New: "Faulty Evidence: Problems with the Case Against Lee Harvey Oswald"

[John Mytton]

Oh! Okay! Ah-ha! So in a tightly controlled work environment where everyone in the main work area in each section worked in view of others, no one noticed that Oswald skipped out for least 25-minutes, even though Oswald was a trainee, huh?

The post office where the money order was bought was 11 blocks from Jaggers-Chiles-Stovall. Assuming that Oswald speed-walked to the post office, that he didn't have to wait in line, and that it took him no more than 2-3 minutes to fill out the money order and have it processed and given to him -- assuming all these things, he would have been gone from his work table at least 25 minutes.

 

2 to 3 minutes at Dallas Post Office, conservatively.
7.5 to 8.5 minutes to briskly walk half a mile.

So yeah, 10 to 12 minutes late. BFD!





JohnM

[John Corbett]

2 to 3 minutes at Dallas Post Office, conservatively.
7.5 to 8.5 minutes to briskly walk half a mile.

So yeah, 10 to 12 minutes late. BFD!





JohnM

Every job I ever worked at, blue collar and white collar, employees were given a 15 minute break in the morning and another in the afternoon. Oswald could have told his boss he had to go the Post Office and he might be a little late getting back and his boss could have said no problem. Or he might have just stretched his break and been a little late getting back. I did that on more than one time during my working life. Only one time did I ever get chewed out for it. Sometimes it's better to ask for forgiveness rather than permission.

Getting back to no postal employee remembering giving Oswald a package 8 months later, my first job was at McDonald's where I worked for 8 months my senior year in high school. We had some regular customers who I would recognize when I saw them and I once served one of the local TV anchors. There was one guy we got to know who always ordered "two filet (fish sandwich)". It got so when we saw him coming, we would bag his order and ring it up before he walked in the door. When he did enter, we would say "60 cents". Other than that one guy, i wouldn't remember if asked if I had sold a particular individual a Big Mac if asked 8 months later. Aside from the regulars, the rest of our customers were faceless people who we were trying to fill their orders ASAP.

[Michael T. Griffith]

We've always known that Griffith isn't the sharpest tool in the shed but now his deductive reasoning skills have reached a new low! As shown in your video, it's a simple fact that every day, Post Offices handle a huge amount of mail/packages, heck, every time I visit my local suburban Post Office there's always a queue almost out the door.

And you claim to have reasoning skills and question mine?! If the main post office in downtown Dallas, where the money order was bought, was so busy that there was a queue (line) almost out the door, then it would have taken Oswald even longer to get the money order.

I notice you declined to explain why Oswald would not have simply waited until his half-hour lunch break to go get the money order. 

And expecting a random postal worker to specifically remember one transaction from eight months previous, and considering that the postal worker has potentially had thousands of interactions in the interim is total insanity. And then thinking that this lack of memory of some unimportant obscure event from hundreds of days ago somehow advances your paranoid delusions of a conspiracy is, well, beyond desperate.

Again, you claim to have reasoning skills? First off, none of the postal workers who worked the front counters would have had "thousands" of interactions in eight months, especially interactions that involved customers with post office boxes who were picking up a package that was at least 34 inches  long and weighed at least 8 pounds (including the packaging).

Let's be generous and assume that the average post office worker who manned a front counter dealt with three customers per week who picked up packages addressed to their post office boxes because the packages were too large to fit in the box. Three such interactions per week x the 34 weeks from the day Oswald allegedly picked up the rifle to the day of the shooting equals 102 interactions. Now, how many of those interactions would you reasonably, honestly, credibly guess involved packages that were as large as the one that Oswald allegedly picked up, i.e., packages that were about 34 inches long or longer and that weighed over 8 pounds, huh? Seriously. Maybe, what, 10?

BTW, why was there no signed receipt or delivery log showing Oswald's signature to document that the package was picked up? For that matter, how would the package have even been delivered to Oswald's post office box in the first place since no "A Hidell" was listed as an authorized recipient for the box, and since, therefore, per postal regulations, any package addressed to an “A Hidell” should have been stamped “addressee unknown” and returned to Klein’s?

And I notice you declined to explain why in the world anyone would have bothered to use an alias to order a rifle but then given their own post office box number as the address. The whole idea behind using an alias is to conceal your identity, right? So if you order a rifle using an alias, you're doing so because you don't want the rifle traced back to you, right? So the last thing you're going to do is have the rifle sent to your own post office box, right? Hello?

