Free Book Now Available -- Hasty Judgment: Why the JFK Case Is Not Closed

[Tim Nickerson]

Waldman wasn't just saying that he assumed that the rifle was shipped to a Mr. A. Hidell, Post Office Box 2915, Dallas, Tex. He asserted positively that rifle was shipped to a Mr. A. Hidell, Post Office Box 2915, Dallas, Tex. He trusted what his own company's records were showing him.

Thanks for showing the contradiction in your own argument.

If Waldman "trusted what his own company's records were showing him" he was in fact making an assumption. He may have confidently believed that the rifle was shipped to Hidell, but unless he actually shipped it himself, all he could do was assume that the rifle was actually send to the person mentioned on the form.

Handwriting identification is consistently accepted as evidence in courts of law. The money order and CE 773 were examined by four or five experts in forensic document analysis. Maybe more.

Appeal to a majority is a logical fallacy. The fact that more than one expert examined the photocopies and compared them to other writings claimed to be by Oswald's hand, do not make the conclusion true or correct. If you let several people do the exact same flawed test over and over again, you'll still end up with the same result every time.

Of course handwriting identification is accepted as evidence in the courts. I've been involved in several cases over the past 30 years where that was the case. It's not the findings of the expert that is the problem, it's the quality of the test. In this case, the experts had to work with photocopies of only a few handwritten words. They had no certified handwritings of Oswald to compare the documents with. All they had were some documents which they were told were written by Oswald. There was no authentication in the normal prescribed manner. And there was no way to examine the documents for the pressure applied to the paper by the pen and/or the flow of the pen over the paper during the writing. In other words, the procedure followed to make a determination was seriously flawed and probably wouldn't have held up in court. I have worked with handwriting experts enough to know that any "expert" that declares to 100% certainty that a text was writen by one particular person, to the exclusion of all others, should be instantly kicked out of the profession.

But after all this having been said, the bottom line is that the only thing that connects Hidell to the purchase of a rifle from Klein's are a few handwritten words on a order form and a money order, which some handwriting experts declared was Oswald's handwriting. That's it.... That's all there is.

Your original question to me was in regards to the Waldman exhibits and Waldman's testimony and how they would establish a direct link to Hidell or Oswald. I've shown you how.  As you know, they are not the only things that connect Hidell (Oswald) to the purchase of a rifle from Klein's.

[Tim Nickerson]

There was no such thing as matched fibers. There never is and no FBI says there was a match.

There was such a thing as matched fibers. What you have in mind is that the FBI never made a conclusive match to the blanket. That's because all of the different fibers of the blanket were not found in the bag.

[John Mytton]

There was not only 1 type of fiber, Oswald's brown arrest shirt was made up of 3 different types of fibers and all 3 fibers on Oswald's rifle matched in colour and twist.



Another important consideration is coincidence. When fibers that match the clothing fibers of the suspect are found on the clothing of a victim, two conclusions may be drawn: The fibers originated from the suspect, or the fibers originated from another fabric source that not only was composed of fibers of the exact type and color, but was also in a position to contribute those fibers through primary or secondary contact. The likelihood of encountering identical fibers from the environment of a homicide victim (i.e., from his or her residence or friends) is extremely remote.
https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/about-us/lab/forensic-science-communications/fsc/july2000/deedric3.htm#Fabric%20Type

JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

Your original question to me was in regards to the Waldman exhibits and Waldman's testimony and how they would establish a direct link to Hidell or Oswald. I've shown you how.  As you know, they are not the only things that connect Hidell (Oswald) to the purchase of a rifle from Klein's.

Your original question to me was in regards to the Waldman exhibits and Waldman's testimony and how they would establish a direct link to Hidell or Oswald. I've shown you how.

Yes, you did and you were wrong, where it concerns Waldman's testimony and/or all the internal Klein's documents. Only the order form and the money order potentially provide a direct link to Hidell, through solid handwriting examination. Everything else, including Waldman's testimony" is derived from those two documents and as such have no evidentiary value to link the rifle ordered to Hidell or Oswald.

As you know, they are not the only things that connect Hidell (Oswald) to the purchase of a rifle from Klein's.

Actually no I don't know that. Care to enlighten me?

[Martin Weidmann]

There was such a thing as matched fibers. What you have in mind is that the FBI never made a conclusive match to the blanket. That's because all of the different fibers of the blanket were not found in the bag.

I think you misunderstand the legal definition of a "match".... There is only a match when two pieces connect to eachother to the exclusion of all other possibilities.

What you have in mind is that the FBI never made a conclusive match to the blanket.

