Who Killed J.D. Tippit?

[John Mytton]

I guess this means “Marina Oswald” was “his alias” too.

🙄

What? Marina Oswald was his wife, and Oswald authorised his wife to receive mail.

But enough with the ridiculous diversions, the fact that you don't want to explain the reason why Oswald put A J Hidell on the post box application is duly noted.

JohnM

[John Mytton]

If you can’t figure out the difference between a story and the precise details of a story, then I can’t help you.

Ummm? ok?

JohnM

[John Mytton]

No, because there are too many leaps of faith and not enough credible evidence to support your claims.

From the Kleins ad, Oswald ordered C20-T750 and Oswald received C20-T750

First leap of faith! Show me proof that Oswald received anything. I don't believe there is, or ever was, a mail order business that ships merchandise without any confirmation of either shipping or receipt.

Secondly, details matter, even when you like to ignore them. The order was for C20-T750 from Department 358 (the February 1963 issue of the American Rifleman) which is not the same rifle they offered as C20-T750 in the April issue. To just assume that Kleins' would simply send out another rifle than was ordered is another leap of faith. The WC did not even bother to ask Waldman about the sending out of a rifle that was different from the one ordered. One can only wonder why.....

And in addition, the rifle in evidence found on the 6th floor shares the exact same serial number that Kleins sent.

Wrong. The rifle found at the TSBD has the same serial number that was hand written on Waldman 7. There is no way to verify when the document we know as Waldman 7 was actually made and by who and it most certainly isn't proof of any rifle being sent, nothwithstanding Waldman's explanation of the meaning of the also hand written letters "PP" on the same document.

So, sorry, just too many leaps of faith and not enough authenticated evidence to justify the conclusions you are jumping to. It is beyond belief that something this basic needs to be explained to you.

Btw, there is something I don't really understand. That Kleins' made copies of order coupons on microfilm I can understand. That's probably a better way to keep track of all incoming orders than saving all those coupons. However, as Waldman explained, document 7 is an internal order form which is generated for each order. Why in the world would they copy that on microfilm as well and not keep the original?

1. Waldman 7 is Kleins business record and has all the relevant details like who bought what and how the order was sent and when, just because you don't understand what is written doesn't change any of that.

2. Dept 358 is not some department within Kleins but is simply a way to track what orders came from what specific magazine, nothing more. Kleins was still advertising 36 inch Carcano's in at least 1 other magazine well into 1963, thus proving imo that they didn't really care about a small difference in length in a cheap war surplus rifle.

3. The typed Kleins document Waldman 7 was produced and then sent to the warehouse where the rifle control number, rifle serial number, date of shipping, method of shipping and the initials of who picked and who packed and sent the order were all written by hand. The revolver order also had a similar written serial number.

4. Waldman 10 shows the banking details for well over a hundred orders on 1 single day which quickly accumulates, so Kleins saved orders on microfilm. It's not exactly rock science.

You can disagree all you want but Waldman was the Vice President who knew the business whereas your lack of "faith" is meaningless.

Mr. BELIN. And in your capacity as vice president, what are your general areas of work?
Mr. WALDMAN. Supervising office, warehouse, and retail operations, participating in the merchandising and advertising.

Btw you seem to be suggesting that Waldman is lying and that the entire rifle transaction is the product of yet more fakery, is that right?

JohnM

[John Mytton]

So are the WCR conclusions, Charles. The difference is that the burden is always on the accuser.

"Traditionally, the way to reach a conclusion in a criminal case is to draw reasonable inferences from solid evidence. So the evidence is the foundation on which all inferences and conclusions are based. Conspiracy theorists, in contrast, make completely baseless assumptions and then proceed to make further assumptions based on these assumptions. As an example, they assume, without any evidence, that there was a conspiracy in the assassination and that Oswald was an unwitting participant. They then proceed to assume, again without any evidence, that Oswald became aware of this conspiracy at the time of the shooting in Dealey Plaza, and believe that he was being set up to take the fall for the assassination, and this is why he fled the Book Depository Building. But where is there any evidence to support either of these two assumptions?*       

 This is particularly startling and noteworthy when one stops to realize that those making the allegation of conspiracy necessarily have the burden of proof. I mean, it makes no sense for A to say to B, “I allege that there is a conspiracy here. Now you prove there isn’t.” The alleger always, by definition, has the burden of proof. To say that those alleging a conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination have not met their burden of proof would be the understatement of the millennium. Here, the absence of any credible evidence of a conspiracy is bad enough for the conspiracy theorists, but, as demonstrated on these pages, there is much, much evidence pointing irresistibly in the direction of no conspiracy."
Reclaiming History Vincent Bugliosi

Yes that Vincent Bugliosi who successfully prosecuted 105 out of 106 felony jury trials, which included 21 murder convictions. Btw "John", how many cases have you successfully defended?

JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

1. Waldman 7 is Kleins business record and has all the relevant details like who bought what and how the order was sent and when, just because you don't understand what is written doesn't change any of that.

I understand perfectly what is written on that document. You fail to understand that the document simply isn't authenticated. Anybody, at any time, could have written the serial number and "PP" on that document. As much as you like it to be it simply isn't proof of a rifle having been sent or having been received by Hidell or Oswald.

2. Dept 358 is not some department within Kleins but is simply a way to track what orders came from what specific magazine, nothing more. Kleins was still advertising 36 inch Carcano's in at least 1 other magazine well into 1963, thus proving imo that they didn't really care about a small difference in length in a cheap war surplus rifle.

I am also well aware that the department number relates to a particular advertisment. It seems the point I made was completely lost on you. Kleins' may well have used the same C20-T750 number, but the weapon sold under that number in the February issue is not the same as the one advertised in April. The combination of order number and department numbers identifies one particular kind of rifle. The rifle that was allegedly sent to Oswald's P.O. box does not match the rifle described in the February advertisment,

To just say that they didn't really care which rifle they would send out is not only your opinion (for which you have no evidence) but it's also laugable.

3. The typed Kleins document Waldman 7 was produced and then sent to the warehouse where the rifle control number, rifle serial number, date of shipping, method of shipping and the initials of who picked and who packed and sent the order were all written by hand. The revolver order also had a similar written serial number.

Yes, and the person who wrote the serial number on Waldman 7 could easily have identified his handwriting and in doing so authenticate the document. They never determined who that person was. They simply were not interested or perhaps could not risk it to learn something they did not want to learn. It wouldn't be the first or last that that happened in that "investigation". IMO they didn't call Paul Bentley to testify and did not show Tomlinson CE399 for identication, for exactly the same reason.

In any event, Waldman 7 isn't a proof of shipment and since you brought up the revolver, that did in fact have a shipping document. So, I'm not sure what the point is you are trying to make but it isn't going anywhere fast.

4. Waldman 10 shows the banking details for well over a hundred orders on 1 single day which quickly accumulates, so Kleins saved orders on microfilm. It's not exactly rock science.

Why are you talking about saving orders on microfilm? That's understandable and not the issue. The issue is Waldman 7. So, they first produce a hundered internal documents then put them on microfilm and that makes sense to you? Seems double work to me, just to save a copy of an original internal document they already have.

You can disagree all you want but Waldman was the Vice President who knew the business whereas your lack of "faith" is meaningless.

Mr. BELIN. And in your capacity as vice president, what are your general areas of work?
Mr. WALDMAN. Supervising office, warehouse, and retail operations, participating in the merchandising and advertising.

And there is the appeal to authority fallacy again. A guy who sits behind a desk confirmed what some markings on a form mean. Big deal....

Btw you seem to be suggesting that Waldman is lying and that the entire rifle transaction is the product of yet more fakery, is that right?

JohnM

No, I am not suggesting that Waldman is lying. I am sure he acted in good faith when he explained the purchase of rifles from Cresent and the paperwork involved in that. But, in a previous post, you responded to my question why they did not authenticate Waldman 7 by having the person who wrote the serial number on it, confirming it's authenticity, by saying;

they claim that the Kleins business document(Waldman 7) doesn't prove it was sent and demand that the despatcher should have been called to testify but what would he/she/they say? Are they supposed to remember someone named Hidell, absurd.

And this is my reply; if the person who wrote the serial number can't authenticate it - by confirming his handwriting - than surely Waldman, who as VP isn't involved in warehouse activity and probably never handles a document as Waldman 7, most certainly isn't capable of authenticating the document. Which is exactly where your flawed appeal to authority falls flat on it's face.

I don't need to suggest that Waldman 7 is the product of fakery. Proper authentication has to tell me that the document is indeed valid and original. This is where you go off the rails time after time. You don't get to assume a piece of physical evidence is authentic unless it is proven it isn't.

