Jump to content
The Education Forum

1953-54: Harvey and Lee in Three Consecutive School Semesters


Recommended Posts

Robert Oswald and LHO and Stripling School

In this FBI report, Mrs. James L. Taylor, manager of the 4-unit apartment house at 4936 Collinwood in Fort Worth, indicated that she rented the upper west apartment in the building to Marguerite Oswald on July 1, 1956.  She added, “Mrs. Oswald was accompanied by her two sons, LEE and ROBERT.”  She also said that “a few weeks after the Oswalds moved into the apartment, ROBERT married and moved away from the address.”

4936_Collinwood.png

The apartment house at 4936 Collinwood was about ten blocks west of Stripling School.  At the little apartment on Collinwood, Robert and LHO almost surely compared notes about their experiences at Stripling School, which Robert had attended in 1948 and LHO in 1954.  

Fall Semester, 1954

Despite the efforts of some on this forum to discount it, the evidence for LHO’s attendance at Stripling School in simply enormous.  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. Again, 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, the Fort Worth newspaper quoted Robert as saying that that LHO attended Stripling School “about a year before he enlisted in the Marines.”  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.  

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.  

The Fort Worth Star-Telegram confirmed this simple fact in an article published in 2017 and updated in 2019.  Here is a screenshot of the article from the online edition of the newspaper:

  Quote

Students_&_Teachers.jpg

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.

Fall Semester, 1953

One year earlier, in the fall of 1953, school records published by the Warren Commission show that one LHO attended Beauregard School in New Orleans at the same time another LHO was at Public School 44 in New York City.

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.

NYC%20school%20record.jpg

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

Beauregard%20Record.jpg

One year later, one LHO attended Beauregard School in New Orleans while the other was indeed enrolled in Stripling School in Fort Worth. The evidence clearly suggests that two LHOs were attending two different schools in the fall semesters of 1953 and 1954.  So where were they in the one school semester between the other two?

Spring Semester, 1954

Although the evidence is thinner and contradictory, John A. believes that both LHOs attended Beauregard School in the 1954 spring semester.  John’s write-up relies heavily on the interview with Myra DaRouse, and notes that in a school with nearly 700 students, one LHO had home room 303 on the third floor, the other had his home room with Myra DaRouse in the basement cafeteria.  Since one kid preferred to be called Lee, and the other Harvey, who would notice these two boys out of nearly 700 other students--other than a records keeper in the office?   Photocopy machines were not in general use in those days, and so the records must have been merged—by someone--in the cumulative record we see.  It could have been done by school personnel, or by the FBI.  Sandy Larsen made a pretty good case in another thread that it could have happened naturally back in the day. 

Two people who agree wholeheartedly with the basic H&L premise have told me privately that envisioning both LHOs at Beauregard simultaneously is hard to believe.  Perhaps so.  But, despite numerous attempts to debunk it, John A. has made a strong case for the two LHOs in two different school in the semester immediately before and after the spring 1954 semester.  Recall that the whole idea of the Oswald project was to give a Russian-speaking youth an American I.D. so he could travel to the Soviet Union and pretend he didn’t understand the Russian language.  Having similar American experiences to the boy whose ID he borrowed would be important if Soviet officials began to look into his background.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 87
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Since multiple aspects of the "Harvey & Lee" story is being questioned on multiple threads, Jim felt it necessary to remind forum users of what exactly is being refuted.

Tony Krome has done a great job of highlighting interesting details regarding Beauregard:

Tony has done an equally great job highlighting interesting anomalies regarding Stripling and Thomas Place:

I have also (in my humble opinion) done a great job of highlighting interesting anomalies regarding Stripling eyewitnesses and the associated reporting:

So while we can continue to create new threads in a bid to push other relevant information out of sight (sliding anyone?) while avoiding all legitimate discussion of the topic(s) which have already been presented, we can't change the fact that a little bit more of "Harvey & Lee" dies every day. Regardless of anyone's obstination, and refusal to release grasp on the necrotic limbs which are the Stripling and Beauregard tales, evidence continues to come to light which seriously questions and negates the "facts" as presented by Armstrong and team.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Mark Stevens said:

So while we can continue to create new threads in a bid to push other relevant information out of sight (sliding anyone?) while avoiding all legitimate discussion of the topic(s) which have already been presented, we can't change the fact that a little bit more of "Harvey & Lee" dies every day. Regardless of anyone's obstination, and refusal to release grasp on the necrotic limbs which are the Stripling and Beauregard tales, evidence continues to come to light which seriously questions and negates the "facts" as presented by Armstrong and team.

And there will always be 2, 3 or 50 sides to the JFK related "events"...  in fact, I bet you can't name 3 things that does NOT have conflicting evidence...

So what?   That H&L dies within you every day is no real surprise Mark.. you like to place events on their own islands and refuse to consider them in context...  please prove me wrong.

As to BJHS in the Fall of 1953...  I believe I have mentioned that I am not in agreement with the conclusion that those records prove a student was there the entire Fall semester...  what I see is the boy starting in January as mentioned yet the Fall semester would not have ended until end of Jan, early Feb giving the student enough time to attend a few classes... with the last line of that NYC transcript at PS44 being one of the only pieces of truth on that document.... LEE's records are complete for the 53-54 school year...

Harvey and Marge are on another track entirely...  so...  can you explain the student records at the bottom of this post or not?  Why do we not have a First Name LEE Oswald in Ft Worth all thru grade school? And who is Nancy Lee Oswald?  Answer these and we bring context back into the discussion... don't and it's SSDD...:sun

PS - here's something for you to ponder...  It was claimed that LEE goes to 1st grade fall semester at Benbrook Common school... but that would be Fall 1947, not '45.

Furthermore, the supposed evidence for this enrollment (which is only mentioned and not shown) is claimed to have info from years in the future...  the 1945 letter is shown below.

