Where is the CHECK/MO for Oswald's $10

[Greg Parker]

If the FBI can at least almost put an envelope in the killer's hands, they ought to be able to at least prove the pistol was delivered to a location in Dallas. Is the reason they did not, that they could not?

They DID prove that the revolver was delivered to P.O. Box 2915 in Dallas. Why in the world do you think THAT fact is in doubt?

Re: REA and the "unknown" about exactly where and when Oswald picked up his revolver:

My guess on that is (as also stated in prior posts): The reason they did not pursue the REA matter was because they DIDN'T NEED TO. They already knew that Oswald was caught red-handed with the Tippit murder weapon in his hands within 35 minutes of Tippit being killed. And the FBI certainly also knew that Oswald had positively ordered the revolver by mail-order via Seaport Traders. And the FBI also knew from the Seaport/REA paperwork that the Tippit murder weapon had been shipped to OSWALD'S post office box.

Good gravy, who COULDN'T connect those dots? You don't need to be in the FBI to do that connecting. A third-grader with a learning disability could connect those dots without a lick of trouble.

Why can't you, Duke?

David, they knew his check was posted, They knew he cashed it a Winn-Dixie.... by your standard (as set out above), those should have been sufficient dots... yet the FBI traced the route of the check all the way through the system.

Do you want to try again as to why they didn't do this for the pistol?

[David Von Pein]

Bad comparison, Greg.

The September 25/Winn-Dixie example is not at all the same as the REA/pistol thing. Because the question of Oswald taking possession of the Tippit murder weapon has NEVER been in doubt (except when you talk to off-the-wall CTers who apparently think, incredibly, that Oswald NEVER had Revolver V510210 in his hands at ANY time--not even in the Texas Theater at 1:50 PM CST on 11/22/63).

But in the September example, the FBI was trying to find out if, indeed, Oswald could have actually been at Sylvia Odio's door at some point in late September 1963. And part of that particular investigation involved tracing Oswald's check. So, of course, they would naturally want to trace that check all the way through the system, to see if that tracing might turn up some additional lead of some kind that might take the FBI in a different direction re the check.

But in November, there was no real need to know exactly where and when Oswald picked up Revolver V510210. Because even without that knowledge, Oswald would still be guilty as ever in the Tippit murder, and he still would have had the Tippit murder weapon in his hand in the theater thirty-five minutes after Tippit was slain.

Edited December 13, 2011 by David Von Pein

[Greg Parker]

Bad comparison, Greg.

The September 25/Winn-Dixie example is not at all the same as the REA/pistol thing. Because the question of Oswald taking possession of the Tippit murder weapon has NEVER been in doubt (except when you talk to off-the-wall CTers who apparently think, incredibly, that Oswald NEVER had Revolver V510210 in his hands at ANY time--not even in the Texas Theater at 1:50 PM CST on 11/22/63).

But in the September example, the FBI was trying to find out if, indeed, Oswald could have actually been at Sylvia Odio's door at some point in late September 1963. And part of that particular investigation involved tracing Oswald's check. So, of course, they would naturally want to trace that check all the way through the system, to see if that tracing might turn up some additional lead of some kind that might take the FBI in a different direction re the check.

But in November, there was no real need to know exactly where and when Oswald picked up Revolver V510210. Because even without that knowledge, Oswald would still be guilty as ever in the Tippit murder, and he still would have had the Tippit murder weapon in his hand in the theater thirty-five minutes after Tippit was slain.

Yes, David -- as with the Tippit timeline, the authorities had some trouble getting Oswald where they needed him to be at a time they needed it to be (in this case, MC by 9/27).

But is this a bad example? No. Just one that you can't get around. The FBI had evidence that Oswald cashed the check on the 25th. That's all they needed, and tracing the travels of the check prior to then to Oswald's PO Box (according to the methodology you use for the pistol) was superfluous.

[David Von Pein]

Greg,

Your example is not analogous with the REA/Pistol example, and for the reasons I outlined, which are reasons that make perfect sense to me.

