Dale Myers, whose fantastic book With Malice is the gold standard on Lee Harvey Oswald's murder of officer JD Tippit, has put together an excellent debunking of John Armstrong's Harvey and Lee theory as it relates to that crime.
Myers uses his encyclopedic knowledge of the Tippit case to destroy Armstrong's assertions and provides extensive examples of Armstrong "cherry picking" facts and misrepresenting evidence to the point of changing quotations to suit his needs. Highly recommended.One ambiguous part of the life of Lee Harvey Oswald is his time in the far east. Both the Warren Commission and the HSCA were unable to fully resolve conflicts in the record. This ambiguity has paved the way for theories such as John Armstrong's "Harvey and Lee" which postulates 2 Oswalds in different places during that time. Using a variety of sources, including original research by Greg Parker, I have developed a chronology which makes LHO's whereabouts during that period of his life less mysterious. Sources are listed in parenthesis.
Sunday, September 14, 1958: LHO sails with his unit from Yokosuka for the South China Sea aboard the USS Skagit (CE 1961, 23 H 797). It is possible that the Skagit’s departure was delayed until the 16th (RIF 180-10142-10413, 91).
Tuesday, September 16, 1958: LHO reports to sick bay where he starts treatment for gonorrhea (Donabedian Exhibit No. 1, 19 H 601).
Friday, September 19, 1958: The Skagit arrives in Kaohsiung, Taiwan where LHO and his shipmates spend two days unloading supplies (Parker, vol. 2, Part 2-Freedomland 1949-59).
Wednesday, September 24, 1958: The Skagit arrives in Hong Kong (Parker, vol. 2, Part 2-Freedomland 1949-59).
Tuesday, September 30, 1958: LHO and his unit are at Pingtung, Taiwan (CE 1961, 23 H 797). Sometime during their stay there, LHO is found “shaking and crying” while serving on guard duty by Lieutenant Charles R. Rhodes, who responds after hearing gunfire. LHO tells Rhodes that he had seen “men in the woods and that he challenged them and then started shooting.” Rhodes suspects LHO staged the incident with the hope of being sent back to Japan (Epstein, 81).
Sunday, October 5, 1958: LHO returns to Atsugi (CE 1961, 23 H 797).
Monday, October 6, 1958: LHO is transferred to general duty in anticipation of his return to the states (Folsom Exhibit No. 1, 19 H 658).
Tuesday, October 7, 1958: LHO reports to the Naval Hospital at Atsugi (CE 1961, 23 H 797) for treatment of his gonorrhea which has resisted antibiotics (Donabedian Exhibit No. 1, 19 H 602–604).
Monday, October 13, 1958: LHO is released from the Hospital (CE 1961, 23 H 797).
Sunday, November 2, 1958: LHO departs from Yokosuka aboard the USS Barrett bound for San Francisco (CE 1961, 23 H 797).
Saturday, November 15, 1958: LHO arrives in San Francisco (CE 1961, 23 H 797).
Sunday, November 16, 1958: LHO is at Treasure Island Naval Station while awaiting leave (CE 1961, 23 H 797).
Wednesday, November 19, 1958: LHO goes on leave (Folsom Exhibit No. 1, 19 H 686) staying with Marguerite in Fort Worth and visiting Robert and his wife Vada (Oswald with Land and Land, 89).
As I mentioned, the H&L people have used this time period to push theories that there were 2 Oswalds in the far east. Here are some threads from the Education Forum and Greg Parker's Forum discussing the issue:
Proponents of the John Armstrong “Harvey & Lee” theory find the finances of Marguerite Oswald suspicious. They believe that since she was not always employed during the years 1940-1952 that this is an indication that she had other sources of income, namely from the CIA. They believe this payment was for her work in the “Oswald Project” which involved two boys and two mothers and lasted from the forties through about 1958.
The following quote from Harvey & Lee is indicative of this suspicion:
There is no record of any employment for her during the next 6 months [1952], yet she was able to make her house payment, pay utility bills, buy food, gas, and afford a trip to New York in September.
As is always the case, there is another explanation. Marguerite ran a con of sorts on everyone she met during her life. She was constantly reminding anyone who would listen that she was a poor widow and down to her last penny. She placed her children in an orphanage to save money and to have someone to watch them while she worked. Her older boys John and Robert worked and she expected them to give her at least part of their earnings. She also wrote to John after he joined the service asking for money which he provided. As Robert later pointed out, “money was her God.”
In addition to the above tactics, Marguerite worked in low-paying jobs when she had to, and had other sources of income, which enabled her to provide a modest living for her family. Marguerite was something of a real estate investor and made good money for the time as Armstrong admits on page 27 of his book. Armstrong also provides the obvious explanation for her profits.
Marguerite made a profit on all real estate transactions except this one [San Saba], which is unusual because of a nationwide property boom following WWII.
The following table shows Marguerite’s real estate profits and is based on Armstrong’s own research.
Property |
Purchase Price |
Sale Price |
Profit |
1010 Bartholomew, New Orleans |
$1300 |
$2100 |
$800 |
2109 Alvar St., New Orleans |
$3900 |
$6500 |
$2600 |
4801 Victor, Dallas |
$10000 |
$11000 |
$1000 |
101 San Saba, Benbrook, TX |
$3950 |
$2750 |
$-1200 |
101 San Saba, Rental Income |
$3000 (rent) |
$500 (expenses) |
$2500 |
7408 Ewing, Fort Worth |
$6010 |
$6900 |
$890 |
4833 Birchman, Fort Worth |
$5440 |
$5440 |
$0 |
TOTAL PROFIT |
$6590 |
But real estate transactions did not account for all of Marguerite’s additional income. The following table illustrates other sources.
Child Support Edward Pic 1940-49 |
$4320 |
Robert Oswald Sr. Life Insurance |
$5000 |
Edwin Ekdahl Divorce Settlement |
$1500 |
TOTAL |
$10820 |
That gives us a grand total of $17,410 of additional income. At that time, Marguerite was making around $2000 a year when she worked. This is based on a job she had at Burt’s Shoes making $40 a week per Armstrong. Therefore, the additional income provided the equivalent of about 8 years of regular income working at the rate of pay she typically received.
Remember, that the period we are discussing is from about 1940 to 1952 which is 12 years. That only leaves 4 years that she had to account for and she worked enough to cover that. Part of that time, she was married to Edwin Ekdahl who paid all the bills. Of course, she had expenses such as mortgage payments, maintaining her properties, lawyers’ fees and so on. But the idea that it was impossible for her to get by without some unknown source of income such as CIA money is nonsense.
Supporters of John Armstrong’s “Harvey & Lee” theory frequently use statements made by Lee Harvey Oswald’s older brother Robert regarding LHO’s attendance at Stripling Junior High School to bolster their case. The following quote is from Armstrong associate Jim Hargrove’s website:
LEE Oswald's older brother, Robert, told the Warren Commission that the alleged assassin of President Kennedy attended W.C. Stripling Junior High School in Fort Worth, Texas. In two interviews with the Fort Worth Star Telegram, one in October 1959 when Oswald defected, the other in June 1962 when he returned, Robert repeated his recollection that his brother had attended Stripling JHS in Fort Worth.
Robert made it clear in his Warren Commission testimony that he thought LHO attended Stripling in 1951-52.
Mr. JENNER. And, at that time, I take it your brother Lee was attending Arlington Heights High School? That would be 1952?
Mr. OSWALD. Just a minute, please.
In 1952 Lee was 13 years old. He would be attending W. C. Stripling Junior High School then.
Mr. JENNER. I see. For the school year 1951-52?
Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir. Junior high school there was from the seventh to the ninth grades. And as soon as he was through with his sixth year, he started attending W. C. Stripling Junior High School.
Here are some threads from the Education Forum and Greg Parker's Forum discussing the issues of LHO's school attendance:
James Norwood, a Ph.D. at Berkeley, has written an article promoting the John Armstrong “Harvey & Lee” theory.
http://harveyandlee.net/J_Norwood/Legend.html
As a credentialed academic, Mr. Norwood should know better. This article will discuss some of his assertions, even though most have been previously refuted.
