26-04-2010, 12:21 AM
NOT EVERYONE HAS BEEN ENAMORED BY THE QUALITY OF ARMSTRONG'S RESEARCH
NOTE FROM JUDYTH: Apparently Jack White says he has watched "The Love Affair" -- but he has a strange, dichotomous attitude. He agrees about the vaccines, yet says it was inserted into the thread to provide a humanitarian aspect -- he thinks I have no feelings. He disses everything, accepting only what he likes...I am now concerned about how evidence and witness satements were handled by him. On that note, having time to look at old threads sent to me long ago, I found the gem atached. It is by Greg Parker. PLEASE READ IT. IT TELLS YOU THAT JACK'S BASIC ATTITUDE -- AND THE POSSIBLE CONTAMINATION OF WITNESSES BY ARMSTRONG -- HAS A HISTORY.
AN EXCHANGE BETWEEN GREG PARKER AND JACK WHITE
NOTE FROM JIM: I have put (what I take to be) Jack's posts in italics. If I have not done this right, he can correct me.
In the preceding peculiar post, I found the following absurd statement, among others:
"And you still need to clarify your relationship with the former Vice Principal at Stripling. Do I need to repost a reminder of your contradictory statements about that relationship?"
Again, for the cognitively challenged, I restate:
I attended college sixty years ago with Frank Kudlaty; his wife was a friend of mine, but he was only a casual acquaintance. I have seen him only three or four times in the past sixty years. He rose in teaching ranks to become superintendent of a very large Texas school district. I never knew him to be anything but honest and upright. I have never posted ANY contradictory statements about him. He knew nothing about the significance of his information till he was interviewed by Armstrong.
Jack
Jack. here are the contradictory statements you don't recall making:
From Post #28 in the Enid Gray explains Oswald's appearance thread: I was present for many of his interviews given [of Stripling witnesses].
From Post #37 in the Enid Gray explains Oswald's appearance thread: I was present when he interviewed three persons about LHO at Stripling.
Which, if either of those is true, Jack? "Many" or "three"?
From Post #28 in the Enid Gray explains Oswald's appearance: Frank Kudlaty, the assistant principal at Stripling has been a friend of mine since the 1940s, when he was a college classmate. He later rose to be superintendant of schools at Waco Texas before retiring. He is a man of impeccable honesty.
From Post #37 in the Enid Gray explains Oswald's appearance thread: At the time John interviewed him, I had not seen him in about fifty years, although I have seen him a couple of times in recent years. I knew his wife much better than I knew him, as I was in classes with her.
Which if either of these statements is true: That Kudlaty has been a friend of mine since the 1940s or At the time John interviewed him, I had not seen him in about fifty years.
Which if either of these statements is true: he was a college classmate. or I knew his wife much better than I knew him, as I was in classes with her.
I'd also like to see you explain how you can vouch for the "impeccable honesty" of what you now call a casual acquaintance you hadn't seen in about 50 years?
THERE ARE NO CONTRADICTORY STATEMENTS ABOVE. ALL ARE TRUE. I STAND BY THEM.
A false inference is being drawn that I was present when Kudlaty was interviewed by John and Robert Groden, who videotaped the interview. Kudlaty was interviewed in Waco Texas which is 90 miles south of me. I was even unaware of the taping, and had no knowledge of the interview till John showed me the tape. It is silly to infer that any of my statements are inconsistent. To quibble over "three" and "many" is dumb. I was present for several interviews and saw his videotapes of quite a few others. What is your definition of "many"? One definition is AN INDETERMINATE NUMBER MORE THAN ONE. Do you disagree?
I was present when he interviewed three Stripling LHO classmates, all of whom verified many facts about LHO and Marguerite at Stripling. I viewed many (quite a few more than one) of John's interviews WHICH YOU ARE UNAWARE OF, but you of course would deny that looking at the video interview is not the same as "being there". The most impressive besides the Kudlaty interview is Myra LaRouche (spelled without looking it up)...but of course you know all about her, don't you? I never met nor influenced Myra. I was present for the interview of Georgia Bell...but I don't have to tell you about her, do I. You know she was wrong without knowing what she said.
I am abandoning this nonsensical thread. You clearly have no knowledge of the book so cannot discuss it intelligently. I still say READ THE BOOK. You obviously have not. Jack
Thank you Doug. This is not about Kudlaty's credibility. It is about the lack of judgment shown by Armstrong and White in not declaring that Jack was a friend of Kudlaty's.
