13-03-2010, 06:27 PM (This post was last modified: 16-03-2010, 06:44 AM by James H. Fetzer.)
David,
Please read posts #25, #27, #41, and #47 in this thread, which address this issue. Before Jack went back to John Armstrong to discuss this, he displayed a more open mind that Judyth might be being harassed and stalked because of knowledge derived from her cancer research and work on bioweapons, as the posts from my psy ops expert suggest.
I think he is right, but I also believe her personal story humanizes the alleged assassin, who has been demonized for decades by the government and the mass media. A guy who had relationships, a sense of humor, who socialized and shared his life with someone else is a real human being--an implausibe candidate for "lone, demented gunman".
Her story makes it clear that he was working undercover for the government, knew he was being impersonated, and was attempting to save the president's life, not take it. For all of her imperfections, I believe in her and regard her story as extremely important and worth bringing to the public, even at the cost of antagonizing some very old friends.
THERE IS ONLY ONE PHOTO SHOWING HIM AS AN ADULT THAT I HAVE BEEN ABLE TO OBTAIN OVER THE YEARS , IT WAS TAKEN THE LAST THANKSGIVING THE LAST TIME THEY WERE ALL TOGETHER..1962 IMO I DO NOT SEE ANY RESEMBLANCE WITH LEE BY THE TIME THEY WERE SHOWN TO BE ADULTS...FWIT..B
THERE IS ONLY ONE PHOTO SHOWING HIM AS AN ADULT THAT I HAVE BEEN ABLE TO OBTAIN OVER THE YEARS , IT WAS TAKEN THE LAST THANKSGIVING THE LAST TIME THEY WERE ALL TOGETHER..1962 IMO I DO NOT SEE ANY RESEMBLANCE WITH LEE BY THE TIME THEY WERE SHOWN TO BE ADULTS...FWIT..B
the only other is absolutely useless of john pic in the military i do not even recall if i knew where it came from...b
DR.JIM HERE IS A BIT FURTHER INVOLVING JOHN PIC, I BELIEVE THIS IS THE LAST I HAVE FWIW..B
A Mother in History by Dave Reitzes
Based on "Marguerite's Addresses" by John Armstrong
A Mother in History by Dave Reitzes Based on "Marguerite's Addresses" by John Armstrong
Mr. RANKIN. Can't we get down to --Mrs. OSWALD. No, sir, we cannot. I am sorry. This is my life. I cannotsurvive in this world unless I know I have my American way of life andcan start from the very beginning. . . . (1)The Warren Report tells us that Edwin and Marguerite Ekdahl and theirchildren moved to 1505 Eighth Avenue the last week of January 1947.Marguerite and Ekdahl lived together until January 1948, when she caughthim cheating on her; she kicked him out of the house, and they weredivorced on June 24, 1948. "While the divorce suit was pending,Marguerite moved from Eighth Avenue to a house on 3300 Willing Street,next to railroad tracks." This would be around March 19, when Leetransferred from the Lily Clayton School to Clark Elementary School. Theolder boys "found her there in May when they returned from the militaryacademy." Marguerite had legally changed her name back to Oswald. Thefamily moved to 101 San Saba Street in Benbrook, Texas that summer, andsoon moved back to Fort Worth, to 7408 Ewing Street (2).There are some problems here.Mr. and Mrs. Walter H. Bell and Mr. Otis R. Carlton lived across thestreet from 101 San Saba. The Warren Commission used FBI reports of Mr.Carlton and Georgia (Mrs. Walter) Bell in determining the Oswalds residedthere in 1948. This is not what Carlton told the FBI, however: He saidthe Oswalds lived there in 1947, not 1948 (3). He had been in the Oswaldhouse on several occasions and purchased it when they left Benbrook.Carlton told the FBI the Oswalds had lived there for six to eight months(4).The Warren Commission also used the FBI report of Mrs. Bell (5). Thatreport states the Oswalds lived there for three months during the summerof 1948. Mrs. Bell, who still lives in Texas, told John Armstrong in 1996that the FBI report does not reflect what she actually told the FBI. Mrs.Bell still lives at 100 San Saba; she is elderly but still very sharp.She insists the Oswalds moved into 101 San Saba in May of 1947, not 1948.How could Mrs. Bell remember so clearly an event that happened fiftyyears ago? Mrs. Bell said, "Because Walter and I built this house in Juneand July of 1947, and the Oswalds moved in [101 San Saba] the monthbefore. I have lived in this house since 1947" (6).Armstrong showed Mrs. Bell two photos from the Warren Commission volumesof young Lee with his dog, Blackie, taken at the San Saba house (7), andasked if she knew the year these pictures were taken. Mrs. Bellidentified a building in the background as a small motel built in July of1947 by a Mr. Sells. That motel was under construction when thephotographs were taken, and one can see the difference between them; itlooks like they were taken just a day or so apart. In addition, TarrantCounty tax assessor records show that Marguerite Ekdahl purchased 101 SanSaba Street on July 7, 1947. This is six months before the Warren Reporttells us she left Ekdahl. The records confirm Otis R. Carlton and GeorgiaBell's recollections of the Oswalds living at 101 San Saba in 1947, as dothe photos showing Mr. Sells' motel under construction in 1947. Mrs. Bellsaid the Oswalds moved out just before Thanksgiving of 1947 (8)."The Warren Commission was wrong; Marguerite Oswald lived at 101 San Sabain 1947, not 1948. Now, does this make a difference? It may" (9).At that time in 1947, Marguerite Oswald had retained a job as a nurse --although according to her own Warren Commission testimony, she neverconsidered becoming a nurse until after Oswald had left for Russia, whichwas in late 1959 (10). She asked a neighbor, Mrs. Lucille Hubbard, totake her by car to a different house to pick up some of her belongingsincluding her nurse's uniform (11).This would be unremarkable if, say, this second house was the residenceof Edwin Ekdahl, and Marguerite relocated to 101 San Saba Street due toher marital difficulties. But this is not the case. Robert Oswald toldthe Warren Commission that the family was living at 8th Avenue in FortWorth, Texas when Edwin Ekdahl moved out (12).Perhaps Marguerite had a friend kind enough to store a closet full of herbelongings. Armstrong