In Lee Harvey Oswald's Room

[David Von Pein]

I never said you were lying when you quoted Hurt, Jim. I merely said for you to get away from Hurt because he hurts. (Just like you told me to get away from VB & RH.)

The AMOUNT TO BE PAID line I think refers to the amount to be remitted to SEAPORT TRADERS. And Seaport was only due $19.95, not the full $21.22.

Now, yes, I'll admit it's possible that the post office might remit the whole $21.22 to Seaport, and then Seaport gives REA its $1.27 service charge. I really don't know with 100% certainty how that would work. But we can know for certain that Oswald did pay somebody the $21.22 to get his gun. Otherwise, as I said, the post office would not let him have the gun, because it had a COD balance due on the package.

Do you think they'd just say--"Here you go, Mr. Hidell. Just pay the $21.22 whenever you can, but you can have the gun now anyway"??

I kinda doubt it.

There's no "signed receipt" for Oswald picking up his C2766 rifle at the very same post office either. Big deal. Happens every day. People pick up packages at their local post offices and don't have to sign anything to get them.

On several occasions, I have found one of those yellow slips of paper in my mailbox telling me I have an oversized package to pick up at the post office.

I then take the slip to the counter, the clerk gets the package from a back room, and the clerk hands me the package. No signature. No receipt. Nothing. And I would guess that the yellow piece of paper that I gave them gets tossed in the trash right away too, because it serves no purpose after I've already picked up the package.

And the CTers who love to talk about how Oswald could have walked into a gun shop and bought an untraceable gun are apparently the same people who have a big problem with Oswald doing the same basic thing at the post office when he picked up his mail-order rifle.

In other words, why weren't the very same "firearms forms" required at a brick-and-mortar gun shop? Were such firearms forms only required during a MAIL-ORDER transaction? That's silly.

I want to check up on the revolver a bit more.

But whatever you do, Jim, please remember to never use any common sense when assessing the totality of the evidence in the JFK & Tippit murder cases. Otherwise you'll run the risk of having your ABO [Anybody But Oswald] membership revoked.

Edited August 4, 2010 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

Are you really saying that when a money transaction is involved and the post office is the fiduciary, there is no signed receipt necessary? Or are you saying the check or money order is the receipt?

I'll admit--I have no idea. I would think a receipt would be issued at the post office if a cash transaction was involved. But on OSWALD'S end, not finding any such receipt among his possessions eight months later doesn't seem strange in the slightest. Why would he keep such a receipt for 8 months? I doubt he would.

But on the POST OFFICE side of the transaction, I'm not sure. Would they be required to keep on file a copy of any such receipt for eight months (or forever)? I just do not know.

The problem here is that there is no check or money order in evidence. So there is no proof of payment made.

Well, Jim, I think it's quite likely that Oswald paid cash. That's why we have no money order in evidence. And we couldn't have any check either, since Oswald had no checking account.

In these types of situations, the FBI goes to bank receipts. They then trace the daily deposit and find the individual deposits that made that day's grand total. They then locate this particular transaction from that day. That did not happen. Why?

I have no idea. But if Oswald paid with cash (which I think is quite likely), then obviously there could be no tracing of a particular money order or check via such an FBI investigation.

And if he paid with cash, there almost certainly would be no possible way to trace Oswald's $21.22 that he gave to the post office clerk, because that cash would have gone into a cash drawer and then would have merely been part of that day's "cash" deposit, along with the cash given to the post office that day by many other customers who bought stamps, etc.

I have given you every benefit of the doubt. Ok, let us say that LHO did not have to go to REA offices. Let us say that in this particular case, normal procedure was not followed. If so, 1.) How did LHO get the merchandise if his name was not on it? and 2.) Where is there any proof of the money transaction?

Well, there is no "proof" of the money transaction, other than Heinz Michaelis' testimony, in which he verified to the Warren Commission that the $19.95 COD payment was made to them at Seaport Traders.

And WHO would have made that payment? My guess would be it was the same guy who mailed the order form for the revolver (along with a $10 bill) to Seaport Traders in Los Angeles.*

* = And, btw, as I mentioned to William Kelly in another post, it's my belief that Oswald very likely mailed the order form for the revolver on the exact same day he mailed [via Air Mail, btw] the order form for the rifle--March 12, 1963--even though Oswald wrote the date "1/27" on the revolver order form. But that doesn't mean he had to actually drop it in the mailbox on January 27.

I think he might very well have mailed the two forms together, and both via Air Mail, which is why we find "March 13" dates on the invoices at both Klein's in Chicago and Seaport Traders in Los Angeles.

As for Oswald getting the revolver, even though it wasn't mailed under his name---well, the exact same thing happened with the Carcano rifle at about the same time in late March of 1963, with the only difference being: the rifle package was paid in full with no COD attached to it.

