My Timeline of the Early Life of LHO Now Available

UPDATE: The Table of Contents for the timeline may be found HERE.

Ancestry and Early Life 1880-1943 is now available. This timeline expands on one that I did many years ago for an old website called the Lee Harvey Oswald Page, which ran from about 1998 to 2004 and is still online although it is no longer updated. The purpose of that timeline was to give students and newcomers a very general overview of LHO's life.

The goals of this timeline are threefold. First, I want to provide a chronological look at an important part of the life of LHO that can be used as a tool for researchers. Secondly, by using quotes and correspondence from the principal figures in his life as well as documents created by the Warren Commission and other investigations, I hope to present a narrative that may be appreciated by anyone interested in twentieth century history. Finally, I hope that the logical progression of the chronology format will help to convince readers that LHO was exactly who he appeared to be and that he killed JFK acting alone as my own research since 1984 has convinced me is the case. Having said this, I believe this will be an extremely useful tool for anyone interested in researching LHO's life, even those who desire to debunk the official version of events.

I have more sections of the timeline completed but they need to be coded in HTML which is time consuming. I'll see how much interest there is before doing any more.

Marguerite's Finances

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.

Paul's Shoe Store

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”.

Washington Post Article

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.

More Marguerite Silliness

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.”

The Two Marguerites Part 3

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's Addresses

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 5^th 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.

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.

The Two Marguerites Part 1

John Armstrong’s theory of “Harvey and Lee” postulates two Oswalds as most researchers know. But he also maintains there were two Marguerite Oswalds. Here is how Armstrong described them in his book (Harvey & Lee: How the CIA Framed Oswald).

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. The FBI never once interviewed the real Marguerite Oswald, but thoroughly investigated her work and family history from the early 1940's thru the mid 1950's. They obtained payroll information and interviewed employers and employees who worked with her in retail clothing shops beginning with Princess Hosiery in New Orleans in 1943 and continued with stores in Fort Worth, New York and New Orleans through 1956.

The short, dumpy, heavy-set "Marguerite Oswald" impostor appears as a talkative, annoying, opinionated, and offensive woman. She was about 5 foot-tall, heavy-set, had gray hair, wore glasses, and was a very sloppy dresser. This woman worked for years as a practical nurse and caretaker in Fort Worth, at bars in New Orleans, and in other positions where little or no personal information, work history, or payroll tax information was required. Her reluctance to furnish personal information was demonstrated when she refused to fill out insurance forms at Dolly Shoe Company in 1955 and, as a result, was fired. Beginning in mid-1958, after assuming the identity of the real Marguerite Oswald, FBI reports and witness testimony allows us to follow the employment and residences of the "Marguerite Oswald" imposter. This woman was never able to hold a job for more than a few months, moved continuously, and had no close friends.

This is the first in a series of articles that will look at the sub-theory of two Marguerite Oswalds. I will refer to the “tall, nice-looking, well-dressed” Marguerite Oswald as the “real” Marguerite and the “short, dumpy, heavy-set” woman as the “fake” Marguerite or “the impostor” for the purposes of discussion throughout this series.

For some time, Armstrong and associates have been misreporting the height of some of the principals in the case. For example, they do their best to make Ekdahl over six feet, the “real” Marguerite 5' 7" inches, Marina very short (5'1") and the impostor a veritable midget (5 feet even). This is done so their various scenarios will appear at least plausible. Armstrong and his followers like to use photo comparisons to try and prove a point. They pretend to not understand that the only way to accurately determine the relative height of individuals is to have them stand indoors on a flat surface wearing the same type of footwear, assuming the same posture, and standing next to a visible measuring device. In other words, using controlled conditions which, of course, describes none of the photos they promote. This article by Peter Vronski explains the subject using a “controversial” photo of LHO and Marina:

http://www.russianbooks.org/oswald/discrep.htm

With the caveats provided by the above article in mind, I’ll look at some of the photos Armstrong uses to make his case. Before I can do that, some baseline facts are needed.

Height of Principals

Edwin Ekdahl

Much of the Armstrong Harvey & Lee theory uses the statements of witnesses as fact. For example, Armstrong uses the statement of John Pic to make the claim that Ekdahl was at least 6 feet tall.

