(PART 725)


Whether or not Earlene Roberts was "lying" about the honking of the police car is not relevant as far as proving Oswald's guilt or innocence in the Tippit murder. It's a side issue (at best).

Plus, the horn-honking police car is something that had occurred in front of 1026 Beckley on other days before 11/22/63. (Shouldn't that send a signal to some of the CTers regarding Roberts' testimony in this regard?)

But there can be no doubt that Oswald did go to his room on 11/22 at around 1:00 and leave very shortly thereafter (with or without a honking police car).

The best witnesses to prove Oswald's guilt in the Tippit murder are, IMO, the two Davis girls, who each IDed Oswald later that day in a lineup. And they each saw LHO dumping shells out of a REVOLVER. (Ergo, the killer was not armed with an "automatic", which would be foolish in this case anyway, since--per CTers--they were trying to "frame" good ol' Lee Harvey for this 2nd murder too; so why would they frame him with an automatic when the patsy didn't own such a weapon?)

Barbara Davis Affidavit

Virginia Davis Affidavit

There is no safe hiding place for the conspiracy-seeking clowns in the Tippit case. Oswald left his calling card at the scene, and was positively identified by multiple witnesses (either doing the shooting or fleeing the area immediately afterward).

No amount of conspiracy spin will exonerate Lee Oswald for J.D. Tippit's slaying.

Just the fact that Oswald was in the area of the crime, brandishing a pistol and fighting with police, within 35 minutes of Officer Tippit being shot is very powerful circumstantial evidence of his guilt right there.

And when we add in the undeniable fact that the gun Oswald was holding in the theater WAS the Tippit murder weapon (based on firearms tests that positively link the four bullet shells at 10th & Patton to Oswald's Smith & Wesson revolver #V510210), then nothing more needs to be said to prove Oswald's guilt.

But maybe the conspiracy theorists think that someone ELSE (who was a dead ringer for Oswald) used LHO's gun to kill Tippit, and then this real killer somehow got Oswald to take back his gun in the next 35 minutes before Oswald was arrested. And then Oswald felt like killing some cops in the movie theater. (Yeah, that's a theory any jury would buy, isn't it?)


http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com / In Lee Harvey Oswald's Room

http://dvp-potpourri.blogspot.com / Interviews With Earlene Roberts


Ah, those Davis ladies, who definitely saw Oswald but somehow could not get the color of his jacket right, not even agreeing with each other.


The Davis girls weren't focusing mainly on Oswald's JACKET, for Pete sake. They were focusing on his FACE and WHAT HE WAS DOING -- i.e., dumping shells out of a revolver just a few feet away from each of the Davis girls' faces.

The "jacket" was certainly a secondary thing on the minds of Barbara Davis and Virginia Davis during those very few brief seconds they were looking at J.D. Tippit's killer.

But, once again, chaff always trumps wheat in a CTer's field of absurdity. In other words, the differing JACKET descriptions positively (somehow) mean that Oswald wasn't the killer. And a POSITIVE I.D. at the police station by both Davis girls means nothing in the world of many CTers.



This boggles the mind... the EASIEST thing for humans to spot is the color of someone's clothing. It's the LARGEST OBJECT in view, and quickly categorized.


Therefore, per Holmes' logic here about the jacket colors, EVERY witness who said the jacket of the fleeing gunman was a DIFFERENT color (or shade) really saw DIFFERENT gun-toting people. Barbara Davis saw someone DIFFERENT than her sister-in-law. And Ted Callaway saw yet another different person (because of the jacket, which could never be misidentified in color by ANY witness because, per Ben, it's the "largest object in view"). [LOL break.]

Ergo, if there had been up to TEN differing jacket descriptions by the witnesses, it would have to mean, per Ben, that there must have been TEN different escaping gunmen from the Tippit murder scene on November 22nd, 1963.

Brilliant, Ben. You've solved it. It was a team of TEN killers--all wearing different-colored jackets!

