CT's, how did Oswald's rifle end up on the 6th floor?

[John Mytton]

No, unscientific and biased handwriting "analysis" of 2 block letters on a photo of a microfilm copy of a 2-inch order coupon said that Oswald ordered a similar, but not identical, rifle.

The entire exhibit includes the envelope.



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. What have you got, ahh that's right a lot of bluff and blunder!

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.

Btw why are you dishonestly trying to hide evidence? Your court would never let you get away with manipulating evidence. And to be honest, this lame attempt just goes to show that Iacietti needs to misrepresent the evidence to prove his point. Sucks to be you!

JohnM

[John Iacoletti]

Yes he did, he even took the first punch in the face from Oswald and luckily the skin between his thumb and forefinger got between the hammer on Oswald's revolver and saved his life.

Of course he did.  After all, he said so.

I wasn't there, I don't know?

You sure seem to think that you do.

Sure, you have the right to question certain aspects that's the defense's job but nothing you have presented can even remotely refute the mountain of evidence that Oswald took his rifle to work and shot the President.

This "mountain" you keep referring to doesn't actually exist.  It's speculation and conjecture.

[John Iacoletti]

The entire exhibit includes the envelope.

There is nothing to connect this particular envelope to any particular Klein's order, other than they were photographed together.  Even less so for the money order found in Virginia.

I'm not hiding anything.  The thing you're trying to prove is that Oswald ordered a particular weapon.  This envelope and this money order tell you nothing of the kind.  Sorry.

[John Mytton]

There is nothing to connect this particular envelope to any particular Klein's order, other than they were photographed together.  Even less so for the money order found in Virginia.

I'm not hiding anything.  The thing you're trying to prove is that Oswald ordered a particular weapon.  This envelope and this money order tell you nothing of the kind.  Sorry.

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

This just gets more ridiculous by the day. Do you really believe any of the increasingly desperate nonsense that you spew everyday?

It couldn't be more clear that as part of Kleins record keeping that both coupon and envelope were photographed together.

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 Dept 358.

Even less so for the money order found in Virginia.

The amount of the money order which was written by Oswald and received by Kliens is dated the same as the money order and the amount is the total of Oswald's rifle + postage.

I'm not hiding anything.

We have a Kleins record that was "photographed together" and without a piece of supporting evidence, you think that you have the right to seperate them. LOL!

The thing you're trying to prove is that Oswald ordered a particular weapon.  This envelope and this money order tell you nothing of the kind.  Sorry.

You can be sorry all you like but Oswald ordered C20-T750 and Kleins sent Oswald C20-T750.



If Oswald is as innocent as you imply then why all the deception and lies?

JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

This just gets more ridiculous by the day. Do you really believe any of the increasingly desperate nonsense that you spew everyday?

It couldn't be more clear that as part of Kleins record keeping that both coupon and envelope were photographed together.

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 Dept 358.

The amount of the money order which was written by Oswald and received by Kliens is dated the same as the money order and the amount is the total of Oswald's rifle + postage.



We have a Kleins record that was "photographed together" and without a piece of supporting evidence, you think that you have the right to seperate them. LOL!

You can be sorry all you like but Oswald ordered C20-T750 and Kleins sent Oswald C20-T750.



If Oswald is as innocent as you imply then why all the deception and lies?

JohnM

If Oswald is as innocent as you imply then why all the deception and lies?

When and where did John imply that Oswald is innocent?

Are you making stuff up again?

[John Mytton]

If Oswald is as innocent as you imply then why all the deception and lies?

When and where did John imply that Oswald is innocent?

Are you making stuff up again?

When and where did John imply that Oswald is innocent?

What a stupid question how can I answer a negative?  A more accurate question is, When has John made even 1 post that says that Oswald was guilty of murdering the President or Tippit?

There's a reason that Iacoletti has never backed away from being accused of being Oswald's defence lawyer, that's because he's lives and breathes Oswald, he even had his photo taken alongside Oswald's grave, now that's someone that's dedicated to his client! 

Are you making stuff up again?

I don't have to make up anything, you Kooks here do enough of that to last a lifetime.

JohnM

[John Mytton]

The answer you seek is readily available out there. Why start a thread on it?

I looked and I can't find even 1 person who admits to planting the rifle, then I looked for people who could have known someone who could have planted the rifle and no one said Boo. I looked for people who worked in the depository who could have seen someone with a rifle or a rifle package and guess what, that came up negative too.
But obviously because you said so, you are part of the elite JFK Researcher Squad, so whenever you're ready can you provide the answer?

JohnM

 

[Martin Weidmann]

What a stupid question how can I answer a negative?  A more accurate question is, When has John made even 1 post that says that Oswald was guilty of murdering the President or Tippit?

There's a reason that Iacoletti has never backed away from being accused of being Oswald's defence lawyer, that's because he's lives and breathes Oswald, he even had his photo taken alongside Oswald's grave, now that's someone that's dedicated to his client! 

I don't have to make up anything, you Kooks here do enough of that to last a lifetime.

JohnM

What a stupid question how can I answer a negative? 

What negative would that be?

You claimed that John had implied that Oswald was innocent. I asked you to show where and when he implied that. Could it be you simply can't back up your claim?

A more accurate question is, When has John made even 1 post that says that Oswald was guilty of murdering the President or Tippit?

Talk about stupid questions.....

Why would John (or anybody else for that matter) have to have an opinion about Oswald's guilt or innocence, when he is not sure either way?


There's a reason that Iacoletti has never backed away from being accused of being Oswald's defence lawyer,

And why should he back away from that? Perhaps he understands that that's exactly what you and your ilk want him to do every time you call him Oswald's defence lawyer. To the best of my knowledge, John himself has never claimed he was Oswald's defence lawyer so there is no reason for him to back away from anything.