Jump to content
The Education Forum
David Josephs

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

Recommended Posts

Here is the first page of Gladys Johnson's HSCA interview. I'm sure Dave will see the glaring problem with what she says, that is backed up by other evidence concerning the residence of LHO. Enjoy, Dave, and good luck worming your way out of this one. There are only 30,000 others:

SELECT COMMITTEE ON ASSASSINATIONS

NAME: AMY GLADYS JOHNSON

Date: 10/14/77

Time: 1:30

Address: 1026 No. Beckley St. Dallas, Texas

Place: Residence.

Interview:

Mrs. JOHNSON owns and operates this rooming house. She and her husband had owned the premises for 42 years. He died three years ago - so did EARLENE ROBERTS, who resided here in addition to running the rooming house aspect for many years. Years ago, (during 1963), Mrs. JOHNSON owned and operated her restaurant - JOHNSON'S CAFE - located at 1029 Young St., "between Field and Pydras Sts., within five blocks of Dealey Plaza". Since gone out of business as evidenced by relatively new parking garage at this site.

She was serving lunch at the Cafe when "I heard the shots, then sirens. I went right on working even after the news of the shooting. I did take my usual break after lunch, arriving home about 1:30 or so. There were FBI agents all over the place. They wanted to know which rooms were LEE HARVEY OSWALD'S. When I told them no one by that name lived here, they said they knew better. They'd found my address in his pocket when they arrested him at the Texas Theatre (time discrepency not called to the lady's attention - wrong atmosphere). While they were talking to me - still in the living room, but others already…

Interviewer:

John J. Moriarty with Clarence Day

Date Transcribed November- 7, 1977

Morning Lee...

Didn't LHO rent the room as O.H.LEE so that Mrs Johnson would know him as Mr. Lee?

Mr. BALL. When is the first time you ever saw Lee Oswald?

Mrs. ROBERTS. The day he came in and rented the room--the 14th of October.

Mr. BALL. Had you ever heard of the man before?

Mrs. ROBERTS. No, and he didn't register as Oswald---he registered as O. H. Lee.

Mr. BALL. Did he sign his name?

Mrs. ROBERTS. O. H. Lee.

Mr. BALL. Did he sign his own name that way ?

Mrs. ROBERTS. O. H. Lee---that's what he was registered as

Allegedly, David. That's what the evidence suggests. It's in Fritz's notes that Oswald alleged it was the housekeeper that made the error. Ruth and Marina claimed to have called Beckley only to be told there was no one there by the name Lee Harvey Oswald.

Gladys Johnson was also interviewed by a researcher, whose name escapes me right now, where she recounted the same series of events - that the police and FBI were at 1026 North Beckley not long after the Tippit murder, between 1:30-2:00pm. Which lends a lot more credence to the fact that Will Fritz knew about the Beckley address long before he claims Oswald actually told him about it. Long before he'd even started interrogating him. So the question is how?

Not sure why but a gut feeling tells me that Ruby somehow gets that info to Fritz thru others... Maybe Ruby thru Tippit to the DPD?

Could be why Tippit had to go. Makes more sense that the Mafia would get rid of Tippit if he was involved and Oswald had to remain the PATSY...

DJ

DJ

I think the Oswald wallet at the Tippit scene comes into play, David.

If the DPD and/or the FBI were at 1026 North Beckley anywhere near Johnson's times of 1:30pm-2:00pm then the wallet could have possibly pushed them there.

An interesting thought yet I have yet to see an item of ID with OSWALD & BECKLEY both on it...

In CE1963 p.557 we have a timeline where Oswald is at Beckley from 10/14 - 11/22 except other than arriving there there is not a single entry for him ever going BACK to that address...

Have you seen anything with a Beckley address on it?

DJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those wallets, guns, bullets, pistols, IDs, and last but not least Oswalds ( four at last)...its a bit like the multiplication of the loaves...isn't it? One can keep a thing secret by duplicating the evidence and persons involved...

I am satisfied to see that pattern, implemented by a well hidden hand.

KK

Edited by Karl Kinaski

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We don't need to know the details of how, when, or even WHERE Oswald picked up his revolver in late March 1963.

The fact that Oswald had that gun ON HIM on Nov. 22 proves he took possession of it at SOME POINT IN TIME prior to 1:50 PM CST on 11/22.

