Chapter 8 ? The Diary That Wasn?t - Part 1
The writing has a continuity from page to page and line to line that is indicative of being written about, or at, the same time. It does not give the impression of being ?random?, as would be expected of a diary extended over a period of time. It appears that this diary has been written within a short period of time and not over any extensive period.Joseph P. McNally, Fellow, American Academy of Forensic Sciences
It has been pointed out that there are significant problems with each of the sources utilized to reconstruct Oswald?s thoughts and activities while in the Soviet Union.
For many years Oswald?s ?Historic Diary? was the virtually unchallenged primary source of information on this period of his life, purporting, as it does, to be his contemporaneous documentation of events. However, some skeptics pointed to certain entries in the diary which they said reflected information which could only have become known after the supposed time of the entries.
The House Select Committee on Assassinations had a number of documents about which there were various questions; inevitably, Oswald?s diary came to be amongst them. In order to resolve these questions, the Committee first asked the President on the American Society of Questioned Document Examiners for his recommendations on the leading experts in the field of questioned document examination, specifically hand-written documents. The Committee then asked each of the people he recommended for their suggestions as to whom the Committee might retain for these purposes. Three names appeared consistently. After ascertaining that none had had a connection with the FBI or the Kennedy case, the Committee requested that this impartial panel undertake an examination of various documents. The panel members, all of whom belonged to the American Society of Questioned Document Examiners, were Joseph P. McNally, David J. Purtell and Charles C. Scott. The Committee provided the following material extracted from their qualifications:
?McNally received a BS and an MPA in police science from the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, University of New York City in 1967 and 1975 respectively. He started in the field of questioned document identification in 1942 with the New York Police laboratory. He has been supervisor of the document identification section of the police laboratory, training officer in the police academy, commanding officer of the police laboratory and handwriting expert in he district attorney?s office on New York County. He retired from the police department with the rank of captain in 1972 and entered private practice. He serves as a consultant to New York?s Human Resources Administration. McNally is a fellow of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, and a member of the International Association for Identification, and the American Society for Testing and Materials. He has lectured at the University of New York City, Rockland College, and the New York Police Academy.?
?Purtell receiver a Ph.B, with a major in mathematics and chemistry, from Northwestern University in 1949. He began his career in questioned document identification in 1942 with the Chicago Police Department, where he served as a document examiner in the scientific crime detection laboratory. He retired in 1974 as chief document examiner and captain of police, and entered private practice in 1973. He is a fellow of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences and served as chairman of the questioned document section and chairman of the program committee. He is past vice president and president of the American Society of Questioned Document Examiners. Purtell has lectured at Northwestern University, the University of Illinois, the University of Indiana and St Joseph?s College, among other schools. He has presented and published numerous scientific papers.?
?Scott received an AA degree from Kansas City Junior College in 1930 and a JD from the University of Missouri School of Law in 1935, whereupon he became a member of the Missouri bar. While attending law school, he founded the University of Missouri at Kansas City Law Review and was its first editor-in-chief. He began his career as a questioned document examiner with the Federal Reserve Bank in 1935 and has been in private practice since 1946. The first edition of his three-volume-book, Photographic Evidence, was published in 1942. Now in its second edition, it has become the standard textbook on the subject. He served on the first board of directors of the American Board of Forensic Document Examiners. He has conducted seminars on scientific document examination for more than 20 State bar associations, written numerous professional articles, and, since 1954, has been an adjunct professor of law at the University of Missouri School of Law.?
The panel followed standard procedures and techniques in its examinations. The writings and signatures were looked at individually and in juxtaposition with each other, taking into consideration the gross characteristics of the writing process, writing skill, slant, speed, proportions of the letters, ratio of small to capital letters; height ratio, lateral spacing, and overall writing pattern. Significant differences were looked for. A stereoscope microscope was used for minute examination and comparison of individual letters and characteristics.
One of the issues addressed to these experts queried, ?Was the ?historic diary? written in one sitting?? As to this, the panel concluded that, ?Because of the poor condition of the historical diary, they are unable to conclude firmly whether it was written at one or more than one sitting. On balance, it appears to have been written at one or a few sittings.? The problem referred to regarding the condition of the diary can best be understood from the comments of David J. Purtell: ?With respect to timespan of the historical diary, an answer cannot be provided because of the present condition of the paper. The documents had been processed by the silver nitrate method in an attempt to develop latent fingerprints. While a recognized method, the drawback is that it soils the paper: the silver nitrate which remains on the paper causes it to turn black in time. Today, the pages are in very poor condition, and though the message can be read in part, it is a very difficult task. One observation that can be reported is that one sheet of paper is of a different weight (thickness) than the other sheets.?
However, although scientifically dating the age of the writing might have proven helpful, inability to do so did not prevent addressing the truly crucial issue, which might be stated in the question: Was this document an accumulation of random entries each entry having been made on the date indicated contemporaneous with the events being recorded?
As to that very important question, the answer is most unsettling, for
it appears to be rather clear that this document, upon which so much reliance has been placed in the reconstructing the defection, is a phony. In other words, Lee Harvey Oswald?s ?diary? was not a diary at all.
As Joseph P. McNally reported, ?A check was made of the historical diary. The 12 pages were written with the same type of writing instrument. The paper used for 11 of the 12 pages is similar; only the last page differs ? it is appreciably thinner. The writing has a continuity from page to page and line to line that is indicative of being written about, or at, the same time. It does not give the impression of being ?random,? as would be expected of a diary extended over a period of time. It appears that this diary has been written within a short period of time and not over any extensive period.?
http://www.jfkbook.org/book/book-2-defector/chapter-8-the-diary-that-wasnt/part-4-was-oswalds-diary-real/