Edited December 13, 2011 by David Von Pein

[Duke Lane]

If the FBI can at least almost put an envelope in the killer's hands, they ought to be able to at least prove the pistol was delivered to a location in Dallas. Is the reason they did not, that they could not?

They DID prove that the revolver was delivered to P.O. Box 2915 in Dallas. Why in the world do you think THAT fact is in doubt?

Re: REA and the "unknown" about exactly where and when Oswald picked up his revolver:

My guess on that is (as also stated in prior posts): The reason they did not pursue the REA matter was because they DIDN'T NEED TO. They already knew that Oswald was caught red-handed with the Tippit murder weapon in his hands within 35 minutes of Tippit being killed. And the FBI certainly also knew that Oswald had positively ordered the revolver by mail-order via Seaport Traders. And the FBI also knew from the Seaport/REA paperwork that the Tippit murder weapon had been shipped to OSWALD'S post office box.

Good gravy, who COULDN'T connect those dots? You don't need to be in the FBI to do that connecting. A third-grader with a learning disability could connect those dots without a lick of trouble.

Why can't you, Duke?

I can, Dave, using inferences; I cannot based on verifiable facts. Isn't that the standard of proof that you'd have me deliver if I alleged that someone else picked up the gun at the REA depot and even had the opportunity to put it into Oswald's hand? Why is your theory exempt? Because it was the FBI's as well?

Bear in mind that I'm not advocating a position, but merely talking about the evidence for one or the other theory.

If the FBI didn't "need to" show that Oswald possessed the weapon prior to his allegedly using it, why would they need to track down an unemployment check? Clearly, they were able to do all this tracking, which they could and did do for something innocuous, but "didn't need to" when it came to material evidence, using it to prove that Oswald had it in his possession before his arrest and not merely during it?

Why would they go through all the trouble of tracing an envelope down to the minute and mode when all they needed to do was show that Oswald cashed the dang thing? Or that anyone cashed it based on the fact that it was cashed? Just because an explanation is "good enough" for you doesn't mean it is – or has to be – good enough for anybody else, any more than these missing pieces in the evidentiary chain that are "good enough" for someone else to conclude – or at least leave open the possibility of – a third person's collusion means that it must be "good enough" for you as well.

You said earlier that the receipt does not prove that the gun was delivered to Oswald's PO Box, but you offered the possibilities that either (1) a card was sent to the PO box alerting its owner (Oswald) to the weapon's availability at the shipper's receiving desk, or (2) that some arrangement might have existed whereby USPS could collect for a "third-party" COD package (based on regs on how it handles COD packages from "mailers," which you endeavor to suggest REA might have been considered if they re-mailed it).

Now you're claiming that it was shipped to Oswald's PO box? Sorry, no such proof exists by your own acknowledgment.

You cannot prove that Oswald ever received that gun; you can only prove that it was shipped to him. And you cannot prove that the gun that Seaport shipped and REA carried - the gun in evidence - is the same gun that was allegedly taken from Oswald in the theater, even if it was the weapon that killed JD Tippit (and you could prove Oswald was at 10th & Patton): it just plain cannot be done to a legal certainty, period.

You are of course free to believe whatever you wish to based on the evidence or upon inference, just as other people with opposing views can interpret the evidence (or lack thereof) to infer other conclusions.

Neither side, unfortunately, is provably correct.

According to your own post above, you conclusion is only a "guess" anyway. You can tout it as fact all day long, but that's not going to make it so.

FWIW, after having gone through all that much trouble to track down an unemployment check's transit, I can't imagine why the FBI didn't go the "extra" (final?) step of finding out what time of day mail was usually distributed to PO boxes at the Lafayette station. Did it perhaps omit that detail after having found that it wasn't done until 2:00 or some other too-late-for-the-theory time? It was left as "no earlier than 5:00 a.m." by John McAdams, but even that doesn't prove that it was only "a bit after 5:00 a.m.," it just sets the earliest limit.

Conjecture-as-proof is clearly not limited to conspiracy theorists.

[Greg Parker]

Greg,

Your example is not analogous with the REA/Pistol example, and for the reasons I outlined, which are reasons that make perfect sense to me.