When you don't have a conclusive match you do not have a match.... It's simple, really

There was not only 1 type of fiber, Oswald's brown arrest shirt was made up of 3 different types of fibers and all 3 fibers on Oswald's rifle matched in colour and twist.



Another important consideration is coincidence. When fibers that match the clothing fibers of the suspect are found on the clothing of a victim, two conclusions may be drawn: The fibers originated from the suspect, or the fibers originated from another fabric source that not only was composed of fibers of the exact type and color, but was also in a position to contribute those fibers through primary or secondary contact. The likelihood of encountering identical fibers from the environment of a homicide victim (i.e., from his or her residence or friends) is extremely remote.
https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/about-us/lab/forensic-science-communications/fsc/july2000/deedric3.htm#Fabric%20Type

JohnM

First of all, we were not talking about the fibers found on the rifle. But since you mention it, there is not a shred of evidence that shows that, on Friday morning, Oswald was wearing the shirt he was arrested in. We were actually talking about fibers of the blanket that allegedly were found in the paper bag.

Secondly, coincidence can only be considered when cross examination of the evidence has been completely ruled out and when there is certainty about what a suspect was wearing. In this case neither is the case.

[Michael T. Griffith]

"virtual sameness" wtf?

It's physically impossible to take one photo and change the perspective so that it will create the massive number of parallax changes as seen all three backyard photos. By definition every backyard photo was taken from a different position.

JohnM

LOL! This is abject quackery! Every photographic expert who has studied the backyard rifle photos has noted that the backgrounds appear to be identical, including Thompson, Pickard, Jaffe, and Womack. Brian Mee, the NSA photographic expert whom I interviewed for hours, said the backgrounds are virtually identical and could not have resulted from snapshots made by a handheld camera handed back and forth between pictures. The HSCA photographic evidence panel admitted that there are only "very small" differences in the backgrounds, so small, in fact, that they could only be identified by photogrammetric measurement.

If you understand the background of the HSCA's admission, it becomes even more telling. Several experts has already noted the virtual sameness of the backgrounds, and this problem was brought to the attention of the PEP and was mentioned in testimony during the HSCA hearings. The PEP's "solution" to this problem was to note that they had discovered "very small" differences in the backgrounds by photogrammetric measurement, saying, "so you see, the backgrounds are not identical."

But the PEP never explained how photos taken by a cheap handheld camera passed back and forth between shots could produce backgrounds that have only minute differences between them, differences so tiny that they can only be detected by photogrammetric measurement. Mee found this failure surprising and revealing. He said the PEP members had to know that if the photos had been taken in the manner alleged, the differences in the backgrounds should have been much greater.

[John Mytton]

LOL! This is abject quackery! Every photographic expert who has studied the backyard rifle photos has noted that the backgrounds appear to be identical, including Thompson, Pickard, Jaffe, and Womack. Brian Mee, the NSA photographic expert whom I interviewed for hours, said the backgrounds are virtually identical and could not have resulted from snapshots made by a handheld camera handed back and forth between pictures. The HSCA photographic evidence panel admitted that there are only "very small" differences in the backgrounds, so small, in fact, that they could only be identified by photogrammetric measurement.

If you understand the background of the HSCA's admission, it becomes even more telling. Several experts has already noted the virtual sameness of the backgrounds, and this problem was brought to the attention of the PEP and was mentioned in testimony during the HSCA hearings. The PEP's "solution" to this problem was to note that they had discovered "very small" differences in the backgrounds by photogrammetric measurement, saying, "so you see, the backgrounds are not identical."

But the PEP never explained how photos taken by a cheap handheld camera passed back and forth between shots could produce backgrounds that have only minute differences between them, differences so tiny that they can only be detected by photogrammetric measurement. Mee found this failure surprising and revealing. He said the PEP members had to know that if the photos had been taken in the manner alleged, the differences in the backgrounds should have been much greater.

Every photographic expert who has studied the backyard rifle photos has noted that the backgrounds appear to be identical

I really don't care what your Kook mates say, the backyard photos were taken from different positions but why believe me, a picture's worth a thousand words.

In the following gif I lined up 3 palings of the fence and as can be seen there is literally a bazillion parallax changes, the building, window and roof behind shifts, all the stairs and supporting post show major perspective changes as do the other posts on the right side, the windows and shutter also demonstrate this difference in the cameras location. So in conclusion, I'll state the bleeding obvious once again, there is absolutely no possible way to take 1 photo and tilt it to create all the following parallax changes because all the objects within the image are shifting relative to each other.



JohnM