Gil Jesus

I love it when you try to change the subject. Comparing pay policies of different businesses in different circumstances on different dates. Then suggesting there's a common link between the two. How the TSBD paid its employees for the day of 11/22/63 has NOTHING to do with Jaggars-Childs-Stovall or March 12, 1963. If you have EVIDENCE that Oswald didn't work the hours attributed to him at Jaggars on March 12, 1963, please post it.

Yes, thank you. It's Jaggers. I'm a pretty good speller but a terrible typist.

Bill, wouldn't you agree that that would be a helluva lot of walking for a guy with no car and no license ? Mr. JENNER. Did any of his work, or was there any occasion when his ability to operate an automobile arose? Mr. GRAEF. No; as far as I know, he never had one. Mr. JENNER. And there was no occasion in his work when he might have been called upon to drive an automobile? Mr. GRAEF. No. ( 10 H 192 )

When you suggested that Oswald was late for work that day, I provided you with evidence --- testimony regarding Oswald's punctuality at work from his boss, no less. Now you're suggesting that Oswald left work sometime during the day and it wasn't documented ? You know David, you have to provide EVIDENCE supporting your argument. It's not normal to say something, then when you're called on it, to just fly off in another direction and start all over again. Everything you've stated so far is speculation and opinion. You've offered NO EVIDENCE that the Post Office opened before 8 am, that Oswald was late for work that day, or that he left work without it being documented. The EVIDENCE presented, David, is that the opposite of these is true. And your denial of them doesn't a.) make them any less so and b.) enhance your credibility one bit.

Speculation with no proof. Isn't that how you describe it ? The EVIDENCE is that EVERY SINGLE MINUTE of Oswald's time is accounted for between 8:00 am and 5:15 pm on March 12, 1963. Ever hear of a post office opening before 8:00 am ? There's also 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 ) Total Von Pein nonsense. Had this case gone to court, Oswald's worksheets would have been admitted as evidence that he had an alibi at the time the money order was purchased...he was at work.

One of the important pieces of evidence in proving that Lee Harvey Oswald purchased a postal money order he used to buy the rifle he used to kill President Kennedy is to place Oswald in the post office from which the MO was purchased. Obviously, you can't prove Oswald purchased the MO WITHOUT placing Oswald in the PO. We do this by determining through documentation, Oswald's whereabouts on the day of the purchase. Here are Oswald's timesheets from his employer Jagger-Childs-Stovall for March 12, 1963, the day the MO was purchased. As one can see, his time was regimented and beside a break for lunch between 12:15 and 12:45, he took no other break. All of the jobs he worked on are listed and all of his time from 8 AM thru 5:15 PM is accounted for.

That's only Part 2 of the application. Part 1 was the instructions and was a throw-away. Part 2 was the info of the applicant Part 3 listed anyone else beside the applicant who was authorized to receive mail at the box. Here's a blank application to illustrate what I mean: Postal regulation 846.5H required that the post office box application ( parts 2 & 3 ) be kept on record for two years after the box was closed: Had "Hidell's" name not been on the application, the package would have been marked "addressee unknown" and returned to sender:

That's only Part 2 of the application. Part 1 was the instructions and was a throw-away. Part 2 was the info of the applicant Part 3 listed anyone else beside the applicant who was authorized to receive mail at the box. Here's a blank application to illustrate what I mean: Postal regulation 846.5H required that the post office box application ( parts 2 & 3 ) be kept on record for two years after the box was closed:

That's only Part 2 of the application. Part 1 was the instructions and was a throw-away. Part 2 was the info of the applicant Part 3 listed anyone else beside the applicant who was authorized to receive mail at the box. Here's a blank application to illustrate what I mean:

They didn't have to. All they had to do was to call as witnesses people who had no idea what the documentation said ( like Waldman ) and leave off the witness lists people who DID know what they said ( like Westra ) . Strong-arming at the banks ? Name the bank official who supported the offical version by identifying the money order as having passed through their institution.

None. But it makes a difference what Oswald was doing on the day the money order was purchased. No testimony was ever taken on Oswald's timesheets for March 12, 1963.