David, you said previously they are not the same because "the question of Oswald taking possession of the Tippit murder weapon has NEVER been in doubt"

I say that the FBI had no doubt that Oswald took possession of and cashed the check on Sept 25. How is that not analogous? According to your methodology, that information was all they needed to determine if Oswald "could have been at Sylvia Odio's door at some point in late September 1963". Tracing the path of the check was not needed to answer that question if they knew when and where it was cashed. Yet they did trace it.

You say "check"

I say "mate"

Edited December 13, 2011 by Greg Parker

[Duke Lane]

Greg,

Your example is not analogous with the REA/Pistol example, and for the reasons I outlined, which are reasons that make perfect sense to me.

It is analogous, and actually significantly more material to the question of guilt: Oswald was never accused of moneying anyone to death, but he was accused of murder. It is consequently infinitely more important to put the murder weapon a priori in his possession than it is to put a check in his hands at any time.

It seems the FBI's priorities were a bit askew, don't you think?

[David Von Pein]

It is consequently infinitely more important to put the murder weapon a priori in his possession than it is to put a check in his hands at any time.

The Tippit murder weapon was ALREADY in Oswald's hands at the time of his arrest, for Pete's sake. Why do you think it is absolutely essential and mandatory to find out exactly where and when Oswald INITIALLY gained possession of that revolver?

And it's a particularly moot point in THIS (Oswald) case, because the FBI DID know that it was a revolver that WAS ordered by Oswald in March '63. The documentation on that fact is clear and distinct and was in the Seaport Traders files as of 11/30/63 when the FBI checked on it.

Therefore, the FBI knew that the Tippit murder weapon belonged to Lee H. Oswald.

I suppose that additional details about how and where LHO came into possession of the Tippit murder weapon in March might be kind of nice to know, from the standpoint of: We can now eliminate the idea of an accomplice possibly picking up the gun for Oswald at REA -- or something along those lines. But that type of information certainly is not required to establish the key things that need to be established in this case. These things:

1.) Did Lee Oswald kill Officer Tippit with Revolver V510210?

2.) Did the Tippit murder weapon belong to Lee Oswald?

The answers to those two inquiries are, unquestionably, Yes and Yes.

And those two answers were easily arrived at by the authorities, even without the help of the Railway Express Agency.

It seems the FBI's priorities were a bit askew, don't you think?

No. Not really.

Edited December 13, 2011 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

You cannot prove that the gun that Seaport shipped and REA carried - the gun in evidence - is the same gun that was allegedly taken from Oswald in the theater, even if it was the weapon that killed JD Tippit (and you could prove Oswald was at 10th & Patton): it just plain cannot be done to a legal certainty, period.

Oh, good Lord. What a load of baloney.

So, via the above CT rules of "proof", nobody could EVER be convicted of a murder involving a handgun or rifle -- because there's always the possibility that the cops were evil and sinister and wanted to switch around the evidence in the case.

That is essentially what you've just said above.

Okay, Duke, you're up to bat now:

Please tell me just exactly how it could ever be "proven" to your satisfaction (under any hypothetical circumstances) that the gun taken off Oswald in the Texas Theater on 11/22/63 was the very same gun that Seaport Traders shipped to Oswald/"Hidell", which we know was Revolver V510210.*

* = Or do you now want to claim that there's some doubt about the serial number of the gun Seaport sent to Oswald? And if so, then how could THAT be proven to your satisfaction; i.e., how could anyone "prove" to you that Revolver V510210 was really the exact gun shipped to Oswald?

And how can ANY answer you are going to provide possibly eliminate the ever-present possibility of the authorities pulling a switcheroo on the guns at some later point in time?

I await your logical and forthright answers to these inquiries, Mr. Lane.

Edited December 13, 2011 by David Von Pein

[Duke Lane]

David, you said previously they are not the same because "the question of Oswald taking possession of the Tippit murder weapon has NEVER been in doubt"

I say that the FBI had no doubt that Oswald took possession of and cashed the check on Sept 25. How is that not analogous? According to your methodology, that information was all they needed to determine if Oswald "could have been at Sylvia Odio's door at some point in late September 1963". Tracing the path of the check was not needed to answer that question if they knew when and where it was cashed. Yet they did trace it.

