy was Oswald and not a guy he saw on TV who looked like this kid who used to shoot baskets at Stripling. Asking these questions is basic investigation and not some unreasonable, unheard of thing.

So while your rebuttal attacks my ability to question his recall, that's not what I'm doing. I'm asking how he established this identity, a basic investigative question asked by any reasonably investigator or lawyer, etc...

(6)  Bobby Pitts: - Pitts did not attend the school and makes no reference to Oswald attending Stripling, period. There's literally nothing to rebut here. He is not a witness to Oswald attending Stripling and there's nothing you can do to change that. You can state his statements still mean something because it fits your preconceived notion that Oswald lived in that house, but nonetheless Pitts is not a witness to Oswald attending Stripling.

(7)  Mark Summers: You, like I, agree that Summers is not a witness. Are you taking that back now?

(8)  Ricardo Galindo: - Ah...the "capstone." When we take the above facts into consideration, and measure with the fact that Armstrong not only made public pleas for information regarding Oswald in Fort Worth (including schools attended, etc..) on the radio, in the newspaper, and then extensively searched yearbooks and school annuals for teachers and students with any knowledge of Oswald at Stripling and only returned the names above. Add in the story of Beulah Bratton (I think I got the name right) Galindo's statement of "common knowledge" can hardly be true when Armstrong himself has proven there is no knowledge. No one came forth. He found literally nothing in the yearbooks and annuals.

I really don't know why I had to make almost the exact same reply on this disrespectful topic of a post. I don't know why Norwood and other H&L supporters constantly state "Mark said" instead of just quoting me and letting you, the reader, see what I said.

This is all rhetorical and facetious, I know exactly why and I think many readers know why as well.

So of your 8 "points of rebuttal":

• 2 points do not discuss anything I stated at all
• 3 points only marginally (I mean like 3-5 words out of 2-3 paragraphs) touch on anything I actually stated
• 1 point we agree on
• 2 points are literally unarguable by H&L

I'll give you Gann and Kudlaty as witnesses. This leaves you with 2 people with the flimsiest stories connecting Oswald to Stripling. This still means that 5 points of your rebuttal had nothing to do with my topic. That sir, is how it is not a genuine rebuttal. The only thing it shared with my "screed" is the names of the people involved.

Again I plead, if I'm wrong, show how...prove how. Give examples, use crayons if you have to, sometimes I can't see the forest because of the trees. Saying "you're wrong" doesn't prove anything.

ETA: Sections of this might actually be confusing because I didn't do enough to differentiate his points and my replies to them. My apologies for the possibility of more "incomprehensible critique."

Edited July 29, 2020 by Mark Stevens
ETA

[Sandy Larsen]

On 7/28/2020 at 10:14 AM, Robert Charles-Dunne said:

On 7/27/2020 at 8:39 PM, Gene Kelly said:

I'm not sure that I would go so far as to characterize Mr. Hargrove's views/posts  as "disinformation", but that's your prerogative to maintain.

Although Sandy has now deleted it, he posted an agreement that I accused Jim of "disinformation" too.  And then a bunch of unsupported ad homs, because courage!  And yet he must either have realized he was wrong to cite disinformation, or thought his ad homs unworthy of him, and deleted it.  Because courage!

 

That's not true.

What I deleted was an attempt to explain how Gene got the Jim's reversed. I recall the first line of my post being

(I apologize for beating this dead horse....)

or something close to that. I deleted the post after I found the relevant posts and discovered that what had happened was more involved than what I thought.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

On 7/28/2020 at 10:14 AM, Robert Charles-Dunne said:

You know, Sandy’s accusations that I am dumb, and my stupid comments are unworthy of debate.  

 

Just for the record, I never said that RCD is dumb. I said that his hostility toward the H&L theory leads him to say dumb things.

On the contrary, I think RCD is quite intelligent.

 

On 7/28/2020 at 10:14 AM, Robert Charles-Dunne said:

Even as I was demonstrating that an Armstrong assertion was wrong.  If I am so dumb and my posts so stupid, how did I manage the ultra-rare feat of procuring an admission of error from John Armstrong and Jim Hargrove?  

