Lee's missing tooth from Life photo - Tooth_CU.jpg
Barb Junkkarinen
dark...no can tell if there's a tooth there or not....and the crossbite proabbaly accentuates the
problem
Barb :-)
Jim Hargrove wrote:
> Name: Tooth_CU.jpg
> Tooth_CU.jpg Type: QuickTime Picture (application/x-unknown-content-type-ViewerFrameClass)
> Encoding: x-uuencode
doug weldon
tooth after a fight. Why would he do that if the tooth wasn't missing? It wouldn't make sense. The HSCA
wanted to interview Oswald's friend who took the photo and discovered that he was dead. The person's
family was highly suspicious of his death.
Dreitzes
>From: doug weldon <dwe...@kalamazoo.net>
>Date: 5/19/99 6:06 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <37433603...@kalamazoo.net>
>
>You are missing the most important point. The person who took this photo
>described it as Oswald losing a
>tooth after a fight. Why would he do that if the tooth wasn't missing? It
>wouldn't make sense.
Do you mean to imply that Voebel took the photo for that reason specifically?
If so, I'd have to request a citation. On the other hand, there is no doubt
that Ed Voebel recalled to the Warren Commission -- whether accurately or not
-- that Oswald lost a tooth.
The HSCA
>wanted to interview Oswald's friend who took the photo and discovered that he
>was dead. The person's
>family was highly suspicious of his death.
>
Didn't Voebel die in 1971? It's true that the family was suspicious, but even
if Voebel had some kind of "dangerous" knowledge, what good would it do to kill
him in 1971? This is representative of the "mysterious deaths" -- few of them
seem to befall anyone who could conceivably have been a threat to any
conspirators, or come far to late to be meaningful.
DR
Sam McClung
have it successfully replaced?
Jim Hargrove
>Didn't Voebel die in 1971? It's true that the family was suspicious, but even
>if Voebel had some kind of "dangerous" knowledge, what good would it do to kill
>him in 1971? This is representative of the "mysterious deaths" -- few of them
>seem to befall anyone who could conceivably have been a threat to any
>conspirators, or come far to late to be meaningful.
Here's what the HSCA reported:
The committee sought to locate Edward Voebel to take his testimony, but
learned from his father, Sidney Voebel of New Orleans, that his son had
died in 1971. (253) Sidney Voebel could not recall what his son had told
him regarding his past contacts with Oswald and Ferrie.(254) While
stating that he doesn't "have any proof," Voebel said he believed that
the circumstances surrounding his son's death were "mysterious."(255) He
had "died suddenly from a blood clot" at the age of 31 when he suffered
an attack of pneumonia. (256) (HSCA 9, 109)
This time frame gets really interesting though, because while Ed Voebel and
Lee were at Beauregard in New Orleans, John Armstrong has found all sorts of
evidence indicating Harvey was at Stripling Junior High in Fort Worth.
Recently I spoke on the telephone with Mr. Frank Kudlaty, who in 1964 was
assistant principal at Stripling. I told him that I was studying John
Armstrong's work and that I was calling a few of the people John had
interviewed in the hope of speaking to them myself. He was gracious and
straight-forward and still as sharp as a tack, and would make a terrific
witness, imo.
Between a few of my questions, Mr. Kudlaty confirmed everything John had
reported earlier. He said that, on the Saturday morning after the
assassination, his principal called him and told him to go to the school and
get Lee Harvey Oswald's records from the "vault" and to hold them because a
couple of FBI agents were going to pick them up. He said he got the
records, checked to make sure they were for Lee Harvey Oswald, and kept them
for about 20 minutes until the FBI agents showed up.
I asked him if he thought the kid at Stripling was the same guy eventually
killed by Jack Ruby, and he said he couldn't say because there were between
1,200 and 1,800 kids at Stripling during the mid-1950s and he couldn't
recall having ever met Oswald, although he was a teacher there at the time.
But he did remember the records and he remembered giving them to the FBI
agents. The brief meeting was just like what you see on TV, he said. The
agents reached into their pockets and showed him some IDs, asked for the
files, and then left without asking a single question. He said the file
contained a few records from Ridglea West Elementary and duplicate copies of
Oswald's Stripling grades. He said he never saw the records again.
You probably know this story from John's presentations. In 1954, when Frank
Kudlaty thinks Oswald was in the ninth grade at Stripling in Fort Worth, the
Warren Commission had him at Beauregard School in New Orleans, where Ed
Voebel thought he lost a tooth in a fight.
Is Frank Kudlaty mistaken, or was there some kid at Stripling with the same
infamous name but who was unrelated to this whole affair?
The evidence suggests something else. "Stripling" appears nowhere in a
CD-ROM search of the Warren Report, but it does appear in one volume of the
hearings--in the testimony of Robert Oswald, who recalled his brother
attending there (although he remembered it as in 1952). Perhaps you've
seen John's interview of Francetta Schubert, who watched Oswald walk home
during lunch breaks at Stripling--to 2220 Thomas Place. In his "Harvey and
Lee" speech, John names some of the other people who knew "Harvey" at
Stripling, including Bobby and Jackie Pitts, who lived right next door at
2224 Thomas Place, and Doug Gann and Roy Parkin.
Why were the Stripling records buried?
--Jim Hargrove
Jim Hargrove
>Was it possible in that era to take a displaced tooth to the dentist and
>have it successfully replaced?
Can that be done now?
--Jim Hargrove
Sam McClung
I believe the answer is 3 to 4 hours, then and now, if the root is still
alive, but I'm drawing on memory.
Sam
Sam McClung
> Jim Hargrove wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 19 May 1999 23:10:52 GMT, Sam McClung <sa...@flash.net> wrote:
> >
> > >Was it possible in that era to take a displaced tooth to the dentist and
> > >have it successfully replaced?
> >
> > Can that be done now?
> >
> > --Jim Hargrove
>
> I believe the answer is [yes, if done within] 3 to 4 hours, then and now, if
doug weldon
Stripling.
Barb Junkkarinen wrote:
> A better question might be why were such records even known to exist
> at a school LHO never officially attended...and on the morning
> following the assassination yet.
