Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members

Author Topic: POLL. Is John Iacoletti right to separate the coupon from the envelope in CE773?  (Read 11205 times)

Offline John Mytton

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4236
Advertisement
While trying to chip away at the powerful evidence of the Kleins rifle order, Iacoletti's latest claim is that CE773(cadigan ex3A) has nothing to connect the coupon and envelope, is he right?

Quote
John Iacoletti
There is nothing to connect this particular envelope to any particular Klein's order, other than they were photographed together.


JohnM
It couldn't be more clear that as part of Kleins microfilm record keeping that the details on both coupon and envelope are inextricably linked.

1. They both have the name A Hidell.
2. They both have the same return address
2. The both have writing attributed to Lee Harvey Oswald.
4. The envelope references Dept 358
5. The coupon references C20-T750, corresponding to an Italian Carcano on the Dept 358 Kleins ad.
6. The amount of $19.95 corresponds to the price for C20-T750 on the Dept 358 ad.
7. William J. Waldman, the Vice president of Klein's Sporting Goods, Inc. testifies that CE 773 came directly from Kleins' records

Btw let's be honest, is there any reasonable explanation of how the coupon and the envelope could be mistakenly photographed together, if there is I'd like to hear it?





----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------







Mr. BELIN. Mr. Waldman, I'm going to mark what has FBI Exhibit D-77 on it as Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 6, being the container with your initials and the microfilm record itself, which you placed on the microfilm reader and about which you have just testified upstairs.
Now, I'm going to hand you what has been marked as Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 7 and ask you to state if you know what this is.
Mr. WALDMAN. This is a copy made from our microfilm reader-printer of Dallas, Tex. I want to clarify that this is not the order, itself, received from Mr. Hidell, but it's a form created by us internally from an order received from Mr. Hidell on a small coupon taken from an advertisement of ours in a magazine.
Mr. BELIN. This Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 7 is a print from the micro- film negative which we just viewed upstair; is that correct?
Mr. WALDMAN. That's correct.
Mr. BELIN. And Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 8 is also a print from the microfilm record we viewed upstairs showing the actual coupon and the envelope in which the coupon was enclosed; is that correct?
Mr. WALDMAN. That's correct.


The handwriting analysis.

Mr. CADIGAN. The enlarged photograph, Cadigan Exhibit No. 3-A, contains both handwriting and hand printing which was compared with the known standards, Cadigan Exhibits Nos. 4 through 10. I compared both the handwriting and the hand printing to determine whether or not the same combination of individual handwriting characteristics was present in both the questioned and the known documents. I found many characteristics, some of which I would point out.
On the order blank, in the "A. Hidell" and in the wording "Dallas Texas" which constitutes a part of the return address, the letter "A" in Cadigan Exhibit No. 3 is made in the same manner as the capital letter "A" on Cadigan Exhibit No. 10. The letter is formed with a short straight stroke beginning about halfway up the left side. The top of it is peaked or pointed. The right side is straight, and is shorter than the initial stroke. The capital letter "D" in Dallas is characterized by a staff or downstroke slanting at about a 30° angle. The lower loop in some instances is closed. In the word "Dallas" the loop is closed, and the body of the letter ends in a rounded loop formation. The same characteristic I found in Cadigan Exhibits Nos. 4, 5, and 6 as well as other exhibits. The word "Texas" on Cadigan Exhibit No. 3-A is characterized with the letter "x" made in an unusual manner in that the writer, after completing the body of the letter, makes an abrupt change of motion to the following letter "a." This same characteristic I observed in the known standard on Cadigan Exhibits Nos. 6, 9, and 4.
In the address portion of the envelope, Cadigan Exhibit No. 3-A, appears the word "Dept." I noticed here, again, the same formation of the capital "D." In addition, the entire word "Dept" appears in the known standards on Cadigan Exhibits Nos. 5, 6, and 7. The characteristics I would point out here are in the letter "p" in Cadigan Exhibit No. 3, where the letter is made with a relatively long narrow staff, and the body of the letter is a rounded shape which projects above the staff. The letter "t" ends abruptly in a downstroke. In the hand-printing appearing in the exhibit marked Cadigan Exhibit No. 3--A, the wording "Dallas, Texas" contains a number of the same characteristics as Cadigan Exhibit No. 5, where the same wording appears, and on Cadigan Exhibits Nos. 7 and 8. The writer uses a script-type "D," and prints the other letters in the word "Dallas." The "A " again is made in a similar way to the "A" in "A. Hidell," with a beginning of the downstroke approximately three-quarters of the way up the left side of the stroke. The letter is relatively narrow, and the right-hand side of the letter is straight. In the double "L" combinations there is a curve in the lower portion of the letter. The "S" has a flat top, slanting at approximately a 30-degree angle. In the word "Texas" in Cadigan Exhibit No. 3-A the writer has used a small "e" following the letter "T." The same characteristics will be noted on Cadigan Exhibits Nos. 5, 7, and 8.
Additionally, I noted that in addition to the shape of the letters themselves, the relative heights of the letters, the spacing between the letters, the slant of the letters in both the know and questioned documents are the same.
On Cadigan Exhibit No. 3-A, in the portion for address, appears the notation "P.O. Box 2915," and this same wording appears on Cadigan Exhibit No. 5, and on No. 7 and No. 8 except for the "P.O." portion. Here, again, I observed the same formation of the individual letters; the spacing, the style, the slant of the writings in both questioned and known were observed to be the same.
The tail of the "5" is made with a relatively long stroke and the same characteristic appears in the known standards. In the hand printed name "A. Hidell," on Cadigan Exhibit No. 3-A, another characteristic I noted was the very small-sized "i" in the name "Hidell." The writer makes this letter very short in contrast to the other letters in the name. This same characteristic I observed on Cadigan Exhibit No. 10, the passport application. With reference to the "1" dot on Cadigan Exhibit No. 3 in the name "Hidell," in the return portion, the dot is relatively high and between the body of the letter and the following letter "d." In the portion of the word "Chicago"---of the name "Chicago"--in the address portion on Cadigan Exhibit No. 3, the "i" dot is between the "o" and the "g" in "Chicago" and is well above the line of writing. On Cadigan Exhibit No. 4 I observed the same displacement of the "i" dot. In some instances, it is slightly to the right of the body of the letter, as in the word "citizenship" in the sixth line from the bottom, whereas in the word "direct" in the ninth line from the bottom the "i" dot is displaced one and a half letters to the right.
Based upon the combination of these individual characteristics which I have pointed out, as well as others, I reached the opinion that the handwriting and handprinting on Cadigan Exhibit No. 3-A were written by Lee Harvey Oswald, the writer of the known standards, Cadigan Exhibits Nos. 4 through 10.