Jim Wilcott was a CIA finance officer in the 1950s, who testified before the House Select Committee on Assassinations in the late 1970s of his knowledge of the funding of the so-called Oswald Project.
The HSCA conducted a full investigation into the matter and found his allegations were “not worthy of belief.” The document shown represents notes made by an unknown person. If Wilcott made the notes, it should be said that he did not testify under oath to most of what is asserted there. Wilcott, who was an embittered former employee who became a left-wing extremist, is discussed here:
http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/03/james-wilcott.html
For the capital crime of the assassination of a president, the typical investigative and judicial machinery in America was suspended and replaced by a state-sponsored inquest.
This is a silly argument that I see made again and again. LHO’s unfortunate murder by Ruby, which guaranteed he would not be tried since you can’t put a dead man on trial, was the reason the commission was created. Nothing was “suspended”, and a professor should know better.
"there are details in Mr. Ely's memoranda which will require material alteration and, in some instances, omission."
Simply a case of unfortunate language that allows the H&L people to run wild. Jenner just meant that he didn’t agree with everything Ely had come up with. In other words, some things would have to be changed and some taken out.
Imagine if the FBI had given the Warren Commission (WC) Oswald's Stripling JHS records from 1954 to compare with his Beauregard JHS file
The only evidence of Stripling records that show LHO’s attendance there is the recollections of Frank Kudlaty, who “remembered” the FBI coming to confiscate the records after Armstrong influenced him with loaded questions. There is also evidence that Armstrong mentor Jack White was a friend of Kudlaty and this no doubt clouded his judgement. Kudlaty apparently didn’t think anything sinister was going before speaking to Armstrong since he never reported the alleged “confiscation.” Kudlaty told Armstrong "I went into the school and located Oswald's records. In fact I found both Lee Harvey and Robert Oswald's records for Stripling." What probably happened is that Kudlaty found Robert's records and thought he also saw LHO's records. Kudlaty was recalling events from over 30 years before when talking to Armstrong.
Robert thought LHO attended Stripling in 1951-52. From his testimony:
Mr. JENNER. And, at that time, I take it your brother Lee was attending Arlington Heights High School? That would be 1952?
Mr. OSWALD. Just a minute, please.
In 1952 Lee was 13 years old. He would be attending W. C. Stripling Junior High School then.
Mr. JENNER. I see. For the school year 1951-52?
Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir. Junior high school there was from the seventh to the ninth grades. And as soon as he was through with his sixth year, he started attending W. C. Stripling Junior High School.
But Robert was mistaken. LHO attended Ridgelea Elementary as a sixth grader in the 1951 to 1952 school year. He WOULD HAVE attended Stripling if they had stayed in Fort Worth but LHO and Marguerite moved to NYC in August, 1952 so that never happened. When Robert was at Stripling in 1948-49 (the last year he was there) LHO was in third grade and he could not have “remembered” him at Stripling since he was too young to be in Junior High which, as Robert pointed out, was from seventh to ninth grades. Robert was simply wrong.
The careful student of this case will recognize that there was no plausible reason for Marguerite to move from New Orleans to New York
Marguerite stated more than once that her reason for the move was to be near John Pic.
Imagine if the FBI had given the WC HARVEY Oswald and LEE Oswald's Beauregard School records to compare for the 8th grade in the Spring of 1954
Greg Parker discusses the Beauregard school records here:
https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1361-creating-mayhem-with-historical-records
Imagine if the FBI had given the WC Tarrant County tax records which showed Marguerite Ekdahl's purchase of 101 San Saba on July 7, 1947
First, to my knowledge, Armstrong has refused to provide the records, so it is hypocritical of him to do the same thing he frequently accuses others of. And Armstrong has shown in the past that he cannot necessarily be trusted to provide accurate information since his book is riddled with missing and inaccurate citations and outright misrepresentations. But assuming Armstrong is honestly reporting what these records show, the fact that Marguerite bought a house at this time does not indicate 2 Oswalds. One explanation is that the alleged purchase occurred after several arguments with her husband Edwin Ekdahl and she may have bought the house as a backup plan of sorts and then rented it after she and Ekdahl reconciled.
Greg Parker discusses 101 San Saba here:
https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1393-how-many-sharks-can-one-man-jump
Imagine if the WC had interviewed Palmer McBride, Walter Gehrke, members of the New Orleans Amateur Astronomy Association re: meeting Oswald in New Orleans in 1957-58.
Palmer McBride was interviewed by the FBI, nobody tried to avoid him. If he had testified before the WC, he would have been presented with the documentation that showed he was wrong. This is exactly what happened when David Lifton interviewed him pre-Armstrong. All of this is discussed in detail here:
http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/palmer-mcbride.html
Imagine if the WC had subpoenaed employment records of the Pfisterer Dental Lab which showed HARVEY Oswald's dates of employment in 1957-58.
We can imagine that, but it serves no purpose since LHO’s tax documents ARE available and show no such thing-as discussed at the link above. When the documents were released, Armstrong predictably said they were forgeries.
Imagine if the WC had brought the Marguerite Oswald impostor face to face with Edward John Pic (husband of Marguerite Claverie) during his WC testimony. Imagine if the WC had brought the Marguerite Oswald impostor face to face with Julian and Myrtle Evans during their WC testimony.
This is one of the weakest arguments made by H&L theorists and one that can be turned around and used as evidence of just the opposite. Unless Pic and the Evans’ had no access to TV or magazines or newspapers, they did come “face to face” with his Marguerite in a manner of speaking. And Pic or the Evans’ or any number of individuals who knew the “real” Marguerite could have come forward at any time to say the Marguerite they saw was not the Marguerite they knew. In fact, common sense tells us they would have, but no one ever did.
http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-two-marguerites-part-2.html
Imagine if the WC had properly examined the Marine Corps Unit diaries (HARVEY in Taiwan) and LEE Oswald's numerous hospital visits in September, 1958.
LHO was in Taiwan. The HSCA did much good work, but was wrong when they said he wasn’t. Some of the discrepancies in the record can be explained by the fact that LHO’s medical records probably moved with him. However, not all discrepancies are explainable beyond simple mistakes.
Imagine if the WC asked Ed Voebel about his friendship with HARVEY Oswald in the spring of 1954, and later with LEE Oswald in the 1954-55 school year.
Armstrong thinks Voebel knew both “Harvey” and “Lee” but he never indicated he knew 2 Oswalds.
Imagine if the WC asked New Orleans Realty for the 1954-56 rental records for 126 Exchange Place, where both Oswald families had lived.
The Oswald’s time at 126 Exchange is well documented. There is no evidence of any funny business other than mistaken witnesses.
Imagine if the WC questioned Mrs. Logan Magruder or Mrs. Oris Duane about their contact with Marguerite Oswald in 1960-61 in New Orleans.
They didn’t need to question them, they were on record. If the WC was aware that people such as Armstrong would someday be pushing a 2 Oswald theory, they might have shown the women documentary evidence that would have proved they were simply mistaken about when they saw Marguerite. But few people could imagine such nonsense would persist into the 21st century. The HSCA sought to refute double Oswald allegations and some of their work applies to Armstrong:
http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-truth-about-harvey-lee.html
Imagine if the WC asked for records from the Hotel Senator (New Orleans) in 1957 and 1958 for "Marguerite Oswald."
The Hotel Senator theory is again based on the mistaken recollections of McBride.
Imagine if the WC, or John Hart Ely, had seen the photograph of Marguerite Claverie Oswald at Paul's Shoe Store at Christmas, 1957.
They would have seen a woman who looked just like the woman in other photos from about the same time except she often wore glasses.
http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/marguerite-never-smiled.html
Imagine if the WC took testimony from Frank Kudlaty, Fran Schubert, Doug Gann, Jackie/Bobby Pitts regarding LHO at Stripling in 1954.