asked Mrs. Bell if she knew where this other housewas located. She said yes: Lucille Hubbard told her it was located nextto Stripling High School, now Stripling Junior High. This is the Oswaldresidence at 1505 Eighth Avenue, precisely where John Pic told the WarrenCommission they were living in 1947. The Oswald family seems to have twoseparate addresses at the exact same time. How does a woman too poor tosupport her own children full-time have two separate addresses? (13)John Pic told the Warren Commission the family resided at 1505 EighthAvenue in Fort Worth, Texas in the summer of 1947 (14). He worked atWalgreens for two weeks, and then as assistant manager for Tex-Gold IceCream Parlor, which he said was six blocks away from their house -- milesaway from Benbrook, Texas. When Pic was asked about living at 101 SanSaba, he replied, "I don't know anything about San Saba" (15).But in this author's opinion, he did. At this same point in Pic'stestimony, he recognizes the location where the two pictures of Lee andhis dog were taken. What was the address? "There was no street address,"he said. "That was the first and only house built there" (16).These arethe same two photographs Mrs. Bell identified as being taken in front of101 San Saba. But we know from Mrs. Bell that 100 San Saba was builtduring June and July of 1947, while the Oswalds moved into 101 at aboutthe same time. Otis Carlton lived next door to Mr. and Mrs. Bell, andthere was at least one other building -- a motel -- under construction.Tarrant County records are perfectly clear about the addresses. Is JohnPic just confused? Or is he hiding something? Perhaps to cover for Pic'smemory lapse, the Warren Report reports that the family lived at "what isnow 101 San Saba" (17).John Pic was fifteen at that time. Why doesn't 101 San Saba ring a bell?The Warren Report says, "John has testified that it had a single bedroom,in which Lee slept with his mother, and a screened porch where John andRobert slept. Mrs. Oswald worked at a department store in Fort Worth, andleft the three boys home alone" (18). Georgia Bell told Armstrong in 1995that Marguerite Oswald did not drive a car, and did not work (19)."A neighbor, Mrs. W. H. Bell, has stated that Lee seemed to enjoy beingby himself and to resent discipline; another neighbor, Otis R. Carlton,stated that he once saw Lee chase John (who was seven years older) with aknife and throw it at him, an incident which, Carlton said, their motherpassed off as a 'little scuffle.' At the end of the summer, Carltonpurchased the property. He stated that he appraised it at $2,750 at Mrs.Oswald's request; she then insisted that he had made an offer to purchaseat that price, which he finally agreed to do" (20). (That certainly wasmagnanimous of Mr. Carlton.) Carlton bought the house before the Oswaldsmoved out. In the winter of 1947-48 he rented it to a family namedCharbenaur. When they moved out, Carlton and his daughter, Jean, movedin, and resided there in 1948 and 1949 (21)."Curiously, a 1950 letter from Marguerite to John Pic says the Benbrookhouse was then up for sale with J. Piner Powell real estate (22). AnApril 1951 letter to Pic says she has good tenants at the Benbrook house(23). John Armstrong has learned that, in fact, Marguerite Oswald soldthe house in 1952. What is going on here?" (24)Marguerite did not mention 101 San Saba to the Warren Commission, andthey did not ask her about it in her marathon testimony. We can see froma letter mailed to her from the Chamberlain-Hunt Military Academy in July1947 that her address is 1505 8th Avenue (25)."Robert Oswald also told the Warren Commission they lived on 8th Avenueduring the summer of 1947. Robert was stopped from conducting hisdiscussion of 1947 when Commission member and former Director of the CIAAllen Dulles abruptly adjourned the Commission hearing (26). Whentestimony resumed, Commission counsel Albert Jenner began the session bystating, 'This brought us to the summer of 1948, I believe.' RobertOswald agreed, and continued his testimony from there (27).Armstrong showed Georgia Bell two photos of Marguerite Oswald withoutidentifying them. One was taken in December 1957 at the Paul Shoe Storewhere she worked (28). The date of the other, showing Mrs. Oswald in thekitchen, was unknown, except that it was mailed to Lee Oswald in Russiain 1961. Of the latter, Mrs. Bell said, "Yep, that's exactly the way shelooked when I knew her in 1947 -- short and fat." In fact, Mrs. Bellpointed out, it was taken inside the house across the street, 101 SanSaba. The cabinets in the photo appear to be the same style as those inMrs. Bell's home; she and her husband Walter built both houses. WhenArmstrong showed Mrs. Bell the Paul Shoe Store photo, taken just tenyears later, she said, "I don't know who that is" (29).No wonder -- the two women bear no resemblance to each other. The 1957photograph, which very clearly is the same woman photographed with EdwinEkdahl on their wedding day in 1945: She is slim, fairly tall, dressednicely, with a pleasant face and a pronounced nose (30); unlike the womanMrs. Bell couldn't identify, who is very short, overweight, with a highforehead, a smallish nose, and wearing thick round glasses; this wouldappear to be the woman the world knows as Marguerite Oswald. But it isnot the woman who married Edwin Ekdahl, Robert E. Lee Oswald, andpresumably Edward John Pic, Jr., the woman apparently born MargueriteFrances Claverie in 1907. The woman known as Marguerite Oswald is -- ifappearances can be credited -- NOT the mother of the Lee Harvey Oswaldborn in New Orleans in 1939, and may or may not be the mother of theHarvey Oswald from New York.For the remainder of this article, I will be arbitrarily referring to thewoman who apparently mothered Lee Harvey Oswald of New Orleans and Texasby her birth name, Marguerite Claverie. To minimize confusion I willrefer to the woman who testified before the Warren Commission by the nameshe is known -- Marguerite Oswald.Both women were living in Texas in 1947, and they apparently knew eachother; one reportedly had belongings stored in the closet of the other'shouse. Lee