John Armstrong has been saying for decades that Marguerite Oswald was not Oswald's mother, and it's true, but here's what I just noticed. In her Warren Commission testimony Marguerite Oswald referred to her supposed son Robert as "Robert Oswald." She was speaking of a meeting she had with the FBI after Oswald's death in which they showed her a picture of Jack Ruby. They asked her who was at the meeting.
Mrs. OSWALD. Mr. Mike Howard, Mr. Garry Seals--well, all of the agents there. The room was full. And Robert Oswald was there. The room was full.
No mother would refer to her son by his first and last name. She would either refer to him as "my son Robert" or she might just say "Robert" but she would never say "Robert Oswald" not in a million years.
Now, why am I so sure about this? It's because mothers are possessive about their children, and if they are talking about their son, their speech will always acknowledge the mother/son bond. Calling him "Robert Oswald" is tantamount to saying "he's not mine." So, unless she's disowned him or is in a court battle with him, she is not going to do that; she is not going to call him "Robert Oswald."
And you want to know what else a mother would never do in a million years? Put pictures of her battered son up on the wall.
The picture on our right is artork from the cover of TIME magazine. But, it's not the actual cover. So, how did she even get that? Don't tell me the magazine sent it to her with a message: "Here is a drawing of your son looking all deranged and demented. We're sorry for your loss. Signed, Time Magazine"
Read Harvey and Lee by John Armstrong, and let me tell you: The biggest secret of the JFK assassination is that Jack Ruby was innocent, that the guy in the films and photos shooting Oswald was FBI Agent James Bookhout. But, the second biggest secret is that there were two Lee Harvey Oswalds and the one who was really born in New Orleans was not the Oswald of fame.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.