In that case, they would have been shown evidence that their respective recollections were in error and they would have promptly recanted as McBride did when confronted by Lifton. McBride quickly recanted even though, of course, he was not under oath when he spoke to Lifton.
Imagine if the WC asked the Texas Dept of Public Safety for a copy of LHO's drivers license.
That would have been a waste of time since LHO had only a learner’s permit.
On the day after Christmas, 1942, Marguerite Oswald chose to place her three-year-old son Lee in an orphanage. Inexplicably, in the years immediately following World War II, Marguerite had sufficient discretionary income to purchase properties.
Armstrong wants to believe that Marguerite was getting CIA money and that was the only way she could survive. Marguerite chose to place LHO in an orphanage to save money and for her own convenience. For an analysis of Marguerite's finances see: Marguerite's Finances
On November 15, 1951, Marguerite Oswald purchased a small home at 4833 Birchman in Fort Worth ... Was the purchase of the new home, which was located within walking distance of Stripling Junior High, intended to once again create confusion in changing schools and school districts? It turned out that Marguerite never occupied the Birchman home, packing up and moving to New York in 1952. If anything is clear about the purchase of Birchman, it is that this was not intended as an investment property for Marguerite. The tiny, 664-square-foot home was purchased for $4,190, a staggering sum for such a small home in 1951.
Norwood fails to mention that someone else paid this "staggering sum." That would be Robert Powell who bought the house from Marguerite in April, 1953 assuming the $4190 mortgage and paying her $1250 down.
But it turns out that there are too many instances when the occupancy of 2220 Thomas Place by a woman named Marguerite Oswald conflicts with documented residences of Marguerite Oswald at other locations.
Marguerite lived at this address at the time of the assassination. All of Armstrong’s evidence that she lived there previously is based on eyewitness statements, many of which were given 30 plus years after the fact. Armstrong thinks witnesses trump documentary evidence but they don’t.
The best way to study Harvey and Lee is to read the book in conjunction with documents from the Warren Commission's twenty-six volumes of hearings and exhibits. By examining entire documents and testimony from the Warren Commission, the diligent reader will see John Armstrong's findings corroborated by primary source materials.
The best way to study H&L is with the knowledge of the scientific evidence that shows the premise is false:
http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-truth-about-harvey-lee.html
Professional investigators such as police, FBI etc., as well as attorneys and private investigators know that during any investigation there will be conflicting evidence found. John Armstrong and Professor Norwood want you to think that every discrepancy is evidence of two separate individuals. But who would have to be involved for such a plot to exist?
http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/harvey-lee-who-was-involved-in-plot.html
Considering the mountain of documentary evidence in this case it is not surprising to find discrepancies. Especially when Marguerite lived in more than 50 different places by the time of the assassination:
http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/02/marguerites-addresses.html
Researchers from both sides of the JFK debate such as myself, Greg Parker, Jeremy Bojczuk and David Lifton have spoken out against this nonsensical concept and provided much research that refutes it (see “Resources” section). While every discrepancy cannot be resolved to the satisfaction of all, most of the Armstrong assertions have been disproven and scientific evidence has shown the theory to be without merit.
One of the most easily refuted claims in John Armstrong’s book Harvey & Lee is that Lee Harvey Oswald (“Harvey” per Armstrong) spoke no Russian in the Soviet Union. One purpose of this silly allegation is to prove that Marina spoke English while in Russia and she was therefore a spy. The following excerpt is from page 334.
NOTE: When Oswald and Marina met, danced, and agreed to a date the following Friday they spoke a common language. Was it Russian or English? The HSCA asked Marina, "At this time you were speaking in Russian together?" She answered, "Yes. He spoke with an accent so I assumed he was from another state. " Oswald came in contact with hundreds of people in Russia, but Marina is the only person-THE ONLY PERSON [emphasis in original] who said that Oswald spoke Russian while in Russia. Ana Ziger, who saw Oswald three or four times a week during the 2 1 /2 years he lived in Minsk, said he never spoke a single word of Russian. All of Oswald's male friends spoke English and he associated with girls from the foreign language institute who spoke English. Oswald, as a cold war spy in a hostile country, would never dare to speak Russian to Marina or anyone. Therefore when Oswald and Marina met it is almost certain she spoke English with Oswald.
But Armstrong’s own witness, Ana Ziger, does not confirm his allegation. In 1995, Ziger told an Argentinian publication that “Nobody could say anything [about lies LHO told] because he spoke Russian poorly Dad would translate ...” So, LHO certainly did speak Russian, albeit poorly at the time, and Alexander Ziger translated as a matter of convenience.
There is, of course, a mountain of additional evidence refuting the assertion. The definitive article debunking the claim was written by John Delane Williams.
http://johndelanewilliams.blogspot.com/2013/07/did-oswald-speak-russian-while-living.html
As Williams points out, there were dozens, if not hundreds, of individuals in Russia who could testify to the fact that LHO spoke Russian. Ernst Titovets knew LHO well in Russia and stated that he spoke Russian. Upon learning of Armstrong’s claims, Titovets interviewed the following people who knew LHO and confirmed that he spoke Russian:
· Vyacheslav Stelmakh
· Vladimir Zhidovich
· Dr. Alexander Mastykin
To sum up, another bold assertion by Armstrong is completely without merit.
After a highly publicized event, there is a tendency for people to want to become a part of the event and therefore a part of history. Wilt Chamberlain once noted “As I've traveled the world, I've probably had 10,000 people tell me that they saw my 100 point game …” although the actual number of people in attendance was 4124.
Such is apparently the case with Dr. Milton Kurian who wrote a letter to Jackie Kennedy in 1964. Kurian, a psychiatrist, told Mrs. Kennedy that he had examined Lee Harvey Oswald in March of 1964. Double Oswald theorist John Armstrong uses Dr. Kurian’s remembrances as proof of “Harvey” Oswald. This article will show that Dr. Kurian could not have seen LHO and that “Harvey” does not exist.
Dr. Kurian says he remembers the time of his experience with LHO because he was leaving his job as a psychiatrist for domestic relations court in New York and places it as March, 1953. But Kurian could not have seen Lee Harvey Oswald for several reasons. Warren Commission staff member John Ely explained the first problem with Kurian’s account in a staff memo:
He [Kurian] states that the interview occurred toward the end of March, 1953; however, in view of the fact that he refers to a report from Youth House which had been prepared prior to his meeting the boy, it must have been later in that year.
Ely is being charitable toward Kurian here, but the latter is adamant about the date he saw LHO who never entered Youth House until April 16, 1953 and there is no doubt that Kurian did not see LHO under the scenario he described. In the same memo, Ely touched on the second reason to disbelieve Kurian:
The Kurian letter was of course prepared after the assassination and I suspect its contents were influenced by the events of November 22, 1963. If, however, Dr. Kurian’s records contain the father figure analysis, they would be of great interest indeed.
The problem is, Kurian has no documentation proving that he interviewed LHO. Ely knew that without a report, Kurian’s assertions were essentially worthless. The Warren Commission would have wanted to use Kurian's diagnosis that LHO was mentally unstable but could not without confirming documentation. Other details from Kurian’s combined account (which includes the original letter to Mrs. Kennedy, a letter to Armstrong and a taped interview) reinforce the fact that the boy he saw was not LHO. Kurian said that Marguerite was married five times and spoke of LHO’s “stepfathers.” But Marguerite was married three times and LHO had only one stepfather. Kurian also thought that LHO’s brothers went to school in his place during his truancy but even Armstrong admits this never happened since John and Robert were much too old to pose as children and would have no reason to do so.
