A Case Not Tried:

[Greg Parker]

I received the following email from Jim Olmstead today, and am posting it here with permission. Jim has also offered to address any comments/questions through me. As noted in his email, he is willing to have this work used free, so if anyone is aware of any where it could be used, please let me know, and I'll forward the information on. He has said in a further email that "I really feel strongly that the letter is not any forgery." so this would seem a quite important breakthrough, if it indeed can be shown to have been written by Oswald.

Although I do not support at this time that the Dear Mr. Hunt letter was addressed to either H. L. Hunt or any specific Hunt family member or E. Howard Hunt, I do have research in support that the letter is not a forgery or fake.

The key consideration on my part is that even with poor quality examples to study the "e" is not really missing from the signature of Lee Harvey Oswald.

I based this on McNally's testimony that it only "appears to be missing" and study to confirm the appearance shows that the "e" is actually a portion of the y stroke.

Every point presented in the HSCA panel examination of the Dear Mr. Hunt letter has a valid counterpoint consideration. The "script" created for "A Case Not Tried" dealing with handwriting is available free, to any news or investigative production or

educational institution, wishing to produce this segment of my series "A Case Not Tried".

I do retain certain rights and considerations on production. The program must show all aspects of consideration, in all fairness, with rebutal to points presented.

James K. Olmstead

[William O'Neil]

I received the following email from Jim Olmstead today, and am posting it here with permission. Jim has also offered to address any comments/questions through me. As noted in his email, he is willing to have this work used free, so if anyone is aware of any where it could be used, please let me know, and I'll forward the information on. He has said in a further email that "I really feel strongly that the letter is not any forgery." so this would seem a quite important breakthrough, if it indeed can be shown to have been written by Oswald.

Although I do not support at this time that the Dear Mr. Hunt letter was addressed to either H. L. Hunt or any specific Hunt family member or E. Howard Hunt, I do have research in support that the letter is not a forgery or fake.

The key consideration on my part is that even with poor quality examples to study the "e" is not really missing from the signature of Lee Harvey Oswald.

I based this on McNally's testimony that it only "appears to be missing" and study to confirm the appearance shows that the "e" is actually a portion of the y stroke.

Every point presented in the HSCA panel examination of the Dear Mr. Hunt letter has a valid counterpoint consideration. The "script" created for "A Case Not Tried" dealing with handwriting is available free, to any news or investigative production or

educational institution, wishing to produce this segment of my series "A Case Not Tried".

I do retain certain rights and considerations on production. The program must show all aspects of consideration, in all fairness, with rebutal to points presented.

James K. Olmstead

Greg; Didn't the KGB admit to forging this? and if they didn't, why say this........?

[Greg Parker]

dup post deleted

Edited December 13, 2006 by Greg Parker

[Greg Parker]

I received the following email from Jim Olmstead today, and am posting it here with permission. Jim has also offered to address any comments/questions through me. As noted in his email, he is willing to have this work used free, so if anyone is aware of any where it could be used, please let me know, and I'll forward the information on. He has said in a further email that "I really feel strongly that the letter is not any forgery." so this would seem a quite important breakthrough, if it indeed can be shown to have been written by Oswald.

Although I do not support at this time that the Dear Mr. Hunt letter was addressed to either H. L. Hunt or any specific Hunt family member or E. Howard Hunt, I do have research in support that the letter is not a forgery or fake.

The key consideration on my part is that even with poor quality examples to study the "e" is not really missing from the signature of Lee Harvey Oswald.

I based this on McNally's testimony that it only "appears to be missing" and study to confirm the appearance shows that the "e" is actually a portion of the y stroke.

Every point presented in the HSCA panel examination of the Dear Mr. Hunt letter has a valid counterpoint consideration. The "script" created for "A Case Not Tried" dealing with handwriting is available free, to any news or investigative production or

educational institution, wishing to produce this segment of my series "A Case Not Tried".

I do retain certain rights and considerations on production. The program must show all aspects of consideration, in all fairness, with rebutal to points presented.

James K. Olmstead

Greg; Didn't the KGB admit to forging this? and if they didn't, why say this........?

