A Case Not Tried:

[Greg Parker]

Thank you to everyone who has provided feedback/input.

I have now seen a portion of Jim's work on this. It is far more complicated than mere eyeballing. Spacing of letters, words and punctuation marks, as well as the line of writing, and zoning of letters, all strongly indicate this is the real deal.

Jim also points out that there are psychological profiles evident in writing, and which would be virtually impossible to infuse into a forgery. The writer of this note has a profile none could miss as relating to Oswald.

With regard to the "e" in Harvey... Jim maintains the "e" is there as a small loop leading into the "y".

[J. Raymond Carroll]

Jim also points out that there are psychological profiles evident in writing, and which would be virtually impossible to infuse into a forgery. The writer of this note has a profile none could miss as relating to Oswald.

I seriously doubt if JKO will convince very many people on this issue. The theory that an "expert" can determine someone's psychological makeup from handwriting is not generally accepted in the scientific community and has been held inadmissable by the courts. The issue is discussed in the attached link to an article published by a group of sceptics from LHO's home turf, the Dallas-Fort Worth area:

http://www.ntskeptics.org/factsheets/graphol.htm

[William Kelly]

Jim also points out that there are psychological profiles evident in writing, and which would be virtually impossible to infuse into a forgery. The writer of this note has a profile none could miss as relating to Oswald.

I seriously doubt if JKO will convince very many people on this issue. The theory that an "expert" can determine someone's psychological makeup from handwriting is not generally accepted in the scientific community and has been held inadmissable by the courts. The issue is discussed in the attached link to an article published by a group of sceptics from LHO's home turf, the Dallas-Fort Worth area:

http://www.ntskeptics.org/factsheets/graphol.htm

I don't think the purpose is to determine someone's psychological makeup but rather to identify LHO or an intentional imposter wrote the note.

It's all agreed that the handwriting of the note matches the prolific handwriting samples we have of LHO, so if he did not write the note, it was written by someone intentionally attempting to impersonate him.

The miss spelling of a common word on the address of the envelop handed in by Popov, the Soviet walkin, convinced the CIA he was bonifide, while a perfectly correct proposition would have been suspect. [see: William Wood - who was also in MC).

Also note Mitrokin attempted to defect to CIA but was turned down and the British journalist who writes Mitrokin's story is from Cambridge, notorious home of the Philby-Burgess-McLean network.

Following Mitrokin's best lead goes directly to NSA and Luis Angel Castillo, but nobody wants to go there.

BK

[Guest Eugene B. Connolly]

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.[/color]

I have been thinking about this misspelling thing as well and put forward the following theory.

What if Oswald was consciously composing as he wrote?

We all do it. We write something composing and thinking of each word as we go along.

What if Oswald was composing and thinking the word 'regarding' and instead of writing 'concerning'

writes 'concerding' instead of 'concerning'?

'Regarding' is synonymous with 'concerning' in this context.

Oswald is torn between the two words - concerning or regarding.

Which will it be?

So Oswald's thought process is as follows:

Oswald thinks 'I am writing this letter to Mr Hunt and I want to impress him.'

He composes as he writes and he comes to the fifth word of the following sentence

"I would like information concerding my position."

Remember Oswald wants to impress. Before he even writes the word he's composing.

He's asking himself:

Which sounds better 'concerning' or 'regarding'?

Which will he opt for?

Which is more likely to make a good impression

and show this guy Hunt that Oswald is not some illiterate

hack?

He settles, in his feverish mind, on the word 'concerning' but still has 'regarding' as perhaps a

better alternative somewhere at the back of his mind.

In his confusion and eagerness to impress Oswald writes 'concerding'

- a near hybrid of 'regarding' and 'concerning'.

Remember Oswald speaks and writes Russian so IMO he would be very particular about anything he writes

in either Russian or English. He would labour over every word making sure he uses only the exact word he wants and,of course, spells it properly.

In this case he failed by being so concerned about what he was writing and to whom he was writing that he ended up by making a 'mistake'.

Knowing Russian myself I know how difficult it is to write Russian clearly and how difficult it is to avoid spelling mistakes.

I am more interested in the fact that Oswald did not write 'conserding' because English 'c' equals Russian 's' as in CCCP (USSR).