[Martin Weidmann]

"Traditionally, the way to reach a conclusion in a criminal case is to draw reasonable inferences from solid evidence. So the evidence is the foundation on which all inferences and conclusions are based. Conspiracy theorists, in contrast, make completely baseless assumptions and then proceed to make further assumptions based on these assumptions. As an example, they assume, without any evidence, that there was a conspiracy in the assassination and that Oswald was an unwitting participant. They then proceed to assume, again without any evidence, that Oswald became aware of this conspiracy at the time of the shooting in Dealey Plaza, and believe that he was being set up to take the fall for the assassination, and this is why he fled the Book Depository Building. But where is there any evidence to support either of these two assumptions?*       

 This is particularly startling and noteworthy when one stops to realize that those making the allegation of conspiracy necessarily have the burden of proof. I mean, it makes no sense for A to say to B, “I allege that there is a conspiracy here. Now you prove there isn’t.” The alleger always, by definition, has the burden of proof. To say that those alleging a conspiracy in the Kennedy assassination have not met their burden of proof would be the understatement of the millennium. Here, the absence of any credible evidence of a conspiracy is bad enough for the conspiracy theorists, but, as demonstrated on these pages, there is much, much evidence pointing irresistibly in the direction of no conspiracy."
Reclaiming History Vincent Bugliosi

Yes that Vincent Bugliosi who successfully prosecuted 105 out of 106 felony jury trials, which included 21 murder convictions. Btw "John", how many cases have you successfully defended?

JohnM

the way to reach a conclusion in a criminal case is to draw reasonable inferences from solid evidence.

So, the evidence needs to be solid... Did you get that part, John?

The alleger always, by definition, has the burden of proof.

In other words; if you claim a piece of evidence is authentic and can be relied upon, you have the burden of proof...... Do you understand that, John?

Yes that Vincent Bugliosi who successfully prosecuted 105 out of 106 felony jury trials, which included 21 murder convictions.

I know you adore your high priest, John, but this is still another appeal of authority fallacy. Bugliosi isn't automatically right because Bugliosi said so. John Mytton isn't automatically right because he agrees with Bugliosi.
 

[John Mytton]

I understand perfectly what is written on that document. You fail to understand that the document simply isn't authenticated. Anybody, at any time, could have written the serial number and "PP" on that document. As much as you like it to be it simply isn't proof of a rifle having been sent or having been received by Hidell or Oswald.

I am also well aware that the department number relates to a particular advertisment. It seems the point I made was completely lost on you. Kleins' may well have used the same C20-T750 number, but the weapon sold under that number in the February issue is not the same as the one advertised in April. The combination of order number and department numbers identifies one particular kind of rifle. The rifle that was allegedly sent to Oswald's P.O. box does not match the rifle described in the February advertisment,

To just say that they didn't really care which rifle they would send out is not only your opinion (for which you have no evidence) but it's also laugable.

Yes, and the person who wrote the serial number on Waldman 7 could easily have identified his handwriting and in doing so authenticate the document. They never determined who that person was. They simply were not interested or perhaps could not risk it to learn something they did not want to learn. It wouldn't be the first or last that that happened in that "investigation". IMO they didn't call Paul Bentley to testify and did not show Tomlinson CE399 for identication, for exactly the same reason.

In any event, Waldman 7 isn't a proof of shipment and since you brought up the revolver, that did in fact have a shipping document. So, I'm not sure what the point is you are trying to make but it isn't going anywhere fast.

Why are you talking about saving orders on microfilm? That's understandable and not the issue. The issue is Waldman 7. So, they first produce a hundered internal documents then put them on microfilm and that makes sense to you? Seems double work to me, just to save a copy of an original internal document they already have.

And there is the appeal to authority fallacy again. A guy who sits behind a desk confirmed what some markings on a form mean. Big deal....

No, I am not suggesting that Waldman is lying. I am sure he acted in good faith when he explained the purchase of rifles from Cresent and the paperwork involved in that. But, in a previous post, you responded to my question why they did not authenticate Waldman 7 by having the person who wrote the serial number on it, confirming it's authenticity, by saying;

And this is my reply; if the person who wrote the serial number can't authenticate it - by confirming his handwriting - than surely Waldman, who as VP isn't involved in warehouse activity and probably never handles a document as Waldman 7, most certainly isn't capable of authenticating the document. Which is exactly where your flawed appeal to authority falls flat on it's face.

I don't need to suggest that Waldman 7 is the product of fakery. Proper authentication has to tell me that the document is indeed valid and original. This is where you go off the rails time after time. You don't get to assume a piece of physical evidence is authentic unless it is proven it isn't.

Proper authentication has to tell me that the document is indeed valid and original.

It doesn't matter how much evidence is presented, you will continue your game of asking for evidence which you know doesn't exist and then claim some sort of hollow victory, for instance your reason this time is that the writing on the order wasn't authenticated, give me a break.

At the end of the day Waldman was called into work and discovered Waldman 7 and CE773 in their eight month old microfilm business records and at his testimony he printed out Waldman 7 and CE773 directly from Kleins business records.

I'm not going to waste any more time with your little games. Let's agree to disagree and move on. Life is too short for this stupidity.

JohnM