Tuesday, February 28, 2017

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:


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.

Monday, February 27, 2017

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:


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:


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.”

Friday, February 3, 2017

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?”


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.

Wednesday, February 1, 2017

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.




805 Greenwood, New Orleans (Armstrong, 15)


808 Taft Place, New Orleans (CD 152, 90)

September 16, 1936

1661 Paul Morphy, New Orleans (25 H 79)


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

809 French Street, New Orleans (22 H 815; 1 H 231)

February 19, 1954

1454 Saint Marys Street, New Orleans (CD 156, 6)


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.

Powered by Blogger.