>
> This Kudahy sounds like a straightforward type guy.....or comes across
> that way obviously. How was he located...do you know?
>
> Thanks,
> Barb :-)
> >
doug weldon
I am not suggesting the photo was taken to show the missing tooth. I apologize in that I am not certain
that Voebel took the picture. However, there is the picture that I agree "appears" to show a missing tooth.
It does add a great deal of credibility to the assertion when as Voebel testified , "yes, I think he even
lost a tooth from that. I think he was cut on the lip, and a tooth was knocked out." Voebel stated this was
1954 or 1955. The picture is alledgedly taken in 1955. People will have to draw their own conclusion. Is it
a coincidence that Voebel testified as such and the tooth appears to be gone in the picture? Is it logical
that if Oswald was punched in the mouth as Voebel testified that the tooth that appears to be missing is one
that could have likely been knocked out? What would prompt Voebel in making such a statement? If no tooth had
been knocked out why would that memory exist? Was Voebel recalling some other person? Is this something the
WC would have been receptive to hearing? In a court room the photograph would have been admissible if Voebel
had testified that this was an accurate depiction of how Oswald appeared after the fight? There is no absolute
but how would an impartial person weigh this evidence?
Best regards:
Doug
Barb Junkkarinen wrote:
> On Wed, 19 May 1999 18:06:59 -0400, doug weldon
> <dwe...@kalamazoo.net> wrote:
>
> >You are missing the most important point. The person who took this photo described it as Oswald losing a
> >tooth after a fight. Why would he do that if the tooth wasn't missing? It wouldn't make sense. The HSCA
> >wanted to interview Oswald's friend who took the photo and discovered that he was dead. The person's
> >family was highly suspicious of his death.
>
> Hi Doug,
>
> Can you provide me for a reference that cite's the person who took the
> picture saying he took the photo to show Oswald's missing
> tooth....that seems to be what you are implying here, I apologize if I
> have misconstrued your assertion.
>
> The only testimony I have seen as regards Oswald losing a tooth in a
> fight was a hedged reference to thinking a tooth was loosened or
> knocked out. That's not enough...and this picture certainly isn't
> enough. Where are dental records from having it fixed? Where are
> statements from other students or teachers who saw the fight? And
> where is analysis done by an expert on the original photo and/or
> negative?
>
> And....if I were taking a picture to show off a missing tooth....I
> wouldn't snap the pic til I got a big toothy....er,
> uh...toothless...grin. Have several of my son when he lost his front
> teeth. Also, as I have reluctantly ratted on myself before, I had
> passport photos retaken many years ago because when the first ones
> arrived....I looked like I was missing a front tooth! I have a
> crossbite and the photo was taken at an angle that seemed to make my
> tooth disappear completely. I have my teeth....I swear.<g>
>
> Suspicion is fine. Anything can be evidence. But *proof* is
> necessary...and it's lacking here.
>
> Barb :-)
doug weldon
I wanted to further respond. Whose obligation was it to find the dental records and interview other
witnesses? I agree it should have and could have been done. Was it not done for a reason. Actually, this
was a standard, but clever technique that the WC counsel used. When Voebel made the startling statement about
the tooth would you not think that there would be probing follow up questions such as" How do you know the
tooth was knocked out?" Does this picture represent what you saw? Who else witnessed the fight?" After
Voebel made his statement this was the powerful question:
Jenner: Well you had a mild relationship with him from that point on, would you say?
Voebel: Right
Jenner: Tell me about that. Did you get together occasionally and share interests, and what were his
interests?
This is a common technique to minimize damaging testimony.
Leo Sgouros
Jim Hargrove wrote in message <37634315...@news.enteract.com>...
Hi Jim-
The time frame is really interesting.hmmm
so how does that relate to witness murder?
And dont you think it is just a little dangerous to make martyrs of
sensitive witnesses to some conspiracy?
It could lead to some problems.
Blowback or something.
Leo
Barb Junkkarinen
Barb Junkkarinen
wrote:
>On 19 May 1999 22:23:27 GMT, drei...@aol.com (Dreitzes) wrote:
A better question might be why were such records even known to exist
Barb Junkkarinen
>Was it possible in that era to take a displaced tooth to the dentist and
>have it successfully replaced?
Hi Sam,
I don't think most teeth "knocked out" in a fight are knocked out root
and all...tho I could be wrong. I think most are broken off.....and
repair of that would be detectable on x-ray.
A tooth that did come out root and all has a possibility of being
reinserted from what I understand......but I think it requires braces
to hold it in place for a length of time to see if it survives. I have
a friend who's undergoing such treatment for 5 teeth (poor baby!) as
the result of a fall. Hers did not come all the way out, but were
mighty loose, root and all, after the fall. It's been almost three
months already and they still don't know if all the teeth are going to
make it...and she may have to wear those braces for up to a year.
I don't know if this was even a recognized procedure in the mid-50s.
Barb :-)
>
>
Barb Junkkarinen
<dwe...@kalamazoo.net> wrote:
>Robert Oswald noted several times, including his WC testimony, that Lee attended
>Stripling.
True...but as far as I know, that testimony didn't take place early on
11-23-63.<g>
And as to my questions about Kudahy?????
Barb :-)
>
>Barb Junkkarinen wrote:
>
Sam McClung
> On Wed, 19 May 1999 23:10:52 GMT, Sam McClung <sa...@flash.net> wrote:
>
> >Was it possible in that era to take a displaced tooth to the dentist and
> >have it successfully replaced?
>
> Hi Sam,
>
> I don't think most teeth "knocked out" in a fight are knocked out root
> and all...tho I could be wrong. I think most are broken off.....and
> repair of that would be detectable on x-ray.
Hi Barb.
From the caption of this thread, it appears the implication is
that a gap can be seen where a tooth once was.
Maybe Jim can clarify what the topic is, i.e.
- a missing tooth.
- or, a chipped tooth.
Too bad the resolution of the related photo is too poor for analysis.
> A tooth that did come out root and all has a possibility of being
> reinserted from what I understand......but I think it requires braces
> to hold it in place for a length of time to see if it survives. I have
> a friend who's undergoing such treatment for 5 teeth (poor baby!) as
> the result of a fall. Hers did not come all the way out, but were
> mighty loose, root and all, after the fall. It's been almost three
> months already and they still don't know if all the teeth are going to
> make it...and she may have to wear those braces for up to a year.
