Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Author Topic: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.  (Read 7897 times)

Online Andrew Mason

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 258
    • SPMLaw
Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
« Reply #110 on: August 10, 2018, 10:07:01 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You apparently don't understand that reaching a conclusion by assuming things that aren't in evidence doesn't make something a fact.
There is a difference between 1. inferring a fact for which there is no direct evidence because it is the only reasonable conclusion that fits the rest of the evidence, and 2. assuming a fact without any such evidence at all.  If I get up in the morning and I see water all over my deck I can infer that it rained last night. I am not assuming it rained as a fact. I am inferring that it rained as a fact.

Quote
I'm not convinced that CE 399 was found at Parkland.  O.P. Wright said that the bullet he got from Tomlinson had a pointed tip, and neither Johnsen or Rowley could identify it as being the same bullet as CE 399.
Ok. You are not convinced CE399 was found at Parkland.  I am. There is evidence on which I base my conclusion so don't tell me I am assuming it.

Quote
Of course you will.  But why is "an elaborate conspiracy" necessary to insert CE399 into the evidence stream?
Think of the behind-the-scenes machinations that would be required to produce a bullet that had been fired by the gun that was found in the same floor of the building from which rifle shots were observed and heard when the President was killed. Then think of the efforts required to make people believe the bullet had been found in a place occupied by one of the victims of the shooting.  Then ask yourself, why did they carry out that plan so badly so that the bullet was almost not found or, could have been found in circumstances that did not tie it to the assassination?

Quote
Do tell.  What "other evidence"?


Show me where Day says anything about "consistent with Oswald's prints".  He said he couldn't make positive identification of these prints.  You somehow spun that into "his prints were on the rifle under the stock".  The magazine housing isn't even under the stock.
4 H 260:
Mr. BELIN. What other processing did you do with this particular rifle?
Mr. DAY. I took it to the office and tried to bring out the two prints I had seen on the side of the gun at the bookstore. They still were rather unclear. Due to the roughness of the metal, I photographed them rather than try to lift them. I could also see a trace of a print on the side of the barrel that extended under the woodstock. I started to take the woodstock off and noted traces of a palmprint near the firing end of the barrel about 3 inches under the wood-stock when I took the woodstock loose.
Mr. BELIN. You mean 3 inches from the small end of the woodstock?
Mr. DAY. Right--yes, sir.
Mr. McCLOY. From the firing end of the barrel, you mean the muzzle?
Mr. DAY. The muzzle; yes, sir.
Mr. BELIN. Let me clarify the record. By that you mean you found it on the metal or you mean you found it on the wood?
Mr. DAY. On the metal, after removing the wood.
Mr. BELIN. The wood. You removed the wood, and then underneath the wood is where you found the print?
Mr. DAY. On the bottom side of the barrel which was covered by the wood, I found traces of a palmprint. I dusted these and tried lifting them, the prints, with scotch tape in the usual manner. A faint palmprint came off. I could still see traces of the print under the barrel and was going to try to use photography to bring off or bring out a better print. About this time I received instructions from the chief's office to go no further with the processing, it was to be released to the FBI for them to complete. I did not process the underside of the barrel under the scopic sight, did not get to this area of the gun.
Mr. BELIN. Do you know what Commission Exhibit No. 637 is?
Mr. DAY. This is the trace of palmprint I lifted off of the barrel of the gun after I had removed the wood.
Mr. BELIN. Does it have your name on it or your handwriting?
Mr. DAY. It has the name "J. C. Day," and also "11/22/63" written on it in my writing off the underside gun barrel near the end of foregrip, C-2766.
Mr. BELIN. When you lift a print is it then harder to make a photograph of that print after it is lifted or doesn't it make any difference?
Mr. DAY. It depends. If it is a fresh print, and by fresh I mean hadn't been there very long and dried, practically all the print will come off and there will be nothing left. If it is an old print, that is pretty well dried, many times you can still see it after the lift. In this case I could still see traces of print on that barrel.
Mr. BELIN. Did you do anything with the other prints or partial prints that you said you thought you saw?
Mr. DAY. I photographed them only. I did not try to lift them.
Mr. BELIN. Do you have those photographs, sir? I will mark the two photographs which you have just produced Commission Exhibits 720 and 721. I will ask you to state what these are.
Mr. DAY. These are prints or pictures, I should say, of the latent--of the traces of prints on the side of the magazine housing of the gun No. C-2766.
Mr. BELIN. Were those prints in such condition as to be identifiable, if you know?
Mr. DAY. No, sir; I could not make positive identification of these prints.
Mr. BELIN. Did you have enough opportunity to work and get these pictures or not?
Mr. DAY. I worked with them, yes. I could not exclude all possibility as to identification. I thought I knew which they were, but I could not positively identify them.
Mr. BELIN. What was your opinion so far as it went as to whose they were?
Mr. DAY. They appeared to be the right middle and right ring finger of Harvey Lee Oswald, Lee Harvey Oswald.
Mr. BELIN. At the time you had this did you have any comparison fingerprints to make with the actual prints of Lee Harvey Oswald?
Mr. DAY. Yes, sir; we had sets in Captain Fritz' office. Oswald was in his custody, we had made palmprints and fingerprints of him.

