Oswald's lies proves his guilt.

[John Iacoletti]

If you'd open your eyes to the evidence you would know that the palm print WAS listed among the evidence ( item #14) that as turned over to the FBI at midnight 11/22/63.   The clerk who typed up the evidence list placed quotation marks around the words "Off underside of gun barrel near end of fore grip "

Still pushing the fabrication that your undated evidence list was written on 11/22?  If it was, then Drain would have known about the magic palmprint.

[Tim Nickerson]

Tim I get what you are saying For instance, the handwriting expert's conclusion that it was Oswald's writing on the order form for Klein's should count for something.  Part of the problem is all of the seeming dishonesty of the investigation, for some of us, has created an environment where suspicion effects virtually everything John L has called into question when and where the handwriting analysis came from But if we put that aside for the moment and just say there was a properly executed handwriting analysis that determined it was LHO's handwriting then yes that counts as a piece of evidence I do think people on both sides go to far in saying there is absolutely zero evidence of something one way or another

 That being said I am having a lot of trouble finding clean facts that support the LN

Matt, it wasn't just the conclusion of one handwriting expert.



From the WC testimony of James Cadigan:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/cadigan2.htm

Mr. EISENBERG. And how long have you been in this field, Mr. Cadigan?
Mr. CADIGAN. Twenty-three and one-half years.
Mr. EISENBERG. What was your training in this field?
Mr. CADIGAN. Upon being assigned to the laboratory I was given a specialized course of training and instruction which consisted of attending various lectures and conferences on the subject, reading books, and working under the direction of experienced examiners.
Upon attaining a required degree of proficiency, I was assigned cases on my own responsibility, and since that time I have examined many thousands of cases involving handwriting, hand printing, typewriting, forgeries, erasures, alterations, mechanical devices of all types, pens, paper, and ink. I conduct research on various problems as they arise and assist in the training of our new examiners.
Mr. EISENBERG. Have you testified in Federal or other courts, Mr. Cadigan?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; in many Federal and State courts, and military courts-martial.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cadigan, I now hand you Commission Exhibit No. 773, and I ask you whether you have examined that item.
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; I have.
........................................
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cadigan, can you explain the meaning of the term "standard" or "known documents" as used in the field of questioned-document examination?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes. Known standards are samples of writings of an individual which are known to be in his writing and which are available for comparison with questioned or suspect writings.
.........................................
Mr. EISENBERG. Returning to Commission Exhibit No. 773, did you compare the handwriting on that exhibit with the writing in the known standards to see if they were written by the same person?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; I did.
Mr. EISENBERG. And what was your conclusion?
Mr. CADIGAN. That the writer of the known standards, Lee Harvey Oswald, prepared the handwriting and hand printing on Commission Exhibit No. 773.
===========================================================

From the WC testimony of Alwyn Cole:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/cole1.htm

Mr. EISENBERG. What is your position, Mr. Cole?
Mr. COLE. I am employed as examiner of questioned documents with the U.S. Treasury Department.
Mr. EISENBERG. Can you state your specific duties in this position?
Mr. COLE. I am required to examine any document in which the Treasury Department is interested when a question arises about the genuineness of the document or the identity of any of its parts. A good deal of this work includes the identification of handwriting.
Mr. EISENBERG. From what sources is work referred to your laboratory, Mr. Cole?
Mr. COLE. From the several divisions of the Office of the Treasury of the United States, and from the various Bureaus of the Treasury Department, including the enforcement agencies: Secret Service, narcotics, customs, internal revenue service.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cole, can you tell us how you prepared yourself to carry on this work of questioned documents examination?
Mr. COLE. I served an apprenticeship of 6 years under Mr. Burt Farrar from 1929 to 1935. Mr. Farrar at that time was the document examiner for the Treasury Department, and at the time of my association with him he had had over 40 years of experience in the work. Under Mr. Farrar's tutelage I studied the leading textbooks on the subject of questioned documents, which includes handwriting identification, and I received from him cases for practice examination of progressively increasing difficulty, made these examinations, prepared reports for his review, and also during this period I had assignments to other Government laboratories, those of the Bureau of Engraving and Printing and the Government Printing Office, and I had close association with other technical workers in the government service. I succeeded Mr. Farrar in 1935, and I have had daily practical contact with questioned problems from 1929 to the present date.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cole, are you a member of any associations of persons engaged in questioned documents examination?
Mr. COLE. Yes, sir; I am.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you state those positions?
Mr. COLE. I am a member of the American Society of Questioned Document Examiners, of the International Association for Identification, and of the American Academy of Forensic Science.
Mr. EISENBERG. Do you give instructions to others in this work, Mr. Cole?
Mr. COLE. I do. I am an instructor at the Treasury Department Law Enforcement Officer Training School.
Mr. EISENBERG. Have you had occasion to testify in Federal or other courts?
Mr. COLE. Yes, sir; I have, many times.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I ask that this witness be permitted to give expert testimony on the subject of questioned documents.
The CHAIRMAN. The witness is qualified.
Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cole, I now show you a photograph of an envelope and a purchase order. The envelope is addressed to Klein's, in Chicago, from one "A. Hidell," and the purchase order, which is included in the photograph, is order also addressed to Klein's from "A. Hidell," and I ask you whether you have examined this photograph.
Mr. COLE. I have.
.............................................
Mr. EISENBERG. Now, Mr. Cole, have you compared the documents 774-783, all signed "Lee H. Oswald," with the document 773, the photograph of a purchase order to Klein's Sporting Goods, for purposes of determining whether the author of the documents 774-783 also authored the document 773?
Mr. COLE. Yes, sir; I have.
Mr. EISENBERG. What is your conclusion?
Mr. COLE. It is my conclusion that the author of the standard writing bearing the exhibit numbers which you just related----
Mr. EISENBERG. 774-783?
Mr. COLE. 774-783, is the author of the handwriting on Commission Exhibit 773.
========================================