You know, when they were finally shamed into admitting that Weldon Lucas and Harry Wylie couldn’t have both instructed Kudlaty to meet with the FBI.  

You don’t often see them stand down in the face of their own error.

 

That's not what happened at all. Jim and I immediately thanked RCD for pointing out the discrepancy. After which time RCD made a big deal about it in post after post, making it sound like it was a death blow to H&L theory. Because, he claimed, it showed that Vice Principal Kudlaty had a faulty memory. But, as it turns out, it wasn't a Kudlaty error at all, but an Armstrong one.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

13 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Those of us who criticise the 'Harvey and Lee' theory do so for several reasons: because it is proven nonsense; ....

 

No it's not. Just believing that does not make it so.

 

13 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

....because it is heavily but dishonestly promoted;

 

That's an outright lie.

 

13 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

and because it is liable to harm rational criticism of the lone-nut theory.

 

So we should stop rational study and exposure of the Oswald Project just because Jeremy Bojczuk doesn't like it. I don't think so Jer.

 

13 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

The thesis was proven to be wrong two decades before the Harvey and Lee book was even published, by the evidence of a mastoidectomy operation on Oswald's body.

 

How does both boys having a mastoidectomy scar prove that they were the same boy?

Mastoidectomies were fairly common before the widespread use of penicillin.

 

[Jim Hargrove]

5 hours ago, James Norwood said:

Mark,
It is obvious that you have not read my detailed rebuttal to your points.  Here again is my rebuttal.  Readers can easily make up their minds by reading it and making up their own minds as to whether or not the following is "genuine rebuttal."

Dr. Norwood,

It looks like the H&L critics will continue to claim they have debunked all the Stripling School evidence, even though they cannot produce a single direct refutation of it. Not one!

Our best bet may be simply to perfect a clear statement or two summarizing the evidence, and include links to the five Fort Worth Star-Telegram articles that say that LHO attended Stripling School, links to Robert Oswald’s testimony that also indicates LHO attended Stripling, and links to the YouTube interviews of Frank Kudlaty and Fran Schubert.  Let the H&L critics rail against this evidence as much as they wish.

I’ve usually left Doug Gann, Bobby Pitts, and Mark Summers off the list because John A. didn’t record his conversations with them, at least as I recall.  You should probably continue to discuss them in your summaries.  One person made several suggestions for improvements in the presentation of my list, and so I’ve made a few tweaks over the last weeks.  Here, again, is my summary of the Stripling Evidence with the latest edit:

First, of course, is the prerequisite proof that the two LHOs attended two different schools just ONE YEAR before the Stripling School attendance.

Because both the FBI and the Warren Commission missed this detail and neglected to cover it up, school records published in the Warren volumes show that both LHOs attended a full fall 1953 school semester in New York City and New Orleans simultaneously.

In the fall semester of 1953, one LHO attended Public School 44 in the Bronx borough of New York City, where he was present for 62 full days and 5 half days, was absent 3 full days and 8 half days, for a total accounting of 78 days.

Also in the fall semester of 1953, the other LHO was present at Beauregard Junior High School in New Orleans for 89 school days.

One year later, one LHO attended Beauregard School in New Orleans while the other was indeed enrolled in Stripling School in Fort Worth.

It was, and still is, common knowledge among local Stripling School district residents and current and former students and teachers that Lee Harvey Oswald attended Stripling School in the 1950s.   Here is a screenshot of the article from the online edition of the newspaper:

The Fort Worth Star-Telegram confirmed this simple fact in an article published in 2017 and updated in 2019.

  Quote

Once again, 

This 1959 Fort Worth Star-Telegram article indicates LHO attended Stripling.

This 1962 Fort Worth Star-Telegram article indicates LHO attended Stripling.

Published two days after the assassination of JFK, this Fort Worth Star-Telegram article reported: “He attended Stripling Junior High School and Arlington Heights High School before joining the Marines.”

In his 1964 Warren Commission testimony, Robert Oswald said that LHO attended Stripling School.

This May 11, 2002 Fort Worth Star-Telegram article indicated that “a boy walked to Stripling from a home nearby.  His mother was living in a home behind the school on Thomas Place by 1963, when the world learned the name Lee Harvey Oswald.”

