Free Book Now Available -- Hasty Judgment: Why the JFK Case Is Not Closed

[Martin Weidmann]

Yeah, zero evidence except for the bag with his prints on it being found in the sniper's nest and the fact that he was seen carrying a long package to work that morning. Oh yeah, and those fibers in the bag that matched with fibers of the blanket that he kept his rifle wrapped in.

Carl Day accounted for it's existence prior to Nov 26. That alone would suffice in any court of law.

You mean like you've never seen it before? You've never seen the Waldman exhibits or the money order? How about the WC testimony of Klein's Vice President. Have you ever read that? If you want to approach this seriously, let me know.

All three shells were accounted for. One was not submitted to the Crime Lab right away because Fritz held onto it for awhile.

Yeah, zero evidence except for the bag with his prints on it being found in the sniper's nest and the fact that he was seen carrying a long package to work that morning. Oh yeah, and those fibers in the bag that matched with fibers of the blanket that he kept his rifle wrapped in.

Couple of questions, Tim

1. What evidentiary value does the paper bag allegedly found in the snipers nest have, considering that;

(1) it was made from TSBD material and found in the TSBD, on a floor where Oswald worked,
(2) it only had two identifiable prints on it, apparently belonging to Oswald, of which the locations on the bag were not consistent with the way Oswald, according to Frazier, carried the bag he brought with him,
(3) there were more prints present on the bag which could not be identified, leaving open the possibility of other people also having touched the bag

2. What, other than assumption, proves that the bag allegedly found at the TSBD is the same one Oswald carried that morning?

3. First of all, there is no match, to the exclusion of all other blankets, between the fibers found in the bag and the blanket found in Ruth Paine's garage. At best you can say the fibers are similar, but using the term "matched" is overstating the evidence.

And the question is; I'm sure you've seen the photographs made by the DPD and the FBI lab in which the blanket from Ruth Paine's garage lies directly next to the paper bag allegedly found at the TSBD. How can you rule out a transfer of fibers from the blanket to the bag when those photographs were taken? And if you can not rule out such a transfer, what evidentiary value do the fibers found in the paper bag actually have?

[Tim Nickerson]

I don't take Bugliosi bait. There is ZERO evidence of C 2766 ever being in the bag, read the FBI reports.

I've read the FBI reports. The matched fibers do not equate with zero evidence. Also, just the fact that it was found in the sniper's nest that C2766 was used from strongly suggests that C2766 had been in that bag.

Except when he was wrong. His account vs. Latona's observations make no sense.

His being wrong about minor details about the rifle has no impact on his full accounting for the existence of the print lift itself.

I've seen the alleged evidence. I don't care about the money order, show that Klein's stocked C 2766 when they claim to have shipped it.

Who do you think you're fooling? Not submitted means not accounted for.

Not submitted just means that it was not submitted to the Crime Lab. Submitting an item to the Crime Lab was not an absolute requirement. Lots of items were never submitted. The shell was accounted for.

[Tim Nickerson]

Nope, sorry Tim but you are completely wrong.

The only documents possibly linked directly to Hidell are the microfilm fotocopies of the order form and the money order, with the actual connection only being established (for what that's worth) by handwriting analysis.

Waldman 7 is an internal document, perpared by Klein's staff based upon the incoming order form. It only proves that an order was processed and it has no direct relation to Hidell (or Oswald). Waldman's testimony merely confirms the internal procedure and provides no direct evidentary link to Hidell (or Oswald) either. Waldman may confirm as much as he wants that according to the documents a rifle was sent to a p.o. box in Dallas, but that's at best only an assumption on his part. He was not involved in shipping it, nor does he have any first hand knowledge about when and to whom the rifle was ever delivered.

This is exactly why the Waldman evidence is so extremely weak. It all comes back to a few handwritten words written on an order form and a money order for which not even originals are available for handwriting analysis.

Handwriting analysis isn't an exact science to begin with. Having worked with experts in the past, I can tell you there is not one expert in the world who can say with 100% certainty that a particular individual, to the exclusion of all others, wrote a particular text. Handwriting analysis is done by comparing known (and certified) samples of an individual to the text on a questioned document. In court cases, the individual has to provide at least 10 samples of his handwriting by writing them down in front of a notary public or a judge. In this case, with Oswald dead, this of course did not happen. The experts only relied on documents for comparison they were told had been written by Oswald. A second way to compare handwritting is to examine the pressure on the paper applied by the pen and the flow of the pen when a word is written. This kind of comparison can not be done on a photo copy!

