Gil Jesus

EVIDENCE THAT THE DEPOSITORY RIFLE WAS NOT THE RIFLE IN THE FAMOUS "BACKYARD" PHOTOGRAPH The Sling Mount One of the inconsistencies in the evidence regarding the rifle is the obvious difference in the sling mounts between the rifle found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository and the rifle depicted in the famous "backyard photographs", CE 133-A thru C. As the reader can see, the Depository rifle, CE 139, had side mounts for the sling both front and rear: While the rifle in the backyard photos obviously has a bottom mount for the sling in front. CE 133-B also shows the "rope sling" apparently tied to the bottom of the front of the rifle. Had it been tied to a front side sling mount, the knots especially the rear knot, would have been on the "Oswald side" of the rifle and out of the camera's view. Likewise, CE 133-C also shows the rope tied to the bottom of the rifle at the front and not the side. Although some may argue that the rear sling mount was attached to the side, whether or not it was is irrelevant because the Depository rifle did not have two different types of sling mounts. What IS relevant is the difference between the front sling mount which is on the bottom in the backyard photos and the front sling mount on the Depository rifle which is on the side. Lyndal Shaneyfelt, the FBI photography expert testified that he had taken photographs of CE 139 ( the depository rifle ) and compared them to the rifle in CE 133-A ( the "backyard photo" ). He told the Commission: "...I did not find any really specific peculiarities on which I could base a positive identification to the exclusion of all other rifles of the same general configuration." ( 4 H 281 ) In other words, he couldn't positively identify the Depository rifle as the one in the "backyard photograph". Big surprise, huh ? But wait, we're not done yet. The House Select Committee on Assassinations Photographic experts found that in examining the photos, there were distinctive marks on the rifle in the DeMohrenschildt and CE 134 "backyard" photos that matched the Depository rifle. ( 2 HSCA 428 ) But what about the difference in the sling mounts ? It was never addressed. TOMORROW: THE SCOPE THAT WAS NEVER MOUNTED

EVIDENCE THAT THE DEPOSITORY RIFLE WAS NOT FIRED ON NOVEMBER 22, 1963　 Normally, an investigator examining a weapon to determine if it has been fired, will look first at the outside of the weapon. A visual examination of the condition of the weapon, including an examination of the condition of the firing pin. Next, he examines the inside of the weapon, checking the inside of the barrel and examining the inside of the operating mechanism, the bolt and its parts. In his testimony, FBI firearms expert Robert Frazier testified that he observed that the inside of the barrel of the Depository rifle was "roughened from corrosion", then connected the "corrosion" to rust with his comment that "if a barrel is allowed to rust, one round will remove that rust." So how could the barrel have surface rust after THREE rounds had been fired through it ? The Rusted BarrelMr. FRAZIER. The stock is worn, scratched. The bolt is relatively smooth, as if it had been operated several times. I cannot actually say how much use the weapon has had. The barrel is--was not, when we first got it, in excellent condition. It was, I would say, in fair condition. In other words, it showed the effects of wear and corrosion. ( 3 H 394 ) Frazier was then asked to be more specific on the condition of the rifle barrel when he first got it for inspection. Mr. McCLOY. When you examined the rifle the first time, you said that it showed signs of some corrosion and wear? Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir. Mr. McCLOY. Was it what you would call pitted, were the lands in good shape? Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; the lands and the grooves were worn, the corners were worn, and the interior of the surface was roughened from corrosion or wear. Mr. McCLOY. Could you say roughly how many rounds you think had been fired since it left the factory, with the condition of the barrel as you found it? Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; I could not, because the number of rounds is not an indication of the condition of the barrel, since IF A BARREL IS ALLOWED TO RUST, ONE ROUND WILL REMOVE THAT RUST and wear the barrel to the same extent as 10 or 15 or 50 rounds just fired through a clean barrel. ( 3 H 395 )Frazier KNEW when he visually inspected the rifle that rust in the barrel meant that the rifle had not been fired, because just one round fired through it would have removed all rust. The fact that he visually saw rust in the barrel made it clear to him that there was no need to conduct a "swab test" to test for metal shavings and fouling in the barrel. Mr. McCLOY. Was there metal fouling in the barrel? Mr. FRAZIER. I did not examine it for that. ( ibid. ) Had Frazier visually examined the barrel and found no rust, it would have been standard procedure to next do the "swab test" to determine if there was no rust because the barrel was clean or because a bullet had passed through it. The "swab test" would have detected any metal shavings from the bullet's jacket and gunpowder residue ( fouling ). A clean swab from a barrel with no rust would have proven the rifle had not been fired, while a swab with residue would have proven that it had. The ONLY thing that would have prevented Frazier from doing the swab test would have been if his visual inspection had revealed that the inside of the barrel was rusted and thus that no bullet had passed through the barrel in the last 24 hours. If there is any question as to whether or not the inside of the barrel was susceptible to rust, that question was answered by the Firearms Panel of the House Select Committee on Assassinations in the 1970's. The Panel examined the C2766 rifle before it did any test firing and reported the rifle's condition: "A visual examination of the rifle revealed pitting, rust and copper oxidation to test-firing, which the panel believed should be removed prior to test-firing. Accordingly, a dry cloth patch was pushed through the bore. ( 7 HSCA 365 )So the inside of the barrel ( "the bore" ) showed "pitting, rust and copper oxidation" as a result of the rifle having not been fired since the last "test-firing", some 13 years previously. This is what happened to this barrel from non-use --- it rusted. But it wasn't the only part of the rifle which contained rust. The Rusted BoltNot only was there rust on the inside of the barrel, rust that should not have been there if the rifle had been fired ONCE ( never mind THREE times ), Ronald Simmons' testimony indicates that the bolt was also rusted: Mr. EISENBERG. Did they make any comments concerning the weapon? Mr. SIMMONS. Yes; there were several comments made particularly with respect to the amount of effort required to open the bolt. As a matter of fact, Mr. Staley had, difficulty in opening the bolt in his first firing exercise. He thought it was completely up and it was not, and he had to retrace his steps as he attempted to open the bolt after the first round. ( 3 H 447 ) The obvious way of "getting the rust out", is by operating the bolt in a "dry run ". They unloaded the weapon and each shooter "worked" the bolt back and forth in a "practice exercise" for 2-3 minutes each BEFORE he began firing.That's a total of 6-9 minutes to free it from its rust. The bolt was so rusted that operating it tended to move the rifle off target. Of course, the more you use the bolt, the freer it becomes and the faster the elapsed times are for the shooters.Mr. SIMMONS. .....the pressure to open the bolt was so great that we tended to move the rifle off the target, whereas with greater proficiency this might not have occurred. Mr. EISENBERG. Could this experience in operating the bolt be achieved in dry practice, Mr. Simmons? Mr. SIMMONS. Yes; it could be, if sufficient practice were used. There is some indication of the magnitude of change with one of our shooters who in his second attempt fired three-tenths of a second less time than he did in the first.( 3 H 449 ) The rusted firing pinThe firing pin was rusted so badly, that they were afraid it might break. Mr. EISENBERG. How much practice had they had with the weapon, Exhibit 139, before they began firing? Mr. SIMMONS. They had each attempted the exercise without the use of ammunition, and had worked the bolt as they tried the exercise. They had not pulled the trigger during the exercise, however, because we were a little concerned about breaking the firing pin. Mr. EISENBERG. Could you give us an estimate of how much time they used in this dry-run practice, each? Mr. SIMMONS. They used no more than 2 or 3 minutes each. (ibid.) CE 2974 states that there was rust on the firing pin of the rifle and "This rust would have been disturbed had the firing pin been changed...". Who said the firing pin had been changed ? What the FBI was saying is that there was "undisturbed rust" on the firing pin. That rust would have been disturbed had the firing pin been moved in the previous 24 hours.You had to move it to change it. Rust could not have formed on the rifle AFTER the assassination. Frazier testified that he examined it on the day after Kennedy was murdered, not enough time for rust to have settled in:Mr. McCLOY. How soon after the assassination did you examine this rifle? Mr. FRAZIER. We received the rifle the following morning. Mr. McCLOY. Received it in Washington? Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir. Mr. McCLOY. And you immediately made your examination of it then? Mr. FRAZIER. We made an examination of it at that time, and kept it temporarily in the laboratory. ( 3 H 395 )Frazier testified that when he examined the rifle the FIRST TIME, on the day after the assassination, he found that the inside of the barrel had been "roughened" by corrosion and wear. Then he referenced the effect of what ONE SHOT would have on a rusted barrel. Why would he do this if the "roughened surface" he saw on the inside of the barrel wasn't rust ? What connection could there be between a rusted barrel and the "roughened" barrel of Oswald's rifle other than that the two were both rusted ? If the inside of the barrel of the Depository rifle was rusted or had ANY rust in it, then NOT A SINGLE ROUND HAD BEEN FIRED FROM IT IN THE PREVIOUS 24 HOURS. Meaning that it had not been fired. Meaning that it wasn't the murder weapon. Now you know why the FBI never did a "swab test" of the inside of the barrel to determine if the rifle had been fired. A swab test would have detected copper fouling in the barrel. With a rusted barrel and undisturbed rust on the firing pin, there was no need to check to see if the rifle had been fired recently. Robert Frazier's testimony suggests that the rifle he saw on November 23rd had rust in the barrel. When he saw that there was rust in the barrel and rust on the firing pin and spring, he knew that the rifle had not been fired. So he had no reason to check the barrel for metal fouling. They knew that this weapon had not been fired, so they sent it back to the Dallas Police. Ronald Simmons' testimony is even more compelling regarding the issue of rust, this time, with the bolt. Simmons testified that the bolt was so difficult to operate that the shooters had to take 2 or 3 minutes EACH before shooting to work the bolt back and forth in a "dry-run exercise", exactly like one would use to loosen a rusted part. The ease of operation of the bolt was essential in their attempts to obtain the elapsed time required for one gunman to have performed the killing. There is no way that one gunman, whether it was Oswald or anyone else, could have fired three shots from that rifle in the required time with the bolt in the condition as Simmons described it. It all adds up to this: The condition of the rifle that the Dallas Police sent to the FBI on the night of the assassination was such that it was not capable of performing the assassination of President Kennedy and the wounding of Governor Connally. The FBI knew this and sent it back to the Dallas Police. TOMORROW: EVIDENCE THAT THE DEPOSITORY RIFLE WAS NOT THE RIFLE IN THE FAMOUS "BACKYARD" PHOTGRAPHS

