The Selectice Service card photo

[David Josephs]

Tom...

My point is that what you are posting, as far as I am know, and what you wrote about it in the CTKA page that i linked to, is actually unsupported by anything that could actually be verified, going all the way back to when Nagell was visited in prison, by anything other than that no provenance photocopy, and Nagell's own claims. Physical evidence allegedly including a page of his inventoried possessions seized by his arresting officers, in his trial record, never turned up. He made a lot of claims, but it is what it is, and you embrace it at your own risk. I cannot allow myself to accept it, or i would reduce my requirements of proof below those of the WC. I am in this to keep it real.

Post no one else's claims without verifying them and avoid making assumptions. It is actually less work and less time is wasted than by assuming other secondary sources have reliably documented and interpreted the evidence.

Do we agree that the lawyer had the photocopy in his possession and that it was in his Nagell file?

Do we agree that there were a number of items in Nagell's trunk and on his person at the time of his arrest?

Do we agree that the card has the same number yet a different photo, different signature, and none of the ink marks that Oswald's has?

Do we agree that we are not 100% sure where or how this card come to be in his file?

Do we agree that this photocopy and Nagell are connected once he's been arrested? (Larry wrote: "what is documented is very suggestive...")

I think that is the point Tom... until another corroborated explanation can be offered, the assumption is that this card was in Nagell's possession... and the question is "why?"

---------------

I agree with you about the manner in which the information is shared. No, we are not 100% sure this card was in that trunk or on his person at the time and I should have made mention of that... so thanks for catching that. I will continue to "embrace at my own risk" - I can appreciate you not accepting it as 100% conclusive, yet until something else turns up there is nothing which disassociates the card from Nagell...
right?

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/j..._0191b.htm is the link to the "Minsk" claim about this image... and we are to remember that it expired Dec 1962.

Finally, the bottom right of the photo where it appears to say JUL is not part of the stamp that appears to say OCT 23, 1963 but part of the photo - which is also not similar to the stamps of the time





We also know that Oswald's DoD card with "the postmark that isn't" was part of a cache of items that simply materialized... there are some pretty significant items to NOT be listed...