Johnson Exhibit A

Firstly, let's dispose of the question mark at the ed forum about whether they had a ledger (questioned because I indicated they did). I use "ledger" and "register" interchangeably. Was that really so confusing for anyone?

Here is what Gladys said:

Mrs. JOHNSON. You know, I'm sorry I didn't bring my register. I couldn't tell you exactly; I imagine I had about 10 or 12.

So no matter the terminology, they kept records in a book or pad of some type. 

According to Pat Hall in some of her many interviews during the 50th, her grandmother destroyed this registry due to all the hassle caused by Oswald having stayed there. If so, she still seems to have had it at the time of her testimony and she should have been asked to provide it at a later date.

The cops also confirmed looking through this register when they attended, but again, failed to take it as evidence.

In lieu of the registry, Gladys brought in the original of this - now known a Johnson Exhibit A.



Karl Hilliard made some very good observations about it and the claim that cops found the address of the boarding house in Oswald's pocket.

Karl Hilliard wrote:1) Why would Oswald walk around with his address in his pocket? So he wouldn't forget where he lived?
2) The [secretive] Dallas cops would have never told anyone what they have and what they don't. That is a fact.

1. He wouldn't be carrying it around - not unless he did not live there, but had the address as somewhere to move to soon. 

And that was not the case.

Karl Hilliard wrote:One more thing can be said about this Exhibit A....It appears to me that in addition to being a copy of the original...it seems to me that there was some alteration. It looks like there was a [something] OUT [something] and possibly writing underneath that also received a block-out. And again..Why was it ever filed as Top Secret? What national security could have been conceived?

 Again, absolutely correct. I think I have made this point before, but can't find it.

What I believe it originally said was "Moved out" and the date that was erased was the date that happened.

Moreover, it was not in regard to Oswald but to H. Lee.

The "O" was added - as was the date the next payment was due so as to give the impression of still living there as at Nov 22. 

There was NO OH Lee.  It was a misreading of the registry which most likely showed something like 

Room 0  H Lee.

You can see clearly on this exhibit that the room in question was designated as "Room 0". 

All of the lying about how the cops found the place can be put down to covering up that it came from Fay Puckett to Dallas police via a reserve officer friend of the family - and that she had mistaken Oswald for "H Lee" - aka Herbert Leon Lee.

The case was a whole series of clusterfucks that they managed to massage to their advantage.

One last (and probably minor point). It seems likely that the room was given that number because it was a converted library. By the time it became a bedroom, all the other rooms had long been numbered starting at 1 - the bedroom nearest the old library. It was simply easier and cheaper to call the "new" room 0, then have to renumber all of the rooms.

I think what we can deduce from Johnson Exhibit A is how their system worked.

Roberts would note the payment of the rent on those scraps of paper, then periodically pass them on to the Johnsons who would then record the information in their registry/ledger. That is why it had the notation about Mr. Lee moving out on a particular date. It was simply Roberts passing that information on to the Johnsons for recording in their permanent records and balancing the books.