Question About Harvey, Lee, and the "Two Marguerites"

[Ron Bulman]

55 minutes ago, Mark Stevens said:

bConvoluted...by pointing out what the people actually stated and what they actually saw and explaining in great detail how those statements and observations do not mesh with the "Harvey and Lee" theory.

I'll offer you to go through them one by one and you can explain how their statements create a second Oswald and/or attendance at a school he didn't go to and I'll counter, or vice versa.

Since Summers has already been mentioned we can start with him...

Summers stated he taught LHO in 1952, two years after he began teaching. "Harvey and Lee" claims states that LHO attended Stripling in the school year 1954-1955. How does Summers statement support the "Harvey and Lee" theory?

Summers also states he taught Robert, although Robert started high school at Arlington Heights in 1949. He is obviously wrong about teaching Robert.

Also, I don't think you've actually read that thread, if so point out how they won and by what logic. At almost no point is anything I wrote about even mentioned or discussed. The closest Hargrove gets is by continually repeating "but it was in the newspaper 5 times!!!" Again, I state that repetition of 1 single interview does not make it correct. At no point did the Telegram conduct another interview with Robert where they were told LHO went to Stripling, much less 5 additional interviews. As a believer in 9/11 conspiracy theories, you must believe that since the newspaper said umpteen times that OBL was responsible then it's obviously true, because well it was in the newspaper umpteen times. If you countered that with logic and evidence and I said...nu uh...it was in the newspaper by golly...would you believe I bested you? I certainly doubt it. That is what Hargrove did.

So again I ask, how does Summers statements support the "Harvey and Lee" theory when he is a) obviously wrong about teaching Robert, and b) his statements contradict the timeline of "Harvey and Lee?" 

So your not Mark E Baby (Stevens) which I may have asked a few years back.  Used to listen to him spin in KFJZ AM.

Mark Stevens Obituary (2010) - Houston, TX - Star-Telegram (legacy.com)

He used to spin tunes like this.

 

[W. Niederhut]

1 hour ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

You’ve got to be joking. Not only did Mark and Robert Charles Dunne wipe the floor with them, Mark’s research and analysis surfaced additional fatal flaws with the “Harvey and Lee” version of events (to the point that Hargrove even corrected the “Harvey and Lee” web site because of it). And there are no “multiple Stripling witnesses,” as Mark and Jeremy have pointed out. In fact there is no credible evidence whatsoever that Oswald attended the school.

Speaking of jokes, folks, this is an example of what Jonathan refers to as, "Mark and Robert Charles Dunne wiping the floor with Jim Hargrove," in the July 2020 Education Forum debate about Stripling.

Jim Hargrove

• 
• Members
• •  3.6k
• Gender:Male

Posted July 20, 2020

The H&L critics are here to declare “Case Closed” on LHO’s Stripling School attendance regardless of what the evidence shows.  It was all a big misunderstanding, don’t you know? 

The H&L critics claim that the Stripling assistant principal Frank Kudlaty, who said he gave LHO’s Stripling records to the FBI hours after the assassination, was either lying or profoundly mistaken.

The critics claim that Robert Oswald was just guessing that LHO attended Stripling when he was quoted in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram in 1959 and again in 1962 saying that LHO attended Stripling school a year or so before entering the Marine Corps.  The H&L critics ignore the fact that in 1956 Robert, Marguerite, and LHO lived at 4936 Collinwood in Fort Worth, just ten blocks or so from Stripling School, when Robert and LHO undoubtedly compared notes about their Stripling attendance experiences (Robert in 1948, LHO in 1954).  Robert certainly wasn’t guessing about LHO’s Stripling attendance.

The H&L critics claim that the Star-Telegram article published two days after the assassination was wrong when it stated LHO attended Stripling.  Ditto for the Star Telegram stories of 2002 and 2017, both of which said LHO attended Stripling.

They claim Stripling student Fran Schubert was wrong in her clear memory that she watched LHO walk the short distance home from the school to 2220 Thomas Place, just across the street from Stripling, where Marguerite lived on several occasions, including when JFK was killed.

