Response to Roe re staged Walker shot

[Benjamin Cole]

1 hour ago, Lawrence Schnapf said:

@Mark Ulrik yes- she did not say her husband took a shot at walker in her prior 46 interviews. I view that as her telling the truth and when she was confronted with the late discovered note allegedly written by her husband, then she said he did fire the shot. 

I suspect you and I have a different view  of when she was lying.  

Was it just a coincidence that handler Mohrenschildt showed up the very next morning (April 11) to check up on LHO and make comments about the Walker shooting? 

Certainly not dispositive.

But fits with my sense that LHO was handled the night of April 10, had confederates (who gave him a 30.06 rifle armed with cheap steel-jacketed military surplus ammo, and a auto ride), and in this scene LHO was tested---was he willing to shoot and intentionally miss a high-profile public figure? 

LHO proved he was up to the task. 

On Marina, even WC lawyers were in despair at her erratic and inconsistent commentary. She is not a reliable witness. 

[Greg Doudna]

On 6/16/2023 at 8:47 AM, Lawrence Schnapf said:

@Greg Doudna Marina cannot recant her sworn testimony or she could be subject to perjury charges. while it is unlikely that she would be prosecuted, her Soveit origins no doubt makes her scared of the government.

I dont understand why you find it difficult that Marina would agree to lie about her dead husband. She was a young mother with two girls. She had a choice to protect her dead husband's reputation in the face of aggressive government pressure or protect her two babies. 

The issue is not whether Marina would have buckled under that pressure if that was the case, but whether there is evidence of that nature of pressure: "tell this wholly fabricated story under oath (or else)". My difficulty is the leaping to that without positive evidence, and in the face of serious implausibility. What is the evidence for that nature of suborning of perjury?  

Think about it: you are suggesting the Secret Service (which had physical custody of Marina and control of her and the Walker Note), knew it was forged, and went and asked Ruth Paine whether Ruth Paine was writing a letter to Marina (a question of a secret Ruth to Marina genuine letter), knowing full well that was not the case and it was secretly forged by the Secret Service? 

I have a little acquaintance with issues of forgery of handwriting and texts (in part related to some court cases in Israel in which there were charges, probably true even though the charges were beat in court, of organized forgery of ancient texts and artifacts, to be sold on the antiquities market to private collectors for enormous profits). 

One detail on forgery of handwriting: most forgeries of handwriting involve small samples, because it is extraordinarily difficult to forge handwriting of large texts without experts being able to detect it. The Walker Note is a lengthy text. Not a single accredited or reputable expert in the entire world in all this time has ever challenged the authenticity of the Walker Note as Oswald's handwriting, which was testified as to a finding of fact early on by an experienced questioned-document examiner. And yet, on the basis of exactly zero positive evidence cited at all, you join others in seeming to believe or have concluded that it was most likely forged handwriting.

If it was forged, it was an extremely good forgery, because any other kind of forgery would be detected, and would have been detected, by now. So you are postulating really a picture-perfect or near-perfect forgery of a lengthy text. Did the Secret Service have a lab and secret expertise on the payroll doing picture-perfect forgery to order? Where is the evidence the Secret Service was in the handwriting-forgery business? 

Well, some (I hope not you) say Ruth Paine forged Oswald's handwriting perfectly! So simple to just say that! Without the slightest evidence Ruth Paine had any training in spy arts, ever did forgery or committed a crime in the past! As if someone with no track record, no history, no training, in the forgery business, could produce a lengthy forged text, in secret collusion with the Secret Service who outwardly at first questioned her with suspicion, in Oswald's handwriting, of picture-perfect expert ability. All without a shred of positive evidence. Just assertion, no matter how implausible. 

Why not suppose one of the Irving police officers planted the Note in Marina's book, or forged it. Why not? (Apart from no evidence.)

