Is there hard evidence that Richard Case Nagell's ID with Oswald's signature was in his possession when arrested?

[Mathias Baumann]

I just found this:

https://archive.org/details/RichardCaseNagelJFKAssassinationElPasoPoliceRecords

[David Josephs]

These are copies of the 2 IDs in question.

Some of the items of evidence require going to the archives and taking copies...  

I thank John Armstrong for the years of his work at the Archives and for Baylor for hosting them

DJ

 

 

[Larry Hancock]

Just for reference, I published an extensive collection of Nagell documents from the archives a number of years ago, back in the day when you had to go to the archives to get them.  Along with them I did a chronological analysis of Nagell's communications, related to what was going on at different times in his life.  His activities were very situational, often determined by where he stood both in his legal affairs and especially during the periods when he was trying to recover and eventually did gain custody of his children.  Looking at any particular document or communication without the big picture can be pretty misleading.  The documents were published on CD by JFK Lancer.

[Sandy Larsen]

The Proof

The proof that Richard Case Nagell had in his possession, when arrested for bank robbery, a copy of Oswald's military ID card is embarrassingly obvious. I'm surprised none of us saw it. (Nagell was arrested a couple months before the assassination.)

The reason I didn't see the proof when browsing (online) through The Man Who Knew Too Much is because it is in the preface to the book! Who would have thought something so important would be printed in a preface? (In fairness to author Dick Russell, I should note that not every page of his book is available online. The proof might also appear on one of the unavailable pages.)

Here's the proof:  The copy of the card in Nagell's possession was made before Oswald added the stamp to his card that looks like a postmark. It had to have been because Nagell's copy doesn't have the stamp.

Nagell's copy is the upper one. Beside the stamp, only the photo and signature are different. (And the drawn on "62.")
 

 

 

Edit: This proof does not really hold. See this post below:

 

Edited September 18, 2017 by Sandy Larsen

[Chris Newton]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Beside the stamp, only the photo and signature are different.

The "62" in box 2 looks different

[Sandy Larsen]

1 hour ago, Chris Newton said:

The "62" in box 2 looks different

I was referring to substantive differences. I assume the "62" came out light on his copy and so he darkened it.

 

Edited September 17, 2017 by Sandy Larsen

[Chris Newton]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I was referring to substantive differences. I assume the "62" came out light on his copy and so he darkened it.

Ok. How do we know he didn't remove traces of the circles too?

There is a mark to the left of the "P" where there should not be a mark that could relate to the "2" in "23".

[Sandy Larsen]

15 minutes ago, Chris Newton said:

Ok. How do we know he didn't remove traces of the circles too?

Yeah... and not just the circles, but also the text inside the circles.

I supposed it would be possible to remove the stamp marks... if you have a great deal of patience and a steady hand. Whiteout would just make a mess. I would use that only on the large areas. I'd try scratching off the tiny parts of the ink that are between the text printed on the card with a very sharp, pointed knife.

Well, I just tried doing that and it didn't work. I had to scratch all the way through the paper. There really is no practical way of removing the stamp using common tools IMO. Maybe if you used a powerful magnifying glass, extremely fine point brushes, and a white paint whose consistency is thin enough that it doesn't gob up the way whiteout does, but thick enough that the pigment covers the black ink.

I just don't think it's going to work. To me it makes more sense to cut out that part of the card, recreate it with... who knows what, and insert that back into the card. Even that would be major work. It could be done using an enlarged transparent copy of that part of the card, placing that on a light box, with a sheet of paper on top of that, and painting in what you want to keep. Then photographically reducing that to the right size and inserting that back into the card.

I just can't believe Nagell would do all that. I mean, what would be the point? Those who don't believe Nagell say that he copied the card long after the assassination, after a photo of the card was published. He did that so he could "prove" that he knew Oswald before the assassination. Well if that were the case, why the hell would he put so much effort into changing the card?? It makes no sense.

BTW, I should point out that Oswald's ID card wasn't even published by the Warren Commission. Only a description of it was. In 1976 -- the year Dick Russell found the copy in Nagell's Lawyer's files, the existence of the card was virtually unknown. Russell eventually showed Nagell's copy to Mary Ferrell and she did recognize it. She said it was published in just one obscure book -- Investigation of a Homicide by Judy Bonner. The only reason Bonner had it in her 1969 book is that her primary source was Sgt. Gerry Hill of the Dallas Police Department. And so she had access to things that others did not.

In summary, here are the two possibilities:

1. Richard Case Nagell got a copy of Oswald's military ID card directly from Oswald; or
2. Nagell made a photocopy of the card shown in Bonner's book for the purpose of convincing people he had known Oswald personally. After which he spent a enormous amount time trying to make the card look different.

Sorry, number 2 just doesn't make sense.

And let's not forget this: What Nagell did to the photograph on his copy of Oswald's card -- by drawing in a suit coat -- effectively obscured the pesky white semicircular corner of the photo. Which is exactly what Oswald did with his copy, in his case by forging a security stamp over the same white area. I'd say it is pretty obvious that the two were working together and had the same goal in mind for that photo. Just different means to the same end.

 

15 minutes ago, Chris Newton said:

There is a mark to the left of the "P" where there should not be a mark that could relate to the "2" in "23".

