A scientific look at the Single Bullet Theory.

[John Iacoletti]

Oswald has a history of disappearing from different workplaces.

But not Jaggars Chiles Stovall.

[John Mytton]

I'm not backing away from anything.  You seem to think that "Oswald's handwriting" is some solid fact.  It's not.

Actually the FBI confiscated it.  Then somebody "lost" it.  Too bad.  But they're from the government so they can be trusted.

I'm not backing away from anything.

You're doing it again, your long lists of refuting each piece of individual evidence must go somewhere, why are you people so afraid to reap what you sow?

You seem to think that "Oswald's handwriting" is some solid fact.  It's not.

Either Oswald wrote it in a style and composition that he usually did or we can go down the path in this being just another part of evidence that needed to be manufactured for this rifle order.

Actually the FBI confiscated it.  Then somebody "lost" it.  Too bad.  But they're from the government so they can be trusted

Wow, besides your paranoia being embarrassingly on full display the above is just silly, in a case where your defence primarily relies on fakery of all sorts the ability to manufacture another microfilm would have been childs play and considering that both the WC and the HSCA came to the conclusion that the writing was Oswald's, what's next?

JohnM 

[John Mytton]

But not Jaggars Chiles Stovall.

You can make as many assertions as you like but "Oswald has a history of disappearing from different workplaces."

JohnM

[John Iacoletti]

You're doing it again, your long lists of refuting each piece of individual evidence must go somewhere, why are you people so afraid to reap what you sow?

Where it goes is that the "evidence" that you think is so solid is not.

Either Oswald wrote it in a style and composition that he usually did or we can go down the path in this being just another part of evidence that needed to be manufactured for this rifle order.

No, either Oswald wrote it or he did not write it.  The evidence that he did write it (like so much of the evidence in this case) is weak, biased, and questionable.

[John Iacoletti]

You can make as many assertions as you like but "Oswald has a history of disappearing from different workplaces."

Jaggars Chiles Stovall was where he was working when this money order was allegedly purchased.  His boss there said nothing of the sort.

[Andrew Mason]

Jaggars Chiles Stovall was where he was working when this money order was allegedly purchased.  His boss there said nothing of the sort.

The handwriting of Oswald, the name "Hidell",  the date stamp, the amount (being the exact amount of the MC + scope + shipping) tell you that Oswald purchased this money order and sent it with the coupon and envelope addressed to Klein's.  There is no other reasonable explanation.  His defence counsel would have conceded that because all you would do is alienate the jury if you seriously disputed it.

Why is it that I think that if they had Oswald on film purchasing this money order you would still be coming up with excuses why it wasn't him?

[John Iacoletti]

The handwriting of Oswald, the name "Hidell",  the date stamp, the amount (being the exact amount of the MC + scope + shipping) tell you that Oswald purchased this money order and sent it with the coupon and envelope addressed to Klein's.  There is no other reasonable explanation.  His defence counsel would have conceded that because all you would do is alienate the jury if you seriously disputed it.

This isn't a trial.

The handwriting "analysis" is easily disputed on several grounds.  And without that, the rest doesn't matter.

Why is it that I think that if they had Oswald on film purchasing this money order you would still be coming up with excuses why it wasn't him?

Because when people can't argue the validity of the evidence, they strawman the opposing view and hope nobody notices the difference.

[Andrew Mason]

This isn't a trial.

It isn't a trial. But you missed my point. There would never be a trial of that issue. It would be conceded.

Look. If Oswald ordered a rifle from Klein's his handwriting would likely be on the envelope. But even if you had evidence that it was not Oswald's handwriting (which you don't) it would not change anything. One does not need to prove that it is his handwriting to prove that a rifle was ordered from Klein's to be sent to Oswald's PO box and Klein's filled that order with C2766.  It would be interesting if someone could show that it was not Oswald's writing. But it would not change the evidence that Klein's received a paid order with Oswald's address, that it recorded C2766 as filling that order to send to Oswald's box no.  and that Oswald held a rifle that cannot be distinguished from C2766 a few days after it should have arrived at the Dallas Post office if it had been sent as Klein's records showed.

You seem to think that Klein's records have no evidentiary value.  I suspect that if Klein's records showed that C2766 was used to fill an order for a rifle to be sent to a PO Box belonging to a CIA agent, you would be insisting that Klein's records provided very good evidence (which, of course, would be true). They don't say that. They say that it was used to fill an order to be sent to Oswald's PO Box.