Oswald was photographed twice in front of the house at 101 SanSaba, where Marguerite Oswald, who was not his mother, lived. John Pichad been there and recognized the photos of Lee, but said the house hadno identifiable street address at the time. Otis Carlton remembered JohnPic fighting with Lee at the San Saba house. It's not clear if Mr.Carlton and Mrs. Bell remembered Robert Oswald. It cannot be resolved atthis time why Lee Oswald, John Pic, and probably Robert Oswald wereliving at 101 San Saba with a woman who was not their mother, whileMarguerite Claverie lived at 1505 Eighth Avenue with Edwin Ekdahl. Itcannot be resolved at this time why 1505 Eighth Avenue is the addressthat Robert Oswald and John Pic recall."If Lee Oswald lived at 101 San Saba in the fall of 1947, as Otis Carltonand Georgia Bell remember, and as at least two photographs attest, heshould have attended the second grade at Benbrook Elementary School,which was only a block away. The Warren Commission, of course, placesLee's address at 1505 Eighth Avenue. The FBI obtained some of Lee's gradeschool records from the principal of Ridglea West Elementary School, Mrs.Llewellyn Merritt. As published, these records are missing the 1947-48school year. Mrs. Merritt advised that her records do not indicate whereOswald attended the second grade. The FBI summary of Oswald's schoolingwritten several months later is still missing the 1947-48 school year(31)."Eventually, another attendance form was given to the Warren Commissionthat listed Oswald's address for this missing period. The Commissionpublished it exactly as they received it. It is entirely handwritten. Youcould have written it; I could have written it; anyone could have writtenit. I obtained the original among other records from Ralph Waller at theFort Worth Independent School District in Texas. Oswald attended LilyClayton Elementary School from January of 1947 to March of 1948. Oswaldcould not possibly have attended Lily Clayton while living on San Saba --it is near downtown Fort Worth, about ten miles away, consistent with the1505 Eighth Avenue address. I cannot say why the FBI was unable to locatethis document when I could do it 30 years later; nor can I explain whythe Warren Commission would publish a handwritten copy instead of theoriginal" (32)."To sum up, Tarrant County records, FBI statements, photographs of Leeand Marguerite Oswald -- two of them identified by John Pic -- andtestimony from Mrs. Oswald's neighbors place her at 101 San Saba in thesummer and fall of 1947. Yet Lee's school records, postmarked letters ofMrs. [Claverie] Oswald's, and testimony from John Pic and Robert Oswaldplace the family at 1505 8th Avenue in the summer and fall of 1947 -- twodifferent addresses at the exact same time (33).What about 3300 Willing Street, where the Warren Commission says thefamily moved around March 19, 1948? John Pic remembered this house verywell, stating it was their first new address since Marguerite's divorce:"for John, the move signified that they 'were back down in the lowerclass again'" (34). The Oswalds left 101 San Saba Street in Benbrook,Texas, in November 1947. But the Warren Report says that Edwin andMarguerite Ekdahl lived at 1505 Eighth Avenue from about January 24, 1947until January 1948, when Marguerite kicked Ekdahl out; she herselfremained until about March 19, 1948. John Pic told the Warren Commissionthey lived at 1505 Eighth Avenue in Fort Worth in the summer of 1947,where he worked at Walgreens for two weeks, and then as assistant managerfor the nearby Tex-Gold Ice Cream Parlor. But Pic also identified thepictures taken at 101 San Saba in the summer or fall of 1947 (35).Marguerite and Lee moved to 3300 Willing Street in March 1948, where Johnand Robert joined them at the end of the school year in May. Thisrun-down house by the railroad tracks made a large impression on JohnPic, signifying that the family was "back down in the lower class." Yetif the Warren Commission is correct, the family immediately purchased thetwo-bedroom frame house at 7408 Ewing Street in Fort Worth (36). Only inAmerica.Skipping ahead slightly, Tarrant County land records show that MargueriteOswald purchased a house at 4833 Birchman Street on November 15, 1951,while Marguerite, Robert and Lee continued to reside at 7408 EwingStreet. 4833 Birchman was six blocks away from W. C. Stripling JuniorHigh School in Fort Worth; there is now a vacant lot where it used to be.Oddly, the record shows that Marguerite had just sold the house at 101San Saba nine days before; a copy of the deed, obtained from TarrantCounty, Texas, shows that's when the original deed was recorded andreturned to Marguerite Oswald at 4833 Birchman. The house at 7408 Ewingwas presumably sold when Marguerite and Lee moved to New York in Augustof 1952. But the house at 4833 Birchman remained in Marguerite Oswald'sname until it was sold at the end of April 1953, while Marguerite and Leewere still in New York (37).The census for the 1951-52 school year, which Armstrong also receivedfrom the Forth Worth Independent School District, lists a Harvey Oswaldresiding at 7408 Ewing in Fort Worth. Robert Oswald mentions 7408 Ewingin his testimony before the Warren Commission (38), as does John Pic(39). It gives Oswald's birthday as October 19, 1939. Lee's birthday isOctober 18, not 19. His mother is listed as Marguerite Ekdahl, althoughMarguerite Claverie Oswald had divorced four years earlier, and had neverused the name Ekdahl since. Interestingly, this census roll also listshis brother Robert Oswald with a birth date April 7, 1934, as well as a"Robert Oswalt" with a birth date of one day's difference (40).Another coincidence: In October 1959, when Lee Harvey Oswald was aboardthe SS Marion Lykes sailing to Europe on the first leg of his journey toRussia, Mrs. George B. Church -- whose attempts at conversation Oswaldhad been politely resisting during the trip -- asked him for his addressso she could send him a Christmas card, he gave her Marguerite's addressin Fort Worth, and spelled his name for her: "Oswalt" (41).The census roll isn't the only place a question arises as to