Does anybody know where I can find copies of the money orders Oswald used to pay back the State Department ? I'm particularly interested in seeing if those money orders have bank stamps on them. My searches are coming up empty and I don't even know if they exist. Anyone know anything about them ? Thanks in advance.

Thanks Ben. I appreciate it.

Thanks, George. I got it and appreciate your help. Peace.

Pete, not to brag but I've been studying this murder off-and-on for a long time. I've taken lot of blows from "Oswald-did-it-and-if-you-don't-believe-that-you're-a-kook" crowd. But I believe in the truth and I'm here to find it and present it to anyone with the courage to listen. Some of this stuff may be new to some readers, while others might just yawn. But for a new generation of researchers and parties interested in the assassination, I think I can bring something to the table to help them understand what a miscarriage of justice this case is. And I'm here to help my colleagues in any way I can. If that means correcting misinformation when I see it, so be it. I'll share any of my research with anyone who wants it. These parts are in an .rtf file I'm using in Wordpad. It's all there in one commentary on the rifle, graphics included. It's just so long that I'm posting it in parts. If you want a copy of it, I could e-mail it to you when I've got it all posted, maybe the middle to the end of next week. Just send me a message with your e-mail address when I'm done and I'll send it along.

Jim, excellent point and you're absolutely right. you couldn't get that money order from Dallas to Chicago overnight. Not even if you took it there yourself. Back then they had air mail, but you had to pay extra. No way it could get there overnight on regular postage charges. They really believed that people would only read the report and not the 26 volumes. And their agenda was to prove Oswald guilty, not find the truth. Thank God we had lawyers like Mark Lane and Jim Garrison who read the testimony, looked at the exhibits and knew the case against Oswald was phony. I'm a strong believer that this money order never made it to Klein's bank. There's no stamp on it from any financial institution and no evidence that it was ever paid on. The Klein's stamp, I believe was stamped after the assassination, for all of the reasons I've mentioned. Just because it was postmarked, doesn't mean it was mailed. Especially with a snake like Holmes in the PO.

Why can't I post an image any bigger than a postage stamp ?

Oswald's handwriting Two experts gave testimony to the WC concerning questioned documents: Alwyn Cole and James C. Cadigan. Cole apprenticed as a questioned document examiner for 6 years, from 1929 to 1935, and had been an examiner of questioned documents for the U.S. Treasury Department since then. Cadigan had been a questioned document examiner with the FBI for 23.5 years, following a specialized course of training and instruction. Both had testified many times in Federal and States courts. ( WCR, App. X, pg. 566 ) Their conclusions were identical. The mail order and envelope for the C2766 rifle were photographed by Klein's on microfilm, and then destroyed. ( ibid., pg. 569 ) The money order was never microfilmed. In his testimony, Cadigan was careful to say that CADIGAN 11 had been prepared by LHO and NOT CE 788. The reason he said it that way is because Cadigan never compared the ORIGINAL, CE 788, to Oswald's handwriting. He compared a PHOTOGRAPH of CE 788, which was Cadigan 11. ( 7 H 423 ) Likewise, Cole examined a COPY of the original, which is CE 789, and not the original, CE 788. ( 4 H 374 ) In fact, ALL of the Commission's handwriting examinations, with regard to the ordering and purchase of the rifle by BOTH Cadigan and Cole, were made of PHOTOGRAPHS of the original exhibits, not the exhibits themselves. In addition, since each handwriting expert was not trained in photographic processing, the photographs they examined were not made by the examiners themselves, but rather "under their supervision". Meaning someone else. And because someone else was involved in the "creation" of this evidence, the person or persons responsible for that creation also created a chain of custody of the evidence. Unfortunately, the chain of custody of those photos was never ESTABLISHED because those persons "under their supervision" remained unnamed, never marked the photos after they processed them and were never called to testify and identify the photos as the ones they took or to describe the technical processes they used in creating them. And for that matter, neither Cole nor Cadigan was asked any technical questions about the photos even though they admitted supervising their creation. Instead of photographic technicians, the legitimacy of the photographs were confirmed VISUALLY by the examiners, Cadigan and Cole. In spite of the lack of a chain of custody, the Commission did what it usually did numerous times in its hearings and accepted ALL of the photographs as evidence and designated them as exhibits. Both Cole and Cadigan testified that the photographs they examined were clear enough to permit an identification through examination. Their opinions covered both the copies of the standards ( the known handwriting of Lee Harvey Oswald ) and the copies of the questioned documents, like the money order. "Standards" are the known, verifiable handwriting samples that are compared to the disputed handwriting. It is important to remember that, in an examination involving disputed handwriting, the standards will make or break your case. If the examiner has poor standards, this will impact the strength of the opinion. The standards should be relevant, contemporaneous, in sufficient numbers an, as always, ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS. One type of forgery is called an Optical Transfer. "An optical transfer, in which a genuine signature is transferred onto a document by use of a photocopier, scanner, facsimile machine, or photography. With this type of forgery, an examiner cannot positively identify a signature as genuine without having the original for comparison. Indications of this type of forgery are often but not always present on a copy of the questioned document. Extreme care should be taken by anyone, especially the court system, in evaluating the veracity of documents and signatures when no original can be produced." https://4n6.com/handwriting-and-forgery-examination/ Many of the standards in the examination of Oswald's handwriting were COPIES. Signature and other handwriting identification problems examined from photocopies limit the ability of the forensic document examiner to observe evidence such as speed of execution, lifts of the writing instrument, pauses of the writing instrument and other important evidence. Reproductions from microfilm or microfiche tend to be of LESSER quality than standard photocopies. The "Oswald" documents were copies made from microfilm. The House Select Committee on Assassinations examined the Oswald handwriting using a three member panel consisting of Joseph P. McNally, David J. Purtell, and Charles C. Scott. The conclusions of the HSCA panel confirm that there are problems with comparing copies with originals. Scott concluded that while all of the original handwriting purported to be Oswald's was made by the same person, only a "tentative opinion" could be reached as to the reproductions. ( 8 HSCA 247 ) McNally agreed, saying that while the writing on the envelope and the money order matched, there was a caveat ( condition ) that the writing on the envelope was a photo reproduction from microfilm. ( 4 HSCA 355 ) Earlier he explained why the "qualifying" identification when discussing the panel's examination of Oswald's Cuban visa application. He said that because it was not an original document, it "could not be examined microscopically". ( ibid. ) During his testimony, McNally was forced to admit that copies were never as good as originals for handwriting comparison: Mr. FAUNTROY. Are photocopies as good as original handwriting for analysis purposes? Mr. McNALLY. No, never. ( 2 HSCA 393 ) David Purtell said, "Photocopies have several limitations. They do not reproduce all the fine details in handwriting needed in making an examination and comparison.....Document examiners only render a qualified or conditional opinion when working from copies. They stipulate that they have to examine the original before a definite opinion will be made." ( 8 HSCA 239 ) BTW, the money order ( Item 29 in 8 HSCA 230 ) which was examined by both McNally and Purtell was described as a XEROX COPY. ( 8 HSCA 234, 239 ) How could an Oswald signature be faked ? In his examination of the "Dear Mr. Hunt " letter for the HSCA, McNally explained it: Mr. MCNALLY. ....Oswald's general writing pattern is simple and tends to be rather legible, and to turn out something like that would be not particularly difficult. ( 4 H 360 ) On the next page, he described HOW it could be done. Mr. McNALLY. ......It could very well be a situation where this thing has been patched together from original writing of Oswald. It can be done using a photo reproduction process. ( 4 HSCA 361 ) Purtell explained further: "....it is possible to incorporate or insert changes and alterations into copies. A method frequently used is to paste together parts of documents to make one fraudulent document, which is then copied. If the first copy can pass inspection, it will be used; if not, it will be reworked to eliminate all signs of alteration. This amended copy is then recopied for the finished product. This is usually referred to as the "cut and paste" method." ( 8 HSCA 239 ) In addition, the ease with which an individual can reproduce an original genuine writing from one document onto another document using the photocopier is always a consideration. It is possible to make such a transfer with little or no evidence which would reveal such a fraudulent preparation. Finally, we should always keep in mind that a document examiner's conclusion is correctly considered a professional opinion, not evidence. The question remains who would have the capability to use a photocopier to forge someone's handwriting ? The Post Office. I say this because the Post Office was part of the FBI's counter intelligence program, COINTELLPRO. Part of that program was to intercept, open, read and copy mail from American citizens the Bureau deemed subversive. Below is a list of FBI informants. Of particular interest is that both the postal inspectors of the cities where Oswald stayed, Dallas and New Orleans, are on the list. It may be no coincidence that the name "A.Hidell" first appeared in New Orleans. I'll bet these two postal inspectors had flagged Oswald, were reading his mail going in and out of their cities and New Orleans was sharing copies of their Oswald mail with Dallas. What's also interesting is that from this list we see the FBI tracking people through the Texas Employment Commission. The FBI was tracking where Oswald lived and where he was working. Why Dallas ? Because the Dallas P.O. would have become the home office of the surveillance on Oswald when he received his first copy of The Worker. At least the HSCA had the balls to question the validity of the Oswald handwriting. The Warren Commission didn't. MONDAY: EVIDENCE THE DEPOSITORY RIFLE WASN'T FIRED ON NOVEMBER 22ND