This creates a conflict of interests. Such a conflict is not dependant upon an actual act of impropriety. It is the appearance of possible impropriety that they should have had the horse sense to avoid. This has been compounded by White's ( a ) conflicting statements about his relationship with Kudlaty and ( b ) his utter refusal to admit he has made conflicting statements
GREG PARKER MAKES SOME TELLING COMMENTS:
QUOTE
…what Armstrong has to say about Oswald's employment at Tujague's is very interesting. Keep in mind that Robert Oswald told the Warren Commission that when he got out of the service he went to visit Lee and Marguerite:
Mr. Jenner: Did you visit your mother and your brother in New Orleans when you returned from the service in July of 1955?
Mr. Oswald: Yes, sir; I did. I did not--yes, sir, it was in July 1955 when I made my first trip from Fort Worth, Tex., to New Orleans, La. I had purchased a car the second day I was home from the service, a 1951 Chevrolet, and I drove it on the third day or the second night to New Orleans, La.
Mr. Jenner: Were your quarters in a hotel, or did you join your brother and mother?
Mr. Oswald: I joined my mother and brother.
Mr. Jenner: How long did you stay in New Orleans on that trip?
Mr. Oswald: Approximately 1 week.
Mr. Jenner: And you lived with your mother and brother?
Mr. Oswald: That's correct.
Mr. Jenner: That was in July of 1955?
Mr. Oswald: Yes, sir; that's correct.
Mr. Jenner: He was not in school at that time.
Mr. Oswald: No, sir; he was not.
Mr. Jenner: Now, how did you find your brother, as to the state of health and state of mind?
Mr. Oswald: He seemed to be the same to me. He had joined at that time no, sir--he had not at that time been in the Civil Air Patrol. At that time Lee was working I believe for an export firm there in New Orleans. I do not know the name of it. I do not believe I ever heard the name of it. I might have. (Bold added) Mother was also working at that time.
Armstrong writes [where I have underlined, but where some of this appears to be Jack talking about Armstrong]:
The Warren Commission ignored Robert Oswald's testimony and reported that Lee Harvey Oswald was not employed anywhere in the summer of 1955. They said that he entered the 10th grade at Warren Easton High School in September, dropped out shortly before his 16th birthday (October 18) and only then did he begin working at Tujagues's on November 10, 1955.
[NOTE FROM JUDYTH: THERE IS NO REASON WHY LEE COULD NOT HAVE HAD A SUMMER JOB AT TUJAGUE’S AND ALSO LATER.]
And guess what -- Marguerite said in testimony that then when he left school, as I told you, at age 16 -- the first job was Tujague and Company...
The WC did not ignore Robert's testimony -- they published it. Robert's memories were wrong in other areas, so it's no surprise he got this wrong, as well.
The Commission based their conclusions upon handwritten payroll records and time cards allegedly provided by Mr. Gerald F. Tujague, which could have been created by anyone,
[JUDYTH: ARMSTRONG SOMETIMES SAYS THINGS LIKE THIS, OR SAYS THE RECORDS MUST HAVE BEEN ‘ALTERED’ ON RARE OCCASIONS WHEN HE FINDS A CONFLICT WITH HIS THEORY.]
and offer no proof of Oswald's beginning or ending dates of employment. The Commission relied on these documents and made no attempt to locate verifiable records such as payroll checks, withholding tax statements, social security records, etc. Without verifiable records, as was the case with Oswald's employment at Dolly Shoe, we are left with only the memories of Tujague employees who knew Lee Oswald in order to learn the real dates of his employment.
But that work has since been, I believe, done by Doug Horne. Isn't it true that Armstrong's only rebuttal of Horne's work is that records must have been altered?
Armstrong [NOTE: Here is have to verify if this is Armstrong writing or Jack writing about him] traveled to New Orleans and met Frank DiBenedetto, long time employee and close friend of the company's founder, Gerald Tujague. Although not interviewed by the Warren Commission, DiBenedetto told the HSCA, "Oswald worked at Tujague's for a year to a year and a half." He remembered Oswald as well-built, approximately 5-foot-10, and with either dark brown or nearly black hair. When Armstrong met DiBenedetto, he had taken over the company which was still located at 442 Canal Street, in the same building and floor where Oswald had worked under DiBenedetto's supervision 40 years earlier.
I note the description of Oswald isn't in quotes. Was that part of what DiBenedetto told the HSCA, or is it what Armstrong managed to extract with leading questions?