Lee's birthdate. When Warren Commission counsel Albert Jenner showed John Pic ahandwritten form from the Bethlehem Orphans Home in New Orleans (42), Picnoted, "They even have his birthday wrong there." It showed a birth dateof October 19, 1939. Jenner said, "As a matter of fact, your mother onone of her papers fixes it on the 19th." "So does one of the letters,"Pic replied (43).John Armstrong and I have each independently noted that the discrepanciessurrounding Marguerite seem to begin with her marriage to Edwin Ekdahl,and it makes me wonder if Ekdahl, the well-traveled electrical engineerfrom Boston, might not be worth looking into. There are indications inthe Warren Commission volumes, however, that Marguerite's strangeplethora of addresses may reach back further. When John Pic testifiedbefore counsel Albert Jenner and staff member John Hart Ely, two of thethree attorneys in charge of the investigation of Lee Harvey Oswald'sbackground (Wesley Liebeler was the third), Jenner questioned him atlength about numerous addresses, all of which the staff had turned upsomewhere, but details of which are almost entirely left out of therecord. The testimony is well represented by the following exchange:Mr. JENNER. In those early years, did your family reside somewhere nearthe Murrets? . . .Mr. PIC. As I recollect, the house was where Mr. Oswald died, all I knowis that it was on the corner of Alvez [sic] and Galvez.Mr. JENNER. 2109 Alvar?Mr. PIC. There you go. I think the street that ran next to it was Galvez.Mr. JENNER. You are correct.Mr. PIC. This is the first real -- I remember a first real house prior tothis to this; where it was, sir, I don't know. I was about five at thetime.Mr. JENNER. . . . Do any of these addresses refresh your recollection?2205 Alvar?Mr. PIC. It may be the address of the house on Alvez [sic] and Galvez, Idon't know.Mr. JENNER. No?Mr. PIC. I don't know, sir. No, sir.Mr. JENNER. 2123 Alvar?Mr. PIC. No, sir.Mr. JENNER. 1661 Paul Morphy?Mr. PIC. No, sir.Mr. JENNER. 2132 Gallier?Mr. PIC. The name, the street sounds -- I may have heard it before.Mr. JENNER. 1917 Gallier?Mr. PIC. Only the street sounds familiar.Mr. JENNER. 805 Greenwood?Mr. PIC. No, sir.Mr. JENNER. 220 North -- my pronunciation will be bad -- Telemachus?Mr. PIC. No.Mr. JENNER. 123 South Cortez?Mr. PIC. No, sir (44).At this point, Mr. Jenner decided -- an estimated twenty minutes intoPic's testimony to explain what the Warren Commission was and what rightswitnesses had, and asked Pic if he desired a lawyer. At least he'dremembered to administer the oath at the beginning. John Hart Ely thenrequests the chance to ask about a few addresses.Mr. ELY. 914 Hennesey, do you remember that?Mr. PIC. No, sir.Mr. ELY. What about Taft Place?Mr. PIC. No, sir (45).The Warren Report states that the Oswald family lived at 1242 CongressStreet at some point in 1940, when John Pic was eight, between the AlvarStreet address and 1010 Bartholomew Street (46). Despite persistentquestioning, Pic could not help the Commission confirm this fact.Mr. JENNER. When you moved from the house in which you had been living atthe time of the death of your stepfather, do you recall moving to 1242Congress Street?Mr. PIC. No, sir. I remember moving to a Bartholomew Street.Mr. JENNER. That Bartholomew Street, I will get to that in a moment,perhaps to refresh your recollection, was a little a little house thatyour mother purchased on contract.Mr. PIC. What, Bartolomew?Mr. JENNER. Yes.Mr. PIC. I remember that house.Mr. JENNER. 1010 Bartholomew.Mr. PIC. That could be it, sir.Mr. JENNER. Before you moved to 1010 Bartholomew you lived, did you not,at 1242 Congress?Mr. PIC. I don't remember, sir.Mr. JENNER. Your mother didn't sell the Alvar Street house until Januaryof 1944.Mr. PIC. I thought it was sold the day we moved out.Mr. JENNER. It was rented by Dr. Mancuso the day you moved out [in1940?], and ultimately your mother regained possession in January 1944,and then he purchased that house substantially contemporaneously, inJanuary of 1944 (47).This goes on for a while (48).Jenner initially skips over 831 Pauline Street, where Marguerite wassupposed to have lived for a brief time in early 1942. Pic volunteers,"If there was anything between Bartholomew and Sherwood Forest Drive, Idon't remember, sir" (49). Marguerite is supposed to have moved into 111Sherwood Forest Drive in the late spring of 1942. The house at 1010Bartholomew was sold on January 16, 1942 (50). Jenner points out that theform Marguerite filled out when placing Robert into the BethlehemOrphanage on January 3, 1942 (51) lists her address as 1010 Bartholomew,then added overtop is the notation, "831 Pauline Street -- January 28"(52).Mr. JENNER. Do you recall your mother moving with Lee to a place onPauline Street in January of 1942?Mr. PIC. No, sir.Mr. JENNER. All you recall is that she and Lee did move to a place,another place from the 1010 Bartholomew address?Mr. PIC. Well, it shows it there [in Pic Exhibit No. 3]. I thought it wasSherwood Forest, I don't know.Mr. JENNER. It might have been shortly after that?Mr. PIC. This is not familiar at all, sir.Mr. JENNER. That is the 831 Pauline Street address is not at allfamiliar?Mr. PIC. No, sir.Mr. JENNER. Is any of this application blank, that is any of the longhandon it, in the hand of your mother other than her signature?Mr. PIC. I wouldn't know, sir (53).Some of these discrepancies are surely honest mistakes. But enoughinconsistencies and unexplained incidents exist that, when dealt with asa whole, one seeks a more comprehensive and consistent explanation.Things begin to make sense once we accept that there was more than onewoman living under the name of Marguerite Oswald in the 1940s and '50s."You Wouldn't Have Recognized Her"One of Lee Harvey Oswald's teachers at Beauregard Junior High School,Myra DaRouse, recalls Oswald living on "Exchange Alley," actually 126Exchange Place, although other New Orleans witnesses also know it asExchange Alley. While living at 126 Exchange Place, Mrs. Oswald wroteseveral letters to John Pic in the fall of 1954. One is dated October 14,1954, and shows the Exchange Place