Quote
Why do you think Klein's stamped this envelope at all?  Point to the part of the envelope you think that Klein's stamped.
Uh, it is the big stamp on the lower left side of the envelope that bears the heading in large letters: "Klein's" and has Klein's address.  If Klein's did not stamp it, who do you think did?


JFK Assassination Forum

Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
« Reply #110 on: August 10, 2018, 10:07:01 PM »


Online John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2916
Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
« Reply #111 on: August 10, 2018, 10:59:41 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
There is a difference between 1. inferring a fact for which there is no direct evidence because it is the only reasonable conclusion that fits the rest of the evidence, and 2. assuming a fact without any such evidence at all.  If I get up in the morning and I see water all over my deck I can infer that it rained last night. I am not assuming it rained as a fact. I am inferring that it rained as a fact.

It's still an assumption.  Your neighbor might have thrown a bucket of water at your deck.

Quote

Ok. You are not convinced CE399 was found at Parkland.  I am. There is evidence on which I base my conclusion so don't tell me I am assuming it.

But what is the evidence and how much do you have to assume to make that conclusion?  How exactly did the bullet found by Tomlinson on an unrelated stretcher at Parkland get to Robert Frazier and verified that it was the same physical item each step along the way?

Quote
Think of the behind-the-scenes machinations that would be required to produce a bullet that had been fired by the gun that was found in the same floor of the building from which rifle shots were observed and heard when the President was killed.

What "behind the scenes machinations"?  All it would take is to fire the rifle into something relatively soft and collect the bullet.  That's why evidence that it actually went through JFK's body is a pretty important detail.

Quote
Then think of the efforts required to make people believe the bullet had been found in a place occupied by one of the victims of the shooting.

What "efforts required"?  The FBI said CE 399 was found at Parkland and you believe it.

Quote
  Then ask yourself, why did they carry out that plan so badly so that the bullet was almost not found or, could have been found in circumstances that did not tie it to the assassination?

oh, I'm sure that no matter what circumstances it had been found in, you would deduce that it was tied to the assassination -- merely because it was matched to the rifle that you think was the murder weapon.

Quote
4 H 260:

Did you miss the sentence above that where Day said "I could not positively identify them"?  By the way, neither could Sebastian Latona.  The fact that Day claimed they appeared to him to be Oswald's doesn't equate to "they were Oswald's".
 Otherwise they would have been positively identified.  So you call this "consistent with", which is another way of saying inconclusive.

