A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.

[Andrew Mason]

I'm just saying that we don't know what we don't know.  All we have is a print allegedly from a single microfilm frame and the testimony of a vice-president who didn't process the orders.  Could there have been more than one order that day for the same item?

All you need is an officer from Klein's to say that the records were produced in the ordinary course of business and they are admissible as business records. The law recognizes that human beings are not expected to remember dealing with all the records they handle every day.

If you believe the deposit slip dated February 15 was actually supposed to be March 15 (why does every piece of evidence have some discrepancy associated with it?  What are the odds?), and the accompanying material then there was another $21.45 payment deposited that day.  What was that order?  We don't know because the microfilm is "missing".

I don't understand your point. We have the actual money order with Oswald's handwriting on it in the amount of $21.45 and date stamped March 12, 1963 by the Dallas post office. It is payable to Klein's Sporting Goods and is stamped on the back by Klein's for deposit to their bank. This money order did not exist on February 15, 1963.

But now you have another discrepancy as the supposed order coupon says that $19.95 is enclosed.  Also, if this was ordered with a scope, why did Dial Ryder have to mount a scope on a rifle for "Oswald"?

$19.95 was enclosed - with an additional $1.50 for shipping. 

Do you mean the Dial Ryder who worked on a rifle from a person named Oswald but couldn't remember what he did and couldn't be sure of how much he charged but he could have charged for a bore sighting? 

[John Iacoletti]

All you need is an officer from Klein's to say that the records were produced in the ordinary course of business and they are admissible as business records.

I don't care what's "admissible".  I care about what can be demonstrated to be actually true.

I don't understand your point.  We have the actual money order with Oswald's handwriting on it

We've already talked about the problems with declaring this to be "Oswald's handwriting".

in the amount of $21.45 and date stamped March 12, 1963 by the Dallas post office. It is payable to Klein's Sporting Goods and is stamped on the back by Klein's for deposit to their bank. This money order did not exist on February 15, 1963.

So when did Klein's deposit this particular money order (if they ever did)?

But my point if you'll recall is how did Oswald buy this money order when he was at work all day long (on a Tuesday, not a SaPersonay as you surmised)?

$19.95 was enclosed - with an additional $1.50 for shipping. 

Then why doesn't the alleged order coupon say $21.45 enclosed?  And how do you even know what was enclosed?

Do you mean the Dial Ryder who worked on a rifle from a person named Oswald but couldn't remember what he did and couldn't be sure of how much he charged but he could have charged for a bore sighting?

Yes, that Dial Ryder.  Was he yet another one of the LN cavalcade of lying / mistaken witnesses?  Or was there another Oswald in Dallas who happened to have an Italian rifle?  Seems like that would have been something to follow up on...

[Andrew Mason]

I don't care what's "admissible".  I care about what can be demonstrated to be actually true.

The reason that business records - records made in the ordinary course of business - are admissible is because courts have determined that they meet the threshold of "reliability".  For example, bank tellers routinely stamp deposits when they are deposited to the bank. We do not need to find the bank teller who stamped a deposit in order for the stamped deposit slip to be evidence that the deposit occurred.  The fact is, the bank teller will rarely remember the deposit. The best evidence is the documentation itself. 

We've already talked about the problems with declaring this to be "Oswald's handwriting".

And so far as I can tell, no reputable handwriting analyst has said it is not Oswald's handwriting.

So when did Klein's deposit this particular money order (if they ever did)?

Obviously after March 12, 1963. Why does the actual date matter?

But my point if you'll recall is how did Oswald buy this money order when he was at work all day long (on a Tuesday, not a SaPersonay as you surmised)?

Maybe he purchased it before work. Do we know that the post office was not open before 8:00 am?

Then why doesn't the alleged order coupon say $21.45 enclosed?

I think it may. There is some writing to the right of the $19.95 on the coupon.

And how do you even know what was enclosed?

Because the order was recorded as having been paid.  Why would anyone send payment separately?

Yes, that Dial Ryder.  Was he yet another one of the LN cavalcade of lying / mistaken witnesses?  Or was there another Oswald in Dallas who happened to have an Italian rifle?  Seems like that would have been something to follow up on...

Dial Ryder's evidence has little probative value either way.  The only value would be to explain why the C2766 rifle was not sighted perfectly. But even if Ryder did sight the scope in early November 1963, the dismantling and reassembly of the rifle could easily explain why it was out a little.

[John Iacoletti]

Andrew took an isolated cherry-pick that you casually threw his way and provided more detail and context. Like most LNers who bother to respond to your unrelenting nasty, provocative trolls.

I understand that LNers don't like their bad or invalid arguments exposed, but that doesn't make me nasty or a troll.  It's patently obvious who's doing the namecalling here and it's not me.

But by all means, feel free to demonstrate where I have been nasty, and I'll be happy to apologize.  Maybe you can do better than "Richard" who thought that "cool use of JFK reloaded" was uncivil.

[John Iacoletti]

The reason that business records - records made in the ordinary course of business - are admissible is because courts have determined that they meet the threshold of "reliability".  For example, bank tellers routinely stamp deposits when they are deposited to the bank. We do not need to find the bank teller who stamped a deposit in order for the stamped deposit slip to be evidence that the deposit occurred.  The fact is, the bank teller will rarely remember the deposit. The best evidence is the documentation itself. 

