Jump to content
The Education Forum
Jim Hargrove

John Armstrong blasts the mail order rifle “evidence”

Recommended Posts

I don’t want to seem argumentative, I actually thought John’s article was really illuminating and adds something of value to the process. What spoils it for me is the constant need to anchor such research into an existing belief.

For instance, it is painted as a “mystery” how the FBI came by the Irving Gun Shop in the first place but common sense tells us otherwise. Take the tag ‘found’ at Irving Gun Shop with the name Oswald on it. It is seemingly a “mystery” as to how the FBI came by this information yet the sequence of events shows exactly how it came about.

Mr GREENER was the owner and his assistant, RYDER, is the one who wrote the tag and carried out the repairs. He subsequently denied seeing Oswald and confirmed that the gun in question wasn’t the assassination weapon.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you have any reason to believe that any reporter talked to Ryder prior to the time the FBI came to your shop?

Mr. GREENER. One told me he did.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember that reporter's name?

Mr. GREENER. No; he was with the Times Herald.

Mr. LIEBELER. Dallas Times Herald?

Mr. GREENER. I couldn't swear.

Mr. LIEBELER. He told you he talked to Ryder?

Mr. GREENER. Ryder told me he hadn't.

Mr. LIEBELER. Ryder told you the reporter had not talked to him?

Mr. GREENER. Had not talked to him.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did the reporter tell you when he had talked to Ryder?

Mr. GREENER. He told me that he talked to him earlier in the morning…

So we have proof that the employee is lying to his boss. And it wasn’t the FBI, but the Dallas Herald who first made the contact…apparently.

Mr. LIEBELER. I am trying to find out at what time this story first broke, whether the FBI had been here at the shop to ask any questions before the story came out in the newspapers?

Mr. GREENER. As I recall, no. None of the law enforcing agencies had been by previous to that.

Mr. LIEBELER. Your impression is that he came here because they saw the story in the paper?

Mr. GREENER. That is my idea. Either that, or they were informed by the news reporters.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now did this reporter from the Dallas paper, whose name you don't remember, tell you that Ryder had called him?

Mr. GREENER. No; he told me that he called him, called Ryder.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did he tell you how he got the idea to call Ryder?

Mr. GREENER. No; he didn't.

Mr. LIEBELER. And you didn't ask him?

Mr. GREENER. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you discuss this question with Ryder?

Mr. GREENER. Yes; I did. And he said he had not talked to a newspaper reporter about it.

Mr. LIEBELER. At all?

Mr. GREENER. Right.

Why is Ryder lying to his boss about not talking to the media? What is he trying to hide from him? If the Dallas Herald reporter is really telling the truth and not just defending his sources, who else could possibly know about this tag? Certainly not the FBI, they came along later…

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember the exact details under which you found the tag in the shop?

Mr. RYDER. Well, we talked about this thing on Saturday morning and like I said before, like you saw the workbench up there today, that it is cluttered up, and on Saturday evening I was cleaning it off and found the tag laying back on the workbench.

Mr. LIEBELER. The Saturday following the assassination?

Mr. RYDER. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. You found the tag there yourself?

Mr. RYDER. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Had the FBI been out here prior to that time?

Mr. RYDER. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. They had not?

Mr. RYDER. No, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. When did the FBI first come out?

Mr. RYDER. On Monday.

Mr. LIEBELER. On Monday?

Mr. RYDER. Yes; that was on Monday, of the funeral of the late President.

Mr. LIEBELER. That would have been November 25, 1963, when the FBI came out on Monday and you gave them the tag or showed them this tag; is that right?

Mr. RYDER. He told us to hold onto it, and then they later came by and got the tag.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you ever talk to the newspaper reporter about this?

Mr. RYDER. There were several out here after the FBI had been out, and we told them the same thing that we told the FBI.

Mr. LIEBELER. But you didn't talk to any newspaper reporter before the FBI came out here?

Mr. RYDER. No.

But according to the owner, Mr Greener this was the scenario. Sounds like our boy Ryder is a bit of a romancer.

Mr. LIEBELER. Who found the tag; do you remember?

Mr. GREENER. No; I don't know. If I remember correctly, and I could be wrong, because like I said, you are going into things that hadn't entered my mind since November 22, along in there, and it seems to me that he had contacted Ryder and they had come down here.

Mr. LIEBELER. The FBI?

Mr. GREENER Yes, and they found the tag on the workbench somewhere.

Mr. LIEBELER. Your impression now is that the FBI man was here when the tag was found?

Mr. GREENER. That is my impression; yes.

Somehow someone from the Dallas Herald received a tip off about a gun repair shop who had a tag with the name Oswald written on it. So others knew about this tag before the FBI; firstly the source of the information and secondly the Dallas Herald. Only when the story broke did the FBI get involved, naturally. Had the FBI known about this first why would the Dallas Herald even be involved in the story?

So we have three, and only three, scenarios for that tag to have been there in that shop. The real Oswald went there and asked for repairs to yet another gun he owned. Another Oswald went there for repairs to another gun. Or, Ryder wrote the tag after the event and either he or his partner contacted the media with an anonymous tip off.

Here is a fascinating exchange between the Dallas Herald reporter, Hunter Schmidt, and Ryder who Schmidt claimed had provided the information that was eventually published.

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/ryderschmidt.htm

Make your own mind up who is telling the truth.

Ernie,

First let me say that I read some of the testimony and skimmed some of it. So I may be mistaken somehow in my response here. But I think not.

It seems like you (and Mr. Greener) are mistaken in some way. You both say the Dallas Herald got involved with the Irving Gun Shop before the FBI did. But I think it happened the other way around.

You said:

Only when the story broke did the FBI get involved, naturally. Had the FBI known about this first why would the Dallas Herald even be involved in the story?

Mr. Greener (the shop owner) agrees with you:

Mr. LIEBELER. I am trying to find out at what time this story first broke, whether the FBI had been here at the shop to ask any questions before the story came out in the newspapers?

Mr. GREENER. As I recall, no. None of the law enforcing agencies had been by previous to that.

Mr. LIEBELER. Your impression is that he [FBI agent] came here because they saw the story in the paper?

Mr. GREENER. That is my idea. Either that, or they were informed by the news reporters.

