Duke Lane

I don't have any difficulties myself with Michaelis' testimony, at least as far as it went. As testimony, I do have issues with the fact that he didn't - and said he didn't, multiple times - have first-hand knowledge of anything to do with the Seaport order-filling/shipping department of March 1963. I wouldn't expect him or anyone else to have any reason to remember anything about that particular order or shipment. It's not that that is bad in and of itself, but someone who did have first-hand knowledge was sitting right there with him, and not a single question was posed to him, even though he saw fit to contribute interjections and corrections to what Michaelis said, without objection from WC counsel. It's a performance even stranger than Melody Jane Douthit's. Further, another first-hand source was identified to the FBI by Michaelis - the woman who ran the department in March - and no apparent effort was made to contact her. That aside, I think it's fair to say that Seaport did, indeed, ship the pistol to Hidell in Dallas; the only other option is to posit that they, too, were "part of the conspiracy," which I would think is not only difficult to prove, but ludicrous on its face. The greater difficulty with the Seaport info lies in the fact that, once the pistol had left their warehouse, it essentially disappeared into the uncharted and unexplored depths of Railroad Express. We can only presume that REA had it because Seaport's documents show that they gave it to REA. From that point forward, other than a (presumed, not evidentiary) notice in the PO box, there is no verifiable evidence what happened to it at all until Captain Westbrook saw it in his offices and went to Captain Fritz's offices to have a homicide detective come up to his (Westbrook's) offices to retrieve it. (Westbrook himself testified that the gun "was brought into my office when it shouldn't have been." Westbrook wouldn't even take it down to Homicide himself, but waited for Fritz to send someone up to retrieve it. "Pinky" Westbrook might not have been the sharpest knife in the draw, but he at least seems to have understood how to handle evidence.) The other issue I've got is that, absent any verifiable proof other than Oswald's purported possession of that weapon in the theater, people - apologists, I guess you'd call them - assert that that "evidence" is adequate proof of anything. In truth, if the WC had been a legal, adversarial proceeding, the weapon would probably have been excluded from evidence. No weapon, no murder done using it, case dismissed. That won't sit well with some people, and they'll tell me I'm crazy, but the FACT is that they WON'T be able to produce any hard evidence that Oswald did in fact possess that weapon, not even a single fingerprint, and damned sure no chain of custody. So, they can believe what they want to, but the FACT is that the EVIDENCE needed to prove the allegation does not exist. No matter what anyone ELSE thinks happened is immaterial: the allegation cannot be supported by verifiable facts. If they could be, at the "Seaport end" (or "ordering end") of its history, we'd at least have heard from someone at REA that the package had been received and it had been properly disposed of according to its standard procedures. They might or might not have been able to find the person who gave the package to Oswald (or whomever), a ledger with his receipt signature or something that puts the gun a priori in Oswald's hand. It simply doesn't exist. And no matter what anybody believes about the gun that was put into evidence, it cannot even be proven beyond a doubt that it was even the gun that was in the Texas Theater, or that Oswald even held it in his hands, ever.

I'm shocked. What country do you live in, David? Seriously. Here in America, "innocent until proven guilty" is not just a silly notion that makes for good Perry Mason reruns. The defense is under no obligation to convince a jury of anything; it is up to the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt - essentially "conclusively" - that the accused is guilty. Apparently, where you live, only guilty people go to trial or even get arrested. Do they actually hold trials there? In your world, why bother? Perhaps it would be wise to send your cops over here because they apparently never get the wrong guy, rendering the notion of "defense attorneys" (those charlatans!) completely superfluous. In your world, as long as you've decided what the "truth" is, juries can skip over "irrelevant" details because the end result is "obvious," and the lack of proofs leading to a conclusion are "unnecessary" as long as the prosecution can present an otherwise compelling argument that the defense only attempts to obfuscate. Remind me not to apply for a visa to wherever you are.

It would be more accurate to say "I have never doubted that Oswald took possession of the Tippit murder weapon," because this conversation - this forum, among others - disproves that statement as written. The reality is, as John McAdams wrote, that Oswald only "supposedly cashed his check at a New Orleans Winn-Dixie supermarket in New Orleans on the morning of September 25," and that the WCR "asserts that Oswald cashed an unemployment check on Tuesday, September 17, [but] unfortunately the Warren Commission provided no citation for this transaction, and the FBI report tracing Oswald's check-cashing activities show no evidence that agents ever established the exact date on which Oswald cashed any check," (all emphases mine) citing CE 1161. Of course, that doesn't even speak to the notion that "the FBI had no doubt" about what the lack of evidence proved. It's not a question of "connecting the dots," as Dave asserts: that's fine for developing a theory, but the next step to proving the case is not merely showing how the dots could connect, but gathering evidence of exactly how they do. We seem to be having difficulty distinguishing between theory and established, verifiable fact, and logical conclusions and evidence. It may not require being in the FBI or even being a third-grader to "connect the dots," but one would think that the FBI had the wherewithal to prove that they connect. They could almost do it with a check; they apparently didn't even hardly try with the murder weapon. Makes perfect sense to me. (I'm just glad it wasn't me who was being investigated back then, and if he's thought about it, Dave's probably glad it wasn't him either!!)