Instead of accepting the obvious, that Kurian was a well-meaning individual who was simply wrong, Armstrong uses the incident as proof of “Harvey” who he believes was around 4’8” tall while “Lee” was 5’4”. But as I show in the following article, the Bronx Zoo photo that ostensibly shows the small, emaciated “Harvey”, is actually the one and only Lee Harvey Oswald who was indeed around 5’4” tall at the time.
http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/03/the-bronx-zoo-photo.html
In conclusion, Dr. Kurian was a well-meaning man who was probably a fine physician. He was simply mistaken in his observations and perhaps motivated by a desire for 15 minutes of fame. To see the documents referenced in this article, go to:
http://digitalcollections.baylor.edu/cdm/compoundobject/collection/po-arm/id/6527/rec/10
The story Leander D’Avy told investigators for Jim Garrison and the HSCA is one of the least believable tales in JFK assassination literature. Predictably, John Armstrong chose to use it in his 2003 book Harvey and Lee as an example of a sighting of “Lee”. The fact is, he must use stories like this because “Lee” must turn up in places where “Harvey” isn’t to make his two Oswald theory plausible.
Fortunately for Armstrong, after any publicized event such as the assassination, eyewitnesses will come forward and swear they have seen people in places where it was impossible for them to have been for various reasons (see John McAdams, Assassination Logic, p. 42-43). Let’s look at Armstrong’s assertions regarding D’Avy starting with pages 401-402 of Harvey and Lee:
Leander D’Avy was the doorman at the Court of Two Sisters and had worked there for two years after retiring from 20 years service in the US Air Force. In June 1962 a young man walked in and asked D’Avy if Clay Bertrand worked at the restaurant (Clay Bertrand was an alias used by New Orleans businessman Clay Shaw). The night manager, Gene Davis, overheard the conversation and told D’Avy that he wanted to talk to the young man.
After the young man left D’Avy overheard Gene Davis tell a waitress that the young man had been behind the Iron Curtain. D’Avy remembered the young man resided in the apartment/storeroom over the restaurant on two occasions-in July 1962 and again in November 1963 (on both occasions Harvey Oswald was living in Dallas). D ‘Avy described the young man as light complexioned with a scar over one eye, about 5’9,” in his mid-twenties, well built, and wore yellow pants. After the assassination D’Avy saw photographs of Lee Harvey Oswald in the newspaper and was positive he was the same man that he saw at the restaurant. But the man accused of assassinating the President, Harvey Oswald, was living with his family and working in Dallas in the summer of 1962. The man who D’Avy saw was Lee Oswald.
NOTE: Eugene Claire Davis, aka Gene Davis, worked at the Court of Two Sisters Restaurant for 12 years and in 1962-63 was the night manager. Davis was an active FBI informant who had reported to the Bureau since 1960. He was given FBI informant number “NO 1189-C” on October 11, 1961.
Lee Oswald was the young man seen by D ‘Avy wearing yellow pants. Following the assassination there were no yellow pants found by the Dallas Police among Harvey Oswald’s possessions.
One evening D’Avy visited the Show Bar and noticed Lee Oswald sitting at one of the tables. He also looked across the room and saw Jim Ivey (“Tiger Jim”) talking to Clay Bertrand (Clay Shaw). Ivey, a former professional boxer who worked at the El Morocco Bar in the French Quarter, confronted D’Avy and began punching him. A Cuban refugee named “Pepe” intervened and asked Ivey what had happened. Ivey replied, “He (D’Avy ) knows about us.” Ivey was concerned that D’Avy had overheard a conversation between himself and his CIA contact, Clay Bertrand (Clay Shaw). The significance of Leander D’avy’s testimony is that it places Lee Oswald in New Orleans in the summer of 1962 while Harvey Oswald was in Fort Worth.
On another occasion, when D’Avy was working as doorman at the Court of Two Sisters, a car from Texas carrying several passengers stopped at the loading zone in front of the restaurant. When D’Avy asked the driver of the car to move, a man, whom D’Avy later recognized as Jack Ruby, reached his arm out the window of the car and slapped him. A woman in the car said rather loudly, “Jack, what did you do that for?”
On page 730, Armstrong again mentions the D’Avy story:
On a Saturday morning in late October or early November the doorman at the Court of Two Sisters Restaurant, Leander D’Avy, was looking for his boss, Gene Davis, to collect his paycheck. One of the waiters told D’Avy that Davis was in the storeroom above the restaurant. When D’ Avy entered the storeroom he was surprised to learn that it had been converted into an apartment with tables, chairs, a bed, and a kitchenette. He asked Gene Davis for his paycheck and noticed that Lee Oswald, David Ferrie, and four unidentified men were nearby.
Both D’ Avy and Davis had met Lee Oswald in June 1962 at the Court of Two Sisters Restaurant after Oswald visited the bar and asked for Clay Bertrand. After D’Avy collected his paycheck from Davis, he left and returned to the restaurant.
NOTE: Gene Davis had been an active FBI informant since October 11, 1961. This means that an FBI informant was aware of Lee Oswald prior to the assassination.
We will revisit the Armstrong allegations per D’Avy, but first it is important to study the evolution of D’Avy’s story over the years to judge the believability of his assertions. D’Avy called New Orleans Assistant District Attorney Andrew Sciambra, with whom he was acquainted, in August of 1967. D’Avy told Sciambra, who was working with Jim Garrison in his re-investigation of the JFK case, that the man he had seen “looked very much like Lee Harvey Oswald.” He also stated “since he saw a picture of Oswald he has been trying to place the face.” D’Avy almost certainly saw Oswald’s photo when everyone else in America first did – immediately after the assassination. I have to assume that not only did D’Avy not believe his information was important enough to report to authorities in 1963, it also took him nearly four years to “place the face” to Oswald. So D’Avy’s initial description of “Oswald” is far from a rock-solid identification.
D’Avy next spoke to Sciambra in November of 1967, and it seems in the ensuing months, his memory had somehow improved. He now said the man in the yellow pants was “identical” to Oswald. He provided new details about Shaw as well, stating that Shaw was at a gay hangout called the Court of Two Sisters Restaurant several times and spoke to Gene Davis on at least some of these occasions. D’Avy also added Attorney Dean Andrews, a key player in the Garrison saga, to the mix, although he would not tie Andrews to any of the others in his tale. He added several colorful characters to his story including a Texas millionaire who looked like Alan Ludden of “Password” fame. Finally, D’Avy added the detail about “the iron curtain” to this version of his assertions.
In December of 1967, Sciambra interviewed D’Avy at his home where he added the curious detail that “Clay Bertrand” had worked at the Court of Two Sisters. It is, of course, beyond belief that a prominent individual such as Shaw, who ran the International Trade Mart in New Orleans, would be working part time at a restaurant. Sciambra also showed D’Avy photographs of suspects in Garrison’s investigation including David Ferrie, Sergio Arcacha Smith and Loren Hall. Although he identified Smith, D’Avy said only that Ferrie “looks familiar but he cannot place him exactly as to time and place.”
As we have seen, the story D’Avy told Sciambra gradually expanded to include more characters and detail and although the Garrison probe ended with the acquittal of Clay Shaw in 1969, D’Avy wasn’t finished spinning his yarn. In 1977, D’Avy was interviewed by HSCA Staff Counsel Belford Lawson and investigator Jack Moriarty but now expanded his story to include new allegations. D’Avy said that in November, 1963, he went to the Court of Two Sisters to find Gene Davis to pick up his paycheck and was told by a waiter that Davis was in an upstairs storeroom. D’Avy entered the storeroom, which had been converted to an apartment complete with a bed, table and chairs and a kitchenette. There, he claimed to have seen a total of eight men:
· Lee Harvey Oswald, who was lying on the bed.
· David Ferrie, who D’Avy could not identify “exactly as to time and place” ten years before.
· A Cuban known to be an acquaintance of Ferrie.
· Gene Davis.
· An unidentified man in the back of the room.
· And most notably, the Three Tramps of conspiracy fame, one of whom had whiskers and sported a sailor suit complete with khaki pants.
What did the HSCA investigator’s think of D’Avy’s story? Lawson wrote:
The potentially crucial significance of the information disclosed makes investigation of the witness’s leads virtually compulsory.
