Lillian Murret & the Dentist

Sandy Larsen wrote:For those of you who think Voebel was wrong about the tooth breaking, we have corroboration from Oswald's Aunt, Lillian Murret. Here is an excerpt from her WC testimony:


"Another time they were coming out of school at 3 o'clock, and there were boys in back of him and one of them called his name, and he said, "Lee," and when he turned around, this boy punched him in the mouth and ran, and it ran his tooth through the lip, so she had to go over to the school and take him to the dentist, and I paid for the dentist bill
myself, and that's all I know about that, and he was not supposed to have started any of that at that time."

Marguerite had to take Lee to the dentist! Why would she have done that if his tooth had not been broken or knocked out?
So there we have it. Voebel thought the tooth had been knocked out. Murret said that Marguerite had taken him to the dentist, obviously for that reason. And finally, we have the photo taken shortly thereafter showing the missing tooth. Or rather, notshowing the missing tooth.

It's a slam dunk!

THAT'S not a slam dunk!

FFS! Lillian is NOT a witness for you. She is OUR witness.


Who the fuck goes to the dentist if they get a tooth knocked out unless it is to reset it or get an implant?

Was it reset? Was an implant put in? Not according to you guys. 

At best, this blurred image may show that the tooth was knocked back and is in shadow. If that was the case, a visit to the dentist would be imperative due to the possibility of root damage or gum infection - either of which could lead to losing the tooth altogether. To give the tooth a chance to reset itself, the dentist would splint the tooth against the teeth next to it.

So you are back to your interpretation of a blurred image and Voebel's QUALIFIED statement that the tooth may have been knocked out. Knock off making a positive statement out of what Voebel said - knock off trying to use a witness who is actually on OUR side and while you are at, do what Armstrong should have and address Ms Smith's testimony. Unlike Voebel, she knew the name of the person who hit Lee. She reports only - and without qualification - that the tooth went through the lip. This is supported by the autopsy which showed a scar on the lip.

One Qualified witness statement and blurred photos = smoke and mirrors.

ON our side, we have 
Ms Smith
Lillian Murret
No one ever claiming Lee had a missing tooth
No missing teeth showing from either autopsy

THIS is a slam dunk!

Jim Hargrove wrote:If you were a 14-year-old boy in the 1950s who got a front tooth knocked out in a fight, do you think you would have spent the rest of your life with a toothless smile?  Of course not.  In those days before implants, you’d get a false tooth held in place by a dental bridge.  A very common procedure.

As to Lillian Murret’s recollection, why on earth would a mother (who, we’re told, was practical nurse) bring her kid to a dentist for a split lip?  She’d go to a doctor, like anyone else looking to get a lacerated lip treated.

Jim doesn't believe that implants existed in 1954-55.

From wiki

The early part of the 20th century saw a number of implants made of a variety of materials. One of the earliest successful implants was the Greenfield implant system of 1913 (also known as the Greenfield crib or basket).[51] Greenfield's implant, an iridioplatinum implant attached to a gold crown, showed evidence of osseointegration and lasted for a number of years.[51] The first use of titanium as an implantable material was by Bothe, Beaton and Davenport in 1940, who observed how close the bone grew to titanium screws, and the difficulty they had in extracting them.[52] Bothe et al. were the first researchers to describe what would later be called osseointegration (a name that would be marketed later on by Per-Ingvar Brånemark). In 1951, Gottlieb Leventhal implanted titanium rods in rabbits.[53] Leventhal's positive results led him to believe that titanium represented the ideal metal for surgery.[53]


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

Big Jim also tries to diminish Lilian as a witness by insinuating she was mistaken on the basis that no one would take a kid for a split lip. He must have gone to get a false tooth held in by a dental bridge!

My sides are literally hurting.

Of course he would not be taken to a dentist for a split lip. But then, no one suggested he was. He was most likely taken for a LOOSE tooth. 

BTW, Jim, there is no evidence that Marguerite was anything but a "Practical Nurse" in name only - i.e. it's almost certain she was operating unlicensed and untrained as an in-home carer - that is, she helped with persona hygiene etc.

sandy larsen wrote:The testimony of those witnesses most likely to know about the broken tooth corroborate each other. Voebel says he thought the tooth was knocked out, and Murrett says she paid for the dental bill. That bill could only have gone to pay for one of the following services:
[list="box-sizing: border-box; color: rgb(53, 60, 65); font-family: Roboto,"]
[*]Resetting the tooth.