It is analogous, and actually significantly more material to the question of guilt: Oswald was never accused of moneying anyone to death, but he was accused of murder. It is consequently infinitely more important to put the murder weapon a priori in his possession than it is to put a check in his hands at any time. It seems the FBI's priorities were a bit askew, don't you think?

They DID prove that the revolver was delivered to P.O. Box 2915 in Dallas. Why in the world do you think THAT fact is in doubt? Re: REA and the "unknown" about exactly where and when Oswald picked up his revolver: My guess on that is (as also stated in prior posts): The reason they did not pursue the REA matter was because they DIDN'T NEED TO. They already knew that Oswald was caught red-handed with the Tippit murder weapon in his hands within 35 minutes of Tippit being killed. And the FBI certainly also knew that Oswald had positively ordered the revolver by mail-order via Seaport Traders. And the FBI also knew from the Seaport/REA paperwork that the Tippit murder weapon had been shipped to OSWALD'S post office box. Good gravy, who COULDN'T connect those dots? You don't need to be in the FBI to do that connecting. A third-grader with a learning disability could connect those dots without a lick of trouble. Why can't you, Duke? I can, Dave, using inferences; I cannot based on verifiable facts. Isn't that the standard of proof that you'd have me deliver if I alleged that someone else picked up the gun at the REA depot and even had the opportunity to put it into Oswald's hand? Why is your theory exempt? Because it was the FBI's as well? Bear in mind that I'm not advocating a position, but merely talking about the evidence for one or the other theory. If the FBI didn't "need to" show that Oswald possessed the weapon prior to his allegedly using it, why would they need to track down an unemployment check? Clearly, they were able to do all this tracking, which they could and did do for something innocuous, but "didn't need to" when it came to material evidence, using it to prove that Oswald had it in his possession before his arrest and not merely during it? Why would they go through all the trouble of tracing an envelope down to the minute and mode when all they needed to do was show that Oswald cashed the dang thing? Or that anyone cashed it based on the fact that it was cashed? Just because an explanation is "good enough" for you doesn't mean it is – or has to be – good enough for anybody else, any more than these missing pieces in the evidentiary chain that are "good enough" for someone else to conclude – or at least leave open the possibility of – a third person's collusion means that it must be "good enough" for you as well. You said earlier that the receipt does not prove that the gun was delivered to Oswald's PO Box, but you offered the possibilities that either (1) a card was sent to the PO box alerting its owner (Oswald) to the weapon's availability at the shipper's receiving desk, or (2) that some arrangement might have existed whereby USPS could collect for a "third-party" COD package (based on regs on how it handles COD packages from "mailers," which you endeavor to suggest REA might have been considered if they re-mailed it). Now you're claiming that it was shipped to Oswald's PO box? Sorry, no such proof exists by your own acknowledgment. You cannot prove that Oswald ever received that gun; you can only prove that it was shipped to him. And you cannot prove that the gun that Seaport shipped and REA carried - the gun in evidence - is the same gun that was allegedly taken from Oswald in the theater, even if it was the weapon that killed JD Tippit (and you could prove Oswald was at 10th & Patton): it just plain cannot be done to a legal certainty, period. You are of course free to believe whatever you wish to based on the evidence or upon inference, just as other people with opposing views can interpret the evidence (or lack thereof) to infer other conclusions. Neither side, unfortunately, is provably correct. According to your own post above, you conclusion is only a "guess" anyway. You can tout it as fact all day long, but that's not going to make it so. FWIW, after having gone through all that much trouble to track down an unemployment check's transit, I can't imagine why the FBI didn't go the "extra" (final?) step of finding out what time of day mail was usually distributed to PO boxes at the Lafayette station. Did it perhaps omit that detail after having found that it wasn't done until 2:00 or some other too-late-for-the-theory time? It was left as "no earlier than 5:00 a.m." by John McAdams, but even that doesn't prove that it was only "a bit after 5:00 a.m.," it just sets the earliest limit. Conjecture-as-proof is clearly not limited to conspiracy theorists.