But I read in other testimony that the FBI got involved on Monday the 25th, whereas the Dallas Herald didn't get involved until Wednesday the 28th.

The following Ryder (the workman) testimony establishes the date for the FBI visit:

Mr. LIEBELER. When did the FBI first come out?

Mr. RYDER. On Monday.

Mr. LIEBELER. On Monday?

Mr. RYDER. Yes; that was on Monday, of the funeral of the late President.

Mr. LIEBELER. That would have been November 25, 1963, when the FBI came out on Monday and you gave them the tag or showed them this tag; is that right?

Now, as you read the following Greener testimony, keep in mind that the Oswald tag had been found by Monday the 25th:

Mr. LIEBELER. Your impression now is that the FBI man was here when the tag was found [on Monday 25th or earlier]?

Mr. GREENER. That is my impression; yes.

So Mr.Greener changes his mind and no longer agrees with you. Now he agrees with his employee, Ryder. The FBI was there early.

Now let's turn to the testimony of Schmidt, the newspaper reporter. His testimony establishes the date for the Dallas Times Herald visit:

Mr. LIEBELER. As I have indicated to Mr. Ryder, Mr. Schmidt testified yesterday that on the morning of November 28, 1963, you came to work in your office at the Dallas Times Herald and received information of some sort that possibly Lee Oswald had had some work done on a rifle, on his rifle or a rifle, in some sports shops or gunshop in the outlying areas of Dallas. Would you tell us briefly what happened after that, Mr. Schmidt?

Mr. SCHMIDT. After I got the tip, I traced it down and thought it was Garland first and I looked it up in the phonebook--the city directory--and the usual sources that we go through--I looked-through and this Ryder was the only one that I could find, or apparently he was the one that said what I was looking for.

Mr. LIEBELER. Where did you get Ryder's name in the first place; do you know?

Mr. SCHMIDT. Well, it was from a tip around the police station. Now, I don't remember. I have been trying to remember where who specifically it came from, but it was one of the many we were getting at that tim.

Incidentally, the highlighted text near the end tells us who found out about the gun shop's Oswald tag. Someone around the police station knew about it. Perhaps a DPD employee??

So you see, the FBI really did go to the gun shop first.

BTW, regarding the accusation that Ryder lied about conversing with newspaper man Schmidt, I have three comments:

  1. Ryder claimed he wouldn't talk to Schmidt. He even took the phone off the hook.
  2. Schimdt claimed that he did talk to Ryder, and that an associate listened in on the whole conversation.
  3. I only skimmed the article. But from what I saw, I couldn't tell who was lying.
  4. Why would somebody listen in on the conversation? I couldn't tell from the testimony, but if this associate heard BOTH sides of the conversation, to me this stinks. Maybe to provide later corroboration for a conversation that didn't really happen? I wish I had time to delve into this.

Sandy, it's not a real big deal but my name is Bernie not Ernie, the clue is in the name at the top of the post you replied to.

You say you haven't really read the whole transcript (as well as the name of the person you are replying to) but already everyone excluding Ryder seems suspicious to you. I know why of course. This story isn't a story unless there is a possible doppelganger attached to it. On this particular example though it is water-thin gruel.

Look I aren't criticising the article for the sake of it, I've said, I thought it threw up some real good information. My irritation is this constant attempt to create the illusion that there was a second Oswald who can account for EVERY anomaly in the records or from witness testimony.

Only Ryder knew about this tag, but the implication is that the FBI also knew about it too. Given that the Oswald in question didn't look like LHO and the gun in question wasn't LHO's why would the FBI need to know this information beforehand anyway. What are you implying? I thought we had established that it couldn't have been a doppelganger because Ryder didn't identify him. And surely if it had been 'Lee' setting up 'Harvey' (because that is what all this is about!) Ryder would have seen the likeness like dozens of others.

We have also proved that Ryder did lie to Greener about talking to the press. He said he hadn't spoken to anyone "AT ALL" whereas Schmidt, who asked to take a lie detector test to prove his credibility, went into great detail on how the conversation went. If this isn't true then the info he is using must have come straight from the FBI. Don't you think it a bit odd that they would give the info to a journalist, wait until he rings Ryder and gets the story published and only then do the FBI decide to go and see Ryder? That didn't happen!

As to the guy listening in on the conversation, it doesn't say, but I took it that he was just in the room listening to Schmidt's part of the dialogue. That would be perfectly normal (we even used to do that in our sales office if there was a particularly 'difficult' conversation to be had with a client.)

According to the testimony Sandy, the FBI were informed by the media, it was an anonymous tip made to a couple of media outlets who then contacted the FBI. It started with a phone call from someone who knew for definite that tag was there. If the FBI did know this why didn't they act on it instead of calling the Dallas Herald? At that stage the FBI knew nothing. The only person who knew of this tag was Ryder. It seems logical then to assume that he is the source of the information.

Can anyone add to the three possible scenarios as to how this tag business could have come about.

1 - It was the historic LHO who wanted work doing on different riffle to the one subsequently found in TSBD .

2 - It was someone else called Oswald about a different riffle to the one subsequently found in TSBD

3 - Ryder wrote the tag after the event and either he or his partner anonymously tipped off the media.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t want to seem argumentative, I actually thought John’s article was really illuminating and adds something of value to the process. What spoils it for me is the constant need to anchor such research into an existing belief.

For instance, it is painted as a “mystery” how the FBI came by the Irving Gun Shop in the first place but common sense tells us otherwise. Take the tag ‘found’ at Irving Gun Shop with the name Oswald on it. It is seemingly a “mystery” as to how the FBI came by this information yet the sequence of events shows exactly how it came about.

Mr GREENER was the owner and his assistant, RYDER, is the one who wrote the tag and carried out the repairs. He subsequently denied seeing Oswald and confirmed that the gun in question wasn’t the assassination weapon.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you have any reason to believe that any reporter talked to Ryder prior to the time the FBI came to your shop?

Mr. GREENER. One told me he did.

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember that reporter's name?

Mr. GREENER. No; he was with the Times Herald.

Mr. LIEBELER. Dallas Times Herald?

Mr. GREENER. I couldn't swear.