If 'concerding' had been written as 'conserding' or even 'conserning' there would be no doubt in my mind that Oswald has written the note.

I think Oswald's spelling of the word 'concerning' as 'concerding' is evidence not of illiteracy but the exact opposite.

The 'mistake' reveals Oswald as being a person of high intelligence.

Is my theory possible?

EBC

Edited December 19, 2006 by Eugene B. Connolly

[William Kelly]

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.[/color]

I have been thinking about this this misspelling thing as well and put forward the following theory.

What if Oswald was consciously composing as he wrote?

We all do it. We write something composing and thinking of each word as we go along.

What if Oswald was composing and thinking the word 'regarding' and instead of writing 'concerning'

writes 'concerding' instead of 'concerning'?

'Regarding' is synonymous with 'concerning' in this context.

Oswald is torn between the two words - concerning or regarding.

Which will it be?

So Oswald's thought process is as follows:

Oswald thinks 'I am writing this letter to Mr Hunt and I want to impress him.'

He composes as he writes and he comes to the fifth word of the following sentence

"I would like information concerding my position."

Remember Oswald wants to impress. Before he even writes the word he's composing.

He's asking himself:

Which sounds better 'concerning' or 'regarding'?

Which will he opt for?

Which is more likely to make a good impression

and show this guy Hunt that Oswald is not some illiterate

hack?

He settles, in his feverish mind, on the word 'concerning' but still has 'regarding' as perhaps a

better alternative somewhere at the back of his mind.

In his confusion and eagerness to impress Oswald writes 'concerding'

- a near hybrid of 'regarding' and 'concerning'.

Remember Oswald speaks and writes Russian so IMO he would be very particular about anything he writes

in either Russian or English. He would labour over every word making sure he uses only the exact word he wants and,of course, spells it properly.

In this case he failed by being so concerned about what he was writing and to whom he was writing that he ended up by making a 'mistake'.

Knowing Russian myself I know how difficult it is to write Russian clearly and how difficult it is to avoid spelling mistakes.

I am more interested in the fact that Oswald did not write 'conserding' because English 'c' equals Russian 's' as in CCCP (USSR).

If 'concerding' had been written as 'conserding' or even 'conserning' there would be no doubt in my mind that Oswald has written the note.

I think Oswald's spelling of the word 'concerning' as 'concerding' is evidence not of illiteracy but the exact opposite.

The 'mistake' reveals Oswald as being a person of high intelligence.

Is my theory possible?

EBC

Hi,

You also have to consider the fact that LHO was dyslexic.

The other case I was refering to is that of Pyotr Popov (See: Mole, By William Hood, Ballentine 1982), a Soviet walk-in in Vienna. Wm. Hood, btw, is also mentoned in LHO MC docs. Popov's original querry letter to CIA, had an address that was misspelled. "Although the Russian text had no spelling errors and was grammatically correct, there were two errors in the German address on the outer envelope. At a time when all the Western Intelligence agencies were plagued with intelligence fabricators, this detail could be important."

The miss-spelling in the address indicated a Russian officer not fluent in German, and promoted his bonifides.

BK

[Guest Eugene B. Connolly]

Hi,

You also have to consider the fact that LHO was dyslexic.

Being dyslexic is no bar to being highly intelligent. Some of the greatest business and sportsmen can't read or write.

This applies to all fields of human endeavour.

The miss-spelling in the address indicated a Russian officer not fluent in German.

Would a misspelling by you or me indicate English was not our native language?

Indeed some spelling/grammatical mistakes can indicate the exact opposite - that the speaker

is using his/her native language.

Example: Stephen Hawking spells the word 'show' as 'shew' and writes things

like 'This 'shews'...., New evidence has 'shewn'.

What does the spelling of 'show' as ' shew' tells us about

Hawking? It tells us us that he is a very well read person - perhaps a bit pedantic and pompous

but nevertheless shows us that Hawking knows that the word 'show' can be spelt with an 'e'.

It shows decisively that English is his mother tongue.