And again the handwriting on CE 773 is analysed by another handwriting expert.

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
« Last Edit: June 27, 2019, 09:07:45 AM by John Mytton »

JFK Assassination Forum


Online Richard Smith

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5024
There is no good explanation.  As always, the tactic is to suggest there is false doubt without addressing the consequences of that bogus claim being true.  It's a defense attorney tactic.  Claim there is doubt about everything and hope you can fool at least one juror to agree.  Where there is smoke, there must be fire tactic.  Of course the defense attorney is the one blowing all the smoke.  Suggest there is doubt about the envelope, doubt about whether Oswald received the rifle, and even if he did it doesn't prove he pulled the trigger.  On and on down the rabbit hole.

Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10812
1. They both have the name A Hidell.
2. They both have the same return address
2. The both have writing attributed to Lee Harvey Oswald.

The strategy here is to focus on the envelope because there is not enough writing on the coupon even for unscientific and biased handwriting "analysis".  And both are copies, which even the people that "Mytton" appeals to in his appeal to authority admit is unreliable.

Quote
4. The envelope references Dept 358
5. The coupon references C20-T750, corresponding to an Italian Carcano on the Dept 358 Kleins ad.
6. The amount of $19.95 corresponds to the price for C20-T750 on the Dept 358 ad.

The envelope tells you nothing about what was ordered or how much it cost.

Quote
7. William J. Waldman, the Vice president of Klein's Sporting Goods, Inc. testifies that CE 773 came directly from Kleins' records

Let's see the microfilm.  Waldman was a VP who had nothing to do with processing the alleged order.  He didn't even supervise the person who did.  Why did they choose to interview him?

Quote
Btw let's be honest, is there any reasonable explanation of how the coupon and the envelope could be mistakenly photographed together, if there is I'd like to hear it?

Who said it was a mistake?

JFK Assassination Forum


Offline John Mytton

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4236
The strategy here is to focus on the envelope because there is not enough writing on the coupon even for unscientific and biased handwriting "analysis".  And both are copies, which even the people that "Mytton" appeals to in his appeal to authority admit is unreliable.

The envelope tells you nothing about what was ordered or how much it cost.

Let's see the microfilm.  Waldman was a VP who had nothing to do with processing the alleged order.  He didn't even supervise the person who did.  Why did they choose to interview him?

Who said it was a mistake?

Quote
The strategy here is to focus on the envelope because there is not enough writing on the coupon even for unscientific and biased handwriting "analysis".

Seriously, your desperate strategy was separating 1 piece of evidence into a more compliant 2, naughty naughty.

Quote
And both are copies, which even the people that "Mytton" appeals to in his appeal to authority admit is unreliable.

They looked at microfilm which while not an original is still a photo.