On 6/16/2023 at 8:47 AM, Lawrence Schnapf said:

 

The note was not discovered during the initial search of the Paine house. it mysteriously shows up 5 days before the FBI is to send its report to the President and after 46 interviews with Marina where she does not disclose her alleged conversations with her dead husband about the walker shooting.  suddenly, it shows up and when confronted with it, she fesses up. So yes, i think it is as equally possible that the note was fabriacted as it being genuine. Moreover, remember that Bert Griffin told me that the WC used Ruth Paine to put guardrails on Marina's testimony.

Finally, I dont know if there is actual evidence of the  police finding the photo in Oswald's possessions at the rooming house. Is there a photo of the photo of his possessions? The photo could easily have come from the DPD April investigation and then the DPD placed it into the Oswald inventory. that could explain the missing license plate number. DPD was not only inept but also crooked.   

Wasn't that photo identified as having been taken exclusively by a particular camera which was Oswald's camera? Wouldn't that rule out it was a police photo?

I don't think you will deny that Marina intentionally destroyed a Backyard Photograph in a motel room Sat night Nov 23, 1963? Marguerite witnessed it and told of it. Marina also told of it. 

Isn't that of a piece with those original non-volunteering and/or denials from Marina that Oswald was involved in the Walker shot? The direction going from untruthful denial, to fessing up to (a version of) the truth? 

It seems to me these attempts to claim so much of the physical evidence in the Walker case was forged and Marina's testimony suborned to perjury, function not only to go in a direction which isn't factually true, but has the effect of obstructing getting at the actual truth of the Walker shot, which did involve Oswald with the issue being in what way and how.

May I ask you, from your experience or knowledge as a trial or defense attorney in criminal cases--how is the notion that the Secret Service, or FBI, or whoever, suborned perjury of an entire developed fabricated story of Marina in a direct sense not bizarre? Does direct suborning of perjury of that scale and nature happen in your experience? Wouldn't that be extremely risky in the sense of major scandal if it was ever found out--and that alone would act as a deterrent on that happening in fact even if there was motive to do so?

[Tom Gram]

1 hour ago, Greg Doudna said:

One detail on forgery of handwriting: most forgeries of handwriting involve small samples, because it is extraordinarily difficult to forge handwriting of large texts without experts being able to detect it. The Walker Note is a lengthy text. Not a single accredited or reputable expert in the entire world in all this time has ever challenged the authenticity of the Walker Note as Oswald's handwriting, which was testified as to a finding of fact early on by an experienced questioned-document examiner. And yet, on the basis of exactly zero positive evidence cited at all, you join others in seeming to believe or have concluded that it was most likely forged handwriting.

If I recall, the only early handwriting ID was based on just a few English words like “Ervay”, not the entire text. The lone HSCA opinion by McNally is not exactly conclusive either. Purtell cast major doubt on McNally’s approach and the validity of the WC era analyses. This is copied from a reply I made in another thread: 

The Russian language writing on documents 23, 56, and 57 is by the same person. Although there are a few letter design forms which appear to be in the Cyrillic alphabet, the bulk are in the Latin alphabet and correspond to their counterparts in the script and handprint in the documents listed in sections I, II, III, and IV above. (40) 

With regard to the Russian writing on items 23, 56, and 57, this examiner is not familiar with this language and the characteristics of the various writing systems used. (64) It is almost impossible to distinguish between class characteristics and individual characteristics unless the writing styles of a language are known. (65) This examiner is, therefore, unable to render definite opinion, but can point out that there are similarities between the writing in items 23, 56, and 57 and the handwriting on the items listed in A, B, and C above. (66)

Was McNally at all familiar with the Russian language? There’s nothing in his HSCA bio about it, and his comments about Latin alphabet design forms suggest that he based his opinion on an approach that was basically worthless, according to Purtell. 

[Lawrence Schnapf]

@Greg Doudna do you really expect the agents holding her in custody and conducting 46 interviews without the benefit the benefit of counsel are going to document how they intimidated her? have you ever been involved in an adversial FBI or police investigation? are you aware of the tactics that were used in the 1960s and sadly continue in some cases today? The agents were under orders by Sullivan “bear down on her”.  