Mr. LIEBELER. He told you he talked to Ryder?

Mr. GREENER. Ryder told me he hadn't.

Mr. LIEBELER. Ryder told you the reporter had not talked to him?

Mr. GREENER. Had not talked to him.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did the reporter tell you when he had talked to Ryder?

Mr. GREENER. He told me that he talked to him earlier in the morning…

So we have proof that the employee is lying to his boss. And it wasn’t the FBI, but the Dallas Herald who first made the contact…apparently.

Mr. LIEBELER. I am trying to find out at what time this story first broke, whether the FBI had been here at the shop to ask any questions before the story came out in the newspapers?

Mr. GREENER. As I recall, no. None of the law enforcing agencies had been by previous to that.

Mr. LIEBELER. Your impression is that he came here because they saw the story in the paper?

Mr. GREENER. That is my idea. Either that, or they were informed by the news reporters.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now did this reporter from the Dallas paper, whose name you don't remember, tell you that Ryder had called him?

Mr. GREENER. No; he told me that he called him, called Ryder.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did he tell you how he got the idea to call Ryder?

Mr. GREENER. No; he didn't.

Mr. LIEBELER. And you didn't ask him?

Mr. GREENER. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you discuss this question with Ryder?

Mr. GREENER. Yes; I did. And he said he had not talked to a newspaper reporter about it.

Mr. LIEBELER. At all?

Mr. GREENER. Right.

Why is Ryder lying to his boss about not talking to the media? What is he trying to hide from him? If the Dallas Herald reporter is really telling the truth and not just defending his sources, who else could possibly know about this tag? Certainly not the FBI, they came along later…

Mr. LIEBELER. Do you remember the exact details under which you found the tag in the shop?

Mr. RYDER. Well, we talked about this thing on Saturday morning and like I said before, like you saw the workbench up there today, that it is cluttered up, and on Saturday evening I was cleaning it off and found the tag laying back on the workbench.

Mr. LIEBELER. The Saturday following the assassination?

Mr. RYDER. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. You found the tag there yourself?

Mr. RYDER. Yes.

Mr. LIEBELER. Had the FBI been out here prior to that time?

Mr. RYDER. No.

Mr. LIEBELER. They had not?

Mr. RYDER. No, sir.

Mr. LIEBELER. When did the FBI first come out?

Mr. RYDER. On Monday.

Mr. LIEBELER. On Monday?

Mr. RYDER. Yes; that was on Monday, of the funeral of the late President.

Mr. LIEBELER. That would have been November 25, 1963, when the FBI came out on Monday and you gave them the tag or showed them this tag; is that right?

Mr. RYDER. He told us to hold onto it, and then they later came by and got the tag.

Mr. LIEBELER. Did you ever talk to the newspaper reporter about this?

Mr. RYDER. There were several out here after the FBI had been out, and we told them the same thing that we told the FBI.

Mr. LIEBELER. But you didn't talk to any newspaper reporter before the FBI came out here?

Mr. RYDER. No.

But according to the owner, Mr Greener this was the scenario. Sounds like our boy Ryder is a bit of a romancer.

Mr. LIEBELER. Who found the tag; do you remember?

Mr. GREENER. No; I don't know. If I remember correctly, and I could be wrong, because like I said, you are going into things that hadn't entered my mind since November 22, along in there, and it seems to me that he had contacted Ryder and they had come down here.

Mr. LIEBELER. The FBI?

Mr. GREENER Yes, and they found the tag on the workbench somewhere.

Mr. LIEBELER. Your impression now is that the FBI man was here when the tag was found?

Mr. GREENER. That is my impression; yes.

Somehow someone from the Dallas Herald received a tip off about a gun repair shop who had a tag with the name Oswald written on it. So others knew about this tag before the FBI; firstly the source of the information and secondly the Dallas Herald. Only when the story broke did the FBI get involved, naturally. Had the FBI known about this first why would the Dallas Herald even be involved in the story?

So we have three, and only three, scenarios for that tag to have been there in that shop. The real Oswald went there and asked for repairs to yet another gun he owned. Another Oswald went there for repairs to another gun. Or, Ryder wrote the tag after the event and either he or his partner contacted the media with an anonymous tip off.

Here is a fascinating exchange between the Dallas Herald reporter, Hunter Schmidt, and Ryder who Schmidt claimed had provided the information that was eventually published.

http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/ryderschmidt.htm

Make your own mind up who is telling the truth.

Ernie,

First let me say that I read some of the testimony and skimmed some of it. So I may be mistaken somehow in my response here. But I think not.

It seems like you (and Mr. Greener) are mistaken in some way. You both say the Dallas Herald got involved with the Irving Gun Shop before the FBI did. But I think it happened the other way around.

You said:

Only when the story broke did the FBI get involved, naturally. Had the FBI known about this first why would the Dallas Herald even be involved in the story?

Mr. Greener (the shop owner) agrees with you:

Mr. LIEBELER. I am trying to find out at what time this story first broke, whether the FBI had been here at the shop to ask any questions before the story came out in the newspapers?

Mr. GREENER. As I recall, no. None of the law enforcing agencies had been by previous to that.

Mr. LIEBELER. Your impression is that he [FBI agent] came here because they saw the story in the paper?

Mr. GREENER. That is my idea. Either that, or they were informed by the news reporters.

But I read in other testimony that the FBI got involved on Monday the 25th, whereas the Dallas Herald didn't get involved until Wednesday the 28th.

The following Ryder (the workman) testimony establishes the date for the FBI visit:

Mr. LIEBELER. When did the FBI first come out?

Mr. RYDER. On Monday.

Mr. LIEBELER. On Monday?

Mr. RYDER. Yes; that was on Monday, of the funeral of the late President.

Mr. LIEBELER. That would have been November 25, 1963, when the FBI came out on Monday and you gave them the tag or showed them this tag; is that right?

Now, as you read the following Greener testimony, keep in mind that the Oswald tag had been found by Monday the 25th:

Mr. LIEBELER. Your impression now is that the FBI man was here when the tag was found [on Monday 25th or earlier]?

Mr. GREENER. That is my impression; yes.

So Mr.Greener changes his mind and no longer agrees with you. Now he agrees with his employee, Ryder. The FBI was there early.