Tony, you need to find a new source or do some research on your own instead of swallowing everything you're fed. Ron is right. Oswald rented that box. No one else. Here's the proof. CADIGAN EXHIBIT 13 -- part 2 of Oswald's application for post office box 2915 The lower PO Box application-- there's no MRS there. https://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0152b.htm

Thanks for that info. Seeing how there's no such thing as a real, live, honest-to-goodness Von Pein fan and knowing that no sane person would ever parrot anything Von Pein says, now I know who the guy is. The link's been added on my computer for future reference.

The deposit that never was : The Klein's deposit & its deposit slip　 Still another problem with the purchasing of the rifle involves the alleged deposit of the "Hidell" money order by Klein's Sporting Goods. Waldman 10 shows that the $13,000 deposit had a deposit slip of 2/15/63. If you look at that exhibit, you'll see that the date at the bottom of the bulk statement is the date "3-13"63". I believe that these two documents represent a deposit which was made on 2/15/63, and a bank statement for the period ending 3/13/63. Before the naysayers respond that the deposit slip could have been in an honest mistake, I would like to point out that BOTH the month AND the day are wrong ( if you buy the deposit being made on 3/13/63 ). I could see an error on the month at the beginning of the month, but an error on the MONTH AND DAY in the MIDDLE of a month ? IMO, it's pretty hard to believe it's an honest mistake. Besides, no bank would let such a mistake pass. From the evidence I've seen, the FBI used a 2/15/63 deposit of an American Express Money Order and tried to pass it off as a 3/13/63 deposit of a postal money order. Let me explain why I believe that. I believe that Klein's made a monthly deposits on the 15th of the month. And what we're looking at are TWO documents, dated a month apart, for the SAME deposit. the first is the February 15, 1963 deposit slip with a total of $ 13,827.98 in deposits from Klein's sporting goods to be deposited into their account in the First National Bank of Chicago. ( 21 H 706 ) The second ( the bulk statement ) appears to me to be a bank statement, mailed to Klein's ONE MONTH LATER, dated March 13, 1963 and listing all of the checks and money orders deposited on 2/15 and part of that exhibit ( Waldman 10 ) includes one other separate deposit of $ 2,116.91 , date unknown ( below ). If Klein's bank statements were tallied as of the 13th of the month, then a deposit on the 15th of February would not show up until March 13th's statement. Unfortunately, the date for this second "deposit" is cut off, making it impossible to determine its exact date. That is, I believe, why the "deposit" has two different dates. One is for the actual deposit and the other is for the bank statement received by Klein's the following month. If true, then the FBI took a bank deposit for February 15th, 1963 that included TWO items for $ 21.45 and tried to pass one of them off as a deposit of the "Hidell" money order, using the date of the statement as a date of deposit. Again, my opinion is that they couldn't have used an actual March deposit slip because there was no deposit of $ 21.45 in March. If this were a March deposit, the deposit slip should say March and the bank statement should say April. It seems to me, looking at the evidence, that Klein's never had a deposit of $ 21.45 in March of 1963 but had 2 in February. The problem with a February deposit, obviously, was that neither of the deposits could have been a "Hidell" postal money order with a postal stamp of 3/12. So the FBI took the bank statement dated 3/13/63, which was actually for the 2/15 deposit, and claimed that it was all part of a 3/13 deposit. Again, that's my opinion, based on what I've seen. Absent the dated stamp of the bank, it was IMPOSSIBLE to say when and IF the money order had been deposited. It was particularly difficult for Waldman in his testimony to nail down the WHEN. Mr. WALDMAN. ..... Now, we cannot specifically say when this money order was deposited, but on our deposit of March 13, 1963, we show an item of $21.45, as indicated on the XEROX COPY OF OUR DEPOSIT SLIP marked, or IDENTIFIED by--AS WALDMAN DEPOSITION EXHIBIT No. 10. Mr. BELIN. And I have just marked as a document what you are reading from, which appears to be a deposit with the First National Bank of Chicago by your company; is that correct? Mr. WALDMAN. That's correct. Mr. BELIN. And on that deposit, one of the items is $21.45, out of a total deposit that day of $13,827.98; is that correct ? Mr. WALDMAN. That's correct. ( 7 H 367-368 ) But there's more evidence to back up my theory. The $ 21.45 deposit they are referring to was an American Express Money Order and NOT the "Hidell" postal order because it is described IN DETAIL by Robert Wilmouth, Vice President of the First National Bank of Chicago, Klein's bank. His description is so precise that he described the entries listed before and after the "$ 21.45" in Waldman 10 to their exact penny. That's pretty credible to me. Needless to say, Robert Wilmouth never appeared on the FBI's witness list to testify before the Commission and identify the "Hidell" money order as having passed through his bank, either in live testimony or by deposition. If the deposit was made in February, as I suggest, then the $ 21.45 in Waldman 10's deposit of $ 13.827.98 couldn't possibly be the "Hidell" money order . And there's evidence showing that it wasn't. In Commission Document 7, pg. 192 ( below ) , Wilmouth told the FBI that there were TWO deposits of $ 21.45 and the one in the $ 13,827.98 deposit ( Waldman 10 ) was an American Express money order, NOT the postal money order sent by "A.Hidell". He said that "the item appeared on a tape between an item of $ 15.08 and an item of $ 14.36, precisely where David Belin put a mark on Waldman 10. https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10408#relPageId=199 Wilmouth was specific in his identification of the AmEx money order. He said that it was on a tape between deposits of $ 15.03 and $ 14.36, precisely the deposit that the WC said was the postal money order sent by "A.Hidell". That's a pretty credible witness. Tomorrow: Oswald's handwriting: Did he really fill out those forms ?

You need to find better historians. For those of us old enough to remember before the advent of "zip codes" , there were postal zones like Detroit 15, Michigan, New York 18, New York or Los Angeles, 24, California. This is what you wrote on the envelopes when you mailed them. The "12" is a postal zone. It's Dallas 12, Texas. The number has nothing to do with a machine. https://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/postal-zones-came-before-zip-codes

The handwriting will be addressed in a later part.