Call Blakey and Willens! Ben's found the smoking gun [and jackets]!


There is NO credible evidence that Oswald ordered and owned the [JFK] murder weapon.


Let's see....

...A paper trail a mile deep, featuring OSWALD'S own writing on the order form and money order (plus Waldman No. 7, which is the proof that Klein's shipped Rifle C2766 to Oswald/Hidell).

...OSWALD'S prints on the rifle (barrel and trigger guard).

...Photos of OSWALD holding the rifle in his backyard.

...Marina sees OSWALD dry-firing a rifle on the porch in New Orleans.

...Marina sees a rifle wrapped in a blanket on the floor of Ruth Paine's garage.

...Jeanne DeMohrenschildt sees a rifle propped up in a closet in OSWALD'S apartment shortly after Oswald ordered a rifle from Klein's.

All of the above, in the strange world of conspiracy clowns, adds up to:

Lee Oswald never owned any rifle at all in the year 1963.

It's an odd universe these CTers inhabit, isn't it?

Ben must think Klein's was in the habit of mailing out rifles to people who DIDN'T order them. (A curious thing to do indeed.)

Tell us, Ben, who was it who rented PO Box 2915 in Dallas in March of '63? Any idea?


The order form to which you are referring doesn't exist.

What *does* exist is a copy of the microfilm of the original. As well, many of the "samples" of handwriting for Oswald were copies.

Here's what an expert says: "Photographic reproductions could only be compared visually with other photographic reproductions or with original documents. All conclusions based solely upon photographic reproductions are necessarily tentative and inconclusive, since they cannot reveal much about pen pressure and other dynamic qualities of handwriting. Further, they sometimes conceal, rather than reveal, evidence of tracings, alterations, erasures, or obliterated writing."

"tentative and inconclusive".

Not me, Lil Davy... but an expert in handwriting analysis.


Quite obviously, Ben, there are some experts who disagree (re: Oswald's writing being on Warren Commission Exhibit No. 773, the Klein's order form)....

MELVIN 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. 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.


No Davy, you're lying again. There are *NO* document examiners who will agree that examining copies leads to anything less than tentative conclusions.

Nor can you produce one.


You're lying, Ben.

(Of course, Benji really meant to say "anything MORE than tentative conclusions". But for some reason he said "LESS than". ~shrug~)

Anyway, I produced Cadigan, who said CE773 was the handprinting of LHO. And you can just choke on it.

And here's another questioned documents examiner who said CE773 was Oswald's writing--Alwyn Cole....

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.


Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cole, continuing on these standards for a moment, have you examined other questioned documents besides Commission 773 at my request?

Mr. COLE. I have.

Mr. EISENBERG. Do the standards which you selected, that is, items 774 through 788, in your opinion provide a sufficient basis for comparison of the other questioned documents which you also examined?

Mr. COLE. They do provide a satisfactory basis for comparison.

Mr. EISENBERG. Are they sufficiently close in time, both to 773 and to the other questioned documents which you have examined?

Mr. COLE. Yes, sir.


And here's Examiner #3 for Benji to choke on -- Joseph McNally (HSCA testimony)....

Mr. KLEIN - At this time would you please be seated, Mr McNally. I would now direct your attention to exhibit JFK F-504, which is a microfilm reproduction of an order form to Klein's Sporting Goods Co. for a rifle, plus the envelope in which the order form was sent; and JFK F-509, which is a money order made out to Klein's Sporting Goods Co., both of which documents have the name Hidell on them.

Mr. MCNALLY - I have both of them.

Mr. KLEIN - JFK F-504 and F-509; do you recognize those documents?

Mr. MCNALLY - I do.

Mr. KLEIN - Did the entire panel have an opportunity to examine those documents?

Mr. MCNALLY - They did.

Mr. KLEIN - Did the panel reach a conclusion with respect to those documents?