Bill, the claim was made in a book co-written by a KGB defector to England, Vasili Mitrokhin. No supporting evidence was provided in the book.

After the letter was published by Penn Jones, a Dallas paper hired experts to study it. They concluded it was written by Oswald. Marina was shown the letter, and she thought it was Oswald's writing. Then came the HSCA study. That panel decided a determination was impossible without seeing the original. What they noted as suspicious was:

Oswald usually signed his name with a middle initial, not full name; the "e" in Harvey appeared to be missing; the writing was neat and appeared deliberate.

In all other respects, they found the writing to match known samples.

[William Kelly]

I received the following email from Jim Olmstead today, and am posting it here with permission. Jim has also offered to address any comments/questions through me. As noted in his email, he is willing to have this work used free, so if anyone is aware of any where it could be used, please let me know, and I'll forward the information on. He has said in a further email that "I really feel strongly that the letter is not any forgery." so this would seem a quite important breakthrough, if it indeed can be shown to have been written by Oswald.

Greg; Didn't the KGB admit to forging this? and if they didn't, why say this........?

Bill, the claim was made in a book co-written by a KGB defector to England, Vasili Mitrokhin. No supporting evidence was provided in the book.

For the record, not everyone buys into Mitrokhin's story - especially regarding JFK assassination, especially me. Mitrokhin didn't bring his KGB files with him, but memorized and copied them, so there is no direct verification.

The four areas of interest re: JFK assassination are Mitrokhin saying the KGB financially supported and thus controled the publishers of early critics - Mark Lane, Jachem Joestein, Bertrand Russell; KGB fooled Garrison into beliving PERMINDEX stories published in KGB controlled European press; KGB penetrated NSA via technician who, when arrested identified JFK's killer as Luis Angel Castillo; and the contention that the LHO Dear Mr. Hunt letter was a KGB fabrication.

The last time I was with Mary Ferrell, we talked about this and she was admant that the letter was legit, and not a product of the KGB propaganda mill, as Mitrokhin claimed. I agree.

In addition, we already know that whether or not they were financially backed by the KGB, the early critics were basically correct in all of their allegations, and that Garrison was onto his case months before he became aware of the European PERMINDEX articles, and that Mitrokhin is wrong about everything he has to say about the JFK assassiantion. So why should we even listen to him about anything?

BK

[Greg Parker]

I received the following email from Jim Olmstead today, and am posting it here with permission. Jim has also offered to address any comments/questions through me. As noted in his email, he is willing to have this work used free, so if anyone is aware of any where it could be used, please let me know, and I'll forward the information on. He has said in a further email that "I really feel strongly that the letter is not any forgery." so this would seem a quite important breakthrough, if it indeed can be shown to have been written by Oswald.

Greg; Didn't the KGB admit to forging this? and if they didn't, why say this........?

Bill, the claim was made in a book co-written by a KGB defector to England, Vasili Mitrokhin. No supporting evidence was provided in the book.

For the record, not everyone buys into Mitrokhin's story - especially regarding JFK assassination, especially me. Mitrokhin didn't bring his KGB files with him, but memorized and copied them, so there is no direct verification.

The four areas of interest re: JFK assassination are Mitrokhin saying the KGB financially supported and thus controled the publishers of early critics - Mark Lane, Jachem Joestein, Bertrand Russell; KGB fooled Garrison into beliving PERMINDEX stories published in KGB controlled European press; KGB penetrated NSA via technician who, when arrested identified JFK's killer as Luis Angel Castillo; and the contention that the LHO Dear Mr. Hunt letter was a KGB fabrication.

The last time I was with Mary Ferrell, we talked about this and she was admant that the letter was legit, and not a product of the KGB propaganda mill, as Mitrokhin claimed. I agree.

In addition, we already know that whether or not they were financially backed by the KGB, the early critics were basically correct in all of their allegations, and that Garrison was onto his case months before he became aware of the European PERMINDEX articles, and that Mitrokhin is wrong about everything he has to say about the JFK assassiantion. So why should we even listen to him about anything?