Quote
Uh, it is the big stamp on the lower left side of the envelope that bears the heading in large letters: "Klein's" and has Klein's address.  If Klein's did not stamp it, who do you think did?

Sigh.  That's not a stamp, Andrew.  They overlaid the order coupon that was clipped out of a magazine on top of the envelope it was supposedly mailed in and took a microfilm picture of it.
« Last Edit: August 10, 2018, 11:03:14 PM by John Iacoletti »

Online Andrew Mason

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 258
    • SPMLaw
Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
« Reply #112 on: August 11, 2018, 06:05:00 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
It's still an assumption.  Your neighbor might have thrown a bucket of water at your deck.
You really don't know the difference, do you? If I base my conclusion on evidence, it is no longer an assumption.

I assess the possible causes of water on my deck and I conclude that the only reasonably possible cause is rain.  If I was concerned that there might be some other cause (which has never occurred, but let's say that is a 1/100 possibility) I can easily look at other things, such as the street. Now you are going to say, ok, but a street sweeper could have washed the street. But that is only about 1/100 possibility. So the probability that both could have happened, conservatively, is now 1/100 x 1/100 = 1/10,000.  If I was still concerned about that possibility, I could look at the sidewalks and my lawn.  Oh, you would say, perhaps a neighbour hosed down the sidewalks too.  Ok, let's say that is about a 1/100 possibility.  Now to have all three occur together (all three being independent) is 1/1,000,000.  At that point even you would have to concede that it rained.

Now with Oswald, it is not that there is absolute proof from Klein's that the gun was picked up by Oswald. Klein's documents form part of the evidence. Let's say it is a 1/100 chance that one of Klein's orders is not processed properly and does not get to the destination.  We have the backyard photos that show a gun identical to the MC C2766 in Oswald's hands shortly after the guns should have arrived in Oswald's mailbox. We also have evidence of a long package being brought to the TSBD on the morning of the assassination. Then you have a palm print on the gun that cannot be excluded as coming from Oswald.  Then you have the fact that Oswald was not with anyone at the time of the assassination.  Then you have him leaving the TSBD. Then you have him hurrying home and then leaving quickly.  Then you have a person like him seen shooting Officer Tippit. Then you have him carrying a gun in the Texas Theater.  Then you have him saying "Well, it's all over now" as he is arrested.  Even if the probability that each of these events had innocent explanations was large, say 1/10, the probability that all innocent explanations occurred together becomes vanishingly small.  That is how proof beyond a reasonable doubt occurs.

The same thing occurs with DNA matching.  The standard DNA fingerprint in the FBI's CODIS system measures the length of 13 small sections of DNA from areas that are highly variable between individuals (plus one marker for sex). The length of tandem repeats in the regions of DNA being examined are not unique. They are actually quite common – some regions may have only 5 or 10 length variations so the chance of another individual chosen at random from the population having the same “bar” match for a particular marker may be as high as 20%. The key however, is the evidence that the lengths of these regions of DNA vary widely within the population AND that the length of DNA of one marker is independent of the length of another.  The probability that two people of the same sex will have the exact same lengths of DNA sequences at each locus is the product of 13 probabilities, each of which is about 1/5 to 1/20. That results in a very small number: in the order of 1/513 (1 in 1.2 billion) to 1/2013 (1 in 82 million billion).

Quote
But what is the evidence and how much do you have to assume to make that conclusion?  How exactly did the bullet found by Tomlinson on an unrelated stretcher at Parkland get to Robert Frazier and verified that it was the same physical item each step along the way?
One does not have to assume anything.  One just has to assess Frazier's evidence, along with all the other evidence and determine whether the possibility that Frazier was part of an elaborate conspiracy to hide the truth is reasonable.

Quote
What "behind the scenes machinations"?  All it would take is to fire the rifle into something relatively soft and collect the bullet.  That's why evidence that it actually went through JFK's body is a pretty important detail.