Probably because they didn't need to do that to establish and confirm what Seaport had already established and confirmed -- namely: That Lee Harvey Oswald (aka A.J. Hidell) had ordered (and undoubtedly picked up and took possession of) Smith & Wesson Revolver #V510210. Your question is particularly weak and unimportant because it deals with the shipping of Oswald's REVOLVER only. And since the FBI already knew (via the bullet shells that Oswald dumped at the scene of the crime) that the gun Oswald had on him in the theater was the SAME gun that murdered Tippit, then there was really no need to establish just exactly WHERE Oswald picked up the revolver. The FBI knew it was Oswald's gun via just the Seaport documents. ... I imagine that at least a few people in the FBI had enough common sense to add up [several] things and arrive at the obvious conclusion .... I was reading JFK Assassination Logic this weekend after visiting with the good perfesser (and his cronies Mack, Perry and Aynesworth all meeting in Dallas to perpetuate the on-going cover-up through this next year: have photographic proof!!) and came across an interesting parallel to this discussion, which I'll take the liberty of posting mostly in full here regarding FBI/WC proofs of whether (and when) Oswald might have or could have received his final Texas unemployment check before (maybe/probably) debarking to Mexico (in which description McAdams freely admits that the FBI never was able to pin down where or even whether Oswald cashed checks, only that they were sent to him): As we can see here, the FBI indeed "meticulously traced" the exact route of Oswald's unemployment check, apparently just short of it actually arriving at the Lafayette Street PO (the earliest possible time the check could have been put in Oswald's box as a bit after the dispatch truck unloaded at Lafayette Street, which is not included in this report and might as easily have been 6:00 or 7:00 a.m. or even later), and not, per McAdams' caveat, determining that Oswald actually received it. (He notes in the text that Oswald "supposedly cashed his check at a New Orleans Winn-Dixie supermarket in New Orleans on the morning of September 25, but no solid evidence rules out his having done so on the twenty-fourth," which effectively says that there is no evidence that the check was cashed anywhere at any particular time, and certainly not by whom. Likewise, while the check was traced as far as the distribution truck, there is no certain evidence that Oswald ever held the check in his hand, much less cashed it.) So we are left with the curiosity that Feebs would track down the whereabouts of a check – which was not illegal to receive or to have or to cash or to do anything else with, and which was certainly not dangerous – but when it comes down to determining that a murder weapon actually came into the actual possession of the accused, they completely ignore – or at least neglect to report on – its journey from Seattle to Oswald via REA, which if others hadn't referred to it, we'd have known nothing about since the FBI sure as heck didn't. That can merely be inferred, doesn't have to be proven, even to the extent that putting a check into Oswald's hands was?!? Of course, the WC wasn't a court of law, and as Hale Boggs(?) noted, they weren't "exactly following the rules of evidence," but we nevertheless have a situation where the FBI can and does track a single envelope through five "checkpoints," but doesn't track a pistol from origin to delivery, even though they were aware of the means of its shipping. Instead, the fact of receiving an order, and some sort of notice possibly (provably?) appearing in Oswald's Dallas PO box, but no documentation whatsoever, indisputable or otherwise, to show that the pistol was ever actually delivered to him, or for that matter, was ever even in Dallas until November 22. There is enough police testimony alone to construct a plausible scenario of someone "planting" the pistol on Oswald, and more that puts the provenance of the pistol in evidence into question – certainly enough to give rise to reasonable doubt – that absent putting the gun in Oswald's possession prior to November 22 is necessary to prove that he ever possessed it. It can only be done by inference. That might be enough to convince a jury, or it might be enough to hang it. Ultimately, it comes down to the fact that the FBI made no apparent effort to track the weapon from origin to delivery, which seems such a gross oversight under almost any circumstance, but particularly when such skill is utilized to track down a mere envelope. It is reasonable to conclude from that apparent negligence that this information was (and certainly could have been) gathered but not reported on because the information obtained was contrary to a determination of Oswald's sole guilt. If the FBI can at least almost put an envelope in the killer's hands, they ought to be able to at least prove the pistol was delivered to a location in Dallas. Is the reason they did not, that they could not? They were professionals trained to connect the dots one to the next. They did it with a check, but didn't do it with a gun? Is that really easy to believe?

Heh-heh! Once in a while you can get shown the light in the strangest of place if you look at it right....