Like so many other items of supposed "evidence" against Oswald, this is yet another item that falls apart when you look at it with any degree of scrutiny and logic.   

Oswald ordered, purchased, was sent and possessed C2766!

Repeating that talking point won't erase the many holes in it.

I would refer interested readers to the following articles for more info about the problems with the mail-order-rifle evidence:

"'Oswald's' Rifle"
https://gil-jesus.com/the-rifle/

"A Presumption of Innocence"
https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/a-presumption-of-innocence-lee-harvey-oswald-part-1

"The Klein's Rifle"
https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-klein-s-rifle

And get this, Griffith completely misrepresents the HSCA's photographic findings by insisting that microscopic differences in tiny backyard photos somehow correlates to microscopic movements of Oswald's camera!? What a Goofball.

You know this is nonsense. Did you forget about the numerous exchanges you and I had on this very issue in the thread "A WC's Stunning Blunder on the Backyard Rifle Photos and the HSCA PEP"? Let me repeat some of the facts I documented for you therein, which facts you have once again ignored:

-- The HSCA photographic experts said the parallax measurements proved the differences between objects in the backgrounds were "very small." But you say they're "massive."

-- The HSCA photographic experts also admitted that the "very small" differences proved that the camera's vertical movement was "very small," that the camera moved only "slightly downward," and that the camera moved only "slightly" to the left between exposures, a practical impossibility given the way these photos were allegedly taken (cheap camera with a top-view view finder and a side lever for a button handed back and forth so Oswald could forward the film).

-- No, the photos are not "tiny." 133-A DeM is large, high-quality photo and was clearly made from a different negative than 133-A. Some of the other prints made were 5 x 9. 133-B is 2.5 x 2.5 inches. So we're not talking about "tiny photographs." Small 1 x 1-inch mini-prints can be considered "tiny," but the backyard photos most certainly are not tiny.

Finally, I note you said nothing about the problems I pointed out with the claim that Lt. Day found Oswald's palm print on the rifle's barrel and that Oswald was carrying a Hidell ID card on him when he was arrested.

[John Corbett]

And you claim to have reasoning skills and question mine?! If the main post office in downtown Dallas, where the money order was bought, was so busy that there was a queue (line) almost out the door, then it would have taken Oswald even longer to get the money order.

I notice you declined to explain why Oswald would not have simply waited until his half-hour lunch break to go get the money order. 

I guess you never considered Oswald could have requested to take his lunch break a little early so as to avoid the long line during lunch hour at the Post Office. That was not an uncommon practice in the places i worked.

Do you ever think anything through? That's a rhetorical question that pretty much answers itself

Again, you claim to have reasoning skills? First off, none of the postal workers who worked the front counters would have had "thousands" of interactions in eight months, especially interactions that involved customers with post office boxes who were picking up a package that was at least 34 inches  long and weighed at least 8 pounds (including the packaging).

You still fail to explain why a postal employee would remember giving a particular package to a particular customer more than 8 months after the fact. Do you think that was the only long, heavy package that was handled during that time period. What reason would any employee have for making note of such a package?

Let's be generous and assume that the average post office worker who manned a front counter dealt with three customers per week who picked up packages addressed to their post office boxes because the packages were too large to fit in the box. Three such interactions per week x the 34 weeks from the day Oswald allegedly picked up the rifle to the day of the shooting equals 102 interactions. Now, how many of those interactions would you reasonably, honestly, credibly guess involved packages that were as large as the one that Oswald allegedly picked up, i.e., packages that were about 34 inches long or longer and that weighed over 8 pounds, huh? Seriously. Maybe, what, 10?

Still no reason to believe any employee would have remembered the package or the face of the person who picked it up. Even if it was longer and heavier than most packages, what reason would anyone have to remember it. We don't even know if that employee was still working at that branch. He/she might have transferred to another branch or taken a job elsewhere. Federal employees do tend to hang onto their jobs longer than those in private industry, but that doesn't mean the turnover is zero.

BTW, why was there no signed receipt or delivery log showing Oswald's signature to document that the package was picked up? For that matter, how would the package have even been delivered to Oswald's post office box in the first place since no "A Hidell" was listed as an authorized recipient for the box, and since, therefore, per postal regulations, any package addressed to an “A Hidell” should have been stamped “addressee unknown” and returned to Klein’s?

Your argument assumes postal employees follow every rule to the letter. Having spent half my working life in a government job, I know for fact that isn't true. I myself often bent the rules because I hated doing the paperwork.

And I notice you declined to explain why in the world anyone would have bothered to use an alias to order a rifle but then given their own post office box number as the address. The whole idea behind using an alias is to conceal your identity, right? So if you order a rifle using an alias, you're doing so because you don't want the rifle traced back to you, right? So the last thing you're going to do is have the rifle sent to your own post office box, right? Hello?

Why does that need explaining?

Like so many other items of supposed "evidence" against Oswald, this is yet another item that falls apart when you look at it with any degree of scrutiny and logic.

The evidence doesn't fall apart. Your arguments do.

Repeating that talking point won't erase the many holes in it.

The holes are in your head.

I would refer interested readers to the following articles for more info about the problems with the mail-order-rifle evidence:

"'Oswald's' Rifle"
https://gil-jesus.com/the-rifle/

"A Presumption of Innocence"
https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/a-presumption-of-innocence-lee-harvey-oswald-part-1

"The Klein's Rifle"
https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-klein-s-rifle

You know this is nonsense. Did you forget about the numerous exchanges you and I had on this very issue in the thread "A WC's Stunning Blunder on the Backyard Rifle Photos and the HSCA PEP"? Let me repeat some of the facts I documented for you therein, which facts you have once again ignored:

-- The HSCA photographic experts said the parallax measurements proved the differences between objects in the backgrounds were "very small." But you say they're "massive."

-- The HSCA photographic experts also admitted that the "very small" differences proved that the camera's vertical movement was "very small," that the camera moved only "slightly downward," and that the camera moved only "slightly" to the left between exposures, a practical impossibility given the way these photos were allegedly taken (cheap camera with a top-view view finder and a side lever for a button handed back and forth so Oswald could forward the film).

-- No, the photos are not "tiny." 133-A DeM is large, high-quality photo and was clearly made from a different negative than 133-A. Some of the other prints made were 5 x 9. 133-B is 2.5 x 2.5 inches. So we're not talking about "tiny photographs." Small 1 x 1-inch mini-prints can be considered "tiny," but the backyard photos most certainly are not tiny.

Finally, I note you said nothing about the problems I pointed out with the claim that Lt. Day found Oswald's palm print on the rifle's barrel and that Oswald was carrying a Hidell ID card on him when he was arrested.

Yes, readers can throw away an hour two of their lives that they will never get back.

Here's what we know. The rifle was ordered by an alias Oswald was known to have used. All handwriting for the transaction was identified as belonging to Oswald. The rifle was delivered to Oswald's PO Box. Oswald was photographed with the rifle. Oswald's palm print was on the rifle. Fibers found on the butt plate of the rifle matched the shirt he was wearing when arrested. Yet you would have us disregard all that and conclude it was not Oswald's rifle found in the TSBD because somebody either didn't fill out the required paperwork or misplaced it.

The above is a perfect example of how really, really bad you are at weighing evidence. Don't feel bad. Most CTs are really, really bad at it as well. 

[John Corbett]

The key questions for any reporter to answer for his/her readers/viewers are Who, What, Where, When, How, and Why. The What, Where, and When are givens. The Why is unknowable. The key questions the WC has answered that the CT community as a whole can't answer is Who and How. The WC answered these questions with total clarity and with a wealth of evidence to support those answers. Name one CT who has ever been able to do that. Most CTs, you included, never even attempt to do so. You only tell us why you dismiss the WCR conclusions. You only tell us what didn't happen. The few attempts you make to tell us what did happen are deliberately vague and unsupported by credible evidence. None of you will put your cards on the table. None of you will tell us who you think did it and how it went down. If you can't do that, what is the point of your decades long efforts? If you can't explain what happened with the evidence that is available now, what is the purpose for your continued pontifications on this subject? Do you think anybody is going to care what you have to say if you can't answer the fundamental questions based on what is known now? Do you think some game changing evidence is suddenly going to appear out of nowhere? Just what purpose do you think you are serving?

I posted this two days ago and MTG still hasn't provided an alternative scenario to the WCR that tells us Who killed JFK and How. The WCR answered these questions. MTG never will. Neither will any other CT even though they've had almost 63 years to come up with an alternative explanation to the WCR.

[Jack Nessan]

MG: Another problem with the connection between Oswald and the Carcano is that nobody at Oswald's post office reported giving him a hefty package such as the kind in which a rifle would be shipped (Summers, p. 59; Meagher, p. 50). In fact, none of those postal workers reported ever giving Oswald any kind of a package.

I think this revealing statement is worth some additional comments. It is part of Exhibit A of your discrediting extreme bias and lack of critical thinking. You didn't even bother to see if I provided any evidence to support my statement.

When I read a lone-gunman article or book, I don't stop as soon as I encounter a claim that I consider to be invalid, even absurdly invalid. I keep reading so as to ensure I understand why the author believes the claim.

Now, would it not have been a basic, crucial investigative procedure to at least attempt to see if anyone at the post office recalled giving a large package to Oswald, or even if any postal worker merely recalled receiving a package from Klein's? Right? Isn't this a no-brainer? I mean, Crime Investigation 101 would include at least trying to establish these things, wouldn't you think? Of course it would, but it was never done.

On a side note, I see you are still peddling your utterly ludicrous, crazy claim that the 6.5 mm object and the 7 x 2 mm fragment on the AP x-ray are the same object. This is literally the nuttiest claim I have ever seen in a JFK discussion.

And every time he does respond, he proves he has no business posting in this forum. He knows far less than you do, and that's saying something.

Wow, really? You realize Manning's statement wasn't typed until 11/23/63, right? You know that not one of the officers who rode in the police car with Oswald from the theater to the police station said anything about finding a Hidell ID card in Oswald's wallet, right? You realize that the transcript of the transmissions from those officer en route to the police station say nothing about the finding of a Hidell ID card, right? 

You know that one of those officers, Sergeant Gerald Hill, gave an extensive interview on NBC TV only a few hours after Oswald's arrest and that when asked how he and the other officers identified Oswald while in the police car, (1) he said they got his name "Lee H. Oswald" from his wallet, and (2) he said nothing about finding any other ID or having any doubt about Oswald's name after checking his wallet, right?

You know that Officer Bentley, the guy who supposedly took Oswald's wallet from his pocket and found his identification therein, said nothing about finding a Hidell ID card in his 12/3/63 report to Chief Curry, right? In fact, let's read what Bentley wrote:

On the way to the city hall I removed the suspect's wallet and obtained his name. He made several remarks en route to the city hall about police brutality and denied shooting anybody. . . . I turned his identification over to Lieutenant Baker. I then went to Captain Westbrook's office to make a report of this arrest. (CE 2003, p. 78)

Humm, did it just "slip his mind" that he had found an ID card in Oswald's wallet that bore the name Hidell, the same name under which the whole world by then knew the alleged murder weapon had been ordered?

You clearly have read nothing but pro-WC sources on this issue.

I address this argument in my article.

Oh! Okay! Ah-ha! So in a tightly controlled work environment where everyone in the main work area in each section worked in view of others, no one noticed that Oswald skipped out for least 25-minutes, even though Oswald was a trainee, huh?

The post office where the money order was bought was 11 blocks from Jaggers-Chiles-Stovall. Assuming that Oswald speed-walked to the post office, that he didn't have to wait in line, and that it took him no more than 2-3 minutes to fill out the money order and have it processed and given to him -- assuming all these things, he would have been gone from his work table at least 25 minutes.

Oswald was a photoprint trainee and was assigned a trainer and worked under his supervision. But according to you, rather than just wait until his 30-minute lunch break to buy the money order, Oswald risked getting fired by skipping out for 25 minutes to go to the post office, and nobody noticed it or said a word about it, even though Oswald was unpopular with his fellow employees.

For now, let's leave aside the numerous problems with the rifle order, the rifle that was shipped, and the alleged murder weapon. Let's look at Oswald's alleged use of the Hidell alias to order the rifle. Just for a moment pretend this is any other case and apply a modicum of common sense and critical thinking:

Why, why, why would anyone have bothered to use an alias to order a rifle, presumably for the purpose of hiding his identity as the buyer, but give his own actual post-office box number so the rifle would be sent to his own post office box?! Huh? Hello? 

You guys are unbelievably gullible when it comes to the obviously far-too-pat, far-too-convenient "evidence" against Oswald. Oswald could have easily just gone to any number of gun stores in the Dallas area and bought a rifle with no questions asked, without leaving a paper trail for the rifle that would lead authorities straight to his post office box.

But according to you folks, Oswald not only chose to risk buying the rifle with the Hidell alias while inexplicably using his actual post office box, thus leaving a damning paper trail, but he was nice enough to carry a fake Hidell ID card on him when he was arrested!

Sheesh, really? Just really?

Sigh. . . . Seriously? Just like that, huh? I address this claim at length in my article, but, a few questions:

Why hasn't anyone been able to duplicate the impossible variant shadows seen in the backyard rifle photos? Why did even the HSCA PEP experts acknowledge that the differences in the distances between background objects in 133-A and 133-B were so miniscule that they could only be identified and measured with the aid of computer software and high magnification? Why did the PEP omit the crucial Penrose measurements for the backyard figure's highly suspect chin?

Sigh. . . .  Seriously? I address this tale in my article as well. It's seriously like you guys are stuck in a time warp and that you are oblivious to research that has been done since the 1960s.

Isn't it incredibly suspicious and unbelievable that Lt. Day failed to take a single, solitary photo of the most important print he would ever process? He took photos of the worthless trigger-guard prints, but not a single photo of the palm print. Why did the FBI fingerprint expert Sebastian Latona say that when he examined the rifle less than 24 hours after Day claimed he found and lifted the print, the barrel contained no prints and did not even look like it had been processed for prints. Yet, Day claimed the print was still visible on the barrel after he allegedly lifted it.

The WC was so suspicious of the palm print's origin that they asked Lt. Day to sign a sworn statement affirming how he obtained it, but Day refused to do so. Humm, why was what?

Humm, are you sure about that? Are you sure? Have you read any of the critical research on this issue? Any of it? You might want to start with Gil Jesus's article "Ten Reasons Why I Believe the 'Oswald Rifle' Isn’t Oswald’s”

They are not "facts." They are claims that have been debunked or reasonably explained -- mostly debunked -- numerous times over the last 40 years.

Sigh. . . .  Seriously? I address this tale in my article as well. It's seriously like you guys are stuck in a time warp and that you are oblivious to research that has been done since the 1960s.

Isn't it incredibly suspicious and unbelievable that Lt. Day failed to take a single, solitary photo of the most important print he would ever process? He took photos of the worthless trigger-guard prints, but not a single photo of the palm print. Why did the FBI fingerprint expert Sebastian Latona say that when he examined the rifle less than 24 hours after Day claimed he found and lifted the print, the barrel contained no prints and did not even look like it had been processed for prints. Yet, Day claimed the print was still visible on the barrel after he allegedly lifted it.

The WC was so suspicious of the palm print's origin that they asked Lt. Day to sign a sworn statement affirming how he obtained it, but Day refused to do so. Humm, why was what?

Typical Griffith Clown crap show. Having proven nothing except his own mindless idiotic babble seems important to him.  Unable to process the little things that matter the most. Spell it out, if the rifle was not his why was his palm print on the rifle?

The palm print was authenticated by the FBI as having been LHO’s palm print and was lifted from the barrel of the rifle. Griffith cannot explain it away and it remains a key fact in the possession of the rifle by LHO

[John Mytton]

The palm print was authenticated by the FBI as having been LHO’s palm print and was lifted from the barrel of the rifle. Griffith cannot explain it away and it remains a key fact in the possession of the rifle by LHO

 

The FBI took an imprint from Oswald's rifle from the exact same location that Day on the day, took the palmprint impression from Oswald's rifle and the FBI confirmed beyond all doubt that Oswald palmprint was in contact with Oswald's rifle!!!

The palmprint that Day took on the 22nd.



The print that the FBI took directly from Oswald's rifle.



The random marks from Day's print is a perfect match to the prints taken from Oswald's rifle by the FBI.



And besides the above Incredibly Powerful Indisputable Evidence, Vincent Scalice with high resolution photos taken with multiple exposures of Oswald's rifle proved again beyond all doubt that Oswald's prints were on the Trigger Guard of Oswald's rifle!!!

JohnM