I.E.:

1.) Oswald finds a card or piece of paper in P.O. Box 2915 at the Dallas Post Office.

2.) LHO then takes this card to the front desk.

3.) The clerk at the front desk then goes and gets the package.

4.) Oswald then pays the clerk $21.22 (the $19.95 COD plus the REA $1.27 service charge).

5.) Oswald is then given his Smith & Wesson revolver.

And the reason OSWALD was given the package, even though the package was mailed to HIDELL is because when a person takes a card/slip to the front desk that he got out of a P.O. Box, the clerk at the post office assumes that the person with the card/slip is entitled to the package because that person must have had access to the P.O. Box in the first place -- which is exactly the same scenario that occurred with the rifle too, as explained by Harry D. Holmes, the postal inspector whom Jim DiEugenio loves to call a xxxx and a document-tamperer, such as when Jim made this ridiculous and unprovable statement about Mr. Holmes earlier tonight: "Holmes obviously faked the money order after the fact."

So, the post office doesn't automatically assume that the person wanting to claim a package has stolen the key to someone else's post office box. Instead, the post office assumes that the person with the slip of paper is a person who rightfully gained access to the P.O. Box. So, the package is given to the person who produces the slip of paper to the clerk.

Maybe the post office (circa 1963) should have checked everyone's I.D. to make sure they weren't giving merchandise to people who weren't entitled to it. But they obviously did not do that. Hence, Oswald got his rifle....and his revolver.

Plus, even if some identification had been required at the post office, Oswald could have easily provided it. He had "Hidell" fake I.D. cards. He could have flashed one of those (with his picture on it too). I'm sure that would have satisfied the postal clerk at the desk. In fact, Harry Holmes suggested that Oswald might have done that very thing when he picked up his Mannlicher-Carcano rifle:

"And on the other hand, he had this identification card of Hidell's in his billfold, which he could have produced and showed the window clerk. Either way, he got it." -- Harry D. Holmes

Edited August 4, 2010 by David Von Pein

[Greg Parker]

But , hey, there is always the testimony of Brewer at that phony TV trial.

I asked the "other side" why it took the DPD until the 4th of December 1963 to take a statement from Julia Postal, and why it took them until the 6th December to take a statement from Johnny Brewer.

The only answer they could come up with was; the DPD were busy.

I asked them why the DPD or the FBI didn't interview, look for or even ask for the names of the friends of Johnny Brewer (who worked for IBM) who were in his store when Oswald walked in all "scared" looking. Their answer? None.

I asked them why during the fast frisk that Gerald Hill, in an interview with CBS's Ed Barker, describes as;

"--an officer checks under your arm pits, your crotch, your pockets, your -- your shirt, your waistband of your trousers, and any place that a weapon could be concealed, that -- even as small as a razor blade, or anything of this type that you could conceivably get to and either hurt the officer or hurt yourself."

and they didn't find five .38 bullets in his trouser pocket. The "other sides" answer? They've yet to come up with one.

Let's put it this way. Everywhere Gerald Hill is over the course the first 2 hours of the assassination dodgy evidence turns up. We also have testimony that states that Gerald Hill moved the chicken bones and sack before it was photographed.

Lee, wouldn't Hill calling in the wrong type of weapon tend to go against his having planted the pistol on Oswald? To put it another way, wouldn't he have described the planted weapon in his call, instead of the one he did describe (an automatic, IIRC)?

With the chicken bones, are you saying he moved them around on the 6th floor, or from the 5th to the 6th? I now have extremely strong evidence that the chicken was eaten by Williams on the 5th floor. It is a transcript of the HSCA inteview with Harold Norman, and it will be posted on my website soon.

Already posted is the transcript of the HSCA interview with Marion Baker. http://reopenkennedycase.weebly.com/richard-gilbride-hsca-collection.html In this, Baker once again has trouble keeping his story straight and reverts to the truth in one gleaming instance where he states it was the officer who took Truly's deposition on 11/23 who told him his encounter in the TSBD was on the second floor and it had been with Oswald. Prior to that, neither of those contentions existed - that is - not Oswald - not 2nd floor. So much for his testimony that he recognised Oswald, who was sitting in the same small office as him while he gave his statement over the phone to Marvin Johnson. He did not recognise Oswald because it was NOT Oswald he encountered - nor was the encounter on the second floor. It was changed to the second floor bcause of the statement made by Mrs Reid -- and you can see her name hand written at the bottom of Truly's statement. The encounter was also changed from a 30 year old with dark hair weighing 165 and wearing a tan jacket to Oswald for obvious reasons... http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/jfk-f1/oswald-s-two-cop-encounters-t42.htm