What "efforts required"?  The FBI said CE 399 was found at Parkland and you believe it.
For the FBI to say that as part of an elaborate conspiracy to frame Oswald and to execute that plan so flawlessly that it would withstand 55 years of scrutiny without anyone cracking, there would have to be a lot of planning and scheming.
Quote
Did you miss the sentence above that where Day said "I could not positively identify them"?  By the way, neither could Sebastian Latona.  The fact that Day claimed they appeared to him to be Oswald's doesn't equate to "they were Oswald's".
 Otherwise they would have been positively identified.  So you call this "consistent with", which is another way of saying inconclusive.
If it was a random print, even a small part of it would likely be easily distinguishable from Oswald's.

Quote
Sigh.  That's not a stamp, Andrew.  They overlaid the order coupon that was clipped out of a magazine on top of the envelope it was supposedly mailed in and took a microfilm picture of it.
Ok. But the point is the same:  who took a microfiche of that coupon and the envelope and what is the possibility, in light of all the rest of the evidence, that Oswald/Hidell's order did not make it through Klein's system?
« Last Edit: August 13, 2018, 06:15:32 PM by Andrew Mason »

Online John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2916
Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
« Reply #113 on: August 13, 2018, 06:18:18 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You really don't know the difference, do you?

You don't know the difference.  An assumption is still an assumption, whether you think it's justified or not.

Quote
It's easy. One just has to find that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, Frazier was not part of an elaborate conspiracy to hide the truth.

Who said he was?

Quote
For the FBI to say that as part of an elaborate conspiracy to frame Oswald and to execute that plan so flawlessly that it would withstand 55 years of scrutiny without anyone cracking, there would have to be a lot of planning and scheming.

Who's claiming that there was an elaborate conspiracy to frame Oswald and to execute that plan so flawlessly that it would withstand 55 years of scrutiny without anyone cracking?  I asked you how you knew CE399 was the bullet found at Parkland.

Quote
If it was a random print, even a small part of it would likely be easily distinguishable from Oswald's.

Where does this assumption come from?  Did you just make it up?

Quote
Ok. So who took a microfiche of that coupon and the envelope?

Here's where you say, "you're right, that's not something Klein's stamped on the envelope to indicate that the order had been processed.  Silly me.  I don't want to spread misinformation.  Also, I have no clue where I got the idea that Marina said Lee bought a gun through the mail or why I thought the package was picked up 5 days later.  Sorry for wasting everybody's time spreading all this nonsense!"

Online Andrew Mason

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 258
    • SPMLaw
Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
« Reply #114 on: August 14, 2018, 02:11:40 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You don't know the difference.  An assumption is still an assumption, whether you think it's justified or not.
So, in your world, if a conclusion is based on evidence that demonstrates a high probability that the conclusion is correct, that conclusion is still an assumption? So when is a conclusion based on evidence not an assumption?

Quote
Who said he was?
Who's claiming that there was an elaborate conspiracy to frame Oswald and to execute that plan so flawlessly that it would withstand 55 years of scrutiny without anyone cracking?  I asked you how you knew CE399 was the bullet found at Parkland.
What other reasonable conclusion is there? Either CE399 was the bullet found at Parkland or it was not. If it was not, then the FBI's evidence that it was from Parkland was made up.  The bullet fired from the C2766 rifle could not have been "accidentally" made up and then "accidentally" thought to have originated from being found at Parkland and the real bullet found by Tomlinson then misplaced and never found. Why would the FBI fabricate evidence unless they were part of some plan to frame Oswald? What other explanation do you offer if CE399 was not found at Parkland?

Quote
Where does this assumption come from?  Did you just make it up?
It has been long established in forensic science that finger and palm prints are highly variable between individuals.  I didn't say that a conclusive match would be made - just that it would be improbable for some other random partial palm print to have no characteristics that would distinguish it from Oswald's.