From Summary of conclusions the HSCA questioned documents expert Joseph P. McNally:
http://jfkassassination.net/parnell/hscahand.htm

The same writing is on the order form and envelope (item 30) as is on the letters and on the inside cover of the passport (item 9). (51) The writing and signatures that appear on the letters (items 25, 32, 38, and 42) agree with the writing and signatures on the U.S. Post Office applications for post office boxes (items 27, 45, and 46). (52) The signature and writing on the back of the photograph (item 31) agree with the signatures and script writing of Oswald (sections and II).

[Tim Nickerson]

Tim I get what you are saying For instance, the handwriting expert's conclusion that it was Oswald's writing on the order form for Klein's should count for something.  Part of the problem is all of the seeming dishonesty of the investigation, for some of us, has created an environment where suspicion effects virtually everything John L has called into question when and where the handwriting analysis came from But if we put that aside for the moment and just say there was a properly executed handwriting analysis that determined it was LHO's handwriting then yes that counts as a piece of evidence I do think people on both sides go to far in saying there is absolutely zero evidence of something one way or another

 That being said I am having a lot of trouble finding clean facts that support the LN

More:



From the WC testimony of James Cadigan:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/cadigan2.htm

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cadigan, I now hand you Commission Exhibit No. 788, and ask you if you have examined that exhibit?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; I have.
Mr. EISENBERG. For the record, that is the money order which was included with the purchase order to Klein's. Have you prepared a photograph of that exhibit, Mr. Cadigan?
Mr. CADIGAN. I have.
Mr. EISENBERG. That will be Cadigan Exhibit No. 11.
(The document referred to was marked Cadigan Exhibit No. 11.)
Mr. EISENBERG. And this was taken by you or under your supervision?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. And is it an accurate photograph of the money order, Exhibit No. 788?
Mr. CADIGAN. It is.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you compare Exhibit No. 788 with the standards to determine whether Exhibit No. 788 had been written by Lee Harvey Oswald?
Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.
Mr. EISENBERG. What was your conclusion?
Mr. CADIGAN. That the postal money order, Cadigan Exhibit No. 11, had been prepared by Lee Harvey Oswald.
Mr. EISENBERG. The postal money order is Commission Exhibit No. 788 and your picture is Cadigan Exhibit No. 11, is that correct?
Mr. CADIGAN. That is correct.
==================================================

From the WC testimony of Alwyn Cole:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/cole1.htm

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cole, I now hand you an item consisting of a U.S. postal money order in the amount of $21.45, payable to Klein's Sporting Goods, from "A. Hidell, P.O. Box 2915, Dallas, Texas." For the record I will state that this money order was included with the purchase order in Exhibit 773 which has just been identified, and was intended and used as payment for the weapon shipped in response to the purchase order, 773. I ask you, Mr. Cole, whether you have examined this money order for the purpose of determining whether it was prepared by the author of the standards?
Mr. COLE. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. What was your conclusion, Mr. Cole?
Mr. COLE. It is my conclusion that the handwriting on this money order is in the hand of the person who executed the standard writing.
================================================

From Summary of conclusions the HSCA questioned documents expert Joseph P. McNally:
http://jfkassassination.net/parnell/hscahand.htm

Virtually all the Lee H. Oswald and Lee Harvey Oswald signatures are by the same person. There is some normal variation among the signatures, and no significant differences along the Oswald signatures identified as being the same. The overall writing pattern consistently similar, and the individual letter designs match throughout without major differences. The same holds true for the script and handprint on these documents that are identified as being written by the same person. (50) The same writing is on the U.S. Postal money order to Klein's (item 29) as is on the various letters and correspondence.