Quote
The envelope tells you nothing about what was ordered or how much it cost.

No kidding sherlock and it probably never will, how is stating the bleeding obvious evidence?

Quote
Let's see the microfilm.

Waldman testified that he saw and examined his company's records. End of story!

Quote
Waldman was a VP who had nothing to do with processing the alleged order.  He didn't even supervise the person who did.  Why did they choose to interview him?

What has the grunt who processed the order have to do with anything?, Waldman can confirm that the grunt did his job properly because the order ended up on the Kleins microfilm.

JohnM
« Last Edit: June 27, 2019, 09:59:05 PM by John Mytton »

Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10812
Seriously, your desperate strategy was separating 1 piece of evidence into a more compliant 2, naughty naughty.

If you're trying to find evidence that Oswald ordered a specific rifle, then an envelope and a money order that may or may not have accompanied the order don't help you.

Quote
They looked at microfilm which while not an original is still a photo.

A microfilm image is most certainly a photo.

Quote
No kidding sherlock and it probably never will, how is stating the bleeding obvious evidence?

Because you think that handwriting "analysis" of letters on an envelope tells you anything about who ordered a particular rifle.

Quote
Waldman testified that he saw and examined his company's records. End of story!

The original records?  I don't think so.  You mean the microfilm that the FBI confiscated on 11/22 and is now "missing"?

Quote
What has the grunt who processed the order have to do with anything?,

Seriously?  He would know what he did better than a VP just looking at microfilm.

Quote
Waldman can confirm that the grunt did his job properly because the order ended up on the Kleins microfilm.

LOL.  How does that show that anybody did anything "properly"?  It certainly doesn't show that a particular rifle was ever mailed to a particular address.

JFK Assassination Forum


Offline John Mytton

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4236
I see 4 "yes" votes but no one has yet explained why the single microfilm Kleins record should have the coupon and envelope separated?

JohnM
« Last Edit: June 27, 2019, 10:53:38 PM by John Mytton »

Offline John Mytton

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4236
If you're trying to find evidence that Oswald ordered a specific rifle, then an envelope and a money order that may or may not have accompanied the order don't help you.

A microfilm image is most certainly a photo.

Because you think that handwriting "analysis" of letters on an envelope tells you anything about who ordered a particular rifle.

The original records?  I don't think so.  You mean the microfilm that the FBI confiscated on 11/22 and is now "missing"?

Seriously?  He would know what he did better than a VP just looking at microfilm.

LOL.  How does that show that anybody did anything "properly"?  It certainly doesn't show that a particular rifle was ever mailed to a particular address.

Quote
If you're trying to find evidence that Oswald ordered a specific rifle, then an envelope and a money order that may or may not have accompanied the order don't help you.

Of course it does, it's all part of the paper trail.

Quote
A microfilm image is most certainly a photo.

Thanks Einstein.

Quote
Because you think that handwriting "analysis" of letters on an envelope tells you anything about who ordered a particular rifle.

Of course, who wrote what is important.

Quote
Seriously?  He would know what he did better than a VP just looking at microfilm.

Why would the procedure of how someone scans orders be in anyway relevant, you're losing the plot mate.

Quote
LOL.  How does that show that anybody did anything "properly"?

The microfilm record shows that the grunt did their job properly, they recorded the rifle order along with the dispatch information.

Quote
It certainly doesn't show that a particular rifle was ever mailed to a particular address.

It's all part of the paper trail.

To be honest Iacoletti, your arguments are weak and reek of desperation.

JohnM
« Last Edit: June 27, 2019, 11:19:40 PM by John Mytton »

JFK Assassination Forum


Offline John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10812
Of course it does, it's all part of the paper trail.

No, it's a picture of a coupon and an envelope sitting together.

Quote
Thanks Einstein.

I meant to say that a microfilm image is still a copy and therefore unreliable, even by pseudoscientific handwriting "analysis" standards.  So why are you trying to make a distinction?

Quote
Of course, who wrote what is important.

Not when you're trying to prove who ordered a specific object.  Who addressed an envelope is irrelevant.

Quote
Why would the procedure of how someone scans orders be in anyway relevant, you're losing the plot mate.

Well, for one thing, how would Waldman know how and when this alleged microfilm picture was taken and how it was composed?

Quote
The microfilm record shows that the grunt did their job properly, they recorded the rifle order along with the dispatch information.

No it doesn't.  It shows that there is a photo of a coupon and an envelope on a print made from a microfilm copy of a physical coupon that no longer exists.

Quote
To be honest Iacoletti, your arguments are weak and reek of desperation.

That would be you.

This isn't a "paper trail" at all.  It's a biased and subjective opinion about an image of unknown origin.
« Last Edit: June 27, 2019, 11:33:27 PM by John Iacoletti »