I urge everyone who hasn't read the CBS interview with Ed Barker to do so. It is fascinating. I am intrigued by the adhesive tape marks and lint he finds on the revolver shells that he removes. He also talks about how he urged Joe Poe to not pass him the shells that have been found at the Tippit scene because he didn't need to be added to the evidence chain. And then goes on to describe how he takes the gun off Bob Carroll in the theater (later to change to in the car during his Warren Commission testimony) when he didn't have to insert himself into the "chain." I think Greg and Duke have hit the nail on the head as to why he did though.

http://www.aarclibra...es/SGTHILL1.pdf

http://www.aarclibra...es/SGTHILL2.pdf

[David Von Pein]

Jim,

You are ignoring the obvious truth (regardless of the paperwork snafus that may or may not exist in the revolver transaction):

Lee Harvey Oswald was caught RED-HANDED with the Tippit murder weapon on him in the Texas Theater, just 35 minutes after Tippit was shot.

It doesn't get much more definitive than that on the "OSWALD MUST BE GUILTY" scale.

Edited August 4, 2010 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

Earth to Jim D.:

Lots of people saw Oswald kill J.D. Tippit (or flee just after the crime).

Question for Jim:

What would it take to get you to positively identify a person in a police lineup who you knew was NOT really the person you saw commit the crime?

Would any amount of strong-arming or coercion be enough to make you FALSELY IDENTIFY a person you knew was innocent?

And in the Tippit case, there are approx. 13 witnesses who each positively IDed Oswald as the killer or as a person fleeing the scene with a gun in his hands right after the murder.

Jim, you're in a dream world. Oswald killed Tippit, and there's plenty of evidence to prove it. (Even without your sacred 5024 form.)

Edited August 4, 2010 by David Von Pein

[Bernie Laverick]

DVP likes to make up unlikely scenarios that he can then ridicule. All the time ignoring much more likely ones that he cannot.

Oh, sure. It's much MUCH more "likely" for the revolver to have been "planted" on Oswald in the theater than it is to believe Johnny Brewer and all of the cops who were there (who all said Oswald pulled the gun out of his waist and tried to shoot some people with it) -- right Jim?

LOL. Jim, please stop! You know my bladder is a very weak one!

"who all said Oswald pulled the gun out of his waist"

Surely they would have said that he pulled A gun. Not THE gun. It's a very important distinction. Alas, lost on you David.

Edited August 4, 2010 by Bernie Laverick

[Dean Hagerman]

-- Bud; August 3, 2010

Hey Dave

Tell your LN buddy to join the Ed forum and post his own garbage on here instead of hiding behind you

[William Kelly]

-- Bud; August 3, 2010

Hey Dave

Tell your LN buddy to join the Ed forum and post his own garbage on here instead of hiding behind you

Yea,

Let's see, Todd, Francois, Dave Reitze and DVP, all together now. Can McAdams and Myers be far behind?

Then we'll have enough to field forensic tag teams.

BK

[Bernie Laverick]

BTW, on John McAdams' moderated forum at alt.assassination.jfk, one of my very favorite "LNers" chimed in today with this excellent message about The Education Forum that I wanted to share:

Source Link to Bud's top-notch post.

The rules of behavior on the JFK Forum state:

(iv) Members should not make personal attacks on other members. Nor should references be made to their abilities as researchers. Most importantly, the motivations of the poster should not be questioned. At all times members should concentrate on what is being said, rather than who is saying it. It is up to the reader to look at the biography submitted by the poster, to judge whether they are telling the truth or not. The word “xxxx” is banned from use on the forum.

Now I realise that what Mr. Von Pein has posted is written by somebody else but surely this still constitutes a personal attack on the other members? I mean do we really want members to call each other "retards" and get away with it on a technicality?

"Mind-numbingly retarded on many different levels. How can you tell innocent people from guilty people if not by incriminating evidence (in fact, it seems the incriminating evidence is seen as an indicator of Oswald's innocence)?

When there is a whole back catalogue of evidence suggesting he was deliberately framed.

David can you not even slightly accept the premise that when someone is framed for a crime they didn't commit, they will inevitably have some connection to the event, (either real or planted)?

That's how and why they have become the patsy!

Edited August 4, 2010 by Kathy Beckett
removed offensive post that was quoted from another post. that Bernie was responding to.

[Bernie Laverick]

David the principal dynamic of creating a pasty is so simple even a child can understand it. In fact lots of school children do it every day. In fear of being caught with cigarettes prior to a search, some unscrupulous student wouldn't think twice of planting his own on an unsuspecting colleague so as to avoid detection of his misdemeanour.

That doesn't therefore mean that the unwitting student caught 'red-handed' is ACTUALLY guilty. Merely the victim of a highly immoral act.

"Yeah but he had a packet of Lucky's in his satchel"

Case closed!

