Handwriting authentication

[Jerry Freeman]

I believe the Hunt letter is a fake just like the AEC visitor sheet is---

Remember that?

 
Just like I believe the 'Oswald' 1963 passport application was faked and also the passport...'his' Mexico visa application was and the firearms orders were.

[Tim Nickerson]

You win the cigar. However it was typical Oswald spelling.
Any links on the HSCA analysis of the note?
The HSCA was just a Warren Report rubber stamp anyway.
Just one example of that---- 
https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/report/html/HSCA_Report_0045a.htm
The Warren Commission concluded this....the Commission found that....and so on

Item 47.

Findings and conclusions of Joseph McNally:
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=961#relPageId=239

VIII. The signature, "Lee Harvey Oswald," on the Hunt note (item 47) does not correspond to the Oswald signatures described under section I. To begin with, the bulk of the documents which are signed with the full name, "Lee Harvey Oswald," are more formal in tone. For example, the full name appears on all but one of the Marine Corps documents. The full name appears infrequently elsewhere-usually only the first name, middle initial, and last name are used. Further, in the Hunt note, the middle name "Harvey" is misspelled-the "e" appears to be missing; the "H" of "Harvey" differs from that found in the section I signatures; the "ar" of "Harvey" is ellided to a point that does not occur in any section I signatures; the "0" of "Oswald" is retraced part of the way along the left side, not true of the section I Oswald signatures; and the ending "d" of Oswald is smaller than the preceding "l", whereas most of the ending "d"s of the section I signatures are taller than the "l" (only in signatures that appear to be "squeezed-in" is the end "d" shorter than the preceding "1").

While the script writing on the Hunt note is similar in pictorial quality to the writings under section II, the format of the note differs from that of the notes and letters of section II. The writing line is so exact as almost to give the impression it has been made on a ruled line. Usually Oswald writes in an arhythmic manner--for example, with an irregular and crooked writing line. This writing creates the jumbled effect apparent in the section II documents.

From the examinations of item 47, it was determined that the signature does not correspond with any of the Oswald signatures of section I. Similarly, the writing does not correspond to that in the section II Oswald documents.

Findings and conclusions of David Purtell:
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=961#relPageId=243

Item 47 was a photograph of an out-of-focus facsimile copy. Instead of having clear discernible lines, the copy has indistinct and blurred outlines. Such a muddy and unclear copy gives the appearance that it might have been so made for a purpose.

It should be noted that pictorial similarities can still be noticed between the handwriting appearing on items 18, 29, 39, 40, and 41 listed above, and the documents that have been identified as being written by one person (see A, B, and C). While the handwriting appearing in item 47 contains some of the pictorial similarities, the quality of the writing appears different, and the signature has a strange and distorted appearance

Findings and conclusions of Charles Scott:
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=961#relPageId=250

It is impossible to determine positively whether the letter to Hunt (item 47) is or is not in the handwriting of the same person as the other writings purporting to be Oswald's.

[Martin Weidmann]

I don't accept the word of an unnamed source.

Handwriting identifications made using non-original documents are admissible in courts of law. The FBI handwriting identification expert that examined the Klein's documents was asked about using non-originals during his WC testimony:

Mr. EISENBERG. Are you able to identify the handwriting of an individual on the basis of a photograph of that handwriting?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. Would you make an identification, such an identification, if your only questioned document was a photograph if the photograph was sufficiently clear?
Mr. CADIGAN. If the photograph is sufficiently clear, it is adequate for the handwriting comparison.
Mr. EISENBERG. Similarly with standards, if your only standard was a photograph or your only standards were photographs?
Mr. CADIGAN. If your standards were also photographs, it is possible to make the comparison and arrive at a definite opinion.
Mr. EISENBERG. And were the photographs in this case, both the standard and the questioned documents, clear enough to form the 'basis of an opinion?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes. I might point out that some of the known standards are original documents and not photographs.
Mr. EISENBERG. Yes; I am aware of that, but I wanted to set out on the record whether the standards which are photographs are adequate----
Mr. CADIGAN. They are adequate.

Alwyn Cole, questioned documents expert with the the U.S. Treasury Department, was also asked about it during his WC testimony:

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cole, I now show you a photograph of an envelope and a purchase order. The envelope is addressed to Klein's, in Chicago, from one"A. Hidell," and the purchase order, which is included in the photograph, is order also addressed to Klein's from "A. Hidell," and I ask you whether you have examined this photograph.
Mr. COLE. I have.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, may I have this admitted into evidence as Commission Exhibit 773?
The CHAIRMAN. It may be admitted.
(Commission Exhibit No. 773 was marked and received in evidence.)
Mr. EISENBERG. For the record, this photograph was produced from a roll of microfilm in the possession of Klein's, a Chicago firm which sells weapons of various types, and which sold the assassination weapon. Now, Mr. Cole, I am going to hand you a group of documents which I will identify for the record. The first is an application form to Cosmos Shipping Co., Inc., signed Lee H. Oswald, and containing handprinting and cursive writing. Have you examined that document, Mr. Cole?
Mr. COLE. Yes, sir.
.........
Mr. EISENBERG. Does a photograph in your opinion provide a sufficient standard on which to base a conclusion as to a questioned document?
Mr. COLE. Well, I believe these particular photographs are satisfactory for that purpose.
Mr. EISENBERG. Would you draw a conclusion as to the origin of a questioned document if your only standard was a photograph?
Mr. COLE. If the photographs were comparable to the photographs we have in this case; yes.

Handwriting identifications made using non-original documents are admissible in courts of law.

In which court were the opinions of those FBI experts admitted?

I don't care much for the selfserving opinions of Cadigan and Cole. Of course they are going to say what they said. If they didn't their own testimony would have been rendered worthless.