Nonsense. First of all, the document doesn't prove the rifle was shipped. The only proof that the rifle was shipped and received would have been the delivery receipt that the post office required for all firearms. No such receipt exists for this purchase. Second of all, Waldman 7 is not marked "paid in full", which it should be if they received a " paid in full rifle order " and shipped a rifle as you claim. You always do this. You always state things that are YOUR INTERPRETATION rather than fact.

HARRY HOLMES TESTIFIED THAT THE MONEY ORDER STUB WAS FOUND AT 12:10 PM ON 11/23/63: Mr. HOLMES. I didn't have any luck, so along about 11 o'clock in the morning, Saturday, I had my boys call the postal inspector. ( 11 AM ) Mr. HOLMES. ....So I had my postal inspector in charge call our Chicago office and suggested that he get an inspector out to Klein's Sporting Goods and recheck it for accuracy, that if our looking at the right gun in the magazine, they were looking for the wrong money order. Mr. BELIN. So what happened? Mr. HOLMES. So in about an hour Postal Inspector McGee of Chicago called back then and said that the correct amount was $21.95---$21.45 excuse me, and that the shipping---they had received this money order on March the 13th, whereas I had been looking for March 20. ( 12 NOON ) So then I passed the information to the men who were looking for this money order stub.... I relayed this information to them and ....within 10 minutes they called back and said they had a money order in that amount..... ( 12:10 PM ) ( Source: 7 H 294-295 ) BUT ALTHOUGH THEY HAD THE MONEY ORDER NUMBER, THE DATE, & KNEW THE AMOUNT AND RELAYED THAT INFO TO WASHINGTON "IMMEDIATELY", IT TOOK AN IBM COMPUTER ANOTHER SEVEN HOURS TO FIND IT Mr. BELIN. .....Then what did you do? Mr. HOLMES. I gave that information to my boss by telephone. He called Washington immediately. Of course this information included the money order number. This number was transmitted by phone to the chief inspector in Washington, who immediately got the money order center at Washington to begin a search, which they use IBM equipment to kick out this money order, and about 7 o'clock Saturday night they did kick out the original money order....and it turned out....to be the correct money order. ( 7 H 295-296 ) They found the stub in ten minutes using manual labor and it took a computer 7 hours to find the money order ? There's no way they could have done a computer search for that money order because the money order was never processed.

Really ? What did the HSCA say about the missing bank stamps ?

For two reasons: First, the FBI had to "prove" an Oswald propensity for violence. That means that they had to have him shooting at General Walker and they had to have him receiving the rifle before that shooting. So they were saddled with a time constraint. They couldn't have him receiving the rifle later than he should have. Secondly, they had documents they had to work with to make it appear the dates were correct. They had Klein's deposit information BEFORE the Money Order was "found", meaning that the 3/12/63 stamp on the Money Order could have been stamped AFTER they found a $ 21.45 entry in the 3-13-63 Klein's bank statement. That would certainly explain WHY the money order was never stamped by any financial institution. Of course, the $ 21.45 entry in Waldman 10 wasn't the Hidell money order at all, but instead was an American Express Money Order. ( CD 7, pg. 192 ) But that didn't matter because the only man who knew that ( Wilmouth ) was kept off the witness list by the FBI and never testified either before the commission or by deposition. You don't understand because you're trying to "reason" it from the beginning, when for the first time in your life, you'd be correct to start at the end and work backwards. It wasn't a perfect crime. As I said earlier, they had time constraints to deal with. In order to have the rifle received by Oswald before the Walker shooting, it had to be ordered in March. That means that it had to come from a February catalog. This is one of the ways they screwed up....they produced an order for a rifle that was available from Klein's IN FEBRUARY, a 36" carbine, rather than the 40" short rifle found in the TSBD. It wasn't that they were idiots or buffoons, it was because they had a timeline they had to work with. In addition, they may not have known that there was a difference between the two rifles. And they didn't believe anyone would research their work, let alone read it. The reason why Part 3 of the postal application for box 2915 in Dallas is no longer is because Harry Holmes destroyed it to hide the fact that "A.Hidell" was never listed as one authorized to receive mail at that box. Then he lied under oath to the WC by telling them that part 3 was destroyed according to regulations when the box was closed. That record was supposed to be kept for two years. Holmes, the Dallas Postal Inspector, was an FBI informant inside the Dallas post office and had access to any and all postal records. That's why there's no record of any 40" rifle being shipped to Box 2915 in Dallas. That's why no postal employee ever remembered handing a rifle to Oswald. That's why there's no postal delivery receipt for the 40" rifle. That's why there's no postal declaration document for the rifle. That's why the person who found the money order "stub" at the Dallas post office was never identified. All of the phoney postal documentation surrounding the ordering, purchase and payment for the rifle was handled by Harry Holmes' post office.