return address (54). But the WarrenCommission tells us that when Marguerite and Lee Harvey Oswald left NewYork in January 1954 and moved to New Orleans, they rented an apartmentfrom Julian and Myrtle Evans at 1454 St. Mary's Place in New Orleans(55)."Mr. and Mrs. Evans are important witnesses; they knew Marguerite since1930. They knew her first husband, Edward John Pic; her second husband,Robert E. Lee Oswald; and her third husband, Edwin Ekdahl. Mr. and Mrs.Evans described Lee as a headstrong, boisterous individual who frequentlyhollered at his mother. He was so loud that Myrtle was relieved when theOswalds finally moved. They told the FBI and the Warren Commission theyrented Marguerite an apartment on St. Mary's Place from May 1954 throughMay 1955," first 1454 St. Mary's Place, then a cheaper one at 1452 (56).If these dates are correct, they conflict with Marguerite living onExchange Place at exactly the same time. If Lee Oswald lived at St.Mary's and attended Beauregard Junior High School with Ed Voebel in MyraDaRouse's homeroom, he had a long way to travel: In 1955 he would havebeen two school districts removed and 55 blocks away from Beauregard(57).While the Warren Commission tells us that Marguerite and Lee moved to NewOrleans from New York; her longtime neighbor, landlady, and friend whoshe saw everyday testified that Marguerite came to New Orleans from Texas(58). We will soon examine evidence that Lee Harvey Oswald had somehowgone to junior high school in Texas before moving to New Orleans.In 1963, following the assassination of President Kennedy, Julian andMyrtle Evans could not recognize Marguerite Oswald. Myrtle told theWarren Commission, "When I saw her on TV, after all of this happened, shelooked so old and haggard, and I said, 'That couldn't be Margie'" (59).Julian Evans testified, "I think she's a fine woman myself, a fine woman;intelligent, very soft spoken -- a beautiful woman, with black hairstreaked with a little gray; but when you saw her on television sincethis thing happened, she really looked awful; nothing at all like sheused to look. She has really aged. She looked like a charwoman comparedto what she used to look like. She used to be a fashion plate. Shedressed beautifully, but when we saw her on television just recently,after all this happened, she looked awful. There's no other way todescribe it, the change that has come over her. You wouldn't haverecognized her if they hadn't told you who she was; she looked thatdifferent. Where her hair used to be black, now it's entirely gray, andshe really looks old" (60).Commission attorney Albert Jenner said, "Well, she's 57, I believe" (61).Evans replied, "That's right; she's the same age as my wife, but shelooks about 70 now. That's about all I can remember about her, and then Isaw this thing on television when the President was assassinated, andwhen it showed her picture, we just couldn't believe it was Marguerite"(62).Oswald's only friend in New Orleans, Edward Voebel, recalled Margueriteto the Warren Commission this way: "I think I met her one time, and forsome reason I had a picture in my mind which was different from when Isaw her in the paper after all of this happened. I didn't recognize her.She was a lot thinner, and her hair wasn't so gray, as I can recall it,when I met her. Of course, this was about 8 years ago, but I can remembershe had a black dress on, and she was sitting down smoking a cigarette;now, maybe she wasn't smoking, but this is a picture that comes to mymind as I recall that" (63).With all due respect to Mrs. Oswald, one has to wonder if the"intelligent, soft-spoken, beautiful woman" the Evans couple knew for 30years was the same Marguerite they saw on television in 1963 (64).Marguerite and Lee worked for the Dolly Shoe Company; her W-4 forms weresigned on February 5, 1955, and show a 126 Exchange Place address. Thestore owner, Maury Goodman, remembered Oswald as a very small kid who wasextremely quiet (65). Goodman also remembered Marguerite. John Armstrongsent Goodman a photograph of Marguerite Oswald taken in 1957, a year anda half after she worked for him. He wrote back, saying, "Dear John, Idon't recognize her at all from this photo. She looks like she cut offall of her hair. This woman looks happy and I never remember Margueritelooking happy" (66). He did not know Marguerite Claverie, whosedisposition may well have been cheerful; he knew the same MargueriteOswald as the rest of us.Mr. Goodman said that when Marguerite left Dolly Shoe Company she thenwent to work as a barmaid. Myra DaRouse also recalled Harvey Oswald'smother working as a barmaid (67). There is no reference by members of herfamily, the Warren Commission, or any government agency that Margueriteever worked as a barmaid (68).Perhaps this explains why Marguerite, when interviewed in New York byprobation officer John Carro, couldn't remember the correct name of hersecond husband, his correct age when he died, the correct year of hermarriage to him, whether he was right handed or left, and perhaps this iswhy she often confused his name with that of her third husband; why shecouldn't remember the correct married name of her own sister, the correctname of the city in Texas she'd lived in, the correct birth date of herthird and youngest child, or the correct name of the church where he wasbaptized (69).Perhaps this is also why the short, chubby, bespectacled MargueriteOswald known to the American public bears such a faint resemblance -- ifany at all -- to the tall, trim, dark-haired, smartly-dressed MargueriteOswald photographed with Edwin Ekdahl on their 1945 wedding day (70), andwho was photographed in 1957 by a co-worker at Paul Shore Store, her hairnow gray, but clearly the same woman standing next to Edwin Ekdahl in the1945 photo (71).Perhaps the late Marguerite Oswald, long-suffering mother of the accusedassassin, should now be viewed with a great deal of skepticism (72).For more information on John Armstrong's research and theory concerningLee and Marguerite Oswald, please click here for "Constructing theAssassin," my adaptation of John Armstrong's "Harvey and Lee." Link 1NOTES:1. 