And then, of course, there is the Fort Worth Star-Telegram article from 2017 mentioned above.

Way back on December 27, 1993, John Armstrong wrote to Ricardo Galindo, the then current principal of Stripling School, asking if there were any records for Lee Harvey Oswald's attendance the school.  Mr. Galindo telephoned John back and said that, although there were no records, it was “common knowledge” that LHO had attended the school. [Harvey and Lee, p. 97]

In this 1997 interview, Stripling Student Fran Schubert watched LHO walk from the school to his house at 2220 Thomas Place just across the street from the school.

And, of course, in a 1997 interview, the assistant principal of Stripling School described how he met two FBI agents at Stripling less than 24 hours after the assassination and gave them the records for LHO.  H&L critics can only say that Frank Kudlaty, who went on to become the Superintendent of Schools for Waco, Texas, was mistaken (about his entire story of meeting FBI agents hours after the assassination???) or lying.

[Mark Stevens]

1 hour ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Dr. Norwood,

It looks like the H&L critics will continue to claim they have debunked all the Stripling School evidence, even though they cannot produce a single direct refutation of it. Not one!

I think it is incredibly interesting that Hargrove will quote a post talking about me, and he himself will talk about me but will not actually discuss the topics I've posted, even after explicitly stating he would. 

Also interesting is the fact that Hargrove makes the statement "even though they cannot produce a single direct refutation of it. Not one!" he knows this is untrue and hence he won't put my name in. Since Mark has clearly shown that Pitts for instance did not attend Stripling, made no mention of Stripling and is therefore not a witness to Oswald attending Stripling, what he has shown would be a direct refutation. Now Hargrove and other "Harvey & Lee" supporters can only state that even though he's not an actual Stripling witness, he still kinda is because he mentions the same house other people with other erroneous stories state. Since two people with anomalous stories state the same house, we should ignore the anomalies and focus on the same house.

With this in mind, Hargrove will not even address me by name. Instead, in a reply to statements about me I am "critics." He does this, because I'm very threatened by the truth.

Quote

Our best bet may be simply to perfect a clear statement or two summarizing the evidence, and include links to the five Fort Worth Star-Telegram articles that say that LHO attended Stripling School, links to Robert Oswald’s testimony that also indicates LHO attended Stripling, and links to the YouTube interviews of Frank Kudlaty and Fran Schubert.  Let the H&L critics rail against this evidence as much as they wish.

No, your best bet would be to tighten your belt and actually defend your position. Don't post yet another summary of the evidence. Show us how it is in fact evidence. Don't just post the articles again. Explain the provenance of their reporting. Explain how they prove Oswald attended Stripling. Don't school us again on the fact that they exist.

Quote

I’ve usually left Doug Gann, Bobby Pitts, and Mark Summers off the list because John A. didn’t record his conversations with them, at least as I recall.  You should probably continue to discuss them in your summaries.  One person made several suggestions for improvements in the presentation of my list, and so I’ve made a few tweaks over the last weeks.  Here, again, is my summary of the Stripling Evidence with the latest edit:

If my above suggestion is too challenging, or something you are otherwise unable or unwilling to do, maybe quicker to the point refutations would be more your style.

Something like this: (my comments in red)

Quote

 

First, of course, is the prerequisite proof that the two LHOs attended two different schools just ONE YEAR before the Stripling School attendance. - Proof: evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.

Because both the FBI and the Warren Commission missed this detail and neglected to cover it up, school records published in the Warren volumes show that both LHOs attended a full fall 1953 school semester in New York City and New Orleans simultaneously. - I thought this was about attending school in New Orleans and Fort Worth simultaneously. Is Stripling actually in NYC? Was I confused to what the topic was?

In the fall semester of 1953, one LHO attended Public School 44 in the Bronx borough of New York City, where he was present for 62 full days and 5 half days, was absent 3 full days and 8 half days, for a total accounting of 78 days. - Oh no, I actually wasn't confused. Hargrove simply changed the topic. My mistake.

[Picture removed from reply]

Also in the fall semester of 1953, the other LHO was present at Beauregard Junior High School in New Orleans for 89 school days.

