Spot The Difference

[John Iacoletti]

Nice cut and paste job, "Richard".  As usual, you confuse conclusions and conjectures made about the evidence with evidence itself.  You claim that "there are photos, forms, serial numbers and even prints that link Oswald to a specific rifle", and then spew a cut-and-paste job that admits that the photos did not identify a specific rifle and that the prints were insufficient for identification purposes.

As for the WC conclusions,

- There is no evidence that Klein's ever sent such a package through the mail
- There is no evidence that such a package was picked up at the post office by Oswald or anybody else
- The FBI stated definitively that Hidell was not authorized on PO Box 2915
- The bank deposit slip presented was from February
- There is no evidence of Oswald ever using "Hidell" or anything like it as an alias for himself
- The original Klein's microfilm is conveniently "missing"
- Handwriting "analysis" is unscientific and biased and even those who do it say that it is particularly unreliable when done on non-originals with small sample sizes
- Oswald was at work all day when the money order found in Virginia was allegedly purchased
- Klein's produced no image of the alleged money order used for this alleged order
- The Hidell selective service card was not mentioned in any statement, interview, or report prior to the Klein's order turning up
- Carl Day's magic partial palmprint was not turned over to the FBI with all the other evidence or even mentioned to the FBI, and instead showed up a week later on an index card.  Latona said that area of the rifle did not have traces remaining there, which Day claimed there were, and it didn't appear to Latona that the area had even been processed
- The WC admitted that fibers cannot be matched to a specific garment
- There is no evidence that that particular rifle was in the Paine garage on 11/21 or ever
- Marina never said in any testimony that she saw Lee "on the screened-in porch at night practicing with the rifle by looking through the telescopic sight and operating the bolt"
- The paper bag does not appear in any crime scene photos and the officers involved didn't even agree on where it was found, when it was found, or how it was folded
- The only two people to see the package Oswald carried said it was not CE142
- There is no evidence that a rifle was ever inside CE142 or the package Frazier saw

So the question is, does "Richard" even understand his own cut-and-paste argument?

[Tom Scully]

John, I think you are going beyond what is reasonable in several of your points besides these three examples.

Also, the P. Money Order was found exactly where a money order of that type should have been archived.

https://web.archive.org/web/20170728100038/http://jfk.education/node/11
....

....
https://web.archive.org/web/20170728100038/http://www.uspostalbulletins.com/PDF/Vol83_Issue20338_19621129.pdf#search=%22money%20order%22

Nice cut and paste job, "Richard".  As usual, you confuse conclusions and conjectures made about the evidence with evidence itself.  You claim that "there are photos, forms, serial numbers and even prints that link Oswald to a specific rifle", and then spew a cut-and-paste job that admits that the photos did not identify a specific rifle and that the prints were insufficient for identification purposes.

As for the WC conclusions,

- There is no evidence that Klein's ever sent such a package through the mail
- There is no evidence that such a package was picked up at the post office by Oswald or anybody else
- The FBI stated definitively that Hidell was not authorized on PO Box 2915
- The bank deposit slip presented was from February
- There is no evidence of Oswald ever using "Hidell" or anything like it as an alias for himself
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=946#relPageId=433&search=hidell_and%20%22fair%20play%22



https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=946#relPageId=143&search=oswald_and%20hidell%20and%20application

- The original Klein's microfilm is conveniently "missing"
- Handwriting "analysis" is unscientific and biased and even those who do it say that it is particularly unreliable when done on non-originals with small sample sizes
- Oswald was at work all day when the money order found in Virginia was allegedly purchased
- Klein's produced no image of the alleged money order used for this alleged order
- The Hidell selective service card was not mentioned in any statement, interview, or report prior to the Klein's order turning up
- Carl Day's magic partial palmprint was not turned over to the FBI with all the other evidence or even mentioned to the FBI, and instead showed up a week later on an index card.  Latona said that area of the rifle did not have traces remaining there, which Day claimed there were, and it didn't appear to Latona that the area had even been processed
- The WC admitted that fibers cannot be matched to a specific garment
- There is no evidence that that particular rifle was in the Paine garage on 11/21 or ever
- Marina never said in any testimony that she saw Lee "on the screened-in porch at night practicing with the rifle by looking through the telescopic sight and operating the bolt"
- The paper bag does not appear in any crime scene photos and the officers involved didn't even agree on where it was found, when it was found, or how it was folded
- The only two people to see the package Oswald carried said it was not CE142
- There is no evidence that a rifle was ever inside CE142 or the package Frazier saw

So the question is, does "Richard" even understand his own cut-and-paste argument?

