Does Lifton's Best Evidence indicate that the coverup and the crime were committed by the same people?

[Thomas Graves]

1 minute ago, Chris Newton said:

Hey Tommy thanks un-fubar-ing this for us.

I have a question for you.... is this the "original" typed letter?

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1133#relPageId=57

Chris,

I can't access that MFF link for some reason, which is my "bad," not yours, I'm sure.  I've had problems accessing MFF for some time now, probably having something to do with my operating system - software configuration, the fact that Cozy Bear, Fancy Bear  and Guccifer 2.0 don't want me to do any more damage to them, or the remote possibility that I haven't paid my MFF dues in a coon's age.

I remember your telling me a long time ago that one of the copies was in some University Library or some such thing, though.  Does that have any bearing on the question you're asking me?

--  Tommy

[Chris Newton]

1 minute ago, Paul Trejo said:

Chris,

IMHO, your interpretation of the "facts" is based on being strictly literal -- and no ordinary person is ever strictly literal, all the time.

I next expect you to try to isolate the words, "secretary desk" from the word, "table," but in common usage, that is untenable.

Webster's defines the word "desk" as "a piece of furniture with a flat or sloped surface...at which one can read, write, or do other work.   Synonyms...table..."

In common parlance, one could in passing refer to a "desk" as a "table".  I think I see your direction -- you want to claim that Ruth Paine "lied" when she said at one point that Lee was writing at a desk, and another time at a "table."   I think this is reaching.

Your argument will also try to presume that a "table" must always be in a dining area, and a "desk" must never be in a dining area.   Right?

But in the real world -- especially on moving day -- that simply cannot be guaranteed.  I think you are seeking a "lie" where there is none.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

 I should stop scrutinizing her statement under oath to the Warren Commission? 

Quote

...expect you to try to isolate the words, "secretary desk" from the word, "table," but in common usage, that is untenable.

Two pieces of furniture, one was a dining table and one was a desk secretary. 

[Chris Newton]

1 minute ago, Thomas Graves said:

I remember your telling me a long time ago that one of the copies was in some University Library or some such thing, though.  Does that have any bearing on the question you're asking me?

Nope. I just wanted you to look at the original "Kostin/kostikov" document linked because I have some observations.

[Michael Clark]

13 minutes ago, Chris Newton said:

Nope. I just wanted you to look at the original "Kostin/kostikov" document linked because I have some observations.

This is the same document/item as on the Mary Ferrell site.

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/pdf/WH16_CE_15.pdf

[Thomas Graves]

1 minute ago, Michael Clark said:

This is the same document/item as on the Mary Ferrell site.

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/pdf/WH16_CE_15.pdf

Thanks, Michael

--  Thomas

[Chris Newton]

1 minute ago, Michael Clark said:

This is the same document/item as on the Mary Ferrell site.

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh16/pdf/WH16_CE_15.pdf

Yes, thanks.

[Michael Clark]

No problem guys...

[Thomas Graves]

17 minutes ago, Chris Newton said:

Nope. I just wanted you to look at the original "Kostin/kostikov" document linked because I have some observations.

OK, Michael just provided me with a link to what you're talking about (I guess).

What would you like to know as regards my opinion of it?

--  Tommy

[Chris Newton]

The FBI says they made 3 pages of typewriter samples taken from Ruth Paine's Smith-Corona Ser. No. "4A 303942". I can't locate those samples at all, although they are mentioned in several inventories.

I went online and found the "Typewriter Database" and Ruth's model, based on the serial number, can be identified as a '48 Smith-Corona Sterling. The database also conveniently supplies a "typeface" sample. Comparing that sample to the "Kostin/Kostikov" letter reveals some interesting anomalies.

http://typewriterdatabase.com/1948-smith-corona-sterling.1247.typewriter

Edited April 27, 2017 by Chris Newton

[Thomas Graves]

9 minutes ago, Chris Newton said:

The FBI says they made 3 pages of typewriter samples taken from Ruth Paine's Smith-Corona Ser. No. "4A 303942". I can't locate those samples at all, although they are mentioned in several inventories.