Ouch! One of my nieces in London had both top front teeth
broken while exiting a bus there. Not a nice thing for a
beautiful young woman to have to experience. She had
perfect teeth before that. Now they all look perfect.
>
> I don't know if this was even a recognized procedure in the mid-50s.
Maybe someone does. There seems to be so much gray area
on this missing tooth topic.
Sam
>
> Barb :-)
> >
> >
Barb Junkkarinen
<dwe...@kalamazoo.net> wrote:
>Barb:
> I am not suggesting the photo was taken to show the missing tooth. I apologize in that I am not certain
>that Voebel took the picture. However, there is the picture that I agree "appears" to show a missing tooth.
>It does add a great deal of credibility to the assertion when as Voebel testified , "yes, I think he even
>lost a tooth from that. I think he was cut on the lip, and a tooth was knocked out." Voebel stated this was
>1954 or 1955. The picture is alledgedly taken in 1955. People will have to draw their own conclusion. Is it
>a coincidence that Voebel testified as such and the tooth appears to be gone in the picture?
Yes, Doug, I think it is.....where are other people who saw the
incident? Who saw the tooth missing after the incident? Where's the
dentist/dental records about the tooth being replaced? Did Marguerite
say anything about him ever having a tooth knocked out? Did his
brother? Has the original picture/negative been examined?
> Is it logical
>that if Oswald was punched in the mouth as Voebel testified that the tooth that appears to be missing is one
>that could have likely been knocked out? What would prompt Voebel in making such a statement? If no tooth had
>been knocked out why would that memory exist? Was Voebel recalling some other person? Is this something the
>WC would have been receptive to hearing? In a court room the photograph would have been admissible if Voebel
>had testified that this was an accurate depiction of how Oswald appeared after the fight? There is no absolute
>but how would an impartial person weigh this evidence?
As insufficient *proof*, imo. At best, I would say that this is yet
another instance where more track work needs to be done. Then maybe it
could at least be proved whether or not Oswald did lose a tooth. That,
in itself, would be better evidence than this picture.....of unknown
generations from the original.
Barb :-)
>
>Best regards:
>
>Doug
>
>Barb Junkkarinen wrote:
>> Barb :-)
>> >
>> >Barb Junkkarinen wrote:
>> >
Barb Junkkarinen
<dwe...@kalamazoo.net> wrote:
>Barb:
> I wanted to further respond. Whose obligation was it to find the dental records and interview other
>witnesses? I agree it should have and could have been done. Was it not done for a reason. Actually, this
>was a standard, but clever technique that the WC counsel used. When Voebel made the startling statement about
>the tooth would you not think that there would be probing follow up questions such as" How do you know the
>tooth was knocked out?" Does this picture represent what you saw? Who else witnessed the fight?" After
>Voebel made his statement this was the powerful question:
>
>Jenner: Well you had a mild relationship with him from that point on, would you say?
>
>Voebel: Right
>
>Jenner: Tell me about that. Did you get together occasionally and share interests, and what were his
>interests?
>
>This is a common technique to minimize damaging testimony.
I agree, Doug. The WC fell down on follow up more than they stood up
to it. Maddeningly often ...especially during medical testimony. But
that's the grapes we have to deal with. Now, it is those who say there
was a "Harvey" and a "Lee" who have the burden of proof....wouldn't
you agree? It is not enough to have a suspicion...and find a piece of
evidence that *seems* to support (maybe)...and pronounce it *proof*.
...it must be thoriughly tracked down to the final detail...and then
see where the chips fall. "Proof" is a word bandied about much to
offhandedly and used much too loosely in this arena overall, imo.
Barb :-)
AnthonyMarsh
>
> You are missing the most important point. The person who took this photo described it as Oswald losing a
> tooth after a fight. Why would he do that if the tooth wasn't missing? It wouldn't make sense. The HSCA
> wanted to interview Oswald's friend who took the photo and discovered that he was dead. The person's
> family was highly suspicious of his death.
>
I think what you mean is the person who selected the photo captioned it
that way. Can you prove that the person who snapped the photo was
specifically taking it to document the fact that Oswald had just lost a
tooth?
The reason why this photo has that caption is to prop up a weak theory.
Just as someone can make up a false photo showing bullet holes in the
Stemmons Freeway sign and then caption it as showing evidence of bullet
hole in the Stemmons Freeway sign. Just because he says it does not make
it so.
> Barb Junkkarinen wrote:
>
> > Thanks for posting this photo, jim....it points out my ....uh, point rather well. Weird angle, very
> > dark...no can tell if there's a tooth there or not....and the crossbite proabbaly accentuates the
> > problem
> >
> > Barb :-)
> >
> > Jim Hargrove wrote:
> >
> > > Name: Tooth_CU.jpg
> > > Tooth_CU.jpg Type: QuickTime Picture (application/x-unknown-content-type-ViewerFrameClass)
> > > Encoding: x-uuencode
--
Anthony Marsh
The Puzzle Palace http://www.boston.quik.com/amarsh
Barb Junkkarinen
I agree, Sam....and the two biggest gray areas are whether or not a
tooth wqs knocked out at all, AND...the BIG gray area in the photo
that doesn't allow us to really be able to tell whether or not a tooth
is missing in that photo or not. Who's got the original? Who's got the
negative? That's what needs to be examined.
Barb :-)
>
>
>
>>
>
>> Barb :-)
>> >
>> >
>
AnthonyMarsh
duplicate Oswalds, then there is no point in looking up dentist records.
They could be created/faked as needed. Once you start on that road of
faked evidence, nothing is reliable.
doug weldon wrote:
>
> Barb:
> I wanted to further respond. Whose obligation was it to find the dental records and interview other
> witnesses? I agree it should have and could have been done. Was it not done for a reason. Actually, this
> was a standard, but clever technique that the WC counsel used. When Voebel made the startling statement about
> the tooth would you not think that there would be probing follow up questions such as" How do you know the
> tooth was knocked out?" Does this picture represent what you saw? Who else witnessed the fight?" After
> Voebel made his statement this was the powerful question:
>
> Jenner: Well you had a mild relationship with him from that point on, would you say?