Thanks, Jim. I like people to see the evidence and not think I'm just handing them another line of BS.

To answer your question # 1, it could not have been mailed the night before because the money order was purchased on the 12th, so it could not have been mailed before the money order was purchased. The earliest it could have been purchased was at 8am on the 12th. You're correct in saying that the postal zone mark only reveals what post office it went through and not the individual mail box. But Harry Holmes testified that the money order was purchased at the same post office where the envelope was mailed from, the main post office. Your second statement is also correct, they should have interviewed people responsible for the handling of money orders. But they weren't doing a regular investigation here, i.e. getting to the truth, they were trying to build a case against Oswald. You and I know what steps we would have taken had we been in their places. Sadly, the more doors they didn't open, the better their case was. This is why so much of the evidence was ignored or not followed up on. Plus they had a mandate from Johnson to get it done before the '64 election.

EVIDENCE THAT OSWALD DIDN'T BUY OR MAIL THE MONEY ORDER Buying and Mailing the Money Order The next problem with the purchasing of the rifle is that at the date & time Oswald was alleged to have purchased the money order he allegedly used to pay for it and mailed the envelope containing it, he was at work at Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall. The money order was stamped that it had been purchased on March 12, 1963 and the envelope it was allegedly mailed in had a postmarked time of 10:30 am, meaning that IF Oswald bought he money order, filled it out and mailed it, he had to have accomplished it between the time the Post Office opened and the postmarked time. The problem comes in when we examine Oswald's work timesheet from Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall for March 12, 1963, the date the money order was allegedly purchased. Below is Commission Exhibit 1855 and it shows that DURING THE TIME OSWALD SHOULD HAVE BEEN PURCHASING, FILLING OUT AND MAILING THE MONEY ORDER FOR THE RIFLE, HE WAS AT WORK. ( red box ) In fact, the document shows that excluding Oswald's lunch break from 12:15-12:45pm, EVERY SINGLE MINUTE OF OSWALD'S DAY IS ACCOUNTED FOR FROM 8:00am THROUGH 5:15pm. And there is NO EVIDENCE that Oswald was late for work that day. In fact, according to his boss at JCS, he was "very punctual". MR. JENNER. Was he regular in his arrival at work? Mr. GRAEF. Yes. Mr. JENNER. Were his work habits in that connection satisfactory? Mr. GRAEF. Yes. I would say he was very punctual in his arrival to work. ( 10 H 184 ) There is also NO EVIDENCE that Oswald received a ride to work that day from a co-worker. There IS EVIDENCE from testimony, however, that when co-workers offered rides to Oswald, he declined. Mr. OFSTEIN. ..............he was also offered rides by Mr. Graef, and I offered him a ride a couple of times either to his home or wherever he wanted to catch a bus, and I know that he always declined my offer of a ride. Mr. JENNER. What did he say? Mr. OFSTEIN. He said; no, he would go ahead and walk, and usually in the evening when he would leave he would say, "I am going up to the post office to pick up my mail, and a couple of times I would offer to give him a ride up this way, as it wasn't much out of my way and I have to come in this direction anyway to Live Oak before I turn, which is only about a block difference, and he always declined to ride and would walk. ( 10 H 205 ) And there's no evidence that Oswald left work that day in order to purchase the money order and mail it. Amazingly, not one single witness was ever called to testify about Commission Exhibit 1855 and there is NO MENTION of this document in ANY of the 15 volumes of testimony. In addition, there is NO EVIDENCE that the Main Post Office opened before 8am, allowing Oswald to make his purchase prior to going to work. In fact, this document found in Box 50 of the HSCA Segregated CIA files shows that the post office window opened at 8:00 am: The fact is there's no evidence that Oswald lied on his timesheet. There's no evidence that Oswald was late for work on March 12th. And there's no evidence that Oswald was at the post office at 8:00 am. We know the post office window opened at 8:00 am and the record shows that Oswald was at work at 8:00 am. The burden of proof is on Oswald's accusers: if they can prove that Oswald was not at work and at the post office at 8 am on March 12, 1963, let's see their evidence. As if Oswald not having the time to purchase, fill out and mail the money order wasn't enough, the next problem is that the money order was not mailed at the post office from where it was purchased, but it was mailed instead THREE POSTAL ZONES AWAY. An examination of the postmark on the envelope indicates that it was mailed in postal zone 12, when Oswald worked and allegedly purchased the money order in postal zone 1. And there is NO EVIDENCE that Oswald gave the envelope to someone else to mail. The Warrenatti have argued that the timesheet was not an accurate depiction of time spent but to argue that is to say that Jagger-Childs-Stovall was intentionally overcharging some customers while undercharging others. Then the question becomes: if the timesheets are not accurate, why use them at all ? Why not just have employees punch in and punch out ? Harry Houdini Dallas Postal Inspector Harry Holmes told the Warren Commission that the money order had been purchased early on the morning of March 12, 1963, ( 7 H 295 ) yet there is nothing on the money order that shows the time of day it was sold. The only time mark was the post mark on the envelope. So how did Holmes know what time of day the money order was purchased ? The Warren Commission never asked him. The only way he could have known was if he had seen or handled the envelope before the assassination. Processing the Money Order Another problem, this one of the money order itself ( CE 788, below ) is that it contained no stamp from any financial institution. The only stamp on it was a stamp on the back from Klein's Sporting Goods for deposit into its account ( number 50-91144 ) in the First National Bank of Chicago. ( red arrows below ) Bank stamps were used on postal money orders in those days as is evidenced by the referral to same ( "bank stamps are not regarded as endorsements" ) on the back of the money order. The single stamp on the back was identified in testimony as the stamp of Klein's. Mr. BELIN. I hand you what has been marked as Commission Exhibit No. 788, which appears to be a U.S. postal money order payable to the order of Klein's Sporting Goods.....And on the reverse side there appears to be an endorsement of a bank. I wonder if you would read that endorsement, if you would, and examine it, please. Mr. WALDMAN. This is a stamped endorsement reading "Pay to the order of the First National Bank of Chicago," followed by our account No. 50 space 91144, and that, in turn, followed by "Klein's Sporting Goods, Inc." Mr. BELIN. Do you know whether or not that is your company's endorsement on that money order? Mr. WALDMAN. It's identical to our endorsement. ( 7 H 367 ) Note that the initials and dates on the back of the money order are those of the authorities who handled it after the assassination in order to maintain a chain-of possession. They are not of financial employees who processed it. The stamp wasn't an endorsement from a bank. It was the endorsement stamp of Klein's Sporting Goods transferring the funds into its bank account. The money order was never paid by any financial institution. Had the money order been processed by the First National Bank of Chicago, the bank would have put its DATED stamp on it. Financial institutions stamp checks and money orders in order to ensure that each institution pays only once on each item. Without the stamp, there's no proof that the money was actually paid by the bank and credited to the customer's account. The stamps also assist law enforcement in tracking finances in criminal cases. This money order should have had on it the DATED stamps of all financial institutions that handled the document. The fact that it doesn't is proof that it never passed through the Federal Reserve System.　 Postal Money Orders received by the First National Bank of Chicago, were then sent to the Federal Reserve Bank, also in Chicago. The First National Bank did NOT microfilm money orders. To confound the tracking of the money order, the Federal Reserve Bank in Chicago kept records of money orders for only six months, which means that it too had no record of this particular money order. At the time the money order would have been processed, 75% of money orders were being sent to Washington, D.C. and the other 25 % were being sent to Kansas City, Missouri. Lester Gohr of the Federal Reserve Bank in Chicago provided the FBI with the addresses of both locations. ( CD 7, pg. 193 ) So far, in tracking the money order, this is what we have: The money order with a stamp for Klein's Sporting Goods for deposit into its account into the First National Bank of Chicago. No evidence that it was received by the bank. No evidence that it was received by the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago. No evidence that it was received by any financial institution in either Kansas City or Washington, D.C. And yet, this "magic money order" is able to find its way through the Federal Reserve System WITHOUT ANY ENDORSEMENTS from the financial institutions which handled it. Not surprisingly, this money order without bank stamps became part of a deposit which never included it. TOMORROW: THE DEPOSIT THAT NEVER WAS