If there is, I haven't seen it. That's what leads me to believe that the bulk list is some sort of bank statement rather than a deposit slip. Also, I've NEVER seen a deposit slip itemized like that. Another thing is that there's more than one deposit in Waldman 10, the one for $ 13,000+ and another for $ 2,116 and change. If they were part of the same deposit on the same day, why weren't they totalled together ? This is what makes me think that this bulk list is a statement, rather than a deposit slip. Here's what the testimony says: 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 ) We know that the $ 21.45 deposit they are referring to is an American Express Money Order and NOT the "Hidell" postal order because it is described IN DETAIL by Robert Wilmouth, VP of Operations of the First National Bank of Chicago in Commission Document 7, pg. 192. His description is so precise that he describes the entries listed before and after the "$ 21.45" in Waldman 10 to their exact penny. That's pretty credible to me.

Your reading comprehension is atrocious, David. Nobody said there were two different deposits. I said that the DEPOSIT was made on 2/15/63 and that the "bulk list" is a BANK STATEMENT of the 2/15 deposit that was mailed to Klein's on 3/13/63. They're the SAME AMOUNT because one is Klein's telling the bank what it's depositing and the other is the bank confirming the amount with Klein's 30 days later. They had to wait for those checks to clear, David.

Let me give you folks MY TAKE on what we're looking at in Waldman 10. I believe that we're looking at TWO documents, the first is the February 15, 1963 deposit slip with a total of $ 13,857.98 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 is the 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. If Klein's received their bank statements ending the 13th of the month, then a deposit on the 15th of the preceding month would not show up until the following 13th's statement. http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0365b.htm The total on the bank statement is the same $ 13,857.98, however, there is at least one other deposit listed ( 21 H 707 ) in Waldman 10 for the sum of $ 2,116.91. In that deposit the second $ 21.45 is listed. http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0366a.htm 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. It would have been very easy for them to do. The First National Bank of Chicago, Klein's bank, did not keep microfilm records of money orders. ( CD 7, pg. 192 ) That being the case, there would have been no microfilm record of either of the $ 21.45 money orders. In addition, the $21.45 entry on the "3/13/63 deposit" was in fact an American Express Money Order, not the "Hidell" postal money order as the FBI claimed. (. ibid. ) 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. IMO, the deposit slip was microfilmed BEFORE the deposit was made, which means it was microfilmed before the bank got a chance to stamp it. Although I'm hardpressed to explain WHY Klein's would microfilm the deposit slip WITHOUT the bank stamp rather than with it, keep in mind that unlike the money order, which was an original document that was NEVER STAMPED BY ANYBODY, this document was a COPY. 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 a 3/13 deposit. No documents had to be altered by "conspirators", David. The FBI just took A and passed it off as B. That's my two cents worth.

Did I mention the word "conspirators" ? I believe that I pointed out that the deposit slip had the wrong date and was missing the bank stamp, but I don't believe that I used the word "conspirators". You really need to calm down, David.

I didn't know him for that long a period of time, but for the time I did now him, he always had time to answer a question or send a link or help you out in some way. He was a class act in the true sense of the word and I owe him a debt of gratitude for the help he gave to me. RIP, Rich. Your work continues.

NOT QUITE: The HSCA's handwriting expert McNally testified that OSWALD'S GENERAL WRITING PATTERN IS SIMPLE AND TENDS TO BE RATHER LEGIBLE, and TO TURN OUT SOMETHING LIKE THAT ( re: the "Hunt letter" ) WOULD BE NOT PARTICULARLY DIFFICULT. ( 4 HSCA 360 ) Oswald's handwriting was easily forgeable.