BK

Bill, the problem is twofold: firstly, the book received such positive press that a lot of people seem to believe it's a given that the KGB was behind it. The other problem is the more important, that is that the HSCA failed to answer the authenticity question - and there in legal limbo it has remained as far as evidence goes. Mitrokhin's book no more resolved that question than the story of Henny-Penny (with or without Goosey-Goosey's abeit able assistance) resolves the many problems and paradoxes of Quantum Theory using the Two Principles of the Metaphysics of Space and Motion and the Spherical Wave Structure of Matter.

If JKO's methods and conclusions can be reviewed and approved by some experts, it is a further piece of evidence which could, for example, be presented to a Grand Jury or Congressional Committee. They can then try and resolve the other questions about it, like "who was 'Mr Hunt'"?

[Robert Howard]

I received the following email from Jim Olmstead today, and am posting it here with permission. Jim has also offered to address any comments/questions through me. As noted in his email, he is willing to have this work used free, so if anyone is aware of any where it could be used, please let me know, and I'll forward the information on. He has said in a further email that "I really feel strongly that the letter is not any forgery." so this would seem a quite important breakthrough, if it indeed can be shown to have been written by Oswald.

Greg; Didn't the KGB admit to forging this? and if they didn't, why say this........?

Bill, the claim was made in a book co-written by a KGB defector to England, Vasili Mitrokhin. No supporting evidence was provided in the book.

For the record, not everyone buys into Mitrokhin's story - especially regarding JFK assassination, especially me. Mitrokhin didn't bring his KGB files with him, but memorized and copied them, so there is no direct verification.

The four areas of interest re: JFK assassination are Mitrokhin saying the KGB financially supported and thus controled the publishers of early critics - Mark Lane, Jachem Joestein, Bertrand Russell; KGB fooled Garrison into beliving PERMINDEX stories published in KGB controlled European press; KGB penetrated NSA via technician who, when arrested identified JFK's killer as Luis Angel Castillo; and the contention that the LHO Dear Mr. Hunt letter was a KGB fabrication.

The last time I was with Mary Ferrell, we talked about this and she was admant that the letter was legit, and not a product of the KGB propaganda mill, as Mitrokhin claimed. I agree.

In addition, we already know that whether or not they were financially backed by the KGB, the early critics were basically correct in all of their allegations, and that Garrison was onto his case months before he became aware of the European PERMINDEX articles, and that Mitrokhin is wrong about everything he has to say about the JFK assassiantion. So why should we even listen to him about anything?

BK

Bill, the problem is twofold: firstly, the book received such positive press that a lot of people seem to believe it's a given that the KGB was behind it. The other problem is the more important, that is that the HSCA failed to answer the authenticity question - and there in legal limbo it has remained as far as evidence goes. Mitrokhin's book no more resolved that question than the story of Henny-Penny (with or without Goosey-Goosey's abeit able assistance) resolves the many problems and paradoxes of Quantum Theory using the Two Principles of the Metaphysics of Space and Motion and the Spherical Wave Structure of Matter.

If JKO's methods and conclusions can be reviewed and approved by some experts, it is a further piece of evidence which could, for example, be presented to a Grand Jury or Congressional Committee. They can then try and resolve the other questions about it, like "who was 'Mr Hunt'"?

Did Oleg Nechiporenko, [Passport to Assassination] delve into the topic? I would be curious to know [if he did] what his thoughts on the subject were.

[Ron Ecker]

Since there is one known misspelling in the letter ("concerding"), what if Oswald was actually writing to "Mr. Hurt" (whom he also tried to call later from the Dallas jail)?

I agree it seems far-fetched that he would write an "n" instead of "r" in the name of the addressee. But then it also seems far-fetched to me that any grown native speaker of the English language would write a "d" for the second "n" in "concerning."

[Greg Parker]

Did Oleg Nechiporenko, [Passport to Assassination]delve into the topic? I would be curious to know [if he did] what his thoughts on the subject were.

RH

Sorry Robert - don't know. Maybe someone who has the book can jump in....?

Since there is one known misspelling in the letter ("concerding"), what if Oswald was actually writing to "Mr. Hurt" (whom he also tried to call later from the Dallas jail)?