You say "check"

I say "mate"

It would be more accurate to say "I have never doubted that Oswald took possession of the Tippit murder weapon," because this conversation - this forum, among others - disproves that statement as written.

The reality is, as John McAdams wrote, that Oswald only "supposedly cashed his check at a New Orleans Winn-Dixie supermarket in New Orleans on the morning of September 25," and that the WCR "asserts that Oswald cashed an unemployment check on Tuesday, September 17, [but] unfortunately the Warren Commission provided no citation for this transaction, and the FBI report tracing Oswald's check-cashing activities show no evidence that agents ever established the exact date on which Oswald cashed any check," (all emphases mine) citing CE 1161.

Of course, that doesn't even speak to the notion that "the FBI had no doubt" about what the lack of evidence proved.

It's not a question of "connecting the dots," as Dave asserts: that's fine for developing a theory, but the next step to proving the case is not merely showing how the dots could connect, but gathering evidence of exactly how they do.

We seem to be having difficulty distinguishing between theory and established, verifiable fact, and logical conclusions and evidence. It may not require being in the FBI or even being a third-grader to "connect the dots," but one would think that the FBI had the wherewithal to prove that they connect.

They could almost do it with a check; they apparently didn't even hardly try with the murder weapon.

Makes perfect sense to me. (I'm just glad it wasn't me who was being investigated back then, and if he's thought about it, Dave's probably glad it wasn't him either!!)

[Greg Parker]

David, you said previously they are not the same because "the question of Oswald taking possession of the Tippit murder weapon has NEVER been in doubt"

I say that the FBI had no doubt that Oswald took possession of and cashed the check on Sept 25. How is that not analogous? According to your methodology, that information was all they needed to determine if Oswald "could have been at Sylvia Odio's door at some point in late September 1963". Tracing the path of the check was not needed to answer that question if they knew when and where it was cashed. Yet they did trace it.

You say "check"

I say "mate"

It would be more accurate to say "I have never doubted that Oswald took possession of the Tippit murder weapon," because this conversation - this forum, among others - disproves that statement as written.

The reality is, as John McAdams wrote, that Oswald only "supposedly cashed his check at a New Orleans Winn-Dixie supermarket in New Orleans on the morning of September 25," and that the WCR "asserts that Oswald cashed an unemployment check on Tuesday, September 17, [but] unfortunately the Warren Commission provided no citation for this transaction, and the FBI report tracing Oswald's check-cashing activities show no evidence that agents ever established the exact date on which Oswald cashed any check," (all emphases mine) citing CE 1161.

Of course, that doesn't even speak to the notion that "the FBI had no doubt" about what the lack of evidence proved.

It's not a question of "connecting the dots," as Dave asserts: that's fine for developing a theory, but the next step to proving the case is not merely showing how the dots could connect, but gathering evidence of exactly how they do.

We seem to be having difficulty distinguishing between theory and established, verifiable fact, and logical conclusions and evidence. It may not require being in the FBI or even being a third-grader to "connect the dots," but one would think that the FBI had the wherewithal to prove that they connect.

They could almost do it with a check; they apparently didn't even hardly try with the murder weapon.

Makes perfect sense to me. (I'm just glad it wasn't me who was being investigated back then, and if he's thought about it, Dave's probably glad it wasn't him either!!)

Of course it's more accurate, Duke. I was using DVP's words, assumptions and logic to demonstrate the error of his ways.

[Greg Parker]

You cannot prove that the gun that Seaport shipped and REA carried - the gun in evidence - is the same gun that was allegedly taken from Oswald in the theater, even if it was the weapon that killed JD Tippit (and you could prove Oswald was at 10th & Patton): it just plain cannot be done to a legal certainty, period.

Oh, good Lord. What a load of baloney.

So, via the above CT rules of "proof", nobody could EVER be convicted of a murder involving a handgun or rifle -- because there's always the possibility that the cops were evil and sinister and wanted to switch around the evidence in the case.

That is essentially what you've just said above.