Yeah David I'll agree with you, he took possession of it all right, knowingly or not, willingly or not it, and it could very well be prior to 1:50 PM CST on 11/22/1963, but only just.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_time_was_lee_Harvey_oswald_arrested

Ed

Edited by Ed LeDoux

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is no indication he ever left to pick up the rifle or the pistol, both of which arrived at the Post Office on the same day even though they were ordered a month apart.

Where is your proof the rifle and pistol arrived at the P.O. (coming from Chicago and Los Angeles, respectively) "on the same day"? There's no proof of that. (Not that it really matters, of course.)

Plus: Why couldn't Oswald have picked up his guns on a Saturday, instead of a workday? He didn't work Saturdays at Jaggars, did he? And weren't the post offices open at least a half-day on Saturdays in Dallas in 1963? (They are here in Indiana.)

Another basic, common-sense point needs to be made here----

Who the heck orders something through the mail, and then doesn't even bother to go and pick it up?

And please don't chime in with "Where's the proof Oswald ordered ANY guns through the mail?" -- because that's totally absurd. OF COURSE Oswald ordered his guns via mail-order. Hence, he would have been expecting them to arrive at the place he had them sent--his P.O. Box. Hence, he would have picked the damn things up.

Can anyone possibly fight the basic logic of my last paragraph?

It is not the logic of the presumption that I'd be at odds with, but with the notion that a "logical conclusion" is either the only conclusion or an accurate conclusion. While many thinks "make sense" to occur as a result of another event, they don't always. And, when we look at a murder case (even against a dead defendant), we must seek proof, and not merely substitute logical conclusions as concrete fact.

And, IMO, the rifle and pistol were not ordered a month apart. Oswald merely filled out the pistol coupon on January 27th, but it's almost a certainty that he didn't mail it until March 12th...the same day he mailed in his rifle coupon to Klein's.

How can we know this?

Because BOTH Seaport & Klein's internal paperwork show stamped dates of "March 13, 1963" on the respective invoices for those purchases. (Which, of course, would also mean, if I'm correct, that Oswald's revolver coupon made it to L.A. in just one day -- which is possible, since he very likely used Air Mail to mail it too, like he did his Klein's order.)

But do you really think that Seaport received Oswald's order in late January, but then didn't write up the invoice until March 13th? I would doubt it.

And please note that the Seaport order indicates with an "X" the method of Oswald's initial $10 deposit -- via "Cash".

MichaelisEx2.jpg

WaldmanExhibitNo7.jpg?t=1279170764

While some good points seem to have been made in the above, much of it is based on inference rather than direct evidence. I should note at the outset, however, that I like the transition from "IMO" and it's "almost a certainty" to how we can "know" something with no steps in between, how opinion transitions in short order into seemingly established fact.

Let's look, however, at the last point:

(P)lease note that the Seaport order indicates with an "X" the method of Oswald's initial $10 deposit -- via "Cash".

The line in reference here reads three things: first, that a $10.00 down payment was received; second, that there is a balance due; and third, something was paid – or was to be collected — in cash. The trouble is that you can't tell which it is: that $10.00 was paid in cash, or that $10.00 was due on delivery in cash.

Insofar as this exhibit and the associated Michaelis exhibits is/are concerned, this particular question remains unanswered, and it could be either, and is neither to the exclusion of the other.

Heinz Michaelis testified about this (7H372, et seq.), but we find not only did he not process the order and thus had no personal knowledge of the transaction, but that he didn't even become responsible for order processing until long after the order in question was processed, in October 1963 "after the regular girl left." The regular girl, Emma Vaughn, was apparently not sought and certainly not interviewed.

In any case, Emma was only the supervisor and would not have handled the transaction herself anyway. That, according to Michaelis, would have been left to an "order filler and packer," whom Michaelis "doubt(ed) ... would remember this particular order." The packer was apparently neither identified nor interviewed, despite the possibility, however remote, that s/he might have remembered it.

Michaelis nevertheless stated that $10.00 in cash was received with the order, but gave no explanation of how he knew that. The person who, according to Michaelis, would have opened the envelope containing the order and money, Mr. George Rose, president of the parent company of Seaport Traders, was present during the Michealis interview but was not asked about the order.

While Rose neither was asked about the order nor volunteered anything about it (including whether he actually would have opened the mail or whether the order contained cash), he was otherwise quick to interject answers to questions posed by Ball to Michaelis, such as this exchange in which Rose not only corrects Michaelis, but also answers for him:

Mr. Ball
. Are you employed, self-employed, or do you work for some company?