Quote
Here's where you say, "you're right, that's not something Klein's stamped on the envelope to indicate that the order had been processed.  Silly me.
You're right. That is not something stamped on the envelope. It is the coupon with Oswald's handwriting clipped to the envelope and then put on microfilm by Klein's, along with the shipping order prepared by Klein's, to record the fact that C2766 was used to fill the order and the date that it was was processed. Silly me.

Quote
I don't want to spread misinformation.  Also, I have no clue where I got the idea that Marina said Lee bought a gun through the mail or why I thought the package was picked up 5 days later.  Sorry for wasting everybody's time spreading all this nonsense!"
Marina identified Oswald's handwriting on the coupon for the gun ordered and shipped from Seaport Traders (CE135) to Oswald's PO Box 2915.  That was for the handgun.  According to Klein's records, Oswald's order for the rifle was postmarked March 12.  It was received March 13 and processed by Klein's and shipped on March 20. According to the post office, it would have taken a day to travel to Dallas by train so the earliest it physically arrived in the Dallas post office would be late on March 21. A card would have been placed in Oswald's box the next day, March 22 at the earliest, which was a Friday. March 25 was the following Monday. It is possible that he picked it up March 22  - or the 23rd if the post office was open Saturday.  In any event, he would likely would have picked it up by Monday, March 25. Sorry for wasting your time trying to persuade you that this is a reasonable conclusion to be drawn from this evidence.
« Last Edit: August 14, 2018, 09:54:26 PM by Andrew Mason »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
« Reply #114 on: August 14, 2018, 02:11:40 PM »


Online John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2916
Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
« Reply #115 on: August 14, 2018, 11:20:20 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
So, in your world, if a conclusion is based on evidence that demonstrates a high probability that the conclusion is correct, that conclusion is still an assumption? So when is a conclusion based on evidence not an assumption?

Well, setting aside that you haven't demonstrated that your conclusions have a "high probability" of being correct, if your conclusion depends on anything that hasn't been proven, then it's an assumption.

assumption
1. a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof.

Quote
What other reasonable conclusion is there? Either CE399 was the bullet found at Parkland or it was not. If it was not, then the FBI's evidence that it was from Parkland was made up.

What FBI evidence?  Somebody handed Robert Frazier a bullet and said "hey, this was found at Parkland".

As the story goes, Tomlinson found a bullet on an unrelated stretcher at Parkland.  He gave it to O.P. Wright, his personnel officer, who gave it to Richard Johnsen of the Secret Service.  Either Johnsen or SS agent Gerald Behn (their stories differ) then gave it to James Rowley of the Secret Service, who gave it to FBI agent Elmer Lee Todd, who gave it to FBI agent Robert Frazier for analysis.

None of these transfers were documented with any paper trail or signed for in any way.  None of these people initialed the object except for Todd and Frazier.  None of these people except Todd and Frazier could positively identify CE 399 as the same bullet that they handled.  O.P. Wright said the bullet he saw had a pointed tip.  An elevator repairman named Nathan Pool told the HSCA that he actually found the stretcher bullet (which he also described as pointed) and gave it to Tomlinson.  Also, there's the story that Secret Service agent Sam Kinney supposedly told his friend Gary Loucks that he found a bullet in the limo and set it on a stretcher at Parkland.

Quote
It has been long established in forensic science that finger and palm prints are highly variable between individuals.  I didn't say that a conclusive match would be made - just that it would be improbable for some other random partial palm print to have no characteristics that would distinguish it from Oswald's.

Doesn't that depend on the size of the partial and how many points of identity there are?  Besides, since the circumstances of how this print was allegedly lifted and delivered to the FBI are so dodgy, there's really no way to know if it was ever actually on the C2766 rifle or not.

Quote
That is not something stamped on the envelope. It is the coupon with Oswald's handwriting

Subjective and unscientific handwriting "analysis" of 2 block letters on a photo of a microfilm image of a 2 inch order coupon.

