Jump to content
The Education Forum

In Lee Harvey Oswald's Room


Recommended Posts

The fact that you use her for your 1:06 time is by far the most laughable point you have ever tried to make.

What in the world are you talking about, Dean?

You'd better re-read my post. It's the CTers who love to prop up Markham's 1:06 timeline--not me. Tippit was shot at approx. 1:14 to 1:15. (Bugliosi likes 1:12 and Myers likes 1:14:30.)

Did you really think I was endorsing Markham's incorrect 1:06 time?

BTW, in an FBI report, Markham also claimed the shooting occurred at "around 1:30". So much for her accuracy on the time.

Im really sorry Dave, I totally misunderstood your position

Thanks Lee for pointing that out to me in a PM

My bad Dave, I just woke up, im super hung over and didnt read much of this thread

Sorry

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 304
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

You weren't out drinking with Jack Ruby and LHO at the Carousel last night, were you Dean?

You'd better be careful being seen with those guys, or else somebody will be accusing you of planting a bullet on the wrong stretcher at Parkland, or planting a bullet shell in the Sniper's Nest that couldn't possibly have been fired from the patsy's rifle on Nov. 22.

Hey! Maybe that's the answer! The goofball plotters were hungover and/or drunk on Assassination Day! That might help explain their incoherent and idiotic-beyond-belief "Multi-Gun, One-Patsy" scheme.

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You weren't out drinking with Jack Ruby and LHO at the Carousel last night, were you Dean?

You'd better be careful being seen with those guys, or else somebody will be accusing you of planting a bullet on the wrong stretcher at Parkland, or planting a bullet shell in the Sniper's Nest that couldn't possibly have been fired from the patsy's rifle on Nov. 22.

Hey! Maybe that's the answer! The goofball plotters were hungover and/or drunk on Assassination Day! That might help explain their incoherent and idiotic-beyond-belief "Multi-Gun, One-Patsy" scheme.

So I take it that you accept my apology? :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I take it that you accept my apology?

Only if you promise to get me one of Ruby's twistboards the next time you, Lee Harvey, and Sparky get together for your next all-night elbow-bending party at the Carousel.

Deal? :D

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I take it that you accept my apology?

Only if you promise to get me one of Ruby's twistboards the next time you, Lee Harvey, and Sparky get together for your next all-night elbow-bending party at the Carousel.

Deal? :D

:cheers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I want to see is the proof that shows that the conspiracy theorists are correct when they continually say that Oswald could have walked into any gun store in Texas in '63 and bought a gun without any paperwork being involved at all.

I don't think that has been proven. And the statements from various gun shop owners who provided information to the Warren Commission (or the FBI) would certainly indicate that at least SOME gun shop owners DID keep records of the people to whom they sold firearms in 1963.

I'm guessing that (in large part) this whole business about buying a gun in a gun shop without leaving a trace, which is promoted in Oliver Stone's fantasy movie as well, is probably nothing more than yet another in a long line of conspiracy myths foisted on the public since JFK's assassination.

NOTE -- To protect myself from future abuse by the Anybody-But-Oswald conspiracy theorists on the Internet, I will conclude this message with this addendum: I could be wrong about the last paragraph I just wrote above concerning the topic of buying guns in gun stores in 1963.

Relating to my comments above, I received the following e-mail from Gary Mack:

Date: 8/17/2010 1:57:44 PM Eastern Daylight Time

From: Gary Mack

To: David Von Pein

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

Dave,

Regarding the purchase of weapons in Texas in the early 60s, Federal regulations required retailers to keep a log of all such sales. For example, Ray's Hardware in Dallas still has their January 19, 1960 log showing the revolver bought by Jack Ruby (but paid for by police detective Joe Cody, one of Ruby's friends). One of the folks at Ray's told me long ago that they must keep such records.

Gary

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Relating to my comments above, I received the following e-mail from Gary Mack:

Date: 8/17/2010 1:57:44 PM Eastern Daylight Time

From: Gary Mack

To: David Von Pein

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

Dave,

Regarding the purchase of weapons in Texas in the early 60s, Federal regulations required retailers to keep a log of all such sales. For example, Ray's Hardware in Dallas still has their January 19, 1960 log showing the revolver bought by Jack Ruby (but paid for by police detective Joe Cody, one of Ruby's friends). One of the folks at Ray's told me long ago that they must keep such records.