[John Iacoletti]

Astute observers will note the utter hypocrisy of these two statements:

Again, the absence of DNA is not the same as its presence.  It is possible to wear a jacket and not leave DNA on it.  Particularly if it is not tested for six decades after the person last came into contact with the jacket. The absence of DNA doesn't mean that it was never worn by that person.

We have gone over this one a thousand times.  Oswald is the only TSBD employee to leave his prints on the SN boxes.  So the excuse that "he worked there" doesn't cut.  Other folks worked on that floor but didn't leave their prints on the boxes used by the sniper.

[Jerry Freeman]

It doesn't strike me as a big deal that the boxes were moved in the search for evidence.... 

The "evidence" was tampered with in the search for evidence...how lame is that?

[Jerry Freeman]

The FBI stated definitively that Hidell was not authorized on PO Box 2915

The FBI could not have possibly known this even if a Mr Hidell was or was not authorized.
Bx 2915 was closed by Oswald [sometime] before he went to New Orleans where he had supposedly transferred his mail to a Bx 6225.
Postal Inspector Harry Holmes ---

Mr. LIEBELER. What is the ordinary procedure that is followed when a box is rented and this form is used?
Mr. HOLMES. The form is completed, usually by the applicant, and it must be signed by the applicant, even if an employee does complete it. This portion of the---I don't know how you want to designate it.
Mr. LIEBELER. We will number them portions 1, 2, and 3.
Mr. HOLMES. All right, part I of this application is simply the instructions on a combination box, and instructions to the patron is torn off, and he keeps it or they throw it away. Portions 2 and 3 are completed, too. 2 gives the applicant's name, the name of his corporation or firm he represents, if applicable, the kind of business, the business address, the home address, and the place for his signature and the date. On the third portion is a box for him to indicate whether he wants all mail in the box, or Just whether he wants some other disposition and so on, and a place for name of person entitled to receive mail through the box other than the applicant himself, and he firs in that. These two portions then remain together in the file of the post office where he made application,
Mr. LIEBELER. That is portions 2 and 3?
Mr. HOLMES. Until he relinquishes the box. They pull this out and endorse it so the box has been closed, and the date and they tear off 3 and throw it away.
It has no more purpose. That is what happened on box 2915.
Mr. LIEBELER. They have thrown part 3 away?
Mr. HOLMES. Yes; as it so happens, even though they closed the box in New Orleans, they still had part 3 and it showed that the mail for Marina Oswald and A. J. Hidell was good in the box. They hadn't complied with regulations. They still had it there.
Mr. LIEBELER. It was a lucky thing. [Right...a lucky thing-- just like everything else that happened]
Mr. HOLMES. We wish they had here.
Mr. LIEBELER. Now is this regulation that says section 3 should be torn off and thrown away, is that a general regulation of the Post Office Department?
Mr. HOLMES. It is in the Post Office Manual Instructions to employees; yes, sir.
Mr. LIEBELER. So there is no way, as I understand it, to tell from the records maintained, as far as you know anyway, who was authorized to receive mail at Post Office Box 2915 that Oswald had while he was here in Dallas before he went to New Orleans in April of 1963; is that correct?
Mr. HOLMES. Other than Oswald himself and his name on the application.
Mr. LIEBELER. Right.
Mr. HOLMES. Now he did tell me in personal interrogation that no one was permitted to get mail in that box but him.

So how could the FBI had known either way? They took Oswald's word for it?
So who has the Bx 6225 link that shows A J Hidell listed to have received mail?

[Richard Smith]

Bump.

Richard stalled out....?

I presented "my" evidence and you ran away never indicating what you believed was lacking from the record.  Just as expected.

[Richard Smith]

I did, very specifically.

As you requested.

Are you bailing this quick?

You merely presented an incomplete subjective opinion without even expressing the basis for that opinion to discuss: 

"I'm missing verification of control number VC836."

This implies that you believe there is some "missing verification" for which others would have to convince you otherwise to your subjective satisfaction.  A silly standard.  But you have not even articulated what you believe is "missing" in this context.  Waldman, as Klein's representative, confirmed that this is the control number assigned to the rifle.  They are the ones who assigned it.  But you know that already.  What manner of "verification" should there be that is "missing"?  Are you suggesting Waldman lied and that you have evidence to support this claim?  Or that you have some other basis to dispute Waldman's confirmation?  Why not articulate something for once?

[John Iacoletti]

Why did the WC interview somebody who personally had nothing to do with receiving, filling, or shipping orders?