Okay, Duke, you're up to bat now:

Please tell me just exactly how it could ever be "proven" to your satisfaction (under any hypothetical circumstances) that the gun taken off Oswald in the Texas Theater on 11/22/63 was the very same gun that Seaport Traders shipped to Oswald/"Hidell", which we know was Revolver V510210.*

* = Or do you now want to claim that there's some doubt about the serial number of the gun Seaport sent to Oswald? And if so, then how could THAT be proven to your satisfaction; i.e., how could anyone "prove" to you that Revolver V510210 was really the exact gun shipped to Oswald?

And how can ANY answer you are going to provide possibly eliminate the ever-present possibility of the authorities pulling a switcheroo on the guns at some later point in time?

I await your logical and forthright answers to these inquiries, Mr. Lane.

David,

let's look at a possible trial scenario for young Lee... after all... it's not as if anyone expected he wouldn't make trial, surely...

The prosecution presents the case that Oswald ordered the pistol; received the pistol; used it to kill Tippit, and then tried to shoot big Macca at the TT to avoid arrest.

The defense rebuttal is that someone named Hidell appears to have ordered the pistol; there is no evidence that it was received by Oswald; Oswald did not give access to his PO Box to anyone named Hidell; the paperwork showing who had access has been wrongly destroyed; he was not at 10th and Paton and did not shoot Tippit; and the only pistol at the TT was one that the police were trying to force upon him.

The prosecution hits back with a handwriting expert who states the writing on the mail order coupon for the pistol is Oswald's and that therefore, Oswald had used the name "Hidell" to order it just as he had used it NO in regard to his FPCC activities.

The defense gets it's own expert who testifies the writing is NOT Oswald's, and that there is no evidence that Oswald used the name Hidell in NO -- that - even if it was an alias - it was the name he knew the leader of the FPCC by in NO (remember here that Marina cannot testify against him).

The prosecution needs more, but the FBI failed to trace the travels of the pistol into Oswald's hand.

We are now at an impasse - which translates to "reasonable doubt"

Edited December 14, 2011 by Greg Parker

[David Von Pein]

Greg,

All of that stuff you just mentioned is merely the normal (and expected) smoke and mirrors that a defense lawyer would naturally try to use at a trial in which they absolutely have to know the defendant is guilty. (Just like at the O.J. Simpson trial.)

http://OJ--Simpson.blogspot.com

The defense team would have to convince a jury that this portion of your above scenario actually happened:

"The only pistol at the TT was one that the police were trying to force upon him."

Tell me, Greg, just exactly WHY would a reasonable jury even BEGIN to believe such a thing occurred?

Also:

Would a reasonable jury truly believe that the Dallas Police (within MINUTES of Tippit's murder) would have had a desire to "force" a pistol into the hands of a man who was in no way involved in J.D. Tippit's murder?

Which would mean, of course, if the jury did buy into the above preposterous notion, that the jury would also have to believe that the DPD would have deliberately allowed the killer of their fellow officer to just get off scot-free, while they framed the innocent man who was arrested in the Texas Theater.

Hogwash. All of it.

Edited December 14, 2011 by David Von Pein

[William Kelly]

Greg,

All of that stuff you just mentioned is merely the normal (and expected) smoke and mirrors that a defense lawyer would naturally try to use at a trial in which they absolutely have to know the defendant is guilty. (Just like at the O.J. Simpson trial.)

http://OJ--Simpson.blogspot.com

The defense team would have to convince a jury that this portion of your above scenario actually happened:

"The only pistol at the TT was one that the police were trying to force upon him."

Tell me, Greg, just exactly WHY would a reasonable jury even BEGIN to believe such a thing occurred?

Also:

Would a reasonable jury truly believe that the Dallas Police (within MINUTES of Tippit's murder) would have had a desire to "force" a pistol into the hands of a man who was in no way involved in J.D. Tippit's murder?

Which would mean, of course, if the jury did buy into the above preposterous notion, that the jury would also have to believe that the DPD would have deliberately allowed the killer of their fellow officer to just get off scot-free, while they framed the innocent man who was arrested in the Texas Theater.

Hogwash. All of it.

