Klein's didn't start selling the 40" rifle until August, 1963

[Gil Jesus]

10 minutes ago, Gary Murr said:

The Klein ads in the May and June 1963 issues of AR [p. 59] both show the 40" version of the MC. 

I got that earlier. I also got that Armstrong's list says that there was no Klein's ad in the May 1963 edition of American Rifleman.

No offense, but when I have conflicting evidence, I must see the evidence for myself. I've ordered the magazines, they're on their way and I'm not going to be satisfied until I see it for myself.

[Gary Murr]

Apologies, Gil - Armstrong is correct. There was no MC Carcano ad in the May 1863 issue of AR. The top left corner of the cover page of the AR magazine I had filed  in front of my copy of the June 63 issue was torn off - missing. When I checked this cover against thumbnails of all the AR covers for 1963 it turns out that what I had filed in the "May" order was actually the August 1963 issue. I purchased several batch collections of AR over the years from various sources online and though more often than not the issues in these collections were described as being in "good" condition, that was not always the case. Upon receipt on my part and examination various issues had pages missing, torn, marked up etc. Armstrong was also correct in noting that the August 1963 issue saw the first of a "new' Kleins ad construction on the part of the editors at AR - a definite difference than the ads that had been run for several months in prior issues.

FWIW 

[Tom Gram]

4 hours ago, Steve Thomas said:

Tom,

4) The handwriting experts commissioned by the HSCA were not asked to analyze the signature on the Hidell Selective Service card, or to compare the signature on the rifle order form with the signature on the DeMohrenschildt rifle photo.

HSCA VOLUME VIII HANDWRITING ANALYSIS OF LEE HARVEY OSWALD p. 223

March, 1979

http://jfkassassination.net/parnell/hscahand.htm

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=961#relPageId=227&tab=page

The HSCA submitted 63 samples from 50 documents items to handwriting experts JOSEPH P. MC NALLY and DAVID J. PURTELL and CHARLES C. SCOTT

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS OF CHARLES C. SCOTT

(139) (Question. Although they purport to be the handwriting of one Hidell, were the postal money order (item 29) and the envelope addressed to Kleins (item 30) actually written by the person who wrote the signatures and other writings which purport to be Oswald's? (140) Opinion. The original of the money order (item 29) was examined and compared with the original writings purporting to be Oswald's. I am of the opinion that the fill-ins on the face of this money order are in the handwriting of the same person as the signatures and writings purporting to be Oswald's.

 

(He used the term “fill ins”. He did not say signature.)

The writing on the money order conforms with the writing purporting to be that of Oswald on the other documents in every material way, including writing movement and rhythm (L) as well as the pictorial aspects of form or design, proportions, alignment, slant, and connections. It is also significant that the writing on this money order shows no indication of being a mere copy or imitation of the writing purporting to be that of Oswald. This money order was submitted in the original, and hence it was possible to give it a complete microscopic examination and to study it under the infrared image converter. (141)

What is not included in this batch however, is the Selective Service card in the name of Hidell.

What was not done was to compare the signatures on the Hidell Selective Service card with the signature on the rifle's postal money order.

To me, this is very odd, because the government's entire case rests on this.

I wrote a piece on this back in 2018 called, "Did Marina order therifle?

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/24667-did-marina-order-the-rifle/#comment-370831

Steve Thomas

I’m very aware of that excellent piece you did Steve. I actually cited it as a source in my essay on Oswald’s mail, used your signature comparison image, and you are the only JFK researcher actually named in the essay other than Sylvia Meagher. 

It’s absolutely ridiculous that the HSCA didn’t examine the Hidell SS card. The signature is very similar in appearance to the money order, and as we’ve both pointed out - there is zero specific testimony from questioned document examiners in the entire record of the JFK case on the money order Hidell signature.

As you are aware, Marina’s testimony on this issue is utterly bizarre, and quite interesting. She fumbled, gave ambiguous answers, and eventually spit out while testifying about the FPCC card that she signed “two or three” cards for Oswald, and also that her “English handwriting changes every day”. She also gave what could be interpreted as an affirmative answer to Liebeler’s question on whether or not she was trying to conceal her normal handwriting. Her shifting stories about the Hidell alias in general too are definitely food for thought.