>
> Voebel: Right
>
> Jenner: Tell me about that. Did you get together occasionally and share interests, and what were his
> interests?
>
> This is a common technique to minimize damaging testimony.
>
> Doug
>
> Barb Junkkarinen wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 19 May 1999 18:06:59 -0400, doug weldon
> > <dwe...@kalamazoo.net> wrote:
> >
> > >You are missing the most important point. The person who took this photo described it as Oswald losing a
> > >tooth after a fight. Why would he do that if the tooth wasn't missing? It wouldn't make sense. The HSCA
> > >wanted to interview Oswald's friend who took the photo and discovered that he was dead. The person's
> > >family was highly suspicious of his death.
> >
> > Hi Doug,
> >
> > Can you provide me for a reference that cite's the person who took the
> > picture saying he took the photo to show Oswald's missing
> > tooth....that seems to be what you are implying here, I apologize if I
> > have misconstrued your assertion.
> >
> > The only testimony I have seen as regards Oswald losing a tooth in a
> > fight was a hedged reference to thinking a tooth was loosened or
> > knocked out. That's not enough...and this picture certainly isn't
> > enough. Where are dental records from having it fixed? Where are
> > statements from other students or teachers who saw the fight? And
> > where is analysis done by an expert on the original photo and/or
> > negative?
> >
> > And....if I were taking a picture to show off a missing tooth....I
> > wouldn't snap the pic til I got a big toothy....er,
> > uh...toothless...grin. Have several of my son when he lost his front
> > teeth. Also, as I have reluctantly ratted on myself before, I had
> > passport photos retaken many years ago because when the first ones
> > arrived....I looked like I was missing a front tooth! I have a
> > crossbite and the photo was taken at an angle that seemed to make my
> > tooth disappear completely. I have my teeth....I swear.<g>
> >
> > Suspicion is fine. Anything can be evidence. But *proof* is
> > necessary...and it's lacking here.
> >
> > Barb :-)
> > >
Jane Shelton
Looking at the photo in the referenced edition of Life Magazine, the tooth
looks gone to me.
The caption reads: "Clowning at 15. Just as a classmate photographs
ninth-grade English class rehearsing 'Casey at the Bat', Oswald turns to
mug at camera. He got passing grade of 70 in the course."
Why would a presumably 15-year old classmate take a picture of Oswald in
1954 just to show he had a missing tooth? It's a photograph of the
classroom and the teacher standing at the blackboard. It looks like an
innocent photo to me.
If a tooth is knocked out, the tooth should go into a container with milk
in it and then go quickly to the dentist. Oswald obviously did not go
directly to the dentist, so if any kind of implant was done, it was not the
original tooth. A tooth whose root or nerve has been destroyed will stand
out from the others because it turns grey. Would Marguerite have had the
money to have had that kind of dental work done on Lee? She had a tough
time making ends meet. Even in those days dental work was expensive, if
you had little money to live on. Perhaps a free clinic did the work?
On page 74A of same magazine, there is a photo of Oswald at 18, posing in
combat gear at "Marine Base in California". It is a face-only shot. He is
grinning and his teeth are intact and pearly white unless Life Magazine
chose to retouch the photo.. So sometime between 15 and 18 the tooth was
replaced. I draw no conclusions here. These are only my observations.
Jane
AnthonyMarsh <ama...@quik.com> wrote in article
<37439063...@quik.com>...
Jim Hargrove
Thanks for this information....
On 20 May 1999 06:50:11 GMT, "Jane Shelton" <stu...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>If I may jump in here.
>
>Looking at the photo in the referenced edition of Life Magazine, the tooth
>looks gone to me.
It looks like it is missing to me as well, though I don't have the original
Life mag. What I posted was a scan originally made by Jerry Robertson, who
does have the magazine issue also.
When I converted Jerry's binary file to JPG format, it looked awfully dark,
and so I brightened up the whole image a bit, but that's all.
>The caption reads: "Clowning at 15. Just as a classmate photographs
>ninth-grade English class rehearsing 'Casey at the Bat', Oswald turns to
>mug at camera. He got passing grade of 70 in the course."
>
>Why would a presumably 15-year old classmate take a picture of Oswald in
>1954 just to show he had a missing tooth? It's a photograph of the
>classroom and the teacher standing at the blackboard. It looks like an
>innocent photo to me.
I'm pretty sure Ed Voebel took it, though.
>If a tooth is knocked out, the tooth should go into a container with milk
>in it and then go quickly to the dentist. Oswald obviously did not go
>directly to the dentist, so if any kind of implant was done, it was not the
>original tooth. A tooth whose root or nerve has been destroyed will stand
>out from the others because it turns grey. Would Marguerite have had the
>money to have had that kind of dental work done on Lee? She had a tough
>time making ends meet. Even in those days dental work was expensive, if
>you had little money to live on. Perhaps a free clinic did the work?
Marguerite's sister Lillian Murret told the WC that she paid for the dental
work--and she describes the incident somewhat differently from Ed Voebel,
although she was telling it third-hand from Marguerite:
<QUOTE ON>
Another time they were coming out of school at 3 o'clock, and there
were boys in back of him and one of them called his name, and he said,
"Lee," and when he turned around, this boy punched him in the mouth and ran,
and it ran his tooth through the lip, so she had to go over to the school
and take him to the dentist, and I paid for the dentist bill myself, and
that's all I know about that, and he was not supposed to have started any of
that at that time.
Now, at the Beauregard School at that time, they had a very low
standard, and I had no children going there and never did. My children went
to Jesuit High and Loyola University, but they did have a very bad bunch of
boys going to Beauregard and they were always having fights and ganging up
on other boys, and I guess Lee wouldn't take anything, so he got in several
scrapes like that.
Mr. JENNER. These were things that Mrs. Oswald told you; is that
right?
Mrs. MURRET. Yes; most of it, except when he was in my home, and I
observed the way he acted. He was a lonely boy most of the time, I think.
