The mystery of the Furniture Mart sighting of Lee and Marina Oswald and their children and its solution

[Greg Doudna]

The mystery of the Furniture Mart sighting of Lee and Marina Oswald and their children and its solution

http://www.scrollery.com/?p=1450

In this new article I propose to establish that witnesses' claims to have seen the Lee Harvey Oswald family visiting the Furniture Mart store in Irving, Texas on an unknown date in early November 1963 were a genuine sighting of Lee and Marina and their child and newborn baby and the date and circumstances that occurred.

[Guest]

I did not even know they confronted those witnesses with Marina*, very interesting read, thank you.

Marina...  if she would only come forward, never has and probably never will...

*It sure made me realize how much I still have to read... 

 

 

 

Edited January 17, 2023 by Jean Paul Ceulemans

[Guest]

Bye

Edited February 15, 2023 by Lance Payette

[Guest]

Hi

Edited February 15, 2023 by Lance Payette

[Greg Doudna]

Hi Lance -- and I thought the evidence and argument was so convincing it would be to any reasonable LNer! 🙂 

Mrs. Hunter's story that she saw a family in the Furniture Mart as she said she did, and did not fabricate it, is verified by the witness of Mrs. Whitworth. The hearsay gossip from an in-law cited by the FBI and Warren Commission saying family members thought Mrs. Hunter was a fabulator, drama queen, et al, catty in-law gossip genre, unverified, suggesting that Mrs. Hunter fabricated the entire thing (identification of the family as the Oswalds aside) is clearly incorrect. So start from that point. Mrs. Dominey in Houston clearly had no conceivable ability to know Mrs. Hunter fabricated the Furniture Mart sighting in Dallas, but just cited hearsay that that is what some family relatives assumed, claiming it is the kind of thing Mrs. Hunter would do. Whether or not that gossip was true in other cases, Mrs. Hunter clearly did not make up the story in this case. Mrs. Whitworth confirmed Mrs. Hunter was there when Mrs. Whitworth saw the family arrive in her story. Therefore Mrs. Hunter was there and saw it as she said she did.

Mrs. Hunter clearly did not invent or make up the blue and white car of the year and make belonging to the Domineys of Houston that Mrs. Hunter said the family's car arriving to the Furniture Mart reminded her of and she thought it was it; the FBI verified that the Domineys owned exactly the car Mrs. Hunter claimed although Mrs. Hunter's memory of the colors of that car preceded 1960 when the Domineys repainted the car a different color. But Mrs. Hunter's memory of the Domineys' car was true and verified from before 1960.

On the trip, Mrs. Dominey said she and her husband never made a trip to Dallas that weekend, never planned such a trip and never told anyone they planned such a trip. Whereas Mrs. Hunter claimed she had been expecting them, had left a note on the door at her home to tell them if they arrived to find her at the Furniture Mart, and when the blue and white car of the family drove up to the Furniture Mart, thought for a moment at first it was the Domineys because she thought it was their car.

That is the most serious discrepancy but Mrs. Hunter explained that she never claimed to have heard that from the Domineys themselves but rather from Mrs. Dominey's mother who was also the mother of Mrs. Hunter's brother's wife. "Mrs. Hunter stated that the 'Dommneys' had not directly told her that they planned to visit her in November, 1963, but that her sister-in-law and mother of 'Doris Dommney,' one Mrs. Patterson, had written her that the Dommneys were planning a visit to the Dallas area in November, 1963, and would probably visit her in Irving, Texas" (FBI to WC, 8/21/64, https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1141#relPageId=631). Mrs. Patterson died in June 1964 and that letter could not be verified, but it is reasonable with some wires crossed in communication. That the Domineys had some Dallas connection such that they could visit there is supported by Mr. Dominey making a trip a few weeks later to Dallas, and perhaps a Dallas in-law connection: Mrs. Dominey's sister was married to Mrs. Hunter's brother (located in Dallas? since that is where Mrs. Hunter is? unknown). Maybe Mrs. Hunter saw the blue and white car arrive, thought for a moment it was the Domineys car, and embellished the rest about she connected it to the Domineys car because she thought they could be visiting based on a Mrs. Patterson letter mentioning that possibility weeks or months earlier, who knows. But Mrs. Hunter was there at the Furniture Mart, saw the family arrive, and saw a blue and white car. Those are facts, because Mrs. Whitworth confirmed Mrs. Hunter was there when it happened. Mrs. Hunter's reaction to having that gossip reported and believed in the Warren Commission's exhibits suggesting she made the whole thing up: she was hopping mad about the way she was portrayed by her in-law and that the FBI believed it. She was angry that the FBI had not returned to her re Mrs. Dominey's statement so she could respond to it. Mrs. Hunter's response: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=60313#relPageId=27.