Gary

Journal of Legal Studies 1975

FIREARMS AND FEDERAL LAW: THE GUN CONTROL ACT OF 1968

by Franklin E Zimring

Excerpt:

The Federal Firearms Act of 1938 was the most significant pre-1968 attempt to impose federal controls on the commerce and possession of a broad spectrum of firearms. Shepherded through the Congress by the National Rifle Association, the 1938 Act was pressed more to submerge than to further the schemes for federal handgun registration that regularly commuted from the justice Department to the Congress (and back) during the 1930s.

The 1938 Federal Firearms Act spread a thin coat of regulation over all firearms and many classes of ammunition suitable for handguns. All manufacturers, importers and dealers handling guns shipped in interstate commerce were required to obtain federal licenses ($25 for manufacturers and importers, $1 for dealers). Licensees were prohibited from knowingly shipping a firearm in interstate commerce to some felons, a fugitive from justice, a person under indictment, or anyone required to have a license under the law of the seller’s state who did not have a license. All these prohibited owner classes were also forbidden to receive guns which were or had been in interstate commerce. Dealers were also required to keep records of firearms transactions. Enforcement responsibility was vested in the Secretary of the Treasury, who delegated the assignment to the Internal Revenue Service.

The apparent aims of the 1938 legislation were to create an independent federal policy banning the receipt of firearms by what must have been thought of as the criminal class of society, and to aid state and local efforts at tighter control by prohibiting transactions that would violate local laws. As a strategy to accomplish these goals, however, the Federal Firearms Act was deficient in a number of respects, and further crippled by a tradition of as less-than-Draconian enforcement by the Internal Revenue Service. One major problem was that the Act prohibited only the transfer of weapons to the prohibited classes when the transferor knew or had reasonable cause to believe his transferee was a felon, fugitive, etc.
but transferors were not required to obtain positive identification of their customers or to take other steps to verify the eligibility of customers under the act. From the standpoint of prosecuting dealers for violation of the federal ban against sale to felons, the requirement of knowledge, coupled with the absence of a verification system, rendered the Act stillborn.
(bold added) When local law required a license, however, the license requirement made both dealer and customer liable under federal law if they were aware of the local requirements.

Two other prominent loopholes in the 1938 Act deserve special mention because they determined the shape of the 1968 Act. First, the modest cost of a dealer’s license and the fact that dealers could freely receive firearms in interstate commerce created strong incentives for private parties to receive [Page 141] dealer licenses. This in turn resulted in a large number of dealers (over 100,000 in the mid-1960s) and made any serious effort to monitor dealer compliance with the act an enormous undertaking for an Internal Revenue Service that did not, in any event, give the F.F.A. a very high priority. A second problem was that customers from states that required licenses could purchase guns in states that did not, as long as they did not give the dealer in the no-license state any reason to have knowledge of their lack of eligibility. The customer might have to lie to his supplier and would himself be subject to federal criminal penalties, but guns were readily available through this route.

Full study: http://www.saf.org/lawreviews/zimring68.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JEAN DAVISON SAID:

Once again I ask, what's the evidence that a rifle could've been

bought in Dallas "with no records"? And again, here's an affidavit

from a gun dealer in Dallas that I posted in another thread, with my

emphasis this time:

QUOTE

PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION

ON THE ASSASSINATION OF

PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY

STATE OF TEXAS,

County of Dallas, ss:

I, Albert C. Yeargan. Jr. 1922 Mayflower Drive, Dallas, Texas, being

duly sworn say:

1. I was the Sporting Goods Department Manager at the H. L. Green

Company, 1623 Main Street, Dallas. Texas. from the Summer of 1963

until March 13, 1964. I am now employed by Smitty's Sporting Goods,

111 West Jefferson Avenue, Dallas, Texas.

2. When I worked for the H. L. Green Company, it had in stock and was

offering for sale, a large number of Italian 6.5 mm rifles that were

surpluses from World War II.

3. On November 22, 1963, FBI Agents, Secret Service Agents, and I

examined all ***sales records and receipt records*** concerning

Italian 6.5

mm rifles.

4. The records showed that the H. L. Green Company obtained its supply

of these Italian 6.5 mm rifles from the Crescent Firearms Company in

New York City.

5. A review of all of the ***records*** failed to reflect any

***record of sale***

of a 6.5 mm rifle with the Serial Number C2766.

