HARVEY & LEE
Part Two-Polishing the Big Apple and Other Matters
By W. Tracy Parnell Ó 2002
The
second part of this series begins my direct examination of John Armstrong’s
“Harvey and Lee” presentation. I have chosen to use Jerry Robertson’s
two-volume booklet “Denial #2” for this critique for several reasons. First, it
contains supporting documents that were lacking from other versions. The
booklet is well organized (I compliment Mr. Robertson for adding order to this
already confusing theory) and prepared with Armstrong’s approval. Finally it
admittedly corrects several errors contained in previous versions. For the sake
of simplicity, I have listed after each bold section heading the corresponding
page number for volume one of Denial #2. Endnotes are used for other citations.
I
will not try to answer every point made by Armstrong, as many of his
allegations are based on eyewitness accounts (discussed in detail in part 1 of
this series) and therefore cannot be proven either true or false. Throughout
this document I will use “Harvey” and “Lee” (with quotes) when referring to
Armstrong’s double Oswalds.
Armstrong begins his presentation
with the story of Gordon Lonsdale a spy arrested in 1961 for passing British
defense secrets to the Russians. After his arrest, it was determined that
Lonsdale, who held a Canadian passport, was really Konan Molody (Armstrong uses
the spelling Molodi, but his source and one I found both use Molody) who was a
Russian born in 1922 (my source says 1923).
Molody went to California at the age of nine where he lived with his
aunt and learned the English language.
In 1954 he went to Canada where he assumed Lonsdale’s identity. He then
traveled to England where he began his espionage activities. Armstrong states,
“If the KGB recruited young boys, can there be any doubt that our intelligence
agencies ran similar operations?”.
Armstrong is trying to use the example of Lonsdale-Molody as
powerful confirmation that the CIA and KGB ran child spy programs and that
"Harvey and Lee" are an example of such a program. However, there is
quite a difference between a spy assuming a dead man's identity and two boys
(not identical twins but somehow similar enough to pass for the same person)
being recruited from childhood to lead parallel lives. I assume that if
Armstrong had been able to locate an example of child spies of this type that
he would have used it for his opening instead of Molody. Was Molody in fact
sent to California to become a spy or did the fact that he had spent time there
and learned the language later make him a desirable KGB recruit? My source
says, “Whether or not this was actually planned in the hope that he could be
later used as a sleeper agent is not easily confirmed…”. [1]
Mrs. Jack Tippit (p. 1)
Armstrong uses a phone call from
an unidentified woman to Mrs. Jack Tippit of Westport, Connecticut as the basis
for several otherwise uncorroborated claims. The caller said she knew Oswald's
father and uncle and they were Hungarian communists. Armstrong states, "If
this information is correct, one of the two Oswald's lived in New York in his
youth. This could explain Oswald's interest in communism (from his father and
uncle), which began as a teenager and continued throughout his life." [2]
Armstrong adds, "She gave two names-Louis Weinstock and Emile
Kardos".[3]
A further look at the FBI document
(Denial #2 Volume 2 Item 3) that details the phone call is revealing. Armstrong
says that the woman caller "knew the Tippits were related to Officer JD
Tippit".[4] This
statement is apparently an attempt to give weight to the woman's allegations.
Unfortunately, it is incorrect. The FBI document states, "Mrs. Tippit
received a telephone call from unknown woman who asked if Mr. Tippit was a
policeman and if he was related to the policeman Tippit who was shot in
Dallas".[5]
Armstrong makes another slip when
he says that the unidentified caller gave the name Louis Weinstock. The caller
gave only the last name Weinstock and Armstrong has filled in the blank with a
first name helpful to his theory. Louis Weinstock was, of course, the General
Manager of "The Worker", the
left-wing publication that Oswald read. Weinstock had also corresponded with
Oswald on at least one occasion to thank him for his offer to make posters for
the publication. To be fair, the caller did say "Weinstock, the editor of
Woman's World". If the caller said "The Worker" and the Mr. And
Mrs. Tippit heard it as "Woman's World" then Armstrong is justified
in adding "Louis" to "Weinstock". But Armstrong leaves the
reader with the impression that the caller said "Louis Weinstock"
which isn't the case.