Mr. MCNALLY - They did.

Mr. KLEIN - What was that conclusion?

Mr. MCNALLY - That JFK exhibit F-504 and F-509 were written by the same person, again with the caveat. JFK exhibit F-504 is a photo reproduction of a microfilm.

Mr. KLEIN - The document, which is marked F-509, the money order, is an original document; is it not?

Mr. MCNALLY - It was; yes.

Mr. KLEIN - And your conclusion is they were written by the same person who wrote the other documents?

Mr. MCNALLY - That is right.


Three reasons to know Holmes is a liar -- Cadigan, Cole, and McNally.

Embarrassing, isn't it Ben?


And the proof would simply be a document examiner who DOES agree that copies of originals are just as good as the originals when making judgments on handwriting.

But you've refused to provide that proof.

Why is that Davy?

Why the CONSTANT cowardice and lies on your part?


Another lie by Ben. When did I ever say that examiners Cole, Cadigan, and McNally claimed that COPIES were "as good" as ORIGINALS?

Answer: Never.

You're a liar.

Of COURSE originals are better than copies. But it's also true that the COPY of CE773 examined by Cole, Cadigan, and McNally produced a conclusion from all three that CE773 was written by Oswald and no one else.

But Ben-boy wants to move the goal posts and now claim that I said that examiners have said copies are as good as originals. And I never even HINTED at any such thing.


The note to "Mr. Hunt," allegedly written by Oswald, was authenticated by experts, but no one these days believes that this note was actually written by Lee Oswald. And I believe the note was an original, not a copy.

So what exactly is that original authentication worth?

The problem is compounded with the rifle order because there is very little writing to verify. Too small a sample. That, together with the fact that forensic handwriting analysis is not as cut-and-dried an exercise as David would like us to think (mistakes are made), together with the fact that forging documents is one of the things the CIA does well, and it is not at all unreasonable to think that maybe, just maybe, if Oswald was being set up, the rifle order could have been a part of this.

I ask again just how LNers can tell evidence of plotters from evidence against Oswald. If the frame-up is good enough, you can't tell, and that's kind of the point behind a frame-up.


Sure, mistakes could be made in examining almost anything---handwriting, fingerprints, ballistics....anything. But the fact still remains that all three of the questioned documents examiners I quoted previously -- Cadigan, Cole, and McNally -- all came to the conclusion that the handprinting on Commission Exhibit No. 773 is the writing of Lee H. Oswald. And there's nothing any CTer can do to change those findings. Talk about potential mistakes all you want, but THREE different examiners (plus actually even more than that for McNally's "panel" in 1978 for the HSCA) came to the same conclusion regarding CE773.

And then there's CE788 (the money order) on top of CE773. More "mistakes" by ALL of the document examiners?

How much "It Was Oswald's Writing" confirmation is required in the world of conspiracy theorists?


Mr. MCNALLY. ....Oswald's general writing pattern is simple and tends to be rather legible, and to turn out something like that would be not particularly difficult.

( 4 H 360 )

Mr. McNALLY. ......It could very well be a situation where this thing has been patched together from original writing of Oswald. It can be done using a photo reproduction process.

( 4 HSCA 361 )

"....it is possible to incorporate or insert changes and alterations into copies. A method frequently used is to paste together parts of documents to make one fraudulent document, which is then copied. If the first copy can pass inspection, it will be used; if not, it will be reworked to eliminate all signs of alteration. This amended copy is then recopied for the finished product. This is usually referred to as the "cut and paste" method."

( 8 HSCA 239 )


It's deja vu all over again - DVP cites testimony and evidence proving his point and Ben, with his compromised interpretive skills, deflects and nitpicks and twists - it is the infallible sign of a dishonest person of low character who cannot and will not face simple truth. Ben is blind to it, but he employed the exact same sick pattern of discussion with Hank after Hank took him to school - it really is pathetic. DVP asked how much evidence would convince a Cter - the answer is obvious - NONE. No amount of evidence will suffice for dishonest people with an axe to grind.