Quote
clipped to the envelope and then put on microfilm by Klein's, along with the shipping order prepared by Klein's, to record the fact that the order was processed as written.

Processed, yes.  Shipped?  Who knows?  Picked up by Oswald?  Who knows?

Quote
Marina identified Oswald's handwriting on the coupon for the gun ordered and shipped from Seaport Traders (CE135) to Oswald's PO Box 2915.

Here we go again.  When did Marina identify Oswald's handwriting?

Quote
  According to Klein's records, Oswald's order was shipped on March 20.

Again, Klein's records say nothing of the kind.

Quote
A card would have been place in Oswald's box a day later, March 22 which was a Friday. March 25 was the following Monday. It is possible that he picked it up March 22 but more likely March 25.

Great.  Where's the card?  And how do you know how often that box was checked and by whom?

Quote
Sorry for wasting your time trying to persuade you that this is a reasonable conclusion to be drawn from this evidence.

That's not what I said was wasting time.  What's wasting time is all the misinformation you're propagating that requires correction, like the "Klein's stamp" on the envelope or Marina's supposed handwriting identification.

But your "reasonable conclusion" is that Oswald picked up a rifle from the post office on March 22 or March 25 when there is absolutely ZERO evidence that he did.  ZERO.

And besides, since the FBI was monitoring his mail at this time, wouldn't they have known about this rifle package from Klein's if one was ever actually shipped?

Online Andrew Mason

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 258
    • SPMLaw
Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
« Reply #116 on: August 15, 2018, 02:37:13 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
Well, setting aside that you haven't demonstrated that your conclusions have a "high probability" of being correct, if your conclusion depends on anything that hasn't been proven, then it's an assumption.
So when my deck is all wet in the morning, there is not a high probability that it rained?  What alternate universe do you live in?

Quote
What FBI evidence?  Somebody handed Robert Frazier a bullet and said "hey, this was found at Parkland".

As the story goes, Tomlinson found a bullet on an unrelated stretcher at Parkland.  He gave it to O.P. Wright, his personnel officer, who gave it to Richard Johnsen of the Secret Service.  Either Johnsen or SS agent Gerald Behn (their stories differ) then gave it to James Rowley of the Secret Service, who gave it to FBI agent Elmer Lee Todd, who gave it to FBI agent Robert Frazier for analysis.

None of these transfers were documented with any paper trail or signed for in any way.  None of these people initialed the object except for Todd and Frazier.  None of these people except Todd and Frazier could positively identify CE 399 as the same bullet that they handled.
So you really are saying that they made all those transfers up?

Quote
Doesn't that depend on the size of the partial and how many points of identity there are?  Besides, since the circumstances of how this print was allegedly lifted and delivered to the FBI are so dodgy, there's really no way to know if it was ever actually on the C2766 rifle or not.
The only thing that depends on the size of the print and the number of points identified is the level of confidence. One point of difference is an exclusion.  It was on the rifle as examined by an officer who had expertise in comparing prints.  There were no points that excluded Oswald. While that may not be sufficient to make a positive match, it is consistent with it being Oswald's. That, in light of the rest of the evidence (including the evidence that show was the gun shipped to Oswald's mail box, that he took a long package to work) is probative of Oswald having recently handled the rifle.

Quote
Subjective and unscientific handwriting "analysis" of 2 block letters on a photo of a microfilm image of a 2 inch order coupon.

Processed, yes.  Shipped?  Who knows?  Picked up by Oswald?  Who knows?
We know because we can see how improbable it is that all this evidence, if completely false, would fit together randomly by accident.

Quote
Here we go again.  When did Marina identify Oswald's handwriting?
During her WC testimony.

Quote
Again, Klein's records say nothing of the kind.

Great.  Where's the card?  And how do you know how often that box was checked and by whom?
Why would Oswald keep the card?  Does that mean it never existed?

