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

[Jerry Freeman]

  He said his understanding was that Oswald's palmprint was to be placed on the rifle "for comparison purposes."

In 1978, the HSCA requested to see this “lift”, seeing it was part of the evidence Drain takes again on the 26th. Yet again, we have Day stating all the evidence was taken the 22nd. This palmprint cannot be found—the official reason states: It appears to have been be lost by the FBI.
Stanley...How can you be so careless?

[Martin Weidmann]

Is not.

Handwriting identification is a forensic science and it is recognized as such by courts of law.

They were hired by the HSCA as independent experts. The items that were made available for them to examine can be found in their report.

Is not.

Tim, really? ....It's either an original or it's a copy. Are you really arguing that a microfilm reproduction of a document is an original? You must be, if you disagree that a microfilm is a copy. That's just silly.

Handwriting identification is a forensic science and it is recognized as such by courts of law.

Another meaningless statement intended to give handwriting identification more scientific merit than it actually has. All handwriting experts can provide is a qualified opinion.

They were hired by the HSCA as independent experts. The items that were made available for them to examine can be found in their report.

Great, and how can we be sure that the items that were made available to them for examination were authentic? Which of those documents were used as the known standard and how were they conclusively determined to be exactly that?

Btw, you might want to have a closer look at the summary of conclusions in their report. It provides you with a perfect example of a qualified opinion.

(27) With the restrictions and reservations stated in each panel member's final report, * the members conclude, generally, that the signatures and handwriting purported to be by Oswald are consistently that of one person.

[John Iacoletti]

Notice that the amount on the deposit slip ($13,827.98) is the exact amount to the penny as that of the itemized deposit document dated March 13, 1963. How would you explain that?

You mean the itemized deposit document that just has "13,827.98" handwritten off to the side but is not reflected in the actual printout?

[John Iacoletti]

CE 773 is a photograph, not a photocopy. It was developed off of a negative from Klein's roll of microfilm. Cadigan, Cole, McNally, and Scott all had that photograph at their disposal and they all concluded that the handwriting on the envelope and the order coupon was that of Oswald's.

Charles Scott:

"The envelope addressed to Kleins (item 30) was available only in the form of a microfilm enlargement. This is even less satisfactory than a photocopy as a basis for an opinion on handwriting."

[Joffrey van de Wiel]

Gentlemen,

I have a question regarding the authenticity of the backyard photographs. Marina testified she took the photos on the instructions of, and aided by, her husband. But since she has credibility issues, many people believe she lied about this, as she did on many other occasions, because she was threatened with deportation back to the USSR. This was in 1963-1964.

Yesterday I watched an interview with Marina Oswald-Porter as she is now known - apparently she remarried. In it, she told reporter Jack Anderson that she took the backyard photos. The interview was done in 1988. In a conversation she had with Governor Jesse Ventura for his tv program Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura she reaffirmed this statement, although not directly on camera. Unfortunately I can't find the segment no more and am therefore unable to determine the year it was broadcast, but it was well after the 1988 Jack Anderson program.

So is she still lying? What possible reason could she have? She has reversed many of her past (1963-64) statements and has not been deported as far as I know.

Thanks in advance for your considered reply

[Walt Cakebread]

Gentlemen,

I have a question regarding the authenticity of the backyard photographs. Marina testified she took the photos on the instructions of, and aided by, her husband. But since she has credibility issues, many people believe she lied about this, as she did on many other occasions, because she was threatened with deportation back to the USSR. This was in 1963-1964.

Yesterday I watched an interview with Marina Oswald-Porter as she is now known - apparently she remarried. In it, she told reporter Jack Anderson that she took the backyard photos. The interview was done in 1988. In a conversation she had with Governor Jesse Ventura for his tv program Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura she reaffirmed this statement, although not directly on camera. Unfortunately I can't find the segment no more and am therefore unable to determine the year it was broadcast, but it was well after the 1988 Jack Anderson program.

So is she still lying? What possible reason could she have? She has reversed many of her past (1963-64) statements and has not been deported as far as I know.

Thanks in advance for your considered reply

[Michael T. Griffith]

For now, I am bracketing the issue of the meaning of the "12" that appears after the city and state on the postmark on the envelope to Klein's. I do not buy the theory that it is the number of the cancelling machine that processed it. That makes no sense to me at all, especially since some postmarks show a number-letter instead of just a number, and I don't think any such machines would have ID numbers of 3A, 3B, etc. For that matter, I've never heard of any kind of a machine being given a number/number-letter ID of just two characters.

I have confirmed from USPS sites that when zip codes were implemented in April 1963, they were placed after the city and state in the postmark, so it makes sense to me that postal zones would have been the logical predecessor that was placed after the city and state before then. However, I cannot account for the 2B entry on Johnson Exhibit 17. I finally found a 1963 postal zone chart for Dallas, and it shows no number-letter zones, only numbers. I can imagine a scenario where a large/busy zone was administratively divided into, say, 2A and 2B, but I can't find any evidence of this.

In any case, I think the attempts to explain away Oswald's Jaggars-Stovall timesheet are unconvincing and implausible, given the nature of Oswald's job there and given the WC testimony about Oswald's work environment. I think his timesheet proves he did not buy the money order.

I also think that the evidence that the money order was not cashed is compelling. The idea that any money order in 1963 could have gone through a major bank and the Federal Reserve System and ended up in Virginia without a single stamp/mark/notation that it was cashed is far fetched, just unbelievable.

I think David Josephs has answered all of David Von Pein's arguments regarding the money order. 

The deposit statement that Klein's submitted to the WC to try to establish that the money order had been deposited is not credible and is more evidence of fraud.

Beyond this, if you take a step back and look at this logically, the rifle-purchase evidence is far too pat and far too implausible to take seriously from the outset. Oswald was many things, but he most certainly was not stupid. Yet, we are asked to believe that Oswald was so utterly brain-dead that, instead of just buying a rifle at a local gun store in Dallas, he left a glaring paper trail straight back to himself by ordering a rifle by mail with a postal money order and using a false name, and then shot Kennedy while carrying a fake ID card in the same name he had used to order the rifle and never bothered to discard the fake ID before he was arrested. I mean, come on. . . .