I'm confident that that is just noise and is a coincidence. If that line really were part of the "2," one would have to ask, why didn't Nagell clean up the part of the stamping that was the easiest to clean up? (The "2" is in a big, open area.) And yet he cleaned up quite thoroughly all the difficult areas?

 

[Sandy Larsen]

On 9/17/2017 at 4:51 AM, Sandy Larsen said:

Quote

There is a mark to the left of the "P" where there should not be a mark that could relate to the "2" in "23".

I'm confident that that is just noise and is a coincidence. If that line really were part of the "2," one would have to ask, why didn't Nagell clean up the part of the stamping that was the easiest to clean up? (The "2" is in a big, open area.) And yet he cleaned up quite thoroughly all the difficult areas?

I have taken a closer look and have changed my mind about this. I do now believe that Nagell's copy of Oswald's ID card did originally include the "postmark" stamps and that somebody -- presumably Nagell -- tried to erase them. There are enough pieces  of the stamps remaining on Nagell's copy IMO that this scenario is a near certainty. (See this post for details.)

I am therefore updating the following possibilities:
 

On 9/17/2017 at 4:51 AM, Sandy Larsen said:

In summary, here are the two possibilities:

1. Richard Case Nagell got a copy of Oswald's military ID card directly from Oswald; or
2. Nagell made a photocopy of the card shown in Bonner's book for the purpose of convincing people he had known Oswald personally. After which he spent a enormous amount time trying to make the card look different.

To these three possibilities:

1. Richard Case Nagell got a copy of Oswald's military ID card directly from Oswald; or
2. A a third party gave a copy of Oswald's ID card to Nagell prior to the assassination; or
3. Nagell made a photocopy of the card shown in Bonner's book for the purpose of convincing people he had known Oswald personally. After which he spent a a good amount time trying to make the card look different.

For cases #1 and #2, it is unknown who erased the "postmark" stamps.

The big difference is that it is conceivable that Nagell and Oswald were not together when Nagell received the stamp.

 

Edited September 18, 2017 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

So therefore, the "proof" I posted above does not hold. Unfortunately.

There is only this: There was only one way Nagell could have possibly gotten a  copy of Oswald's ID card after the assassination, and that is by making a photocopy of the photo of the card that was in the 1969 book Investigation of a Homicide by Judy Bonner. After which he spent a good deal of time erasing the "postmark" stamps Oswald apparently used to cover up the old Russian stamp on the photo. And then he covered it up instead by drawing a suit coat over that area.

If Nagell copied the ID card for the purpose of making people think he had been with Oswald, why would he then have altered the card?

BTW, FWIW, Investigation of a Homicide by Judy Bonner is not critical of the Warren Commission. It is just a chronicle of a Dallas police officer's experience with the investigation. It seems unlikely that Nagell would have sought out this book.

 

Edited November 3, 2018 by Sandy Larsen

[Christopher Hall]

I read Russell's lengthy tome earlier this year, and I am embarrassed to admit that I have already forgotten the alleged proof of this matter.

It's an interesting book, but it just went on and on.

I almost never fail to finish a book, so I soldier on until I'm finished.

[David Andrews]

I remember from my childhood, maybe around 1965 (but this could have predated 1963), that there were xerography machines that produced page copies - such as from a book or a legal document - in negative.  Meaning that in the copy, white space was dark, and print and dark space in pictures were white.  I many times got adults at our small-town library to make such copies for me.  Does anyone remember this type of xerography?  Could it have affected Nagell's copy of Oswald's ID?

Edited September 22, 2017 by David Andrews

[Sandy Larsen]

20 hours ago, David Andrews said:

I remember from my childhood, maybe around 1965 (but this could have predated 1963), that there were xerography machines that produced page copies - such as from a book or a legal document - in negative.  Meaning that in the copy, white space was dark, and print and dark space in pictures were white.  I many times got adults at our small-town library to make such copies for me.  Does anyone remember this type of xerography?  Could it have affected Nagell's copy of Oswald's ID?

Well, if true, that might explain how Nagell got rid of the "postmark" stamp on his copy. The stamp marks would be white, and they could easily have been erased (made dark) using a fine-tipped pencil.

But I have a feeling you're thinking of mimeograph stencils. Mimeography could only make copies of something being typed, written, or drawn with the special mimeograph paper in place.

A Photostat machine would first make a negative, from which the final copy was made. But I don't know why you would have asked adults to get the negatives for you. Still, Nagell could have used such a negative to erase the "postmark" stamp.

 

Edited September 23, 2017 by Sandy Larsen

[Michael Walton]

The Nagell story is bunk and a fairy tale:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/nagell2.htm

I liken it to others who came out of the woodwork to claim their own slice of fame like Bev Oliver and Judy Baker.

Read State Secret.  Do you really truly believe that if they'd planned this carefully that they'd have a live wire like Nagell running around to ruin the whole thing? Of course not.

That card is NOT proof that he was in the know Sandy. He probably copied it and manipulated it and then presented it.  Nothing more.

And Tom Hume - sorry, but your secret agent codes are also silly.

[David Andrews]

Do the research on Nagell, Michael - as someone like Larry Hancock has - and you'll find out why Nagell had enemies.  It wasn't because he was a poseur.  He played games, but some people in highly dangerous situations respond that way.

Edited September 23, 2017 by David Andrews