This seems to be a confirmation. The short fat Marguerite had a mole below her right eye. We have many images of her when she was old in which we can see it. But, on the right is image of her from 1942 in which it's there.

It's obviously very easy to see the mole on the left. It's harder to see it on the right, but there does seem to be something there. Do you agree? If so, it is an important find because it gives us a way of distinguishing the Marguerite Oswald of fame. 

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.  

These two look like the same woman, but the one on the left is from 1942 and the one on the right was 1945. So why does she look younger on the right?

This is, apparently, the only known image of Edwin A. Eckdahl, the third and last husband of Marguerite Oswald. And this is supposedly the day of their wedding in May 1945. So, having been born in 1907, it made her 38 years old. His age was reportedly 57. But doesn't he look a lot older than 57? He does to me. There, he was supposedly 6 years younger than I am today, and I'm having a lot of trouble accepting that. To me, he looks like he's in his 70s. And notice that he's got his right elbow flexed. Why? I think it's just an old age thing. When you get old, the inhibitory nerves that dampen excess muscle contraction just don't work as well. And looking at him, he may have had the beginnings of Parkinson's disease- the way he's holding that arm up. 

In any case, he looks old. Damn old. Too old to be marrying a 38 year old woman with 3 sons, the youngest of whom was 6. Why would he want to marry her? And why would she want to marry him? True love? Call me a cynic. 

And by the way, the official story has it that two years after their marriage, Marguerite caught Ekdahl having an affair, which soon led to divorce. I guess it's true what they say: you can't keep a good man down. But, just look at the guy; he's an old fart. Are you willing to believe that he was marrying a 38 year old and then went on to cheat on her?  Him? That guy? With whom? It's just more of the weird, wild, wacky world of JFK.   

That's supposed to be their 1938 Buick behind them. 

And you can see it again a few months later when they moved into their house at Benbrook.

 Except, it's not the same car. 

You want that I spell it out for you, Backes? They had different grills. The one on the left has a frame around it, and the one on the right does not. The one on the left has a wide centerpiece, while the one on the right has a much narrower centerpiece. The one on the left had a license plate above the bumper in line with the driver side headlight. It should be peeking out on the right, but it's not. And the cars seem to be different colors, light on the left, and dark on the right. They're different cars. 

So, did Ekdahl replace his car just months after the wedding? Are there any reports of that? 

I'll tell you what I think: I don't think that's 57 year old Edwin A. Ekdahl. I think it's an older man. And I don't think the Marguerite Oswald on the right is the real Marguerite Oswald, but I do think she is the Marguerite Oswald of fame. Let me put it this way: will you agree that these two are not the same woman?

If you're having trouble, let me point out that their teeth were different. The woman on the right should have gotten braces. Her right upper incisor was too high.  Let's hone in to compare their teeth.

Cast your eyes up and down rapidly. Aligned/misaligned, aligned/misaligned, aligned/misaligned. Get it? Two different women. 

OK, so those are two different women, and they both can't be the woman who was standing next to Old Man Ekdahl. Let's see which one that was.

I like the second one, by far; she is a spot-on match. She's the one with the crooked teeth. That means that the first one with the straight teeth is a different woman from the one standing with Grandpa Ekdahl. And that means that he wasn't Ekdahl. He looks easily old enough to be her father. He is definitely not 57. So, who is he? At this point, I don't know, but I mean to find out.  

OIC senior member Professor James Norwood did some excellent photo detective work today concerning Marguerite Oswald. 

First, he offers this image of the Marguerite of fame to show how short she was. Marina Oswald was reportedly 5'3", although some sources list her height as only 5'2".

Granted, Marina has some heels on, but I figure the tallest that this Marguerite could have been was 5'1". Well, plenty of people described Marguerite Oswald as being "tall". And here is a picture of her standing with other employees at Paul's Shoe store in Ft. Worth where she worked. 

That woman was taller than 5'1" and by quite a lot. And, the Marguerite of fame was a private duty nurse; she didn't work at a shoe store. 

Then, James discovered a mole below the right eye of the Marguerite of fame:

You see the mole, right? Here's another image of it:

You see the mole, right? Well, the other Marguerite didn't have that mole. Not when she was younger...

and not when she was older.

They were two different women. Game. Set. Match. 

As I have stated, every prospective senior member of the Oswald Innocence Campaign has to acknowledge and endorse the Mission Statement of the OIC: 

Mission Statement
 

We, the members of the Oswald Innocence Campaign, maintain that at the time of President Kennedy's assassination, Lee Harvey Oswald was standing in the doorway of the Texas School Book Depository, where he was photographed by James "Ike" Altgens, which is clearly evident upon close examination of the photograph. This discovery categorically exonerates Oswald from having shot the President. We call upon the media to renounce the official story that impugns him--including the "Magic Bullet" theory, which is a conspiratorial fabrication--and we demand that the American government cease obstructing justice by promoting a gross falsehood, based on lies, which has allowed the true killers to remain free, unindicted, and unpunished.

Judyth Baker did that, and so she is a member. If you acknowledge that Oswald was innocent and that he was standing in the doorway at the time of the shots, then you're in. It's the only litmus test. You can believe anything else you want. And there's a sound reason for that because when you acknowledge Oswald innocence and Oswald in the doorway, it takes care of everything. It's the whole kit and kaboodle. It totally resolves the one crucial and overriding issue of the JFK assassination, which is not who did it, but whether Oswald did it. But, he didn't do it, and his visible presence in the doorway proves it like nothing else can or will. 

And remember that we have not one but two images of him standing in the doorway at the time of the shots: one from the Altgens photo and the other from the Wiegman film.

So, that takes care of it as far as Judyth is concerned, and as far as all the OIC members are concerned. I continue to have my differences with Judyth about other things, but I publicly thank her for putting that aside, as I have, for the purpose of uniting over what we agree about, which is Oswald being in the doorway. Thank you, Judyth.  

This is a followup to my piece from last night in which I said that, like Lee Harvey Oswald, Natalie Wood was brought up in a Russian-speaking household and could speak Russian. I couldn't find a tape of her speaking in Russian, but I did find one of her speaking with a Russian accent. It was when she went on What's My Line where the blindfolded panelists had to guess her identity. She spoke in a Russian accent to disguise her voice, but why did she choose Russian? Because she was Russian. 

And, you'll hear a panelist ask her if she is from another country, and Natalie answers, "In my mind." She was referring to Russia. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tf1zlqp9PyU