[David Von Pein]

Now I realise that what Mr. Von Pein has posted is written by somebody else but surely this still constitutes a personal attack on the other members? I mean do we really want members to call each other "retards" and get away with it on a technicality?

You are right, Martin.

I apologize for posting Bud's message from another forum, which did indeed (indirectly) break the Education Forum's rules via its harsh language.

Again, my apologies.

PS -- Bernie needs to edit his recent post above (2 posts above this one), and get rid of the offensive comment that he has copied directly into his post. Kathy removed the rest of it.

Thanks.

DVP

Edited August 4, 2010 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

Let's see, Todd, Francois, Dave Reitze and DVP, all together now. Can McAdams and Myers be far behind?

Yeah, that'd be great, to have John McAdams and Dale Myers in here too. The more LN voices we can gather together to stop the CT misinformation, the better.

Even the White House is getting in on the act:

http://America.gov/conspiracy_theories.html

P.S. -- Bill, why can't you ever spell Dave Reitzes' name correctly? Are you deliberately mocking him (somehow) by deliberately leaving the S off his last name every single time you type it?

I know it's a nitpicky thing, but I hate seeing names misspelled over and over again (probably because my own has been mangled so many times in the past--usually on purpose by CTers, of course).

Edited August 4, 2010 by David Von Pein

[William Kelly]

Let's see, Todd, Francois, Dave Reitze and DVP, all together now. Can McAdams and Myers be far behind?

Yeah, that'd be great, to have John McAdams and Dale Myers in here too. The more LN voices we can gather together to stop the CT misinformation, the better.

Even the White House is getting in on the act:

http://America.gov/c...y_theories.html

P.S. -- Bill, why can't you ever spell Dave Reitzes' name correctly? Are you deliberately mocking him (somehow) by deliberately leaving the S off his last name every single time you type it?

I know it's a nitpicky thing, but I hate seeing names misspelled over and over again (probably because my own has been mangled so many times in the past--usually on purpose by CTers, of course).

Hey Dave,

Yea, get McAdams and Myers over here and we can really straighten out a few things.

And while I do spell some names wrong on purpose just to irritate some people, Reitzes isn't one of them. That's just my dyslexia, like Oswald, I sometimes get things backwards, especially the "i after e except after c" rule that I guess doesn't apply to Epstein, Reitzes or Pein.

But unlike your warped perception of Oswald, not everyone with dyslexia is a wifebeating loser, spree killing double murderer, cop killer and homicidal presidential assassin.

BK

Edited August 4, 2010 by William Kelly

[David Von Pein]

Is DVP actually going to use those phony DPD line ups?

Oh, goodie! More stuff that Jim DiEugenio thinks is "phony".

Does it ever end?

Is Marguerite next?

How about Junie Oswald? Surely little June was part of the plot to frame her father too--right Jim?

Question: Who dropped Oswald's wallet at the scene of the Tippit murder if the wallet was taken from him after he was apprehended at the Texas Theater?

Nobody dropped Oswald's wallet on Tenth Street, because Oswald's wallet was never found on 10th Street. There are a bunch of possible explanations for "the 10th St. wallet". Naturally, Jim D. believes in the version that frames the "patsy". Big surprise there, huh?

More Wallet Talk:

WALLETS--PART 1

WALLETS--PART 2

WALLETS--PART 3

Second question: Why are Oswald's prints not on the police car? They are someone else's.

Because Oswald's fingers never touched the police car, that's why.

And the fact that some unidentified prints were lifted off of Officer Tippit's patrol car means nothing.

You actually think it was impossible for some other person who wasn't connected at all with Tippit's murder to have touched that car fender at some point prior to about 1:15 PM CST on November 22?

But according to conspiracy theorists, those prints HAD to have been left there by the "real killer". That's silly beyond belief.

Footnote -- I know that CTers hate Helen Markham with a passion (except when she says something they really like--like her "1:06" timing for the Tippit murder--CTers love her for that, of course)....but in the video below, Mrs. Markham tells how Oswald leaned against Tippit's police car. She says he folded his arms and then put his elbows on the door of the car. So, why would Oswald have left any fingerprints on the car at all?

Plus, why would Oswald have touched the FRONT RIGHT FENDER of the car at all? And I believe it was near the front right headlight where the prints were found. Why would Tippit's killer have had any reason at all to touch that part of the police car?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkofRLmA838

Edited August 5, 2010 by David Von Pein

[William Kelly]

Hey Dave,

Do you really believe the Dallas PD lineups were fair?

Do you think Howard Brennan, the key eye witness to Oswald being the Sixth Floor Sniper, - do you think they asked him a leading question when a cop asked him, "Is the man you saw the second one from the left?"

Thanks,

BK