The important point is that Mrs. Whitworth and Mrs. Hunter saw a blue and white mid-1950s vintage sedan, American made, in which the family arrived. At the time they both reported that in the days immediately following the assassination (not at their instigation or voluntary choice, but in response to a reporter who found Mrs. Whitworth by accident), neither of these two women would have had any way to know that a blue and white mid-1950s vintage sedan, American made, belonging to Michael Paine (Michael's recently-purchased blue and white 1955 Olds) was the one car that was parked at Mrs Paine's house. 

Bottom line: the gossip relayed by Mrs. Dominey negative about Mrs. Hunter is a sideshow and largely irrelevant in light of there being no serious question that the event happened (Mrs. Whitworth's testimony) and that Mrs. Hunter was there when it happened (Mrs. Whitworth's testimony and Mrs. Hunter's). Nothing in Mrs. Dominey's family gossip disproves that. The issue is not whether the incident happened or whether Mrs. Hunter was there when it did but whether the family was the Oswalds. That is the question and issue framed correctly.

Incidentally, I don't believe there has been a prior proposal that the blue and white sedan arriving at the Furniture Mart seen by both women was the blue and white '55 Olds of Michael Paine's parked at Ruth Paine's house, as obvious as that connection should be looking at it now (when combined with the rest of the story)--that I believe is original with my article just now. Something genuinely new in 2023, sixty years after the fact--a new fact put on the table.  

Edited January 17, 2023 by Greg Doudna

[Michael Griffith]

11 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

The mystery of the Furniture Mart sighting of Lee and Marina Oswald and their children and its solution

http://www.scrollery.com/?p=1450

In this new article I propose to establish that witnesses' claims to have seen the Lee Harvey Oswald family visiting the Furniture Mart store in Irving, Texas on an unknown date in early November 1963 were a genuine sighting of Lee and Marina and their child and newborn baby and the date and circumstances that occurred.

When you dismiss the most obvious explanation--impersonation--because you find it unacceptable, it's downhill from there.

The fact that Oswald was impersonated on other occasions has been established beyond any credible doubt. 

Ruth Paine was hardly an innocent, reliable witness. 

What would have been so hard, so impossible, about finding a woman who at least bore a resemblance to Marina? What? Or, why is it so hard to believe that Marina accompanied the Oswald imposter and then denied it later? Recall that Marina claimed that she saw Oswald cleaning and practicing with "his" rifle in January 1963, which was two months before he allegedly bought the weapon.

Yes, Oswald's timecard puts him at work at the time of the visit to the furniture store. His timecard also puts him at work at the same time he supposedly bought the money order to buy the rifle, leaving aside the fact that he bought the money order with money that could not have come from his paycheck. Obviously, if the Oswald at the furniture store was an imposter, then the real Oswald's timecard poses no problem. 

 

 

[Greg Doudna]

2 minutes ago, Michael Griffith said:

Yes, Oswald's timecard puts him at work at the time of the visit to the furniture store. 

No, Oswald's timecard does not put him at work on Monday Nov 11, 1963, Veterans Day, the day the visit happened. It is accurate to say Oswald's timecard puts him at work when Mrs. Whitworth and Mrs. Hunter dated the visit to the Furniture Mart, which was mistaken. It is correct that Oswald was not at the Furniture Mart on a day he was at work. 

[Greg Doudna]

11 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

The fact that Oswald was impersonated on other occasions has been established beyond any credible doubt. 

Not in Dallas in Oct-Nov 1963 has it been established beyond credible doubt. I refuse to go into other cases here, but suffice to say I have now looked into all of them, point by point and case by case, and have concluded there is nothing substantial to the Oswald-impersonation idea in Dallas Oct-Nov 1963; they are like Elvis and UFO sightings, with all instances either genuine Oswald or mistaken identifications on the part of witnesses, but no case of a non-Oswald person who claimed or personally represented as Oswald.