--WC VIII, 124
<QUOTE OFF>
In the same vein Doug Weldon was pointing out, this was another opportunity
for WC staffers to get more information about the incident, and they passed
again.
>On page 74A of same magazine, there is a photo of Oswald at 18, posing in
>combat gear at "Marine Base in California". It is a face-only shot. He is
>grinning and his teeth are intact and pearly white unless Life Magazine
>chose to retouch the photo.. So sometime between 15 and 18 the tooth was
>replaced. I draw no conclusions here. These are only my observations.
Is he wearing a helmet? If so, there is conflicting info on when and where
that photo was taken.
I understand that the Marine medical records show a lot of dental work for
Oswald, but I don't know if there is a specific reference to replacing a
front tooth.
--Jim Hargrove
Jim Hargrove
>If the whole point of producing such photos is to prove that there were
>duplicate Oswalds, then there is no point in looking up dentist records.
>They could be created/faked as needed. Once you start on that road of
>faked evidence, nothing is reliable.
That's very true, Tony, and it is a slippery slope indeed, but one that has
been analyzed by John Armstrong with great care--based on evidence, not
conjecture. John devoted the last half hour of his Univ. of Minn. speech
last Saturday to this very subject. Below is a VERY rough copy of a working
draft of the speech he sent me about a month ago. I'm going to post the
full speech as soon as I get the updated copy from him. I'm sorry you can't
see the hundreds of visual exhibits he projected during the talk.
From John Armstrong's 1999 Univ. of Minn. presentation:
<QUOTE ON>
Harvey told Captain Fritz there was a conspiracy and posed a serious threat
to the conspirators. That threat was eliminated when Jack Ruby killed
Harvey. With Harvey dead the CIA and FBI were free to manipulate evidence
and supress witness statements that linked them to Oswald. The FBI
selectively chose documentation that portrayed Oswald as the "lone assassin"
and a "nut".
They selected certain FBI reports of Lee's life, certain FBI reports of
Harvey's life and pieced them together. The result, published in the Warren
Report, created the now familiar legend of "Lee Harvey Oswald". Authors such
as Priscilla Johnson, Marguerite Oswald, Gerald Ford, and Robert Oswald
supported the Oswald legend by publishing similar biographies. In doing so
they helped kept the public from focusing attention on Oswald. In reality,
we should have focused on Oswald from the beginning.
By focusing on Oswald I have shown you many examples of two people using
Oswald's identity. Turning these many examples into proof of two Oswalds is
not that difficult. We are not in a criminal court of law where we must
convince 12 jurors. We are not in a civil court where we must convince a
majority of jurors. We are the court-the court of public opinion. And if we
find one irrefutible example of Oswald being in two places at the same
time-only one example-then we have proof there were two Oswalds.
(LEFT-SLIDE 66-framing Oswald) One hour after Oswald's arrest, Hoover wrote
(RIGHT-SLIDE 57) "Oswald made several trips to Cuba; upon his return each
time we interviewed him about what he went to Cuba for and he answered that
it was none of our business". But Hoover dared not make Oswalds 1961 trips
to Cuba known because Oswald was in Russia at that time. From Mexico City,
Hoover obtained a tape recording of Oswalds voice which disappeared--because
it was not Oswalds voice. The CIA provided Hoover a photograph of Oswald
(RIGHT-SLIDE 58), but it was not Oswald-in fact it was neither Harvey nor
Lee. Hoover shared this information with Lyndon Johnson the evening of the
assassination. A second Oswald in Mexico City suggested the liklihood of a
conspiracy. This may have been the reason Johnson directed his aide, Cliff
Carter, to telephone Dallas District Attorney Henry Wade and order him not
to allege a conspiracy.
To keep various agencies from investigating Kennedy's murder, and possibly
uncovering a conspiracy, LBJ placed the investigation under the control of
Hoover, his trusted friend of many years. Two days after the assassination
the FBI's report on the assassination was nearly finished. (RIGHT-SLIDE 59)
The #3 man in the FBI, William Sullivan, said "Hoover did not like to see
the Warren Commission come into existance. He showed a marked interest in
limiting the scope of it and taking any action which might result in
neutralizing it". All FBI reports and evidence were sent to FBI headquarters
in Washington. Witness testimony and evidence that supported the FBI's
report were passed on to the Warren Commission. Testimony and evidence that
conflicted with the FBI's report or hinted of a conspiracy were withheld.
The FBI dealt with conflicting testimony as follows: (LEFT- SLIDE 67)
testimony was either 1) supressed 2) ignored 3) fabricated 4) altered or
5) destroyed.
Testimony that was supressed would include records obtained by government
agencies and withheld from the public or not published by the Warren
Commission. This would include the FBI's interview with the woman from
Connecticut who said she spoke with a woman who knew Oswalds father and
uncle in New York City, FBI reports that placed Oswald in two different
locations at the same time, such as those from North Dakota, reports of
Oswald in the US and Japan at the same time, in Russia and the US at the
same time, and in New Orleans and Dallas at the same time, Laurel Kitrells
interview with both Oswalds, the many multiple sightings of Oswald
preceeding the assassination and the many people who reported Oswald and
Jack Ruby together. Many supressed records contain information relating to
Oswalds true identity, his background, and connections to US intelligence.
There are over 6 million Kennedy assassination related documents in the
National Archives, yet only 60000 pages were published by the Warren
Commission.
Testimony that was ignored includes the statements of Palmer McBride, Walter
Gehrke, witnesses who saw Oswald and Ruby together, and witnesses who saw
Oswald drive a car. Dr. Milton Kurian who interviewed Oswald in New York.
Allen Felde who told the FBI he was with Oswald in the Marines in Memphis,
when Oswald was supposed to be in Japan. The FBI ignored Felde and failed to
interview other Marines stationed in Memphis in order to determine whether
Oswald was in Memphis or Japan or in both locations at the same time. FBI
agents began to comment on how unusual the investigation was because no
agent was allowed to pursue any kind of a lead to its logical conclusion.
Ignoring productive leads suggests that someone within the FBI was leery of
placing further investigation on record which might conflict with their
version of events.
An example of testimony that was fabricated can be found in FBI documents.