[Picture removed from reply]

One year later, one LHO attended Beauregard School in New Orleans while the other was indeed enrolled in Stripling School in Fort Worth. - After that commercial break, we are back to our regularly scheduled programming.

It was, and still is, common knowledge among local Stripling School district residents and current and former students and teachers that Lee Harvey Oswald attended Stripling School in the 1950s.   Here is a screenshot of the article from the online edition of the newspaper: - It is not now nor has it ever been common knowledge. Armstrong proved this himself when he searched school yearbooks and annuals, as well as placed stories on the radio and in the newspaper. 6 people exist on this earth which have come forward with any sort of knowledge connecting Oswald to Stripling in even the flimsiest manner. This fact negates the existence of any common knowledge.

The Fort Worth Star-Telegram confirmed this simple fact in an article published in 2017 and updated in 2019 

[Picture removed from reply]

Once again, - Indeed

This 1959 Fort Worth Star-Telegram article indicates LHO attended Stripling. - This is Robert Oswald's only interview with the Star-Telegram where he references Stripling. In his second interview with the Star-Telegram. Robert did not reference Stripling. This fact is ignored by Hargrove and others.

This 1962 Fort Worth Star-Telegram article indicates LHO attended Stripling. - This article uses the same information from the 1959 interview.

Published two days after the assassination of JFK, this Fort Worth Star-Telegram article reported: “He attended Stripling Junior High School and Arlington Heights High School before joining the Marines.” - This article uses the same information from the 1959 interview. 

In his 1964 Warren Commission testimony, Robert Oswald said that LHO attended Stripling School. - Robert erroneously states Oswald attended Stripling in 1952. This is somehow proof (see definition provided above) of Oswald attending Stripling in 1954.

This May 11, 2002 Fort Worth Star-Telegram article indicated that “a boy walked to Stripling from a home nearby.  His mother was living in a home behind the school on Thomas Place by 1963, when the world learned the name Lee Harvey Oswald.” - The actual articles states "a 1956 student." This erroneous story is somehow proof (see definition provided above) of Oswald attending Stripling in 1954.

And then, of course, there is the Fort Worth Star-Telegram article from 2017 mentioned above. - When the provenance of the articles is established, despite their existence, the value of the articles is diminished.

Way back on December 27, 1993, John Armstrong wrote to Ricardo Galindo, the then current principal of Stripling School, asking if there were any records for Lee Harvey Oswald's attendance the school.  Mr. Galindo telephoned John back and said that, although there were no records, it was “common knowledge” that LHO had attended the school. [Harvey and Lee, p. 97]- It is not now nor has it ever been common knowledge. Armstrong proved this himself when he searched school yearbooks and annuals, as well as placed stories on the radio and in the newspaper. 6 people exist on this earth which have come forward with any sort of knowledge connecting Oswald to Stripling in even the flimsiest manner. This fact negates the existence of any common knowledge.

In this 1997 interview, Stripling Student Fran Schubert watched LHO walk from the school to his house at 2220 Thomas Place just across the street from the school. - Schubert references a different timeline than the "Harvey & Lee" story. How does that fact prove Oswald attended in the time period "Harvey & Lee" says it does? The answer is simple. It does not. 

And, of course, in a 1997 interview, the assistant principal of Stripling School described how he met two FBI agents at Stripling less than 24 hours after the assassination and gave them the records for LHO.  H&L critics can only say that Frank Kudlaty, who went on to become the Superintendent of Schools for Waco, Texas, was mistaken (about his entire story of meeting FBI agents hours after the assassination???) or lying. - Kudlaty gave contradicting and confusing statements which no one has attempted to explain. I personally believe Kudlaty gave something to FBI agents on the day he says he did. I do not doubt this aspect of his story.

I guess those weren't as quick and to the point as I'd thought they would be.

In any event, it shouldn't be hard to do that thing you keep saying...and that's prove your argument. At least provide reasonable suspicion.  No matter how many times you remind us that the articles exist, no matter how many times you say that the Stripling statements mean something, none of it will ever be proof that Oswald attended Stripling. In light of the facts of your evidence, nothing you've presented has even created reasonable suspicion.