Given your vast H&L knowledge... please locate the address Marge writes on Grandbury Rd....    H&L is a narrative, not a single document... if you ever get around to accepting that, these discussions may get more productive...

612603806_1945-46schoolyearHarveyonleftLeeonright.thumb.jpg.e0aebd760c2603511ac3899913e3d5a4.jpg

899273641_AllenExhibit5-Oct291945onWORTHHOTELstationaryshewritesChamberlain-HunttotellthemofGrandbury-sic-addressRt5Box567-Web.thumb.jpg.023148b92f7748d58e64e527c9b5020e.jpg

 

1667833118_NancyLeeandHARVEYOSWALDlivingat15058thFtWorthgotoschoolin1947-NotBenbrookSchool.jpg.0ed6673b2e580e542b2756e587cd066c.jpg

49 - 50

& 50 - 51 are virtually the same

1322732983_50-51schoolyear-stillMargeEKDAHL-notOswaldandTEDLOSWALTisborndaybeforeRobert.thumb.jpg.c3f28e1435b27e373b57cd1628dbf71d.jpg

 

1213806676_51-52HARVEYOSWALDwithMargeEkdahl-cropped.jpg.c8cf2ed07e28b529a537f180bbcd8340.jpg  this is 51-52.... 

Edited by David Josephs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Mark Stevens said:

So while we can continue to create new threads in a bid to push other relevant information out of sight (sliding anyone?) while avoiding all legitimate discussion of the topic(s) which have already been presented, we can't change the fact that a little bit more of "Harvey & Lee" dies every day. Regardless of anyone's obstination, and refusal to release grasp on the necrotic limbs which are the Stripling and Beauregard tales, evidence continues to come to light which seriously questions and negates the "facts" as presented by Armstrong and team.

 

6 hours ago, David Josephs said:

So what?   That H&L dies within you every day is no real surprise Mark.. you like to place events on their own islands and refuse to consider them in context...  please prove me wrong.

Thanks, DJ!  Can anyone spot the usual FBI bs here?

54-01.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Thanks, DJ!  Can anyone spot the usual FBI bs here?

 

Forget the BS, how about the simple truth?

FBI is claiming his home room teacher for 2 years (or at least 1 year) described Oswald as "physically small" yet every one who knew LEE knew him to be as large as the largest kids in school as well as the toughest in a fight....  He enters 7th grade in 1952 at 5'4" and 115 lbs....  that sounds about the size of Myra who tells us little Harvey barely came to her shoulders

NOTE: Myra DaRouse, who last saw Harvey at Beauregard in June, 1954, said he
was 4-foot-6 to 4-foot-8.

Even when the contradiction smacks them in the face... they'd have none of it.

:cheers

Fall 1951 on the left...   Aug 1953 on the right...  does puberty SHRINK boys?  :pop

The boy at the zoo is not 5'4" 115.... as the record suggests...

1230602810_zoophotocomparison.jpg.fb3cbf0e49a839aa7928a356a2c10ce6.jpg

830722651_Zoophoto-FBIreport-200daysofschoolpossible-NYCrecord.thumb.jpg.61aa35f11cb06b90859917f1b50a00b3.jpg

Edited by David Josephs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim Hargrove writes:

Quote

the evidence for LHO’s attendance at Stripling School in simply enormous.

It in [sic] not simply enormous. It in [sic] very weak. That evidence was taken to pieces by Mark Stevens here:

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

To avoid dealing with Mark's analysis, the 'Harvey and Lee' believers abandoned that thread and created a new one. Now that their new thread has become contaminated by Mark's analysis, they've created yet another. I suppose it's easier than actually dealing with the points Mark made.

Let's remind them of the points Mark made, starting with his account of Robert Oswald and the Fort Worth Star-Telegram:

(a) The first mention of Stripling by Robert Oswald was in the 31 October 1959 edition, in response to the apparent defection of the one and only, historical Lee Harvey Oswald. Robert was accosted by a reporter while at work.

(b) The following day, Robert was interviewed at home. The paper included a statement by Robert that his brother had attended Arlington Heights for a year, but did not mention Stripling. Presumably the paper would have mentioned Stripling if Robert had done so.

(c) The relevant passage from the second article was then repeated word for word in a third article later that week.

(d) Mark reproduced six further Fort Worth Star-Telegram articles (from 1962, 1963, 1980, 1999 twice, and 2006) which mention Oswald attending Stripling. Each uses virtually identical wording. Two of the articles (from 1999 and 2006) use the phrase "including awkward teenage years at Stripling Junior High School and Arlington Heights High School". Clearly the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, like every newspaper, was in the habit of recycling earlier reports.

(e) None of these articles mentions any pupils or teachers who recalled Oswald at Stripling.

(f) A Fort Worth Star-Telegram article from 1992 does mention a teacher who taught at Stripling at the time the imaginary Oswald doppelganger is supposed to have been there: Beulah Bratton, who taught English and journalism at Stripling from the 1940s to the 1970s. Under the headline, "Teacher Recalls Famous Students", the article actually states that "After President Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas in 1963, Bratton was asked to do research on Lee Harvey Oswald's family for the New York Times." If an Oswald doppelganger had attended Stripling, and especially if that fact was "common knowledge" as the 'Harvey and Lee' believers claim, there's a pretty good chance Ms Bratton would have uncovered the fact and mentioned it to the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, wouldn't you think? But it appears that she didn't.

Mark concluded:

Quote

After almost 60 years, the Star Telegram has not presented a single statement from any person other than Robert Oswald which would link Oswald to Stripling, in any year, much less the years as alleged by “Harvey & Lee.” Numerous opportunities have been presented, not the least of which was a teacher who taught durring the same time period and who also researched Oswald. She would have been in a prime, if not the most prime, position among Stripling witnesses of knowledge of Oswald at Stripling, and she curiously…”forgot” to mention it. In spite of the numerous times the Robert Oswald statements were printed, not a single person who taught Oswald at Stripling, or attended with him at Stripling, after seeing the articles thought they’d give their story to the paper.