6. ****As far as I know, the H. L. Green Company was at that time the

only

Company in Dallas that handled any quantity of these Italian 6.5 mm

rifles.****

Signed the 21st day of July 1964.

(S) Albert C. Yeargan, Jr.,

ALBERT C. YEARGAN. Jr.

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

BILL KELLY SAID:

I thought the question was why Oswald would purchase a handgun and

rifle from a mail order coupon in a magazine and with a money order

when he could have gone in any sporting goods, department store or

pawn shop and obtained one immediately with cash and no identification?

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

JEAN DAVISON THEN SAID:

Hi Bill,

I don't know that he could've bought a gun in all those places with

no ID. I'm trying to establish whether there's any *evidence* for this

old claim. Can you help me out there?

I also don't know why Oswald decided to use mail order. Maybe he

didn't want to show his face and risk a later identification.

A Dallas gunshop owner named Alfred Hodge made this offhand comment

in WC testimony:

QUOTE:

When it came in over the radio that [JFK] had been killed with a 7-millimeter [sic] rifle, my wife and myself--we got our book and started checking to see **who we had sold a 7-millimeter rifle to**.

UNQUOTE

He also said...

QUOTE:

Well, Captain Fritz' men came by with a shell, a Peters Wad

Cutter, and that's this man and woman that got killed a few days ago out

here and it has no concern with this case, but anyway, I checked my book

and I found where I sold that man a gun and a box of ammunition....

UNQUOTE

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/hodge.htm

This man was arrested based on Hodges' lead, according to the Dallas

Morning News, and convicted.

Evidently Hodge, at least, took names.

[...]

Everybody but Oswald is a suspect, it seems, but where's the evidence

that Oswald had anything to do with Dodd? Calling two anonymous,

unavailable sources "unimpeachable" means... bupkis, right?

Jean

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There you have it folks. The end of the line. The "thinking" behind this is that they weren't a danger to Oswald or the Officers because they'd taken his revolver away so they left them on his person.

Yes, That's exactly right. How can anyone deny that fact? (Duh.)

So, we're faced with another of the hundreds of "Big deal" situations raised by the conspiracy mongers. So they left the bullets in his pocket. Who cares?

Do you think Lee's bullets (without the gun to put them in) WERE, in fact, a danger to anyone? Was he going to throw the bullets at the cops and kill them? (And how could he even do that? He was in handcuffs.)

You Anybody-But-Ozzie CT mongers are pitiful.

Oswald is caught red-handed with the Tippit murder weapon on him (while attempting to murder still more Dallas police officers with that same gun), and you conspiracy nuts are more concerned with why the cops left the five bullets in Ozzie's pocket...or where Oswald purchased his cop-killing bullets.

You make me want to vomit. (And I'm pretty sure Francois Carlier has his puke bucket by his side after reading the CT tripe on this forum too.)

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

His handcuffs were taken off during the interview before the bullets were found later outside the lineup room, with afaik no witnesses to that event.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Date: 8/17/2010 3:18:10 PM Eastern Daylight Time

From: David Von Pein

To: Gary Mack

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

Hi again Gary,

Earlier today, you said this:

"Ray's Hardware in Dallas still has their January 19, 1960 log showing the revolver bought by Jack Ruby (but paid for by police detective Joe Cody, one of Ruby's friends). One of the folks at Ray's told me long ago that they must keep such records."

Question:

Can you tell me if Ray's records from that 1/19/60 revolver purchase positively show the name of "Joe Cody" as the purchaser of the revolver that ended up in the hands of Jack Ruby on 11/24/63?

Thank you.

David V.P.

=========================================================

Date: 8/17/2010 4:42:21 PM Eastern Daylight Time

From: Gary Mack

To: David Von Pein

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

They do not, they show only Ruby's name. I have seen a scan of the record which was sent to me by Ray's Hardware. Cody has spoken about it many times over the years including, as I recall, in the Museum's oral history.

It was quite legal and, since Joe was a cop, he could purchase the gun without having to pay sales tax, thus saving Ruby a few dollars. But Ruby was listed as the purchaser, and Federal law, from what Ray's told me, requires gun dealers to keep that record.

Gary

=========================================================

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting. So cops can/could purchase guns for others leaving no record of having done so except a record of a purchase by another person.