They claim to not understand what Stripling principal Ricardo Galindo meant when he told John Armstrong that it was “common knowledge” that LHO attended Stripling.

They ignore Marguerite’s statement in the 11/15/59 Star-Telegram that LHO “quit school at 14 …. he quit in the eighth grade ….. but was so set on getting an education, he quit and returned three times,” and apparently want people to think this matches the Official Record without Stripling School.

They ignore the evidence, claiming it is just a “distraction,” that just one year before Stripling the two LHOs attended school simultaneously in New York City and New Orleans.

The H&L critics cannot even CONSIDER ACCEPTING the clear evidence that LHO attended Stripling School because they know that, if they do, they have to accept there were two different young men sharing the identity of LHO, just as John Armstrong has shown again and again.  That is why the H&L critics are working so hard in their unsuccessful attempts to debunk the Stripling evidence.  If they accept it, they admit there were two LHOs!

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

So W. Niederhut is reduced to copying and pasting Jim Hargrove, the copy-and-paste king!

In that post, Jim failed to address, let alone to counter, Mark's arguments about the Stripling 'witnesses'. Jim's tactic, as was often the case, was simply to keep repeating the H&L doctrine that Mark had refuted.

Two posts below Jim's, you'll find Mark's response:

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/26639-the-stripling-episode-harvey-lee-a-critical-review/?do=findComment&comment=424845

Mark wrote:

Quote

Please refute the analysis of the evidence. Posting the evidence repeatedly, and repeatedly, and repeatedly, and repeatedly, and repeatedly, and repeatedly does not make the statements true.

It's a cult. Keep on repeating the doctrine, and eventually the infidels will see the light! As Mark pointed out, it's the JFK assassination's equivalent of the flat earth theory.

Jim seemed to be genuinely unable to deal with the notion that his evidence shouldn't be accepted at face value. W. Niederhut may have the same inability. Mark again:

Quote

At some point you are going to have to be a man and actually look at the evidence, you can't keep posting it forever without actually critically examining it, can you?

I dare anyone to read the entirety of Mark's thread about the Stripling 'witnesses' and come up with credible arguments against his analysis. Mark, with help from Robert Charles-Dunne and others, demolished a central part of the 'Harvey and Lee' belief system.

[Ron Ege]

15 hours ago, Joseph McBride said:

That line of Pesci's was from Winston

Churchill, who said it about Russia/the USSR.

Noted!

[W. Niederhut]

6 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

So W. Niederhut is reduced to copying and pasting Jim Hargrove, the copy-and-paste king!

Two posts below Jim's, you'll find Mark's response:

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/26639-the-stripling-episode-harvey-lee-a-critical-review/?do=findComment&comment=424845

 

So, Jeremy Bojczuk is reduced to copy-and-pasting Mark Stevens' convoluted arguments alleging to "debunk" multiple concurring witnesses about Oswald's attendance at Stripling.  Got it.  More "floor wiping."

This is what Stevens calls an "Occam's Razor" approach to the witness testimony...

"Here I sit so patiently, waiting to find out what price, you have to pay to get it out of going through all these things" THRICE...  🤥

Here is Jim Hargrove's response to Steven's (above) redundant response.

 

Jim Hargrove

• 
• Members
• •  3.6k
• Gender:Male

Posted July 20, 2020 (edited)

To Mark Stevens:

You and the other H&L critics are free to spin the Stripling School evidence any way you wish for as long as you desire.  But you simply cannot make that evidence go away.  I stand by that evidence, and see no point in arguing the details with you since you and the other H&L critics will always claim victory no matter what I say.

Nothing you have said makes me doubt in any way that one LHO attended Stripling School, a fact which is supported by so much evidence.  I will continue to present that evidence, which includes five Fort Worth newspaper articles, sworn testimony by Robert Oswald, two videotaped interviews and written descriptions of other witness recollections presented in H&L.  You can do as you wish.

 

[Tony Krome]

13 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

2220 Thomas Place

 

[Mark Stevens]

19 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

This is nonsense.

