Hargrove continues to misrepresent the facts

Jimbo Hargroves wrote:What utter nonsense from Parnell.  
Marguerite was so destitute in the early 1940s that by late 1942 all three of her children were in orphanages.  On January 3, 1942 Marguerite removed John and Robert from school and placed them in the Evangelical Lutheran Bethleham Orphan Asylum located at 5413 North Peters Street in New Orleans. She tried to place Lee there as well, but the home wouldn't accept him because he was just two years old. On December 26, 1942, after Lee had lived at the Murret's home for 7 months, Marguerite successfully placed him (now at the age of three) in the same Evangelical Lutheran Bethleham Orphan Asylum with John and Robert.

 
Marguerite was too poor to house and feed any of her three children. Robert E. Lee Oswald had died in 1939; the insurance payout Parnell points to with such pride was clearly long gone before Marguerite had to place all her children in an orphanage due to her extreme poverty.
Her marriage to Ekdahl helped temporarily but soon dissolved; the tiny settlement could have hardly helped her to become so successful she could own three homes in her own name and live at other addresses as well. What bank in the 1940s would give a cash-strapped single mother like her mortgages to buy three homes? What bank would do that today? Marguerite was clearly not a successful businesswoman at any point in her life, but at the start of the Oswald Project she flourished like one.
Parnell has not begun to explain how that happened.

Parnell does not have to explain jack to shit.

Because your post is total and utter crap.

Marguerite was not "destitute". She placed the kids in an orphanage because she was in full time employment and couldn't look after them properly as a result.

From Robert's testimony:

Mr. DULLES. Could I ask a question there? Was this a denominational school, or a publicly maintained school? 
Mr. OSWALD. I don't believe it was a denominational school. I believe it was a public--I feel it was a private school or home. But that the religious background did not have anything to do with it. It might have been just a Protestant home. 
Mr. JENNER. I am curious, if I may, Mr. Dulles--the name of this school or home is the Bethlehem Orphan Home. But neither of you boys was an orphan. 
Mr. OSWALD. No, sir. 
Mr. JENNER. I take it, then, that apart from the name of the school, there were orphans and young people, children such as you, whose mothers, or perhaps fathers, were unable to take care of them during the daytime completely, and the school accepted children under those circumstances. 
Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir; that is my understanding. 
Mr. JENNER. Therefore, it was not exclusively for orphans? 
Mr. OSWALD. No, sir. 
Mr. DULLES. I think I have read somewhere I would like to ask, if I may--I understand there had to be only one parent, though. I don't think if you had two parents you were eligible for this school. but I recollect that.
Is that the case, do you remember? 
Mr. OSWALD. My recollection on that, sir, was that I do recall mother saying something that there was a little difficulty in placing us in there, because we were not orphans. But that they had from time to time made exceptions to this, where one parent was living and unable to attend the children fully during the day and so forth, and even at night---- 
Mr. JENNER. Now, you entered in 1942. Did you and John continue in this school--for what period of time? 
Mr. OSWALD. Until we moved to Dallas, in 1944, sir. 
Mr. JENNER. Before we get to that, has Mr. Oswald responded to the questions you had in mind, to describe the nature of the school? 
Mr. DULLES. Yes. 
Mr. JENNER. Were you visited by your mother and Lee to the extent that she brought him along, when you and John were in the Bethlehem Orphan Home? 
Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir; we were. I do recall quite vividly that on Wednesdays---this perhaps might have been during the summer months only--that John and I would go to downtown New Orleans and meet mother at her place of employment, and either spend the afternoon with her, or she would give us money to go to a movie or something. And at this time mother was employed as a manager or assistant manager of a hosiery shop located on Canal Street. I don't recall the name of it, or the exact address of it.

------------

Mr. JENNER. Could we say, except as I might return to the subject specifically, that from the time of the death of your father, in August of 1939, at least until the time of her marriage with Mr. Ekdahl, she was always employed, either continuously or with short breaks? 
Mr. OSWALD. Yes, sir; we certainly can. 

-----------------------------

The orphanage was simply a de facto day care center. Unfortunately, such places don't give the option of the children going home of an afternoon.

To use this situation and claim it shows how "destitute" she was is just disrespectful of all widows in that situation in that era, and is downright false and a dishonest rendering of the facts.

Hargrove is a disgrace.

I wonder if Harvey and Lee is a disinfo campaign. Even if it is not,it certainly has sown divisions in the research community.