No foreigner would ever spell the word 'shew' as 'show' and in fact if a foreigner did

I would know immediately that he is a foreigner. Then again, if a foreigner did spell the word

'show' as 'shew' then it could mean two things:

1) He knows English very well but does not understand that it is ok for Stephen Hawking

to spell 'show' as 'shew' ( Scientific Journal etc., etc.) but ordinary John Does

shouldn't.

2) It's an outright freakish mistake.

Would you consider Hawking's spelling of 'show' as 'shew' a mistake?

EBC

Edited December 19, 2006 by Eugene B. Connolly

[Greg Parker]

I seriously doubt if JKO will convince very many people on this issue. You may be right. However, he is currently seeking the aid of a qualified questioned document examiner. Maybe more will "believe" that person. Maybe not. The theory that an "expert" can determine someone's psychological makeup from handwriting is not generally accepted in the scientific community and has been held inadmissable by the courts. True. And a graphologist is not the same thing as a questioned document examiner (the latter being acceptable to the courts). But on the court issue re graphology... the latest ruling has thrown all forensic evidence into doubt. That case was Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S.579, 113 S.Ct.2786,125 L.Ed. 2d. 469 (1993), where the Supreme Court ruled that admissibility of scientific evidence would be based on an independent judicial assessment of reliability rather than "general acceptance" by the scientific community. Due to that ruling, even fingerprint evidence is now being challenged in the courts. If there was nothing to graphology at all, why do 70% of French and 5 to 10% of British and US companies use it in employment decisions? Why do lawyers use it during jury selection? Why do the FBI and some police forces use it in profiling? Jim has used it as added weight to his work in determining if the letter was authored by Oswald. I don't think he needed to. He certainly isn't relying on it.The issue is discussed in the attached link to an article published by a group of sceptics from LHO's home turf, the Dallas-Fort Worth area:

http://www.ntskeptics.org/factsheets/graphol.htm

[Greg Parker]

I don't think the purpose is to determine someone's psychological makeup but rather to identify LHO or an intentional imposter wrote the note.

It's all agreed that the handwriting of the note matches the prolific handwriting samples we have of LHO, so if he did not write the note, it was written by someone intentionally attempting to impersonate him.

The miss spelling of a common word on the address of the envelop handed in by Popov, the Soviet walkin, convinced the CIA he was bonifide, while a perfectly correct proposition would have been suspect. [see: William Wood - who was also in MC).

Also note Mitrokin attempted to defect to CIA but was turned down and the British journalist who writes Mitrokin's story is from Cambridge, notorious home of the Philby-Burgess-McLean network.

Following Mitrokin's best lead goes directly to NSA and Luis Angel Castillo, but nobody wants to go there.

BK

Bill, Jim believes the Hunt letter may have been copied as part of HTLINGUAL. Any thoughts on that?

[William Kelly]

I don't think the purpose is to determine someone's psychological makeup but rather to identify LHO or an intentional imposter wrote the note.

It's all agreed that the handwriting of the note matches the prolific handwriting samples we have of LHO, so if he did not write the note, it was written by someone intentionally attempting to impersonate him.

The miss spelling of a common word on the address of the envelop handed in by Popov, the Soviet walkin, convinced the CIA he was bonifide, while a perfectly correct proposition would have been suspect. [see: William Wood - who was also in MC).

Also note Mitrokin attempted to defect to CIA but was turned down and the British journalist who writes Mitrokin's story is from Cambridge, notorious home of the Philby-Burgess-McLean network.

Following Mitrokin's best lead goes directly to NSA and Luis Angel Castillo, but nobody wants to go there.

BK

Bill, Jim believes the Hunt letter may have been copied as part of HTLINGUAL. Any thoughts on that?

Well, HTLINGUAL was Angleton's program of mail intercepts between USA and USSR, right? That would have included Ruth Paine's pen pal letters, and correpondence between LHO and his mother and brother(s) and Leo Cherne (IRC).

The Hunt letter showed up in Penn Jones' mail, and its source is questionable.

I don't believe Mitrokin's story that it was written by KGB to appear to have been written by LHO to implicate E. H. Hunt, since Hunt is already implicated on other fronts.

I think it is a note from Oswald to a Mr. Hunt, possibly not postmarked by mail, but like the note to Hosty and FBI, delivered in person or through cut-out.