Thank you for the kind words about the channel and your recognition of the hard work it takes to put those videos together. Sometimes it takes a whole day and night just to produce one video. I know I've been slacking on those lately, but I am currently working on a series of videos on the problems of the evidence and I hope to begin uploading those soon. Some of the videos from the old channel ( GJJdude ) were copied and translated into Italian by a friend of mine and posted on Youtube as well. When he asked me if he could do it, I agreed because I recognized the need to spread the word to those in other countries who may have an interest in the case. The format in the new channel ( JFK63Conspiracy ) is somewhat different: no narration, no conclusions, no interpretations. Just raw first-hand accounts from the witnesses themselves and in their own words, rather than what the officials said they said. There are a LOT of problems with the tracing of the rifle, the purchase of the rifle and the receiving of the rifle. There's the problem of Crescent invoice 3148, which shows that of the 10 cartons shipped in the February shipment, NINE were marked off with check marks, but the 10th, (3376) which contained the C2766 rifle was never checked. There's the problem that Klein's record shows that Oswald allegedly ordered one catalog number, was shipped the same catalog number, and the Depository rifle contained a different catalog number. There's the problem that the rifle in the backyard photograph and rifle found on the sixth floor had different sling mounts. There's the problem that Oswald bought a money order that should not have been sold until late 64-early 65. There's the problem that Oswald ordered the rifle under an alias and the part of the post office application that would have allowed for that alias to receive the rifle was destroyed in violation of postal regulations. There's the problem that the money order contained no stamp from the bank to which it was deposited. There's the problem that the deposit slip itself contained no stamp from the bank. There's the problem that two postal forms, one to be filled out by the seller and the other to be filled out by the receiver of firearms shipped through the postal service, are nowhere to be found for this transaction. And the list goes on and on and on. IMO, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that something is amiss here.

The alleged Klein's deposit slip of 3/13/63 ( Waldman 10 ) has a date of 2/15/63 and is not stamped by the First National Bank of Chicago, which it should have been had it been deposited. http://i56.tinypic.com/11gi0w6.jpg

I would refer you back to the Katzenbach memo which stated that the evidence must be such that Oswald would have been convicted at trial. I believe that although they tried, they failed to attain that. Von Pein and others would like you to believe that people who question the official version are "kooks". He's all over the internet insulting people like me in forums that tolerate such nonsense, but the truth of the matter is that I'm not looking under every rock for a conspiracy. I don't consider myself a conspiracy theorist in the general sense of the word. I'm a guy with a degree and background in criminal justice and experience in police and security and I have serious questions with the legitimacy of the evidence in this case. Conversely, Von Pein and others like him, have no credentials in any aspect associated with criminal justice. The problems with the tampering of the evidence, the slanted police lineups, the altered affidavits, the falsified police reports or the witnesses, some who were intimidated by authorities and others who were equally ignored, brings to mind the bigger question of what was REALLY going on in this investigation. What the Von Penis of the world don't tell you that in addition to all of this, events as described by the police were lies. An example of this was the falsehood that Oswald tried to fire his handgun in the theater when grabbed by police. But when the FBI examined the handgun, it never misfired. And when they examined the unfired round that the cops said had a "nick" in it from the firing pin of the revolver, the FBI determined that "There was no indication, from an examination, that that nick had been so caused by a firing pin ". They came to that conclusion for two reasons: " First of all, it is in the wrong position, it is not in the center of the primer. And, also, a microscopic examination of that nick gave no indication that it was made by a firing pin ". In fact the FBI concluded that their examination revealed " no marks that could be associated with the firing pin in Commission Exhibit 143 ( the Oswald handgun ) , OR ANY OTHER WEAPON ". ( 3 H 460 ) IOW, it was manufactured by the police, the only ones who had previously maintained possession of the unfired round. In looking at the investigation in THIS case, it is difficult for me to understand WHY the police would have gone to such extents as to risk getting the case thrown out of court, in order to frame a GUILTY man.

1. And Oswald's handwriting was not forgeable. 2. Waldman 7 says that the rifle shipped was C20-T750, a 36" rifle, not C20-750, the 40" short rifle. 3. What is the name of the person from Klein's who stamped that money order ? 4. Where's the delivery receipt the post office required for firearms ? But it all doesn't matter, does it, David, because we KNOW Oswald killed Kennedy. I think all that circular reasoning is making you dizzy.