Post Office Box 2915 and the Application The post office box application consisted of three parts. The first part included postal rules and instructions for working combination locked boxes. The applicant could throw it away or keep it in his wallet. It included the combination for combination boxes. Parts 2 & 3 comprised the actual application. Part 2 included information on the applicant and his type of business ( if applicable ). Part 3 included special instructions on delivering mail, how to handle special deliveries and listed the names of other people beside the applicant who were entitled to receive mail through the box. So the question is whether or not "A.Hidell" was authorized to receive mail at Oswald's box 2915 in Dallas. In order for "Hidell" to receive mail there, the evidence shows that his name would have had to have been on the box application. Commission Exhibit 2585 is an FBI response to claims made in the James Buchanan's book, 'Who Killed Kennedy", one of the first books to question the case against Oswald. It indicates that "Hidell's" name was never on the application, so he could not have received the rifle. "Oswald did not indicate on his application that others, including an 'A.Hidell' would receive mail through the box in question, which was Post Office Box 2915 in Dallas." When Dallas Postal Inspector Harry Holmes testified before the Warren Commission, he provided only a copy of part 2 of Oswald's post office box application ( Holmes Exhibit 1A, above ). He told the Commission that part 3 had been discarded when the box had been closed, in May 1963, in accordance with postal regulations. When asked why the New Orleans Post Office had kept part 3 of Oswald's box application in that city, Holmes replied that the New Orleans Post Office hadn't complied to the regulation. ( 7 H 527 ) In it's Report, the Commission repeated Holmes' testimony that the destruction of Part 3 of the PO Box application was in accordance with postal regulations. "In accordance with postal regulations, the portion of the application which lists names of persons, other than the applicant, entitled to receive mail was thrown away after the box was closed on May 1963." ( Report, Ch. 4, pg. 121 ) That was a lie. The postal regulation ( 843.53h ) required that part 3 of the box application be kept for a period of 2 years after the box was closed. In 1966, author Stewart Galanor decided to write to the US Post Office and ask two questions. The first was regarding the post office box application and how long the record was to be kept. The second question regarded what happened to mail that was addressed to someone NOT on the box application part 3. In response to the first question, the post office replied that in March of 1963, postal regulation 846.53h (above) required that all box applications, including part 3, be kept for a period of 2 years after the box was closed. Of course, this revelation alone shows Harry Holmes lied. It shows that the New Orleans PO was in compliance with the postal regulation and the Dallas PO was NOT. The reason why they discarded Part 3 is obvious and the Commission's own Exhibit 2585 proves it: "A.Hidell" was never on the application. Receiving the rifle No clerk in the Dallas Post Office has ever come forward admitting that they handed a long package to Oswald in March of 1963. There's no documented evidence or eyewitness account proving that anyone ever took possession in March of 1963 of a rifle that had been received at Post Office Box 2915 in Dallas. There may be a reason for that: the rifle was never received by anyone. Postal Inspector Holmes also lied about how mail addressed to persons whose names were NOT on the post office box application was handled. He told the Commission that when the post office received mail or a package addressed to someone NOT on the application, a notice would be put in the box REGARDLESS OF WHOSE NAME WAS ON THE MAIL and when someone came to the desk with the notice, they got the mail/package, REGARDLESS OF WHO THEY WERE. ( 7 H 527-528 ) In order to show how ridiculously absurd such a procedure is, the Post Office regulation is clear. In response to Mr. Galanor's second question, regarding mail addressed to someone NOT on the box application part 3, the post office replied that regulation 355.111b(4) required that the item would have marked "addressee unknown" and returned to sender. In other words, if "Hidell's" name is not on the box application part 3, he CANNOT receive mail in a box assigned to Oswald and the mail must be returned to sender. The point is that Harry Holmes lied about a lot of stuff that was going on in the Dallas Post Office. Holmes himself was designated as FBI informant "T-2". He notified the FBI when Oswald was receiving marxist publications like The Worker but failed to notify them when he received a rifle and a handgun ? "Hidell" wasn't on the post office box application and could not have received a rifle addressed to that box. More importantly, the FBI must have seen that part three to come to that conclusion and I submit that the part 3 was destroyed after the FBI examined it in order to remove any physical evidence of the absence of "Hidell" on it. Tomorrow : EVIDENCE OSWALD DID NOT BUY OR MAIL THE MONEY ORDER

I'd like to know how Harry Holmes knew so much about the money order before it was found.

Part II: The Order Blank and the Order Form The Warren Commission concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald, using the alias "A. Hidell", ordered the 40.2" Mannlicher-Carcano rifle found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository by Dallas Sheriff's Deputies shortly after the shooting in Dealey Plaza. He did this, it said, using an order blank from the February 1963 edition of American Rifleman magazine. The FBI traced the dept. number on the order blank, 358, to that particular magazine. The problem with the examination of the handwriting on the order blank will be discussed later. Below is Cadigan Exhibit 3-A, a copy of the envelope and order blank that Oswald allegedly used to order the rifle. It is a copy of a copy, in essence, a copy allegedly made from Klein's microfilm copy. If Cadigan Exhibit 3-A is a copy of the original order blank, then PBS "Frontline" needs to explain where it got its copy of the order blank from. In a 1988 production of a program called, "Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald", the program showed the order blank, but this time the "A" in the "A.Hidell" was in script, not printed. So where did this second order blank come from and why did PBS attempt to pass it off as the real deal ? A second issue I have with the order form and the order blank has to do with the catalog number. The catalog number for the rifle in the Klein's ad was C20-T750. It described a 36" rifle ( B, below ), while the catalog number for the 40" rifle, like the one found on the sixth floor of the TSBD, was slightly different, C20-750 ( C, below ). The catalog number for the 36" rifle was on the order blank ( above, Cadigan 3-A ) and the order form ( A, below ). The order form appears to be a document that was generated by the office of Klein's which typed in certain information and then passed it on to the warehouse to fill the order. Klein's control number and the rifle's serial number were then apparently handwritten by warehouse employees whose job it was to fill the orders. So one would have to wonder why the documentation indicates that the order was for a 36" rifle and the order was processed for a 36" rifle but the serial number was of a 40" rifle ? Amazingly, NONE of the Klein's employees who were responsible for filling the orders or shipping and receiving the weapons were ever called to give testimony to the Commission. Why did the Commission call the heads of companies rather than the people who actually filled out the forms ? Maybe because the people who were supposed to fill out the forms weren't actually the ones who filled them out. TOMORROW: Box 2915 and the application