His home was in Boston, Massachusetts. I think he was over 6 feet. He had white hair, wore glasses, a very nice man.

Of course, Pic was just a boy at the time he knew Ekdahl and was merely estimating his height. Edwin Ekdahl was born in Boston on September 26, 1995. The fact is, he was no taller than 5' 11". Shown here are his passport applications from 1919 and 1920 when he was 24 to 25 years old. One document shows a height of 5' 10 1/2" and one shows 5' 11". Since men tend to exaggerate their height and it is not known if he was measured or reported his height orally, it is possible he was 5' 10" or even slightly less. In any case, he was not six feet tall as Armstrong maintains. Researcher Greg Parker first located these documents and anyone can still obtain them from familysearch.org (after registering) or from other online sources.

Marina Oswald

Marina Oswald was 5' 3" tall not 5' 1" as Armstrong claims. Here is the passport that shows her height:

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1133#relPageId=162&tab=page

Another document says 150 centimeters (probably a typo for 160 centimeters or 5’ 3”) which would make her 4' 11". But Armstrong doesn’t mention this document because it would make Marina shorter than the “fake” Marguerite and he argues the opposite.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1135#relPageId=496&tab=page

Marguerite

Marguerite Oswald was 5' 2 and 1/2" on a 1965 passport when she was about 58 years old. There is also a driver's license that lists her height as 5' 3", but I'll use the passport to be fair to the other side.

Research shows that women can lose up to two inches of height by age 70 about (men lose less because of greater muscle mass). Additionally, Poor posture due to loss of muscle mass and osteoporosis can give a person the appearance of being shorter than they are. It is reasonable to estimate that Marguerite could have lost one to one and a half inches by age 58 and that would make her about 5’ 3 ½ to 5' 4" in 1945 at age 38 before the “shrinking” effect starts at about age 40. At the Education Forum, researcher Sandy Larsen arrived at the same 5’ 4” figure independently (“Jim Hargrove: Are these photos of the tall, attractive Marguerite Oswald, or the short, dumpy Marguerite imposter?”, page 5).

Analysis of Photos

Marguerite married Ekdahl on May 5, 1945 when she was about 38 years old and he was about 50. Armstrong uses their wedding photo and John Pic’s testimony to place Ekdahl at six feet in height (or more) and the “real” Marguerite at 5’ 7”.

Methodology

If the height of one person in a photo is known, it is possible to calculate the height of a second person if they are about the same distance from the camera. Although it is obvious that the top of the head is one reference point when making measurements, an initial concern was what reference point to use at the feet of the two individuals. To resolve this issue, I did a series of three calculations using a different reference point for each. I found that it didn’t matter what reference point was used at the feet because the critical measurement is the difference between the top of Ekdahl’s head and the top of Marguerite’s head (I measured to the top of her hair). Using the 5’ 11” height for Ekdahl, I divided 71 inches by his actual height in the wedding photo in inches using Photoshop. This provides a ratio that can be multiplied by Marguerite’s height in the wedding photo to arrive at her actual height. The following is one of the three “data runs” I performed with the same result:

· Ekdahl’s Height-71 inches

· Ekdahl’s Height as Measured in Photo-2.537 inches

· Ratio-27.98

· Marguerite’s Height as Measured in Photo-2.37 inches

· Marguerite’s Actual Height-66.3 inches (a little over 5’ 6”)

The 5’ 6” doesn’t allow for two additional factors. In the wedding photo, Marguerite is wearing heels and has a “perm” hairdo. Heels could add two inches to her apparent height and since I measured the top of her hair, so could the perm which puts us at 5’ 2”. But adding just an inch apiece for both the “perm” and the heels is a good compromise and places us near our original estimate of the 1945 Marguerite’s height-5’ 4”. And If Ekdahl was actually 5’ 10 ½” that provides another half inch of leeway. My conclusion is that what is seen in this photo is consistent with the documented heights of Ekdahl and Marguerite when all factors are considered and does not support Armstrong’s assertion of a “tall” Marguerite.

Another photo of Marina and Marguerite walking is used by the Armstrong camp to show the “fake” Marguerite was much shorter than Marina.