But under a section titled “Evaluation of the Witness’ Credibility” Lawson stated:
The witness’s frequent contradictions raise serious questions about his credibility. For example, the witness changed the number of persons present at the storeroom meeting, changed from saying that he was paid by check to saying that he was paid in cash, changed from saying (a) that after testifying for Garrison he moved from New Orleans to Jackson to saying (b) that he moved to a different part of Jackson, and even changed the date of the storeroom meeting from November ’63 to summer ’62, then to summer ’63.
So, it seems that the HSCA investigators didn’t find D’Avy’s story very believable at all. However, they felt they had to pursue it, just as the FBI chased down dozens of leads following the assassination that proved to be dead ends.
Leander D’Avy’s story is clearly not believable for many reasons. But what motive would D’Avy have for telling such a yarn? A careful reading of his statements reveals the possibility of bad blood between D’Avy and Davis. D’Avy did not come forward with his story until August, 1967 and then only after reading in the media that his boss Gene Davis was “involved” in the assassination. In his November, 1967 account to Sciambra, D’Avy said that Davis and several other men including the club owner’s son “formed a little clique”, a fact which he apparently was not happy about. D’Avy also gave Sciambra a photograph of a friend of Davis’ who had gotten very drunk one night. Since D’Avy knew Garrison was investigating Davis, it is reasonable to assume that he didn’t think the photo would help Davis’ cause. Similarly, in his December, 1967 interview, D’Avy mentions Clay Shaw, Sergio Arcacha Smith and Oswald, all of whom were subjects of Garrison’s investigation, as individuals he saw talking to Davis. Finally, when referring to the “iron curtain” allegation D’Avy stated he would “confront Gene Davis and prove what (I am) saying is true.”
Having looked at D’Avy’s story and possible motives in detail, let’s revisit John Armstrong’s assertions regarding D’Avy:
Clay Bertrand was an alias used by New Orleans businessman Clay Shaw.
Armstrong makes this statement as if it were a fact. Actually, Shaw denied using the alias and it has never been proven that he did. For a complete discussion, see: http://www.jfk-online.com/cbrumors.html
After the assassination D’Avy saw photographs of Lee Harvey Oswald in the newspaper and was positive he was the same man that he saw at the restaurant.
As mentioned previously, D’Avy was less certain that he had seen Oswald in his initial statement. D’Avy’s story of seeing no less than eleven assassination related figures also compromises his credibility. Armstrong neglects to mention D’Avy’s original statement and many of his more colorful recollections.
… the man accused of assassinating the President, Harvey Oswald, was living with his family and working in Dallas in the summer of 1962. The man who D’Avy saw was Lee Oswald.
This is a logical fallacy that Armstrong makes throughout his book-a person sees someone or something and therefore his two Oswald theory is proven. It apparently never occurred to him that in some cases people honestly believe they have seen someone who they did not. In other cases, for various reasons, they simply lie.
Gene Davis had been an active FBI informant since October 11, 1961. This means that an FBI informant was aware of Lee Oswald prior to the assassination.
Gene Davis apparently was an FBI informant. In the real world, people such as Davis, who was the manager at a restaurant with an interesting clientele, are paid to provide the FBI with useful information. In Armstrong’s world, anyone associated with the FBI or CIA is someone to be mistrusted and who has ulterior motives. If Gene Davis had been aware of “Lee”, that would be news, but since the only evidence of this is Armstrong’s interpretation of D’Avy’s shaky assertions, it is safe to say it didn’t happen.
Lee Oswald was the young man seen by D’Avy wearing yellow pants. Following the assassination there were no yellow pants found by the Dallas Police among Harvey Oswald’s possessions.
Another Armstrong fallacy-there were no yellow pants found at “Harvey’s” so this proves that there were two Oswalds and that “Lee” owned the pants.
Ivey was concerned that D’Avy had overheard a conversation between himself and his CIA contact, Clay Bertrand (Clay Shaw).
Of course, there is no definitive proof that Shaw worked for the CIA or was Ivey’s contact and the source Armstrong gives (Lawson HSCA Memo) provides none.
He (D’Avy) asked Gene Davis for his paycheck and noticed that Lee Oswald, David Ferrie, and four unidentified men were nearby.
In this case, Armstrong has misrepresented what D’Avy said to make his point. The source he cites is the same July 8, 1977 HSCA memo written by Belford Lawson that I have used for this article. Lawson clearly states that D’Avy saw eight men and only characterized one man as “unidentified”. Armstrong has conveniently added the Three Tramps to the list of those men who were unidentified and hoped that the reader would not bother to check the source, which necessitates using the CD he provides with the book.
In conclusion, John Armstrong uses the story of Leander D’Avy as proof of a sighting of “Lee”. Armstrong employs a “hit and run” technique with D’Avy as he does throughout his book. That is, he makes an assertion that is either unsupported by the evidence, a complete misrepresentation or something “cherry picked” from witness testimony and then moves on to the next assertion. This methodology, which is illustrated very well by his treatment of D’Avy, should be of great concern to Armstrong’s adherents.
One of John Armstrong’s favorite investigative techniques is to suggest that since there are records that contain discrepancies, something sinister may be going on. But when others point out that mistakes and differences in records are a normal occurrence, Armstrong’s associates ridicule this idea and claim that so many unexplained discrepancies could not exist. But such inconsistencies can and do exist in the real world for varying reasons.
It turns out that Armstrong developed a theory as to the identity of the Marguerite “impostor” which he wisely chose not to pursue but does mention on page 133 in his book under a section titled “an unexplained curiosity.”
Margaret Keating Oswald was the first wife of Robert E. L. Oswald (father of Robert and Lee Harvey Oswald), whom she divorced in 1933. The court restored her last name to Keating, her maiden name, which she kept for the remainder of her life (she apparently never remarried). The name Margaret Keating and her address, 120 N. Telemachus Street, appear in New Orleans City Directories, telephone books, voter registration records, etc., from 1933 thru the early 1960's.
In the 1956 New Orleans City Directory, which records listings for the last half of 1955, the directory listed her as "Margt. Oswald," 120 N. Telemachus Street, New Orleans. This is the only occasion where the name "Margaret Keating" appears as Margt. Oswald-a name she had not used for the past 23 years. Perhaps this was a mistake, but perhaps not. These two listings appear during the time that both the short, dumpy heavy-set "Marguerite Oswald" imposter (whose true identity remains unknown) and the tall, nice-looking Marguerite Oswald lived in New Orleans. NOTE: Margaret Keating, who was 58 years old in 1954 and 67 years old in 1963, could have been the "Marguerite Oswald" imposter, but that possibility will not be explored or discussed in this book. For serious researchers, a telephone number and address were listed for Margaret Keating as late as 1996 in Baton Rogue (she was 100 in 1996).
So, for “serious researchers” only, Armstrong has provided a lead that he didn’t have enough faith in to pursue himself. Hopefully, no one wasted any time on this since Margaret Keating was born in 1892, not 1896 as Armstrong maintains and died in 1972.
https://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=102795476
She was four years older than Oswald and that is the obvious explanation for her fibbing about her age which he discusses on page 13. And it is obvious from her photo on Find-a-Grave that she is not the “impostor” Marguerite. Another H&L mystery solved.
One of the tenets of the John Armstrong Harvey & Lee theory is the difference in appearance between the two boys in 1952-53. “Lee” was tall and had a dominant personality, while “Harvey” was shorter and more slight in build.
Three witnesses are used by Armstrong and his supporters to bolster their case. In March, 1953, Dr. Milton Kurian allegedly interviewed “Harvey” at Youth House in New York. Kurian described “Harvey” as “thin and very quiet” and estimated his height at 4’8”. Dr. Renatus Hartogs interviewed “Harvey” at Youth House in April, 1953. Although Hartogs offered no height estimate, he described “Harvey” as “thin, malnourished, and reminiscent of children he had seen in concentration camps in Europe.” According to the theory, “Harvey” enrolled at Beauregard School in New Orleans in September, 1953. His homeroom teacher was Myra DaRouse and she remembered “Harvey” as being 4’6” to 4’8” tall. These witness accounts are the only evidence for Armstrong’s statement that “Harvey” was about 4’8” tall during this period.