Better educate yourself before you write another post, Tim. Contact some real life independent handwriting examiners and ask them. They will tell you that their conclusions are never absolute. They work with levels of probability.

This is the give away that Cadigan is full of it;

Mr. EISENBERG. How would you evaluate the possibility of another person having simulated the handwriting of Lee Harvey Oswald in these questioned documents?
Mr. CADIGAN. I don't think there is any possibility.
Mr. EISENBERG. On what do you base that?
Mr. CADIGAN. I base that on 23 years experience and judgment and the examination of the documents and the various writings involved in this instance.

Even the biggest fool understands that when you have a photocopy, there is always a possibility of manipulation. For him to claim there is no such possibility only discredits everything else he said.

[Tim Nickerson]

In which court were the opinions of those FBI experts admitted?

That's a disingenuous question from you. You know full well that point I was making.

I don't care much for the selfserving opinions of Cadigan and Cole. Of course they are going to say what they said. If they didn't their own testimony would have been rendered worthless.

Better educate yourself before you write another post, Tim. Contact some real life independent handwriting examiners and ask them. They will tell you that their conclusions are never absolute. They work with levels of probability.

This is the give away that Cadigan is full of it;

Mr. EISENBERG. How would you evaluate the possibility of another person having simulated the handwriting of Lee Harvey Oswald in these questioned documents?
Mr. CADIGAN. I don't think there is any possibility.
Mr. EISENBERG. On what do you base that?
Mr. CADIGAN. I base that on 23 years experience and judgment and the examination of the documents and the various writings involved in this instance.

Even the biggest fool understands that when you have a photocopy, there is always a possibility of manipulation. For him to claim there is no such possibility only discredits everything else he said.

Ok, you don't like Cadigan or Cole. I'll try to remember that. I'm not surprised though. McNally, Purtell, and Scott were all independent handwriting examiners. They all had private practices.

[Martin Weidmann]

That's a disingenuous question from you. You know full well that point I was making.

Ok, you don't like Cadigan or Cole. I'll try to remember that. I'm not surprised though. McNally, Purtell, and Scott were all independent handwriting examiners. They all had private practices.

That's a disingenuous question from you. You know full well that point I was making.

Yes indeed. It was a moot point.


McNally, Purtell, and Scott were all independent handwriting examiners. They all had private practices.

Yes indeed. And they do not support your "a copy is good enough" position, as they compared the handwriting on the back of the original the DeMohrenschildt BY photo with a signature on an original passport application dated June 24, 1963 and an original signature on a fingerprint card, which were both assumed to having been written by Oswald and they concluded that all were written by the same individual.

Ms. BRADY. Mr. McNally, did the handwriting panel compare the writing on the rear of the photograph with the signature on the passport application?
Mr. McNALLY. Yes; we did.
Ms. BRADY. What conclusion was reached by the panel about those two documents?
Mr. McNALLY. We concluded that the writing--particularly the signature of Lee Harvey Oswald on the lower lefthand corner on the back of the photograph and the signature Lee H. Oswald on the passport application--all of these signatures were written by one, the same individual.

Wow!

They had no way of knowing with any certainty that the handwriting on the passport application and/or the fingerprint card were authentic and had indeed been written by Oswald, or by anybody else, and they had no way to authenticate either document, which makes their conclusion, although perhaps true, irrelevant as evidence derived from unauthenticated other evidence can itself not be deemed to be authentic or conclusive.

I may have missed it in McNally's HSCA testimony, but I couldn't find where he actually said that the person who wrote those three documents was indeed Lee Harvey Oswald. Perhaps you can help me out here, Tim?

And btw; did you notice how the findings and conclusions of Charles Scott:

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=961#relPageId=250

It is impossible to determine positively whether the letter to Hunt (item 47) is or is not in the handwriting of the same person as the other writings purporting to be Oswald's.

are along the same lines as what the article said about the position taken by the FBI;

The FBI said without the original letter it would be "almost impossible to certify whether it is genuine or not," the Justice Department source said.

"And they' (FBI) said "that Oswald has a childlike handwriting and it's easily forged,” the source said, "so they
just can't tell.”

[Walt Cakebread]

I believe the Hunt letter is a fake just like the AEC visitor sheet is---

Remember that?

 
Just like I believe the 'Oswald' 1963 passport application was faked and also the passport...'his' Mexico visa application was and the firearms orders were.

I'm disappointed that you believe the "Dear Mr Hunt" note is a fake.     I believe that it is authentic and the "Mr Hunt " is HL Hunt....   
John Currington knew this and wanted us to know that HL Hunt had been in contact with Lee Oswald before the assassination.

Currington didn't want to take his secret to the grave .....   He had information that he felt the people should know.

If Currington had thought the note was a fake, I seriously doubt that he would have included it his book.

[Jerry Freeman]

I'm disappointed that you believe the "Dear Mr Hunt" note is a fake.     I believe that it is authentic and the "Mr Hunt " is HL Hunt....   
John Currington knew this and wanted us to know that HL Hunt had been in contact with Lee Oswald before the assassination.

Why? Why would LHO write this note to HLH [and make sure it was dated]?
The note does tend to incriminate Oswald for a planned crime that he was never aware of.
If JC "wanted us to know that Hunt was in contact with Oswald" then why wait for years to present it?
Withholding evidence is a crime.
Where is that original note? How would Hunt and Oswald ever have met?
Why would Oswald use his real name instead of signing the note with the alleged alias...A J Hidell?
According to the timeline...

November 8, 1963: Frazier drops LHO off at the Paine's home, as usual.

https://www.jfk-assassination.net/parnell/chrono.htm
Perhaps Tommy Graves was right...[A Soviet KGB hoax] Or was it some kind of deep state hoax to jerk us all around?