[Greg Doudna]

2 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

If I recall, the only early handwriting ID was based on just a few English words like “Ervay”, not the entire text. The lone HSCA opinion by McNally is not exactly conclusive either. Purtell cast major doubt on McNally’s approach and the validity of the WC era analyses. This is copied from a reply I made in another thread: 

The Russian language writing on documents 23, 56, and 57 is by the same person. Although there are a few letter design forms which appear to be in the Cyrillic alphabet, the bulk are in the Latin alphabet and correspond to their counterparts in the script and handprint in the documents listed in sections I, II, III, and IV above. (40) 

With regard to the Russian writing on items 23, 56, and 57, this examiner is not familiar with this language and the characteristics of the various writing systems used. (64) It is almost impossible to distinguish between class characteristics and individual characteristics unless the writing styles of a language are known. (65) This examiner is, therefore, unable to render definite opinion, but can point out that there are similarities between the writing in items 23, 56, and 57 and the handwriting on the items listed in A, B, and C above. (66)

Was McNally at all familiar with the Russian language? There’s nothing in his HSCA bio about it, and his comments about Latin alphabet design forms suggest that he based his opinion on an approach that was basically worthless, according to Purtell. 

The point remains Tom, that nobody with recognized expertise has shown any cause to suspect forged imitation of Oswald's handwriting in that Note. So to say it is forged or could be forged (and then to proceed as if that is a reasonable option) is just making it up out of thin air. It is not as if this is a contested point. There is nobody (with expertise) even claiming that handwriting is forged, i.e. there is no contesting occurring.

There is no evidence the various agencies forged any other handwriting in the JFK case. It is not as if there are good comparative parallels for what is being suggested here in the absence of any evidence.

I wonder if you may be inaccurate in saying Purtell was critical of McNally's method. I just checked, and isn't McNally saying he makes the same-handwriting identification of 57 (the Walker Note) as 23 and 56 (two letters Oswald wrote in the USSR) on the basis of Latin letter forms in those respective documents (which is not Purtell's method criticism)? (Or do I have that wrong?)

Both of the examiners say the handwriting of the Walker Note looks like Oswald's handwriting in other Oswald writing. One says that identification is certain, and the other says he's unwilling to express certainty but it is what it looks like.

Nobody whose opinion matters is saying otherwise. Lots of other indication that the content of that Note fits Oswald.

If there was opposing expert dispute over the handwriting identification it might be a different matter depending on the weight of the authorities involved and their explanations. But this is a case of people with no expertise claiming it could be a forgery on the basis of nothing.  

[Greg Doudna]

2 hours ago, Lawrence Schnapf said:

@Greg Doudna do you really expect the agents holding her in custody and conducting 46 interviews without the benefit the benefit of counsel are going to document how they intimidated her? have you ever been involved in an adversial FBI or police investigation? are you aware of the tactics that were used in the 1960s and sadly continue in some cases today? The agents were under orders by Sullivan “bear down on her”.  

I am not disputing what you say above. The disconnect--my dispute--is going from facts cited to your conclusion, in going from the above to a conclusion that Marina was suborned into perjury to tell an Oswald-Walker shot story created out of whole cloth.

What makes you so sure that Marina being questioned without counsel, intimidated, agents instructed to "bear down on her", etc. was producing a wholly fabricated tale out of whole cloth, instead of a confession of partial truth? 

And it seems you are going beyond suggesting Marina spontaneously gave a made-up false confession, into suggesting that not only was it false, but Marina did not make it up either but was scripted, told, to tell it the way she did. 

I don't see that as following logically from the facts cited. Certainly there has been no allegation or threat of physical beatings. Similarly, there are no credible allegations that she was scripted to tell a certain story either, suborned to perjury in the legal sense. Granting all of what you say above, and even if you want to say it was her own spontaneous doing and not channeled through her like a ventriloquist with Marina being the ventriloquist's dummy, why assume the pressure you cite produced a confessed story that was false, instead of some version of what was true?

What is the basis for that kind of conclusion, especially when there is so much other witness and physical evidence saying there was something to an Oswald involvement in that Walker shot?