First let me explain the thing about Oswald's elementary school records that has Mark confused:

Apparently, the night before the Kudlaty interview, the two interviewers discussed with Kudlaty how records were generally passed from elementary school to junior high school, and from one junior high school to another.

When a student completes elementary school, a copy of the records would be sent to the junior high school. If the student then switched from that junior high to another, a copy of the records -- including the elementary records -- would be sent from that junior high to the new one.

Kudlaty apparently knew that there were no prior junior high school records in Oswalds Stripling file. Yet he thought or assumed that there WERE elementary school records in the file, maybe because that was typically the case with any junior high school file. But he wasn't sure because he didn't know how the elementary records would get there if not passed from a prior junior high school. If you read the transcript below you will see Kudlaty wondering how the elementary school records (if any) got into Oswald's file.

In the interview, one of the interviewers mentioned the discussion they had had the night before. This triggered Kudlaty into wondering again, out loud, how there could be elementary records but no prior junior high records in Oswald's file. The interviewer then brought Kudlaty back from his tangent.

Here's a transcript of the relevant part of the interview, Kudlaty's words only:

I went to the records file, got his records out. I did open them, I did look at them in kind of a cursory way. And the only thing I can recall is that the records for Stripling were [in that?] he didn't attend there for a full year. I put them back in the brown envelope.... The records that I turned over to the FBI may have contained the elementary school records that you should have in your files....

[A comment is made by an interviewer regarding their previous-nights discussion of how school records are transferred from one school to another.] ... As I have said last night, how did all the records in the elementary school show up and there are none from the junior high school? That would be an interesting path to go down to see how those records got into the file -- and where they came from? Did someone go to -- went to the [elementary] school and get them?...

To the best of my recollection, his records were incomplete and that they did not show a full year of attendance.... I believe that he had grades for one six-week period. That's the best I can remember. But I wouldn't want to swear to that.... [Kudlaty explains why he believes it was six weeks.] ... He received grades for the first six weeks....

Kudlaty definitely said that he gave LHO's records to the FBI and that LHO attended Stripling for part of a year. He didn't say that the records might have been just elementary records. And in fact, he says that the only explanation for Stripling having those records is because Oswald attended classes there.

Here's the link to the Kudlaty interview.

If it's nonsense then it's Kudlaty that is stating the nonsense, I'm simply posting his words. If there is any confusion, it is not I who is confused, it is Kudlaty since I'm simply posting his actual words.

You conflate Kudlaty's statements at various points of the interview and make it seem as though he stated those things verbatim, which just isn't true and is pretty misleading. It's also comical that in your own post you contradict your theory but you refuse to focus on those parts and only pay attention and highlight the points you want to hear. When in their "totality" as you like to say, the comments do not back any "Harvey and Lee" theory unless you ignore the "totality" of Kudlaty's statements and focus on two sentences.

On to what Kudlaty actually stated...

In Kudlaty's first statement he does state the following:

Quote

I went to the records files, got his records out. I did open them, I did look at them…in kind of a cursory way, and the only thing I can recall is that the records for Stripling were incomplete (audio blip) and that he didn’t attend there a full year.

In response to a separate question he then states:

Quote

The records that I turned over to the FBI may have contained the elementary school records that you have in your files, because it was the procedure that when a student moved from the elementary level to the junior high level (audio blip) a copy of their records were forwarded to show that they had successfully completed the 6^th grade…and as I said last night how did that…how did all the records from the elementary school show up and there are none from the junior high school, and that’s a…that would be an interesting path to go down to see how those records got into the files and where they came from. Did someone go to the elementary school and get them?

He clearly contradicts his earlier statements that there were Stripling records by stating there were no junior high records. He doesn't state prior records. He states there were no junior high records. It can't be both. There can't be records showing some attendance at Stripling and also have no records.

You can't pick and choose which statement you want to believe. You have to acknowledge he stated both things and you have to acknowledge his statements are contradictory, anything else is disingenuous at best.

