O. H. LEE

[John Iacoletti]

[John Iacoletti]

Hilarious. You weren't there. You're not a witness, nor a recognized expert in handwriting analysis.

When did a "recognized expert in handwriting analysis" examine this "register"?  After all, the Warren Commission claimed that an "examination" was done.

[Hank Sienzant]

Yes, she certainly said that.

Now where is the examination?

Asked and answered. You're quibbling about the wording in the Warren Report. The Commission had testimony Oswald signed that ledger. The usual complaint about the Commission coming from conspiracy theorist quarters is that the Commission ignored the evidence and reached the conclusion they wanted to reach. Here, you're claiming the Commission should have ignored the evidence and reached a conclusion contrary to the evidence they had before them, as you ignore the evidence and reach a contrary conclusion below.

Cool.  I'm surmising that this is not a "register" and Oswald didn't write O.H. Lee on it.  Or is it only you who gets to surmise?

I'm also surmising that the the Warren Commission falsely claimed that "further examination" was done.

No, you're the only one surmising.

Let me apologize. Sorry, I used the wrong word earlier. I used the word surmise, when I should have used conjecture.

surmise
suppose that something is true without having evidence to confirm it.
"he surmised that something must be wrong"

conjecture; plural noun: conjectures
an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information.

I *conjectured* on the basis of the incomplete information on the O.H.Lee / Room 0 page that the Johnson's tracked the rent payments in a register with one lodger listed per page. You demanded I produce the register, which isn't necessary. No business need produce all their records to establish the veracity of one record. You are surmising on the basis of nothing at all, other than your fervent desire that Oswald didn't use an alias when registering at the rooming house that Oswald didn't sign the document, despite the evidence to the contrary. In doing so, you're ignoring or excluding the evidence we do have, that of Mrs. Johnson's testimony and the business record she submitted.

Hank

[Hank Sienzant]

When did a "recognized expert in handwriting analysis" examine this "register"?  After all, the Warren Commission claimed that an "examination" was done.

Asked and answered, three or four times now.

If you have a reason to dispute the testimony of Mrs. Johnson, who testified the ledger page was signed in her presence, let it be known now. Otherwise, this is a moot argument and a mere quibble over the language in the Warren Report. The import of the evidence we do have before us (Mrs. Johnson's testimony and document) is clear: Oswald used the O.H.Lee alias when registering at the rooming house.

Hank

[John Iacoletti]

Asked and answered.

Yeah, your "answer" was that the examination was "Johnson said so".

Here, you're claiming the Commission should have ignored the evidence and reached a conclusion contrary to the evidence they had before them, as you ignore the evidence and reach a contrary conclusion below.

I'm claiming no such thing.  You are basing a conclusion (namely that Oswald intentionally used a fake name at the Beckley house) based solely on Johnson's claim that he filled out this "register" in that name.  Oswald's interrogators claim that Oswald said she misunderstood him when he gave he his name.  That's evidence too.

I *conjectured* on the basis of the incomplete information on the O.H.Lee / Room 0 page that the Johnson's tracked the rent payments in a register with one lodger listed per page. You demanded I produce the register, which isn't necessary. No business need produce all their records to establish the veracity of one record.

No, that won't fly.  There is no evidence -- even "Johnson said so" evidence -- that each renter had a separate page like this.

Besides, is this supposed "alias" supposed to have any bearing on who killed Kennedy?

[John Iacoletti]

If you have a reason to dispute the testimony of Mrs. Johnson, who testified the ledger page was signed in her presence, let it be known now.

Yes.  My reason is that the letters on Johnson's "ledger" look nothing like the way Oswald wrote his Ls and Os in the known samples of his signature and despite what the WC claimed, no examination was done on it.

[Walt Cakebread]

Yes.  My reason is that the letters on Johnson's "ledger" look nothing like the way Oswald wrote his Ls and Os in the known samples of his signature and despite what the WC claimed, no examination was done on it.

 the letters on Johnson's "ledger" look nothing like the way Oswald wrote his Ls and Os

Bravo!....    And THAT'S the reason that piece of paper is stamped TOP SECRET..... That stamp limited the people who could see the document.... And therefore it also limited the people like you, and I, who can see that It was NOT written by Lee Oswald.   

In a way it is a very elementary microcosm of this entire case.    Anything the conspirators didn't want us pissants to see was blacked out or stamped TOP SECRET

[Hank Sienzant]

Bravo!....    And THAT'S the reason that piece of paper is stamped TOP SECRET..... That stamp limited the people who could see the document.... And therefore it also limited the people like you, and I, who can see that It was NOT written by Lee Oswald.   

In a way it is a very elementary microcosm of this entire case.    Anything the conspirators didn't want us pissants to see was blacked out or stamped TOP SECRET

...And then published it where anyone could see it. In the Warren Commission volumes of evidence. Hilarious. What a great way to keep it a secret. Publish it in a Government document that anyone could view at their local library or university, or even purchase from the Government Printing Office.

Hank