Further, numerous local personalities and people connected to Oswald have spoken to the Fort Worth Star-Telegram over the years, and as mentioned, newpapers across the country. Many of them have some connection to Oswald or a story to tell, none have Stripling stories.

It is clear the Fort Worth Star-Telegram articles which reference Robert Oswald’s statements regarding Oswald as attending Stripling are blown out of proportion to increase their otherwise neglible importance. At no point over the almost 60 years of coverage does the Star-Telegram update their reporting, and continues to this day to use statements Robert Oswald gave them in 1959. The paper likely was unable to get new statements, and continues to just run with what they have.

The Fort Worth Star-Telegram's evidence is next to worthless. It provides only very weak support to the fanciful claim that an imaginary Oswald doppelganger attended Stripling.

Stripling is supposed to be the 'Harvey and Lee' believers' strongest area of evidence. The onus is on them to prove their case. How will they deal with Mark's analysis this time? Ignore it? Start yet another new thread?

Perhaps they'll come clean and admit that the Fort Worth Star-Telegram evidence really isn't very strong at all. Let's see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Mark Stevens said:

I have also (in my humble opinion) done a great job of highlighting interesting anomalies regarding Stripling eyewitnesses and the associated reporting:

So while we can continue to create new threads in a bid to push other relevant information out of sight (sliding anyone?) while avoiding all legitimate discussion of the topic(s) which have already been presented, we can't change the fact that a little bit more of "Harvey & Lee" dies every day. Regardless of anyone's obstination, and refusal to release grasp on the necrotic limbs which are the Stripling and Beauregard tales, evidence continues to come to light which seriously questions and negates the "facts" as presented by Armstrong and team.

And Dr. Norwood's debunking of Mark Stevens' attempt is here:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/2/2020 at 12:39 PM, David Josephs said:

And there will always be 2, 3 or 50 sides to the JFK related "events"...  in fact, I bet you can't name 3 things that does NOT have conflicting evidence...

While I haven't taken any kind of tally, you are likely at least in the ball park. As I mentioned to you and Sandy before, this is kinda why we all are here. Things don't add up and because those things don't add up we ask questions. We can't ourselves then answer questions with things which don't add up. When people do this, it should be examined and questioned.

Quote

So what?   That H&L dies within you every day is no real surprise Mark.. you like to place events on their own islands and refuse to consider them in context...  please prove me wrong.

It's not within me where it is dying. It is just dying. It died within me the first hour I spent researching the claims.

The problem is that what you call context is actually you referring to pre-conceived notions and looking at the Stripling evidence with the belief that the events of "Harvey & Lee" are true. As much as you continue to claim this, and claim I don't understand puzzles pieces (which literally line the walls of my house) you are just pushing me to look at this with the belief that "Harvey & Lee" is true. Even if I believed "Harvey & Lee" I would dismiss everything related to Stripling because it doesn't add up.

The fact of all of this is I do not need Stripling to exist, you do. You have to look at the evidence with "Harvey & Lee" colored glasses, I mean in the proper context, for it to make sense and to fit into this bigger puzzle.

I don't have to because Stripling didn't happen, there is and never was a government program which used the identity of Lee Harvey Oswald and merged it with the identify of Harvey Lee Oswald. There is no context to take into account, there is no bigger picture.

That picture, that context, that pre-conceived notion with which you all have to consider before weighing the validity of Bobbie Pitts' statements for instance, is entirely your own, and entirely in your all's own heads.

Quote

As to BJHS in the Fall of 1953...  I believe I have mentioned that I am not in agreement with the conclusion that those records prove a student was there the entire Fall semester...  what I see is the boy starting in January as mentioned yet the Fall semester would not have ended until end of Jan, early Feb giving the student enough time to attend a few classes... with the last line of that NYC transcript at PS44 being one of the only pieces of truth on that document.... LEE's records are complete for the 53-54 school year...

Harvey and Marge are on another track entirely...  so...  can you explain the student records at the bottom of this post or not?  Why do we not have a First Name LEE Oswald in Ft Worth all thru grade school? And who is Nancy Lee Oswald?  Answer these and we bring context back into the discussion... don't and it's SSDD...:sun

PS - here's something for you to ponder...  It was claimed that LEE goes to 1st grade fall semester at Benbrook Common school... but that would be Fall 1947, not '45.

Furthermore, the supposed evidence for this enrollment (which is only mentioned and not shown) is claimed to have info from years in the future...  the 1945 letter is shown below.

Given your vast H&L knowledge... please locate the address Marge writes on Grandbury Rd....    H&L is a narrative, not a single document... if you ever get around to accepting that, these discussions may get more productive...

[Picture removed from reply]

[Picture removed from reply]

[Picture removed from reply]

49 - 50

& 50 - 51 are virtually the same

[Picture removed from reply]

[Picture removed from reply]  this is 51-52.... 

 

Cool story bro. None of that though has any relation, any bearing, or any impact on Stripling and whether Oswald attending Stripling.

Those are pieces to an entirely different puzzle, which you then dumped on my table and now I have to separate them before I can finish my previous puzzle.

That wasn't your intention though, somehow dumping that puzzle on top of the first one helps me figure out the first one.

Right.

22 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Thanks, DJ!  Can anyone spot the usual FBI bs here?

[Picture removed from reply]

Translation: You really showed Mark the business there David (although I won't respond directly to him), here's some other unrelated stuff. That'll really zing him!

22 hours ago, David Josephs said:

Forget the BS, how about the simple truth?

How about it.