[*]Inspecting the tooth and socket, and advising that the tooth could not be reset.

[*]Fitting a denture or bridge.

[/list]

Having set up the strawman, Sandy knocks it down!

sandy larsen wrote:Only #1 fits the narrative of the anti-H&L group. There are two problems with #1:  First, they would have had to get Oswald to the dentist within an hour to have a chance of the tooth resetting being successful. The testimony casts doubt on this. Testimony shows that Oswald's friends took him to the boys restroom to patch up his bloody lip. His mother than had to have been called, some time after which she would have arrived and taken him to a dentist. These sorts of things just don't happen very quickly. I doubt Oswald and his tooth would have gotten to the dentist in time.
The other problem with scenario #1 is that we have a photo of Oswald showing a missing tooth. Which of course supports my contention that Oswald didn't get his tooth reset.
The anti-H&L side would have us believe that:

• Ed Voebel was wrong about the broken tooth.
  
  
• And Aunt Murret was wrong about the dentist.
  
  
• And the photo just happens to have a defect right where the tooth should be, making it look like the tooth is missing.
  
  

Or alternatively:

• Oswald beat the odds, and was able to get a successful resetting of the tooth.
  
  
• And the photo just happens to have a defect right where the tooth should be, making it look like the tooth is missing.
  
  

Both of these scenarios are highly unlikely.
Even if against all odds one of these scenarios is true, it would have little bearing on the H&L theory. The broken-tooth incident only affects the exhumation argument.
If Oswald had a missing tooth -- as the preponderance of evidence show -- this fact in and of itself proves not only that the exhumation evidence was faked, but that there were indeed two young Oswalds.

And he still refuses to include Ms Smith and tries to steal Lillian!


Voebel: is uncertain if a tooth was knocked out, but thinks one was

Smith: is certain a tooth went through a lip - no mention of one being knocked out

Murrett: is certain a tooth went through a lip - no mention of one being knocked out

Photo -  shows LHO in class, smiling and with a dark area where a tooth should be

Autopsy - shows scar on lip and no missing teeth in front

My conclusion: tooth was loosened - and if not an artifact, this is what the photos - a tooth pushed back into darkness. The other issue about the photo is that it has not been satisfactorily shown to have been taken on the day of the fight or anytime thereabouts. If it is not showing a loose tooth, it is an artifact and the photo has no value.

As already stated, a loose tooth would require dental work to ensure no gum infection or root damage, and for the splinting of the tooth to reset it. A loose tooth for resetting does not have the same urgency as a tooth knocked out completely.

jim hargrove wrote:Clearly, Mr. Parker wants to debate about the history dental implants, rather than debate about the magical growth of a new upper tooth in "Lee Harvey Oswald's" cadaver.  Gee, I wonder why.  Oh, I know, Mr. Parker wants us to believe that LEE Oswald's front tooth was implanted!!!!
So, because "In 1951, Gottlieb Leventhal implanted titanium rods in rabbits.[53] Leventhal's positive results led him to believe that titanium represented the ideal metal for surgery," we're supposed to believe Mr. Parker's claim that "LHO" had a dental implant in the same decade.  Hah-hah-hah-hah.

You are just trying to convince me that the all-powerful Oswald Project never had access to this cutting edge technology. 

But I say if the most powerful secret group in the world can organize a mastoidectomy in a hospital not yet built, a tooth implant is a breeze. 

In fact, I have discovered the name of the dentist!

It was a Dr Puharich. He specialized in radio tooth implants. Ingenious, no?

The whole thing was staged, you clever bastard and you were trying to keep this to yourself. It was like the staged fight with Carlos in 'New Orleans almost 10 years later, but this time it was to give them a reason to get LEE to the dentist for one of these babies..




Now they could send him to Russia and eavesdrop on everyone!

They just forgot one tiny eeny-weeny detail.

It was HARVEY who needed the implant. LEE was earmarked to hang around at Ford dealerships and pick up tips on how to do donuts.

An injured tooth that is loose can heal:

http://www.aapd.org/media/Policies_Guidelines/G_Trauma.pdf

"Subluxation Definition: injury to tooth-supporting structures with abnormal loosening but without tooth displacement. 