Sorry, David, gotta go with Ben on this one. You used a "tentative and inconclusive" expert opinion to claim definitively that it was "OSWALD'S own writing on the order form" without acknowledging that such a conclusion was not definitive.

Yes, indeed, you did not use the words "a copy is as good as an original," but your statement allows us to conclude that you must believe that a copy is most definitely as good as an original. This is more than "hinting at" the issue, yet you claimed you didn't even hint at such a statement.

You lose on the issue of the order form and money order. There is no definitive proof that the handwriting was Oswald's because one cannot have definitive proof if one is working with a copy. Surely you must realize this. It's not a matter of my opinion, or Ben's opinion, or your opinion. It's a fact known and recognized by questioned document examiners the world over.


The testimony I provided from Cole, Cadigan, and McNally sure doesn't sound very "tentative and inconclusive" to me. Particularly Cadigan's testimony, wherein he even said this....

"The writer of the known standards, Lee Harvey Oswald, prepared the handwriting and hand printing on Commission Exhibit No. 773." -- James C. Cadigan; 1964

And in Alwyn Cole's Warren Commission session, he says that the SAME PERSON who wrote the documents in CE774-783 is the same person who wrote CE773 (the Klein's order form).

Now, just take a look at CE774 to 783 and see what you'll find there---there are many different documents featuring Lee H. Oswald's signature and various other writing.

Do conspiracists actually want to contend that a person who WASN'T Lee Oswald (and was merely faking LHO's writing in order to frame him) prepared all of the various documents, from letters to library card applications, that we find in CE774 to CE783?

Frankly, that's a nutty idea, that an Oswald imposter, who was perfect at faking LHO's own handwriting, would have been faking so many different and varied documents relating to LHO.

But in order for the CTers to have a fighting chance at debunking the experts like Alwyn Cole, Jim Cadigan, and Joe McNally, the CTers actually *do* have to believe that an Oswald imposter faked ALL of those documents.....because it's clear from the testimony of the document experts that the SAME PERSON whose writing is seen in CE774-783 did write CE773.

In other words, a member of the Anybody-But-Oswald team will go to the ends of the Earth to avoid the obvious truth re this matter, with that truth being: All of the writing we see in CE773 to CE783, plus the original money order seen in CE788, was written by Lee Harvey Oswald.




Nice job at twisting things around there. I'm not even sure I can decipher what the heck you're trying to say there.

But, anyway, are you now going to accept as LEGITIMATE the writing we find in all of the documents in CE774 to 783 (which are the standards Mr. Cole used for the Warren Commission to compare to CE773)?

If you DO consider CE774 to 783 to be the LEGITIMATE handwriting of Lee H. Oswald, then you are also forced to accept CE773 as being the writing of Oswald, per Alwyn Cole's testimony here.....

"It is my conclusion that the author of the standard writing bearing the exhibit numbers which you just related--774-783--is the author of the handwriting on Commission Exhibit 773." -- A. Cole

So, which way do you want to swing here, Holmes? Is the writing seen in 774-783 REALLY the writing of Oswald, or was it all faked by plotters to frame him? If you choose the former, which your last post indicates you have done, then you're sunk by Cole's testimony shown above.

By the way, CE788 (the money order Oswald mailed to Klein's for the rifle) is NOT a microfilm copy. It's an original document. And the various document experts have all said that CE788 was written by Lee Oswald.....

Mr. KLEIN - The document, which is marked F-509 [aka CE788], the money order, is an original document; is it not?

Mr. MCNALLY - It was; yes.

Mr. KLEIN - And your conclusion is they were written by the same person who wrote the other documents?

Mr. MCNALLY - That is right.


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.