The FBI document adds, "The woman then began speaking
indistinctly, disjointedly and nervously".[6]
The woman's nervousness could have resulted from the fact that she was making a
crank call. Another possibility is that if the caller was referring to Louis Weinstock the call was an effort to
embarrass him by associating him with Oswald.
Mental Tests (p. 2)
Page two of the book includes the
assertions of Louise Robertson who was a housekeeper for Marguerite in the
summer of 1953. Mrs. Robertson remembered that Marguerite had said that she
brought Lee to New York to have mental tests at Jacobi Hospital. Armstrong then
states, "Marguerite was asked about this by Warren Commission attorney
Rankin, but she avoided his question".[7]
Again, Armstrong has made an incorrect statement. The pertinent passage from
the Warren Volumes shows that after Rankin asked his question Marguerite
answered, "No sir, never".[8]
She did not avoid the question but instead answered it directly and then went
on to defend her son and his mental state.
I am not sure what Armstrong's
intent was when he included this issue, but let me offer these thoughts. Let's
assume for a moment that Robertson was correct [*]
and Marguerite did make this statement. Perhaps it is an indication that
Marguerite was becoming increasingly aware of Lee's problems and had decided to
do something about it. Robertson also says in her FBI statement that Marguerite
related an incident in which Lee ran away from home and was returned by the
police. Obviously If this were true Marguerite must have been very concerned
about his behavior especially when taken in the context of his other troubles
in New York (truancy, knife incident, etc.) I don't know of any police report
being turned up in regard to this matter or if anyone has looked for one. But
if Robertson's statement is to be accepted as Armstrong has done, then it is a
possibility that Marguerite wanted to have Lee tested at Jacobi but for
whatever reason did not follow through. If she was aware of Lee's problems, it
certainly does nothing to hurt the Warren Commission view of a disturbed lone
gunman who had an abnormal childhood. And if one rejects any part of
Robertson's statement then it follows that the entire statement should be
disregarded.
New York School Records and Related Matters (p. 2-3)
Armstrong next explores the issue
of Oswald's New York school records. He says, "During the year and a half
Lee Oswald resided in New York, there are few records of his activities." [9]
He goes on to say, "The Warren Commission records tell us Oswald first
entered Trinity Evangelical School in the Bronx in September, 1952 many miles
from his residence in Manhattan. When asked for copies of Oswald's school
records, the Trinity School allegedly told the FBI that they did not maintain
records until 1957. This is nonsense. Who ever heard of a school that did not
maintain records? If the school did not maintain records, how were the dates of
his attendance at Trinity obtained? How did the FBI know he even attended
Trinity? And why would 12 year-old Oswald attend junior high in the Bronx
instead of Manhattan?" [10]
Armstrong is correct that it would
be odd for a school to not keep records and in fact somebody did provide at least partial records.
They are available in CE 1384 of the Warren Commission Exhibits and Armstrong
himself alludes to them in the Appendix of Denial #2, Vol. 1 on page 2. The
principal of the school in 1963, R.H. Showers, also provided the FBI with the
name of Oswald's teacher and school principal at the time he attended. [11]
Lee's mother, Marguerite, appeared
before the Warren Commission and her testimony resolves the remaining issues:
" I immediately enrolled Lee
in a Lutheran school, because Lee was not confirmed--he was baptized in the
Lutheran faith, but because of moving around--I had married Mr. Ekdahl in this
period and so on, Lee was not confirmed. I enrolled him in the Lutheran school
which took him approximately an hour or longer by subway to get there. It was
quite a distance. That is when we first
arrived in New York. I believe that Lee was in that school a very short time, 2
or 3 weeks, because at this time I was living in my daughter-in- law's home and
son." [12]
We can see from Marguerite's
testimony that it was her idea to enroll Lee in the Trinity School for
religious reasons even though it was a long commute for Lee by subway thereby
solving one mystery. As for the dates of attendance at Trinity, The Warren Commission
records the date of Oswald's enrollment as September 8 to 26, which jibes
nicely with Marguerite's recollection of 2 to 3 weeks. Armstrong tries to use
Oswald brother John Pic's testimony to muddy the waters even further by saying
"Pic was certain Lee attended school two blocks from his Manhattan
apartment". [13] But what
would be more credible in this instance, the memory of his half-brother from 11
years earlier or the testimony of the boy's own mother (who by Pic's admission
enrolled him at the school) and whose recollections are supported by the Warren
Commission investigation?