Mr. Michaelis
. I work for the George Rose & Co.

Mr. Ball
. What business is the George Rose & Co. engaged in?

Mr. Rose
. You work for Merchanteers.

Mr. Michaelis
. Oh, pardon me; Merchanteers, Inc.

Mr. Ball
. Your immediate employer is Merchanteers, Inc.?

Mr. Michaelis
. Merchanteers, Inc.

Mr. Ball
. Is that associated with the George Rose & Co.?

Mr. Michaelis
. Yes.

Mr. Ball
. In what business is Merchanteers, Inc., engaged?

Mr. Michaelis
. Merchanteers, Inc. has mail order----

Mr. Rose
. Mail order and management.

Mr. Michaelis
. And management.

Mr. Ball
. And does it do work for George Rose & Co.?

Mr. Michaelis
. Do I work for George Rose & Co.?

Mr. Rose
. Yes.

Michaelis states that "we received, together with the order, $10.00 in cash," a fact he admittedly has no personal knowledge of, and Rose, the company president and mail-opener, gives no clarification as to what he actually found when he opened the envelope or how he disposed of it (e.g., gave it to Emma Vaughn, separated the cash from the order and deposited it, or what), nor once again was he asked.

During two pages of interrogatory discussing REA's shipment of the parcel to a PO Box and requiring a COD balance, the question is never asked in what form the payment was or should have been received, and there is thus no answer to that question or what the "order filler and packer" or Emma Vaughn was actually indicating by the marking of "cash." It may be inferred, but it is not asked and answered.

The following exchange specifically asked about how the order would have been handled, and which Mr Rose also felt compelled to respond to:

Mr. Ball
. Now, can you tell me who would have actually received the mail order through the mail and who would have filled the order and shipped it? Do you know what person would have done this?

Mr. Michaelis
. There are various operations. The order was received by----

Mr. Rose
. I probably would have opened it.

Mr. Michaelis
. Yes; Mr. Rose usually opens the mail and distributes the mail. This particular order would have gone to the person in charge at that time of the Seaport Traders, who was Emma Vaughn.

The remainder of the deposition goes into such detail as the colors of the pages of the multi-part form, what they are for and how they are disposed of, how various details of the order (such as the date of the company's original receipt of the pistol and its handling through the time it was shipped to Dallas, and how they knew they'd actually received the COD amount for it from REA), among other various details. At no time is it discussed, with either Michaelis or Rose, how they knew that the initial payment for the order was made in cash.

We may, of course, infer that there was a way that they'd have known, and even infer how they'd have known, but inference isn't established fact. The "X" by "cash" could have referred to the funds the company received, or it could just as possibly have referred to how it wanted the remaining funds on delivery, cash being a preferred option more most companies sending product to a stranger (cash doesn't bounce and can't be stop-paid; it's guaranteed).

Ultimately, that the order was initially paid for in cash is one of those things we "know" because it "makes sense" to someone with a particular point of view, said POV satisfied with inferences of its own while decrying inferences that disagree with theirs.

The WC had plenty of opportunity to nail this question down, and indeed nailed a lot of other seemingly unimportant details down during their interview with Michaelis and Rose, but failed to provide the information that allows us to know this conclusion beyond any doubt. Inference isn't proof, even when it's presented as if it were.

Finally, for the sake of pointing out another "obvious" detail, can we not also infer that payment was not by cash simply by dint of the fact that the company waited a full week before taking the invoice the "order filler and packer" had generated to the warehouse for it to be shipped? Would or could the purpose of that seven-day delay be to allow non-cash funds to clear?

Does this create a reasonable doubt as to how the order was paid, by cash or otherwise? In some minds, probably not (which only goes to underscore the value of having a dozen minds on a jury!).

Edited by Duke Lane

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... In 2010 I was in the area of 10th and Patton and one of the old timer neighbors - an Hispanic man who actually lived in the neighborhood in 1963 - told me that there were TWO killers of Tippit. He told me this unprodded; I asked him no leading questions, just what do you know about the Tippit slaying?

And that is what he told me: 2 killers of Tippit.

Yup. And if you go downtown to Dealey Plaza on November 22, you'll meet an ex-cop there who will tell you that he was "undercover" on the day of Kennedy and Tippit's shootings and, while dressed as a "beatnik," helped to subdue Oswald in the theater.