Now let's turn to the testimony of Schmidt, the newspaper reporter. His testimony establishes the date for the Dallas Times Herald visit:

Mr. LIEBELER. As I have indicated to Mr. Ryder, Mr. Schmidt testified yesterday that on the morning of November 28, 1963, you came to work in your office at the Dallas Times Herald and received information of some sort that possibly Lee Oswald had had some work done on a rifle, on his rifle or a rifle, in some sports shops or gunshop in the outlying areas of Dallas. Would you tell us briefly what happened after that, Mr. Schmidt?

Mr. SCHMIDT. After I got the tip, I traced it down and thought it was Garland first and I looked it up in the phonebook--the city directory--and the usual sources that we go through--I looked-through and this Ryder was the only one that I could find, or apparently he was the one that said what I was looking for.

Mr. LIEBELER. Where did you get Ryder's name in the first place; do you know?

Mr. SCHMIDT. Well, it was from a tip around the police station. Now, I don't remember. I have been trying to remember where who specifically it came from, but it was one of the many we were getting at that tim.

Incidentally, the highlighted text near the end tells us who found out about the gun shop's Oswald tag. Someone around the police station knew about it. Perhaps a DPD employee??

So you see, the FBI really did go to the gun shop first.

BTW, regarding the accusation that Ryder lied about conversing with newspaper man Schmidt, I have three comments:

  • Ryder claimed he wouldn't talk to Schmidt. He even took the phone off the hook.
  • Schimdt claimed that he did talk to Ryder, and that an associate listened in on the whole conversation.
  • I only skimmed the article. But from what I saw, I couldn't tell who was lying.
  • Why would somebody listen in on the conversation? I couldn't tell from the testimony, but if this associate heard BOTH sides of the conversation, to me this stinks. Maybe to provide later corroboration for a conversation that didn't really happen? I wish I had time to delve into this.
Sandy, it's not a real big deal but my name is Bernie not Ernie, the clue is in the name at the top of the post you replied to.

You say you haven't really read the whole transcript (as well as the name of the person you are replying to) but already everyone excluding Ryder seems suspicious to you. I know why of course. This story isn't a story unless there is a possible doppelganger attached to it. On this particular example though it is water-thin gruel.

Look I aren't criticising the article for the sake of it, I've said, I thought it threw up some real good information. My irritation is this constant attempt to create the illusion that there was a second Oswald who can account for EVERY anomaly in the records or from witness testimony.

Only Ryder knew about this tag, but the implication is that the FBI also knew about it too. Given that the Oswald in question didn't look like LHO and the gun in question wasn't LHO's why would the FBI need to know this information beforehand anyway. What are you implying? I thought we had established that it couldn't have been a doppelganger because Ryder didn't identify him. And surely if it had been 'Lee' setting up 'Harvey' (because that is what all this is about!) Ryder would have seen the likeness like dozens of others.

We have also proved that Ryder did lie to Greener about talking to the press. He said he hadn't spoken to anyone "AT ALL" whereas Schmidt, who asked to take a lie detector test to prove his credibility, went into great detail on how the conversation went. If this isn't true then the info he is using must have come straight from the FBI. Don't you think it a bit odd that they would give the info to a journalist, wait until he rings Ryder and gets the story published and only then do the FBI decide to go and see Ryder? That didn't happen!

As to the guy listening in on the conversation, it doesn't say, but I took it that he was just in the room listening to Schmidt's part of the dialogue. That would be perfectly normal (we even used to do that in our sales office if there was a particularly 'difficult' conversation to be had with a client.)

According to the testimony Sandy, the FBI were informed by the media, it was an anonymous tip made to a couple of media outlets who then contacted the FBI. It started with a phone call from someone who knew for definite that tag was there. If the FBI did know this why didn't they act on it instead of calling the Dallas Herald? At that stage the FBI knew nothing. The only person who knew of this tag was Ryder. It seems logical then to assume that he is the source of the information.

Can anyone add to the three possible scenarios as to how this tag business could have come about.

1 - It was the historic LHO who wanted work doing on different riffle to the one subsequently found in TSBD .

2 - It was someone else called Oswald about a different riffle to the one subsequently found in TSBD

3 - Ryder wrote the tag after the event and either he or his partner anonymously tipped off the media.

Bernie,

Sorry I got your name wrong. I actually noticed the mistake -- literally as the page was just loading in my browser and shifting around as it always does on this forum -- and I fixed it before reading your post.

As I read your reply, I actually wondered for a while if you were responding to somebody else's post. All that stuff about two Oswalds and a doppelganger had nothing to do with what I had written. (If it seems to have, it's just a coincidence. While I know about Harvey & Lee and I've seen the word doppelganger used, I haven't read the book (yet) and I don't believe I've ever written the word doppelganger till now.)

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

It appears that you have discussed and/or studied this material thoroughly. I can't even discuss it with you because I really don't know much about it. The reason I replied to your post is that I noticed that you said:

Only when the story broke did the FBI get involved...

Which agreed with what Greener had said. From both those things I got the impression that the Oswald tag was in newspapers first, and the FBI checked up on it afterward. But then I was surprised to read other testimony stating that the FBI had been to the shop on Monday, just three days after the assassination. I found it hard to believe that the the Oswald tag story had already been in newspapers, some time between Friday and Monday.

Then I read testimony that seemed to indicate that the press DIDN'T know about the Oswald tag story till later in the week, Wednesday.

So the testimony appeared to disagree with what you said. (And also with what Greener had said, of course.)

I decided to reply to your post and make this correction. Then, while writing my post, I found that Greener had essentially reversed his position and was then agreeing with the other testimony, supporting the idea that the FBI knew about the Oswald Tag first, before the newspapers learned of it. Leaving just your statement at odds.

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

So my question for you, Bernie, is this: Where am I wrong regarding this issue? What between the two horizontal dashed lines above is incorrect? I can't see anything that is wrong and that's the reason I ask.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just an observation (not sure it answers the good questions raised) but for me, Hoover's single strongest instinct was always to protect the FBI and his continued Agency existence and reputation. What if this behavior is not connected to either a plot or cover-up? The FBI is being blackmailed (by the plotters) because of Oswald's previous affiliations (informant, paid interloper, interviewed/ well-known by the FBI, etc.) The plotters obviously knew this (e.g. Harvey comes to mind) and understood that the FBI/Hoover would do everything in their power to deflect any criticism or links. I also recall a cogent comment (not sure who) about why a ceremonial Mannlicher-Carcano (of all the rifles in the universe) was ultimately chosen as the smoking gun... to somehow taunt or embarrass the FBI.