( Author's note: This is a long narrative, so I'm going to do it in parts. I plan to do a part every day until I get the whole thing posted. I dedicate this narrative on the Depository Rifle to my friend, the late Tom Rossley, without whose help and guidance I could not have put this all together ) THE RIFLE ".....if Oswald did it with this weapon.....it was an absolute miracle, because no one who knew anything about rifles would have chosen such a decrepit, worthless rifle, as this Italian carbine, manufactured in 1938, for which there is such pure ( poor ) ammunition." ( Testimony of Mark Lane in 2 H 51 ) The Warren Commission concluded that in March of 1963, Lee Harvey Oswald, using the alias, "A.Hidell" ordered a Model 91/38 Italian Mannlicher Carcano bolt-action rifle from Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago to be delivered to his post office box 2915 in Dallas, Texas. The Commission provided evidence to support its conclusion, including copies of the order blank, money order and envelope filled out by "Hidell". It concluded that Oswald had ordered the weapon from an advertisement in the February 1963 edition of American Rifleman magazine. It was this rifle, the Commission said, a 40.2" weapon bearing serial number C2766, that was found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository by Dallas Police 45 minutes after the shooting of President Kennedy and Governor Connally. EVIDENCE THE DEPOSITORY RIFLE WAS NOT PART OF THE FEBRUARY SHIPMENT TO KLEIN'S TRACKING THE RIFLE In 1958, Crescent Firearms ( under the name Adam Consolidated Industries ) purchased 500,000 rifles from the Italian Government. The final shipment of those rifles ( 520 cartons ) left Italy's port of Genoa after being identified as lot number 91594 and arrived in the New York via the steamer Elettra Fassio on October 25, 1960. The 520 cartons were removed and trucked by the Waterfront Transfer Company to the Harborside Terminal, a bonded warehouse in New Jersey. As one can see, the CARTON NUMBERS are listed on the manifest. For example, "3086/3094" means that all cartons numbered from 3086 thru 3094 inclusive were on this shipment. The third entry down, 3305/3436, means that all cartons bearing numbers in that range were part of this shipment, including the carton 3376, which allegedly contained a rifle with serial number C2766, the same serial number as the rifle found on the sixth floor of the TSBD. The shipment was placed in storage and remained there for the next two years. This is where the paper trail for carton 3376 ends. Fred Rupp was a federally-licensed gun dealer who had a contract with Crescent Firearms to pick up rifles at the Harborside Warehouse and inspect, clean, test-fire, repack and ship them to Crescent's retail customers. Klein's purchase order of 1/15/62 requested that 400 model 91TS rifles ( 36" troop specials ) be delivered. According to Harborside delivery order # 89138, Rupp removed the first 170 cartons on August 29, 1962. A list of the numbers of the cartons removed was on the manifest. CARTON 3376 WAS NOT AMONG THEM. Importers of rifles and gun dealers were required BY LAW to maintain a list of SERIAL NUMBERS of the rifles they imported. Rupp was required by law to keep a list of the serial numbers he removed from the warehouse ( which he did on the 8/29/62 manifest ) and the name of the retail customer he shipped them to. And Klein's was required to keep the serial numbers of rifle they sold to retail customers. ( 7 H 371 ) During the month of October, 1962, Rupp removed 264 more rifles from lot 91594. 90 on October 4th 70 on October 16 64 on October 24 and the last 40 on October 31 On all of the subsequent shipping manifests of the rifles removed from Harborside Warehouse by Fred Rupp, THE LIST OF CARTON NUMBERS IS ABSENT, even though on the 10/24 manifest, it is clearly marked "list numbers of cases shipped". Rupp removed a total of 434 Mannlicher Carcano 91/38 rifles in the month of October 1962 from the lot of 520 rifles ( 91594 ) belonging to Crescent Firearms. He told the FBI that he kept no record of the carton numbers or serial numbers of the rifles he removed from Harborside. ( CD 7, pg. 180 ) In other words, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT CARTON 3376 WAS AMONG the 434 rifles removed by Rupp, even though the FBI said it was. The Warren Commission used two documents to "prove" that carton 3376 was shipped to Klein's Sporting Goods. The first one is Crescent Firearms invoice # 3178. Mr. BELIN. Mr. Waldman, referring to Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 3, which are the serial numbers of the 100 rifles which were made in this shipment from Crescent Firearms to you.......is there any way to verify that this payment pertained to rifles which are shown on Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 3? Mr. WALDMAN. The forms submitted by Crescent Firearms showing serial numbers of rifles included in the shipment covered by their invoice No. 3178 indicate that the rifle carrying serial No. C-2766 was included in that shipment. ( 7 H 368 ) Of course, it shows no such thing. Because if you look closely at invoice # 3178, you'll see that ALL OF THE CARTON NUMBERS HAVE LITTLE CHECKS ABOVE THEM EXCEPT CARTON NUMBER 3376. Which means that in verifying the carton numbers in that shipment, 3376 was never verified as being a part of that shipment. The FBI's " tracking of the rifle " included unsigned and undated documents and manifests. One such undated and unsigned example of document was Waldman Exhibit 3, the second document the Warren Commission used to "prove" that carton 3376 was shipped to Klein's in February. Waldman Exhibit 3 is an undated and unsigned list of ten carton slips which allegedly made up the February shipment from Crescent to Klein's. Listed on each of the ten carton slips are the serial numbers of the 10 rifles in each carton, including carton 3376. Since there are no dates on any of the slips in Waldman Exhibit 3, it serves no purpose in proving that carton 3376 and thus the C2766 rifle was part of the February shipment. In fact, the ten carton slips, including slip 3620 which contained the list of rifles in carton 3376, could have been filled out at any time. If one looks at the slip numbers, which are pre-printed at the bottom of each slip, one will see that the numbers are not in sequence, which one would expect them to be if they were created at the same time by the same person and for the same shipment. The slip numbers are 3672, 3504, 4376, 3813, 3789, 3661, 3762, 3544, 3620 and 3770. In trying to establish a timeline, an undated document is worthless as evidence. It proves nothing. The Klein's Witness William Waldman was anything but an expert. He knew so little about the M-C rifle, that when he was shown the order form from his company to Crescent Firearms, ( Waldman Exhibit 1 ) he testified that the order had been changed from a 91TS to a 91/38EFF: Mr. BELIN. Now, I notice on Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. I a date well, I might read everything under the column of description; it says Italian Mannlicher-Carcano, Model 91TS, bolt action 6-shot rifle; and then cal.--that's for caliber--6.5, and then there is an "X" and 52 mm Italian-select, clean, and test-fired, changed to Beretta Terni M19, then a slash line 38 EFF, and then the date of 4/16/62. Explain that date and that description. Mr. WALDMAN. Yes; this general style of rifle was made by a number of different manufacturers over a period of time and there were minor modifications made by---developed by each of the manufacturers. Mr. BELIN. Would this be similar to a number of manufacturers making the Springfield rifle in this country? Mr. WALDMAN. As for example, the different manufacturers making the Springfield rifle. Basically, the weapons were of the same general design, but as I say, there were details that were different. We originally had ordered one style of Carcano rifle, one that was known as the Model 91TS. As time went on, we changed to another model known as the Model 91/38EFF, this on April 13, 1962. ( 7 H 362 ) The problem is, that there is no such thing as a 91/38EFF. The "EFF" on the form was short for the word "effective" followed by the date 4/13/62. Waldman not only had no knowledge of the model of rifle his company handled, he had no knowledge of the language used on shipping forms. Waldman didn't fill out those slips. He didn't fill out the order for the rifles. He didn't accept the shipment of the rifles, yet he was the one who gave testimony. The people at Klein's whose responsibility it was to handle such measures were never called to testify to the origin of the documents. He never should have been called as a witness in regard to the processing of the rifle sale. In fact, the Commission even had him giving testimony about documents that were clearly from Crescent Firearms. Why would they do that ? Because at Crescent Firearms there WAS someone familiar with rifle sales. But Louis Feldsott was never called to give live testimony before the Commission and only gave a sworn affidavit. In that affidavit, however, Feldsott swore that Crescent's records showed that rifle C2766 was sold to Klein's on June 18, 1962, not in February 1963. Why would that have been a problem ? BECAUSE PRIOR TO 4/13/62, KLEIN'S RIFLE ORDER WAS FOR THE 91/38 TS, WHICH ONLY CAME IN 36" LENGTHS. There's no way that Fred Rupp could have prepared a shipment between 4/13 and 6/18. That's only two months. The February 1963 shipment took him five months to prepare. That means that if rifle C2766 was sold to Klein's as part of a shipment on 6/18/62 in response to their 1/15/62 order, Rupp would have had to have started preparing the shipment right after the order, and that means that the rifles in that order would have been 36" rifles. Because the order for the 91/38's didn't go into effect until 4/13/62, the order change would have been much too late to have altered a shipment that had already been started and would be delivered on 6/18. In addition, Rupp told the FBI that the rifle bearing serial number C2766 which he serviced was a 36" rifle. ( Armstrong, Harvey & Lee, pg. 446 ) This information is significant, I believe, because it proves that there was more than one rifle, in this case both a 36" rifle and a 40.2" rifle, bearing the serial number C2766. NOTE: "The Three Carcanos" was up next, but since I've already posted that here, I'll skip it and go on to the next issue with the rifle: TOMORROW: The Order blank and the order form

IMO, Jack Kennedy faced an entrenched right-wing deep state left over from the Eisenhower years and fueled by the witch-hunting McCarthy hearings. His youth and inexperience worked against him because everyone from the military to the CIA to Nikita Khrushchev thought they could push him around. I believe the motive for his murder was the Vietnam War. There was just too much money at stake. The economic impact of keeping military bases open reached into every state in the union. Military contractors faced losing out on huge profits. There's no profit in peace. And there's no way to find out who was behind it for sure, because they all protected each other. The private sector, politicians, military and law enforcement. The corruption continues even to this day. And the Kennedys were against corruption.

Thank You. The point I'm trying to make here is that if the case was cinched as Will Fritz said it was, why would the authorities have to intimidate witnesses, change testimony, or lie under oath ? Why, almost 60 years later, are there so many unanswered questions ? The only way these lineups would have been more ridiculous was to have Oswald standing with 4 officers WEARING THEIR UNIFORMS. It was THAT bad.

I didn't even mention that witnesses were giving affidavits identifying Oswald BEFORE actually seeing the lineups.