But it gets worse. The order form and money order, by themselves, even if they were written by Oswald do not prove he actually bought a rifle for himself or ever received it. In theory (and you will probably dismiss this out of hand for no good reason), a guy named or using the name Hidell could have asked Oswald to fill in the form and the money order for him citing for instance that he himself couldn't write. In my company I frequently fill in documents for people who have difficulties doing that themselves. To be clear, I'm not saying this actually happened, but it needs to be ruled out as a possibility before anyone can say with any kind of certainty that Oswald ordered the rifle for himself.

Klein's Vice President assumed that the company's records were accurate? WOW! Imagine that.



Mr. BELIN. Mr. Waldman, you have just put the microfilm which we call D-77 into your viewer which is marked a Microfilm Reader-Printer, and you have identified this as No. 270502, according to your records. Is this just a record number of yours on this particular shipment?
Mr. WALDMAN. That's a number which we assign for identification purposes.
Mr. BELIN. And on the microfilm record, would you please state who it shows this particular rifle was shipped
Mr. WALDMAN. Shipped to a Mr. A.--last name H-i-d-e-l-l, Post Office Box 2915, Dallas, Tex.
Mr. BELIN. And does it show arts' serial number or control number?
Mr. WALDMAN. It shows shipment of a rifle bearing our control number VC-836 and serial number C-2766.
Mr. BELIN. Is there a price shown for that?
Mr. WALDMAN. Price is $19.95, plus $1.50 postage and handling, or a total of $21.45.
Mr. BELIN. Now, I see another number off to the left. What is this number?
Mr. WALDMAN. The number that you referred to, C20-T750 is a catalog number.
Mr. BELIN. And after that, there appears some words of identification or description. Can you state what that is?
Mr. WALDMAN. The number designates an item which we sell, namely, an Italian carbine, 6.5 caliber rifle with the 4X scope.
Mr. BELIN. Is there a date of shipment which appears on this microfilm record?
Mr. WALDMAN. Yes; the date of shipment was March 20, 1963.
Mr. BELIN. Does it show by what means it was shipped?
Mr. WALDMAN. It was shipped by parcel post as indicated by this circle around the letters "PP."
Mr. BELIN. Does it show if any amount was enclosed with the order itself?
Mr. WALDMAN. Yes; the amount that was enclosed with the order was $21.45, as designated on the right-hand side of this order blank here.
Mr. BELIN. Opposite the words "total amount enclosed"?
Mr. WALDMAN. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. Is there anything which indicates in what form you received the money?
Mr. WALDMAN. Yes; below the amount is shown the letters "MO" designating money order.
Mr. BELIN. Now, I see the extreme top of this microfilm, the date, March 13, 1963; to what does that refer?
Mr. WALDMAN. This is an imprint made by our cash register indicating that the remittance received from the customer was passed through our register on that date.
Mr. BELIN. And to the right of that, I see $21.45. Is that correct?
Mr. WALDMAN. That's correct.

Waldman wasn't just saying that he assumed that the rifle was shipped to a Mr. A. Hidell, Post Office Box 2915, Dallas, Tex. He asserted positively that rifle was shipped to a Mr. A. Hidell, Post Office Box 2915, Dallas, Tex. He trusted what his own company's records were showing him.



Handwriting identification is consistently accepted as evidence in courts of law. The money order and CE 773 were examined by four or five experts in forensic document analysis. Maybe more.

[Martin Weidmann]

Klein's Vice President assumed that the company's records were accurate? WOW! Imagine that.



