Judyth Vary Baker: Living in Exile

[James H. Fetzer]

JIM COMMENTS ON JUDYTH'S SUSPICION SOMETHING IS NOT RIGHT

Rereading pages 91-92 of HARVEY & LEE, it says Voeble knew both,
namely, that Voebel not only knew HARVEY, who had the piano fall on
his legs, but ALSO knew LEE. Armstrong claims HARVEY moved away in
1954 to Ft. Worth after knowing Voebel the second half of the 8th grade
and the book describes him as "the small, scrawny 8th grade student in
Myra's homeroom in the spring of 1954". And that Voebel meet LEE in
the fall of 1954. Voebel talks about how LEE loved to fight--not to
start them, but to finish them--and that he thought LEE had lost a
tooth in one of the first fights he knew him to have. He was hit in
the mouth by a boy named Robin Riley. The book says that his aunt,
LILLIAN MURRET, "remembered this event well". She even took him to
the dentist. BUT LILLIAN WAS HARVEY'S AUNT, NOT LEE'S, if I under-
stand this correctly. Indeed, HE STAYED WITH HER IN NEW ORLEANS.
I THINK SOMETHING VERY FISHY IS GOING ON HERE, as you suspect.
Is part of the story now going to be that when HARVEY showed up in
New Orleans, Lillian had trouble recognizing him? [On page 532, it
says "Harvey Oswald arrived in New Orleans by bus late on Wednesday
evening, 24 April"..."Two days later, on Friday, April 26, Oswald
appeared at the unemployment claims office and spoke with John R.
Rachal." It says he was not staying at the Murret's and that his
whereabouts and activities from April 24-29 are unknown. It also
says "a few days after arriving", he telephoned Lillian Murret.]
Myra D is quoted as saying she "knew for sure" that HARVEY did NOT
have a missing tooth and that when the body was exhumed, it had NO
missing tooth. So, Armstrong claims, they knew it couldn't be LEE.

[I am going to try to have these pages scanned today and posted.]

[quote name='James H. Fetzer' post='188916' date='Apr 5 2010, 08:52 PM']
JUDYTH COMMENTS ON A PROBLEM WITH "HARVEY & LEE" AND THEIR MISSING TEETH

NOTE: Hopefully, in the course of my posting, I have kept everything straight and Jack White
will come back to explain all this away on behalf of his and John's theory of "Harvey & Lee".
Otherwise, it would appear to be a problem with the history of Harvey and Lee's missing teeth.

JUDYTH COMMENTS:

There is something peculiar going on here.....

According to Jack White's statements:

1. LEE Oswald (taller) is supposed to have stayed in New York when Marguerite brought "Harvey" (shrimp) back with her.

2. "Harvey" is enrolled at Beauregard, not Lee, where, to support this, Jack has told us that:

a ) Myra D, girls' gym teacher, stated the boy was a shrimp and asked to be called "Harvey" even though his friend,

b ) We have a record that Lee Oswald was a student there and had a homeroom on the 9th floor, but Myra D says no, her
homeroom had Lee in it, in the basement...her word against the record

c ) Armstrong asks if Oswald shrank some 6-8 inches

3. But then we are shown a photo of "LEE" (It HAS to be Lee because this is no "shrimp"-- and he has had a tooth knocked
out...It's described by Ed Voebel, by the way, who therefore HAD TO KNOW BOTH HARVEY AND LEE IF MYRA D'S FILMED
INTERVIEW IS TO BE BELIEVED.

4. But what? We have BOTH HARVEY AND LEE ENROLLED AT BEAUREGARD? What about the records brought up earlier
about other schools, showing Oswald could not be in both at once? Now we have BOTH Oswalds in the SAME school at once?

5. Then we are shown a photo of Lee -- er -- Harvey -- 'also' with a tooth out and told it is in a different location. However,
this photo on the left appears to have come from the Ferrie-Oswald camp-out photo....And when you blow that up, please
correct me if I'm wrong, but where's the missing tooth?