Quote
But your "reasonable conclusion" is that Oswald picked up a rifle from the post office on March 22 or March 25 when there is absolutely ZERO evidence that he did.  ZERO.
Wrong. He was photographed with an identical rifle a few days later. I can connect those dots quite easily. I am sorry you can't.


Online John Iacoletti

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2916
Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
« Reply #117 on: August 15, 2018, 05:39:51 PM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
So when my deck is all wet in the morning, there is not a high probability that it rained?  What alternate universe do you live in?

If the only information you have is that your deck is wet, then no.  You would have no basis for your "high probability" declaration.

Quote
So you really are saying that they made all those transfers up?

No.  Where did you get that idea?  I'm asking you how you know the bullet that Todd handed Frazier is the same bullet that Tomlinson found.

Quote
The only thing that depends on the size of the print and the number of points identified is the level of confidence. One point of difference is an exclusion.

Granted.  But one point of similarity is an "unable to identify".

Quote
  It was on the rifle as examined by an officer who had expertise in comparing prints.

When did Carl Day ever attempt to match the print that he "found"?  All he did was send an index card to Washington several days later with a print on it and claim that he "didn't have time" to photograph it or cover it with cellophane like he did with the other prints, and that he "forgot" to give it to, or even to mention it to the FBI agent he gave all the evidence to.

It boggles my mind that you don't find any of that to be the slightest bit suspicious.

Quote
  There were no points that excluded Oswald. While that may not be sufficient to make a positive match, it is consistent with it being Oswald's.

That's an overstatement.  Day just said that the unidentifiable trigger guard prints "appeared to be the right middle and right ring finger of Harvey Lee Oswald, Lee Harvey Oswald".  He didn't say what he based that impression on.

Quote
That, in light of the rest of the evidence (including the evidence that show was the gun shipped to Oswald's mail box,

For the umpteenth time, there is no evidence that shows the gun was shipped anywhere.

Quote
that he took a long package to work) is probative of Oswald having recently handled the rifle.

How does holding a package tell you anything about a rifle?

Quote
We know because we can see how improbable it is that all this evidence, if completely false, would fit together randomly by accident.

Who's "we"?  The only thing that makes this evidence "fit together" is the assumptions you make in order to make it fit.  And please, dispense with your strawman that anyone thinks all the evidence (such as it is) is false.  The evidence is what it is.  It's the conclusions you make from the evidence that either are or are not justified.

Quote
During her WC testimony.

Please quote Marina ever saying anything in her WC testimony about identifying Oswald's handwriting on the Seaport Traders coupon.

Quote
Why would Oswald keep the card?  Does that mean it never existed?

What is your evidence that there ever was such a card?

Quote
Wrong. He was photographed with an identical rifle a few days later. I can connect those dots quite easily. I am sorry you can't.

You have no basis for your assumption that the rifle in the photo is "identical".  You also don't know that the photo was taken "a few days later".  You're connecting dots that you don't even have.
« Last Edit: August 15, 2018, 05:42:38 PM by John Iacoletti »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
« Reply #117 on: August 15, 2018, 05:39:51 PM »


Online Andrew Mason

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 258
    • SPMLaw
Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
« Reply #118 on: August 16, 2018, 01:24:06 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
If the only information you have is that your deck is wet, then no.  You would have no basis for your "high probability" declaration.
I cannot ever recall my deck being wet from some other source other than rain.  So when it is wet, there is a high probability that it rained.  If you do not see that as a reasonable conclusion, I want you on my next jury.

Quote
No.  Where did you get that idea?  I'm asking you how you know the bullet that Todd handed Frazier is the same bullet that Tomlinson found.
Because the evidence of how it got to Frazier from Parkland satisfies me, in the absence of conspiracy evidence, that that is how it got from Parkland to Frazier.

Quote
Granted.  But one point of similarity is an "unable to identify".