Quote

 

FBI is claiming his home room teacher for 2 years (or at least 1 year) described Oswald as "physically small" yet every one who knew LEE knew him to be as large as the largest kids in school as well as the toughest in a fight....  He enters 7th grade in 1952 at 5'4" and 115 lbs....  that sounds about the size of Myra who tells us little Harvey barely came to her shoulders

NOTE: Myra DaRouse, who last saw Harvey at Beauregard in June, 1954, said he
was 4-foot-6 to 4-foot-8.

 

Oh, dumped another puzzle on the one I was already doing. I guess this other puzzle somehow also helps me complete the first one.

But, since I'm here, this does sound awfully similar to another boy...

Quote

Mrs. SMITH. He took him back in school, and I guess they kind of patched his lip up, but he was-he more or less kept to himself, he didn’t mix with the other kids in school other than Voebel. He is the only one I remember. And they had this little boy-1 think it was Bobby Newman-he used to takearound with, but I don’t remember too much about him either. I can remember he was little, he was short.
Mr. LIEBELEB. Who was?
Mrs. SMITH. Bobby Newman.
Mr. LIEBELEB. Bobby Newman?
Mrs. SMITH. But he was, I guess, the studious type. Well, it seemed to me. He was always studying, you know, reading books, and that is as far as-I don’t know what his grades were, but as far as him mixing with other people, he didn’t. You know, like when you go to school, more or less everybody has their own group. Well, there wasn’t anybody he hung around with, except, like I said, Edward Voebel.

 

Quote

Even when the contradiction smacks them in the face... they'd have none of it.

I know, right.

Curious how the government (can't do nuffin' right!) planned to convince everyone these two boys with a foot difference in height were the same person, or when he got his growth spurt which put him at the same basic height.

I'd hate to get smacked in the face with any...contradictions.

Quote

:cheers

 

Quote

 

Fall 1951 on the left...   Aug 1953 on the right...  does puberty SHRINK boys?  :pop

The boy at the zoo is not 5'4" 115.... as the record suggests...

[Picture removed from reply]

[Picture removed from reply]

 

Oh, yet another puzzle dumped on, I don't know how I will ever finish the first puzzle now. There's like (I'm guessing these are at least 1,000 piece puzzles) 4,000 pieces from multiple puzzles. David's right, I can't make sense any of this now.

What you're doing here (and below), is another one of those things that exist only in you all's own heads. What you are doing is not science. It is not legitimate photo analysis. That is not the legitimate height represented in the photo. It is also not legitimate anatomy, each of those pictures represent different poses and some are standing erect, sitting erect, and slouching. Each impacts the shape of a person's shoulders. Last, but definitely not least, those fancy lines in absolutely no manner depict, are representative of, or are caused by his skeletal shape or structure.

This junk pseudoscience you are trying to apply here is down right laughable. You don't have the training, much less the actual information required to even make the photographic analysis and your "skeletal analysis" is flat out wrong.

21 hours ago, David Josephs said:

IDK Mark... but one man looks like one boy... while the other looks like the other...

Can't make things much more simple than this....  do with it what you may... it's fairly obvious those 2 marines are not the same person...

[Picture removed from reply]

Dude, did you just dump another puzzle on top of the one I was working on? Very rude, that's like 5 puzzles at this point all dumped on another. Can I finish one first? Preferably the box I originally opened, and not the ones you keep trying to force me to do. At this point though if I could just complete one....

10 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

And Dr. Norwood's debunking of Mark Stevens' attempt is here:

 

Ah, a semi-reply to me from good Jim. About as direct as it's going to get I would guess.

In any event, as I have not only explained but also demonstrated by providing examples of what Norwood stated and by providing examples of what I stated, Norwood didn't debunk anything at all.

How do you debunk Summers saying 1952 and you all saying 1954? You can't debunk that. That is just the fact of what Summers said.

How do you debunk Schubert saying he attending in December-January and you all saying he attended in September-October? You can't debunk that. That is just the fact of what Schubert said.

How do you debunk me without even replying to the topics I discussed? Maybe he attempted to debunk some other "critic." It sure wasn't me though.

I've proved this through demonstration and by providing specific examples, to literally each of his "debunking" points.

Again Jim Hargrove, you could easily take a swing. I'm sure you're done running that errand you had to run for Armstrong which kept you from replying previously. 

Tighten that belt up and head on over, rip that nonsense to shreds.

I'll wait.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Mark Stevens said:

In any event, as I have not only explained but also demonstrated by providing examples of what Norwood stated and by providing examples of what I stated, Norwood didn't debunk anything at all.

I beg to differ with you Mark.  Every word that you write above is inaccurate.  And, here is the latest feedback I have provided to you.  Your work simply does not hold up under close scrutiny.
 

 Mark,

There is currently an excellent thread running on the Ed Forum entitled “Did EVEN the Warren Commission Believe Howard Brennan?”  The posts of various forum members spin off of the excellent article about Brennan written by Jim DiEugenio.  The article and the comments get at the heart of a persuasive refutation of one of the most important eyewitnesses used by the Warren Commission in order to place Oswald in the sixth-floor window at the time of the shooting.

You could learn a great deal from studying the article and the thread because of the limitations of your attempt to discredit the bona fide eyewitnesses who identified Oswald as a student at Stripling Junior High School in 1954-55.

Here are two major flaws in your analysis:

(1)  In examining eyewitness testimony in a vacuum without reference to other evidence, you fail to ask the right questions, and you lead the reader astray in order to assess the reliability of what the eyewitness is recalling.

(2)  With a series of non-essential questions, you set an absurdly high threshold to determine the credibility of eyewitnesses such that any eyewitness would be deemed unreliable, based on your criteria.

In your discourse, you frequently refer to judges, attorneys, and courtroom situations as a benchmark for determining accurate eyewitness recall.  It is as if you have been influenced by television dramas depicting the cross-examination of an eyewitness in the final minutes of the program in which the attorney dramatically pokes a hole in the individual’s veracity through a single tactical question.  In the process of relying so heavily on Perry Mason-like melodramas, your analysis is pedestrian, and it reveals a deficiency in your understanding of how human memory works.