He also states in that portion that elementary records were customarily sent to the next school. I'm not confusing anything. He isn't saying elementary school school records are sent by a prior junior high school as you exclaimed in bold font. He clearly states:

Quote

a copy of their records were forwarded to show that they had successfully completed the 6^th grade

6th grade. Elementary school. Not a prior junior high school. Those are Kudlaty's own words from around 1:42 of his interview. Listen to that portion and tell me I'm wrong. Tell me he doesn't state what is quoted above.

Kudlaty did not "definitely state Oswald attended Stripling." What he actually said was:

Quote

You know that’s a…I believe that he had grades for one 6-week period. That’s the best I can remember…but that, you know…I wouldn’t want to swear to that.

I wouldn't want to swear to that. Doesn't seem too definite to me.

This part is almost demonstrably false:

Quote

And in fact, he says that the only explanation for Stripling having those records is because Oswald attended classes there.

This is not the only explanation. What "Harvey and Lee" believers don't tell you (even though it's in their holy book) is this exact same scenario occurred at another school that Oswald never attended. FBI agents came to Monnig Junior High school and retrieved records related to Oswald. This is from the book, "Harvey and Lee," page 100. Oswald clearly never attended Monnig, unless we now have 3 Oswalds, I guess we can call him Herbert Lou Oswald.

If Oswald never attended Monnig, what records could the school have for the FBI to retrieve? Is it because as Kudlaty states, it was customary to send records to the next school, as stated even in the book "If there were records, they were probably copies of Oswald's records from Ridglea West Elementary that were forwarded to Monnig. "

You can continue to use Kudlaty as your star witness all you want, but you have to admit he made statements that are contradictory and at best his statements in their totality, are questionable considering the contradictions. You have to also admit Oswald attending school at Stripling is not the only explanation for Stripling having records, considering that Monnig also had records. Doing so does weaken your Stripling case, and I all but guarantee not a single one of you will do so because, who needs actual facts when we can speculate and make up whatever you want.

[Mark Stevens]

6 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

So, Jeremy Bojczuk is reduced to copy-and-pasting Mark Stevens' convoluted arguments alleging to "debunk" multiple concurring witnesses about Oswald's attendance at Stripling.  Got it.  More "floor wiping."

This is what Stevens calls an "Occam's Razor" approach to the witness testimony...

"Here I sit so patiently, waiting to find out what price, you have to pay to get it out of going through all these things" THRICE...  🤥

Here is Jim Hargrove's response to Steven's (above) redundant response.

 

Jim Hargrove

• 
• Members
• •  3.6k
• Gender:Male

 

Posted July 20, 2020 (edited)

To Mark Stevens:

You and the other H&L critics are free to spin the Stripling School evidence any way you wish for as long as you desire.  But you simply cannot make that evidence go away.  I stand by that evidence, and see no point in arguing the details with you since you and the other H&L critics will always claim victory no matter what I say.

Nothing you have said makes me doubt in any way that one LHO attended Stripling School, a fact which is supported by so much evidence.  I will continue to present that evidence, which includes five Fort Worth newspaper articles, sworn testimony by Robert Oswald, two videotaped interviews and written descriptions of other witness recollections presented in H&L.  You can do as you wish.

 

Maybe it is convoluted, but sometimes the actual facts lie in the details that go ignored. The JFKA is convoluted. If we ignore evidence and ideas because they are complex then well I guess Oswald did it because his prints are on the rifle and the shots came from the building he worked in. Case closed guys....

 

 

 

Or not.

My "redundant response" is asking "Harvey and Lee" believers to actually debate me and explain what is wrong with what I've stated about the witnesses and their statements. Instead I get the equivalent of "nuh uh's" and accusations that I'm spinning and denying, blah blah blah.

Again I ask you, W. Niederhut to go through the witnesses with me and explain how their statements support the "Harvey and Lee" theory. I'll redundantly post my statements from my previous post making this offer to you, or literally anyone...

So again I ask, how does Summers statements support the "Harvey and Lee" theory when he is a) obviously wrong about teaching Robert, and b) his statements contradict the timeline of "Harvey and Lee?" 