Fair enough.  Would you agree that in addition to a stamp (which could be done by anybody), that a bank deposit slip or a bank statement showing when the deposit was made would also exist in the ordinary course of business?

And so far as I can tell, no reputable handwriting analyst has said it is not Oswald's handwriting.

As so far as I can tell, no reputable handwriting analyst has said it is not Genghis Kahn's handwriting either.

Obviously after March 12, 1963. Why does the actual date matter?

Wouldn't documentation of such help demonstrate that such an instrument was actually deposited by Klein's?

Maybe he purchased it before work. Do we know that the post office was not open before 8:00 am?

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=102294#relPageId=34

[Andrew Mason]

Fair enough.  Would you agree that in addition to a stamp (which could be done by anybody), that a bank deposit slip or a bank statement showing when the deposit was made would also exist in the ordinary course of business?

A deposit slip prepared by Klein's should exist. According to Klein's deposit records, a payment for $21.45 was included on the deposit slip for 3-13-63.  The bank statement is only going to show the total deposit amount. There should have been a deposit slip for the deposit marked 3-13-63. It may not show the same date as the date on which the deposit slip was prepared may be prior to the date on which the deposit was processed by the bank.

As so far as I can tell, no reputable handwriting analyst has said it is not Genghis Kahn's handwriting either.

True. But no handwriting analyst ever said it was Genghis Khan's.  No panel of handwriting experts, such as that convened by the HSCA, suggested that the handwriting was Genghis Khan's.  They all thought it was Oswald's. There were no dissenting opinions.

Wouldn't documentation of such help demonstrate that such an instrument was actually deposited by Klein's?

So maybe he was a tad late for work on March 12, 1963.  Maybe he bought it late on March 11 and they date stamped it the following day - just like banks do. The fact is that a money order for $21.45 bearing what experts have said is Oswald's handwriting was purchased with a date stamp of March 12, 1963 and used to pay for a rifle that Klein's records show was C2766, which was later shipped to Oswald's post office box in Dallas.

[John Iacoletti]

A deposit slip prepared by Klein's should exist. According to Klein's deposit records, a payment for $21.45 was included on the deposit slip for 3-13-63.  The bank statement is only going to show the total deposit amount. There should have been a deposit slip for the deposit marked 3-13-63. It may not show the same date as the date on which the deposit slip was prepared may be prior to the date on which the deposit was processed by the bank.

How did they prepare the deposit slip on February 15 for a deposit that included a money order sent on March 12?

True. But no handwriting analyst ever said it was Genghis Khan's.  No panel of handwriting experts, such as that convened by the HSCA, suggested that the handwriting was Genghis Khan's.  They all thought it was Oswald's. There were no dissenting opinions.

Maybe we should consult a panel of astrology experts to see if Oswald's moon was in Jupiter that day.  And see if there are any dissenting opinions.  That would be good evidence.

One of the things that HSCA expert Purtell said though merits inclusion here if you're going to base your opinion on his expertise:

"Document examiners only render a qualified or conditional opinion when working from copies. They stipulate that they have to examine the original before a definite opinion will be made."

So maybe he was a tad late for work on March 12, 1963.

Mr. JENNER. Was he regular in his arrival at work?
Mr. GRAEF. Yes.
Mr. JENNER. Were his work habits in that connection satisfactory?
Mr. GRAEF. Yes. I would say he was very punctual in his arrival to work.

  Maybe he bought it late on March 11 and they date stamped it the following day - just like banks do.

Possible I suppose, but quite a stretch.  He worked until from 8:00-5:15 and had no car.  And the alleged envelope has a 10:30 am postmark.

The fact is that a money order for $21.45 bearing what experts have said is Oswald's handwriting

Mr. FAUNTROY - All right, thank you. The second question has to do with the Hunt letter there. Assuming that that is a forgery, how would you put together such a forgery? Is it possible for a person to so analyze the writing of another person as to reproduce it in reasonable facsimile?
Mr. MCNALLY - Oh, yes. As a matter of fact, we had a famous case some years ago where there was pages and pages of writing reproduced in the so-called Irving-Hughes situation back in the seventies. It was very difficult at that time to determine whether it was good or bad.
Mr. FAUNTROY - What is the peculiar capability required to do that? Are there persons who are particularly skilled at forgery in that kind of detail, that kind of length?
Mr. MCNALLY - Yes, there are. As a matter of fact, they exist all over. You have them in the criminal field where, let's say with a quick study you could turn out something like this, particularly since Oswald's general writing pattern is simple and tends to be rather legible, and to turn out something like that would be not particularly difficult.

was purchased with a date stamp of March 12, 1963 and used to pay for a rifle that Klein's records show was C2766, which was later shipped to Oswald's post office box in Dallas.

Where is the postal record of shipment?  Where is the receipt for the postage paid?  Where is the signature of the person who picked it up? Why did the FBI who was monitoring his mail not notice a package from a gun store?  Why didn't any postal employee remember a 5 foot box being picked up?

[John Mytton]

I don't care what's "admissible".  I care about what can be demonstrated to be actually true.

Where does all your speculation go, in 54 years there is still no alternative narrative CT's suggest forgery and planting yet don't provide any evidence, btw a clerical error or something equally as irrelevant does not make a case.

But what does make a case is the following corroborated evidence.

Oswald ordered the rifle.



Oswald possessed the rifle.



Oswald's rifle was found at Oswald's work with Oswald's prints.





JohnM