[Lawrence Schnapf]

@Greg Doudna @Tom Gram  Do we know if the handwriting analysis was done via a blind test where the handwriting analyst did not know which note was allegedly written by Oswald? They would be asked to compare several anonymous notes and identify which ones are written by the same person. I dont know the answer as I have focused on the questions about the provenance of the note and not how the handwriting analysis was conducted.  

There are legions of examples and numerous peer-published articles about either conscious or subconcious bias of examiners. The innocent explanation is the sub-conscious desire to help law enforcement prove the case against the suspect.  The more egregious case is where crime labs are paid based on the convictions which clearly sets up a conflct of interest,  

@Greg Doudna i dont have time right now to answer the other good questions you have asked and will do so later. there have been reports of sexual relations between Marina and some of the agents. I have never focused on this so I dont remember the sources of these accounts. maybe others remember.

and just to be clear since my writing style is very direct, i truly appreciate your persistence in questioning the statements and conclusions that I have made along with those of @Benjamin Cole and @Tom Gram. it helps to strengthen our research/analysis and helps me separate the wheat from the chaff. For the same reasons,I value the input from @Steve Roe.       

[Greg Doudna]

1 hour ago, Lawrence Schnapf said:

 

@Greg Doudna i dont have time right now to answer the other good questions you have asked and will do so later. there have been reports of sexual relations between Marina and some of the agents. I have never focused on this so I dont remember the sources of these accounts. maybe others remember.

and just to be clear since my writing style is very direct, i truly appreciate your persistence in questioning the statements and conclusions that I have made along with those of @Benjamin Cole and @Tom Gram. it helps to strengthen our research/analysis and helps me separate the wheat from the chaff. For the same reasons,I value the input from @Steve Roe.       

A classy answer Larry, and I agree with your thoughts in the final paragraph and vice versa. 

[Tom Gram]

4 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

The point remains Tom, that nobody with recognized expertise has shown any cause to suspect forged imitation of Oswald's handwriting in that Note. So to say it is forged or could be forged (and then to proceed as if that is a reasonable option) is just making it up out of thin air. It is not as if this is a contested point. There is nobody (with expertise) even claiming that handwriting is forged, i.e. there is no contesting occurring.

There is no evidence the various agencies forged any other handwriting in the JFK case. It is not as if there are good comparative parallels for what is being suggested here in the absence of any evidence.

I wonder if you may be inaccurate in saying Purtell was critical of McNally's method. I just checked, and isn't McNally saying he makes the same-handwriting identification of 57 (the Walker Note) as 23 and 56 (two letters Oswald wrote in the USSR) on the basis of Latin letter forms in those respective documents (which is not Purtell's method criticism)? (Or do I have that wrong?)

Both of the examiners say the handwriting of the Walker Note looks like Oswald's handwriting in other Oswald writing. One says that identification is certain, and the other says he's unwilling to express certainty but it is what it looks like.

Nobody whose opinion matters is saying otherwise. Lots of other indication that the content of that Note fits Oswald.

If there was opposing expert dispute over the handwriting identification it might be a different matter depending on the weight of the authorities involved and their explanations. But this is a case of people with no expertise claiming it could be a forgery on the basis of nothing.  

I think the point with the HSCA experts is that Purtell stated it is impossible to conduct a proper handwriting analysis and render an informed opinion without knowledge of the Russian language, and McNally appears to have done exactly that. Has the note ever been examined by a Russian handwriting expert? I have no idea, but if Purtell is correct, and McNally didn’t know Russian, then we can’t really say that the note has been authenticated. That no-one with expertise is claiming the note is forged is meaningless if no one with the proper expertise has ever actually studied it. If I recall, the other expert didn’t even bother looking at the Russian documents, which lends credence to Purtell’s comment. 

To @Lawrence Schnapf’s question, the HSCA handwriting panel was supposed to be only trying to determine if the documents were written by the same person, but they obviously knew what they were looking at so I’m not sure how meaningful that is. 

Edited June 19, 2023 by Tom Gram