Here are examples of your flawed methodology in discussing the two most important Stripling eyewitnesses, Frank Kudlaty and Fran Schubert:

(1)  FRANK KUDLATY

There is only one critical question to ask about Frank Kudlaty’s testimony, and that is the one that you refuse to address in your critique:  whether or not Vice-Principal Kudlaty is persuasive in his recall of the visit from the FBI agents on 11/23/63 in which he handed over to them a file on Lee Harvey Oswald from the Stripling records.  All of your questions about the contents of the file have no bearing on the main issue of Kudlaty remembering the visit from the FBI.  Of course, John Armstrong discusses those ancillary issues in his nearly 1,000-page book.  But the purpose of the Stripling debate on this forum is to arrive at a conclusion about a single issue:  Was Kudlaty’s testimony credible about surrendering a file to the FBI about a student who had attended Stripling Junior High School?  Unless you can convincingly challenge Kudlaty’s memory of that specific act carried out on 11/23/63, then the Stripling debate is over.

Kudlaty recalled that he only had time to glance at the records, prior to the arrival of the FBI agents.  And yet, from that “glance,” Kudlaty did what any educator would likely do in his place:  he looked at Oswald’s grades and noticed that they were not very good grades.  A mundane admission like this gives Kudlaty’s testimony even greater credibility.  Of course, that point is never covered in your critique.  Nearly all of your questions about Kudlaty pertain to what might have been in the file that he admitted he was able only to give a quick glance.  His recall of the low grades lends even more credibility to his story.


(2)  FRAN SCHUBERT

By falling back on your pop culture legal terminology, you have determined that the key question that Schubert must answer is "How did you know the boy was Oswald?"  That question presumes that, after the passing of forty years, Schubert would somehow be able to recall the circumstances in which she first came to know the name of boy she was describing in the interview.  Unfortunately, that is not the way memory works, and it is a question that neither she nor any eyewitness should be expected to answer forty years after the fact.  In her detailed and persuasive testimony, Schubert recalled discrete moments through triggers, such as the following:

• Schubert recalled a physical mannerism of Oswald that appeared to her to be “cocky,” and that visual image remained with her over the years to be able to recall the manner in which he walked in the halls of Stripling Junior High School;

• Schubert recalled Oswald on the schoolyard when he was with a group of boys wearing black leather jackets.  Oswald’s jacket was uniquely brown, and that made him stand out in her mind and remember him on the playground forty years later; and

• Schubert recalled Oswald’s home across the street from the school because he was one of the privileged students allowed to leave the campus and go home for lunch.  She and others less fortunate had to remain on the school grounds.  The fact that she observed him leaving the campus during the noon hour left an impression that she was able to recall forty years later.

Each of the three moments above was tied to a sensory image that triggered the recall of the memory in the eyewitness.  There would likely be no such trigger with the mundane occurrence of how Schubert first learned Oswald’s name or what month of the year he was enrolled at the school.  The three memories above, plus Schubert’s recall of the academic year 1954-55, and the corroboration of key parts of her testimony by others, makes her a credible eyewitness.  In your analogy of the courtroom, your questions would be deemed irrelevant.


SUMMARY

• Your attempt to refute the testimony of credible eyewitnesses is light years away from the methodology used in assessing the enormous inconsistencies in Howard Brennan’s testimony in the thread noted above.  Anyone could write a set of questions that an eyewitness would be incapable of answering, then write off that witness as unreliable.  In your analysis of Kudlaty, you have failed to examine all of the details of Kudlaty’s testimony, and you sidestep the defining issue of whether his testimony about surrendering the Oswald file to the FBI is credible.  Your analysis of this key witness is unpersuasive because you have failed to ask the right question.  Is Kudlaty credible on this single point? 

• In your analysis of Schubert and the other eyewitnesses, you raise the threshold of credibility to absurd lengths, expecting them to be able to answer questions that were never posed to them by interviewers and that are likely unanswerable.  You then rely on the absence of responses to your hypothetical questions as the basis for dismissing the eyewitnesses!  The method you are applying to these eyewitnesses could be applied to any eyewitness in the JFK case (doctors at Parkland, Dealey Plaza eyewitnesses, or anyone who came into contact with Oswald) in order to discredit them.  In your unpersuasive approach to examining testimony, any eyewitness is thereby deemed unreliable, and you might as well be saying, “We’ll never know the truth about Oswald, and we’ll never know the truth about the death of President Kennedy.” 

CONCLUSION

On numerous occasions, I have pointed the inherent bias in everything you write about the Stripling evidence.  An objective observer would examine the evidence impartially.  In your case, you found the idea of the two Oswalds impossible to fathom, then proceeded with manic energy to try to refute it by asking a string questions that no eyewitness could possibly be expected to answer forty years after the fact.  The transparent bias destroys any credibility in your analysis.  It would be well worth your time to study and learn from the Howard Brennan thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, James Norwood said:

I beg to differ with you Mark.  Every word that you write above is inaccurate.  And, here is the latest feedback I have provided to you.  Your work simply does not hold up under close scrutiny.

I might believe you, if you took the time to actually closely scrutinize my work.

Like I do, I will demonstrate how you are wrong by referring to and using specific examples of you being wrong.

Quote

Mark,

There is currently an excellent thread running on the Ed Forum entitled “Did EVEN the Warren Commission Believe Howard Brennan?”  The posts of various forum members spin off of the excellent article about Brennan written by Jim DiEugenio.  The article and the comments get at the heart of a persuasive refutation of one of the most important eyewitnesses used by the Warren Commission in order to place Oswald in the sixth-floor window at the time of the shooting.