DiBenedetto gave Armstrong the names of two living former Tujague employees, Gloria Callahan and Jimmy Hudnell who provided confirmation of DiBenedetto's recollections. Armstrong's complete study of Oswald's employment at Tujague's is extensive and beyond the scope of this post. However, this is part of Armstrong's conclusion:
New Orleans school records show that Lee Harvey Oswald attended Warren Easton as a sophomore from September 8 thru October 10, 1955. But Robert Oswald, Lillian Murret, Frank DiBenetto, and Gloria Callaghan's collective memories place Lee Oswald at Tujague's from July 1955 until the spring or summer of 1956. Oswald's original employment records from Tujague's disappeared. Therefore, the statements of these people represent the best available evidence to establish the true beginning and ending dates of Lee Oswald's employment at Tujague's.
Have you ever considered checking what Armstrong claims the record shows to verify it? I ask, because clearly you haven't - otherwise you'd know that Lillian Murret made no such statement.
Here is the only relevant portion of her testimony:
Mrs. MURRET - Yes; and then the next I heard was when he came here, and he didn't want to go to school because he thought he already knew all that they had to teach him, so she must have allowed him to go to work for Tujague's, because he had a job as a runner, going from building to building, delivering messages and things like that.
Mr. JENNER - That was in 1955, would that be about right?
Mrs. MURRET - When he was here; yes.
Thus, what she actually does is confirm Marguerite's memory - not Robert's. Oswald left school in 1955 and started work at Tujagues. Nothing about starting there in July and still being there in '56. That's Armstrong's fantasy.
To make it appear as though one Lee Harvey Oswald attended Warren Easton and worked at Tujague's in the fall of 1955 certain records had to be altered and/or destroyed. The school records and memories of students and teachers who remembered (Harvey) Oswald at Warren Easton High School were numerous and irrefutable. But the dates of Lee Oswald's employment at Tujagues's were known only to a few people, and could be easily manipulated if the original records disappeared and were replaced with fabricated documents. (Armstrong provides extensive evidence of how he believes this was done)
Note: Whoever was responsible for destroying and fabricating Oswald's payroll records knew about the two Oswalds. (Bold added)
Utter nonsense. Why must records have been altered or destroyed? Because those that exist don't comport with this theory which relies so heavily on 30 and 40 year old memories - memories moreover, which have to be taken on faith as being untainted by leading questions, or other manipulations.
Mike, do yourself a favor. Toss all your books and do your own research.
===============
This threads began with:
Talking of Lee Harvey Oswald as being A SINGLE PERSON is contrary to the massive evidence of Armstrong,
Ya. Like the NYC school records which don't actually say what Armstrong says they do. Like his misrepresenting of Lillian Murret's testimony concerning Tujagues. Like his suggestion that the person in Bolton Ford incident gave his name as "Lee Oswald" - not just "Oswald". and on and on it goes.
And you still need to clarify your relationship with the former Vice Principal at Stripling. Do I need to repost a reminder of your contradictory statements about that relationship?
which clearly shows TWO PERSONS using that name. Were they KIN to each other? I doubt it.
Good for you. Too bad it's a theory built on misuse of evidence (to put it at its kindest).
Anyone who says mention of Armstrong is "hijacking the thread" is unfamiliar with HARVEY & LEE.
Ahhh... there it is. Any thread whatsoever can be legitimately turned into a Harvey & Lee-athon and never be off-topic. So sayeth Jack.
Read it.
Send me a copy. My kids are running out of scribble paper.
Jack
THIS APPEARS AS A SNAG:
Now what he didn’t tell me was that on Sunday he must have gone to the
cemetery where his father was buried. That’s right at the end of the Lakeriew
line, where I live. He went to the cemetery. I guess he went to ask the
person in charge about the grave. Anyway, he found it, and while he was
there he saw someone who knew the Oswalds. I didn’t get whether she was
related or not, but they got to talking about the family some way. I don’t
know what all they talked about, but anyway, Lee looked in the paper and
finally he found this job-1 don’t know where it was, but it was up on Rampart
Street, and they wanted someone to letter.
Mr. JENNF.R.
To letter?
Mrs. MURRET.
To do lettering work, yes, and so he called this man and the
man said to come on out, so he went on out there to see about this job.
First, while he was waiting for the appointment time, he sat down and tried,
to letter, and well, it was a little sad, because he couldn’t letter as well as my
next door neighbor’s 6-year-old child, but I didn’t say anything, so when he
got back he said, “Well, I didn’t get the job.” He said, “They want someone
who can letter, and I don’t know how to do that.”