Similarly, when Armstrong quotes
Dr. Milton Kurian as remembering that Oswald was "a little fellow…perhaps
4' 6" tall", [14]
the reader must keep in mind the 40 plus years that have elapsed between the
time Kurian examined Oswald and Armstrong interviewed him. It is also
worthwhile to remember the Warren Commission testimony of another doctor who
examined Oswald, Renatus Hartogs. Dr. Hartogs was convinced that his memory of
the event was accurate. However, he greatly overstated his 1953 diagnosis of
Oswald until Warren Commission Attorney Wesley Liebeler showed him his own
report. If Hartogs could be mistaken 11 years after the fact Kurian's
undocumented observations nearly 45 years later should be taken with a grain of
salt.
Probation Officer John Carro's
interview of Marguerite Oswald is another area of the record that is singled
out by Armstrong. He points out several "errors" made by Marguerite
in the interview most of which are not troubling and could be attributed to
miscommunication. However, two of these assertions demand closer scrutiny.
Armstrong states, "Marguerite told Carro she was the youngest of six
children, yet there were 5 children in the Claverie family". [15]
Armstrong apparently used census reports as the basis for this statement. While
he is to be commended for his attempt at obtaining his own sources of
information, the Warren Commission testimony of Lillian Murret is the
"best evidence" in this instance. She gave the names of the six
Claverie children from oldest to youngest: Charles, Lillian, John, Pearl,
Marguerite, and Aminthe.[16]
There is no reason to believe that Lillian wouldn't know how many brothers and
sisters she had and in fact she describes most of them in some detail. Also,
when Armstrong says, "She gave her sister's (Lillian's) name as Lillian
Sigouerette" [17],
there is no citation and the statement appears nowhere in Carro's report (Carro
Exhibit 1) of the interview, the presumed source.
In the next part of my series I
will look at the allegations of Oswald in Stanley, North Dakota and
"new" evidence that shows how this factoid became accepted as truth
in the JFK research community.
[*]
Abraham Jocobi Hospital did not open until
1955. Robertson's statement was made ten years after Marguerite's alleged
comment and she could have been mistaken about the name of the hospital. It is
possible that the Hospital was to have opened earlier and was delayed-I have
not looked into this matter. It is of course, also possible that Robertson is
mistaken about the entire incident or is confusing it with information about
mental tests Lee did take at Youth House.
[1] Richard Deacon, Spyclopedia (William Marrow & Co., 1987), pp. 337-39.
[2] Jerry Robertson, Denial #2: The John Armstrong Research Volume One (self-published), p. 1.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Robertson, Denial #2: The John Armstrong Research Volume Two (self-published), Item 3A.
[6] Ibid., Item 3B.
[7] Denial #2 Vol. 1, p. 2.
[8] Denial #2 Vol. 2, Item 5 (WC Vol. I, p. 230).
[9] Denial #2 Vol. 1, p. 2.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Denial #2 Vol. 2, Item 7.
[12] Testimony of Marguerite Oswald. WC Vol. I, p. 226.
[13] Denial #2 Vol. 1, p. 2.
[14] Ibid.
[15] Ibid., p. 3.
[16] Testimony of Lillian Murret. WC Vol. VIII, p. 96.
[17] Denial #2 Vol. 1, p. 3.