I'm actually participating in that thread. I've actually demonstrated by using examples where exactly Brennan was sitting and what exactly his line of sight was from that position. While you lecture me about "close scrutiny" maybe you just pay average attention. You don't even need to closely scrutinize the thread to know the participants, just pay average attention.

Quote

You could learn a great deal from studying the article and the thread because of the limitations of your attempt to discredit the bona fide eyewitnesses who identified Oswald as a student at Stripling Junior High School in 1954-55.

I actually have learned a great deal, nothing in the way of whatever you are trying to apply it to, but I did learn things as they applied to Brennan. Wait...do you mean I have to put Brennan's comments in the "bigger picture" and take that into context to determine if Oswald attended Stripling?

First, since the definition of bona-fide is genuine or real, how exactly is Pitts a real eyewitness who identified Oswald as a student of Stripling (getting real loose with the definitions now in a final attempt to hold on to these "witnesses") when he didn't attend at the same time? While you try to be vague about "identifying Oswald as a student at Stripling," the reality as actually promoted by you all is Oswald attended at a very specific time, September-October 1954. You're disregarding bona-fide statements made by these people and are instead warping them to fit into your pet theory. The fact is that Schubert doesn't match your time frame. So you say she is mistaken so she can continue to be used in your pet theory. The bona-fide...err genuine, real, actual thing she said doesn't match the bona-fide story you are telling. Instead of addressing this. literally at all, you just ignore it and say she's a witness. If she saw another boy in another month, she didn't witness Oswald.

Quote

Here are two major flaws in your analysis:

Note...my analysis...

Quote

(1)  In examining eyewitness testimony in a vacuum without reference to other evidence, you fail to ask the right questions, and you lead the reader astray in order to assess the reliability of what the eyewitness is recalling.

Ah yes, the real crux of the matter. Here...put these glasses on...now what does it look like? That's just not how it works, you don't make a conclusion and then interpret all the evidence based on that determination.

I never lead anyone astray. You all continually lead astray when you misrepresent what the witnesses actually said so the fit your story. Their actual words do not fit your story.

Quote

(2)  With a series of non-essential questions, you set an absurdly high threshold to determine the credibility of eyewitnesses such that any eyewitness would be deemed unreliable, based on your criteria.

I didn't set a legal standard of evidence. If this is absurd then I'm sorry, I simply don't care. I'm not going to water down legitimate techniques for gathering evidence and questioning the validity thereof because it's too tough for you. If the evidence doesn't fit you must acquit. It's not my criteria you have a problem with it's just....criteria. I'm sorry you feel like the evidence doesn't meet legitimate standards, but we can't lower them for you.

Quote

In your discourse, you frequently refer to judges, attorneys, and courtroom situations as a benchmark for determining accurate eyewitness recall.  It is as if you have been influenced by television dramas depicting the cross-examination of an eyewitness in the final minutes of the program in which the attorney dramatically pokes a hole in the individual’s veracity through a single tactical question.  In the process of relying so heavily on Perry Mason-like melodramas, your analysis is pedestrian, and it reveals a deficiency in your understanding of how human memory works.

Huh?

Don't get me wrong, I grew up a huge fan of Matlock, but even as a child I saw in what silly manner the drama unfolded. So you can keep making false assumptions about me and attacking me (I wish I wasn't so biased, maybe I could stop doing that to you) but you clearly are misrepresenting my position and what I've said so you can "debunk" that position which doesn't even exist, instead of debunking what I actually wrote. Basically, the exact thing you did in your "rebuttal."

For instance (go search my post yourself and see, I was going to screenshot and post each search result 0 but I just didn't feel it was necessary, it's obvious he isn't being truthful)

The word judge is mentioned 0 times.

The word attorney is mentioned 0 times.

The word lawyer is mentioned 0 times.

The word court is mentioned 4 times, each in reference to basketball courts.

Here again, I used specific examples to prove you are wrong. Not once do I make even a passing reference to a courtroom situation. I don't know why you would say that when it isn't true.

Here are examples of your flawed methodology in discussing the two most important Stripling eyewitnesses, Frank Kudlaty and Fran Schubert:

Quote

(1)  FRANK KUDLATY

There is only one critical question to ask about Frank Kudlaty’s testimony, and that is the one that you refuse to address in your critique:  whether or not Vice-Principal Kudlaty is persuasive in his recall of the visit from the FBI agents on 11/23/63 in which he handed over to them a file on Lee Harvey Oswald from the Stripling records.  All of your questions about the contents of the file have no bearing on the main issue of Kudlaty remembering the visit from the FBI.  Of course, John Armstrong discusses those ancillary issues in his nearly 1,000-page book.  But the purpose of the Stripling debate on this forum is to arrive at a conclusion about a single issue:  Was Kudlaty’s testimony credible about surrendering a file to the FBI about a student who had attended Stripling Junior High School?  Unless you can convincingly challenge Kudlaty’s memory of that specific act carried out on 11/23/63, then the Stripling debate is over.

Again, specific examples to prove you are wrong...

 

Quote

Next, in his videotaped interview, Kudlaty makes a number of statements which when taken all together show that Kudlaty wasn’t exactly sure about what he saw. Either he did not get a look at the records and cannot identify to what school they belong, or there was a thicker file of records than what Kudlaty remembers and he did clearly see Stripling records. Another, and more likely option (which is basically an extension of the first), supported by “Harvey & Lee” no less, is that the records were in fact elementary school records which were sent to Stripling after Oswald left the 6th.

Throughout the video Kudlaty states:

  • 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 envelope.(pt. 2, 6:14)(Armstrong, Frank Kudlaty Interview)

Holy acknowledgement of statements Batman!

Based on his confusion, no he is not persuasive in his recall. Don't get me wrong, like I've stated before I do believe Kudlaty gave records pertaining to Oswald to the FBI. I don't believe those records reflected him attending Stripling. I'm sorry, but Kudlaty's speculation (he just "had to" attend) doesn't persuade me. Never mind his confusing and possibly contradicting statements regarding the records.

