Jump to content
The Education Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Gil Jesus

Klein's $ 21.45 deposit of 3/13/63 was NOT "Hidell" money order

Recommended Posts

DSL RESPONSE: Marina did indeed go to the garage, checked the blanket, saw the rifle was there (or believed that to be so), and felt relief. She did NOT know that the blanket was empty until the detective lifted it up, and it folded, in his hands.

Mr. ROSE. Well, I was the senior detective that was there, and so I was sort of the spokesman for the group, I suppose, and Stovall wen into the bedroom of Marina Oswald--Marina Oswald's bedroom, and I don't remember where Adamcik went first, but I talked with Ruth Paine a few minutes and she told me that Marina was there and that she was Lee Oswald's wife and that she was a citizen of Russia, and so I called Captain Fritz on the phone and told him what I had found out there and asked him if there was any special instructions, and he said, "Well, ask her about her husband, ask her if her husband has a rifle." I turned and asked Marina, but she didn't seem to understand. She said she couldn't understand, so Ruth Paine spoke in Russian to her and Ruth Paine also interpreted for me, and she said that Marina said--first she said Marina said "No," and then a minute Marina said, "Yes, he does have." So, then I talked to Captain Fritz for a moment and hung up the phone and I asked Marina if she would show me where his rifle was and Ruth Paine interpreted and Marina pointed to the garage and she took me to the garage and she pointed to a blanket that was rolled up and laying on the floor near the wall of the garage and Ruth Paine said, "Says that that's where his rifle is." Well, at the time I couldn't tell whether there was one in there or not. It appeared to be--i
t was in sort of an outline of a rifle.

Mr. BALL.
You mean the blanket had the outline of a rifle?

Mr. ROSE.
Yes; it did.

Detective RD Lewis described the paper bag which was shown to Frazier during his "polygraph" as appearing to be a "homemade brown heavy paper gun case". In other words, as with the blanket, it had allegedly taken the shape of what it was said to have contained.

So in the Paine garage for all that time, occasionally being moved around by a Korean War veteran, was a rifle-shaped blanket – yet neither Ruth nor Michael knew what it was?

Is that really your position? That Michael knew Oswald owned a rifle, yet honestly believed the rifle-shaped blanket contained tent pegs? Or is it your position that he knew full well Oswald was keeping a rifle in the garage of the house his kids lived in, and he was fine with that, despite his testimony that he would NOT have allowed a gun to be kept there had he known about it?

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

On other matters: have you had a chance yet to read Marguerite's testimony on the photo Marina wanted to give her? If so, have you come to grips yet with what it actually indicates?

Edited by Greg Parker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DSL RESPONSE: Marina did indeed go to the garage, checked the blanket, saw the rifle was there (or believed that to be so), and felt relief. She did NOT know that the blanket was empty until the detective lifted it up, and it folded, in his hands.

So in the Paine garage for all that time, occasionally being moved around by a Korean War veteran, was a rifle-shaped blanket – yet neither Ruth nor Michael knew what it was?

Is that really your position? That Michael knew Oswald owned a rifle, yet honestly believed the rifle-shaped blanket contained tent pegs? Or is it your position that he knew full well Oswald was keeping a rifle in the garage of the house his kids lived in, and he was fine with that, despite his testimony that he would NOT have allowed a gun to be kept there had he known about it?

Greg Parker,

As I previously mentioned, I met with Michael Paine, in 1995, at his home in Boxboro, Mass. and interviewed him in depth, and at length, pertaining to all the questions you are now raising, and with a tape recorder going, sitting right there on the table, as we talked.

In fact, I have met with more than one member of the Paine family. I also have met with Michael Paine's elderly mother, Ruth Paine, pursuing the question of her relationship with Bancroft (Dulles' lover) and also Arthur Young, Michael Paine's step father.

Having had personal contact with these people--going back now to the period 1993 - 1995--it is my opinion that Ruth Paine did not know that a rifle was stored in her garage. However, I find it likely that Michael Paine did. My personal opinion is that it caused some strains in the relationship between Michael and Ruth--that Michael knew about the weapon (but considered it inconsequential), whereas Ruth did not.

