Oswald in the doorway: the blog of the Oswald Innocence Campaign, by Ralph Cinque

So, we have Marguerite lovingly signing a picture of herself for her son, Robert in 1935. She signed it "Mother". The problem is that Robert Oswald wasn't born until 1934, so he was only 1 year old in 1935. So, who signs a photograph for a 1 year old baby? NOBODY! We're back in the Bizarro World, which is where we often wind up in JFK assassination research. 

And you can't push the date back, at least not very far. Here she is in 1942, just 7 years later. 

She looks quite a bit older. In the first picture, she looks young, and above she looks frumpy and matronly. 

Besides, why would she speak of giving "all" her love to her son Robert? She also had a husband named Robert (but she couldn't have been talking to him because she signed it 'Mother') and she also had a son John. Isn't the expression "all my love" directed to a lover/spouse/significant-other, and not to a son? It's over the top. And I am suggesting that it's fake. I'm saying that somebody came up with the bright idea to try to authenticate that photo as a legitimate one of Marguerite Oswald, but really it was a stupid and thoughtless idea because it's not something that anybody would do.