Who Killed J.D. Tippit?

[Martin Weidmann]

I certainly did Martin but using the above example, if a direct print out from Kleins very own Microfilm business records isn't absolute Rock Solid evidence then there is nothing that will convince the hardcore conspiracy theorist.

No offence but all you are doing is regurgitating the exact same arguments I was reading a decade ago from Caprio, Roger Collins, Miles Scull, David Josephs etc etc. And you all seem to think that every piece of evidence is required to meet some unobtainable standard of authentication, like the absurd authenticating writing on a warehouse order form.

Yesterday you were asking me to consider that A J Hidell was a real person which presumably explains the rifle order and Oswald's association with the name Hidell and today you are asking me to consider that Waldman 7 with Hidell's name isn't real because it wasn't authenticated and thus nullifying yesterday's theory. It must be nice to be so flexible in your journey of discovery.

JohnM

I certainly did Martin but using the above example, if a direct print out from Kleins very own Microfilm business records isn't absolute Rock Solid evidence then there is nothing that will convince the hardcore conspiracy theorist.

If you consider a print taken in May 1964 from a microfilm that nobody has seen since 11/22/63 "absolute rock solid evidence" then you are probably right that you won't convince any kind of conspiracy theorist or a skeptic like me.

No offence but all you are doing is regurgitating the exact same arguments I was reading a decade ago from Caprio, Roger Collins, Miles Scull, David Josephs etc etc.

No offence taken. It's probably because in all that time you still haven't been able to provide the conclusive evidence to prove them wrong.

Yesterday you were asking me to consider that A J Hidell was a real person which presumably explains the rifle order and Oswald's association with the name Hidell and today you are asking me to consider that Waldman 7 with Hidell's name isn't real because it wasn't authenticated and thus nullifying yesterday's theory. It must be nice to be so flexible in your journey of discovery.

In yesterday's scenario it was about the possibility that Oswald had been manipulated by somebody he knew as Hidell. Today I am not asking you to consider that Waldman 7 isn't real. Waldman 7 was generated as result from the Hidell order, and we know that Kleins did receive the order. I'm merely asking you to authenticate Waldman 7, not because of the connection to the Hidell order but to make sure the link with the TSBD rifle by way of a handwritten serial number is solid. I'm sorry that you got confused.

[Martin Weidmann]

Yet Kleins advertised the 40 inch rifle with a scope for many months? Go figure!



JohnM

Wouldn't it have been nice to just ask Westra about that or, for that matter, his immediate superior, VP Sam Kasper?

[John Mytton]

merely asking you to authenticate Waldman 7, not because of the connection to the Hidell order but to make sure the link with the TSBD rifle by way of a handwritten serial number is solid. I'm sorry that you got confused.

C2766 was recorded coming from Crescent and C2766 was again recorded as being in Klein's inventory with a unique control number so please explain the necessity and/or the methodology of any deception after Waldman initially sighted the Hidell order on the microfilm?

JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

C2766 was recorded coming from Crescent and C2766 was again recorded as being in Klein's inventory with a unique control number so please explain the necessity and/or the methodology of any deception after Waldman initially sighted the Hidell order on the microfilm?

JohnM

Without knowing precisely what was actually going on, back then, there is no way that I can explain to you what kind of necessity there would have been to manipulate Waldman 7, nor do I know if it happened. One thing I do know, however, is that a proper chain of custody for the microfilm and a sound authentication of the document would have seriously reduced the possibility of manipulation. Having said that, as such matters as chain of custody and evidence authentication didn't seem to matter much to the investigators it is beyond fair and reasonable to question the results of their investigation as well as the methods used.

[Charles Collins]

Suggesting that the fake ID could possibly have been planted, or that the Klein’s documentation could possibly have been doctored, etc. is pure speculation. And without any proper evidence, and an allegation that it did happen, this speculation would not have been allowed in a courtroom. As previously stated, the rules in place in the courts are there to try to ensure that a fair trial happens. There will never be a true trial for LHO. However when we are forming our own opinions as to what happened on 11/22/63, if we intend to be fair and unbiased, I think it is a good idea to therefore keep in mind the rules that apply to the courts.

[Martin Weidmann]

Suggesting that the fake ID could possibly have been planted, or that the Klein’s documentation could possibly have been doctored, etc. is pure speculation. And without any proper evidence, and an allegation that it did happen, this speculation would not have been allowed in a courtroom. As previously stated, the rules in place in the courts are there to try to ensure that a fair trial happens. There will never be a true trial for LHO. However when we are forming our own opinions as to what happened on 11/22/63, if we intend to be fair and unbiased, I think it is a good idea to therefore keep in mind the rules that apply to the courts.

Suggesting that the fake ID could possibly have been planted, or that the Klein’s documentation could possibly have been doctored, etc. is pure speculation.

Just like that it wasn't faked or planted is, without proper authentication, pure speculation also.

And without any proper evidence, and an allegation that it did happen, this speculation would not have been allowed in a courtroom.

A judge will decide what he allows in as evidence and what not. What you fail to understand is that nobody needs to speculate about a piece of evidence being faked or planted. When evidence is introduced without a solid chain of custody and/or proper authentication it is sufficient to question the veracity of that piece of evidence.

However when we are forming our own opinions as to what happened on 11/22/63, if we intend to be fair and unbiased, I think it is a good idea to therefore keep in mind the rules that apply to the courts.

Fair enough, but keep also in mind that a trial is by defenition a adversary system in which evidence introduced by one party can be challenged by the other. No allegation or suggestion of fakery or tampering has to be made. It does suffice to question the chain of custody and/or authenticity of a piece of evidence to establish it's veracity or lack there of.

On the other hand, introducing something as evidence doesn't automatically justify the conclusion that that evidence is authentic and/or even provides proof for what has been alleged.

[John Iacoletti]

What? Marina Oswald was his wife, and Oswald authorised his wife to receive mail.

But enough with the ridiculous diversions, the fact that you don't want to explain the reason why Oswald put A J Hidell on the post box application is duly noted.

I don’t need to “explain a reason”. You can either show that Oswald used Hidell as an alias for himself or you cannot.

[John Iacoletti]

     
This is particularly startling and noteworthy when one stops to realize that those making the allegation of conspiracy necessarily have the burden of proof. I mean, it makes no sense for A to say to B, “I allege that there is a conspiracy here. Now you prove there isn’t.”

A) I made no such allegation
B) Vincent Bugliosi. LOL.

It also makes no sense for A to say to B, “I allege that Oswald did it. Now prove there was a conspiracy here.”

Yes that Vincent Bugliosi who successfully prosecuted 105 out of 106 felony jury trials, which included 21 murder convictions. Btw "John", how many cases have you successfully defended?

False appeal to authority and to credentials. This isn’t a felony jury trial. Next?