Edited January 18, 2023 by Greg Doudna

[Matthew Koch]

14 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

Not in Dallas in Oct-Nov 1963 has it been established beyond credible doubt. I refuse to go into other cases here, but suffice to say I have now looked into all of them, point by point and case by case, and have concluded there is nothing substantial to the Oswald-impersonation idea in Dallas Oct-Nov 1963; they are like Elvis and UFO sightings, with all instances either genuine Oswald or mistaken identifications on the part of witnesses, but no case of a non-Oswald person who claimed or personally represented as Oswald. Please, if you want to argue this differently concerning other cases start another thread, please. Not here, please. 

Hoover is quoted on a document pondering if Oswald was impersonated with regard to buying Jeeps, later we see him impersonated by phone in Mexico City. So to call them Elvis UFO like is disingenuous at best.. 

Edited January 17, 2023 by Matthew Koch

[Greg Doudna]

If you're OK with impersonators, what's your objection to it being Oswald and Marina themselves on Monday Nov 11? I showed means, motive, opportunity, and made an argument that works. Why go for a thousand-fold greater complexity ... for what problem are you trying to solve exactly?

You cite a disputed case in another state over there, a real phone call voice impersonation phishing phone call in Mexico City, and then jump WAY into Texas as if there is a whole industry built up around Oswald, a whole impersonator infrastructure spanning the nation!

What's wrong with a simple boring solution that Oswald was Oswald at the Furniture Mart? On Monday Nov 11, 1963?  

[Guest]

Hi

Edited February 15, 2023 by Lance Payette

[Greg Doudna]

5 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

To be clear, I don't buy the impersonation argument. It simply makes no sense, serves no purpose.

My best guess would be that this incident did occur pretty much as described. My inclination would be that either Michael or Ruth was the driver and lied about it because it involved the rifle.

But who knows, it's one of those incidents that defies any completely satisfying explanation. Perhaps it occurred as Greg suggests, but Michael actually gave permission for the family to use the car, which would involve some of the issues that occurred to me.

Thanks Lance, and also for the earlier. Just to let you know, I appreciate your cross-examination of ideas on this forum, and you will always be welcome to cross-examine mine. I too had wondered if Michael had quietly slipped Lee a key to the '55 Olds with tacit permission to practice for his drivers license, with the idea that after he got his license Michael would have worked out something for Lee to have that car if he liked it. However, Michael denied that (giving a key to Lee) in his Warren Commission testimony, never said anything of it later and Ruth knew nothing of that so I concluded more likely that did not happen. 

Going back to your earlier, the issue of if and how and when Lee and Marina and their children visited the Furniture Mart is distinct from the "why". In my view the visit itself is a fact on the date I argued with the persons and car identified, but on the "why"--the idea that Lee may have been getting the rifle in operable condition for a resale (to get rid of it, out of Ruth Paine's garage, at Marina's urging)--I used language of "it is tempting to speculate that..." and "by only a slight further step in imagination [it] could have been...", then gave my reasons. But that is distinct from establishing the fact of the visit or event itself and the date and time it happened, which somehow involves Marina who seems to have been opposed to Lee's rifle, and yet the trip involves something to do with fixing a rifle... 

[Guest]

On 1/17/2023 at 10:37 PM, Greg Doudna said:

Thanks Lance, and also for the earlier. Just to let you know, I appreciate your cross-examination of ideas on this forum, and you will always be welcome to cross-examine mine. I too had wondered if Michael had quietly slipped Lee a key to the '55 Olds with tacit permission to practice for his drivers license, with the idea that after he got his license Michael would have worked out something for Lee to have that car if he liked it. However, Michael denied that (giving a key to Lee) in his Warren Commission testimony, never said anything of it later and Ruth knew nothing of that so I concluded more likely that did not happen. 

Going back to your earlier, the issue of if and how and when Lee and Marina and their children visited the Furniture Mart is distinct from the "why". In my view the visit itself is a fact on the date I argued with the persons and car identified, but on the "why"--the idea that Lee may have been getting the rifle in operable condition for a resale (to get rid of it, out of Ruth Paine's garage, at Marina's urging)--I used language of "it is tempting to speculate that..." and "by only a slight further step in imagination [it] could have been...", then gave my reasons. But that is distinct from establishing the fact of the visit or event itself and the date and time it happened, which somehow involves Marina who seems to have been opposed to Lee's rifle, and yet the trip involves something to do with fixing a rifle... 