Mr. BELIN. Mr. Waldman, you have just put the microfilm which we call D-77 into your viewer which is marked a Microfilm Reader-Printer, and you have identified this as No. 270502, according to your records. Is this just a record number of yours on this particular shipment?
Mr. WALDMAN. That's a number which we assign for identification purposes.
Mr. BELIN. And on the microfilm record, would you please state who it shows this particular rifle was shipped
Mr. WALDMAN. Shipped to a Mr. A.--last name H-i-d-e-l-l, Post Office Box 2915, Dallas, Tex.
Mr. BELIN. And does it show arts' serial number or control number?
Mr. WALDMAN. It shows shipment of a rifle bearing our control number VC-836 and serial number C-2766.
Mr. BELIN. Is there a price shown for that?
Mr. WALDMAN. Price is $19.95, plus $1.50 postage and handling, or a total of $21.45.
Mr. BELIN. Now, I see another number off to the left. What is this number?
Mr. WALDMAN. The number that you referred to, C20-T750 is a catalog number.
Mr. BELIN. And after that, there appears some words of identification or description. Can you state what that is?
Mr. WALDMAN. The number designates an item which we sell, namely, an Italian carbine, 6.5 caliber rifle with the 4X scope.
Mr. BELIN. Is there a date of shipment which appears on this microfilm record?
Mr. WALDMAN. Yes; the date of shipment was March 20, 1963.
Mr. BELIN. Does it show by what means it was shipped?
Mr. WALDMAN. It was shipped by parcel post as indicated by this circle around the letters "PP."
Mr. BELIN. Does it show if any amount was enclosed with the order itself?
Mr. WALDMAN. Yes; the amount that was enclosed with the order was $21.45, as designated on the right-hand side of this order blank here.
Mr. BELIN. Opposite the words "total amount enclosed"?
Mr. WALDMAN. Yes.
Mr. BELIN. Is there anything which indicates in what form you received the money?
Mr. WALDMAN. Yes; below the amount is shown the letters "MO" designating money order.
Mr. BELIN. Now, I see the extreme top of this microfilm, the date, March 13, 1963; to what does that refer?
Mr. WALDMAN. This is an imprint made by our cash register indicating that the remittance received from the customer was passed through our register on that date.
Mr. BELIN. And to the right of that, I see $21.45. Is that correct?
Mr. WALDMAN. That's correct.

Waldman wasn't just saying that he assumed that the rifle was shipped to a Mr. A. Hidell, Post Office Box 2915, Dallas, Tex. He asserted positively that rifle was shipped to a Mr. A. Hidell, Post Office Box 2915, Dallas, Tex. He trusted what his own company's records were showing him.



Handwriting identification is consistently accepted as evidence in courts of law. The money order and CE 773 were examined by four or five experts in forensic document analysis. Maybe more.

Waldman wasn't just saying that he assumed that the rifle was shipped to a Mr. A. Hidell, Post Office Box 2915, Dallas, Tex. He asserted positively that rifle was shipped to a Mr. A. Hidell, Post Office Box 2915, Dallas, Tex. He trusted what his own company's records were showing him.

Thanks for showing the contradiction in your own argument.

If Waldman "trusted what his own company's records were showing him" he was in fact making an assumption. He may have confidently believed that the rifle was shipped to Hidell, but unless he actually shipped it himself, all he could do was assume that the rifle was actually send to the person mentioned on the form.

Handwriting identification is consistently accepted as evidence in courts of law. The money order and CE 773 were examined by four or five experts in forensic document analysis. Maybe more.

Appeal to a majority is a logical fallacy. The fact that more than one expert examined the photocopies and compared them to other writings claimed to be by Oswald's hand, do not make the conclusion true or correct. If you let several people do the exact same flawed test over and over again, you'll still end up with the same result every time.

Of course handwriting identification is accepted as evidence in the courts. I've been involved in several cases over the past 30 years where that was the case. It's not the findings of the expert that is the problem, it's the quality of the test. In this case, the experts had to work with photocopies of only a few handwritten words. They had no certified handwritings of Oswald to compare the documents with. All they had were some documents which they were told were written by Oswald. There was no authentication in the normal prescribed manner. And there was no way to examine the documents for the pressure applied to the paper by the pen and/or the flow of the pen over the paper during the writing. In other words, the procedure followed to make a determination was seriously flawed and probably wouldn't have held up in court. I have worked with handwriting experts enough to know that any "expert" that declares to 100% certainty that a text was writen by one particular person, to the exclusion of all others, should be instantly kicked out of the profession.

But after all this having been said, the bottom line is that the only thing that connects Hidell to the purchase of a rifle from Klein's are a few handwritten words on a order form and a money order, which some handwriting experts declared was Oswald's handwriting. That's it.... That's all there is.