Quote

Kudlaty recalled that he only had time to glance at the records, prior to the arrival of the FBI agents.  And yet, from that “glance,” Kudlaty did what any educator would likely do in his place:  he looked at Oswald’s grades and noticed that they were not very good grades.  A mundane admission like this gives Kudlaty’s testimony even greater credibility.  Of course, that point is never covered in your critique.  Nearly all of your questions about Kudlaty pertain to what might have been in the file that he admitted he was able only to give a quick glance.  His recall of the low grades lends even more credibility to his story.

Another opportunity to use specific examples to demonstrate that you are wrong? Oh....joy (in a Stimpy voice).\

At no point does Kudlaty comment on his grades, and makes it clear that he cannot:

Quote

Interviewer 1: Was there anything remarkable, I know you only glanced at them for a moment, but was there anything that stuck out, was there a particular bad mark or….

Kudlaty: No…I can’t…no I can’t…I just kind of glanced at it…you know I’ve often wondered why I didn’t look at them, in retrospect, but at the time it wasn’t anything important to me.

This is from my transcript, but this is somewhere around 7:51 of Part 2.

Of course that point isn't covered in my "critique," it never happened. I guess this is more of that context I need to apply.

Again, all those questions you assign to me are actually discussed by Kudlaty and Armstrong, all I do is discuss the details of the speculation:

Quote

 

Interviewer 2: What is in one of those packages?

Kudlaty: Generally it’s the record…of the student up to the time we get them and then…we got them and then…their record…If you attended Stripling Junior High School 7th, 8th or 9th there was a copy of your report card in that record. I also…my wife mentioned something last night…that there’s a possibility that there was a cumulative folder. Counselors generally kept a cumulative folder on students which would have indicated their grades, their…any testing that might have been done, and any testing records that we would have had. I don’t know…I don’t know whether those records were ever kept or had when they microfiched or I don’t remember.

Interviewer 1: What about health records? Would health records have been in there?

 

There's a lot more of that kind of speculation, but again it's not from me.

Quote

(2)  FRAN SCHUBERT

By falling back on your pop culture legal terminology, you have determined that the key question that Schubert must answer is "How did you know the boy was Oswald?"  That question presumes that, after the passing of forty years, Schubert would somehow be able to recall the circumstances in which she first came to know the name of boy she was describing in the interview.  Unfortunately, that is not the way memory works, and it is a question that neither she nor any eyewitness should be expected to answer forty years after the fact.  In her detailed and persuasive testimony, Schubert recalled discrete moments through triggers, such as the following:

• Schubert recalled a physical mannerism of Oswald that appeared to her to be “cocky,” and that visual image remained with her over the years to be able to recall the manner in which he walked in the halls of Stripling Junior High School;

• Schubert recalled Oswald on the schoolyard when he was with a group of boys wearing black leather jackets.  Oswald’s jacket was uniquely brown, and that made him stand out in her mind and remember him on the playground forty years later; and

• Schubert recalled Oswald’s home across the street from the school because he was one of the privileged students allowed to leave the campus and go home for lunch.  She and others less fortunate had to remain on the school grounds.  The fact that she observed him leaving the campus during the noon hour left an impression that she was able to recall forty years later.

Each of the three moments above was tied to a sensory image that triggered the recall of the memory in the eyewitness.  There would likely be no such trigger with the mundane occurrence of how Schubert first learned Oswald’s name or what month of the year he was enrolled at the school.  The three memories above, plus Schubert’s recall of the academic year 1954-55, and the corroboration of key parts of her testimony by others, makes her a credible eyewitness.  In your analogy of the courtroom, your questions would be deemed irrelevant.

Again, this isn't some "pop culture terminology" this is how investigations unfold, this is how credibility is determined. Whatever it means to you is inherently meaningless. 

While she recalls a cocky boy, she also recalls a quiet timid boy. So which is he, cocky boys aren't quiet and timid. Contradictions, which I guess am ignoring.

Schubert recalled a boy in months that don't match the story you are telling. Contradictions, which I am ignoring.

Schubert's recollection of a boy walking home at lunch is all she hasShe believes the boy she saw was Oswald.

Those are facts. You can reframe them so they fit your theory, but those are the simple facts.

Quote

SUMMARY

• Your attempt to refute the testimony of credible eyewitnesses is light years away from the methodology used in assessing the enormous inconsistencies in Howard Brennan’s testimony in the thread noted above.  Anyone could write a set of questions that an eyewitness would be incapable of answering, then write off that witness as unreliable.  In your analysis of Kudlaty, you have failed to examine all of the details of Kudlaty’s testimony, and you sidestep the defining issue of whether his testimony about surrendering the Oswald file to the FBI is credible.  Your analysis of this key witness is unpersuasive because you have failed to ask the right question.  Is Kudlaty credible on this single point? 

It's actually not. It's light years away from anything you will accept.

I have written no "set of question that an eyewitness would be incapable of answering." I can't really demonstrate this without copying and pasting my whole post, and that would just be rude. Suffice it to say what I actually did was ask you to explain how Summers was a witness with a conflicting and contradicting timeline, you agreed he shouldn't be used based on those inconsistencies. I pointed out what the witnesses actually said, and asked you to explain how that fit into how you were twisting them to fit your theory.

Again, I have proven that you are wrong regarding my assessment of Kudlaty. I very much did examine all of the details of Kudlaty's testimony. I also...(oh joy) just realized I have yet another opportunity to use a specific example to prove you are wrong.