The following photo of LHO was taken at the Bronx Zoo and represents “Harvey” in August, 1953 according to Armstrong and followers.
But a simple math formula proves that Kurian and DaRouse were mistaken in their remembrances. To find the height of an unknown object in a photograph, all that is necessary is to provide the known height of another object that is in about the same location in the photo. Armstrong associate David Josephs has provided the following information about the Bronx Zoo photo.
The rails at the Bronx zoo are 18" & 36" - yes I did call them to find out.
Methodology
While it is obvious that the top of LHO’s head is the starting point for measurements at the top of the photo, finding the point to start measurements at the bottom of the photo is sometimes tricky. To overcome this problem, I decided to crop the photo at several points near the feet of LHO including the tip of his shoes and a point where I thought the rails started. Using the different lower crop points, I compared the known height of the 18-inch lower rail to the upper rail. After several attempts, I came up with 36.2 inches for the upper rail in comparison to the lower rail and decided that was close enough for this exercise. The rail slants slightly and rather than use photoshop to correct this and be accused of altering the photo, I consistently measured to the top of the rails on the right-hand side. This photo shows the top and bottom reference points used for calculations.
The height in inches of the known object is divided by the same object’s size in the photo. This gives a “ratio” by which the questioned object may be multiplied to find its true height. The following table displays the results.
Item |
Known Height |
Height in Photo |
Lower Rail |
18” |
1.94” |
Upper Rail |
36” |
3.91” |
LHO |
n/a |
6.97” |
LHO Calculated Height (18” Rail) |
64.67 inches |
5 feet 4.67 inches |
LHO Calculated Height (36” Rail) |
64.17 inches |
5 feet 4.17 inches |
Compared to the known heights of the two rails, LHO averages just over 5’4” tall in this photo. It should be noted that LHO was measured in 1952 and found to be 5’4” tall and the slightly over 5’4” figure that I arrived at would be consistent with his normal growth considering variables such as shoes and posture in the Zoo photo. Although my calculations here could be very slightly off, it would not be enough to make up the eight-inch difference between my results and the alleged height of “Harvey” Oswald. In conclusion, the remembrances of Dr. Kurian and Myra DaRouse are proven to be incorrect.
Discussions of John Armstrong’s Harvey & Lee theory often involve scientific and other evidence. But what if we just look at the theory by asking some “common sense” questions?
Who Was Involved in the Plot?
How many individuals would have to be involved for the H&L plot to be true? It turns out the answer is dozens when you count the principals and the subordinates who would necessarily be involved. Some of the names on this list will not bother conspiracy theorists. James Angleton and David Phillips are well known suspects and universal villains with the CIA-did-it crowd. But some of the names on this list should give just about anyone pause, including LHO’s family members and friends. I invite anyone to think about the names here and honestly ask yourself how this could all come together.
http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/harvey-lee-who-was-involved-in-plot.html
The Behavior of the “Fake” Marguerite
The outlandish behavior of the woman who is supposed to be a CIA operative is one of the best common sense arguments against the theory. Jim Hargrove believes the fake Marguerite was a “spycatcher” whose job was to attract US intelligence agents who were aware of “Oswald’s” role as a spy and would then contact her. Marguerite would then report these agents to headquarters for elimination. But if she was a CIA operative, she had to be one of the world’s great actors since just about everyone that met her following the assassination thought she was crazy.
http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/02/the-two-marguerites-part-3.html
Why Didn’t People Who Knew the “Real” Marguerite Speak Out?
A simple question that Armstrong supporters can’t answer is why didn’t the “real” Marguerite’s friends from the early days come forward to say that the woman they saw on TV and in the newspapers (the impostor) was not the woman they knew? One weak argument is they were afraid. But they could have come forward at any time such as the seventies when the HSCA put the spotlight back on the case. Or they could have contacted an investigative journalist, such as Gaeton Fonzi, who was very sympathetic to the conspiracy cause and would have gladly listened to their story. None ever came forward and the people that testified or gave statements to the Warren Commission either recognized Marguerite or didn’t mention any problem.
http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-two-marguerites-part-2.html
LHO’s Military ID
Armstrong presents some contradictory records in his book to bolster his claim that of two Oswalds. But all of the records he presents show the same military id number. Exactly how did two men use the same ID at the same time and no one notice?
Beauregard
Armstrong says that both Oswalds attended Beauregard at the same time. He also says that LHO friend Ed Voebel knew both Oswalds. Armstrong has never claimed that “Harvey” and “Lee” were identical twins. Exactly how did this work and why did nobody notice?
One of the photos of the “real” Marguerite Oswald, according to the Harvey & Lee theory of John Armstrong, was taken at Paul’s Shoe Store in Fort Worth in 1957. Armstrong’s book describes her as follows:
The tall, nice-looking, well-dressed Marguerite Oswald, the mother of Lee Oswald, appears as a quiet, pleasant, hard-working woman who got along reasonably well with co-workers. She was about 5'7" tall, average build, had dark hair with streaks of gray, did not wear glasses, and dressed well.
But what can the shoe store photo tell us about Marguerite’s true height? The one and only Marguerite Oswald’s height was listed as 5’2 1/2” inches on a 1965 passport and 5’3” on an undated driver’s license. I’ll use the 5’3” height just to make it simpler. If you are interested, the process I use to calculate heights from photos is found here:
http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-two-marguerites-part-1.html
Here is the Paul’s Shoe Store photo cropped and captioned with my results:
According to the following article, the average height of a man age 20-74 in the United States in 1960 (close enough to 1957 for our purposes) was just over 5’8”.
A woman in the same age range was just over 5’3”. As my analysis shows, assuming the 5’3” height for Marguerite, most of the people fall near the average range as you would expect. The short woman in the front is obviously very small at just under five feet. And the man in back on the right is a little over average for the time at just under six feet. The tallest woman, on the far left, is 5’7”.
But what happens if we add four inches as Armstrong believes is the case for this Marguerite who he thinks is the “real” Marguerite? The short woman is now just under 5’4” which seems reasonable. But the woman on the far left becomes 5’11” which would be unusual for a woman in any era even if wearing heels. The two men in the back on the left become 6’ and 6’ 1” respectively. And the tall man on the right becomes 6’ 3 ½”. What are the odds that three out of four unrelated men who work in a small shoe store in 1957 would be over six feet tall? I maintain that this photo completely supports the known height of the one and only Marguerite Oswald and does not support Armstrong’s assertions.
Some recent dissention in the Armstrong-Harvey & Lee camp between Ralph Cinque and Jim Hargrove got me looking into the matter and led to a minor debunking of another silly Armstrong assertion. If you are unfamiliar with Cinque, he is a conspiracy theorist who believes just about every image associated with Lee Harvey Oswald and the assassination of JFK is faked. Cinque communicates with Armstrong regularly, but is something of a maverick and bends the Harvey & Lee theory occasionally to fit his own needs.
Cinque has a new piece at his blog discussing his latest two Marguerite theories:
http://oswaldinthedoorway.blogspot.com/2017/02/there-continues-to-be-controversy-about.html
Cinque admits that there is some disagreement between himself and Hargrove who maintains the official Harvey & Lee website. Hargrove initially seemed to agree with Cinque’s analysis concerning which Marguerite is which. But Jim has changed his mind and now offers a handy guide to identifying the two Marguerites.
Marguerite Claverie Oswald, the biological mother of LEE Harvey Oswald, Robert Oswald, and John Pic, stood in stark contrast to the short, dumpy woman who adopted her name and acted as HARVEY Oswald's caretaker. The real Marguerite Claverie Oswald was relatively tall (about 5' 6" - 5' 7"), attractive, well groomed, always dressed nicely, and had straight, horizontal eyebrows, and never wore glasses.