NOTE FROM JUDYTH: Apparently Jack White says he has watched "The Love Affair" -- but he has a strange, dichotomous attitude. He agrees about the vaccines, yet says it was inserted into the thread to provide a humanitarian aspect -- he thinks I have no feelings. He disses everything, accepting only what he likes...I am now concerned about how evidence and witness satements were handled by him. On that note, having time to look at old threads sent to me long ago, I found the gem atached. It is by Greg Parker. PLEASE READ IT. IT TELLS YOU THAT JACK'S BASIC ATTITUDE -- AND THE POSSIBLE CONTAMINATION OF WITNESSES BY ARMSTRONG -- HAS A HISTORY.
AN EXCHANGE BETWEEN GREG PARKER AND JACK WHITE
NOTE FROM JIM: I have put (what I take to be) Jack's posts in italics. If I have not done this right, he can correct me.
In the preceding peculiar post, I found the following absurd statement, among others:
"And you still need to clarify your relationship with the former Vice Principal at Stripling. Do I need to repost a reminder of your contradictory statements about that relationship?"
Again, for the cognitively challenged, I restate:
I attended college sixty years ago with Frank Kudlaty; his wife was a friend of mine, but he was only a casual acquaintance. I have seen him only three or four times in the past sixty years. He rose in teaching ranks to become superintendent of a very large Texas school district. I never knew him to be anything but honest and upright. I have never posted ANY contradictory statements about him. He knew nothing about the significance of his information till he was interviewed by Armstrong.
Jack
Jack. here are the contradictory statements you don't recall making:
From Post #28 in the Enid Gray explains Oswald's appearance thread: I was present for many of his interviews given [of Stripling witnesses].
From Post #37 in the Enid Gray explains Oswald's appearance thread: I was present when he interviewed three persons about LHO at Stripling.
Which, if either of those is true, Jack? "Many" or "three"?
From Post #28 in the Enid Gray explains Oswald's appearance: Frank Kudlaty, the assistant principal at Stripling has been a friend of mine since the 1940s, when he was a college classmate. He later rose to be superintendant of schools at Waco Texas before retiring. He is a man of impeccable honesty.
From Post #37 in the Enid Gray explains Oswald's appearance thread: At the time John interviewed him, I had not seen him in about fifty years, although I have seen him a couple of times in recent years. I knew his wife much better than I knew him, as I was in classes with her.
Which if either of these statements is true: That Kudlaty has been a friend of mine since the 1940s or At the time John interviewed him, I had not seen him in about fifty years.
Which if either of these statements is true: he was a college classmate. or I knew his wife much better than I knew him, as I was in classes with her.
I'd also like to see you explain how you can vouch for the "impeccable honesty" of what you now call a casual acquaintance you hadn't seen in about 50 years?
THERE ARE NO CONTRADICTORY STATEMENTS ABOVE. ALL ARE TRUE. I STAND BY THEM.
A false inference is being drawn that I was present when Kudlaty was interviewed by John and Robert Groden, who videotaped the interview. Kudlaty was interviewed in Waco Texas which is 90 miles south of me. I was even unaware of the taping, and had no knowledge of the interview till John showed me the tape. It is silly to infer that any of my statements are inconsistent. To quibble over "three" and "many" is dumb. I was present for several interviews and saw his videotapes of quite a few others. What is your definition of "many"? One definition is AN INDETERMINATE NUMBER MORE THAN ONE. Do you disagree?
I was present when he interviewed three Stripling LHO classmates, all of whom verified many facts about LHO and Marguerite at Stripling. I viewed many (quite a few more than one) of John's interviews WHICH YOU ARE UNAWARE OF, but you of course would deny that looking at the video interview is not the same as "being there". The most impressive besides the Kudlaty interview is Myra LaRouche (spelled without looking it up)...but of course you know all about her, don't you? I never met nor influenced Myra. I was present for the interview of Georgia Bell...but I don't have to tell you about her, do I. You know she was wrong without knowing what she said.
I am abandoning this nonsensical thread. You clearly have no knowledge of the book so cannot discuss it intelligently. I still say READ THE BOOK. You obviously have not. Jack
Thank you Doug. This is not about Kudlaty's credibility. It is about the lack of judgment shown by Armstrong and White in not declaring that Jack was a friend of Kudlaty's.