I won't be surprised when you say nothing because there is nothing you can say. The best you will ever do is repeat yourself "once again" because you can't prove anything, you can just say you have "proof."

 

[Jim Hargrove]

The earliest descriptions by Robert Oswald of LHO’s attendance at Stripling School, made well before the Kennedy Assassination, would be considered by most people to be the most reliable.  Robert Oswald attended Stripling School in 1948 and 1949; LHO attended the same school in 1954.  Two years later, in 1956, Robert and LHO lived together at 4936 Collinwood, about 10 blocks from Stripling.  There, they had every opportunity to compare their experiences about the school.

Just three years after that, in 1959, and again a few years later, Robert told the Fort Worth newspaper that LHO attended Stripling School.  There is no reason on earth not to consider this as Robert’s most reliable statement about Stripling.  It was his earliest known public quote about the school and was made four or five years before the Kennedy Assassination and the FBI/WC “investigation” clouded the truth and put enormous pressure on witnesses to tow the line of the Official Story.  

[Jim Hargrove]

Stanley, North Dakota

Throughout late 1952 and early 1953, the Russian-speaking LHO was chronically absent from Public School 117 in New York City.  The truancy landed him in Youth House for several weeks and involved him in the NYC legal system.  By summer of 1953, this LHO and “Marguerite” fled to rural North Dakota, about as far removed from the densely populated city as can be imagined.

After hiding out in North Dakota for the summer, this Oswald, Lee HARVEY Oswald, moved to New Orleans and was gradually re-introduced to the public school system by taking just two courses at Beauregard Junior High School for the fall 1953 semester.  During this same time, American-born LEE Harvey Oswald was continuously enrolled at Public School 44 in the Bronx borough of NYC.

Days after the assassination, in December 1963, Mrs. Alma Cole wrote a letter to then-President Lyndon Johnson that was intercepted and read by the Secret Service.  Mrs. Cole didn’t know the year, but she indicated that her son—Henry Timmer--and another youngster from Stanley, North Dakota had known Lee Harvey Oswald.

A transcription of the handwritten original is shown below:

Dec 11, 1963

President Lyndon B. Johnson

Dear Sir,

I don’t know how to write to you, and I don’t know if I should or shouldn’t.

My son knew Lee Harvey Oswald when he was at Stanley, North Dakota. I do not recall what year, but it was before Lee Harvey Oswald enlisted in the Marines. The boy read communist books then. He told my son He had a calling to kill a President. My son told me, he asked him. How he would know which one? Lee Harvey Oswald said he didn’t know, but the time and place would be layed before him.

There are others at Stanley who knew Oswald.

If you would check, I believe what I have wrote will check out. Another woman who knew of Oswald and his mother, was Mrs. Francis Jelesed. She had the Stanley Café, (she’s Mrs. Harry Merbach now.) Her son, I believe, knew Lee Harvey Oswald better than mine did. Francis and I just thought Oswald a bragging boy. Now we know different. We told our sons to have nothing to do with him (I’m sorry, I don’t remember the year.)

This letter is wrote to you in hopes of helping. If it does all I want is A Thank You.

Mrs. Alma Cole

Rt 3 Box 1H

Yuma, Arizona

The Secret Service forwarded Mrs. Cole’s letter to the FBI, and the FBI eventually located and interviewed William Henry Timmer.  According to this FBI report, Timmer explained that Oswald introduced himself as Harvey Oswald, talked about communism, and was in Stanley N.D. just during the summer of 1953.

In 2000, John Delane Williams and Gary Severson wrote a series of articles about Oswald in North Dakota for The Fourth Decade.

Oswald in North Dakota?  Part One

Oswald in North Dakota?  Part Two

Oswald in North Dakota?  Part Three

 

[Jim Hargrove]

On 7/24/2020 at 7:12 AM, Jim Hargrove said:

When I first read Harvey and Lee (the book) so many years ago, I was amazed at the scope of the Marine Corps evidence for two Oswalds.  My favorite of many examples is this: Harvey Oswald's trip to Formosa (Taiwan) while Lee was being treated for VD in Japan.