Hi

Edited February 15, 2023 by Lance Payette

[Michael Griffith]

In his 1967 book Oswald: The Truth, I think German journalist Joachim Joesten made some good points about the Oswald impersonation at the Furniture Mart:

          Despite this stern, and unwarranted, slap at Dial R. Ryder, the Commission isn’t quite sure that this man is really a perjurer and forger, as the next item on its agenda shows: 

          "Possible corroboration for Ryder’s story is provided by two women, Mrs. Edith Whitworth, who operates the Furniture Mart, a furniture store located about one and a half blocks from the Irving Sports Shop, and Mrs. Gertrude Hunter, a friend of Mrs. Whitworth. They testified that in early November of 1963, a man who they later came to believe was Oswald drove up to the Furniture Mart in a two-tone blue and white 1937 Ford automobile, entered the store and asked about a part for a gun, presumably because of a sign that appeared in the building advertising a gunsmith shop that had formerly occupied part of the premises. When he found that he could not obtain the part, the man allegedly returned to his car and then came back into the store with a woman and two young children to look at furniture, remaining in the store for about thirty to forty minutes. 

          "Upon confronting Marina Oswald, both women identified her as the woman whom they had seen in the store on the occasion in question, although Mrs. Hunter could not identify a picture of Lee Harvey Oswald and Mrs. Whitworth identified some pictures of Oswald but not others. Mrs. Hunter purported to identify Marina Oswald by her eyes, and did not observe the fact that Marina Oswald had a front tooth missing at the time she supposedly saw her. After a thorough inspection of the Furniture Mart, Marina Oswald testified that she had never been on the premises before."

          This story is extremely revealing of the elaborate arrangements that went into the frame-up of Lee Harvey Oswald. Not only does "Oswald" here again appear on the scene, but Marina and her two children also get into the act. Evidently, the plotters had at their disposal a young woman who looked even more like Marina than her "husband" looked like Lee Harvey. (History, since then, has tragically revealed the identity of this hapless woman, but this is a matter of such consequence that I propose to explore it in another book at a later date.) On no other assumption can it be explained that both these witnesses identified Marina as the woman they had seen while the Oswalds clearly were not involved. The fact that Lee Harvey at no time owned a car and couldn’t even drive, as well as Marina’s missing front tooth, which both women failed to see, affords sufficient proof of that. 

          Observe also the elaborate frame-up technique. A man goes into a furniture store to ask for a gun part on the flimsy pretext that there had once been a gunsmith shop in the same building. This action was clearly designed to fix this incident in the mind of the store owner who would not easily forget such a foolish query. When told that there were no gun parts for sale in this place, the customer comes back with a woman who strikingly resembles, but is not, Marina Oswald and with two young children who might easily be mistaken for Rachel and June. They stay in the store thirty to forty minutes without buying anything —much longer than ordinary customers normally would do, evidently for the purpose of creating a strong and lasting impression of a family not to be mistaken for another. To the recollection of a young man interested in guns thus is added, in the minds of the two witnesses, the picture of a family not yet in a position to buy furniture but which will soon be able to. Thus an instinctive association of ideas is created between shooting and monetary gain. 

          The Report goes on: "The circumstances surrounding the testimony of the two women are helpful in evaluating the weight to be given to their testimony, and the extent to which they lend support to Ryder’s evidence. [The implication: if Whitworth and Hunter aren’t to be believed, Ryder is finished for good - J. J.] The women previously told newspaper reporters that the part for which the man was looking was a 'plunger,' which the Commission has been advised is a colloquial term used to describe a firing pin. This work was completely different from the work covered by Ryder’s repair tag, and the firing pin of the assassination weapon does not appear to have been recently replaced. At the time of their depositions, neither woman was able to recall the type of work which the man wanted done." 

          What does it matter? If, as every circumstance of this episode suggests, this was merely another item in a well-planned frame-up campaign, the purpose of that man's visit to the Furniture Mart was simply to have a few more witnesses attest to Oswald’s concern with guns and to his financial prospects about to improve substantially. Now comes a most revealing item: 

          "Mrs. Whitworth related to the FBI that the man told her that the younger child with him was born on October 20, 1963, which was in fact Rachel Oswald’s birthday. In her testimony before the Commission, however, Mrs. Whitworth could not state that the man had told her the child’s birthdate was October 20, 1963, and in fact expressed uncertainty about the birthday of her own grandchild, which she had previously used as a guide to remembering the birthdate of the younger child in the shop." 