Was the Conduct of the Oswald Lineups Proof of His Innocence ?by Gil Jesus ( 2009 ) WHAT IS A POLICE LINEUP ? A police lineup is a process by which a crime victim or witness's putative identification of a suspect is confirmed to a level that can count as evidence at trial. The suspect, along with several other individuals ( which I will be referring to as "fillers" ) of similar height, complexion and build stand both facing and in profile. This is sometimes done in a special room which includes details like a height measurement grade on the wall to aid identifying the person's height. The person making the identification views from behind a one-way mirror or similar protection to guarantee the suspect identified by the witness cannot know the identity of the witness. If the victim or witness successfully identifies the suspect from among the fillers, the identification is considered valid. For evidence from a lineup to be admissible in court, the lineup itself must be conducted fairly. The police may not say or do anything that persuades the witness to identify the suspect that they prefer. This includes loading the lineup with people who look very dissimilar to the suspect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_lineup There are two common types of lineups: simultaneous and sequential. In a simultaneous lineup, the eyewitness views all the people or photos at the same time. In a sequential lineup, people or photographs are presented to the witness one at a time. The Dallas Police used a simultaneous type for the live lineups in this case. Typically, the law enforcement official or lineup administrator knows who the suspect is. Experts suggest that lineup administrators might— whether purposefully or inadvertently—give the witness verbal or nonverbal cues as to the identity of the suspect. For instance, if an eyewitness utters the number of a filler, the lineup administrator may say to the witness, “Take your time . . . . Make sure you look at all of them.” Such a statement may effectively lead the witness away from the filler. According to the National Institute of Justice, which is the research and development agency of the US Department of Justice, several variables might effect the validity of police lineups. 1. Whether the person administering the lineup knows which person in the lineup is the suspect. 2. Instructions given to the witness, including saying or implying that the suspect will be present. 3. Use of lineup "fillers" who do not resemble the suspect, thus making the suspect stand out. For example, the suspect has dark hair, but only one of five people in the lineup has dark hair. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/journals/258/police-lineups.html And finally, multiple witnesses viewing the same lineup must do so separately----not together. Were the Dallas Police Department's lineups valid ? POLICE EMPLOYEES WERE USED IN THE FIRST TWO LINEUPS The three other participants in the first two lineups were Dallas Police employees. William Perry and Richard Clark were detectives in the Vice Division and Don Ables was a clerk in the jail. Detective L. C. Graves told the Warren Commission that the way "fillers" were selected for lineups was that the homicide division would call down to the jail office, tell them which prisoner they wanted to show and ask them to provide two, three or four other prisoners who were the approximate age and size as the prisoner they were showing. ( 7 H 253 ) But this is not the way that the "fillers" were selected for the first two lineups in this case. William Perry testified that Capt. Fritz called the vice unit, not the jail, and requested two officers ( 7 H 233 ) Perry's partner Clark confirmed it was Fritz who made the request ( 7 H 236 ) Detective Jim Leavelle testified that the Dallas Police "didn't normally" use police officers in lineups ( 7 H 262 ) Fritz testified that he "borrowed those officers" because he feared other prisoners would harm Oswald and that "we didn't have an officer in my office the right size to show with him so I asked two of the special service officers if they would help me". ( 4 H 212 ) Less than 4 hours later, however, at the 7:55 pm lineup, Oswald was handcuffed to two other prisoners. In Saturday's lineup, ALL of the fillers were prisoners. So much for Fritz's fear for Oswald's safety. THE "FILLERS" WERE NOT DRESSED AS CLOSE AS POSSIBLE TO OSWALD " I know in all cases we usually try to have them dressed as alike as possible, the same as each other." --- Sgt. James Leavelle ( 7 H 265 ) Capt. Fritz testified that the three police "fillers" "took off their coats and neckties and fixed themselves where they would look like prisoners" and were not dressed any better than Oswald. ( 4 H 212 ) But when questioned by the WC, "filler" William Perry testified that he put on a brown sports coat for both lineups. ( 7 H 233 ) "Filler" RL Clark testified that he was wearing a white short sleeved shirt and a red vest for both lineups. He also testified that he got the red vest and Perry got the brown sports coat FROM THE HOMICIDE OFFICE. ( 7 H 236 ) Don Ables testified that he had on a white shirt and a grey knit sweater for both lineups. ( 7 H 240 ) But Oswald was wearing Commission Exhibit 150 for both lineups, the shirt that has a frayed hole in the elbow. ( 4 H 73 ) Detective Elmer Boyd admitted under oath that the three police employees WERE dressed better than Oswald. ( 7 H 127 ) Fritz lied to the Commission when he testified that the police officers "fixed themselves where they would look like prisoners" . Prisoners don't wear red vests or brown sport coats. And it's not a mistake that Fritz could have made unintentionally because Fritz testified that he was present at the first lineup for Helen Markham ( 4 H 212 ) and Det. Clark testified that those items of clothing were taken from the homicide office. THE PERSON ADMINISTERING THE LINEUP KNEW WHICH PERSON IN THE LINEUP WAS THE SUSPECT Jim Leavelle conducted lineup #'s 1,3 and 4 and spoke to the witnesses prior to lineup 2. Leavelle indicated in testimony that he knew that two officers from the Vice Unit and a jail clerk had been used for the first lineup. ( 7 H 263-264 ) Leavelle also testified that he had seen Oswald, " the first day he was arrested and when they brought him in and out of the office taking him to and from the jail, and of course, I had saw him at the lineups, what-have-you ". ( 7 H 268 ) So Leavelle, by his own admission, was more than aware that Oswald was the suspect. He knew it. Detective Sims conducted lineup # 2 at 6:30 pm on Friday. According to Capt. Fritz, Sims was present at the first interrogation session between 2:15 and 4:05 ( 4 H 209 ) and thus knew that Oswald was the suspect prior to his conducting the 6:30 lineup. In addition, Sims testified that he KNEW ALL THREE OF THE POLICE FILLERS that were used in the lineup he conducted. ( 7 H 179 ) IT WAS INDICATED TO THE WITNESSES THAT THE PERPERTRATOR WAS PRESENT IN THE LINEUP In his testimony, Callaway quoted what Detective Jim Leavelle told himself, Guinyard and McWatters before they viewed lineup # 2 : Mr. CALLAWAY. We first went into the room. There was Jim Leavelle, the detective, Sam Guinyard, and then this busdriver and myself......and Jim told us, "When I show you these guys, be sure, take your time, see if you can make a positive identification.........We want to be sure, we want to try to wrap him up real tight on killing this officer. We think he is the same one that shot the President. But if we can wrap him up tight on killing this officer, we have got him." ( 3 H 355 ) Leavelle was telling them that the suspect in Tippit's killing was in the lineup they were about to see. THE "FILLERS" DID NOT RESEMBLE EITHER THE PERPERTRATOR OR THE SUSPECT "Let me say this, that it would be very unusual if we had a showup and .........if they put anything other than men that fit their approximate size and age in there with them......because we just don't operate that way." --- Dallas Detective L. C. Graves ( 7 H 253 ) Mrs. Markham's description of the Tippit killer as given to Officer J.M. Poe was a white male, about 25, about 5 feet 8, brown hair, medium build . ( 7 H 68 ) She also testified that the man who she saw shoot Tippit "wasn't too heavy." ( 3 H 317-318 ) And she gave a completely different description of the killer to FBI Agent Bardwell D. Odum. She told him that the killer was a white male, about 18, black hair, red complexion ( 3 H 318 ) Ted Callaway, who viewed the exact same lineup as Mrs. Markham about two hours later, described the killer as a man with dark hair and a fair complexion ( 3 H 356 ) Howard Brennan described the Kennedy killer as early 30's , fair complexion, slender. So how did the physical attributes of the "fillers" in the first two lineups compare to the descriptions given by the witnesses who viewed them ? Perry was 34 yo 5-11 150 brown hair dark complexion ( 7 H 235, 7 H 168 ) Clark was 31 yo 5-11 177 blond hair ruddy complexion ( 7 H 239, 7 H 168 ) Ables was 26 yo 5-9 165 dark hair ruddy complexion ( 7 H 242-243, 7 H 168 ) Elmer Boyd told the Commission that they "always tell them to get the same color". ( 7 H 131 ) But Sam Guinyard testified that the men in the second lineup ( who were the same men as was in the first ) were NOT the same color ( 7 H 399 ) Markham, Guinyard, Callaway and even Brennan all viewed the exact same lineup, with the exact same "fillers" in the exact same positions, dressed exactly the same. The fillers were all too dark, too blond and too heavy with the completely wrong complexion to match the descriptions of the witnesses. As if having one blond in the first two lineups was not enough, the Dallas Police put TWO blonds in the lineup with Oswald and Ables for lineup # 3. ( 7 H 179 ) In this lineup, the witnesses, Barbara and Virginia Davis described the man they saw running across their lawn as a white male, slender, light complexion, with either light brown or black hair ( 3 H 