Saturday, January 28, 2017

The Two Marguerites Part 2

Despite what John Armstrong would have you believe, three people who knew Marguerite Oswald as far back as the twenties offer powerful evidence refuting his theory of two Marguerites. One of the most egregious misrepresentations of evidence by Armstrong concerns the testimony of Myrtle Evans. Armstrong says that Evans knew the “real” Marguerite and not the impostor. To make his case Armstrong states on page 118 of his book:

Following the assassination Myrtle and Julian Evans saw this woman on television. When deposed on April 7, 1964 by Warren Commission Attorney Albert Jenner, Myrtle Evans said, "When I saw her on TV, after all that had happened," Myrtle Evans told the Warren Commission, "she looked so old and haggard, and I said that couldn't be Margie." … Neither Julian nor Myrtle, who had known the real Marguerite Oswald since 1935, recognized the heavy-set, shabbily-dressed woman they saw on television.


A reader who has not studied the full testimony of Myrtle Evans might believe Armstrong. But look at the full quote to see what Armstrong left out:

A very good housekeeper, very tasty; she could take anything and make something out of it, and something beautiful. She had a lot of natural talent that way, and she was not lazy. She would work with things by the hour for her children, and she kept a very neat house, and she was always so lovely herself. That's why, when I saw her on TV, after all of this happened, she looked so old and haggard, and I said, "That couldn't be Margie," but of course it was (emphasis added), but if you had known Margie before all this happened, you would see what I mean. She was beautiful. She had beautiful wavy hair.


The reality is that Myrtle Evans recognized Marguerite and flatly said so. Myrtle had known Marguerite since at least the mid-thirties and was understandably surprised by the changes that had taken place. Her husband Julian echoed her statements saying “she [Marguerite] has really aged… she really looks old.” But under oath neither made any attempt to say this was not the woman they knew, only that she had changed over the years due to the aging process. Marguerite was a smoker and this may have contributed to her premature aging. But Armstrong’s assertion that neither of the Evans’ recognized Marguerite is completely without merit. But don’t take my word for it. I advise readers to study the full testimony of Julian and Myrtle Evans and see for yourself.

Marguerite Circa 1935

A witness who knew Marguerite even before Myrtle and Julian was Clem Sehrt who was a friend of Marguerite’s family, the Claveries, as far back as the twenties. Sehrt, who was an attorney, also handled some legal matters for Marguerite in the early 1940’s. After the assassination, Sehrt saw Marguerite’s photo in a magazine. Did he fail to recognize her as the person that he had known? This is from his statement to the FBI:

Mr. Sehrt stated that he has not seen or heard of Marguerite Claverie in over twenty years and it was not until he saw her photograph in a magazine that he recognized her as the person he had known in his youth and as a young practicing attorney.


So, after seeing Marguerite’s photo in a magazine circa 63-64, Sehrt didn’t suggest to bureau agents that a horrible fraud was being perpetrated on the American public. He had no problem recognizing Marguerite as the woman he had known for 40 years and said nothing about two Marguerites. And Armstrong can’t comfortably add Sehrt to his list of plotters since he uses him on page 14 of his book to refute Marguerite’s allegation that the reason for her breakup with Eddie Pic was that he didn’t want children. Similarly, Armstrong used Myrtle and Julian's testimony throughout his book to promote various theories. Despite his attempts to mislead readers, it looks like Armstrong is stuck with the statements of these three witnesses who all recognized the one and only Marguerite as the person they had known for many years.

Amazingly, at one point in the book, Armstrong suggests that the "fake" Marguerite kept a low profile after the 1959 defection to avoid being detected.

After Harvey's "defection" the short, dumpy, heavy-set "Marguerite Oswald" imposter kept a low profile and avoided interviews with the press, for fear that people who had known the real Marguerite Oswald might realize that she was a different person. She soon left Fort Worth and began to work in small towns in north Texas. NOTE: If a photograph of the "Marguerite Oswald" imposter had appeared in Fort Worth newspapers following his "defection," then anyone who had known the tall, nice-looking Marguerite Oswald in Dallas during the past few years would have realized she was a different woman.


Completely defying all logic, Armstrong apparently believes this situation would have only existed in 1959 and that by 1963 sufficient time would have elapsed for people to forget. This is nonsense, of course, and anyone who had known the “tall, nice-looking Marguerite Oswald” at any time in her life through 1958 when she supposedly disappeared would have come forward when they saw the “impostor” on TV or in the newspapers during her extensive media appearances and reported that this Marguerite was a phony. The fact that this never happened is powerful evidence against the H&L theory.

No doubt there were dozens, if not hundreds, of people who knew the “real” Marguerite. Besides those already discussed, here is a partial list of those who testified before the Warren Commission or gave FBI statements:

· Edward Pic

· Dr. Bruno Mancuso

· Viola Peterman

· Dr. Cuthbert Brown

· Mrs. Oris Duane

· Edward Aizer

· Herbert Farrell

· Mrs. Benny Commenge

· Mrs. Harry Bodour

· Otis Carleton

Part 3 of the series is here.

6 comments:

  1. you are one cowardly con man. you can't put together a case, so you run, deny, trick, and claim that the discovery of truth is beneath you - while in reality it's above you. I used to think you are a paid shill. now, I realize you're just an obnoxious troll. A real pro would at least make an argument. stick w/mcadams.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Nickname,

    If you read the comment policy you will see that you are not allowed to attack an individual (cowardly con man) so this is a fair warning.

    As for your comment, if you want to debate a specific issue related to this article let me know. I can't really reply to your generalizations here.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Another nail in the coffin for this insane "theory" is the behavior of
    Marguerite Oswald in the aftermath of 11/22/63.
    She could not get enough Media attention, basically didn't stop bloviating
    on and on with her bizarre beliefs, with a CONSTANT appeal for $Money!
    A more sickening Human being you will never see, a BEAMING smile on her
    face as She would tell anyone who would listen " I'm an important person
    in History too..."
    Make no mistake, She was the happiest person in America and far from cowering
    in shame, She was PROUD to be the Mother of an assassin.

    I recently read Her Warren Commission Testimony, Holy Hell what a Lunatic!
    She rambled on for 3 days...you have to read it for yourself...
    it truly defies description.
    One of Her theories was the assassination was a "mercy killing" because JFK
    had some disease...another that Marina and the 2 Secret Service agents guarding
    Her killed JFK so Marina could write a book and make $money (always jealously circles
    back to who is making what, including Mrs Tippet who HER SON shot down!)

    She went on a Nation wide speaking tour with Mark Lane, basking in her new found
    fame.
    Now does this sound like the behavior a super-secret-decades-long-doppelganger
    would engage in?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Michael,

      Good points and I touch on some of these in Part three of the series.

      Delete
  4. you said: I have both the book and CD and I'm unimpressed by the arguments as are many others. I don't care if Armstrong made 10,000 trips to the national archives. That doesn't give him the right to create something out of thin air which is what he did.

    Don't you realize how saying things like that make you sound irrational? You create all kinds of time-wasting
    questions and opinions. J.A. has created NOTHING out of thin air, and you, McAdams, & your JREF buddies know it.

    ReplyDelete
  5. David's point seemed to me to be that because Armstrong did a great deal of research, that gives him the intellectual authority to create H&L. I say no.

    ReplyDelete

Powered by Blogger.