The 6.5mm Carcano was referred to as the "Humanitarian Rifle", a name was given to it by the Italian troops who carried it because of its inability to kill its target. The rifling in the barrels were fouled with lead to the point of making the rifle inaccurate... the bullets did not expand when they hit enemy soldiers; the bullets passed through an enemy combatant and caused little damage. In fact, it was designed to cause limited damage in a wound. Apparently the Italian authorities knew that this was a carbine that "couldn't hit the water from a boat". Perhaps there is an "inside" joke embedded in this particular ineffective weapon being chosen as the immortal smoking gun (Angleton and his affiliations with the Italians comes to mind).

There were many rifles being considered as the murder weapon. The story of an Oswald impostor's attempt to purchase a rifle from Castro's close friend, Robert McKeown, in September, 1963 suggests that the choice of a rifle to be placed on the 6th floor of the TSBD had not yet been made. The rifle shown on the Life magazine cover was a rare model known as a Moschettieri del Duce Carcano... a ceremonial rifle of Mussolini's Guard, of which only a few hundred were ever made. Again, the choice of this particular weapon simply fascinates me.

The Post Box evidence is not the only evidence offered (by the Warren Report) to link Oswald to the Carcano. Other evidence includes the infamous "backyard photographs" (acquired by Life form an "unknown" DPD officer), the testimony of the DeMohrenschildts and Marina, the mysterious contents of the brown paper bag Oswald is alleged to have carried into the TSBD on the day of the assassination, the analysis of the handwriting on the Klein's order slip and the apparent linkage between Oswald and the A. Hidell alias.

Also, there was a deliberate attempt to initially pass the murder weapon off as a Mauser. Three days after the assassination, a CIA report (surfaced in 1976) identified the gun as a Mauser. CIA somehow saw a need (even after two days) to slowly back off of the Mauser story but keep things confused by not yet committing fully to the 6.5-millimetre Mannlicher-Carcano. For some, this leads to Senator Thomas Dodd who had been investigating arms from mail order houses to help Congress to stem unregulated arms traffic. Dodd, was a former FBI agent and long-time J. Edgar Hoover loyalist. He was also a leading member of the Cuba Lobby (evolved from the right-wing China Lobby) through which he was in touch with Cuban-exile mercenaries. After the assassination. Dodd (a member of the American Security Council) helped the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee publish a story that Oswald bad been trained at a KGB assassination school in Minsk.

Perhaps the selection of the right patsy was not determined right away. There were initial reports of three different models of rifle being the murder weapon. The first was a British Enfield, which could be linked to Buell Wesley Frazier. The second was a German Mauser, which could be linked to Caster, Truly and Shelley.
The third was the Mannlicher Carcano... infamously linked back to Alex Hidell that linked back to Oswald.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the one hand, the fake rifle purchase seems to have been a part of the cover up... not engineered by the assassination plotters. Because it seemingly wasn't planned beforehand. On the other hand, it was initiated so quickly that it's hard to believe it could have been a part of the cover-up.

Does anybody have a plausible explanation for this?

Somebody left a Mannlicher-carano rifle on the sixth floor, but the bulk of this stuff was surely part of the cover-up and not the original assassination plan.
The original plan, I think, was to provoke an invasion of Cuba by tying the murder weapon to Fidel Castro. Remember the secret HSCA testimony of Castro's friend and weapon supplier Robert McKeown (who refused to testify until granted full immunity).
McKeown said that on Labor Day weekend in 1963 a guy who introduced himself as “Lee Oswald” offered to pay as much as $10,000 for four .300 Savage rifles with scopes. At the time, McKeown was on parole on federal charges of Cuban gunrunning, and he smelled a rat when offered an absurd amount of money for the guns, and he immediately declined the numerous offers from “Oswald.”
But the conspirators' plan was surely to associate a weapon from Fidel Castro's personal friend and gunrunner with the murder of JFK. When that plan was thwarted, they had to improvise, and it shows. The Magic Rifle (that shot Magic Bullets) and that was paid for with a Magic Money Order, was probably weakest element of an otherwise brilliant plan.
As for the rapidity of the cover-up, bear in mind that the FBI's publicly verifiable announcements indicate that, after announcing within hours of the hit that the handwriting on the Kleins' order form was that of “Lee Harvey Oswald,” the FBI had not determined the price of the rifle until nearly a week later. Kleins was, at the time, the largest source for mail order rifles in the nation. It seems pretty clear that J. Edgar Hoover made his announcement of Oswald's guilt immediately, and then cooked up and backdated the docs to support the proclamation in the days that followed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A key question is, why did the FBI fabricate so many documents, as John Armstrong alleges?

I believe Armstrong's allegations are correct.

I don't believe any FBI employee had a hand in killing JFK. The cover-up is another matter. So why did FBI agents fabricate those documents? I believe Hoover didn't want any official conclusion other than that LHO killed JFK acting alone. No one in any position of power in the U.S. government wanted any other conclusion. I believe the plotters anticipated this unfolding of events; which tells me the plotters had an unerring take on D.C. power politics.

That narrows the field for me.

Hoover MAY not have had foreknowledge of the assassination, but he sure as hell had known for years about what CIA accountant James Wilcott called "the Oswald Project." It speaks volumes that Hoover had FBI agents confiscating "Lee Harvey Oswald's" elementary school records and teen-aged employment records within hours of the assassination of JFK, yet took no verifiable steps to determine whether others were involved in the hit or whether other government officials were targets. Compare this behavior to what happened after Lincoln's assassination.