[Tom Gram]

1 hour ago, Mark Stevens said:

The records that I turned over to the FBI may have contained the elementary school records that you have in your files, because it was the procedure that when a student moved from the elementary level to the junior high level (audio blip) a copy of their records were forwarded to show that they had successfully completed the 6^th grade…and as I said last night how did that…how did all the records from the elementary school show up and there are none from the junior high school, and that’s a…that would be an interesting path to go down to see how those records got into the files and where they came from. Did someone go to the elementary school and get them?

What was the question that elicited this response, and is there any audio or transcript of the “last night” interview referred to by Kudlaty? 

I ask because my first impression on reading this was that Kudlaty was referring to the records Armstrong had in his files i.e. the stuff in the WC volumes - and he was telling Armstrong that it might be interesting to trace how the elementary school records were entered into evidence, since records from Stripling did not “show up” and Kudlaty thought he might have turned over both sets of files to the FBI himself - since the elementary records were a part of Oswald’s file at Stripling.

I know that was convoluted as hell but I’m in a bit of a rush. I am not a H&L supporter but this seems like a valid question. Maybe I’m missing something though. 

[Mark Stevens]

50 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:

What was the question that elicited this response, and is there any audio or transcript of the “last night” interview referred to by Kudlaty? 

I ask because my first impression on reading this was that Kudlaty was referring to the records Armstrong had in his files i.e. the stuff in the WC volumes - and he was telling Armstrong that it might be interesting to trace how the elementary school records were entered into evidence, since records from Stripling did not “show up” and Kudlaty thought he might have turned over both sets of files to the FBI himself - since the elementary records were a part of Oswald’s file at Stripling.

I know that was convoluted as hell but I’m in a bit of a rush. I am not a H&L supporter but this seems like a valid question. Maybe I’m missing something though. 

The immediate question before that statement was:

Quote

You had mentioned last night about the procedures of elementary school records.

I think your question was clear, and it is an interesting possibility. Kudlaty may have been referencing why no Stripling records showed up in WC evidence. I can't recall all of the school records which are contained in the WC, but I do believe there are junior high school records included. Saying there were no records from the junior high, unless he is specifically referring to Stripling, would then be incorrect. If he is referring to Stripling then there were no records present from that school because he didn't actually go to that school.

There is no video or record of whatever Kudlaty and his interviewers spoke of the night before though.

[Tom Gram]

3 hours ago, Mark Stevens said:

The immediate question before that statement was:

I think your question was clear, and it is an interesting possibility. Kudlaty may have been referencing why no Stripling records showed up in WC evidence. I can't recall all of the school records which are contained in the WC, but I do believe there are junior high school records included. Saying there were no records from the junior high, unless he is specifically referring to Stripling, would then be incorrect. If he is referring to Stripling then there were no records present from that school because he didn't actually go to that school.

There is no video or record of whatever Kudlaty and his interviewers spoke of the night before though.

The way Kudlaty phrases it does make it sound like he’s talking about specific schools: 

how did all the records from the elementary school show up and there are none from the junior high school, and that’s a…that would be an interesting path to go down to see how those records got into the files and where they came from. Did someone go to the elementary school and get them?

Kudlaty may have been wondering if the elementary records Armstrong found in the WC volumes, NARA, etc. were originally obtained directly from each school by the FBI as opposed to from himself - since he’d just speculated that he might have been the original source: 

The records that I turned over to the FBI may have contained the elementary school records that you have in your files…

So in this case when Kudlaty stated “that would be an interesting path to go down” he’d be referring to a potential lead to investigate on why no Stripling records were entered into evidence.

Hypothetically, if Kudlaty was not completely full of it and he really did give records to the FBI, which is questionable, I think the Bostick/Monnig scenario makes perfect sense - but there should be a 302 report, teletype, memo, etc. reflecting that records were requested and/or obtained from both schools - and that the records were duplicate elementary files routinely sent out to Junior High schools as per Armstrong: 

Only notification by Marguerite Oswald of their move to New York in the fall of 1952 would have prevented Ridglea West from routinely forwarding carbon copies of Oswald's transcripts to Monnig (From H&L) 

Are we absolutely positive such documents don’t exist, even in the Dallas Field Office files that are not online? Even if there are no actual reports but duplicate records  were really obtained, the records should be buried in an EBF (enclosure behind file) somewhere, most likely the Dallas Oswald File. You’d think Armstrong would have followed Kudlaty’s lead and looked for this stuff, but it might have been easy to miss if the only thing in the FBI files was a carbon copy of elementary records already available elsewhere. The same records appearing under different file numbers might be an interesting clue though, and something potentially worth looking into. 