This creates a conflict of interests. Such a conflict is not dependant upon an actual act of impropriety. It is the appearance of possible impropriety that they should have had the horse sense to avoid. This has been compounded by White's ( a ) conflicting statements about his relationship with Kudlaty and ( b ) his utter refusal to admit he has made conflicting statements
GREG PARKER MAKES SOME TELLING COMMENTS:
QUOTE
…what Armstrong has to say about Oswald's employment at Tujague's is very interesting. Keep in mind that Robert Oswald told the Warren Commission that when he got out of the service he went to visit Lee and Marguerite:
Mr. Jenner: Did you visit your mother and your brother in New Orleans when you returned from the service in July of 1955?
Mr. Oswald: Yes, sir; I did. I did not--yes, sir, it was in July 1955 when I made my first trip from Fort Worth, Tex., to New Orleans, La. I had purchased a car the second day I was home from the service, a 1951 Chevrolet, and I drove it on the third day or the second night to New Orleans, La.
Mr. Jenner: Were your quarters in a hotel, or did you join your brother and mother?
Mr. Oswald: I joined my mother and brother.
Mr. Jenner: How long did you stay in New Orleans on that trip?
Mr. Oswald: Approximately 1 week.
Mr. Jenner: And you lived with your mother and brother?
Mr. Oswald: That's correct.
Mr. Jenner: That was in July of 1955?
Mr. Oswald: Yes, sir; that's correct.
Mr. Jenner: He was not in school at that time.
Mr. Oswald: No, sir; he was not.
Mr. Jenner: Now, how did you find your brother, as to the state of health and state of mind?
Mr. Oswald: He seemed to be the same to me. He had joined at that time no, sir--he had not at that time been in the Civil Air Patrol. At that time Lee was working I believe for an export firm there in New Orleans. I do not know the name of it. I do not believe I ever heard the name of it. I might have. (Bold added) Mother was also working at that time.
Armstrong writes [where I have underlined, but where some of this appears to be Jack talking about Armstrong]:
The Warren Commission ignored Robert Oswald's testimony and reported that Lee Harvey Oswald was not employed anywhere in the summer of 1955. They said that he entered the 10th grade at Warren Easton High School in September, dropped out shortly before his 16th birthday (October 18) and only then did he begin working at Tujagues's on November 10, 1955.
[NOTE FROM JUDYTH: THERE IS NO REASON WHY LEE COULD NOT HAVE HAD A SUMMER JOB AT TUJAGUE’S AND ALSO LATER.]
And guess what -- Marguerite said in testimony that then when he left school, as I told you, at age 16 -- the first job was Tujague and Company...
The WC did not ignore Robert's testimony -- they published it. Robert's memories were wrong in other areas, so it's no surprise he got this wrong, as well.
The Commission based their conclusions upon handwritten payroll records and time cards allegedly provided by Mr. Gerald F. Tujague, which could have been created by anyone,
[JUDYTH: ARMSTRONG SOMETIMES SAYS THINGS LIKE THIS, OR SAYS THE RECORDS MUST HAVE BEEN ‘ALTERED’ ON RARE OCCASIONS WHEN HE FINDS A CONFLICT WITH HIS THEORY.]
and offer no proof of Oswald's beginning or ending dates of employment. The Commission relied on these documents and made no attempt to locate verifiable records such as payroll checks, withholding tax statements, social security records, etc. Without verifiable records, as was the case with Oswald's employment at Dolly Shoe, we are left with only the memories of Tujague employees who knew Lee Oswald in order to learn the real dates of his employment.
But that work has since been, I believe, done by Doug Horne. Isn't it true that Armstrong's only rebuttal of Horne's work is that records must have been altered?
Armstrong [NOTE: Here is have to verify if this is Armstrong writing or Jack writing about him] traveled to New Orleans and met Frank DiBenedetto, long time employee and close friend of the company's founder, Gerald Tujague. Although not interviewed by the Warren Commission, DiBenedetto told the HSCA, "Oswald worked at Tujague's for a year to a year and a half." He remembered Oswald as well-built, approximately 5-foot-10, and with either dark brown or nearly black hair. When Armstrong met DiBenedetto, he had taken over the company which was still located at 442 Canal Street, in the same building and floor where Oswald had worked under DiBenedetto's supervision 40 years earlier.
I note the description of Oswald isn't in quotes. Was that part of what DiBenedetto told the HSCA, or is it what Armstrong managed to extract with leading questions?