So, any photo that shows Marguerite wearing glasses is the “fake” by definition. Hargrove also notes that the “fake” Marguerite had “eyebrows slanting down away from her nose behind her glasses.” It should be mentioned that in nearly any photo of the “fake” Marguerite one of two situations occur. If she is frowning or has just about any expression other than a smile, her eyebrows are often slanted. If she is smiling, her glasses cover the eyebrows so they can’t really be seen and thus insuring Armstrong-Hargrove will never be wrong. At first blush this seems like a clever idea and basically foolproof. But if the eyebrows of the “fake” Marguerite are obscured by the eyeglass frames and therefore not visible, it stands to reason that they are not in a slanted position as they should be according to the new theory.
Fortunately, a photo exists taken looking down on Marguerite and it is very obvious in this photo the “fake” Marguerite’s eyebrows are not slanted:
I am sure other photos exist that would also prove my point. So, Armstrong has learned nothing from the “Marguerite never smiled” incident which was disproved here:
http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/marguerite-never-smiled.html
As for Cinque, he precedes a discussion of several photos he believes show the “fake” Marguerite by saying that a photo of Marguerite and a group of employees taken at a show store is “unimpeachable” because of the source. Are you ready for this? The “unimpeachable” source is John Armstrong. The same John Armstrong who is pushing a theory that two Oswalds were involved in a secret CIA operation from childhood. The same John Armstrong whose distortions of the record have been revealed on this and several other websites. The irony of his statement evidently escapes Cinque.
In his article, Cinque offers several photos that he believes are the “fake” Marguerite. But in most of these, Marguerite is not wearing glasses so Ralph is out of luck since Hargrove has decreed that the “real” Marguerite never wore glasses.
But one thing I wish Cinque would stop doing is misrepresenting the following photo as Marguerite:
The photo is from Robert Oswald’s collection and is captioned “Mother on rt., unknown on left but believe one of her sisters, looks like on boat??"
In a case of apparent “conspiracy theorist privilege” Cinque continues to insist without evidence that the girl on the left is Marguerite and frequently uses the photo with the real Marguerite cropped out. So, if you read his blog, beware of any analysis that makes use of this “Marguerite.”
One of the most powerful arguments against the John Armstrong sub-theory of two Marguerite Oswalds is the outlandish behavior of the “impostor” Marguerite. This article will document some of the dubious statements made to author Jean Stafford by the woman who, according to Armstrong, was a CIA operative and caretaker of “Harvey Oswald.” Stafford interviewed Marguerite in 1965 at her Fort Worth home for three days for her book A Mother in History. We can be sure this is the “impostor” since Armstrong maintains the “real” Marguerite had disappeared by this time. See Part 1 of this series for a further description of each Marguerite.
Armstrong tries to explain Marguerite’s behavior in the following way. According to associate Jim Hargrove, Armstrong believes the fake Marguerite was a “spycatcher” whose job was to attract US intelligence agents who were aware of “Oswald’s” role as a spy and would then contact her. Marguerite would then report these agents to headquarters for elimination. Why the folks at Langley needed to have these spies pointed out to them is unclear. After all, presumably they were running the plot and would know who knew what. Also, how could they be sure that all the agents would contact Marguerite? Perhaps they had many such “spycatchers.” In any case, here are some of the pronouncements of the “impostor” Marguerite who functioned as a CIA agent, caretaker and “spycatcher” according to John Armstrong.
Lee Harvey Oswald
Probably the most startling assertion by Marguerite was that LHO may have been a patriot who performed a “mercy killing” working with government agents. The reason behind this merciful murder was to save JFK, who she described as “a dying man”, any more suffering from Addison’s disease and back problems. This service was performed purely “for the security of the country.” Marguerite was also quick to point out that “killing doesn’t necessarily mean badness.”
Presumably In her role as “spycatcher”, Marguerite revisited her theory of “LHO as intelligence agent” which she first voiced circa 1961. “He never did tell me why he went to Russia” Marguerite stated. “He spoke Russian, he wrote Russian and he read Russian. Why? Because my boy was being trained as an agent, that’s why … one and one make two to me, that boy was being trained … at age sixteen, Lee Harvey Oswald was being trained as a government agent … I think it would be wonderful for the United States to come out and say my son was an agent. Marguerite told Stafford that she wanted to know “who used Lee Harvey Oswald.” When Stafford asked if she had any ideas, she replied “I don’t have an idea, I know.” When Stafford pressed for details Marguerite mysteriously responded “I can divulge nothing on that score.”
Marguerite joined a long line of theorists skeptical of the so called “backyard photos” of LHO holding a rifle. “Things are not according to Hoyle … this picture is a fake” she maintained. Marguerite also described for Stafford her own reenactment of the photos which proved her thesis. She also implied that Ruth and Michael Paine were involved in the plot to plant the bogus snaps.
Marguerite was also dubious about the authenticity of LHO’s “historic diary” referring to the fact that authorities never questioned her about it as “the proof of the pudding.” She was also suspicious of the fact that LHO’s photo was taken 3 times at Arlington High School during his short tenure there. “Why? It doesn’t make sense … I have to wonder” she mused.
Marguerite also maintained LHO was “killed on cue and this I can prove. The television cameras were ready and the TV directors gave the order.”
Marguerite likewise had a conspiracy theory about John Carro, LHO’s probation officer in New York where he was remanded to the court system for disciplinary action after he was habitually truant. Marguerite said that Carro, who she did not have a high opinion of, was Mayor Robert Wagner’s “right-handed man” and queried “How do you suppose he got from probation officer to an official capacity in New York State?”
Other Theories
Marguerite seemingly had a theory about everything and that included Marina. She felt Marina was actually French, citing her aversion to cockroaches and high ceilings. She also said Marina was “not a true person” and that she could really speak English.
Not one to leave a government agency undamaged, Marguerite also offered her views on the Secret Service. The agency would not let her near Marina even though she “fought like a wild animal.” This resulted in Marina changing her “testimony” from being supportive of LHO to condemning him as a “louse.” She was also suspicious because the Secret Service gave Ruth Paine, who she called “this strange woman”, the “privilege” of speaking to Marina that she was not afforded. Marguerite also insisted that she was not interviewed by either the Secret Service or the FBI saying the agencies “never came near me.”
Regarding the Warren Report, Marguerite believed it contained “many distortions” because the commissioners “didn’t have the courtesy to come to me” to verify facts, seemingly oblivious to her own voluminous testimony before that body. “They printed what they were told” she insisted, and went on to say that she was the “only one that can rectify some of the inaccuracies.” Finally, Marguerite said that Chief Justice Earl Warren had “tears in his eyes” when LBJ asked him to head the Commission. Marguerite wondered if the tears indicated Warren “had to whitewash something the public didn’t know about?”
Conclusion
Armstrong offers the explanation of Marguerite as “spycatcher” to justify her promotion of the “LHO was an intelligence agent” theory to anyone who would listen from about 1961 through the late seventies. Jim Hargrove has said that this was Marguerite’s “main” conspiracy theory. Perhaps that is true, but she promoted many other theories as this article has shown including the backyard photos, Marina, the Paines, John Carro, the media and others.
I personally find the “spycatcher” explanation not only unconvincing but totally unbelievable. I maintain that Marguerite, rather than being a CIA operative, was actually the original conspiracy theorist. And since the purpose of the plot, according to Armstrong, was to frame and eliminate “Harvey” Oswald, it is difficult to see how Marguerite’s conspiracy theories designed to exonerate “Harvey” would further that end.
Marguerite herself offered the following account of her unique situation:
“I’m a mother in history, I’m all over the world … but I am wondering where my next meal is coming from … I know for a fact I have been persecuted … there [are] some people who would like to think that I have hallucinations … Believe me, if anyone’s in their right mind it’s Mrs. Marguerite Oswald.”
I’ll leave it to the reader to decide if Marguerite was a CIA “spycatcher” or something else.