As to the number of documents created and backdated by the FBI... this is really interesting. My guess is that this sort of thing is standard operating procedure for all sorts law enforcement agencies, here and abroad. If true, this is the sort of information that has to be quashed by the State at any cost whatsoever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just an observation (not sure it answers the good questions raised) but for me, Hoover's single strongest instinct was always to protect the FBI and his continued Agency existence and reputation. What if this behavior is not connected to either a plot or cover-up? The FBI is being blackmailed (by the plotters) because of Oswald's previous affiliations (informant, paid interloper, interviewed/ well-known by the FBI, etc.) The plotters obviously knew this (e.g. Harvey comes to mind) and understood that the FBI/Hoover would do everything in their power to deflect any criticism or links. I also recall a cogent comment (not sure who) about why a ceremonial Mannlicher-Carcano (of all the rifles in the universe) was ultimately chosen as the smoking gun... to somehow taunt or embarrass the FBI.

The 6.5mm Carcano was referred to as the "Humanitarian Rifle", a name was given to it by the Italian troops who carried it because of its inability to kill its target. The rifling in the barrels were fouled with lead to the point of making the rifle inaccurate... the bullets did not expand when they hit enemy soldiers; the bullets passed through an enemy combatant and caused little damage. In fact, it was designed to cause limited damage in a wound. Apparently the Italian authorities knew that this was a carbine that "couldn't hit the water from a boat". Perhaps there is an "inside" joke embedded in this particular ineffective weapon being chosen as the immortal smoking gun (Angleton and his affiliations with the Italians comes to mind).

There were many rifles being considered as the murder weapon. The story of an Oswald impostor's attempt to purchase a rifle from Castro's close friend, Robert McKeown, in September, 1963 suggests that the choice of a rifle to be placed on the 6th floor of the TSBD had not yet been made. The rifle shown on the Life magazine cover was a rare model known as a Moschettieri del Duce Carcano... a ceremonial rifle of Mussolini's Guard, of which only a few hundred were ever made. Again, the choice of this particular weapon simply fascinates me.

The Post Box evidence is not the only evidence offered (by the Warren Report) to link Oswald to the Carcano. Other evidence includes the infamous "backyard photographs" (acquired by Life form an "unknown" DPD officer), the testimony of the DeMohrenschildts and Marina, the mysterious contents of the brown paper bag Oswald is alleged to have carried into the TSBD on the day of the assassination, the analysis of the handwriting on the Klein's order slip and the apparent linkage between Oswald and the A. Hidell alias.

Also, there was a deliberate attempt to initially pass the murder weapon off as a Mauser. Three days after the assassination, a CIA report (surfaced in 1976) identified the gun as a Mauser. CIA somehow saw a need (even after two days) to slowly back off of the Mauser story but keep things confused by not yet committing fully to the 6.5-millimetre Mannlicher-Carcano. For some, this leads to Senator Thomas Dodd who had been investigating arms from mail order houses to help Congress to stem unregulated arms traffic. Dodd, was a former FBI agent and long-time J. Edgar Hoover loyalist. He was also a leading member of the Cuba Lobby (evolved from the right-wing China Lobby) through which he was in touch with Cuban-exile mercenaries. After the assassination. Dodd (a member of the American Security Council) helped the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee publish a story that Oswald bad been trained at a KGB assassination school in Minsk.

Perhaps the selection of the right patsy was not determined right away. There were initial reports of three different models of rifle being the murder weapon. The first was a British Enfield, which could be linked to Buell Wesley Frazier. The second was a German Mauser, which could be linked to Caster, Truly and Shelley.

The third was the Mannlicher Carcano... infamously linked back to Alex Hidell that linked back to Oswald.

Gene,

Speaking of 6.5 mm Carcano Model 91/38 carbines in general (not just about "Oswald''s" / the one allegedly found on the 6th floor), did they have a reputation of being both inaccurate and too penetrating on a body-shot at 100 yards, or just too penetrating (i.e. the bullet didn't do enough damage to kill the person it hit)?

Yes, I know "Oswald's Carcano" had a scope that was mounted in a funky way because of the configuration and action of the bolt, and that the scope was apparently even aligned improperly, or had been knocked out of alignment. But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about those carbines in general. They were pretty accurate, weren't they?

--Tommy :sun

Edited by Thomas Graves

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only point of John Armstrong's article with which I disagree is John's statement that Klein's could not have been paid by First National Bank of Chicago ("First") in the absence of First's stamp on the PMO.

All that was necessary for Klein's to be paid (credited) was Klein's endorsement.

The problem here was for First. If it didn't stamp the PMO, it would not have been credited by the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago.

The Klein's deposit slip, BTW, is no proof whatsoever Klein's got paid (credited) by First. In case of doubt, make out your own deposit slip, and tell me whether the deposit slip by itself is proof your account has been credited by your bank.

The only proof of crediting is a bank statement. Let's see Klein's bank statement(s) for the period in question. Let's see First's statement(s) for the period in question.

Show me a Klein's bank statement showing Klein's got paid for the A. Hidell PMO, and I'll shut up. Show me a First bank statement showing that First got credited by the FRB of Chicago for the Hidell PMO, and I'll shut up. Yeah, it's that serious, that important.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only point of John Armstrong's article with which I disagree is John's statement that Klein's could not have been paid by First National Bank of Chicago ("First") in the absence of First's stamp on the PMO.

All that was necessary for Klein's to be paid (credited) was Klein's endorsement.

The problem here was for First. If it didn't stamp the PMO, it would not have been credited by the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago.

The Klein's deposit slip, BTW, is no proof whatsoever Klein's got paid (credited) by First. In case of doubt, make out your own deposit slip, and tell me whether the deposit slip by itself is proof your account has been credited by your bank.

The only proof of crediting is a bank statement. Let's see Klein's bank statement(s) for the period in question. Let's see First's statement(s) for the period in question.

Show me a Klein's bank statement showing Klein's got paid for the A. Hidell PMO, and I'll shut up. Show me a First bank statement showing that First got credited by the FRB of Chicago for the Hidell PMO, and I'll shut up. Yeah, it's that serious, that important.

You are correct, sir.

A deposit ticket ONLY proves that someone wrote a deposit ticket...same as the fact that an entry in a check register only shows that someone wrote in a check register [often mistakenly assumed by the uninformed as "proof" that a payment was made].