This is very strange, people.

Are we to believe that BOTH of these youngsters EACH lost a permanent tooth?

What about the exhumation photo that shows a rotated tooth, but no lost tooth?

We need to see satements from the book, ID's about the provenance of this photo supposedly showing HARVEY with a
DIFFERENT tooth out, and we have to ask ourselves why has nobody noticed that LEE and HARVEY are thereby attending
the same school-Beauregard.

And anyone who states that this thread is of no imporance when we are uncovering so many problems with HARVEY and
LEE simply isn't reading the thread. Those, too, who say I have not answered the questions thrown my way, have simply
not read the threads. This is not some game where people decide whether to 'believe' me or not. This is deadly serious,
and the truth will be buried unless somebody stands up and says, "Wait a minute. The truth is more important than my
feelings. The truth is more important than whether you like me or not. The truth is even more important than friendships."

The truth can mean we can get the case solved instead of saing it can never be solved.

Unless you bury the witnesses who speak the truth.

Look closely at this post, people. HOW MANY OSWALDS ATTENDED BEAUREGARD? IS IT POSSIBLE THEY BOTH LOST
A PERMANENT TOOTH? IS IT POSSIBLE THAT BOTH BOYS ARE REALLY THE SAME PERSON AND THAT SOMEBODY HAS
CREATED AN ENORMOUS BOOK BASED UPON A LOT OF INTERVIEWS AND PHOTOS, BUT WITHOUT MAKING PROPER
DISTINCTIONS, SUCH AS THAT BOTH BOYS COULD NOT BE A BEAUREGARD AT THE SAME TIME, BOTH COULD NOT
HAVE LOST PERMANENT TEETH AT THE SAME TIME. AND IT SEEMS THAT SOMEBODY IS RETOUCHING PHOTOS HERE,
BLOATING PHOTOS THERE. AND IN GENERAL, SOMEBODY HAS BEEN DUPED BY SOMEBODY, SOMEWHERE.

NAYSAYERS, YOU DON'T HAVE TO READ THIS THREAD. CALL ME NAMES LATER. BUT JUST FOR NOW, PLEASE LET US
WORK TOGETHER TO GET TO THE BOTTOM OF THIS.

JVB

quote name='James H. Fetzer' post='188900' date='Apr 5 2010, 05:24 PM']
JUDYTH COMMENTS ON JIM'S RESPONSE TO JACK AND BARB ABOUT "THE MISSING TOOTH"

NOTE: Jack writes in post #912 about the "blockbuster" post,

Just what is this blockbuster post about a missing tooth?
It is covered in great detail in Harvey & Lee...pages 91-92. Jim and
Judyth may be surprised to learn that it was LEE who had the
missing tooth...NOT HARVEY. (It was Harvey that JVB knew.)

So what is the JVB blockbuster? Armstrong DOCUMENTS IT
BY INTERVIEWING A CLASSMATE, Ed Voebel, who was present
during the fight between LEE and Robin Riley, who punched
Lee in the mouth. If the JVB version of the blockbuster differs
from this, it is FALSE.

Voebel told John that Riley knocked out an LHO tooth. It was on
the schoolyard of Beauregard Junior High School. That's it.

Jack

In post #914, he posts this graphic attributed to J. Pruitt in 2002:



JUDYTH COMMENTS:

Believe it or not, the 'blockbuster' matter is here, because one of the persons -- 'Harvey' or "Lee' -- was supposed to
have no front tooth. Yet we have no later photos showing a missing front tooth in either 'collection' so far as I am aware.

IT'S A BIG DEAL THAT LEE SAVED HIS TOOTH BECAUSE THIS SHOWS NO 'TOOTH' DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 'HARVEY'
AND 'LEE' AFTER ALL...

The argument is that "Harvey" was returned to New Orleans. The photo at he school cannot be "Lee" as Armstrong
says a puny "Harvey" is going to school here. Yet the boy in the photo with the tooth out is obviously a big boy.