1 H 195. 2. WR 674. 3. CE 1874; John Armstrong, 1996 Fourth Decade presentation; reported by Joe Backes, "The Fourth Decade Conference, Part2," *Fair Play,* No. 12 (hereafter JA 3), available on-line at:LINK 2This researcher possesses a copy of this manuscript with numerouscorrections made personally by John Armstrong. We regret that thiscorrected version cannot be posted on-line without the author'spermission.4. JA 3. 5. CE 2219. 6. JA 3. 7. John Pic Exhibit No. 54; JA 3. 8. JA 3.9. JA 3. 10. 1 H 137, 230. 11. JA 3. 12. 1 H 281. 13. JA 3. 14. 11 H 26; JA 3. 15. 11 H 29; JA 3. 16. 11 H 29. 17. WR 674. 18. WR 674. 19. JA 3.20. WR 674. 21. JA 3. 22. Pic Exhibit 32B; John Armstrong, "Marguerite'sAddresses," *PROBE*, Vol. 3, No. 5, July-August 1996 (hereafter JA 7),26. 23. Pic Exhibit 16; JA 7, 26. 24. JA 7, 26. 25. JA 7, 26. 26. 1 H 282; JA 3. 27. Ibid. 28. Photograph from the collection of Maury Goodman. Posted on-line here29. JA 3. 30. Lillian Murret Exhibit No. 1. Posted on-line at:LINK 4 of 431. JA 3. 32. JA 3. 33. JA 3. 34. WR 674. 35. JA 3. 36. WR 674. 37. JA 7, 26; JA 3. 38. 1 H 292; JA 3. 39. 2 H 30; JA 3. 40. JA 3. 41. Edward Jay Epstein, *The Assassination Chronicles,* 380. 42. 11 H 16; John Pic Exhibit No. 5. 43. Ibid. 44. 11 H 6. 45. 11 H 7. 46. WR 671-2. 47. 11 H8. 48. 11 H 8-12. 49. 11 H 13. 50. 11 H 13. 51. Pic Exhibit No. 3. 52. 11H 14. 53. 11 H 14. 54. Pic Exhibit No. 24-A; JA 7, 27. 55. WR 679; JA 3.56. JA 3; JA 7, 27. 57. JA 3. 58. 8 H 45; JA 3. 59. 8 H 51; JA 3. 60. 8 H 51; JA 3; JA 7, 27. 61. Ibid. 62. Ibid. 63. 8 H 4; JA 3. 64. JA 3. 65. CE2238; JA 3. 66. JA 3. 67. Interviews with Myra DaRouse by the author and John Armstrong. 68. JA 3. 69. John Armstrong, "Harvey and Lee: The Case for Two Oswalds, Part 1," *PROBE,* Vol. 4, No. 6, September-October 1997,21. 70. See citation #30. 71. See citation #28.B
I SPOKE TOO SOON, OF COURSE I CAME UPON ANOTHER BIT IN REGARD TO PIC THIS IS RE THE PHOTOS SHOWN TO HIM....BUT THIS IS IT...
John Pic had not seen Lee, since 1953, when Lee was 13 years old…Pic was asked by the WC "How did he look to you physically as compared with when you had seen him last?"..Pic replied "I would never have recognized him ,sir....he was much thinner than I had remembered him. He didn't have much hair...His face features were somewhat different, being his eyes were set back maybe, you know like in these army pictures, they looked different that (sic) I remembered him. His face was rounder. Marilyn had described him to me when he went into the Marine Corp as having a bull neck. This I didn't notice at all. "WC Vol XI. .page 62.
In discussion, "Well sir: The Lee Harvey Oswald I met in Nov. of 62 was not the Lee Harvey Oswald I had known years previous".”.page 62...WC Vol X1
Lets have a look at the photographs...that were shown to John Pic..
WC VOL XI page 64
Pamela, you have no idea how much I personally appreciate your very reasonable approach
to this. I would contrast it with Jack's not entirely rational--even bizarre--position, which is:
JACK KNOWS THERE WERE TWO OSWALDS;
JUDYTH ONLY KNEW ONE LEE OSWALD;
THEREFORE, JACK REJECTS JUDYTH.
But why in the world should Judyth Vary Baker KNOW that there were "two Oswalds"?
I DON'T KNOW THAT. I'M NOT CONVINCED. WHY SHOULD JUDYTH, WHO ONLY KNEW ONE?
IF JACK WANTS TO BE CONSISTENT, HE MIGHT AS WELL REJECT EVERYONE WHO DISAGREES
WITH HIM ON ANY ASPECT OF THE ASSASSINATION OF JFK. HE AND I DISAGREE ABOUT THE
THIRD TRAMP. SHOULDN'T HE REJECT ME ON THAT BASIS ALONE?
IF JACK REALLY THINKS THAT, JUST BECAUSE HE BELIEVES SOMETHING, EVERYONE ELSE IN
THE WORLD SHOULD BELIEVE IT, TOO--INCLUDING JUDYTH AND ME--THEN HE IS THE ONE WHO
APPEARS TO HAVE "MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES".
AND HIS REPEATED POSTINGS OF THE SAME POINTS OF ATTACK BOTHER ME JUST AS MUCH.
I would like to lay this "mental health" charge to rest, once and for all. I previously posted a
report on Judyth's mental health on page 2 in post #29. Here is what I have explained already:
James H. Fetzer Feb 28 2010, 09:30 PM Post #29
Nice post, Hank! I appreciate your speaking out. PLUS would anyone in the world WANT the kind of
"attention" that Judyth has drawn with unceasing harassment, attemtps to take her out, and smears
of the most ignoble kind? And now that I beginning to speak up on her behalf, I receive a death threat
of my own? and the notice of my YouTube interview with her is removed minutes after it had been put
up? and now I cannot get comments posted or submissions even received by papers and magazines?
No one is commenting on this, but to me it speaks volumes about the authenticity of Judyth's account.
With regard to the purported "diagosis", which I had also received from Rich--where I have no reason
to doubt either of their sincerity, unlike others on this forum and thread--notice how it has the ring of
desperation about it. No matter what Judyth might claim, no matter how much she might resemble the
persons she claims to be, it can be dismissed on the ground that she suffers from a rather bizarre and
no doubt quite rare psychological disorder, where she pretends to be someone she is not. Well, that's
fascinating, but could someone like that function successfully in a standard environment as a teacher?
That seems rather doubtful, yet here is the letter of a student who wanted her to be retained when she
became controversial:
It might be claimed that student would not be in the position to render such a diagnosis. Well, then, how
about a professional one:
I rather doubt that some who post junk on this forum could pass a psychological inventory as successfully
as Judyth. So I think we should all take a deep breath and open our minds to the POSSIBILITY, however
unlikely we may view it at this time, that Jim Marrs, Nigel Turner, and I JUST MIGHT BE RIGHT and that
Judyth's legions of detractors MIGHT JUST BE WRONG. Open your mind to the possibility and consider the
evidence before you decide. My contact with her is of relatively recent origin, yet I am learning things from
her that I find quite remarkable and highly plausible. Just try listening to my interview with her once again.
"FACTITIOUS DISORDER, (of which MUNCHAUSEN SYNDROME is a sub-type), (also called "Adult Munchausen", and "Adult Factitious Disorder") is a formal, DSM-IV mental health diagnosis in which people deliberately exaggerate and/or fabricate and/or induce physical and/or psychological-behavioral-mental health problems in themselves. The primary purpose of this behavior is to gain some form of internal gratification, such as attention, for themselves."[/quote]
I'm curious to know if Jack White is a psychologist, psychiatrist, physician, or psychotherapist ?????
Do folks on this site now diagnose characters so easily? Should there not be a proper modicum of
respect for others? One can have problems or questions about other people without resorting to
publicly diagnosing them medically or mentally... Do not some members of this very forum seek to gain
some form of internal gratification by posting information? I think it's a sad day when people resort to this
type of tactic. I myself have questions about Ms. Baker but I would never act to diagnose her on a public
forum; this not for the reason that she could file civil suit for slander, but simply because people deserve
a proper degree of respect regardless their personal beliefs. In general, just because a person is legally
insane does not mean that they can't be correct about certain things. I must say, what a herd of individuals
we have here on this forum.
[/quote]
IN ADDITION:
I would also observe that, Jack is going on the basis of the suggestion of Rich DellaRosa's sister,
Denise, who is a psychologist. But Denise, I am quite sure--and I like Denise, whom I met at a
meeting of the Human Behavior and Evolution Society--was simply offering a CONJECTURE
based upon Rich's sketch of someone who, in his opinion, had beliefs he (Rich) thought were
far removed from reality, yet who persisted in defending them. Denise has never met Judyth
or interviewed her. She was offering a SUGGESTION that might fit Rich's description. BUT
THIS CANNOT BE A "DIAGNOSIS" since, having never met Judyth, that would violate APA
ethical guidelines. I have had overwhelmingly more contact with Judyth than those who are
attacking her. Jack discredits Denise by claiming she "diagnosed" Judyth. Enough is enough!
FROM JUDYTH ABOUT THIS "MENTAL HEALTH" CHARGE:
INFORMATION ON THE ATTACHED:
1) MANATEE PALMS RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT CENTER: WORKED THERE SEVERAL
MONTHS UNTIL I GOT CUSTODY OF TWO MORE KIDS, THEN HAD TO QUIT. I WAS
A MENTAL HEALTH COUNSELOR AT MANATEE PALMS. YOU HAVE TO HAVE TRAINING
AND PASS PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATIONS TO OBTAIN SUCH A POSITION.
2) LIFE STEPS: VOLUNTEER MENTAL HEALTH COUNSELOR FOR TEENS IN ORLANDO, FL
3) HAUSER CLINIC: DR, JAMES STEWART, FAMED PARTNER IN THE HAUSER CLINIC AND
NOTED PSYCHIATRIST: I HAD TO PASS STRINGENT PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATIONS TO
WORK IN HIS OFFICE.
I QUIT AT THE END OF THE SUMMER BECAUSE WE MOVED FROM HOUSTON TO A SMALL
TOWN OUTSIDE HOUSTON, AND THE COMMUTE WAS TOO MUCH. HE RETIRED THAT SPRING.
THE PSYCHIATRIC EVALUATIONS WERE LOST. THEY ALSO SHOWED MY IQ AT 155 AND 160,
RESPECTIVELY (STUART--160).
HE WAS GLAD TO HIRE ME AND I LOVED THE JOB. I WORKED CLOSELY WITH HIS PATIENTS.
I WAS ALSO PSYCHOLOGICALLY EVALUATED, TESTED AND TRAINED FOR THE FLORIDA HRS:
THE HEALTH AND REHABILITATION SERVICES OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, I WAS A CHILD
ABUSE INVESTIGATOR AND MENTAL HEALTH COUNSELOR FOR THE STATE OF FLORIDA
UNTIL A BUDGET CUT REMOVED THE NEWEST PERSONNEL FROM THEIR JOBS.
I HAVE DOCUMENTATION AND TRAINING CERTIFICATES, PROBABLY WITH MY DAUGHTER.
[quote name='Pamela McElwain-Brown' post='186726' date='Mar 13 2010, 04:33 PM'][quote name='Jack White' post='185200' date='Feb 28 2010, 03:20 PM']JVB has scads of charming stories about her "romance" with LHO...but NONE OF THEM ARE DOCUMENTED.
When I confronted her on the internet about which Oswald she knew, HARVEY OR LEE, she became incoherent
and nasty...saying there WAS ONLY ONE OSWALD. This sealed it for me...since I know there were two LHOs.[/quote]
Judyth is a witness, you are a researcher. There are two different paths here. Your beliefs are not first-hand. You operate from an hypothesis which you think is true. Judyth speaks from what she has seen and heard.
Perhaps you could also try thinking in terms of a persecution-hypothesis. You believe it applies to you -- what about applying it to Judyth? You believe you have been targeted and attacked because of what you know about the assassination and the fact that you refuse to be quiet about it. Judyth was terrorized in the US and had no alternative but to leave and try to survive outside of the US. That has been almost impossible as well. If she really knows nothing, why has so much happened to her and those around her? And please don't fall into the ongoing campaign's little trap of saying she's 'making it all up', implying that she 'deserves' what has happened to her, as that is just a pack of lies.
[/quote]
Who knows how many others Jack can add to his list of those who
believe in Judyth and therefore belong on his "mental health" list.
We already know that includes Jim Marrs, Nigel Turner, Ed Haslam,
Wim Dankbarr, and Jim Fetzer. How many others believe in her?
DESCRIPTION: Judyth Vary Baker knows the truth that Lee Harvey
Oswald was innocent of any wrongdoing in the JFK assassination.
For telling this truth, she has been subjected to threats by those
who perpetuate the official lie and she has been forced to live
overseas. This group seeks her vindication as well as Lee's.
Were Jim to respond to his own posting, I am sure he would say something like:
"Argument from Consensus
Argumentum ad Numerum
Category:
Fallacies of Relevance > Appeal to Authority
Explanation:
This fallacy occurs any time the sheer numbers of people who agree to something is used as a reason to get you to agree to it and takes the general form:
1. When most people agree on a claim about subject S, the claim is true (normally an unstated premise). Claim X is one which most people agree on. Therefore, X is true.
This fallacy can take on the direct approach, where a speaker is addressing a crowd and makes a deliberate attempt to excite their emotions and passions in an attempt to get them to accept what he is saying. What we see here is the development of a sort of "mob mentality" — people go along with what they hear because they experience others also going along with it. This is, obviously enough, a common tactic in political speeches.
This fallacy can also take on an indirect approach, where the speaker is, or seems to be, addressing a single person while focusing on some relationship that individual has to larger groups or crowds."
Any "appeal to authority" DEPENDS on WHO the authority is and what is their
expertise. There are many levels of expertise and knowledge. A mere popularity
poll means little.
Right, Jim?
Put another way, we might say that G. W. Bush was one of the most popular
presidents ever because he was elected president twice by a majority of
voters. But this is contrary to poll ratings, historians and public opinion.
Also, I challenge some on the list...for instance Robert Chapman, who was
anti-JVB, as I recall. Photos and names are insufficient. Each should have a
relevant statement.
I am sure that Jim did not purposely post a logical fallacy.
Well, you are talking about at least two fallacies. One is know as the appeal to popular sentiments. This is the fallacy of assuming that, just because an opinion is widespread, therefore it must be true. Most Americans believe we went to the moon but, as you and I are aware, the evidence tends to discount that.
The other is the appeal to authority. There are two forms, one of which is fallacious, the other not. Appealing to Einstein on relativity is non-fallacious, since he is an authority on that subject. Appealing to Einstein on politics, however, would generally be viewed as fallacious, since he is not an authority on politics.
Neither fallacy was being committed here. I was not suggesting that because Judyth is supported by this group, it is therefore established that she is authentic. Indeed, I presume that more students of JFK doubt that she is authentic than support her authenticity, so the argument would work the other way around.
Nor am I suggesting that, just because certain persons--Jim Marrs, Nigel Turner, Edward Haslam, and I, for example--support her that it must be the case that she is "the real deal". I was simply observing that there is a fairly substantial group of those who are students of the case who do support her and believe in her.
The point I was making is that, if you are going to assume that there were "two Oswalds" and condemn Judyth for not believing that--when there is no good reason why she should--then since you on that basis have concluded she is not "the real deal", you might as well dismiss the rest of us as well.
I am trying to get across that judging the beliefs of others based upon your own research--in relation to WHAT YOU THINK THEY SHOULD BELIEVE--is a fallacious methodology. IF we were all using the same evidence and the same alternative hypotheses and the same rules of reasoning, THEN we should converge.
But some, such as Judyth, are first and foremost WITNESSES, even though she has proven to be very adept at RESEARCH. Her beliefs about Lee Oswald are based upon her (presumptive) personal experience and there is no reason to dismiss her on the grounds that YOU BELIEVE that there were "two Oswalds".
And seeing that Greg Burnham has made my point perhaps even more concisely than have I, I would add, if my explanation does not convince you, my friend, then check out Monk's, because he put it about as clearly and as concisely as it could be explained--even by a professor of logic and critical thinking! Good post, Monk! Thanks.
Were Jim to respond to his own posting, I am sure he would say something like:
"Argument from Consensus
Argumentum ad Numerum
Category:
Fallacies of Relevance > Appeal to Authority
Explanation: This fallacy occurs any time the sheer numbers of people who agree to something is used as a reason to get you to agree to it and takes the general form:
1. When most people agree on a claim about subject S, the claim is true (normally an unstated premise). Claim X is one which most people agree on. Therefore, X is true.
This fallacy can take on the direct approach, where a speaker is addressing a crowd and makes a deliberate attempt to excite their emotions and passions in an attempt to get them to accept what he is saying. What we see here is the development of a sort of "mob mentality" — people go along with what they hear because they experience others also going along with it. This is, obviously enough, a common tactic in political speeches.
This fallacy can also take on an indirect approach, where the speaker is, or seems to be, addressing a single person while focusing on some relationship that individual has to larger groups or crowds."
Any "appeal to authority" DEPENDS on WHO the authority is and what is their
expertise. There are many levels of expertise and knowledge. A mere popularity
poll means little.
Right, Jim?
Put another way, we might say that G. W. Bush was one of the most popular
presidents ever because he was elected president twice by a majority of
voters. But this is contrary to poll ratings, historians and public opinion.
Also, I challenge some on the list...for instance Robert Chapman, who was
anti-JVB, as I recall. Photos and names are insufficient. Each should have a
relevant statement.
I am sure that Jim did not purposely post a logical fallacy.[/quote]
![[Image: 2my554h.jpg]](http://i48.tinypic.com/2my554h.jpg)
![[Image: u8w1x.jpg]](http://i49.tinypic.com/u8w1x.jpg)
![[Image: 2czzwop.jpg]](http://i43.tinypic.com/2czzwop.jpg)
![[Image: jgmhxc.jpg]](http://i39.tinypic.com/jgmhxc.jpg)
![[Image: rr49z4.jpg]](http://i39.tinypic.com/rr49z4.jpg)
![[Image: k13wpl.jpg]](http://i43.tinypic.com/k13wpl.jpg)
![[Image: xe0ft3.jpg]](http://i42.tinypic.com/xe0ft3.jpg)
![[Image: rjl0m8.jpg]](http://i44.tinypic.com/rjl0m8.jpg)
![[Image: 4r3pqp.jpg]](http://i41.tinypic.com/4r3pqp.jpg)
![[Image: iq8ork.jpg]](http://i44.tinypic.com/iq8ork.jpg)