It helps to believe everything you hear from people who have no reason to lie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh, come on, Ed. Oswald mailed $10 cash to Seaport. We KNOW that, via Michaelis. And since there was no line for "Cash", Oswald merely used the "check" line on the order form.

Why are you calling Michaelis a xxxx when he verified via his WC testimony that Seaport received $10 IN CASH from Oswald/Hidell? Why don't you believe him?

See, here we go with what we "know," based upon something that the deponent didn't actually know himself, but at least believed to be true based on his knowledge of procedure and/or the people involved whom he got the information from (including the often-silent Mr Rose, who did actually have a hand in the process).

I can understand and appreciate getting the closest possible testimony when the best testimony isn't available, but how is it that someone with direct knowledge was almost completely avoided even while he was sitting there in the same room and interjecting his comments and corrections into the interview?

It smacks of not wanting whatever information Rose might've been able to provide, and taking in its stead the second- and third-hand information gleaned through someone else. This is not necessarily the case, mind you, but why would someone who wasn't even in the job be interviewed when the company president who actually handled the mail was sitting right there?!?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... Why on Earth would you pick out that Roberts example to bolster your criticisms of me?

I'm not criticizing you, merely picking a recent example of where conjecture becomes "fact." This isn't personal for me at all.

Ultimately, I'm commenting on how anyone who supports any given notion finds their own suppositions (and those that agree with their point of view) much more plausible and palatable than any put forth by someone whose position they take issue with. Those with an opposing point of view are demanded to provide absolute proof, while those who posit a supporting one usually make "very good points."

You reinterpreted Earlene Roberts' words to get Oswald in and out of the rooming house more rapidly, thus giving him a few more minutes to get 8/10 of a mile away, deciding that she "really" meant he was in-and-out in the time it took him to duck into his bedroom, grab stuff, and bolt back out, and that she didn't really mean it was "three or four minutes" like she said.

If on the other hand someone had said that Oswald (or whomever) had dashed in and out so quickly that Roberts, busy with the TV reception, didn't actually have the time to do much more than glance at him and maybe not even look at him, merely presuming it was him because of where he'd gone (who else would have gone into his room, after all?), it would not be surprising if his being in the rooming house "three or four minutes" turned into "plenty of time to look at and recognize him."

Anyone can spin anything to bolster their point. Its acceptance is largely a function of the audience. My point throughout: does what you posit stand up to the same level of proof that you demand of those with opposing viewpoints? My impression is that it doesn't.

If you want to make it all about you, though, please feel free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The horn-honking police car means nothing. That activity was commonplace at 1026 Beckley--even on days when the President wasn't being killed.

Shouldn't the fact that cop cars stopped at that location to honk their horn on OTHER DAYS before 11/22 cause you to stop and pause and wonder about this incident a little longer?

But at least you were able to change the subject concerning Mrs. Roberts and her testimony that LHO stayed in his room just long enough to get a jacket and put it on.

You're absolutely right that the honking police car "means nothing," not even when you consider that, at the time it supposedly did so, none of the Oak Cliff patrol units were in their assigned districts, and every other officer denied having been there when Earlene Roberts saw the car when they were called upon to account for their whereabouts.

It likewise "means nothing" when two other patrol officers reported their positions in Oak Cliff when their assigned districts were each some 10 miles distant, they had not been reassigned there, had no discernable cause to be there, and later denied it. Since they said they weren't where they reported being, it clearly couldn't have been them.

Earlene Roberts couldn't have seen any police car there, because none were, according to those who were driving police cars that day. Or she did see one there, and nobody owned up to it for some innocuous reason. She imagined it ... or she didn't. If she did, who's to say what else she only thought she saw?

Otherwise, you're right: police cars had undoubtedly been by there, and most likely had blown their horns there from time to time, possibly to get someone dawdling at the light to get it in gear. Explains everything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why couldn't Benevides have taken 10 minutes to make the radio call? We don't seem to have a difficulty believing that it took Bowley six.

Of course YOU don't have a hard time believing he took six minutes....because you erroneously think the time Tippit was shot was 1:10, right?

In reality, of course, Bowley's call came about 3.5 to 4 minutes after the shooting (with Bowley getting through to the dispatcher at 1:18 after Benavides pumped the mike for 90 seconds).

Which means Benavides got on the radio just about 2 minutes after Tippit was shot. A perfectly reasonable time estimate too. But 10 minutes is ridiculous.