Marguerite Oswald's addresses are a source of confusion for the JFK researcher since she seemingly had a pathological need to move. This article represents an ongoing project to document her residences for reference purposes and to counteract theories such as Harvey & Lee by John Armstrong. The list includes addresses from the time of her marriage to Robert Oswald through the assassination. If you have found a new address or believe there is an error in this document, please leave a comment below.
DATE |
ADDRESS [1] |
1934 |
805 Greenwood, New Orleans (Armstrong, 15) |
1935 |
808 Taft Place, New Orleans (CD 152, 90) |
September 16, 1936 |
1661 Paul Morphy, New Orleans (25 H 79) |
1937 |
2132 Gallier Street, New Orleans (25 H 79) |
January, 1938 |
1917 Gallier Street, New Orleans (25 H 79; CD 152, 90) |
July 26, 1938 |
2109 Alvar Street, New Orleans (25 H 76) |
November 10, 1940 |
1242 Congress Street, New Orleans (CD 152, 72) |
March 5, 1941 |
1010 Bartholomew Street, New Orleans (25 H 76) |
January 28, 1942 |
831 Pauline Street, New Orleans (WCR, 670; 23 H 449) |
May, 1942 |
111 Sherwood Forest Drive, New Orleans (WCR, 671) |
September, 1942 |
227 Atlantic Avenue, Algiers, LA (23 H 733) |
December 26, 1942 |
111 Sherwood Forest Drive, New Orleans (23 H 447) |
July 9, 1943 |
2136 Broadway, New Orleans (25 H 110) |
April 28, 1944 |
4801 Victor Street, Dallas (Armstrong, 20; 1 H 255) |
October 29, 1945 |
Granbury Road, Benbrook, TX (19 H 5) |
Spring-Summer, 1946 |
600 W. 24th Street, Covington LA (CD 6, 49) |
Summer, 1946 |
311 Vermont Street, Covington, LA (23 H 799; 22 H 819; 25 H 117) |
January 23, 1947 |
1505 Eighth Avenue, Fort Worth (22 H 819; 11 H 26; 1 H 251) |
March 18, 1948 |
3300 Willing Street, Fort Worth (25 H 91; WCR, 674) |
June 5, 1948 |
101 San Saba, Benbrook, TX (Oswald 201 File, Vol 16, CD 205, Part 2, 72) |
September 15, 1948 |
7408 Ewing Street, Fort Worth (Armstrong, 35) |
August, 1952 |
325 West 92nd Street, New York (WCR, 675) |
September 26, 1952 |
1455 Sheridan Avenue, Apt. F, Bronx, New York (22 H 697; 1 H 227) |
January, 1953 |
825 East 179th Street, Apt. 3C, Bronx, New York (25 H 125; CD 165, 14) |
January 13, 1954 |
757 (later renamed 809) French Street, New Orleans (22 H 815; 1 H 231) |
February 19, 1954 |
1454 Saint Marys Street, New Orleans (CD 156, 6) |
Unknown |
1452 Saint Marys Street, New Orleans (8 H 56-57) |
February 6, 1955 |
126 Exchange Place, New Orleans (CD 353, 1; 22 H 813; CD 75, 111, 128; CD 170, 18; CD 365, 36) |
July 1, 1956 |
4936 Colinwood, Fort Worth (CD 8, 2; 25 H 139; 23 H 670) |
April 26, 1957 |
3830 West Sixth Street, Fort Worth (Oswald 201 File, Vol 16, CD 205, Part 2, 72; CD 5, 299; CD 205, 571) |
May 27, 1958 |
3006 Bristol Road, Fort Worth (CD 205, 571; 22 H 183; CD 819, 28) |
March 24, 1959 |
313 Templeton Drive, Fort Worth (CD 205, 571; CD 819, 26) |
August 11, 1959 |
3124 West Fifth Street, Fort Worth (CD 1066, 543; 16 H 580; 19 H 736) |
October, 1959 |
1013 Fifth Street, Fort Worth [2] (CD 1066, 543; 16 H 583) |
November 15, 1959 |
3616 Harley, Fort Worth [3] (“My Values Different Defector Told Mother.” FWST, November 15, 1959) |
January 6, 1960 |
1605 Eighth Avenue, Fort Worth (22 H 183; 16 H 595) |
April 6, 1960 |
1410 Hurley, Fort Worth [4] (16 H 629, 631; CD 205, 571) |
April 26, 1960 |
1111 Herring Avenue, Waco, TX (CD 205, 571; HSCA Administrative Folder Q-10, 43; Oswald 201 File, Vol. 1, Folder 4, 63) |
July 1, 1960 |
1407 Eighth Avenue, Fort Worth (CD 206, 144; Oswald 201 File, Vol 16, CD 205, Part 2, 71; 16 H 600) |
September 7, 1960 |
Box 305, Boyd, TX (Oswald 201 File, Vol 16, CD 205, Part 2, 71; CD 206, 145) |
March 27, 1961 |
1612 Hurley, Fort Worth (CD 205, 572; CD 205, 523; CD 206, 143, 144; 16 H 603, 606) |
June 1, 1961 |
Box 608, Crowell, TX (CD 7, 159; CD 205, 572) |
August 3, 1961 |
1808 Eagle Street, Apt. #3, Vernon, TX (16 H 533, 610; CD 205, 572) |
October 18, 1961 |
Box 982, Vernon, TX (Oswald 201 File, Vol. 20, 209; 16 H 540; CD 205, 572; CD 206, 386; Oswald 201 File, Vol. 17, 11; CD 346, 24) |
May 25, 1962 |
Box 473, 316 East Donnell, Crowell, TX (16 H 616, 618; Oswald 201 File, Vol. 20, 209; CD 903, 12) |
July, 1962 |
1501 West Seventh Street, Apt. #110, Fort Worth (WCR, 715; CD 6, 47) |
August 29, 1962 |
808 Summit, Apt. #301, Fort Worth (CD 205, 572) |
September, 1962 |
4800 Harley Street, Fort Worth (CD 206, 142) |
December 28, 1962 |
1013 Fifth Avenue, Apt. #6, Fort Worth (CD 205, 572; FBI 105-82555 Oswald HQ File, Section 163, 49; CD 425, 2) |
September 25, 1963 |
2220 Thomas Place, Fort Worth (CD 205, 572; 22 H 222) |
April 13, 1965 |
3704 Crestline Rd., Fort Worth (124-10156-10419) |
[1] Regarding the in-text citations, the first citation supports the date listed for the address while subsequent citations are additional references for that address at a later date.
[2] The Rex Howard Clinic reported Marguerite’s address in October, 1959 as 1013 Fifth Avenue. But on a check to LHO dated December 18, appears the handwritten address of 1013 5th Street. The check is the “best evidence” of the address. Oddly, Marguerite would live at 1013 Fifth Avenue in 1962-63.
[3] One article said Marguerite’s address was “3613 Holly” but this was probably a typo since there is no supporting evidence (“Turncoat hangs Up on Mother.” FWST, November 16, 1959).
[4] It is likely that Marguerite never lived at 1410 Hurley and only used the address to receive mail. FBI agent John Fain investigated the matter and found that calls to Marguerite’s listed phone number were to be forwarded to Velma Marlin, a cashier for the Fort Worth Star Telegram, whose listed address was 1410 Hurley. Marlin told Fain that Marguerite was “out of town” and Robert Oswald could probably provide her address. Fain contacted Robert who provided the address of 1111 Herring in Waco. On April 28, 1960, Fain interviewed Marguerite who confirmed her employment in Waco at the Methodist Orphans Home (HSCA Administrative Folder Q-10, 35). Obviously, since Marlin did not know Marguerite’s address when contacted by Fain, she must have been holding her mail rather than forwarding it. What is unclear is why it was necessary for Marlin to hold the mail in the first place since Marguerite had no trouble receiving mail at several rural addresses in Texas in her capacity as a caretaker-nurse.
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 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.
 |
| Marguerite Circa 1935 |
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.
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: