Conspiracy of the Three Stooges

[John Mytton]

See my edit.  He's conflating the order coupon and the envelope.

See my edit.

Wonderful, you get a chance to edit your replies but you don't give the same consideration to eyewitnesses.

He's conflating the order coupon and the envelope.

It's one piece of evidence and it will always be one piece of evidence and btw we haven't even got to the money order yet, your day is about to get a helluva lot worse! Muhahaha!

JohnM

[John Mytton]

See my edit.  He's conflating the order coupon and the envelope.

Oh by the way, the HSCA team of experts came to the same conclusion.

Mr. MCNALLY - Yes, F-504, and the money order is F-509.
Mr. KLEIN - Are these blowups fair and accurate representations of the documents examined by the panel?
Mr. MCNALLY - They are.
Mr. KLEIN - Using the blowups, would you explain why the panel reached its conclusion?
Mr. MCNALLY - We examined and compared the writings on the microfilm reproduction with the original postal money order issued as payable to Klein's Sporting Goods. The same process, of course, was involved, an examination and comparison of the general writing characteristics which appear on this microfilmed reproduction, versus the writing which appears on the U.S. postal money order. The writing pattern on both of these documents is the same, the same degree of skill, the same slant pattern. The writing has a continuity and a cohesion, a continuous flow in the formation of "Hidell", "Dallas, Texas," "Klein's," "Chicago, Illinois." It flows right along in the same manner, as we have in the writing flow on the postal money order. The individual letter designs that occur in the writing of the name and the address and the names and addresses on the microfilm reproduction and the writing of the various letters on the postal money order correspond. In both instances on the microfilmed reproduction here we have a parallel, the writing of "Hidell" here in the top of the microfilm and the "A. Hidell," which occurs over here on the postal money order. The writing construction in both instances is the same, just a slight variation in the "H" in "Hidell" in the microfilm reproduction, but the rest of the writing conforms to the writing "A. Hidell" on the U.S. postal money order. In the writing of "Dallas, Texas," this particular writing pattern here in the upper left-hand corner agreed with the writing of "Dallas, Texas," over here on the U.S. postal money order. The variation occurring here is that in the return address on the postal money order a small "t" has been used versus a capital "T" utilized down here. In this "Texas" here in the writing of the "x-a-s" right in this portion here just following the "x" there is a slight hitch almost like a small undotted "i". That same information occurs over here just before the "a" here a little hitch in the writing pattern. The overall writing on both the microfilm and on the postal money order correspond to the extent that we came to the conclusion both were written by the same individual, again with that caveat that this is a reproduction. As a matter of fact, this if from a microfilm, and it has been blown up from the microfilm itself so that it lacks clarity and detail. But the impression gotten from examining this particular document and comparing it with the writing of the original document, the postal money order, is that the writing flows. The line quality of that on this document and that on the postal money order corresponds; the letter designs correspond. There is no significant difference between the writing on the microfilm and the writing we have in the money order or the writing we have here, for instance, on the employment application. Further, the hand printing on this particular form here, which was laid over the envelope when it was recorded, this hand printing, "A. Hidell, Post Office Box 2915, Dallas, Texas," corresponds to that which we have in this employment application and also a letter which backed up this employment application, specifically some writing in the lower left-hand corner of that letter. We did conclude again (with that slight caveat) that the writing of the microfilm in both the script writing here and the hand print here were written by the same individual who wrote out the postal money order and the employment application.
Mr. KLEIN - Was there any evidence to indicate that either of these documents were forged or altered?
Mr. MCNALLY - From the examinations that could be made, absolutely no evidence.



JohnM

[Walt Cakebread]

Where -- in your dreams?

Your best reply is to lie about and misrepresent the evidence?  Again?

Unscientific and biased handwriting "analysis" of 2 block letters on a photocopy of a microfilm copy of a 2-inch order blank.

Still unproven.

This is supposed to show that he owned it?

Which couldn't be matched to any specific shirt.

Some prints were found on the trigger guard area that were useless for identification purposes and one partial palmprint showed up a week later on an index card.

This is supposed to show that he owned the rifle?

This is supposed to show that he owned a rifle that you cannot demonstrate was ever in a bag?

Circular.  You can't prove what was in the package.

"Oswald's rifle".

LOL.

Some prints were found on the trigger guard area that were useless for identification purposes and one partial palmprint showed up a week later on an index card.


That smudge that Detective Day imagined to be a "Palm Print" was lifted from the foregrip of the carcano  in the TSBD at about 1:45 pm that afternoon.  Reporter Tom Alyea watched as Day lifted that smudge and place the cellophane tape on a index card, and then scribble the pertinent information on the card.    That card was listed as item number 14 on the evidence inventory list for midnight 11/22/63.   The FBI received that card on Saturday 11/23/63 and examined it....the FBI report said that the smudge was useless for identification purposes.   

[Colin Crow]

Thanks Steve, I think you've pretty much nailed how the Black employees in general would have felt in 1963 and specifically Williams being on the same floor as where shots were fired from, would have given him a reason to be very worried.

Shtiscared?


JohnM

Do I detect a subtle change from initial dismissal of the idea the 3 decided to protect BRW? Now it becomes plausible.....not just confusion of faulty memory.

[Colin Crow]

That's reasonable. Young black dudes in Texas in 63 would be prepared to say whatever it took to avoid a beating or worse.

Tend to agree......question is how far would you go? If you were BRW as opposed to JJ and HN.

[Colin Crow]

True, but couldn't they have made - or been forced to make - far more incriminating comments about Oswald then they did? Such as they saw him carry a large package into the building? Expressed hatred of JFK? Et cetera.

Williams said he ate his "chicken on the bone" sandwich right next to the sniper's nest on the sixth floor. Why not force him to say he saw Oswald hanging around the nest?

Lots of examples one can think of where they could have implicated Oswald more directly.

Agree.....I believe that this rules out the massive conspiracy theory. How easy to get Williams to say he saw Oswald on the 6th floor......but Oswald is dead by Sunday......is he required to change his statement after that event diminished? However I do believe Givens was pressured to change and place Oswald on the 6th floor after noon.

Also given the fact that Williams was being questioned at the time Oswald was brought in.....I tend to think he did not see him on the 6th floor before he left to join HN and JJ. Does anyone believe that BRW would protect Oswald in his initial statement?

[Colin Crow]

Well done Colin. You put forward an idea which seems to have teased out some agreement between opposing sides here. That certainly deserves congratulations.
 

Thankyou Steve.....appreciated.

[John Mytton]

Do I detect a subtle change from initial dismissal of the idea the 3 decided to protect BRW? Now it becomes plausible.....not just confusion of faulty memory.

C'mon Colin we have debated this before, correct me if I'm wrong but where this is going is that you believe that Williams actually saw the killer and that's why they all lied, and as I remember I agreed with you and said that Williams must have seen Oswald and then you disagreed that it was Oswald, am I right?

JohnM