The FBI laboratory had possession of a brown paper paper bag which Oswald
allegedly used to carry the rifle into the book depository. They were asked
to determine if the paper used to make this bag was the same paper found in
the shipping department at the book depository. The FBI produced these two
reports: (RIGHT-SLIDE 60) one report said it was the same paper; another
nearly identical report said it was not the same paper. One of these
reports is an example of fabricated testimony.
An example of altered and destroyed testimony comes from FBI Agent Cadigan.
He testified (LEFT-SLIDE 68) that the FBI received Oswalds possessions the
day after the assassination, but when his testimony was re-printed
(RIGHT-SLIDE 61) in the Warren Volumes that portion of testimony had been
removed. Another form of altered testimony is exemplified when an FBI Agent
attempts to mislead a witness or coerce a witness into changing his or her
testimony. For example, Ray Carney told FBI agents he met with Oswald on 5
occasions at the airport in Garland, Texas, in May of 1961. The agents told
Carney that Oswald was in Russia at that time and that he was obviously
mistaken.... Barber shop owner Cliff Shasteen told the Warren Commission
about anencounter he had with FBI Agent Bardwell Odom. Odom told Shasteen
thatShasteens statements regarding cutting Oswalds hair in late summer in
Irving,Texas and driving Ruth Paines car contradicts other
informationShasteen replied (LEFT-SLIDE 69) "I don't care what it
contradicts with, thats just the facts and thats it" When Palmer McBride
told FBI agentsthat he worked with Oswald in 1957 and 1958 in New Orleans,
itcontradicted Oswald's marine service in Japan at the same time. To avoid
dealingwith McBride, the Warren Commission did not interview him.
Instead,they interviewed his friend William WuIf. Warren Commission
attorneyLiebeler, aware that Oswald could not be working in New Orleans and
in themarines in Japan at the same time simply directed his witnesses
attention to different years. Liebeler asked WuIf ((RIGHT-SLIDE 62) "we
want... to inquire of you concerning possible knowledge that you have of Lee
Harvey Oswald during the time that he lived in New Orleans during the period
1954-1955". Liebeler solved the conflicting time problem by ignoringMcBride
and misleading his witness.
It is very difficult to locate testimony that was destroyed. This would
involve locating witnesses, showing them their written testimony and then
asking them if to verify their statements as accurate. Without locating
witnesses, there are indications that testimony was knowingly changed or
destroyed by the Warren Commission. Warren Commission attorney John Ely's
job was to assemble background information on Marguerite and Lee Oswald.
This memo by Warren Commission attorney Jenner states (LEFT- SLIDE 70) "our
depositions and examination of records disclose that there are details in
Mr. Ely's memoranda which will require material alteration and, in some
cases, omission". Material alteration and omission of evidence from the
backgrounds of Lee and Marguerite Oswald.
(LEFT-SLIDE 71) The FBI dealt with conflicting evidence as follows: the
evidence was either 1) supressed 2) ignored 3) fabricated 4) altered or 5)
destroyed
The FBI had two files on Oswald-one for Lee and One for Harvey ((RIGHT-SLIDE
-63) supressed Harveys file. Oswalds minox camera is an example of evidence
that was supressed. Another example was Oswalds address book which was found
at North Beckley. It was sent to FBI headquarters in Washington DC and never
returned to the Dallas Police. Why was it not returned? Because FBI Agent
James Hosty's name was in Oswalds address book. Dallas Police Lt. Jack
Revill took notice and told fellow officers the FBI was supressing a lot of
evidence.
An example of evidence that was ignored would be FBI Agent John Malones
report of Oswalds New York School attendance which he obtained from Judge
Kelleys court file. The evidence and Malones report states that Oswald
attended 174 days of school at PS 44 in New York. But the FBI knew that
Oswald was not supposed to have attended school and was placed in the Youth
House for truancy. Unable to resolve the discrepency, they ignored Malones
report. When Oswalds brother, John Pic, was shown photographs of Oswald
handing out Fair Play for Cuba Literature in New Orleans, Pic said that
person was not his brother. Neither the Warren Commission nor the FBI asked
Pic if he had any idea who this man was. They ignored Pics testimony and the
photographic evidence.
Evidence that was fabricated includes FBI photographs of a light meter-
which replaced the Dallas Police photo of the minox camera. FBI photographs
of the two substituted wallets-which replaced the Dallas Police photographs
of the wallets. W-2 forms were created. Here are three of those records, all
w-2 forms. When you make transparencies of these forms and lay one on top of
another, the characters, pitch and unique typewriter offsets match
perfectly. The same typewriter was used to create all three documents.
((RIGHT-SLIDE 64). They were all typed with a typewriter. Further, these
documents were allegedly given to the FBI by the Dallas Police. But, they do
not appear on the original Dallas Police inventory lists, were not initialed
by Dallas Police officers, were not photographed on the floor of the Dallas
Police station nor are there any original Dallas Police photographs. These
w-2 forms were photographed by the FBI and contain only the initials of FBI
document examiner Robert Frazier. They are forgeries.
Evidence that was altered is best demonstrated by comparing Dallas Police
photographs of Oswalds possessions with photographs taken by the FBI of the
same evidence. The Dallas Police photographed 9 items of evidence, including
Oswalds Minox camera and sent the film to the FBI. When the FBI developed
the film and returned the photograph of the Minox to the Dallas Police, the
minox had disappeared. The FBI then replaced the minox camera with a light
meter.
The Dallas Police photographed the two Oswald wallets. When the FBI
developed the film and returned photographs of the wallets to the Dallas
Police, the wallets had disappeared. The FBI then photographed two wallets
and returned the FBI photographs to the Dallas Police. These are just two
examples of altering evidence. Many more examples can be found by with the
FBI's manipulation of the 5 rolls of Dallas Police film which will be
discussed in a few minutes.
Evidence that was destroyed includes original New York School records,
Striping Junior High school records, Oswalds 1950's employment records, and
3 original rolls of Dallas police film of Oswalds possessions. But perhaps
the most significant record which existed and later disappeared was Oswalds
Texas drivers license and file. The FBI knew about Oswalds drivers license
from Fred Moore, manager of the Jiffy Store on Industrial Blvd. Oswald
produced his drivers license for identification when he purchased beer from
Moore on the morning of the assassination. No records exist that indicate
whether or not the FBI checked with the Texas Department of Public Safety to
see if Oswald had a license. But Oswald did have a license and it turned up
at the Texas Department of Public Safety the week after the assassination.