I agree it seems far-fetched that he would write an "n" instead of "r" in the name of the addressee. But then it also seems far-fetched to me that any grown native speaker of the English language would write a "d" for the second "n" in "concerning."

RE

Ron, the Hunt/Hurt question crossed my mind, too.

Your other observation may qualify you as a genius. Just for the hell of it, I typed "concerding" into google and got 1330 hits. The first thing I thought was... Ron's wrong! Lots of people somehow put a "d" where the "n" should be.

Then the penny dropped. The "d" and "n" are nowhere near each other on a key pad, so 1330 "typos" could be ruled out. They spelled it that way deliberately! Then I randomly checked the context... and wham bam... they were NOT mispelling "concerning", they were mispelling "conceding". Is it possible THAT was what Oswald was meaning to write - and if so - how should the letter now be interpreted?

The text of the letter:

Nov 8, 1963

Dear Mr. Hunt,

I would like information concerding my position.

I am asking only for information. I am suggesting that we discuss the matter fully before any steps are taken by me or anyone else.

Thank you LEE HARVEY OSWALD.

[William O'Neil]

I received the following email from Jim Olmstead today, and am posting it here with permission. Jim has also offered to address any comments/questions through me. As noted in his email, he is willing to have this work used free, so if anyone is aware of any where it could be used, please let me know, and I'll forward the information on. He has said in a further email that "I really feel strongly that the letter is not any forgery." so this would seem a quite important breakthrough, if it indeed can be shown to have been written by Oswald.

Although I do not support at this time that the Dear Mr. Hunt letter was addressed to either H. L. Hunt or any specific Hunt family member or E. Howard Hunt, I do have research in support that the letter is not a forgery or fake.

The key consideration on my part is that even with poor quality examples to study the "e" is not really missing from the signature of Lee Harvey Oswald.

I based this on McNally's testimony that it only "appears to be missing" and study to confirm the appearance shows that the "e" is actually a portion of the y stroke.

Every point presented in the HSCA panel examination of the Dear Mr. Hunt letter has a valid counterpoint consideration. The "script" created for "A Case Not Tried" dealing with handwriting is available free, to any news or investigative production or

educational institution, wishing to produce this segment of my series "A Case Not Tried".

I do retain certain rights and considerations on production. The program must show all aspects of consideration, in all fairness, with rebutal to points presented.

James K. Olmstead

Greg; Didn't the KGB admit to forging this? and if they didn't, why say this........?

Bill, the claim was made in a book co-written by a KGB defector to England, Vasili Mitrokhin. No supporting evidence was provided in the book.

After the letter was published by Penn Jones, a Dallas paper hired experts to study it. They concluded it was written by Oswald. Marina was shown the letter, and she thought it was Oswald's writing. Then came the HSCA study. That panel decided a determination was impossible without seeing the original. What they noted as suspicious was:

Oswald usually signed his name with a middle initial, not full name; the "e" in Harvey appeared to be missing; the writing was neat and appeared deliberate.

In all other respects, they found the writing to match known samples.

I always thuoght that this story was a little too timely..

[Steve Thomas]

Greg,

The text of the letter:

Nov 8, 1963

Dear Mr. Hunt,

I would like information concerding my position.

I am asking only for information. I am suggesting that we discuss the matter fully before any steps are taken by me or anyone else.

Thank you LEE HARVEY OSWALD.

I am just throwing this out there.

Here are two signatures of Lee Harvey Oswald.

The first one is from a 1959 Selective Service Card.

The second one is from the Dear Mr. Hunt letter.

Were they signed by the same person?

Steve Thomas

[Robert Charles-Dunne]

Since there is one known misspelling in the letter ("concerding"), what if Oswald was actually writing to "Mr. Hurt" (whom he also tried to call later from the Dallas jail)?

I agree it seems far-fetched that he would write an "n" instead of "r" in the name of the addressee. But then it also seems far-fetched to me that any grown native speaker of the English language would write a "d" for the second "n" in "concerning."

Equally far-fetched is that somebody would misspell their own middle name in their signature, yet there are precedents for both. [Of course, my meticulous filing system being what it is, neither example is readily at hand, but....] In 1961, Oswald wrote a letter home from the Soviet Union in which he wrote "concerding," and there was a prior [to the "Hunt" letter] instance of his middle name, in signature, being truncated as "Harvy." As time allows, I'll rifle through old boxes to see if I can locate a copy of each.

