POLL. Is John Iacoletti right to separate the coupon from the envelope in CE773?

[Richard Smith]

"Unscientific"!  LOL.  Let's see: there are prints, photos, an order form in Oswald's handwriting, serial number match, Oswald's PO Box, an alias linked to Oswald via a fake ID in his possession at the time of arrest, the rifle is found at his place of work, there is no accounting for any other rifle in Oswald's possession.  Whew.  It's hard to imagine what more evidence there could be.  I wonder what constitutes "scientific" evidence if all of this does not do the trick.  How much such evidence is there to link John Wilkes Booth the gun he used to kill Lincoln?  I guess there is doubt of his guilt as well.  I'm sure there are witnesses who got his age, height, or color of his clothes wrong.  So there must (false) doubt.

[John Iacoletti]

The microfilm was found in Kleins records by Waldman the Vice President of Kleins, Waldman initialed the microfilm and later verified that it was his initials, was Waldan also part of your conspiracy?

As if usual for this case, the documentary evidence is contradictory.  This document claims that Waldman kept the original film in his safe in case it was necessary for subpeona.  So which is it?

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10408#relPageId=194&tab=page

Btw where is the evidence that the microfilm is missing?

John Armstrong looked for it in the National Archives in the mid 90s and found the film canister there, but the microfilm itself missing.

[John Mytton]

As if usual for this case, the documentary evidence is contradictory.  This document claims that Waldman kept the original film in his safe in case it was necessary for subpoena.  So which is it?

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10408#relPageId=194&tab=page

John Armstrong looked for it in the National Archives in the mid 90s and found the film canister there, but the microfilm itself missing.

As if usual for this case, the documentary evidence is contradictory.  This document claims that Waldman kept the original film in his safe in case it was necessary for subpoena.  So which is it?

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10408#relPageId=194&tab=page

As is usual in this case, the documentary evidence has no problems. The FBI agent is writing a report of what happened on the night of the 22nd. Waldman testifies that on the 22nd they extracted the information and then picked up the microfilm the next day.
The FBI agent in his report is simply telling us what happened on the night and Waldman obviously would put the microfilm under secure lock and key, as described in the report.
And to answer your "so which is it?" question, the answer is that both are right, not everyone has to lie.
But what I don't understand is how can Kleins do business without that record, as I previously posted those rifle records and who purchased them must be legally important for someone to have access to, surely?

John Armstrong looked for it in the National Archives in the mid 90s and found the film canister there, but the microfilm itself missing.

OK, I see no reason to doubt Armstrong but there could be a reasonable explanation, perhaps the film was being studied elsewhere because there was a lot of interest at that time due to the JFK movie.
I'd like to see an official say he can't produce the microfilm then that would be definitive proof that someone stole the microfilm, like how Groden stole copies of Autopsy Photos, it happens.

JohnM

[John Iacoletti]

As is usual in this case, the documentary evidence has no problems. The FBI agent is writing a report of what happened on the night of the 22nd. Waldman testifies that on the 22nd they extracted the information and then picked up the microfilm the next day.

Hold the phone.  Where does it say anything about the 22nd?  It's dated the 23rd, the same day the film was allegedly given to SA Dolan by Waldman.  According to CD 87, the FBI was at Klein's from 10 PM on the 22nd until 5:00 am on the 23rd and Waldman gave them the microfilm.  So why would they say that he put it in his safe until it was necessary to subpeona?

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10490#relPageId=91&tab=page

The question is, did Waldman even look at this film before the FBI confiscated it?

But what I don't understand is how can Kleins do business without that record, as I previously posted those rifle records and who purchased them must be legally important for someone to have access to, surely?

The FBI supposedly made a copy of the microfilm on Dec 4 so that Klein's could have their business records (http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/FBI%20Records%20Files/105-82555/105-82555%20Section%20037/105-37b.pdf).  So what happened to the copy as well as to the original?

[John Mytton]

Hold the phone.  Where does it say anything about the 22nd?  It's dated the 23rd, the same day the film was allegedly given to SA Dolan by Waldman.  According to CD 87, the FBI was at Klein's from 10 PM on the 22nd until 5:00 am on the 23rd and Waldman gave them the microfilm.  So why would they say that he put it in his safe until it was necessary to subpeona?

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10490#relPageId=91&tab=page

The question is, did Waldman even look at this film before the FBI confiscated it?

The FBI supposedly made a copy of the microfilm on Dec 4 so that Klein's could have their business records (http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/FBI%20Records%20Files/105-82555/105-82555%20Section%20037/105-37b.pdf).  So what happened to the copy as well as to the original?

Isn't the document you originally linked to dated the 26th?

The problem as I see it is that there is no information on how long the microfilm was in the safe and at what time the FBI took the film from the safe, you're just making assumptions.

Btw wouldn't have Waldman seen the microfilm when he discovered the Hidelll order?
Mr. WALDMAN. We were able to determine from our purchase records the date in which the rifle had been received

JohnM

[John Iacoletti]

Isn't the document you originally linked to dated the 26th?

No, it's dated the 23rd (dictated on the 26th).

The problem as I see it is that there is no information on how long the microfilm was in the safe and at what time the FBI took the film from the safe, you're just making assumptions.

It's just contradictory.  Either they took it on the early morning of the 23rd after being there all night, or they left it with him to put in his safe until they needed it at a later date.  Unless he put it in his safe at say 3 am and then they decided they needed it after all at 5 am, in which case why even mention that he put it in his safe?

Btw wouldn't have Waldman seen the microfilm when he discovered the Hidelll order?

How do we know that Waldman discovered the Hidell order?

Mr. WALDMAN. We were able to determine from our purchase records the date in which the rifle had been received

Isn't he talking about the date that Klein's purchased and received the rifle from Crescent?

[John Mytton]

No, it's dated the 23rd (dictated on the 26th).

It's just contradictory.  Either they took it on the early morning of the 23rd after being there all night, or they left it with him to put in his safe until they needed it at a later date.  Unless he put it in his safe at say 3 am and then they decided they needed it after all at 5 am, in which case why even mention that he put it in his safe?

How do we know that Waldman discovered the Hidell order?

Isn't he talking about the date that Klein's purchased and received the rifle from Crescent?

No, it's dated the 23rd (dictated on the 26th).

The document is dated the 26th, the stuff happened on the 23rd.

Unless he put it in his safe at say 3 am and then they decided they needed it after all at 5 am, in which case why even mention that he put it in his safe?

That's what I theorised and one agent who went home early or was just taking a whizz dictated the document on the 26th and wasn't in a position to be aware that they took the microfilm, no one has to lie, well unless the 26th dictation was by Dolan?

Isn't he talking about the date that Klein's purchased and received the rifle from Crescent?

Yeah, for some reason my Waldman quote cut short, here's the entire statement.

Mr. WALDMAN. We were able to determine from our purchase records the date in which the rifle had been received, and they also had a record of when it had been shipped, so we knew the approximate date of receipt by us, and from that we made---let's see, we examined our microfilm records which show orders from mail order customers and related papers, and from this determined to whom the gun had been shipped by us.

JohnM

[John Iacoletti]

Mr. WALDMAN. We were able to determine from our purchase records the date in which the rifle had been received, and they also had a record of when it had been shipped, so we knew the approximate date of receipt by us, and from that we made---let's see, we examined our microfilm records which show orders from mail order customers and related papers, and from this determined to whom the gun had been shipped by us.

This is really peculiar.  Who is "they"?  The FBI?  What record would they have of when it had been shipped?

"and from that we made---let's see, we examined our microfilm records".  A little Freudian slip there?