Mrs. Lee Bozarth, a supervisor ((RIGHT-SLIDE 65) and six employees saw and
handled Oswalds drivers license. She said Oswalds license and file were
pulled at the request of a government agency. At worst the FBI obtained and
destroyed Oswalds license and file. At the very least, they ignored
witnesses who said Oswald had a drivers license and were negligent for
failing to inquire about a license with the Texas Department of Public
Safety. The lack of interest they showed in Oswalds drivers license may have
been intentional.
If Oswald had a drivers license, then he had passed a drivers test and was
able to drive. This would raise many questions: did he drive to Mexico, to
south Texas, to Robert McKeowns near Houston, to the Furniture Mart with
Marina. Did he drive Ruth Paines car to Cliff Shasteens Barber Shop and
Hutchinsons grocery? Did he drive the Comet at the Lincoln Mercury
dealership? If Oswald drove Jack Rubys car in the summer of 1963 then he
must have known Ruby? But if Oswald was with Ruby in the summer of 1963, who
was working and living with Marina in New Orleans? The sightings and reports
of Oswald driving a car were unexplainable and had to be quashed.
This was accomplished by supressing FBI reports and ignoring witnesses
(RIGHT-SLIDE 66) who said Oswald could drive and then accepting testimony
from people who said Oswald could drive. Those people were Ruth and Michael
Paine and Marina and Robert Oswald. Robert Oswald and Ruth and Michael Paine
simply said Oswald could not drive. But Marina went further. In a face to
face confrontation with witnesses who saw Lee and Marina at the Furniture
Mart in Irving, she denied the encounter. Marina denied every instance and
every occasion in which Oswald was seen driving a car. She had no choice. If
she admitted that Oswald drove, then she would have to explain who she was
with and who was driving her around Irving while Harvey was working at the
Book Depository.
The most identifiable changes to the physical evidence can be seen by
comparing Dallas Police photographs with FBI photographs of the same
evidence. Oswalds possessions were photographed by the Dallas Police on
November 26th. They used 5 rolls of film and photographed 455 items. The
undeveloped was turned over to the FBI and taken to FBI headquarters. The
Dallas Police asked the FBI to process the film and provide them with
photographs. But when the FBI returned photographs of Oswalds possessions to
the Dallas Police five days later, nearly half of the photographs were
missing (RIGHT SLIDE 67). Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry noticed the
missing photographs (LEFT-SLIDE 72) and requested the remainder of the
photographs from the FBI. The FBI stalled and blamed the Dallas Police for
the missing photographs. They blamed the Dallas Police for the problem and
said they used "faulty technique" (RIGHT SLIDE 68) when photographing
Oswalds possessions. The FBI then took photographs of the missing items and
returned FBI photographs to the Dallas Police. In those photographs are the
best examples of FBI manipulation of evidence.
Oswald's minox spy camera was found in Oswald's seabag. It was photographed
on the floor of the Dallas Police station and photographed again by the
Dallas Police as item #375. It was listed on two Dallas Police Inventory
sheets and the joint Dallas Police/FBI inventory. It was inspected by
Detectives Rose, Adamcik and Stovall and by Assistant District Attorney
William Alexander. But the FBI did not want to explain what Oswald was doing
with a minox spy camera. So, the FBI changed their FBI inventory to read
"minox light meter". They altered the Dallas Police photograph (LEFT- SLIDE
73) of the minox so that it could not be seen-photograph #375. Then they
re-photographed the items in inventory #375 (RIGHT SLIDE 69), and sent the
photograph back to the Dallas Police. The minox disappeared from the
photographs and had been replaced by a light meter.
The Dallas Police had two Oswald wallets-one from the Tippit murder scene
and one taken from Oswalds left rear pocket after he was arrested. The FBI
could not explain two Oswald wallets with two identical sets of
identification, so they again manipulated evidence. The Dallas Police had
photographed the wallets, and listed each wallet on their inventory (LEFT-
SLIDE 74). When the FBI returned the original Police photographs to Dallas 4
days later, the wallet in photograph #114 had disappeared (LEFT-SLIDE 75).
The FBI then re-photographed #114 (RIGHT SLIDE 70). The wallet in photograph
#382 also disappeared (LEFT-SLIDE 76). The FBI re- photographed #382 (RIGHT
SLIDE 71). They then returned their new photographs to Dallas. The FBI
listed these wallets on inventory sheets as having come from the Paines
house. But neither of the wallets were initialed by Dallas Police or
appeared on either Dallas Police inventory list nor photographed on the
floor of the Dallas Police station among Oswald possessions. There is not
one shread of evidence that either wallet came from the Paines house. These
wallets first appeared at Dallas Police headquarters on November 26th, when
Oswalds possessions were returned to the Dallas Police from the FBI. It
appears that the FBI included these wallets among the evidence items they
returned.
The original evidence should have been readily available to the Warren
Commission. The FBI was reluctant to turn over Oswalds original
possessions to the Warren Commission. The FBI asked for and received
permission to provide photographs in lieu of original evidence. But
photographs do not allow experts to check for authenticity, fingerprints,
alterations, and so on. The evidence could be manipulated, and photographs
provided to the Warren Commission without much question.
With numerous FBI reports supressed, the Warren Commission accepted
testimony from Robert Oswald, Ruth and Michael Paine, and Marina, who said
Oswald could not drive. Marina denied every instance in which Oswald was
seen driving a car. Marina had no choice... she could either deny Oswald
drove or she could explain whose car she was riding in and who was driving
her around Irving while Harvey Oswald was working at the Book Depository.