[Martin Weidmann]

I've read the FBI reports. The matched fibers do not equate with zero evidence. Also, just the fact that it was found in the sniper's nest that C2766 was used from strongly suggests that C2766 had been in that bag.

There was no such thing as matched fibers. There never is and no FBI says there was a match. Even by today's standards they still can't match a fiber to a particular garment, to the exclusion of all others. At best the few fibers found in the bag were found to be similar to those of the blanket. That's ZERO evidence. Even more so as those fibers could have gotten into the bag by cross contamination of the evidence!

This is like saying, we found a black hair in the snipers nest and Oswald's hair is black so it must he his; we have a match!. Do you understand how stupid that sounds?

And the bag, made from TSBD materials and found inside the TSBD does in no way suggest that a rifle, any rifle, was ever in that bag. That's just wishfull thinking, for which there isn't a shred of evidence. You are making stuff up as you go along, just like the WC build a case based on assumptions and speculation.

[Tim Nickerson]

Waldman wasn't just saying that he assumed that the rifle was shipped to a Mr. A. Hidell, Post Office Box 2915, Dallas, Tex. He asserted positively that rifle was shipped to a Mr. A. Hidell, Post Office Box 2915, Dallas, Tex. He trusted what his own company's records were showing him.

Thanks for showing the contradiction in your own argument.

If Waldman "trusted what his own company's records were showing him" he was in fact making an assumption. He may have confidently believed that the rifle was shipped to Hidell, but unless he actually shipped it himself, all he could do was assume that the rifle was actually send to the person mentioned on the form.

Handwriting identification is consistently accepted as evidence in courts of law. The money order and CE 773 were examined by four or five experts in forensic document analysis. Maybe more.

Appeal to a majority is a logical fallacy. The fact that more than one expert examined the photocopies and compared them to other writings claimed to be by Oswald's hand, do not make the conclusion true or correct. If you let several people do the exact same flawed test over and over again, you'll still end up with the same result every time.

Of course handwriting identification is accepted as evidence in the courts. I've been involved in several cases over the past 30 years where that was the case. It's not the findings of the expert that is the problem, it's the quality of the test. In this case, the experts had to work with photocopies of only a few handwritten words. They had no certified handwritings of Oswald to compare the documents with. All they had were some documents which they were told were written by Oswald. There was no authentication in the normal prescribed manner. And there was no way to examine the documents for the pressure applied to the paper by the pen and/or the flow of the pen over the paper during the writing. In other words, the procedure followed to make a determination was seriously flawed and probably wouldn't have held up in court. I have worked with handwriting experts enough to know that any "expert" that declares to 100% certainty that a text was writen by one particular person, to the exclusion of all others, should be instantly kicked out of the profession.

But after all this having been said, the bottom line is that the only thing that connects Hidell to the purchase of a rifle from Klein's are a few handwritten words on a order form and a money order, which some handwriting experts declared was Oswald's handwriting. That's it.... That's all there is.

Your original question to me was in regards to the Waldman exhibits and Waldman's testimony and how they would establish a direct link to Hidell or Oswald. I've shown you how.  As you know, they are not the only things that connect Hidell (Oswald) to the purchase of a rifle from Klein's.

[Tim Nickerson]

There was no such thing as matched fibers. There never is and no FBI says there was a match.

There was such a thing as matched fibers. What you have in mind is that the FBI never made a conclusive match to the blanket. That's because all of the different fibers of the blanket were not found in the bag.

[John Mytton]

There was not only 1 type of fiber, Oswald's brown arrest shirt was made up of 3 different types of fibers and all 3 fibers on Oswald's rifle matched in colour and twist.



Another important consideration is coincidence. When fibers that match the clothing fibers of the suspect are found on the clothing of a victim, two conclusions may be drawn: The fibers originated from the suspect, or the fibers originated from another fabric source that not only was composed of fibers of the exact type and color, but was also in a position to contribute those fibers through primary or secondary contact. The likelihood of encountering identical fibers from the environment of a homicide victim (i.e., from his or her residence or friends) is extremely remote.
https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/about-us/lab/forensic-science-communications/fsc/july2000/deedric3.htm#Fabric%20Type

JohnM