          This paragraph again demonstrates the deep-rooted bias of the Commission and its total unwillingness to pursue any clues pointing toward conspiracy or frame-up. For it would indeed be too much to assume that mere coincidence was at stake here. The mention of that birthdate, on that occasion, is cogent evidence that the man in question either was Lee Harvey Oswald, or somebody exceptionally familiar with Oswald’s circumstances. If it was not Oswald-and the Commission arrived at the firm conclusion that it was not - then this incident is hard evidence of frame-up. 

          On the other hand, note how the Commission, again most unfairly, tries to create the impression that Mrs. Whitworth is a poor old soul who just doesn’t know what she is talking about. Why, in her testimony before the Commission "she could not state" what she had previously told the FBI. Why couldn’t she? Obviously because, in the meantime, she, too, had been subjected to some of that pressure and harassment which practically all witnesses whose testimony in some way ran counter to the official version have experenced. Or she was simply overawed by the Commission and got bewildered. Who could blame her? But she did tell the FBI and that’s in the record. 

          What the Commission has to say about the circumstances that preclude the couple in question having been the Oswalds makes more sense: 

          "Mrs. Hunter thought that the man she and Mrs. Whitworth believed was Oswald drove the car to and from the store:  however, Lee Harvey Oswald apparently was not able to drive an automobile by himself and does not appear to have had access to a car. 

          "The two women claimed that Oswald was in the Furniture Mart on a weekday, and in midafternoon. However, Oswald had reported to work at the Texas School Book Depository on the dates referred to by the women and there is no evidence that he left his job during business hours. In addition, Ruth Paine has stated that she always accompanied Marina Oswald whenever Marina left the house with her children and that they never went to the Furniture Mart, either with or without Lee Harvey Oswald, at any time during October or November of 1963. There is nothing to indicate that in November the Oswalds were interested in buying furniture."

          In spite of the somewhat cagey wording used by the Commission--as though it wanted to leave a possible way out for itself in another seemingly inexplicable incident--the incontrovertible fact of the matter is that the visitors to the Furniture Mart on that day cannot have been Oswald and family, for the records of the Book Depository prove that Lee Harvey was on the job every weekday during the period in question. Inevitably, then, somebody else, or rather two other persons, had been impersonating Lee Harvey and Marina Oswald on this occasion--unless Mrs. Whitworth and Mrs. Hunter, dreaming in unison in broad daylight, just had imagined the whole thing. And so the Commission, in sheer desperation, snatches at this straw and clings to it for dear life: 

          "Finally, investigation has produced reason to question the credibility of Mrs. Hunter as a witness. Mrs. Hunter stated that one of the reasons she remembers the description of the car in which Oswald supposedly drove to the furniture store was that she was awaiting the arrival of a friend from Houston, who drove a similar automobile. However, the friend in Houston has advised that in November 1963, she never visited or planned to visit Dallas, and that she told no one that she intended to make such a trip. Moreover, the friend added, according to the FBI interview report, that Mrs. Hunter has 'a strange obsession for attempting to inject herself into any big event which comes to her attention' and that she 'is likely to claim some personal knowledge of any major crime which receives much publicity.' She concluded that 'the entire family is aware of these tall tales Mrs. Hunter tells and they normally pay no attention to her.'"

          Here the Warren Commission really goes the limit in unfair treatment of a witness that cannot even be described as hostile but who merely wants to tell the truth as she experienced it. On the say-so of an unidentified "friend" in another city, without at least confronting Mrs. Hunter with these disparaging remarks, without even remembering the corroborating evidence of Mrs. Whitworth, the Commission concludes that this witness is given to spinning tall tales and that, therefore, the whole episode related above presumably did not take place. And, in the process, poor Ryder is also relegated to limbo. (pp. 78-83)

Edited January 18, 2023 by Michael Griffith

[Gerry Down]

9 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

I tried to trace the "Lee Oswald" signature on a restaurant guest book in Wisconsin. I discovered a guy from the town named Lance (!) Oswald who went by Lee, but he wouldn't respond to me even when I tried through the pastor of his church. So, alas, that remains yet another "out of place Oswald" of conspiracy lore.

Nice research. Was that signature ever examined to see if it matched Oswald's writing?