In the meantime, however, I think the precedents for both pecularities contained in the "Hunt" letter militate strongly that it was written by the same man who had previously made both identical errors. Failing that, it would mean that whomever we think responsible for the "Hunt" letter was intimately acquainted with LHO's penmanship to the point that they knew of such prior errors, and unnecessarily risked having the "Hunt" letter's provenance being called into question by the insertion of such odd characteristics. [This could include either the US or USSR intel agencies, since they both monitored correspondence between the two countries, but wouldn't either of them wish the "Hunt" letter to be flawless, if it had been forged?] Forum members can reach their own conclusions as to which scenario is the more credible.

[J. Raymond Carroll]

it would mean that whomever we think responsible for the "Hunt" letter was intimately acquainted with LHO's penmanship to the point that they knew of such prior errors, and unnecessarily risked having the "Hunt" letter's provenance being called into question by the insertion of such odd characteristics. [This could include either the US or USSR intel agencies, since they both monitored correspondence between the two countries, but wouldn't either of them wish the "Hunt" letter to be flawless, if it had been forged?] Forum members can reach their own conclusions as to which scenario is the more credible.

This supports the proposition that the forgers intended to create a double-blind alley. In the very long run the forgery would be detected, but attempts to identify the forgers might become a practical impossiblity with the passage of time.

I respect James Olmstead as a researcher, and look forward to seeing the fruits of his pending inquiries in various areas, including the auththenticity of the "Hunt" letter. I have no formal qualifications in the field, but I have an amateur interest in forgery. When I compared the signature on the "Hunt" letter with actual examples of LHO's signature that I found in Robert Groden's LHO book (long before the Sword & Shield was published), I had little doubt in my own mind that the Hunt signature was a forgery, and probably not as good as some that have fooled experts and brought millions to forgers like Cusack (JFK-Marilyn Monroe letters sold for up to $6,000,000 a pop) or the Howard Hughes forgeries described in James Phelan's book SCANDALS SCAMPS AND SCOUNDRELS.

I am sure KGB agents/diplomats based in the U.S. kept their eyes open down the years for developments in the JFK investigation, and would have access to experts who may have recognized the "Mr. Hunt" signature as a probable forgery. The co-author of the SWORD & SHIELD would probably have known it if the KGB considered the signature a forgery so, many years later, when the time came to sell his story to a major publisher, the only headline story he had to sell was the one he made up, the one about the KGB's crude forgery of a stupid pointless letter to an unidentifiable "Mr. Hunt."

Or so my working theory goes.

[JL Allen]

The actual letter.

[Ashton Gray]

In 1961, Oswald wrote a letter home from the Soviet Union in which he wrote "concerding," and there was a prior [to the "Hunt" letter] instance of his middle name, in signature, being truncated as "Harvy." As time allows, I'll rifle through old boxes to see if I can locate a copy of each.

In the meantime, however, I think the precedents for both pecularities contained in the "Hunt" letter militate strongly that it was written by the same man who had previously made both identical errors. Failing that, it would mean that whomever we think responsible for the "Hunt" letter was intimately acquainted with LHO's penmanship to the point that they knew of such prior errors, and unnecessarily risked having the "Hunt" letter's provenance being called into question by the insertion of such odd characteristics. [This could include either the US or USSR intel agencies, since they both monitored correspondence between the two countries, but wouldn't either of them wish the "Hunt" letter to be flawless, if it had been forged?]

Purely as Devil's Advocate: not necessarily. The fact of both precedented deviations appearing in one disputed document for which no original is available could be seen to militate strongly for it being the work of an advanced forger insinuating just such touches of "authenticity" into the work in anticipation of just such investigative acumen as you've exhibited.

If it were anyone but CIA (or its twin) standing in the dock, I almost would find your argument dispositive. But I would not be quick to sell them short on just such gamesmanship and on playing several moves ahead.

Altogether, the document is a perfect "maybe."

Ashton

Edited December 16, 2006 by Ashton Gray