HARVEY Oswald Departed for Taiwan Aboard the USS Skagit (AKA 105) on Sept. 14, 1958. Note "AKA 105" Under "Record of Events" near top left of this document:

The Unit Diary below shows that HARVEY Oswald was in Ping Tung, Taiwan, on Oct. 6, 1958.

Here’s a 1953 image of the ship Harvey Oswald took .  Note the “K.A. 105” lettering by the bow.

 

During this very same time Harvey was aboard the USS Skagit and stationed in Taiwan, LEE  Oswald was being treated for V.D in Atsugi, Japan.  From September 14 through October 6, HARVEY Oswald was in Taiwan. At the same time, from September 16 through October 6, LEE Oswald was in Japan. Medical records for NAS Navy 3835 (Naval Hospital), located in Atsugi, Japan, show numerous medical entries for LEE Oswald recorded on Sept 16, 20, 22, 23, 29, and Oct 6. HARVEY Oswald's assignment in Taiwan, while LEE Oswald made numerous visits to the Naval Hospital in Japan, are an obvious example of what John A. calls a"smoking gun."  John made numerous reference to "smoking guns" in his Black Op Radio presentation last night.

Can anyone debunk this?

Just asking....

[Matt Allison]

"He told my son he had a calling to kill a President"

Taking a statement from someone like this at face value and considering it evidence is pretty much my whole issue with the H & L theory. I feel like I run into a lot of stuff like this.

[James Norwood]

7 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

The Secret Service forwarded Mrs. Cole’s letter to the FBI, and the FBI eventually located and interviewed William Henry Timmer.  According to this FBI report, Timmer explained that Oswald introduced himself as Harvey Oswald, talked about communism, and was in Stanley N.D. just during the summer of 1953.

In 2000, John Delane Williams and Gary Severson wrote a series of articles about Oswald in North Dakota for The Fourth Decade.

Oswald in North Dakota?  Part One

Oswald in North Dakota?  Part Two

Oswald in North Dakota?  Part Three

 

Jim,

Many thanks your commentary and documents related to Oswald in North Dakota in the summer of 1953.  The three articles published in The Fourth Decade are outstanding.  I have enjoyed many conversations with Gary Severson about his research in this area, including his travels to meet with eyewitnesses in the western half of the country.  It is a fascinating topic and another piece of piece of the puzzle in understanding Oswald.

James

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Sandy Larsen writes:

Quote

How does both boys having a mastoidectomy scar prove that they were the same boy?

Sandy appears to believe not only that there were two Oswald doppelgangers but that each doppelganger had undergone a mastoidectomy operation.

Burn the heretic!

Scripture makes it clear that only one of the imaginary doppelgangers had undergone a mastoidectomy operation. Scripture also makes it clear that the imaginary doppelganger who had undergone the operation was not the imaginary doppelganger who was buried in Oswald's grave:

Quote

It was Lee Oswald who had the mastoidectomy operation ... Harvey Oswald's body ... was buried in Rose Hill Cemetery ... The remains examined by Dr Norton were of Harvey Oswald. ... This man was not Lee Oswald.

(John Armstrong, Harvey and Lee, pp.946-7; bold-face in the original)

Sandy must not blatantly contradict the Holy Word of the prophet Armstrong! The infallible prophet has failed to find any documentary evidence of a mastoidectomy operation carried out on the other imaginary doppelganger! Sandy too has failed to produce any such documentary evidence! Scripture tells us that there were two doppelgangers but only one mastoidectomy operation! Repent, Sandy! Accept the word of the prophet Armstrong!

Back in the real world, the evidence of a mastoidectomy defect* on the body in Oswald's grave disproved Armstrong's far-fetched theory two decades before Harvey and Lee was published.

* Source:
L.E. Norton, J.A. Coffone, I.M. Sopher, and V.J.M. DiMaio, ‘The Exhu­mation and Identification of Lee Harvey Oswald,’ Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol.29 no.1 (January 1984), pp.19–38 (http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/parnell/norton1.htm).

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

Jim Hargrove writes:

Quote

Until Mr. Stevens or anyone else can produce a FWST retraction of its five articles, or at least a published indication that Robert Oswald was mistaken, nothing about the Stripling evidence has been disproved.