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW, regarding the accusation that Ryder lied about conversing with newspaper man Schmidt, I have three comments:

  1. Ryder claimed he wouldn't talk to Schmidt. He even took the phone off the hook.
  2. Schimdt claimed that he did talk to Ryder, and that an associate listened in on the whole conversation.
  3. I only skimmed the article. But from what I saw, I couldn't tell who was lying.
  4. Why would somebody listen in on the conversation? I couldn't tell from the testimony, but if this associate heard BOTH sides of the conversation, to me this stinks. Maybe to provide later corroboration for a conversation that didn't really happen? I wish I had time to delve into this.

EDIT: Oops... Bernie not Ernie. So sorry.

Hi Andy, (...sorry I couldn't resist it)

I didn't copy the full thread because it's annoying for members. I've uploaded a portion of CE 1334 on MFF (I hope it turns up in the right place...).

post-6223-0-45216600-1454715530_thumb.png

If not, please follow the link.

http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1317&search=ryder#relPageId=571&tab=page

This conclusively proves that the media were first informed via an anonymous tip off to a Ray Johns of WFAA-TV on the 24th Nov who then passed on the info to the DPD. Schmidt, the reporter who rang Ryder, was told of the tip off on turning up for work on the 28th, but you are correct in saying that on the 25th an FBI agent had already interviewed Ryder. He swore he had had told no one of this tag except his wife and he categorically denied talking to the media.

So you have to ask who is telling the truth. Because one is black and the other is white. Schmidt says he definitely had a conversation with Ryder. Ryder completely denies it and says he put the phone down. Schmidt says Ryder provided him with all the salient points about the price and the type of repairs required, which turned out to be spot on, Ryder completely denies it.

So where did Schmidt get this information from? The only people who had that info was Ryder, his wife, and whoever gave the tip off. Yet a county reporter also independently knew about this tag too, and didn't need to talk to Ryder to get his story?

Let's assume for one moment that someone else, someone who knew about an Oswald getting a gun repaired; not Ryder, not Schmidt, but some other dark player, and he/she was the source of this info... surely they would have contacted the DPD directly, (albeit anonymously) and not a media outlet!

I have no proof but common sense tells me it was either Ryder or his wife who first furnished the information to the media. Only they had that information at that time. Why he/she/they would do this is anyone's guess. But you cannot really draw any other conclusions.

As for doppelgangers and H&L I made reference to wasn't in response to anything you had written Sandy, but a more general response to the originator of the topic who linked an article by John Armstrong, the creator of Harvey & Lee.

The whole implication, knowing how devoted to the H&L theory John and Jim are, is that somehow somebody in the FBI had prior knowledge of the gun shop saga, and of someone purporting to be LHO. It is sold as a "mystery" as to how the FBI could have come by this information yet the chain of evidence showing this hasn't been explained in the original article. That surprises me because other parts of the article are extremely well researched. Funny that the bit that shows exactly how the FBI came to know of this gun shop tag is left dangling in mid air and sold off as a mystery.

Best regards...

Edited by Bernie Laverick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the one hand, the fake rifle purchase seems to have been a part of the cover up... not engineered by the assassination plotters. Because it seemingly wasn't planned beforehand. On the other hand, it was initiated so quickly that it's hard to believe it could have been a part of the cover-up.

Does anybody have a plausible explanation for this?

I would guess it depends on whether you feel the purpose of the incrimination of Oswald was to implicate Castro and expose a Castro backed conspiracy with numerous players... or not.

There appears to be very good evidence for a Phase 1 to Phase 2 transition very quickly afterward which may render phase 1 only a tactic to achieve multiple ends or truly a planned and desired option - that's for you to decide.

When properly investigated as a cuban/oswald conspiracy many of the events John illuminates fit neatly into that story such as McKeown's Oswald and Cuban visitor, the Cubans in DP with whoever it was they picked up and on the flip side Gaudet's confirmation of Bannister and Oswald showing him playing both sides, iow an intelligence asset.

Odio's story becomes clear to further connect Oswald with Cubans as does the bogus Mexico City evidence offered prior to Nov 22.

According to the Tale of Two Tapes the decision that it was Oswald alone comes well within 5 hours of the shooting and is conveyed by Bundy to AF-1 and the Cabinet plane. Even if you don't fully accept that it was clear that DC was putting out the Ozzie alone story quickly... maybe too quickly to not see it being carefully planned - thereby making the Castro elements an insurance policy of sorts.

The Dodd committee was already working thru Klein's and with Waldman.

The real evidence of the transaction is woefully thin and self corroborating in that of these supposed 100 rifles, their existence at Kleins is established by:

1. the Feb 22 notation on the changed order,

2. Westra's two pages of VC #'s and

3. 10 packing slips which were entered into evidence by both Feldsott in Nov and Waldman in March for two completely different things.

That's it. Nothing gets the rifle from Rupp to Kleins even though those records are required of gun dealers.

Not one of the other 99 rifles has ever been seen. Not one of the 100 rifles was exchanged or repaired by Rupp before shipment.

Not one order for the FC rifle between April 63 and Nov 63 is found.

No other evidence is offered to support any other rifle than C2766's incrimination of Oswald was ever at Kleins...

Not one of the rifles on that list of 99 remaining serial numbers has ever been seen.

Not one order for a C20-T750 from Feb 62 thru Feb 63 is ever offered to illustrate what they did when those orders came in... Klein's sold rifles... hard to accept they advertise a rifle for a year and don't sell but one, documented, to the assassin of the president. And the microfilm which contained these 900+ orders including Hidell's is no longer in its box at the Archives - again, per John's visit there.

We learn in an unsigned FBI report that Waldman claims to have removed all the remaining inventory of that rifle feeling it not right to sell them.

And that's the end of the rifle trail... they simply vanish.... Of course if there is info I don't have or couldn't find that shows I'm mistaken I'd love to correct and update my work...

Anyone know of anyone who has ever seen or even claims to have owned another one of those 99 rifles?