Diagnosis: Because the periodontal ligament attempts to absorb the injury, clinical findings reveal a mobile tooth without displacement that may or may not have sulcular bleeding. Radiographic abnormalities are not expected.1,3,6,21 

Treatment objectives: to optimize healing of the periodontal ligament and neurovascular supply.1,3,6,21, 24,25,27-29,31,33,50 

 • Primary teeth: The tooth should be followed for pathology. 

 • Permanent teeth: Stabilize the tooth and relieve any occlusal interferences. 

For comfort, a flexible splint can be used. Splint for no more than 2 weeks. 

General prognosis: Prognosis is usually favorable.24,33 The primary tooth should return to normal within 2 weeks.6 Mature permanent teeth with closed apices may undergo pulpal necrosis due to associated injuries to the blood vessels at the apex and, therefore, must be followed carefully"

Tooth splinting was common practice in the 1950's, which you can glean by perusing the content in this link:

http://www.drbui.com/artsplinting.html

The apparent gap in the classroom photo is in all likelyhood a non-cosmetic tooth splint. There appears to be a linear piece within the blackened part of the so-called "gap" which could be the bracing structure going from an anchor on a healthy tooth across and bracing the splint part holding the tooth stable. 

So this is a logical and simple explanation for the injury, the photo, and the fact that LHO had all of his teeth both in life and in death. 

It's a shame the HL crowd has to dream up all of their "little green men" nonsense and confuse what are really far simpler matters, at least by comparison.

Added edit:

A tooth splint best explains Tracy's comment on EF where he said that more than one tooth is 'missing'. It's the splint covering them up.

This image is a zoom-in on the photo of the Life Magazine page. It doesn't have the aberrant fuzziness in the mouth area that the image the HL crowd seems to prefer has. In the HL crowd favorite, the fuzziness is out of context as compared to the resolution apparent in the rest of the image. This one is consistent in that respect. It is easily interpreted to show a tooth splint with bracing structure. In the HL image the bracing structure to the left of the black tooth is fuzzied out for whatever reason.



LHO's jovial demeanor makes far more sense if he is showing off a tooth splint that will save his tooth rather than showing off a lost tooth, which would be psychologically depressing, undermine his body image, and also his self esteem. He's a little too happy for losing his front tooth. That's because he didn't lose his front tooth.



In this image I have colored the bracing structure in red/pink. It appears anchored on the left side and stretches over in front of the dark colored splint that would have served to stabilize the injured tooth. This would likely have been somewhat flexible, per the prescribed treatment above. There may have been additional structure or appurtenances behind these teeth as well. The lower parts of the two front teeth (the injured tooth hidden behind the splint) may be seen below the highlighted bracing piece. It would be great if someone could provide a clear example of this type of a splint. While we know for a fact that they were used for this purpose at that time, we don't have a good example of exactly what it would have looked like back then.

Thank you, Jake. That linear bit I thought may be a result of looking at the tooth pushed back at an angle pre-dental work.

But I think you may well be right here.

Watch the subject get changed again now.

sandy larsen wrote:The preponderance of the evidence shows that Ed Voebel's friend, Lee Oswald, lost a tooth. Ed said so; Lee's Aunt Lillian she paid the dentist to treat it (if not for a lost tooth, then for what???); and the photo shows the tooth is missing.

The evidence shows that Voebel was an unreliable witness who was unsure if a tooth was knocked out or not and who falsely claimed that the attacker was an older big footballer type. It wasn't - it was a younger, smaller kid from another school named Robin Riley. 

He went to the dentist to get a loose tooth splinted - which as Jake stated here in this thread, was the most likely cause of what we see in the photo - the splint being held on by other teeth.

Here's the crapped up image the HL crowd is so fond of. Looks like he threw up in his mouth or something.


What I don't get is how anyone using this kind of crap would imagine it advances their argument concerning the content of the image when that imagery is so clearly corrupted. I mean come on guys, get a grip!

Sandy Larsen said:

" There is so much evidence for there being two Oswalds that the photo showing the tooth missing is of little significance on it's own."


The tooth is not missing and as a result the entire HL theory is annihilated. It's just that simple.

This started off as a spoof, but as I got into it, I became serious. For his front teeth to show in this picture, he'd have to have Bugs Bunny-size incisors. That's my story and I'm sticking to it, doc.

Stan, I gotta admit. You could very well be right about that.

Another instructional video from Stan, who has the ability to look at things a bit differently than the average rabbit.

Well done!