(I suppose the same goes for ammunition)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But the question has not yet been answered as to why Oswald would go to the trouble of ordering the weapons through the mail with money orders and an alias and Post Office Box when he could have just bought them down the street at Green's for cash and no record of his being the purchaser? It would be appreciated if anyone could come up with a plausible reason for him to do this.

What I want to see is the proof that shows that the conspiracy theorists are correct when they continually say that Oswald could have walked into any gun store in Texas in '63 and bought a gun without any paperwork being involved at all.

I don't think that has been proven. And the statements from various gun shop owners who provided information to the Warren Commission (or the FBI) would certainly indicate that at least SOME gun shop owners DID keep records of the people to whom they sold firearms in 1963.

I'm guessing that (in large part) this whole business about buying a gun in a gun shop without leaving a trace, which is promoted in Oliver Stone's fantasy movie as well, is probably nothing more than yet another in a long line of conspiracy myths foisted on the public since JFK's assassination.

NOTE -- To protect myself from future abuse by the Anybody-But-Oswald conspiracy theorists on the Internet, I will conclude this message with this addendum: I could be wrong about the last paragraph I just wrote above concerning the topic of buying guns in gun stores in 1963.

BTW, that is a good summary of gun laws by Michael Hogan.

David Von Pein gives no indication he even glanced at it.

In response to Bill Kelly's question, David says that what "he wants to see is the proof that shows that the conspiracy theorists are correct

when they continually say that Oswald could have walked into any gun store in Texas in '63 and bought a gun

without any paperwork being involved at all."

That is not what "conspiracy theorists continually say." They ask the same question Bill Kelly asked.

They've been asking it since the Warren Report came out. The Warren Commission did not answer the question.

The HSCA did not answer the question. Vince Bugliosi did not answer the question. And David Von Pein can't

answer the question.

The question raised at the top of this post is apparently toxic to David. He posted a totally irrelevant email

from Gary Mack about federal law requiring gun shop owners to keep a log. (no citation) and an episode at Ray's

Hardware in Dallas. In terms of answering the question, that was about a meaningless statement as it gets.

I even put one of the key statements from Zimring's study in bold for him:

....transferors were not required to obtain positive identification of their customers

or to take other steps to verify the eligibility of customers under the act. (Federal Firearms Act of 1938.)

David then posted some totally irrelevant and speculative musings from Jean Davison that did absolutely nothing to answer the question.

Oswald could have easily obtained an untraceable rifle. He chose not to. Why?

Amazing how much time David spent trying to avoid answering the question Bill Kelly posed to him.

Edited by Michael Hogan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've admitted, Michael, that I could be wrong about the gun shop thing. Do I have to write that admission in blood for you?

But, as Jean Davison pointed out, I still don't think it's been proven that absolutely no paper trail would be created when a person bought a gun in Texas in '63. In fact, Gary Mack's e-mail about Cody & Ruby's tranaction in Jan. 1960 indicates that there WOULD be a paper trail for such a brick-&-mortar gun purchase.

And this statement:

"....transferors were not required to obtain positive identification of their customers"....

....doesn't mean there would be NO PAPER TRAIL at all and it doesn't mean they would have obtained NO IDENTIFICATION AT ALL from their customers.

The gun sellers would probably still gather information from the gun buyer, although that buyer might be using an alias--as Oswald undoubtedly would have done, with HIDELL, even if he had bought a gun at HL Green's or any other store.

The gun seller would then have a record of THE ALIAS USED BY OSWALD--HIDELL. Just exactly as Klein's had in '63, and as Seaport Traders had in '63.

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another Gary Mack Follow-up:

Date: 8/17/2010 10:06:28 PM Eastern Daylight Time

From: Gary Mack

To: David Von Pein

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

Hi Dave,

Smear Gary Mack at all costs! McCarthyism is alive and well in Buff World.

Anyway, in case you had even the tiniest doubt, take a look at this 11/24/63 FBI doc which references a visit with Ray Brantley who actually checked his records. That page is the same page I saw some 35 years later. Yes, gun dealers did keep records of who received guns:

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh26/html/WH_Vol26_0268a.htm

And there's also this obit story mentioning the gun transaction:

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/obituaries/stories/DN-codyob_03met.ART.South.Edition1.3922b7e.html

I may not bat 100%, but I do OK.

Gary

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...