When did Carl Day ever attempt to match the print that he "found"?  All he did was send an index card to Washington several days later with a print on it and claim that he "didn't have time" to photograph it or cover it with cellophane like he did with the other prints, and that he "forgot" to give it to, or even to mention it to the FBI agent he gave all the evidence to.

It boggles my mind that you don't find any of that to be the slightest bit suspicious.


That's an overstatement.  Day just said that the unidentifiable trigger guard prints "appeared to be the right middle and right ring finger of Harvey Lee Oswald, Lee Harvey Oswald".  He didn't say what he based that impression on.
It is only suspicious if Day was part of a plan to frame Oswald.

Quote
For the umpteenth time, there is no evidence that shows the gun was shipped anywhere.
Ok. You can't connect the dots. I can.  MC with s/n C2766 is found on the 6th floor.  It is indistinguishable from the gun held by Oswald that Marina identifies as Oswald's in the backyard photos. In those photos Oswald holds two communist newspapers that were determined to be issues dated March 11 and March 24, 1963 that were mailed out March 7 and March 21 respectively.  Records from Klein's show that C2766 was used to fill a fully paid order from Oswald a.k.a. A. Hidell showing a shipping address of Oswald's Dallas post box no. 2915. The order was recorded by Klein's as having been received March 13, 1963 and processed on March 20.  Oswald was arrested after a brief struggle in the Texas Theater carrying a selective service card with his photo and the name "Alek James Hidell". That is enough to explain how Oswald came to own the C2766 rifle.   If you refuse to draw that conclusion, it must be because you think someone made all that evidence fit together.  If you really think that, we are wasting out time trying to carry the discussion much further.  BTW, each piece of evidence will rarely be proven beyond a reasonable doubt by itself.  The conclusion of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt comes from examination of all the evidence.

Quote
How does holding a package tell you anything about a rifle?

Who's "we"?  The only thing that makes this evidence "fit together" is the assumptions you make in order to make it fit.  And please, dispense with your strawman that anyone thinks all the evidence (such as it is) is false.  The evidence is what it is.  It's the conclusions you make from the evidence that either are or are not justified.
In order for Oswald's rifle to get to the TSBD it had to have been brought there from somewhere else.  If he hadn't brought anything to work you would be arguing that was in favour of Oswald, which it would be.  But it works both ways: the evidence that he carried a long object to work that morning is another piece of evidence against Oswald.

Quote
Please quote Marina ever saying anything in her WC testimony about identifying Oswald's handwriting on the Seaport Traders coupon.
1 H 118:
Mr. THORNE. Exhibit No. 135 purports to be a clipping from a newspaper. It is a clipping of an advertisement, a mail coupon.
Mrs. OSWALD. I don’t know what that is.
Mr. RANKIN. Do you recognize the handwriting on it?
Mrs. OSWALD. Lee’s handwriting.
Mr. RANKIN. I offer in evidence Exhibit 135

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Quote
What is your evidence that there ever was such a card?
Because that was the evidence of the post office's system that post office employees were instructed to follow and there is no evidence that the system was not followed.  There is no evidence that the order was cancelled.

Quote
You have no basis for your assumption that the rifle in the photo is "identical".  You also don't know that the photo was taken "a few days later".  You're connecting dots that you don't even have.
Ok. It is indistinguishable from C2766. Does that make you feel better?
« Last Edit: August 17, 2018, 12:38:05 AM by Andrew Mason »

Offline John Mytton

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1523
Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
« Reply #119 on: August 16, 2018, 02:46:17 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Subjective and unscientific handwriting "analysis" of 2 block letters on a photo of a microfilm image of a 2 inch order coupon.


-sigh-



Mr. EISENBERG. You can refer to your photographs.
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.














JohnM
« Last Edit: August 16, 2018, 08:28:08 AM by John Mytton »

JFK Assassination Forum

Re: A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.
« Reply #119 on: August 16, 2018, 02:46:17 AM »