(PART 1065)


The handwriting was *NOT* "verified" on the Money Order.

No handwriting expert in the world would have survived cross examination on their "verification" of a xerox copy made from a microfilm. (a copy of a copy)

You *DO* know that the money order was a xerox of a microfilm, right?

I *DEFY* you to produce a citation stating that handwriting can be "verified" under those circumstances.

But you won't.

And I know you won't retract your lie...

As the HSCA stated, "Document examiners only render a qualified or conditional opinion when working from copies. They stipulate that they have to examine the original before a definite opinion will be made."

So I'll just label you a coward and a liar right now...


Ben [a disgraceful and disgusting conspiracy theorist, as everyone can see above],

The FBI saw and examined the ORIGINAL money order---not a Xerox copy of a microfilm. Klein's never even had a microfilmed record of the money order at all.

We know via Commission Document No. 87 that the original money order was recovered from the Federal Records Center at Alexandria, Virginia.

So why would the FBI and the Treasury Department experts use a copy when the original was readily available? The same thing with the HSCA handwriting experts. It makes no sense at all to do that.


It wasn't "experts"... it was *ONE* expert... his name is Cole... go review his testimony. He states that he *WAS* using the actual original of the Money Order.


So what's the beef? The ORIGINAL was examined by a questioned documents expert. And he said CE788 had the writing of OSWALD on it [at 4 H 373]....

MELVIN 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?"

ALWYN 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 [i.e., Lee Harvey Oswald]."


But you disagree with Mr. Cole, right Ben? Why?


The only "verification" ever made on the original CAN NEVER BE DUPLICATED OR DOUBLE CHECKED BY ANYONE ELSE.

And when it came time to check the work of the Warren Commission - IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE TO "VERIFY" ANY OF THE HANDWRITING THAT TIED THE RIFLE TO OSWALD.

Let's hear *YOU* state that publicly.

Dolce said that CE399 could not have done the damage it was said to have done - and you *ABSOLUTELY REFUSE* to accept what he stated...

Despite the fact that the same tests could be done *TODAY* (although the ammo might be a tad difficult to obtain.)


You're asking me to believe an expert whom I know *NOTHING ABOUT* regarding his character or motives, who was never cross-examined, and on a subject that can *NEVER AGAIN BE EXAMINED BY ANYONE*.

In other words, you want me to believe on faith.

I think I'll pass.

Now... let's hear you again whine that the handwriting was "verified"...

You know the facts now... let's hear you flagrantly lie again...


Ben is nuts. It wasn't just ONE expert. It was several. There first was Alwyn Cole. Then there were the several handwriting analysts who served on a panel for the HSCA, including Joseph McNally. McNally and his panel came to the same conclusion Cole came to --- the money order and all other documents relating to the rifle purchase were written by Lee Harvey Oswald [see McNally's testimony
at 4 HSCA 355].

And please note that McNally, just like Cole 14 years earlier, examined the original money order, not just a photo or a microfilmed copy....

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."


There's your "verification", Holmes.

Care to revise these blatantly incorrect statements of yours repeated below? Or would you rather remain the obnoxious pussy you're portraying on the Internet?....

"It wasn't "experts". It was *ONE* expert. His name is Cole. .... You *DO* know that the money order was a xerox of a microfilm, right?"
-- Ben Holmes

And we've got other questioned documents experts (including James Cadigan and Joseph McNally) testifying that it was their opinion that all of the documents they examined associated with the Carcano rifle purchase (most of which were copies and not the originals, that's true) were in the writing of Lee Harvey Oswald.

So even with the stipulation that "COPIES WILL NOT YIELD ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY" regarding handwriting analysis, is it your opinion, Ben, that Lee Oswald's writing is on NONE of those rifle-related documents? None at all? Not even CE788--the money order--which we know was examined in its ORIGINAL form, not just a photocopy?

Put it in print, Benji. I want to read this from your keyboard----

*** I, Ben Holmes, think that every document that the WC and HSCA "experts" said were written by Lee Harvey Oswald were really ALL forged documents and were written by someone else---INCLUDING Commission Exhibit No. 788, the United States Postal Money Order, which existed in its ORIGINAL form when examined by at least one questioned documents expert for the Warren Commission in nineteen hundred and sixty-four AD. ***

Please say that in public, Ben. I need my daily belly laugh.



As you know, absolute certainty is not the standard. In fact it is not even attainable. This is the troubling bit for the conspiracy crowd, they expect certainty when there simply isn't any to be had. No legal/factual situation comes with certitude. That is why the standard is reasonable doubt. As you are well aware, that sets Ben off the boat from the start.

If I were to opine, how do we know that Oswald's signature signed by him was actually his signature? This is the pathetic level of abstraction from reality that these people use.

In fact, exposure to this thread has exposed me to a type of logic I don't see in the real everyday world. That has been an education.



OK, Ben, answer this....

What's the purpose of EVER having a questioned documents expert testify about anything relating to a COPY that he examined?

If the conclusions reached by looking at only copies are utterly WORTHLESS (as you seem to think), then why did the WC and HSCA even bother with it? Might as well have just done no handwriting analysis at all.

Right, Benji?

Ben, of course, totally IGNORES the perfect blending of the evidence into the
"IT WAS OSWALD'S HANDWRITING" pile. The original money order was in OSWALD'S writing (as "verified" by both the Warren Commission's and the HSCA's handwriting experts). And multiple experts said that copies of various documents were, in their professional opinions, OSWALD'S writing.

That's called corroboration. (At least I'd call it that.)

But in Ben's world of wholesale fakery and worldwide patsy framing, that kind of corroboration and PATTERN of evidence means zilch. Even with an ORIGINAL document in the mix, Holmes will still pretend ALL the rifle documents are forgeries.

What a silly "Let's Exonerate The Patsy" hobby Ben is engaged in every day.


Re: The money order....

8 HSCA 230 indicates that the money order (Item 29) was definitely NOT merely a copy.

And at 8 HSCA 246 (140), it says that "the original of the money order (item 29) was examined".

As to why it says that the money order (Item 29) was "a Xerox copy made from a microfilm copy" at 8 HSCA 239 (75), I have no idea. But the testimony of the HSCA's handwriting experts most certainly overrides that "Xerox copy" info.

Plus, I think we can know that that "Xerox/microfilm" remark has to be a mistake, because as far as I am aware there was NO "microfilm copy" made of the Hidell money order. I know Klein's didn't microfilm it. And neither did First National Bank of Chicago. So WHO would have had a need to "microfilm" the original money order? ~shrug~

I think somebody slipped a digit there on Page 239 of HSCA Volume 8. They must be talking about a document other than the postal money order there. And the testimony of Joseph McNally (alone) would tend to verify that fact.

Plus, as I said previously, why on Earth would the handwriting analysts utilize ONLY a Xerox copy of a microfilm copy when the ORIGINAL money order was definitely available for them to examine? It just makes no sense.

David Von Pein
November 10-13, 2015