349 ) ( 6 H 457 ). But both fillers Richard Walter Borchgardt and Ellis Carl Brazel had blond hair, and a ruddy complexion. ( 7 H 179 ) And Ables also had a ruddy complexion ( 7 H 242-243, 7 H 168 ) In his testimony, taxicab driver William Scoggins described the murderer of Tippit as a white male, light complexion, 25-26, medium height and weight, with either medium brown or dark hair ( 3 H 333 ) But Lineup # 4 "filler" John Thurman Horne was 17 and "filler" David Edmond Knapp was 18. ( 7 H 200 ) The final "filler" for the fourth lineup was Daniel Lujan, a 26 year old Mexican who was on the heavy side at 5-8 and 170. ( 7 H 245 ) This is what the NIJ says about providing fillers for police lineups : "Fillers who do not resemble the witness’s description of the perpetrator may cause a suspect to stand out." http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/journals/258/police-lineups.html Ya think ? THE WITNESSES DID NOT VIEW THE LINEUP SEPARATELY In the second, third and fourth lineups, the witnesses were allowed to view the lineups as a group, rather than separately. Sam Guinyard testified that during the second lineup he and Ted Callaway sat only 3-4 feet apart from one another. ( 7 H 400 ) Virginia Davis testified that during the third lineup, Barbara was sitting right next to her. ( 6 H 462 ) Whaley and Scoggins viewed the fourth lineup together. ( 3 H 337 ) THE WITNESSES KNEW WHICH MAN WAS THE SUSPECT BEFORE THEY WITNESSED THE LINEUP Scoggins testified that he saw Oswald's picture in the morning paper. ( 3 H 334-335 ) Brennan testified that he saw Oswald on TV. ( 3 H 155 ) ALL OF THE MEN WERE NOT HANDCUFFED TOGETHER FOR THE FIRST LINEUP Detective Clark testified that Don Ables was NOT handcuffed to him for the first lineup. ( 7 H 237 ) As soon as he says that, they immediately go off the record for a "discussion". Joseph Ball asked Ables if he were ever handcuffed to Oswald. ( 7 H 242 ) But he never asked Ables if he was handcuffed to Clark. Instead, he asked Capt. Fritz, and detectives Boyd and Sims, Fritz, who was present for the first lineup, said he "didn't remember for sure". ( 4 H 212 ) Then Boyd was asked if it was usual to have all the participants handcuffed with the suspect. His response was that it was. When he was asked if he knew why it wasn't done in this case his response was that he did not know. ( 7 H 125 ) But two pages later, Boyd is again asked if they were all handcuffed together. He takes the cue from Ball and says they were. His partner, Richard Sims said that all the participants were handcuffed together. ( 7 H 167 ) By not having Ables handcuffed to Clark, the authorities created the image of prisoner Oswald being handcuffed to a police officer on either side, rather than the image of four prisoners handcuffed together. WITNESSES WERE INFLUENCED BY PHYSICAL APPEARANCES OF THE "FILLERS" Dr. Gary Wells, an Iowa State University psychologist who has researched identifications by witnesses since the mid-1970s describes what a witness sees in a lineup. He says, "The tendency is to pick the one who looks most like the person you saw. It becomes more about reasoning than memory." "...... the reason I say that he looked like the man, because the rest of them were larger men ........The only one I could identify at all would be the smaller man on account he was the only one who could come near fitting the description." ---- Cecil McWatters ( 2 H 281 ) When Howard Brennan viewed the second lineup on November 22nd, he chose Oswald as the one who "most resembled" the man he saw. ( 3 H 154-155 ) This phenomena of choosing the one who "looks like" rather than one who "is" is supported by research published in 1998 by a Wells-led team. In that research, subjects were shown a grainy film of a staged crime, then handed six photos. They weren't told whether the "criminal" they had seen was in the group of pictures. He wasn't, but nearly all of the subjects chose a picture anyway. http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-11-25-police-lineups-cover-usat_x.htm WITNESSES WERE INTIMIDATED BY THE AUTHORITIES Helen Markham testified to the pressure she was receiving at the first lineup: "When I saw this man I wasn't sure....and they kept asking me, 'which one, which one ? '...." ( 3 H 311 ) THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM IN DALLAS COUNTY HAD A REPUTATION FOR FRAMING INNOCENT PEOPLE They did it at least 19 other times that we know of. The proof of that has been the 19 convictions, 17 of those having occurred under former DA Henry Wade's regime, which have been overturned by DNA evidence since the 1980's . Wade's justice system in Dallas County was more interested in closing cases than it was in bringing the true perpetrators of crimes to justice. "Now in hindsight, we're finding lots of places where detectives in those cases, they kind of trimmed the corners to just get the case done," said Michelle Moore, a Dallas County public defender and president of the Innocence Project of Texas. "Whether that's the fault of the detectives or the DA's, I don't know." Typical Wade cases "were riddled with shoddy investigations, evidence was ignored and defense lawyers were kept in the dark". John Stickels, a University of Texas at Arlington criminology professor and a director of the Innocence Project of Texas, blames a culture of "win at all costs." "When someone was arrested, it was assumed they were guilty," he said. "I think prosecutors and investigators basically ignored all evidence to the contrary and decided they were going to convict these guys." http://www.ctka.net/2008/wade.html It didn't matter that there were killers out there still at large. As far as the authorities were concerned, once they made an arrest for a crime, they had the right man. CONCLUSION Most law enforcement officers and prosecutors are honest and trustworthy. But criminal justice is a human endeavor and the possibility for corruption always exists. The testimony from the hearings indicate that the Dallas Police had a procedure for the selection of "fillers" in their lineups. The testimony also shows that the police deviated from that procedure for the first two lineups because there was no one "the right size" to show with Oswald. The police then solved this dilemma by putting "fillers" in the lineups who, not only weren't even close to the descriptions given by the witnesses, they didn't even come close to resembling Oswald. They put guys in there who were darker skinned, heavier, had the wrong hair color, the wrong complexion, younger and older than either the witness descriptions of the killer, or the suspect Oswald. They put teenagers in the lineups. They put blonds in the lineups. They even put a minority in the last lineup. The purpose for such "selections" of "Fillers" was to insure that Oswald was the only one who even came close to matching the description of the killer and thus making him the only choice POSSIBLE. In the first lineup, the men were not all handcuffed together, only numbers 1-3 were handcuffed and since Oswald was # 2, this presented the mental image of prisoner Oswald between two better dressed detectives. Before the second lineup, Leavelle tipped off Callaway, Guinyard and McWatters that the Tippit killer was in the lineup. In the second, third and fourth lineups, the witnesses were allowed to view the lineup together, rather than separately. Both Davis women each claimed to have identified Oswald first, ( 3 H 350 ) ( 6 H 462 ) and since they were seated next to each other, it is a strong indication that they identified Oswald together. The Dallas Police did everything they possibly could do to influence the selection of Oswald, short of hanging a sign on him that said, "pick me" or showing him with three officers in uniform. That's how ridiculously biased these lineups were. Nowhere are the authorities efforts to lead the witnesses more blatant and obvious than on pages 310-311 of Volume 3 of the Hearings. Joseph Ball is trying to get Helen Markham to say that the # 2 man in the lineup was the one she saw kill Tippit. But Markham is not cooperating, insisting that she didn't recognize any of the men in the lineup "by their face". Frustrated, Ball asks the following leading question: "Was there a # 2 man in there ? " This seemingly ridiculous question ( of course there'd be a number 2 man in a four man lineup ) was used to lead witness Markham right to Oswald, and proves my point that not only did the authorities influence, but they even LED the witnesses in their identifications. If Oswald WAS guilty, the Dallas Police didn't NEED to put into the lineups men and boys who matched neither the description of the killer, nor Oswald. They didn't NEED to lie about how the lineup participants were similar or similarly dressed when in fact they were not. They didn't NEED to tip the witnesses that the suspect was in the lineup before they viewed it. They didn't NEED to have the witnesses view the lineups as a group. They didn't NEED to influence witness identifications or to lead witnesses in testimony. If Oswald WAS guilty, then none of these extremes were necessary and because they WERE taken, they can only lead us to one conclusion: OSWALD WAS INNOCENT OF BOTH MURDERS. When the lineups are not valid, the identifications made from those lineups are likewise not valid. Therefore, the identifications made by Markham, Callaway, Guinyard, the Davises and Scoggins cannot be accepted as "positive identifications". I believe that all of these extreme steps, collectively, were not a series of coincidences nor were they the result of "good police work", but rather are the proof that Lee Harvey Oswald killed no one and that he was being framed for the murders of JD Tippit and John Fitzgerald Kennedy. What did the Commission say in its Report about the police lineups ? "The Commission is satisfied that the lineups were conducted fairly." ( Chap. 4 pg. 169 ) The evidence and testimony, however, does NOT support that conclusion.