As for Michael Paine: I think he was very seriously concerned, if not badly frightened, over the weekend (and particularly in the first 24 hours), that he would be dragged into the assassination controversy as some kind of "accomplice." That's purely my personal opinion, based on a number of things he said to me during our meeting, and other information I have about the Paines.

I think the real question--and one I put to him repeatedly--is this: if you saw this photograph of Oswald with a rifle (in early April, 1963), were you not uncomfortable about having this man in your home? After all, here is an "armed man" with a weapon, and you have young children, etc. The answer I got--and we discussed this point extensively--was along these lines: that Paine thought of Oswald as a more or less "symbolic" revolutionary, and clearly not as someone who posed a danger to his family. However, it was because of this somewhat detailed discussion that we had that I (personally) concluded that surely, when he moved around the things in the garage, he must have "connected the dots" and known that that was "Lee Oswald's rifle," not that he thought it posed any danger.

As for the rest of your questions, and as to having any further discussion with you: I am not interested in having any dialogue with a so-called researcher who's agenda seems to be not just to disagree with me on this or that hypothesis, but to personally attempt to denigrate and demonize me. And I think it rude and improper that, when I send you a private email (the first contact I ever had with you, as I knew nothing about who you were) you then immediately took it upon yourself to post it on the boards, with all of your (mostly) irrelevant and often inaccurate commentary. That shows an absence of ethics, and a complete lack of consideration for others.

DSL

3/22/11; 4:45 PM, PDT

Los Angeles, CA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the same Ruth Paine that

- copied Lee's letters

- was involved in his TSBD employment

- was supposed to be learning better Russian while helping Marina with English?

- had relations in the CIA

- is married to Michael

- knows George DeM

- and in my opinion could just as easily made the rifle disappear the night before as Lee could have

Why then do we forget the next morning's little 2 foot gorcery bag that Oswald supposedly brings to Fazier's car

or the 2 foot bag he is NOT seen entering the TSBD with

or the theory that since Marina knows exactly where the rifle is supposed to be, why does so do absolutely nothing about it for the hours between learning of the assasination and when Rose arrives? Time machine of not, checking on that blanket would be the FIRST THING SHE DOES if she was actually that tramatize by Lee's use of a rifle

The rifle was never there, the photos were never there.... and all one need do is say the name Sibel Edmonds to know everything one need to about the FBI and/or Secret Service and its "translators".

the coverup of the medical evidence - after the fact - whether planned or not has little direct bearing on whether Oswald was at the 6th floor shooting C2766.

People want to know he did or didn't do it... if he didn't, I can't believe that proving he was on the bus or not, or whether there was "surgery to the top of the head" or not will do the trick.

How about - "He was witnessed in the 2nd floor lunchroom as late as 12:25 when from 12:15 thru the shots being fired witnesses placed multiple men with multiple rifles on the 6th floor at the east and west windows... here are their photographs

within 60-75 seconds after the shots are fired Baker runs into Oswald - WHERE? - the 2nd floor lunchroom. Oswlad did not carry a rifle to work that day, was not seen bringing a rifle into the building that morning, his fingerprints are not on any of the sniper's nest boxes, his fingerprints are not on the rifle, hulls or clip. He was next seen at home just before 1pm and again entering the Texas Theater at 1:05pm. Tippit was killed at 1:12 at the earliest.

Oswald is completely innocent and always has been"

He was just a Patsy

Edited by David Josephs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greg Parker,

As I previously mentioned, I met with Michael Paine, in 1995, at his home in Boxboro, Mass. and interviewed him in depth, and at length, pertaining to all the questions you are now raising, and with a tape recorder going, sitting right there on the table, as we talked.

In fact, I have met with more than one member of the Paine family. I also have met with Michael Paine's elderly mother, Ruth Paine, pursuing the question of her relationship with Bancroft (Dulles' lover) and also Arthur Young, Michael Paine's step father.

Having had personal contact with these people--going back now to the period 1993 - 1995--it is my opinion that Ruth Paine did not know that a rifle was stored in her garage. However, I find it likely that Michael Paine did. My personal opinion is that it caused some strains in the relationship between Michael and Ruth--that Michael knew about the weapon (but considered it inconsequential), whereas Ruth did not.

As for Michael Paine: I think he was very seriously concerned, if not badly frightened, over the weekend (and particularly in the first 24 hours), that he would be dragged into the assassination controversy as some kind of "accomplice." That's purely my personal opinion, based on a number of things he said to me during our meeting, and other information I have about the Paines.

I think the real question--and one I put to him repeatedly--is this: if you saw this photograph of Oswald with a rifle (in early April, 1963), were you not uncomfortable about having this man in your home? After all, here is an "armed man" with a weapon, and you have young children, etc. The answer I got--and we discussed this point extensively--was along these lines: that Paine thought of Oswald as a more or less "symbolic" revolutionary, and clearly not as someone who posed a danger to his family. However, it was because of this somewhat detailed discussion that we had that I (personally) concluded that surely, when he moved around the things in the garage, he must have "connected the dots" and known that that was "Lee Oswald's rifle," not that he thought it posed any danger.

Okay. Got it. In all that extensive discussion, you never actually asked him outright if he knew the rifle was in the garage. You instead, relied upon intuiting that information by “connecting the dots” via answers to all your, what I can only gather as being, secondary questions.

As for the rest of your questions, and as to having any further discussion with you: I am not interested in having any dialogue with a so-called researcher who's agenda seems to be not just to disagree with me on this or that hypothesis, but to personally attempt to denigrate and demonize me. And I think it rude and improper that, when I send you a private email (the first contact I ever had with you, as I knew nothing about who you were) you then immediately took it upon yourself to post it on the boards, with all of your (mostly) irrelevant and often inaccurate commentary. That shows an absence of ethics, and a complete lack of consideration for others.

In other words you have no answers and this is a convenient “out” for you.

But since you raise your PM’s as the excuse, let me put on the record that you sent me two. The one I considered private, I responded to privately. The one I posted, as everyone can plainly see, has nothing “private” about it. As I’ve already stated, it was just a continuance of the debate here. And as I explained in my private email, I prefer to keep debates like this public. I see no point in having part of such debates “off the record” without good reason.

And by the way – we have crossed paths before. On McAdams group. You posted a question 10 years ago. I answered it. You, for whatever reason, didn’t have the grace to acknowledge my attempt to help.

https://groups.google.com/group/alt.assassination.jfk/browse_thread/thread/509feab039322ab1/c527ee6966a16019?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=greg+jko+dsl#c527ee6966a16019

DSL

3/22/11; 4:45 PM, PDT

Los Angeles, CA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Their best GUESS was that the first shot missed. Can you reconcile a BEST GUESS of a first missed shot with CE875? And failing to reconcile it with CE875 you then believe it possible that either the second or third shot missed? Is this right.

I'm trying to get to where you stand on this. And do you believe that FBI was flat out wrong in their report?

IMO, the first shot missed. So, yes, the FBI was flat-out wrong in its "3 Shots & 3 Hits" conclusion.

Plus, the obvious fact that the Single-Bullet Theory is true is another factor that makes it pretty certain that the original 12/9/63 FBI report is incorrect regarding the number of bullets that hit the limo victims in Dealey Plaza.

More:

THE SHOT THAT MISSED

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe you should try standup with Jay Leno in Hermosa Beach on Saturdays in the summer.

Yeah, I could follow your hilarious lead-in act, entitled: "I Think Everything's Fake In The JFK Murder Case".

I doubt that the crowd could laugh any more after listening to your hysterical act, however.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2010/08/oswalds-mail-order-revolver-purchase.html

i put this collage together to show the parts of the documents that don't seem to add up...

{I can't upload any images - is it just me or the site? "!Error This upload failed"}

I also look closely at the date on the order form... does not appear as 1/27 to me but 1/2 and some scribbling

but you decide...

Just a few questions...

1 - Where are these POBOX notifications you are referring to? The one given to Hidell as the consignee?

Dale writes:

"Upon arrival at the REA Express office in Dallas, notice was given to the consignee, Hidell. REA Express VP, Robert Hendon testified that in a similar case, "a card was sent to the name and address" on the package. [35] Presumably, a card was sent to Oswald's P.O. Box,..."

In reality - if a card existed - it would be sent to HIDELL'S POBox per the shipping instructions... once the PO sees that Hidell is NOT listed to receive mail at this POBox, the rifle and this "card" should have been refused and returned...

2 - The consignee, Hidell, has a COD charge due as well yet only pays $19.95...(Michealis 5) why did they release the package if the consignee did not pay the COD charge? Also on Michealis 4 above the word "COPY" at the bottom right is the space that says, "COD Services charge. Write in YES or NO"... the $1.27 does not appear here either. Did freight companies just STOP collecting their COD charges that day?

Dale writes:

"The package was shipped C.O.D. to: A.J. Hidell, P.O. Box 2915, Dallas, Texas, with a balance of $19.95 due, plus C.O.D. charges.

3 - the date of the order was either 1/2 or 1/27... why was the order not shipped until March 20th... the SAME DAY C2766 was supposedly shipped?

4 - The gun was shipped to the PO Box, not REA Express. In ALL CASES the delivery address is the Hidell PO Box. Why do you feel as if the gun was to be picked up at REA??

5 - The reciept says A5371..."Inquiries on this merchandise MUST state this number" is on the top right of Michealis 2... from which document do the other documents get "70688" as the original receipt number - where is this opriginal reciept?

Thanks DVP - I look forward to your answers

DJ

Edited by David Josephs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe you should try standup with Jay Leno in Hermosa Beach on Saturdays in the summer.

Yeah, I could follow your hilarious lead-in act, entitled: "I Think Everything's Fake In The JFK Murder Case".

I doubt that the crowd could laugh any more after listening to your hysterical act, however.

one can always tell when you're in the evade and split mode..... carry on!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 - The gun was shipped to the PO Box, not REA Express. In ALL CASES the delivery address is the Hidell PO Box. Why do you feel as if the gun was to be picked up at REA??

Well, to be honest with you, I'm not sure WHERE exactly Oswald picked up the physical revolver. Jim DiEugenio is the one who has made a huge issue out of this "Post Office vs. REA" subject.

But after reading Dale Myers' essay on this matter (wherein he refers to a quote by the REA Vice President himself regarding the way COD packages are normally handled), I tend to believe Oswald probably went to REA to get his revolver.

I kind of doubt that REA would have just placed the gun in his PO Box, because almost $20 was due on it. I suppose it's POSSIBLE that the gun itself was put in the box, and along with it was a bill to "Hidell" for the remaining $19.95, which Oswald could have mailed to them. But there's no record of REA getting any money order in the mail from Oswald. But I suppose it is possible, since the FBI (as DiEugenio loves to point out) didn't seem to follow through with the REA investigation in any depth at all.

There is also Michaelis' testimony, which is testimony that does seem to suggest that the GUN ITSELF was shipped to the post office, which is part of the reason I suggested that Oswald picked up the gun at the post office, and not at REA. The record isn't clear at all as to where Oswald did obtain the revolver.

But one thing is crystal clear (even with confusion about REA) --- When he was arrested on 11/22/63, Lee Harvey Oswald definitely WAS IN POSSESSION of the EXACT revolver that Seaport Traders shipped to A. Hidell (Smith & Wesson #V510210). There can be no reasonable doubt about that fact.

And we also know from the Seaport paperwork that Seaport Traders definitely DID receive the COD payment of $19.95 from the Railway Express Agency. There's no doubt about that fact either.

So, either somebody ELSE paid REA the $19.95 that was due on the revolver....or LHO paid that money to REA (with REA then reimbursing Seaport Traders in Los Angeles)....or REA, out of the goodness of their hearts (and in order to frame LHO apparently) decided to remit the $19.95 to Seaport on their own, without ANYBODY giving the money to them in Dallas.

Now, which of the above three options is most likely to be true?

As for the reason why the rifle and revolver were shipped on the same day (March 20, 1963) -- my guess is that Oswald just didn't mail in his Seaport coupon for two months. He made it out in January and mailed it in March. Simple as that. Just because he filled out an order blank in January, does that mean he HAD to mail it in January? He very likely mailed both mail-order coupons (to Klein's and Seaport) on the same day (March 12). That's my opinion anyway.

And, btw, Michaelis Exhibit No. 2 goes a long way toward corroborating my theory about Oswald mailing BOTH the rifle coupon and the revolver coupon on the very same day, because the "Invoice Date" on Michaelis #2 says 3/13/63 (shown below). And March 13th is the exact same date that Klein's received Oswald's money order for the rifle (per the "Mar 13, 63" stamp that can be found at the top of Waldman Exhibit No. 7, also depicted below).

For more on this subject, go to my 42nd battle with James DiEugenio, here:

LEE HARVEY OSWALD'S REVOLVER

WH_Vol20_0318b.jpg

WH_Vol21_0364a.jpg

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

David...

Who paid the $1.27 COD charge? $19.95 was only balance due on the gun

It's on one of your Michealis Exhibits....

thanks

DJ

Edited by David Josephs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Davey Boy gets Von Peinian about the other issue: Well see, he made out the coupon in January but did not get around to mailing it until March. Sure, happens every day right? You date a coupon and then leave it there for 40 days.

It's fairly obvious that Oswald did, indeed, hang on to his Seaport coupon for about seven weeks before he mailed it....and the virtual proof is the Michaelis exhibit which shows an invoice date of "3/13/63".

Does Jimbo DiEugenio think that Oswald would have mailed the coupon in late January, but then have Seaport Traders not write up the invoice until March 13th? That's nutty.*

Gary Mack inserted another very good theory in an e-mail he sent me this morning (March 24):

Dave,

The simple answer to why Oswald delayed mailing his order for the revolver could be he didn't have the extra money at the time. So he kept the coupon until he did.

Gary

Gary's point is a good one. Oswald, of course, wasn't exactly rolling in dough at any time in his life. It's quite possible that the reason he waited to send in the revolver coupon is simply because he didn't have the ready cash until mid-March to pay for the weapons (both the revolver and the rifle).

Naturally, though, Mr. Anybody But Oswald (DiEugenio) will throw some more mud on the perfectly-reasonable comment about Oswald's finances that was offered up by Gary Mack this morning. But, such is the way with conspiracists like Jim -- they WANT Oswald to remain innocent. So, therefore, they'll try everything in the book to take BOTH guns out of Lee Harvey Oswald's hands.

* = Of course, what DiEugenio really believes (incredibly) is that ALL of the paperwork connected with BOTH the revolver sale and the rifle sale is fake, phony, and worthless. Which means, of course, that we're dealing with yet another one of the dozens of examples of DiEugenio's patsy-framers running around acting like morons and retards.

In this latest instance, if we're to believe that Oswald really DIDN'T wait approx. 7 weeks to mail in his revolver order form, we'd have to believe that the silly plotters who were wanting to frame Oswald decided to fake Oswald's handprinting by putting a JANUARY 27 date on the order form for the revolver--but then the same conspirators or cover-up agents decided to date the invoice for that gun purchase with a MARCH 13 date.

Which will it be, Jimbo? Were your plotters totally retarded? Or is there another (less extraordinary) explanation--like, say, the one provided by me yesterday about Oswald waiting for several weeks to mail his order form and the additional reason provided by Gary Mack this morning about Oswald possibly waiting until he had the needed funds to pay for the guns he was ordering via mail-order?