Here is the argument as I see it so far:

1) Armstrong says the teacher Myra D describes a small, puny boy who wants to be called "Harvey" -- but she is shaky
on other memories, such as homeroom record showing "Harvey" in a different classroom for home room, describing
"Exhchange Alley" and a "ballroom" instead of pool hall...She also mentions Voebel as "Harvey's" friend -- who always
called Lee "Lee."

So this is shaky to use as 'evidence' that "Harvey" is at Beauregard.

2) We have the photo of Lee Oswald and Dave Ferrie at camp, showing a "Harvey" who has grown a heck of a lot in a
short period of time...In fact, he is at the New York height....

3) We have the earlier photo of who is supposed to be "Harvey" showing off his lost tooth at Beauregard...But now, he is
called LEE -- because he is obviously not a shrimp?

Please tell me what is going on here. I do not have the book. Is Armstrong saying that "Harvey" returned from New York
with Marguerite, and is described as a "shrimp" by the elderly teacher, and as wanting to be called "Harvey" but somehow
in the same school we have "Lee" showing off a missing tooth?

Or is this supposed to be "Harvey" showing off a missing tooth?

I am curious to know, because the person in the photo is Lee H. Oswald, and he is not a shrimp. Can Jack explain what
we are looking at here, better, so I can understand? Because he said LEE was left behind in New York, and LEE and HARVEY
are registered at different schools...etc.

Can Jack make us a timeline?

For I have information about the school records that is quite different. It is based on information Lee gave about why they
left New york, when they left, and when thy arrived in New Orleans.

Meanwhile, this issue is important because....

LEE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN EXHUMED, MARINA WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PUT THROUGH ALL OF THIS, EXCEPT FOR EVERYONE
INSISTING 'HARVEY' WAS NOT LEE, THAT (HARVEY/LEE) HAD A MISSING TOOTH AND -- WORSE -- THAT THE MUMMIFICATION
PROCESS THAT HELD TOGETHER THE SKULL WOULD BE INTERPRETED TO MAKE A MORTICIAN (WHO IS NOT A DOCTOR OR A
FORENSIC ANTHROPOLOGIST) THINK THE CRANITOMY NEVER HAPPENED AND THAT THIS MUST BE SOMEBODY ELSE'S SKULL,
BECAUSE IT DID NOT FALL APART.

THEY DID NOT UNDERSTAND THE PROCESS THAT I EXPLAINED IN AN EARLIER POST ABOUT PARTIAL MUMMIFICATION AND
CALCIFICATION THAT SEALS UP SUTURES.

I BELIEVE THESE ARE IMPORTANT ISSUES AND THAT THE INFORMATION IS IMPORTANT.
PLEASE REREAD WHAT IMPLICATIONS ARE AT STAKE HERE.

THE HARVEY AND LEE MATTER -- WE NEED TO FIND OUT MUCH MORE ABOUT INTERVIEWS, ETC.

I AM CONCERNED THAT MYRA D WAS GUIDED TO SOME OF HER STATEMENTS, SUCH AS SAYING LEE WANTED TO BE CALLED
"HARVEY", SINCE LEE'S FRIEND, ED VOEBEL, CALLED HIM "LEE".

IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE....

SOMEONE WISER THAN I AM CAN PERHAPS EXPLAIN WHY LEE WOULD HAVE ASKED HER TO CALL HIM 'HARVEY,' AS I KNOW LEE
DISLIKED HIS MIDDLE NAME.

I HAVE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE RECORDS AT STRIPLING AND BEAUREGARD WHICH WE HAVEN'T DISCUSSED YET.

I guess my analysis of the mummification process, and how calcification of the cranial suture where the bone was sawed, and
jellyfying of the scalp tissues in the partial mummification would hide the suture and also hold the top of the cranium secure with
the rest of the cranium...was not absorbed the readers...The exhumation should not have taken place if people had understood
how blood drained from the face changes the contours of the face drasically...the TERRIBLE job done by the mortician I shall not
comment further upon...But in the end, they exhumed poor Lee...

JVB