There's my thoughts on the matter,

BK

[J. Raymond Carroll]

I think it is a note from Oswald to a Mr. Hunt, possibly not postmarked by mail, but like the note to Hosty and FBI, delivered in person or through cut-out.

There's my thoughts on the matter,

BK

If we assume that the original of this letter, if it could be found, would prove to be genuine, would it have any relevant evidentiary value? Since we cannot ask Lee Oswald, and we have no idea who Mr. Hunt is or was, I don't see how anyone would be able to draw any inferences from it. In particular, I do not see how it could be used to implicate Lee Oswald, or anyone else, in a plot to kill JFK.

Absent some extrinsic evidence, Only God could guess what the letter is about.

And that's assuming that the letter is genuine, which is a very big assumption in light of the HSCA panel's findings.

[Ashton Gray]

I think it is a note from Oswald to a Mr. Hunt, possibly not postmarked by mail, but like the note to Hosty and FBI, delivered in person or through cut-out.

There's my thoughts on the matter,

BK

If we assume that the original of this letter, if it could be found, would prove to be genuine, would it have any relevant evidentiary value?

Speaking only for me, if the original of that letter could be found, or any other substantiation could be established with relatively high certainty, it would have a very high relevant evidentiary value to me. I, though, am speaking of its value where it currently sits, disputed, in relation to other interesting entries in a detailed timeline that grows daily.

While on that subject, and in this specific context, I will say this: the likelihood that any such letter, if authenticated, was addressed to Texas millionaire oil and real estate magnate H.L. Hunt is on a par with a likelihood of it having been addressed to William Hunt of ketchup fame.

Ashton

[William Kelly]

I think it is a note from Oswald to a Mr. Hunt, possibly not postmarked by mail, but like the note to Hosty and FBI, delivered in person or through cut-out.

There's my thoughts on the matter,

BK

If we assume that the original of this letter, if it could be found, would prove to be genuine, would it have any relevant evidentiary value? Since we cannot ask Lee Oswald, and we have no idea who Mr. Hunt is or was, I don't see how anyone would be able to draw any inferences from it. In particular, I do not see how it could be used to implicate Lee Oswald, or anyone else, in a plot to kill JFK.

Absent some extrinsic evidence, Only God could guess what the letter is about.

And that's assuming that the letter is genuine, which is a very big assumption in light of the HSCA panel's findings.

On the other hand, if it can be postiviely proven to be fake, it its creator(s) identified, it would be a crime to tamper with evidence in a homicide, much like it was a crime to create other records - DPD Bledsoe report; Spirgilio document; the Zipper Docs; etc. Creating such false records isn't a joke, but a crime.

BK

[Guest Eugene B. Connolly]

Is there any possibility that the note written by Oswald to Hosty is still extant?

Was it really destroyed?

If this note should magically,miraculously and majestically resurface it would, indeed, be a great find.

EBC

Edited December 20, 2006 by Eugene B. Connolly

[Steve Thomas]

Greg,

James Olmstead wrote:

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.

Did the Dear Mr. Hunt letter show up at the same time as the alleged memo from (Helms I think it was) saying, "Someday we are going to have to explain Hunt's presence in Dallas on 11/22?

Steve Thomas

[Charles Black]

Where was E.H. Hunt on 11/08/63. If he were in Dallas, a hand delivery of some kind could be possible.

What I think highly improbable, would be for H.L. Hunt, if he were in fact a player in JFK's murder, to be dealing directly with the assassin/patsy.

I don't feel one accumulates his wealth by making stupid moves. However, I understand that during these later years he KNEW that his immense wealth and connections in all important areas, could guarantee proof of his non-involvement. It is said that he truly was "above the law" and had absolutely no doubt about it ! I also find it interesting that according to Madelaine Brown, he continued to enjoy associating with some of the little people.

If the letter is genuine, it could also be to a Mr. Hunt that had absolutely no association with the events of 11/22/63.

Just "another" coincidence ?

If it is a forgery, it would be a somewhat sick but humorous way of pointing a finger at both the CIA and the MI complex. There seem to have been both intelligence agency persons and Mafiosi who delighted in this type of "play" !

I feel that this ball may be "out of play" at this time.....probably forever.

Charlie Black