Marinas ability to provide convenient testimony and evidence to the Warren
Commission was obvious and has concerned many researchers, but few bothered
to check details. When Warren Commission attornies reviewed Marinas
testimony (LEFT-SLIDE 77), it caused staff Attorney Bert Griffin to call her
a liar. The HSCA (LEFT-SLIDE 78) compared her Warren Commission, FBI and
HSCA testimony and issued a 29 page report that listed dozens of unexplained
contradictions. Questions among CIA analysts prompted a series of
investigations into her background (LEFT-SLIDE 79) They concluded she had
most likely been previously connected to the KGB. After the assassination
Marina was interviewed by French journalist Nerin Gunn. She said (LEFT-SLIDE
80) "I had two husbands: "Lee, the father of my childrn, an affectionate and
kind man; and Harvey Oswald, the assassin of President Kennedy".
I would like to conclude the discussion of the physical evidence by
discussing Oswald's possessions. These were picked up by the Dallas Police
from 1026 N. Beckley and Ruth Panes house in Irving. The Dallas Police
established a chain of custody by initialing every piece of evidence
obtained from both locations and then listing that evidence on inventory
sheets. The original Police inventories are Warren Commission exhibits
(LEFT-SLIDE 81). The chain of custody was broken when the Dallas Police
secretly turned over Oswalds possessions to the FBI the day after the
assassination. When Oswalds possessions were returned to the Dallas Police
two days later there had been some deletions, some alterations, and many
additions to the inventory. The changes and additions can be identified by
comparing the Dallas Police and FBI inventories. Before Oswalds possessions
were secretly sent to the FBI they numbered 128 items (LEFT-SLIDE 82). When
Oswalds possessions were returned to Dallas Police three days later they
numbered 455 items (RIGHT SLIDE 72). The additional items of evidence did
not have the initials of any Dallas Police officers nor were they listed on
the original Dallas Police inventories. These additional items were added to
Oswalds possessions by the FBI in Washington. Some were added to frame
Harvey. Some belonged to Lee Oswald. All were planted by the FBI.
By the way, how many of you realize that nothing that I have shown or
discussed tonight has anything to do with the murder of President
Kennedy.... The Minox camera, w-2 forms, two Oswald wallets, drivers
license, school records, and supressed FBI reports have absolutely nothing
to do with the the murder of President Kennedy but it has everything to
do with hiding the true identity of Oswald and his intelligence connections.
Had the FBI presented unaltered physical evidence and testimony to the
public 35 years ago, Oswalds dual identity would likely have been uncovered.
Those responsible for creating the two Oswalds-our ingelligence
agencies-would then be linked directly to the assassination. To learn which
intelligence agency was involved, we again turn to witnesses whose testimony
was supressed:
* The afternoon of the assassination Dallas reporter Seth Kantor was
provided with detailed biographical information on Oswald--before Oswald's
name was broadcast on radio or TV. The information was supplied by Harold
Hendrix, a CIA "media friend" who acted as a conduit for CIA leaks.
* CIA employee Donald Deneslya read reports of a CIA agent who had worked at
a radio factory in Minsk and returned to the US with a Russian wife and
child.
* CIA officer David Phillips provided the Warren Commission with information
that Oswald was at the Russian and Cuban embassies in Mexico City, then
later admitted that the information he had provided was false.
* CIA Agent Donald Norton said "Oswald was with the CIA, and if he did it
then you better believe the whole CIA was involved".
* Former CIA agent Joseph Newbrough said he "Oswald was an agent for the CIA
and acting under orders".
* CIA paymaster James Wilcott said he had furnished money for the Oswald
project-code named RX ZIM (LEFT-SLIDE 83). He said it was common knowledge
among his group that Oswald was an agent of the CIA
* CIA Agent John Garrett Underhill told friends, just before he died,
"Oswald is a patsy. They set him up. They've killed the President. I've been
listening and hearing things. I couldn't believe they'd get away with it,
but they did".
* (LEFT-SLIDE 84) Lyndon Johnson was convinced there was a plot and that the
CIA had something to do with it
* (LEFT-SLIDE 85) CIA Agent William Gaudet said "the man who probably knows
as much as anybody alive on all of this ... is ... I still think is Howard
Hunt"--CIA Agent and Watergate burglar E. Howard Hunt.
As researchers began to uncover indications of CIA involvement in the
assassination, the CIA sent out this memo (LEFT-SLIDE 86). The memo offered
suggestions to media assets on how to block and impede investigation of the
Kennedy assassination by researchers. The media complied and, as we all
know, continues to insist there was no conspiracy. Whenever a new book is
published naming Oswald as the lone assassin, the author appears on national
television and his book reviewed by the New York Times. When new information
is uncovered that suggests government involvement or hints of a conspiracy,
that information is usually attacked, ridiculed or buried in a non-descript
article in a small town newspaper. We question the sincerety of the media
and doubt their credibility.
We have learned to question government methods and motives and doubt
government conslusions. We rely on witnesses who have first hand knowledge
of events and documentation which can be verified. Bit by bit information is
gathered and pieced together like a puzzle. The pieces begin to show are put
together, the picture within the puzzle becomes clearer. As more and more
information is pieced together the involvement of government intelligence
agencies in both the assassination and the coverup is undeniable. As time
passes the Warren Commission version of Oswald as "the lone assassin"
increasingly falls on deaf ears. Only the most naive of people choose to
believe this myth.
(LEFT-SLIDE 87) Ironically, the Warren Commission published the best
photographic example of Lee Harvey Oswald. It appeared in newspapers at the
time of Oswald's "defection" in 1959. When each half of Oswald's face is
viewed separately (RIGHT SLIDE 73), it is easy to see that half of the photo
is Harvey, and half is Lee. (LEFT-SLIDE 88)-a creation of the CIA. Exposing
and understanding the two Oswalds" will not solve the Kennedy assassination,
but it does give us insight into the illegal covert capabilities of CIA
operations and allows us to understand why government agencies concealed
their knowledge and involvement with Oswald. We understand why witness
testimony was ignored, altered, and in some cases omitted and why evidence
was manipulated. We finally realize why Harvey Oswald was not allowed to
stand trial and had to be eliminated. After 35 years, many pieces to this
puzzle are still missing--but if you understand who Harvey and Lee Oswald
really were, who created them and who directed them, then you will know who
was responsible for the assassination of John Kennedy. Thank you.
--From a working draft provided by Mr. Armstrong
<QUOTE OFF>
--Jim Hargrove