O. H. LEE

[Walt Cakebread]

Evidence that it was stamped that way by a conspirator? Suggestion: Try not to use circular reasoning to justify your claim.

Obscure place? They listed it as "Johnson Exhibit A" and the footnote leads directly to her testimony and to the Commission Exhibit.

But your argument reduces to: The Warren Commission did nothing wrong. They published the document. It was other unidentified really bad people who did the bad stuff here. Right?

Hank

Are you unaware that not all of the members of LBJ's cover up committee endorsed the findings.  And some of the lawyers had strong doubts about the "finding'

[Jerry Freeman]

 
Yes, Mrs. Johnson admitted that. That doesn't change the business record that was produced into non-evidence. Nor does it make her testimony invalid.

That doesn't change the business record that was produced into non-evidence.

Produced into non-evidence? What is non evidence? If the Johnson 'Exbt A' is non evidence then why is it there? Answer--as fodder...meaningless crap.

Mr. BALL. Did he sign anything with that name?
Mrs. JOHNSON. Yes, sir; I have it in my purse.
Mr. BALL. May I see it?
Mrs. JOHNSON. I will be glad to--I don't want you to keep it. I want you to--I brought it for your information. I knew you was going to ask that.
Mr. BALL. Now, is this in his handwriting?
Mrs. JOHNSON. This "O. H. Lee" is in his handwriting and this other is in the housekeeper's handwriting--Mrs. Roberts.

Johnson witnessed the signer sign a blank slip?
She did not wish to submit it. So what happened? Did Mr Ball keep it anyway? It was not submitted in evidence for the record.
When you sign something...something is written out for you to sign.
You don't sign something and then it written out for you.
Johnson told Ball that she didn't want him to keep the slip? How come?... and then wouldn't that invalidate the paper as evidence?
But then Hank...you will argue about this too. Because that is why you are here. To argue and to continue to argue.... huh Hank?
You will even argue that you are not arguing.. won't you Mr Condescending Hank?

[John Iacoletti]

So your argument is that Johnson lied when she claimed Oswald signed that ledger page.

Not at all.  I'm questioning whether she is correct or not.  She could just be confused.

And that, if Oswald was going under an alias, he wouldn't try to disguise his handwriting in any fashion by perhaps signing "O.H.Lee" differently. Tell us how you reached that conclusion.

And yet you would have us believe he didn't "disguise his handwriting" when ordering a rifle to shoot a general.

Then he said that he had lived there under an assumed name. He asked me to remove the notation of the telephone number in Ruth's phone book, but I didn't want to do that. I asked him then, "Why did you give us a phone number, when we do call we cannot get you by name?"
He was very angry, and he repeated that I should remove the notation of the phone number from the phone book. And, of course, we had a quarrel.[/b] I told him that this was another of his foolishness, some more of his foolishness. I told Ruth Paine about this. It was incomprehensible to me why he was so secretive all the time.

All of that is also consistent with Johnson misunderstanding his name and him running with it.  Just like the "H. O. Lee" on the Greyhound bus slip.  Or are you going to claim that he signed that and disguised his handwriting too?

But to what end?  What does the O.H. Lee "alias" mean to you in terms of anything relevant to the assassination?

[Jerry Freeman]

Actually guys..I revived this thread [reply 77] not to debate O H Lee as that was done here...
https://www.jfkassassinationforum.com/index.php/topic,1490.0.html
I was responding to the very first post by Gee stating that Oswald told Fritz that he lived at the Beckley address and then Fritz dispatched a search party. That claim was predisposed and blatantly false as I have demonstrated in both these threads.