Edited September 15, 2022 by Tom Gram

[Mark Stevens]

58 minutes ago, Tom Gram said:

The way Kudlaty phrases it does make it sound like he’s talking about specific schools: 

how did all the records from the elementary school show up and there are none from the junior high school, and that’s a…that would be an interesting path to go down to see how those records got into the files and where they came from. Did someone go to the elementary school and get them?

Kudlaty may have been wondering if the elementary records Armstrong found in the WC volumes, NARA, etc. were originally obtained directly from each school by the FBI as opposed to from himself - since he’d just speculated that he might have been the original source: 

The records that I turned over to the FBI may have contained the elementary school records that you have in your files…

So in this case when Kudlaty stated “that would be an interesting path to go down” he’d be referring to a potential lead to investigate on why no Stripling records were entered into evidence.

Hypothetically, if Kudlaty was not completely full of it and he really did give records to the FBI, which is questionable, I think the Bostick/Monnig scenario makes perfect sense - but there should be a 302 report, teletype, memo, etc. reflecting that records were requested and/or obtained from both schools - and that the records were duplicate elementary files routinely sent out to Junior High schools as per Armstrong: 

Only notification by Marguerite Oswald of their move to New York in the fall of 1952 would have prevented Ridglea West from routinely forwarding carbon copies of Oswald's transcripts to Monnig (From H&L) 

Are we absolutely positive such documents don’t exist, even in the Dallas Field Office files that are not online? Even if there are no actual reports but duplicate records  were really obtained, the records should be buried somewhere in an EBF (enclosure behind file) somewhere, most likely the Dallas Oswald File. You’d think Armstrong would have followed Kudlaty’s lead and looked for this stuff, but it might have been easy to miss if the only thing in the FBI files was a carbon copy of elementary records already available elsewhere. The same records appearing under different file numbers might be an interesting clue though, and something potentially worth looking into. 

I don't entirely disagree, and that's why I said it was an interesting possibility.

After all my research into this avenue though, I don't believe LHO attended Stripling but I am coming to accept one possibility. LHO moved to New York in August of 1952. I can't remember if an exact date for this move has ever been given. Most schools begin their school year sometime in August. It is at least possible that LHO attended Stripling for some weeks in August 1952 before moving to NYC. I know the records have been posted on the forum before, but I can't seem to find them. Maybe someone more familiar with those records can post them and we can see if LHO began school in NYC on the first of the school year or a few weeks into it.

This though still does not mesh with the "Harvey and Lee" theory, which posits that LHO attended Stripling during the 1954-55 school year, for the first 6 weeks or so of the school year.

[Jeremy Bojczuk]

W. Niederhut writes:

Quote

Here is Jim Hargrove's response to Steven's (above) redundant response.

Mark took the Stripling witnesses' evidence to pieces and showed why it failed to support the double-doppelganger theory's claims.

Jim replied to this, not by countering Mark's arguments but by repeating the claims Mark had just debunked.

Mark then urged Jim to actually confront the arguments and examine the evidence critically instead of simply repeating the now-debunked claims.

And what did Jim do? Did he deal with the arguments Mark had made, and come up with a convincing reason to believe the 'witnesses'? Of course not. As W. Niederhut has shown, Jim refused to confront the points Mark had put forward:

Quote

I ... see no point in arguing the details with you ... I will continue to present that evidence

Jim was unable to answer Mark's arguments. In effect, Jim acknowledged that Mark had debunked the evidence of the Stripling 'witnesses'.

That's the current state of play. The Strpling evidence is worthless until someone finds a way to counter Mark's analysis of the evidence. Would W. Niederhut care to have a go?