[Tim Nickerson]

Tim I get what you are saying For instance, the handwriting expert's conclusion that it was Oswald's writing on the order form for Klein's should count for something.  Part of the problem is all of the seeming dishonesty of the investigation, for some of us, has created an environment where suspicion effects virtually everything John L has called into question when and where the handwriting analysis came from But if we put that aside for the moment and just say there was a properly executed handwriting analysis that determined it was LHO's handwriting then yes that counts as a piece of evidence I do think people on both sides go to far in saying there is absolutely zero evidence of something one way or another

 That being said I am having a lot of trouble finding clean facts that support the LN

Matt, it's not just the handwriting.



From the WC testimony of Klein's Vice President William Waldman;
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/waldman.htm

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.
Mr. BELIN. Is there any other record that you have in connection with the shipment of this rifle other than the particular microfilm negative frame that we are looking at right now?
Mr. WALDMAN. We have a--this microfilm record of a coupon clipped from a portion of one of our advertisements, which indicates by writing of the customer on the coupon that he ordered our catalog No. C20-T750; and he has shown the price of the item, $19.95, and gives as his name A. Hidell, and his address as Post Office Box 2915, in Dallas, Tex.
Mr. BELIN. Anything else on that negative microfilm frame?
Mr. WALDMAN. The coupon overlays the envelope in which the order was mailed and this shows in the upper left-hand corner .the return address of A. Hidell, Post Office Box 2915, in Dallas, Tex.
There is a postmark of Dallas, Tex., and a postdate of March 12, 1963, indicating that the order was mailed by airmail.

[Richard Smith]

Nothing could ever prove to you that Oswald owned the rifle. You are a Hardcore Conspiracy Buff. You cannot, and will not, view with an objective eye any evidence that implicates Oswald's guilt.

You've hit the crux of the matter and the Catch-22 of CTer logic.  It isn't that the evidence of Oswald's ownership of the rifle is deficient or lacking in any respect.  How could there even be any more evidence of such under the known circumstances?  But no amount of evidence can ever convince a CTer.  They effectively have adopted an impossible standard of proof on the topic which they then attempt to pawn off as doubt.  No legitimate historian has expressed any doubt whatsoever regarding Oswald's ownership of the rifle.  Internet cowboys like John I make ridiculous statements to discount all evidence like handwriting analysis not being a science.  This from the same guy who when asked how we know that John Wilkes Booth assassinated Lincoln if we applied his same kooky analysis to that case cited to Booth's handwritten diary.  I guess handwriting is dubious scientific only if you don't like the results.

[Matt Grantham]

  It isn't that the evidence of Oswald's ownership of the rifle is deficient or lacking in any respect.  How could there even be any more evidence of such under the known circumstances?  But no amount of evidence can ever convince a CTer.  They effectively have adopted an impossible standard of proof on the topic which they then attempt to pawn off as doubt.  No legitimate historian has expressed any doubt whatsoever regarding Oswald's ownership of the rifle.

 Over and over we go, and you just pretend there is not a giant hole in your story, you have zero evidence he received the rifle! That is just a regular standard of proof don't you think?

 What defines a legitimate historian?

 Don't get me wrong, you are of course quite correct that the experts in the eye of the mainstream do tow the line So just keep looking to those who are paid to give their opinions instead of independent researchers

[Richard Smith]

Over and over we go, and you just pretend there is not a giant in your story, you have zero evidence he received the rifle! That is just a regular standard of proof don't you think?

 What defines a legitimate historian?

 Don't get me wrong, you are of course quite correct that the experts in the eye of the mainstream do tow the line So just keep looking to those who are paid to give their opinions instead of independent researchers

Anyone who says there is "zero" evidence can't be taken seriously.  The evidence is well documented and conclusive of the matter.  Do you really want to go through all that again?  The rifle was ordered in an alias associated with Oswald.  It was sent to his PO Box.  He is depicted holding it in the BY pictures.  His prints are on a rifle with the same serial number as the one shipped to him.  There is no accounting for this rifle except as in the possession of Oswald (i.e. it wasn't left at the post office or returned to Klein's).  That rifle is found in his place of work on the day that he carries a long package into the building.  No other rifle was found on 11.22 when Marina directed the police to the location where Oswald stored his rifle.  Good grief. 

[Matt Grantham]

Anyone who says there is "zero" evidence can't be taken seriously.

 I said there was zero evidence in regard to him receiving it. One wonders if your seeming blatant manipulation of my words is by design

 Perhaps you do not understand what I mean by evidence that he received it at the post office That category of evidence does not include inferential references such as that people claimed he had a similar rifle, the SN information etc. Yes those things matter in the big picture, but they are not direct evidence of what happened at the post office In lieu of not having any direct evidence of what happened we are left only with what should have happened in terms of post office policy and that does not seem to bode well for your version of events