It is what it is, no matter how we want to think about it.

We have four pieces of information that dovetail. Those are:

  • Helen Markham leaving her house a few minutes after 1:00 (was she specific? I don't recall), her usual time to catch her usual bus, and estimating the shooting having taken place around 1:06 or 1:07 (plenty of time for her to catch the next bus at 1:12 after she left her house);
  • Donnie Benavides ducking down on the floor (or seat) of his truck and waiting "a few minutes" to be certain the shooter had gone and wasn't going to get him;
  • Time for a "crowd" to gather (according to Bowley), which at least entails the guys from the car lots to trot up the street (before, I might add, Calloway got there); and
  • Bowley to see said crowd, drive half-way up the street, admonish his daughter to stay in the car, and walk up to the scene.

(I don't recall whether Donnie wandered over to his mother's house before or after trying to get on the radio, so this may or may not factor into the delay as well.)

Given all of these, and without denigrating exactly what was reported because there might be a "better explanation," why is ten minutes "ridiculous" and out of the question?

Y'know, it wasn't that long ago that some people were adamant that it wasn't Bowley on the radio, that it was Benavides, largely because Benavides said it was and the WC agreed with him, rendering Bowley's statement "immaterial" because it "wasn't him" talking. Now that Bowley's actions are acknowledged, how long before it'll be that the time he read on his watch will be?

Edited by Duke Lane

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Duke, I hope you are being facetious with our lat statement.

This is more smoke blowing by DVP.

Roberts was clear on this. She talked to cops who regularly came by her house to relay messages for them. She knew who they were since they were acquaintances.

On this day, she had no idea about this car at all.

Significant difference. If she had no idea who they were, why were they there and why did they honk?

I was ... and I wasn't.

There could be a hundred reasons for a police car - a regular patrol car incidentally, not a traffic control car - to have been there and honked, including one that I alluded to above.

Except that all the cops on DPD said they weren't there any time around that time, so it sort of begs the question.

We also can't forget what Gladys Johnson had to say about Earlene Roberts, not only in terms of the police car (as will be some people's wont, now that I'm offering a straw to grasp), but also in terms of almost everything she had to say. In short, she had a reputation for - shall we say - making it difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff when she related things.

And then she disappears, quite literally, into the night. Just wasn't there the next morning, and never came back.

If her employer questioned Earlene's veracity, how do we (who never knew her, and can't even hear her testimony) decide what and how much of what she had to say is true, and how much isn't?

I guess the answer is ... to take what we like and toss the rest? Set it all aside and ignore it completely? Take what she said as gospel truth, word for word? It's a conundrum riding the horns of a dilemma between a rock and a hard place, isn't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One of the silliest arguments I ever saw is DVP saying that the USPS kept a special box for people picking up merchandise from private carriers. HA HA HA

Until today, I had never bothered to check on any kind of "official" United States Post Office regulations concerning the handling of C.O.D. mail by the USPS. But today I found an interesting page on the Internet that confirms that the USPS definitely DOES collect money from individuals who receive C.O.D. mail, and the USPS does forward payments to the sellers (or "mailers", as they are called in the regulations cited below). It evidently happens all the time.

The regulations cited below are not 1963 U.S. Post Office regulations (they're from August of 2003), and they don't deal directly with C.O.D. mail and packages sent to P.O. Boxes, but these regulations are certainly indicating that the USPS can and does handle cash and checks from people who receive C.O.D. mail.

Quoting from the "Domestic Mail Manual"; regulation "S900 Special Postal Services" ... "S921 Collect on Delivery (COD) Mail":

"Any mailer may use collect on delivery (COD) service to mail an article for which the mailer has not been paid and have its price and the cost of the postage collected from the recipient. If the recipient pays the amount due by check payable to the mailer, the USPS forwards the check to the mailer. If the recipient pays the amount due in cash, the USPS collects the money order fee(s) from the recipient and sends a postal money order(s) to the mailer. The amount collected from the recipient may not exceed $1,000. COD service provides the mailer with a mailing receipt, and a delivery record is maintained by the USPS. ....

4.0 Delivery

Delivery of COD mail is subject to D042. Except for Express Mail COD, a postmaster may restrict delivery of COD mail if the amount to be collected makes the carrier a potential target for theft or if previous experience indicates that the addressee will be unavailable to receive the article at the time of delivery. If payment is by check, the recipient’s check, made payable to the mailer, may be accepted by the USPS employee upon the recipient’s presentation of adequate identification. If payment is made by cash, in addition to the COD amount a money order fee is collected from the recipient."

