Why did Oswald go to the movies?

[Mitch Todd]

There's nothing conclusive about handwriting "analysis".

The Washington Post did a series on the state of forensic science. In it they note that a test of signature analysis generated a false positive match 3.4% of the time. The scientific standard for validity is a 95% correct rate. And having two separate examinations of the same material would lead to a false positive on the order of 0.034 * 0.034 = 0.00115 or 0.115% of the time. I kinda like those odds. 
 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/local/forensic-analysis-methods/

[Mitch Todd]

And Trolletti isn't really trolling. Just Magoo-like going on a discussion forum with his impossible standard-of-proof and asking "reasonable" questions out of a genuine search for the truth. Sometimes he veers off into an "uncivil discourse" not of his own making.

Well, he starts out arguing something like a creationist playing the old transitional-forms angle:

That is, Creationist looks at the fossil record, and says,"hey, there's a gap between species B and species R. Evolution can't be right, because there should be a transition form between the two."

The response is "There *is* a transitional form between B and R, it's species K"

Then Creationist smiles and says, "ooh! You shouldn't have said that! Now you have twice the problem! Where are the transitional forms between B and K and K and R?!?!?!"

In JI's case, it boils down to him arguing more and more about smaller and smaller issues until he's arguing about a patch of bark on one tree so fervently that he's forgotten he's in the middle of a great forest. Maybe he secretly hopes everyone else stopped noticing the forest, too.

[Steve M. Galbraith]

Well, he starts out arguing something like a creationist playing the old transitional-forms angle:

That is, Creationist looks at the fossil record, and says,"hey, there's a gap between species B and species R. Evolution can't be right, because there should be a transition form between the two."

The response is "There *is* a transitional form between B and R, it's species K"

Then Creationist smiles and says, "ooh! You shouldn't have said that! Now you have twice the problem! Where are the transitional forms between B and K and K and R?!?!?!"

In JI's case, it boils down to him arguing more and more about smaller and smaller issues until he's arguing about a patch of bark on one tree so fervently that he's forgotten he's in the middle of a great forest. Maybe he secretly hopes everyone else stopped noticing the forest, too.

It's somewhat like the deconstructionist fad of the 1980s where one would render a text indecipherable - words have open and no fixed meanings and therefore they can have no true meaning - thus making the author disappear.

As in: what did Brewer mean by suspicious? Or frightened? So we have to drill down forever into what he meant by those terms. Since there is no fully agreed upon definition - at least to the Oswald defender - the words have no meaning. The evidence is made to disappear.

Meanwhile, the fact that Oswald - the only person to have left the building where shots were fired - is several miles away carrying a loaded revolver with extra bullets in his pocket - is lost in the exercise.

[Walt Cakebread]

It's somewhat like the deconstructionist fad of the 1980s where one would render a text indecipherable - words have open and no fixed meanings and therefore they can have no true meaning - thus making the author disappear.

As in: what did Brewer mean by suspicious? Or frightened? So we have to drill down forever into what he meant by those terms. Since there is no fully agreed upon definition - at least to the Oswald defender - the words have no meaning. The evidence is made to disappear.

Meanwhile, the fact that Oswald - the only person to have left the building where shots were fired - is several miles away carrying a loaded revolver with extra bullets in his pocket - is lost in the exercise.

Meanwhile, the fact that Oswald - the only person to have left the building where shots were fired - is several miles away carrying a loaded revolver with extra bullets in his pocket - is lost in the exercise.

Sorry, Mr G.     You're trying to build a house with no solid foundation directly on a sand beach ....   

the fact that Oswald - the only person to have left the building where shots were fired - is several miles away carrying a loaded revolver with extra bullets in his pocket - is lost in the exercise.   

Lee was NOT the only person who left the building..... That is a FACT that you've ignored.

And It what way does the information that Lee Oswald was "several miles away carrying a loaded revolver"  Establish that he's committed any crime???

[Mitch Todd]

You have a problem with Holmes' grammar or specific words?

Neither. The problem is, Holmes' words don't explain why you think they are important. Apparently, you don't know, either.

[Mitch Todd]

Neither. The problem is, Holmes' words don't explain why you think they are important. Apparently, you don't know, either.

You don't trust Holmes?

Didn't say that. Never had a reason not to trust him. You, on the other hand, are in a completely different spot. Are you ever going to explain what you think is important about what Holmes said, or are you going to continue acting like an asinine child?
 

[John Mytton]

*) Since they stayed behind anyway the act of closing up the shop also made no sense.

Were they going to stay behind, keep the shop open and sell shoes?

JohnM

[Rob Caprio]

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cole, I now hand you an item consisting of a U.S. postal money order in the amount of $21.45, payable to Klein's Sporting Goods, from "A. Hidell, P.O. Box 2915, Dallas, Texas." For the record I will state that this money order was included with the purchase order in Exhibit 773 which has just been identified, and was intended and used as payment for the weapon shipped in response to the purchase order, 773. I ask you, Mr. Cole, whether you have examined this money order for the purpose of determining whether it was prepared by the author of the standards?
Mr. COLE. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. What was your conclusion, Mr. Cole?
Mr. COLE. It is my conclusion that the handwriting on this money order is in the hand of the person who executed the standard writing.

Cole's deposition goes into more detail as to what the "standard writing"
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/cole1.htm

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cadigan, I now hand you Commission Exhibit No. 788, and ask you if you have examined that exhibit?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; I have.
Mr. EISENBERG. For the record, that is the money order which was included with the purchase order to Klein's. Have you prepared a photograph of that exhibit, Mr. Cadigan?
Mr. CADIGAN. I have.
Mr. EISENBERG. That will be Cadigan Exhibit No. 11.
(The document referred to was marked Cadigan Exhibit No. 11.)
Mr. EISENBERG. And this was taken by you or under your supervision?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. And is it an accurate photograph of the money order, Exhibit No. 788?
Mr. CADIGAN. It is.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you compare Exhibit No. 788 with the standards to determine whether Exhibit No. 788 had been written by Lee Harvey Oswald?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. What was your conclusion?
Mr. CADIGAN. That the postal money order, Cadigan Exhibit No. 11, had been prepared by Lee Harvey Oswald.
Mr. EISENBERG. The postal money order is Commission Exhibit No. 788 and your picture is Cadigan Exhibit No. 11, is that correct?
Mr. CADIGAN. That is correct.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/cadigan2.htm

And yet, the money order number wasn't in circulation at the time of purchase. How do you explain that?

Also, quote me the handwriting experts for the defense and what they found. Oh, that's right, he was provided any legal representation. Experts for the prosecution are going to agree with the prosecution. That is a simple fact.