Applying the above methodology using Marguerite’s 1965 height of 5’ 2 and 1/2", we arrive at a figure for Marina of 5’ 7”. There is no evidence that Marina was this tall and, as mentioned, Armstrong says she is 5’ 1”. But if you look closely, Marina is wearing heels while Marguerite has sneakers. Also, Marguerite is carrying a baby and her head is bowed and her posture somewhat stooped. It is reasonable to assume that the 4-inch difference can be accounted for by these factors since we know Marina was not 5’ 7” but was actually 5’ 3”.

Conclusion

• The heights of Ekdahl, Marguerite and Marina are documented and do not correspond with those used by Armstrong in his book.

• The 1945 wedding photo is consistent with the known height of the 1965 Marguerite when all factors are considered.
• Photos of Marguerite and Marina are consistent with their documented heights when all factors are considered and do not support the two Oswald theory.

Part 2 of the Series:

http://wtracyparnell.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-two-marguerites-part-2.html

Marguerite Never Smiled

John Armstrong must have spent a great deal of money through the years researching his book Harvey and Lee. Consider the cost of documents which he acquired from the National Archives and many other sources. Also, travel expenses-he went to Argentina to interview Ana Ziger and to Switzerland to research the Albert Schweitzer College.

But one thing he decided to not spend money on was an editor. Reportedly, Armstrong’s manuscript was originally 3000 pages which he cut down to about 1000. Unfortunately, I believe it should have been edited down to three or four hundred. One of the reasons I say that is the subject of this article. Some will say this is a minor point and they may be right. But things like this (and there are others) bother me because they are unnecessary and, in some cases such as this, just silly. On pages 109-110 of Harvey and Lee, we find:

Mr. Goodman [a witness Armstrong uses to bolster his theory] also told me about a characteristic of Marguerite Oswald that he never forgot. Mr. Goodman said, “She never smiled.” Mr. Goodman’s recollection of Marguerite caused me to think about the many photographs I have seen of the short, heavy-set “Marguerite Oswald” imposter. Goodman was correct, this “Marguerite Oswald” never smiled.

Armstrong either forgot about this assertion or isn’t serious about it as one can see on page 214 of his book:

Beginning in mid-1958, after assuming the identity of the real Marguerite Oswald, FBI reports and witness testimony allows us to follow the employment and residences of the “Marguerite Oswald” imposter. This woman was never able to hold a job for more than a few months, moved continuously, and had no close friends (see 4 photos from 1954 thru 1961).

Here are three photos of the Marguerite “imposter” smiling. The first two are from the group of four photos Armstrong refers to above and includes on his CD. The third one I found on the Internet and apparently comes from Robert Oswald’s collection. It is captioned “1961-11 Vernon TX”. Indeed, on page 362-63 of Harvey and Lee, we find confirmation that this is his imposter:

When “Marguerite Oswald” left the McAdams ranch in Crowell, Texas on August 1, she moved to a ranch owned by Mr. Phillips north of Vernon, Texas. Phillips hired “Marguerite” to care for his elderly mother and father, and she remained in his employ thru the remainder of 1961.

I should also mention that this photo from Robert Oswald shows that the “imposter” Marguerite was not “dumpy and heavy-set” as Armstrong maintains throughout his book. A little older and a little grayer perhaps, but certainly not as unpleasant as Armstrong asserts.

There are many photos of Marguerite (Armstrong’s “imposter”) taken after the assassination which show her smiling. Perhaps Armstrong would say these don’t count because she was happy after completing her mission. But the ones that he points to as examples and the one that I found are certainly of the “Imposter” and I am sure there are others.

Amazingly, it seems that Armstrong was aware of the problem but still chose to use this idea in his book. Here is a post from the old JFK Research forum by Jack White dated 11/21/2002, about a year before Armstrong’s book was published:

…I have seen NO photo of the fake Marguerite smiling.

In the same thread, researcher Phil Hopley posted one of the photos of the smiling imposter. So, White and Armstrong were aware of the problem yet Armstrong chose to use this in the book and even put photos on the companion CD that refuted it. I think he should have skipped the Switzerland trip and hired an editor.

UPDATE: Author and researcher Greg Parker has found yet another photo of the "fake" Marguerite smiling.