I've presented my thoughts and evidence in articles at CTKA... suffice to say, I see much more FBI, SS, USPS and I&NS scrambling and cobbling together ways to change evidence which was to put Ozzie into a Castro backed assassination plan, into an Ozzie alone plan - much of this Castro related evidence the domain and creation of the CIA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW, regarding the accusation that Ryder lied about conversing with newspaper man Schmidt, I have three comments:

  1. Ryder claimed he wouldn't talk to Schmidt. He even took the phone off the hook.
  2. Schimdt claimed that he did talk to Ryder, and that an associate listened in on the whole conversation.
  3. I only skimmed the article. But from what I saw, I couldn't tell who was lying.
  4. Why would somebody listen in on the conversation? I couldn't tell from the testimony, but if this associate heard BOTH sides of the conversation, to me this stinks. Maybe to provide later corroboration for a conversation that didn't really happen? I wish I had time to delve into this.

EDIT: Oops... Bernie not Ernie. So sorry.

Hi Andy, (...sorry I couldn't resist it)

I didn't copy the full thread because it's annoying for members. I've uploaded a portion of CE 1334 on MFF (I hope it turns up in the right place...).

attachicon.gifgun shop riddle.PNG

If not, please follow the link.

http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1317&search=ryder#relPageId=571&tab=page

This conclusively proves that the media were first informed via an anonymous tip off to a Ray Johns of WFAA-TV on the 24th Nov who then passed on the info to the DPD. Schmidt, the reporter who rang Ryder, was told of the tip off on turning up for work on the 28th, but you are correct in saying that on the 25th an FBI agent had already interviewed Ryder. He swore he had had told no one of this tag except his wife and he categorically denied talking to the media.

So you have to ask who is telling the truth. Because one is black and the other is white. Schmidt says he definitely had a conversation with Ryder. Ryder completely denies it and says he put the phone down. Schmidt says Ryder provided him with all the salient points about the price and the type of repairs required, which turned out to be spot on, Ryder completely denies it.

So where did Schmidt get this information from? The only people who had that info was Ryder, his wife, and whoever gave the tip off. Yet a county reporter also independently knew about this tag too, and didn't need to talk to Ryder to get his story?

Let's assume for one moment that someone else, someone who knew about an Oswald getting a gun repaired; not Ryder, not Schmidt, but some other dark player, and he/she was the source of this info... surely they would have contacted the DPD directly, (albeit anonymously) and not a media outlet!

I have no proof but common sense tells me it was either Ryder or his wife who first furnished the information to the media. Only they had that information at that time. Why he/she/they would do this is anyone's guess. But you cannot really draw any other conclusions.

As for doppelgangers and H&L I made reference to wasn't in response to anything you had written Sandy, but a more general response to the originator of the topic who linked an article by John Armstrong, the creator of Harvey & Lee.

The whole implication, knowing how devoted to the H&L theory John and Jim are, is that somehow somebody in the FBI had prior knowledge of the gun shop saga, and of someone purporting to be LHO. It is sold as a "mystery" as to how the FBI could have come by this information yet the chain of evidence showing this hasn't been explained in the original article. That surprises me because other parts of the article are extremely well researched. Funny that the bit that shows exactly how the FBI came to know of this gun shop tag is left dangling in mid air and sold off as a mystery.

Best regards...

Thanks Bernie for bringing that document to my attention. Now I understand the Dial Ryder story a little better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

David Josephs:

Not one of the other 99 rifles has ever been seen. Not one of the 100 rifles was exchanged or repaired by Rupp before shipment.

Not one order for the FC rifle between April 63 and Nov 63 is found.

No other evidence is offered to support any other rifle than C2766's incrimination of Oswald was ever at Kleins...

A very important point which gets ignored too often.

So one has to ask WHY?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you Jim and David for your excellent responses to my question. They give me some food for thought. They also remind me that I need to study more if I want to better understand the assassination/cover-up transition. Every other JFK-assassination-related topic I've studied has rewarded me with a surprisingly clear picture of that facet of the case. I have no reason to believe that it will be any different studying elements that make up the transition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole implication, knowing how devoted to the H&L theory John and Jim are, is that somehow somebody in the FBI had prior knowledge of the gun shop saga, and of someone purporting to be LHO. It is sold as a "mystery" as to how the FBI could have come by this information yet the chain of evidence showing this hasn't been explained in the original article. That surprises me because other parts of the article are extremely well researched. Funny that the bit that shows exactly how the FBI came to know of this gun shop tag is left dangling in mid air and sold off as a mystery.

Bernie,

It's not so much a devotion to H&L as it is a reading of the evidence, which amounts to hundreds (maybe even thousands) of little details. As just one little example from HarveyandLee.net....

LEE OSWALD: two scars from a gunshot wound

On October 27, 1957 Richard Cyr was standing about 15 yards from his barracks in Atsugi, Japan and heard a gunshot. Cyr and other marines ran into the building and found (LEE) Oswald sitting on his locker with a nickel-plated .22 derringer laying nearby on the floor. (LEE) Oswald said, "It seems as though I've shot myself." Oswald was taken to the sick bay for treatment and then taken to the U.S. Navy Hospital in nearby Yokosuku. A Navy surgeon closed the wound with stitches and allowed the .22 slug, which lay just below the surface on the back side of Oswald's upper left arm, to remain in his arm. A week later, on November 4, Dr. Greenlees made an incision on the back side of Oswald's arm, removed the .22 caliber slug, and closed the wound with stitches which were removed 10 days later. LEE Oswald had two incisions and now had two scars.

After (HARVEY) Oswald was killed by Jack Ruby on November 24, 1963, an autopsy was performed by Dr. Earl Rose of Dallas. Dr. Rose listed and described numerous small scars on Oswald's body, including "a pale, white, oblique 1/4 inch scar." But nowhere, in the lengthly and precise autopsy report, did Dr. Rose observe or report any scars on Oswald's left arm. Photographs were taken of Oswalds arms, but show no scars from a bullet wound.

After the autopsy, (HARVEY) Oswald was taken to the funeral home where he was embalmed and prepared for burial by mortician Paul Groody. Groody was subsequently interviewed by the Secret Service and asked if there were any scars on Oswald's arms and he (Groody) repeatedly said there were no scars on Oswald's upper left arm.

Can you explain why two scars from a six-year-old gunshot wound would be missed by both Rose and Groody?

Also, I read the page from the Mary Ferrell site about Ryder, but didn't see where the FBI claimed the ticket was from a different Oswald. Does that claim exist? If it does, I'll try to remember to bring it to JA's attention.

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...