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

Let me repeat this section of the COD regulation:

"If payment is by check, the recipient’s check, made payable to the mailer, may be accepted by the USPS employee upon the recipient’s presentation of adequate identification. If payment is made by cash, in addition to the COD amount a money order fee is collected from the recipient."

Source Link:

http://pe.usps.com/archive/html/dmmarchive0810/S921.htm

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

ADDENDUM:

I'm sure that some conspiracy theorists will be eager to jump on this part of the above USPS regulation:

"And a delivery record is maintained by the USPS."

And the CTers will probably ask: Well, Dave, where is the Post Office record showing that Oswald forked over the C.O.D. money for his revolver? And where is the record of the Post Office forwarding the money collected from Oswald to the Railway Express Agency?

Fair enough questions.

But my follow-up question would be this:

Did anybody ever look or ask for any such "C.O.D." records from the Dallas Post Office following the assassination?

If not, then we can never know whether any such C.O.D. documents were retained by the Dallas Post Office connected with Lee Oswald's pistol purchase.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beside the point.

The mailer was REA. Show me the regulations where the USPS provided fiduciary help to its competitors.

I already did. The first two words of the USPS regulation that I cited earlier provide the proof that you're wrong on this matter (unless you can provide some proof that these 2003 USPS regulations regarding COD mail are substantially different from the ones in effect in March 1963):

"Any mailer may use collect on delivery (COD) service to mail an article for which the mailer has not been paid and have its price and the cost of the postage collected from the recipient."

Let me repeat that:

"Any mailer..."

It doesn't say "Any mailer (except the Railway Express Agency, because they are our competition)..."

Try again, Jim.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beside the point.

The mailer was REA. Show me the regulations where the USPS provided fiduciary help to its competitors.

I already did. The first two words of the USPS regulation that I cited earlier provide the proof that you're wrong on this matter (unless you can provide some proof that these 2003 USPS regulations regarding COD mail are substantially different from the ones in effect in March 1963):

"Any mailer may use collect on delivery (COD) service to mail an article for which the mailer has not been paid and have its price and the cost of the postage collected from the recipient."

Let me repeat that:

"Any mailer..."

It doesn't say "Any mailer (except the Railway Express Agency, because they are our competition)..."

Try again, Jim.

But David, you previously claimed the USPS defined "mailer" as "seller"...

"the USPS does forward payments to the sellers (or "mailers", as they are called in the regulations cited below)"

Wouldn't that definition exclude REA...?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, Greg, I just put "seller" in there as kind of a clarification word. That was just MY OWN interpretation of "mailer". I guess "mailer" (technically) is a better word. Which is why the USPS uses it in its official regulations.

But, yeah, REA wasn't the one "selling" the revolver to Oswald. REA was just the middle man....which, when we look at those COD regulations I cited (assuming they were about the same in 1963, and why wouldn't they be?), it certainly appears that Seaport Traders THEMSELVES could have shipped Oswald's gun COD directly via U.S. Post Office regular (COD) mail.

In such a case, REA would be taken out of the picture entirely, with Oswald's gun package then going straight to the Dallas Post Office via the USPS itself. The Post Office would have then placed a card inside LHO's PO Box 2915 saying that he had a COD package at the front desk. Oswald would then have presented the card to the USPS clerk, the clerk would have gotten some kind of I.D. from Oswald (or maybe this part was often skipped, per Harry Holmes), and Oswald would have then paid the $19.95 COD cost, and the clerk would have given Oswald his package. The USPS would have then forwarded the money collected from Oswald to the "mailer" (or seller)--Seaport Traders--and that completes the transaction.

Now, why couldn't that very same process have been done in this case, with REA as the "mailer"?

The 2003 regulation does say, after all, that "Any mailer may use collect on delivery (COD) service to mail an article for which the mailer has not been paid and have its price and the cost of the postage collected from the recipient."

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LOL

ROFL

Busting my gut.

He is back where he started from. Before he made his world shaking discovery just 6 posts ago.

What a riot.

Huh?

I just showed you solid proof that the USPS performs actions regarding COD mail that you heretofore thought were totally unheard of.

How is it, then, that I'm back where I started from?

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

×
×
  • Create New...