I went online and found the "Typewriter Database" and Ruth's model, based on the serial number, can be identified as a '48 Smith-Corona Sterling. The database also conveniently supplies a "typeface" sample. Comparing that sample to the "Kostin/Kostikov" letter reveals some interesting anomalies.

http://typewriterdatabase.com/1948-smith-corona-sterling.1247.typewriter

Yes?  

And ....?

Would you for me to look at the letter in great detail and try to determine whether or not this particular copy could have been typed on Ruthie's Smith-Corona?

 

OK.  When I have time.

--  Tommy

Nice detective-like thinking and perseverance, btw.

[Chris Newton]

1 minute ago, Thomas Graves said:

OK.  When I have time.

--  Tommy

Nice detective-like thinking and perseverance, btw.

Thanks, Tommy.  The "6"s and "9"s jumped right out at me. No idea why

[Thomas Graves]

17 minutes ago, Chris Newton said:

Thanks, Tommy.  The "6"s and "9"s jumped right out at me. No idea why

Dang, whydja have to tell me?

So much for our controlled experiment.

But at least you've reminded me of that Hendrix song.  So ... I don't mind.

 

--  Tommy

[Thomas Graves]

Chris,

I took a quick look and the 6's and 9's definitely do look different from the those of the 1948 one you posted.  The "B" in Bureau looks different (thinner; less robust), too.

Do we know what year Rutie's was made?

1948 by any chance?

--  Tommy

Edited April 27, 2017 by Thomas Graves

[Chris Newton]

15 minutes ago, Thomas Graves said:

Do we know what year Rutie's was made?

1948 by any chance?

Based on her model/serial (4A 303942) it was a 1948 Smith-Corona the same model I linked you too.

I'm not suggesting that's absolute proof. We need those samples or another letter Ruth typed from the same time period. I'm sure it's just another coincidence that the "samples" are missing from the record.

It raises some serious questions.

[Cliff Varnell]

On 4/24/2017 at 7:45 PM, Paul Brancato said:

A few of you are so full of your own opinions. I say write a book already and try to resist using this forum and this thread as your personal fiefdom. That means you Paul Trejo, and also you, Cliff Varnell. You're smart guys, and you sure have some extra time on your hands. Instead, you presume to lecture serious researchers who have spent their lives examining the details, interviewing witnesses, and publishing their findings. Neither of you seem capable of arguing from any position other than the calcified ones in which you reside. Your minds are closed and rigid. 

Paul,

Upon further reflection I find I must whole-heartedly agree.

I'm closed-minded, rigid and calcified in my thinking on the following:

1) The roundness of the earth.

2) 1 + 1 = 2

3) The primacy of physical evidence in a murder case.

<quote on>

PRACTICAL CRIME SCENE INVESTIGATION:
Legal Considerations

By
Vernon J. Geberth, M.S., M.P.S.
Author of Practical Homicide Investigation, Copyright 2003
REPRINT: LAW and ORDER Vol. 51, No. 5, May, 2003

The search of the crime scene is the most important phase of the investigation conducted at the scene. Decisions of the courts restricting admissibility of testimonial evidence have significantly increased the value of physical evidence in homicide investigations. Therefore, law enforcement personnel involved in the crime scene search must arrange for the proper and effective collection of evidence at the scene.

Physical evidence, which is often referred to as the "unimpeachable witness," cannot be clouded by a faulty memory, prejudice, poor eyesight, or a desire "not to get involved." However, before a forensic laboratory can effectively examine physical evidence, it must be recognized as evidence.

<quote off>

 

I can admit I was wrong about Garrison.

James DiEugenio has bragged about ignoring the physical evidence -- think he could ever admit he's wrong?

Edited April 27, 2017 by Cliff Varnell