We don't need to imagine a hypothetical trial, we can judge for ourselves, and if we conclude that Oswald was on the first floor fifteen minutes before the assassination, when a man with a rifle was seen on the Sixth Floor, and Oswald was on in the first floor lunchroom five minutes before the assassination and identified others who were there with him - and Oswald says he was in the first floor lunchoom at the time of the assassination, and his jacket is later found there, and Oswald was in the second floor lunchroom a minute and a half after the last shot, and he wasn't seen coming down the steps by any of the three witnesses who should have seen him - and the Sixth Floor Sniper was still in the window four to five minutes after Oswald was seen on the second floor - then we should rationally conclude that Oswald was not the Sixth Floor Sniper.

And since he was framed for that crime, why not consider the possibility he was framed for the Tippit murder too? As other persons who resembled Oswald were clearly seen near the scene of the crime - one of them in a car belonging to the victim's good friend Carl Mather - so those who aren't trying to pin the tail on the donkey, as David and the Bug and McAdams try to do, should rationally conclude that Oswald was what he said he was - a Patsy.

As for the integrity of the Dallas Police Department, as the son of a policeman I can assure you that there are good cops and there are bad cops - and if you read the story of Mike Robertson, who overheard some Dallas cops talking in the first floor bathroom, Tippit was killed by another policeman - possibly unintentionally, and Oswald was not a cop.

So what is hogwash is the official story, just as the official story on the identity of the Sixth Floor Sniper is hogwash.

The bottom line, whether Oswald was the lone assassin of JFK and Tippit or was the designated Patsy, whatever you believe happened at Dealey Plaza was covert Intelligence operation because the alleged assassin was not a crazy lone nut case but a covert operator, and the identity of those who controlled him can be determined, and those responsible for the Dealey Plaza operation identified, but not if you are going to argue over whether it was possible for Oswald to have done anything.

Oswald was just a pawn, a Patsy and a rabbit sent out to lead anyone who follows astray.

Does anyone know who placed the red roses on Oswald's grave and took this photo?

JFKcountercoup

Can anyone read the inscription on the card?

BK

Thanks,

[Greg Parker]

Greg,

All of that stuff you just mentioned is merely the normal (and expected) smoke and mirrors that a defense lawyer would naturally try to use at a trial in which they absolutely have to know the defendant is guilty. (Just like at the O.J. Simpson trial.)

http://OJ--Simpson.blogspot.com

The defense team would have to convince a jury that this portion of your above scenario actually happened:

"The only pistol at the TT was one that the police were trying to force upon him."

No they wouldn't, David. They have already demonstrated that the prosecution cannot put the pistol in Oswald's hands. They "may" have been able to had the FBI traced the path of the pistol from seller to buyer, but alas, as you concede - they did not.

Tell me, Greg, just exactly WHY would a reasonable jury even BEGIN to believe such a thing occurred?

Because it cannot be shown beyond a reasonable doubt that Oswald ordered and received the pistol.

Also:

Would a reasonable jury truly believe that the Dallas Police (within MINUTES of Tippit's murder) would have had a desire to "force" a pistol into the hands of a man who was in no way involved in J.D. Tippit's murder?

It doesn't matter what the jury "believes" is a valid alternative to the prosecution case. It matters only what can be proven to them by the prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt. The jury can suspect all it wants that Oswald is lying about having a pistol forced upon him. It cannot prove he is lying, nor is it required to accept his version of events in order to have grave doubts about the prosecution's case.

Which would mean, of course, if the jury did buy into the above preposterous notion, that the jury would also have to believe that the DPD would have deliberately allowed the killer of their fellow officer to just get off scot-free, while they framed the innocent man who was arrested in the Texas Theater.

Piffle. Pure piffle, The jury is not your imaged lurkers on McAdams' forum. The legal setting and requirements are just a bit different to those administered by the good Professor.

Hogwash. All of it.

Frayed knot, old boy. Time to give it up. The prosecution case is dead in the water because you didn't deem it necessary to do all the normal groundwork during the investigative phase.

But we know the real reason that work wasn't done. You knew it would throw up even more exculpatory evidence...