OFF-TOPIC ADDENDUM:

I was re-watching the outstanding 1967 CBS special "A CBS NEWS INQUIRY: THE WARREN REPORT" this morning (you can watch all 4 hours of the program at the link I just provided), and while watching Part 2 of the program, I realized that Parkland employee Darrell C. Tomlinson did a really interesting flip-flop in his story between the years 1964 and 1988.

In 1967, on CBS-TV, Tomlinson was absolutely positive that the bullet he found on 11/22/63 had come from a stretcher that he had taken off of the elevator.

But in 1988, during the PBS-TV program "Who Shot President Kennedy?", Tomlinson said that the bullet was positively found on a stretcher that he had NOT taken off of the elevator.

In his '67 CBS interview, when asked if he was certain that the bullet had come from a stretcher that had come off the elevator, Tomlinson said "well, I know that; I just don't know who was on that stretcher".

During his Warren Commission session in 1964, Tomlinson seemed to be stuck somewhere in-between his 1967 posture and his 1988 stance, with Tomlinson stating numerous times in '64 that he just was "not sure" which of the two stretchers in question he had taken off of the elevator.

DVP VS. DiEUGENIO (PART 64)

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Who paid the $1.27 COD charge?

Lee Oswald (of course). Who else would have paid it? He's the one who received the gun. (We know that he received it, because he was in POSSESSION OF IT in the Texas Threater at 1:50 PM CST on Friday, November 22, 1963.)

Or would you like to claim that somebody ELSE ordered and paid for the gun, and then gave it to Oswald between March '63 and 11/22/63?

There's no way out of this mess for conspiracy theorists, and I think most CTers know it too; they just like to pretend that the silliest scenarios are actually reasonable ones--like the one about Oswald never having possession of Revolver V510210, even though he had that exact same gun in his hands on Nov. 22. Just incredibly silly talk. (As is the silly talk about how Oswald never had possession of Mannlicher-Carcano Rifle C2766 as well.)

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the video, Duncan. I couldn't get my copy of the CBS special to embed properly. (Something's weird with the embeds and images here lately.)

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe to bolster your case you can go through Oswald's true earnings and outgoings and tell us what his financial situation was like in early 1963? It's available at the Mary Ferrell chronologies. You may be surprised by what you find out.

No, I'm not surprised. But maybe you should be, because the exact month we're talking about here (January 1963) regarding the time when Oswald filled out his order form for the revolver (but likely did not mail it) is the month when Oswald appears to have the least amount of "Cash on hand", per the Warren Commission's very detailed anaylsis of LHO's finances from June '62 thru Nov. '63 -- with Oswald having only $8.59 to his name at the end of January. (He likely had $18.59, though, since it's highly likely he still had the $10 deposit for the revolver at the end of the month, even though the WC puts that deposit down for the month of January, because they assumed he did mail it in January.)

But even $18.59 would be pretty paltry...and it's certainly not enough to fully pay for the revolver he wanted to buy through Seaport Traders. That gun cost him $31.22 total. And as we can see from Oswald's balance sheet, he did not nearly have that much money on January 31, 1963 (taking into consideration, of course, the fact that the WC merely estimated Oswald's misc. expenses for each month, with the WC deducting exactly $100.00 for most months, which could vary from month to month, quite naturally; but the WC came very very close to balancing Oswald's books as of Nov. 22, 1963, with the Commission being off by a mere $19 from what Oswald truly had in his possession as of the date of the assassination; so, I'd say the Commission's estimated data was pretty darn accurate for the most part):

WCReport_0384a.gif

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, of course, Lee. The WC's data is always wrong. I forgot about that.

Oswald got that $6500 from the Cubans in Mexico, right? And he buried it in the backyard on Beckley, right? That's why nobody's ever found it.

And Oswald was so rich that he had to live in $7 and $8-a-week boardinghouses for months at a time....and he couldn't even afford to keep his wife and kids, so they lived (for free) at the Paine house.

I suppose he was just PRETENDING to be poor, though, eh Lee? He was really being paid thousands per month by the Langley boys.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...