I'm not sure the word 'disproved' is the right one to use here. Until Jim and his friends come up with something substantial, there's nothing to disprove. After all, the burden of proof is on them. As for a "retraction" and a "published indication", newspapers aren't in the habit of correcting trivial mistaken recollections that harm no-one.

The critics don't need to prove anything. All they need to do is provide plausible alternative explanations. They have done so for the newspaper articles: Robert Oswald was mistaken.

In 'Harvey and Lee' world, Robert Oswald was in on the top-secret long-term doppelganger plot, and would have been told by his all-powerful evil overlords that his imaginary eastern European doppelganger 'brother' had attended Stripling.

But in the real world, Robert Oswald had no all-powerful evil overlords to tell him which school his real-life, historical brother, Lee Harvey Oswald, had attended. Robert had been away in the Marines at the time in question, and so he had no first-hand knowledge of the school his real-life, historical brother had attended. Robert might reasonably have assumed that his real-life, historical brother had attended Stripling, since that is what he himself had done, but he would have been making an easily understandable mistake.

Again, the burden of proof is on Jim and his friends. So far, they have produced nothing remotely resembling proof that any Oswald, real or imaginary, other than Robert attended Stripling. As Mark Stevens has explained in detail, the evidence put forward by Jim and his friends is very weak:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/26639-the-stripling-episode-harvey-lee-a-critical-review/

Rather than copying and pasting the same stuff yet again, or abandoning Stripling and replacing it with another 'Harvey and Lee' talking point, perhaps Jim could actually deal with the points Mark has made.

Jim also writes:

Quote

While they were living together, does anyone doubt that Robert and LHO surely compared notes about their Stripling experiences (Robert in 1948, LHO in 1954)?

in 1956, Robert and LHO lived together at 4936 Collinwood, about 10 blocks from Stripling.  There, they had every opportunity to compare their experiences about the school.

What Stripling experiences? In the absence of proof to the contrary, the only Oswald who attended Stripling was Robert. Whose experiences could he compare his with? One of the Marguerite Oswald doppelgangers?

Edited August 1, 2020 by Jeremy Bojczuk
Removed "during the early 1950s" from the sentence "So far, they have produced nothing remotely resembling proof that any Oswald, real or imaginary, other than Robert attended Stripling"

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

James Norwood writes:

Quote

Mark Stevens has demonstrated that he is incapable of examining evidence impartially.

Some time ago, James wrote:

Quote

the bias of Mark Stevens is apparent throughout his review of the evidence.

James seems to understand the words 'bias' and 'impartially' to mean something along the lines of 'fails to swallow nonsense uncritically'.

Quote

I have written a 2,500-word assessment of the evidence that appears at the top of this thread.  Why don't you take the time to write a point-by-point rebuttal to my arguments, Jeremy?

Perhaps, if I find the time, I'll see what I can do, if only to try and prise a straight reply out of James. I'm not optimistic that such a thing is possible, though. Mark Stevens tried that, and got this reply:

Quote

Please be advised that I will not be wasting any more of my time in debate with you on this subject.

Before all of that, James's response to criticism was to try to get his critics banned.

Then he created a new thread to sink the one in which Mark sank the 'Harvey and Lee' Stripling nonsense.

Now, James's latest response to Mark's criticism is to misrepresent what Mark had written. As I say, I'm not optimistic that I'd get a straight reply.

How about James gets the ball rolling by actually addressing the points Mark made? After all, the Stripling evidence is supposed to be the 'Harvey and Lee' believers' strongest suit. You might think they would be keen to address the criticism fully and honestly, without omission and misrepresentation.

As it happens, I have already dealt with one part of James's response to Mark's analysis. My post on page 8 (http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/26644-the-far-reaching-influence-of-%E2%80%9Charvey-and-lee%E2%80%9D/?do=findComment&comment=425574) deals with the newspaper articles.

So far, James hasn't replied. For his benefit, or that of any other 'Harvey and Lee' believers who may wish to participate, I've reproduced my comment on the thread to which it really belongs:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/26639-the-stripling-episode-harvey-lee-a-critical-review/?do=findComment&comment=425888