DiBenedetto gave Armstrong the names of two living former Tujague employees, Gloria Callahan and Jimmy Hudnell who provided confirmation of DiBenedetto's recollections. Armstrong's complete study of Oswald's employment at Tujague's is extensive and beyond the scope of this post. However, this is part of Armstrong's conclusion:
New Orleans school records show that Lee Harvey Oswald attended Warren Easton as a sophomore from September 8 thru October 10, 1955. But Robert Oswald, Lillian Murret, Frank DiBenetto, and Gloria Callaghan's collective memories place Lee Oswald at Tujague's from July 1955 until the spring or summer of 1956. Oswald's original employment records from Tujague's disappeared. Therefore, the statements of these people represent the best available evidence to establish the true beginning and ending dates of Lee Oswald's employment at Tujague's.
Have you ever considered checking what Armstrong claims the record shows to verify it? I ask, because clearly you haven't - otherwise you'd know that Lillian Murret made no such statement.
Here is the only relevant portion of her testimony:
Mrs. MURRET - Yes; and then the next I heard was when he came here, and he didn't want to go to school because he thought he already knew all that they had to teach him, so she must have allowed him to go to work for Tujague's, because he had a job as a runner, going from building to building, delivering messages and things like that.
Mr. JENNER - That was in 1955, would that be about right?
Mrs. MURRET - When he was here; yes.
Thus, what she actually does is confirm Marguerite's memory - not Robert's. Oswald left school in 1955 and started work at Tujagues. Nothing about starting there in July and still being there in '56. That's Armstrong's fantasy.
To make it appear as though one Lee Harvey Oswald attended Warren Easton and worked at Tujague's in the fall of 1955 certain records had to be altered and/or destroyed. The school records and memories of students and teachers who remembered (Harvey) Oswald at Warren Easton High School were numerous and irrefutable. But the dates of Lee Oswald's employment at Tujagues's were known only to a few people, and could be easily manipulated if the original records disappeared and were replaced with fabricated documents. (Armstrong provides extensive evidence of how he believes this was done)
Note: Whoever was responsible for destroying and fabricating Oswald's payroll records knew about the two Oswalds. (Bold added)
Utter nonsense. Why must records have been altered or destroyed? Because those that exist don't comport with this theory which relies so heavily on 30 and 40 year old memories - memories moreover, which have to be taken on faith as being untainted by leading questions, or other manipulations.
Mike, do yourself a favor. Toss all your books and do your own research.
===============
This threads began with:
Talking of Lee Harvey Oswald as being A SINGLE PERSON is contrary to the massive evidence of Armstrong,
Ya. Like the NYC school records which don't actually say what Armstrong says they do. Like his misrepresenting of Lillian Murret's testimony concerning Tujagues. Like his suggestion that the person in Bolton Ford incident gave his name as "Lee Oswald" - not just "Oswald". and on and on it goes.
And you still need to clarify your relationship with the former Vice Principal at Stripling. Do I need to repost a reminder of your contradictory statements about that relationship?
which clearly shows TWO PERSONS using that name. Were they KIN to each other? I doubt it.
Good for you. Too bad it's a theory built on misuse of evidence (to put it at its kindest).
Anyone who says mention of Armstrong is "hijacking the thread" is unfamiliar with HARVEY & LEE.
Ahhh... there it is. Any thread whatsoever can be legitimately turned into a Harvey & Lee-athon and never be off-topic. So sayeth Jack.
Read it.
Send me a copy. My kids are running out of scribble paper.
Jack
THIS APPEARS AS A SNAG:
Now what he didn’t tell me was that on Sunday he must have gone to the
cemetery where his father was buried. That’s right at the end of the Lakeriew
line, where I live. He went to the cemetery. I guess he went to ask the
person in charge about the grave. Anyway, he found it, and while he was
there he saw someone who knew the Oswalds. I didn’t get whether she was
related or not, but they got to talking about the family some way. I don’t
know what all they talked about, but anyway, Lee looked in the paper and
finally he found this job-1 don’t know where it was, but it was up on Rampart
Street, and they wanted someone to letter.
Mr. JENNF.R.
To letter?
Mrs. MURRET.
To do lettering work, yes, and so he called this man and the
man said to come on out, so he went on out there to see about this job.
First, while he was waiting for the appointment time, he sat down and tried,
to letter, and well, it was a little sad, because he couldn’t letter as well as my
next door neighbor’s 6-year-old child, but I didn’t say anything, so when he
got back he said, “Well, I didn’t get the job.” He said, “They want someone
who can letter, and I don’t know how to do that.”