I "sidestepped" nothing sir:

 

Quote

 

Next, in his videotaped interview, Kudlaty makes a number of statements which when taken all together show that Kudlaty wasn’t exactly sure about what he saw. Either he did not get a look at the records and cannot identify to what school they belong, or there was a thicker file of records than what Kudlaty remembers and he did clearly see Stripling records. Another, and more likely option (which is basically an extension of the first), supported by “Harvey & Lee” no less, is that the records were in fact elementary school records which were sent to Stripling after Oswald left the 6th.

Throughout the video Kudlaty states:

  • 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)

 

Based on his overall confusion and possible contradictions, I do not find him persuasive. Don't get me wrong, I believe he gave something to the FBI, it just wasn't records saying Oswald attended Stripling. While I really only proved you wrong again because you said this earlier, I'm going to use it in an unashamed attempt to "inflate my numbers."

Quote

• In your analysis of Schubert and the other eyewitnesses, you raise the threshold of credibility to absurd lengths, expecting them to be able to answer questions that were never posed to them by interviewers and that are likely unanswerable.  You then rely on the absence of responses to your hypothetical questions as the basis for dismissing the eyewitnesses!  The method you are applying to these eyewitnesses could be applied to any eyewitness in the JFK case (doctors at Parkland, Dealey Plaza eyewitnesses, or anyone who came into contact with Oswald) in order to discredit them.  In your unpersuasive approach to examining testimony, any eyewitness is thereby deemed unreliable, and you might as well be saying, “We’ll never know the truth about Oswald, and we’ll never know the truth about the death of President Kennedy.” 

Again, this is just the threshold for evidence. It's not mine, or some other critics, or the Education Forums...it's just what you normally apply to evidence which for some reason you don't now.

I may have asked hypothetical questions, since you are unable to provide examples (might have to address something I actually said if you did) I'm not entirely sure. What I do know I asked is how witness that directly contradict your theory somehow are witnesses. That's not hypothetical (well, I guess since Stripling is make believe it kinda is), that's just an answer you are unable to answer honestly.

Quote

CONCLUSION

On numerous occasions, I have pointed the inherent bias in everything you write about the Stripling evidence.  An objective observer would examine the evidence impartially.  In your case, you found the idea of the two Oswalds impossible to fathom, then proceeded with manic energy to try to refute it by asking a string questions that no eyewitness could possibly be expected to answer forty years after the fact.  The transparent bias destroys any credibility in your analysis.  It would be well worth your time to study and learn from the Howard Brennan thread.

You've definitely done a pretty excellent job explaining stuff and things and repeating the words bias and failed to convince and yadda yadda yadda...but you've failed to provide literally a single example of anything you claim.

So you make claims, but you don't make points which can't be refuted or even arguments which pertain to what I've actually said.

Here's what can't be refuted though....

I continue to refute you, Stripling...whatever this is. I continue to use specific examples to not only "point out" and "explain" my points and how you are wrong but to demonstrate and prove it as well.

In this thread alone, I used specific examples four times to demonstrate the fact that you are wrong.

Feel free to tighten your belt and head on over and closely scrutinize my analysis. Maybe you can make another new topic where you actually reply to me this time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/2/2020 at 7:34 AM, Jim Hargrove said:

Since one kid preferred to be called Lee, and the other Harvey, who would notice these two boys out of nearly 700 other students--other than a records keeper in the office?   Photocopy machines were not in general use in those days, and so the records must have been merged—by someone--in the cumulative record we see.  It could have been done by school personnel, or by the FBI.  Sandy Larsen made a pretty good case in another thread that it could have happened naturally back in the day. 

Jim,

Here is one point to add to your excellent narrative supported by the outstanding images of David Josephs.

As the topic of this thread is the constant switching of schools, the obvious question is why are so many moves taking place?   A related topic is the unusual absence of Oswald's school records. 

An important issue to consider is that the frequent moves were necessitated because the school records from previous institutions had not been forwarded to the new school.  If the schools were not receiving the documentation and Oswald's mother was not cooperating with full disclosure about previous schooling, the principal in the current school would have been applying pressure on the mother to account for the kid's previous records.  If the pressure became too intense, the Oswald imposter mother would pack up and move out-of-state.  Hence the rapid switches from New York to New Orleans to Texas to New Orleans and back again to Texas.  The out-of-state moves implied that it would be a more arduous task for schools to request the files. 

All of those moves were obviously not justified by Marguerite's career choices.  The Marguerite imposter was taking jobs that only paid in cash, so as to not declare income (private work as a "practical nurse," bar tending; working in a candy stall).  When pressured to disclose her Social Security number at Dolly Shoe, she immediately resigned from her job.  The same pattern is apparent in the abrupt changes in schools.  In making so many moves, the two Marguerite Oswalds were buying time until the boys reached the age where they could enlist in the Marines.

James

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, James Norwood said:

If the pressure became too intense, the Oswald imposter mother would pack up and move out-of-state.  Hence the rapid switches from New York to New Orleans to Texas to New Orleans and back again to Texas.  

Were the decisions to make "rapid switches" made autonomously by the Marguerite Imposter?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a question for everyone who believes the "...two Oswalds..." senario: who planned that covert caper?

I would imagine elements involved in covert action within US military intelligence, Federal Bureau of Narcotics, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Office of Policy Coordination and Central Intelligence Agency had something to do with it (maybe even Jean Valentin Grombach's "The Pond" organization, Jack Young Canon's "Z-Unit" or Charles Andrew Willoughby's "Field Operations Intelligence").

But who?

Better yet, what was the original purpose to have such an operation, a body double for a young boy and his mother?!

I have read the bulk of John Armstrong's work and it is a brilliant display of analytical reasoning, but why have that type of operation?

And another question for anyone on the forum, what happened to the body doubles? Who cared for them?

If they're usefulness was done after the murder of President Kennedy, shouldn't they have been "disposed" of?

Just seems like these question have never been answered properly and should, before the rabbit hole reaches the core...

Edited by Robert Montenegro
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...