I'll try to talk slowly this time (for Ben's sake) --- Since Warren Commission Exhibits 774 through 783 include a wide variety of Lee Harvey Oswald's handwriting and handprinting (which even you seem to accept as a fact), then CE773 (per the testimony of each man I've been citing--Cadigan, Cole, and McNally) was ALSO written by Lee H. Oswald.

They MATCH. ALL of them---from CE773 through CE783 (plus CE788 too, don't forget--which is an original document, not a microfilmed copy). All of those documents contain the handwriting of ONE INDIVIDUAL PERSON---i.e., they were all written by the SAME PERSON, per all of the document experts.

Why can't you understand the simple and easy-to-read testimony of those three different document examiners?

Or, to toss your words back at you --- Why the incredible cowardice on your part to admit the obvious?

Ben, I know that you feel it's your civic duty to pretend that all of the evidence that exists against your boyfriend (Mr. Oswald) was fake, planted, or otherwise manipulated by a team of evil-doers, but your nitpicking and failure to gaze upon that forest that is Oswald's guilt has reached stupendous proportions, with this handwriting topic being just the latest example of your refusal to accept the obvious.

And it's something that even you, one of the biggest conspiracy-happy clowns in the free world, knows full well is true -- that is: Lee H. Oswald (the real one) ordered, paid for, and took possession of Carcano Rifle #C2766 in late March of 1963.

It really boils down to this simple choice -- Either a bunch of people were running around making it look like Lee Oswald murdered President Kennedy and Officer Tippit by faking tons of evidence and impersonating Oswald all over the place....or: Lee Harvey Oswald really was guilty of both of those murders.

Now Ben, which of the above two options is most likely to be true?


Related Question.....

Does anyone know if the money order [CE788] was ever checked for fingerprints?


Moot point, Davy.

Oswald was manipulated and had no idea why he possibly ordered those guns in that manner; probably posed for the backyard photos; possibly took a fake shot at General Walker; definitely handed out pro-Cuba/Castro fliers in New Orleans; may have visited Sylvia Odio with two other men; definitely got a job doing grunt work for minimum wage in THAT building - 15 miles from N. Beckley and was most likely told by Ruth Paine on the previous weekend that he could have some curtain rods the next time he stopped over.

Of course, I could be wrong.


Ya think?!!

BTW, that certainly wouldn't be a "moot point" to most CTers, because most CTers in the "Anybody But Oswald" club (which includes the vast majority of CTers posting regularly on the Internet) believe that Oswald never touched that money order that was mailed to Klein's. They think that the money order was forged by unknown plotters. So Oswald never handled it at all.

But I'd love to be able to put Oswald's own fingerprints on that money order. Of course, his "prints" are already on it (in a sense), since he himself wrote all the words we see on that document. But having his fingerprints on it too would be just more icing on the cake for the wretched lowlife LNers like DVP. :)


I'll now answer my own question about whether CE788 (the money order) was checked for fingerprints:

It was.

And "no latent fingerprints of value were developed" [per Commission Document No. 49].


Mr. EISENBERG. Other Commission Exhibits, specifically Nos. 788, 801, and 802 also appear to have been treated for fingerprints?

Mr. CADIGAN. That is correct.

Mr. EISENBERG. Exhibit No. 788 has been desilvered?

Mr. CADIGAN. Desilvered, and Exhibits Nos. 801 and 802 are still in their original silvered condition.

Mr. EISENBERG. Did you see these items before they were treated for fingerprints.

Mr. CADIGAN. I know I saw Exhibit No. 788 before it was treated for fingerprints. As to Exhibits Nos. 801 and 802, I don't know at this time.

Mr. EISENBERG. Are the photographs which you produced photographs of the items before they were treated for fingerprints or after?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; before they were treated for fingerprints. In other words, it is regular customary practice to photograph an exhibit before it is treated for latents for exactly this reason, that in the course of the treatment there may be some loss of detail, either total or partial.

David Von Pein
June 2014