[Sandy Larsen]

16 hours ago, Mark Stevens said:

You conflate Kudlaty's statements at various points of the interview and make it seem as though he stated those things verbatim, which just isn't true and is pretty misleading.

 

Everything in my post is true and without conflation. In it I clearly differentiated between what Kudlaty said and my remarks. Unlike Mark, I didn't leave out anything of importance, other than my transcript only paraphrasing things the interviewers said, which I did in order to save myself from having to transcribe it.

I encourage everybody to listen to the first couple minutes of the interview (at least) while following along with my transcript. The reason for reading my transcript while listening to Kudlaty is because he says two or three important things very quickly and it's hard to make it out without repeating the video multiple times. I spent a fair amount of time doing that and I believe I got it down correctly. You can correct me if you find my transcript is wrong about something.

I'm confident that open-minded people will agree with my characterization of what Kudlaty said.

This theory Mark has, that Kudlaty admitted that there weren't any Stripling records in the Stripling file when he said, "As I have said last night, how did all the records in the elementary school show up and there are none from the junior high school?" is simply ridiculous, given that elsewhere and multiple times Kudlaty says that Oswald was a student at Stripling. If you accept Mark's theory, you'll find that much of the interview makes no sense and is full of contradictions. But once you realize that, by saying "there are [no records] from the junior high school,"  Kudlaty was talking only about a PRIOR junior high records that normally would have included the elementary school records... once you realize that, then everything Kudlaty says makes sense. And this becomes perfectly clear if you listen to all the comments, including those made by the interviewers, about the procedures schools followed when transferring records.

One other important thing that Mark gets wrong is when Kudlaty says, "I wouldn't want to swear to that," he wasn't talking about whether Oswald attended Stripling... he was talking about HOW LONG he attended. He recalls seeing that only one column in Oswald's record was filled in, which would indicate that he completed only the first six weeks of classes.

 

If anybody wants to check this out themselves, here's the link to the Kudlaty interview. And here's the transcript of the relevant parts of the interview, Kudlaty's words only:

I went to the records file, got his records out. I did open them, I did look at them in kind of a cursory way. And the only thing I can recall is that the records for Stripling were [in that?] he didn't attend there for a full year. I put them back in the brown envelope.... The records that I turned over to the FBI may have contained the elementary school records that you should have in your files....

[A comment is made by an interviewer regarding their previous-nights discussion of how school records are transferred from one school to another.] ... As I have said last night, how did all the records in the elementary school show up and there are none from the junior high school? That would be an interesting path to go down to see how those records got into the file -- and where they came from? Did someone go to -- went to the elementary school and get them?...

To the best of my recollection, his records were incomplete and that they did not show a full year of attendance.... I believe that he had grades for one six-week period. That's the best I can remember. But I wouldn't want to swear to that.... [Kudlaty explains why he believes it was six weeks.] ... He received grades for the first six weeks....

 

[Sandy Larsen]

15 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

17 hours ago, Mark Stevens said:

[From Transcript of Kudlaty interview:]

The records that I turned over to the FBI may have contained the elementary school records that you have in your files, ...

 

15 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

... my first impression on reading this was that Kudlaty was referring to the records Armstrong had in his files i.e. the stuff in the WC volumes ...

 

Tom,

Just in case you didn't consequently work this out...

First, Mark left a word out in his transcript, innocently I'm sure. The part reading:

The records that I turned over to the FBI may have contained the elementary school records that you have in your files, ...

Should be:

The records that I turned over to the FBI may have contained the elementary school records that you SHOULD have in your files, ...

The Kudlaty interview is divided into three videos and I believe you have to listen to more than one if you want to hear everything the interviewers said about the conversation that was had the night before.

The meaning of

The records that I turned over to the FBI may have contained the elementary school records that you should have in your files, ...

in context is clearly

The records that I turned over to the FBI may have contained the elementary school records that [one] should have in [one's] files, ...

(For those who may not know, the way Kudlaty worded it is common vernacular in America for the way I wrote it.)

I don't recall Kudlaty ever referring to Armstrong's files  or works.