OK, I've been following this FAIRLY closely, at least enough to know that it's confusing a lot of people, or at least not clarifying things to the point that most people "get it," much less are able to reproduce it on their own. I'm don't think that I do or can either. An important consideration to me is how this technique can be applied to other photographs/imagery, particularly those that don't necessarily conceal (or render indistinct) objects that are not obvious to the naked eye. I'd think that anyone who cannot discern a use for it outside of revealing conspirators hidden in bushes and shadows would take a dim view of its validity. It would seem to have to have other applications in order to be tested more fully. Another thought is that this could be reviewed by someone who works with technical image processing regularly, such as a product reviewer at a technical/computer or photography magazine - or even a Photoshop guru! - as a "peer review," if you will, of the process. Hearing it from someone who knows the technical terms, etc., for this might also help to explain it in clearer terms for the rest of us. What does anyone else think? I'm loathe to "throw out the baby with the bathwater" simply because I can't understand or appreciate what's being done, any more than I'm willing to accept something that appears to clarify something in an image that has otherwise been nothing more than a Rorsach blot that I've got to cross my eyes to make "sense" of. I have a gazillion photos of the fronts and backs of homes, for example. Can this technique be used to discern or enhance the visibility objects that are behind the windows? Something like that can validate the process if, for example, it shows objects that are verifiably inside the house (or not). Thoughts? Other uses? Up to this point, I have no opinion about this, but definitely find it intriguing. I just don't think - as David Josephs has said - that "finding what we want to see where we think it is" (my words, his idea) is necessarily the best test of the process. Other ideas?

You simply don't get the point, David. If we were all on a jury, it seems you'd be the guy who'd not only hold out because you're able to make a leap of faith – that what you or a witness presume to be true is true – that your fellow jurors (I hesitate to call them your "peers" in light of the next part) aren't able to, but you'd also berate them as "idiots and fools" for not seeing things your way. A fine example is your comment "probably because they (the FBI) didn't need to do that (look into the REA portion of the transaction) to establish and confirm what Seaport had already established and confirmed -- namely: That Lee Harvey Oswald (aka A.J. Hidell) had ordered (and undoubtedly picked up and took possession of) Smith & Wesson Revolver #V510210." Seaport did not "establish and confirm" anything other than that they received an order, shipped it, and got paid for it; nothing about Seaport or its paperwork "established and confirmed" that Oswald had "undoubtedly picked up and took possession of" anything. Likewise, Seaport's paperwork paperwork does not "establish the fact" that the pistol was either "sent to Oswald's P.O. Box," OR that "at least a notification card was sent to the box," OR anything about "Oswald possibly needing to go to the REA office to get the gun itself;" Seaport's paperwork ONLY shows that they shipped the pistol via REA and got paid for the order. That is all that Seaport's paperwork proves. That Oswald "possessed" that weapon at the time of his arrest is a reasonable inference, but only if in fact it can even be proved that the weapon that was later in evidence is actually, absolutely, unquestionably the weapon that was taken from him in the theater; it cannot. I don't say that because I'd "like to believe" anything you disagree with, but merely because it's true based on facts. It is also true that from the time the pistol left Seattle until it was transferred to the FBI in Dallas, absolutely nothing is firmly "established and confirmed" about the whereabouts or possession of that weapon. (Nothing about any other weapon has any bearing on the disposition of this weapon, and diverting our attention to the rifle does not "establish and confirm" anything other than that you're willing to rely upon inference to "prove" your point.) You mistake what you consider to be "reasonable conclusions" with what, in your mind, everyone should recognize as "ironclad facts" when they are not ... or at least you promote them as such when they are not, and attack those who don't find your "facts" to be as "ironclad" as you portray them, as if repetition and intimidation will convince them of the error of their ways. Leading a Crusade against the Infidels in the East will do nothing toward convincing Buddhists that Jesus the Nazarene is the One True God born of a Virgin, or Muslims that Mohammed was a blasphemer; you'll not convince Jews that Christ is the Messiah, nor Methodists that Mary was a Virgin by telling them repeatedly that you believe all of those things to be true, or that you think they're foolish and crazy and hell-bound because they're not members of your Church. Nor will anyone who believes anything among those things or more that you do not, convince you of the error of your ways: they could spend hours and days schooling you in human physiology, but if you believe in the Virgin Birth, you will still do so afterward: after all, how many Catholic MDs are there in the world? In this case (or any other criminal matter), it's not what any of us believes to be true, but only what we can prove beyond a reasonable doubt is true – to even those who may have some doubts – that matters. And the fact is that, insofar as the questions raised by this thread's topic are concerned, you cannot dispel doubts with facts, but only with inferences (and insults), and you haven't. You have, however, established what you believe to be true, and that you think anyone who disagrees with you and what you consider to be "reasonable" is stupid. It still doesn't make any of it so.

Really, my point is that I'd expected better arguments than the old appeals to authority, claims of faith, and sheer speculation substituted as explanation.

Continued from previous post: Well, since you can't offer proof of what procedures were at REA for COD packages (nor at USPS, for that matter), I suppose anything is possible, such that USPS required identification where REA did not, hence, as you say, somebody could pick up the package - and did. You cannot prove it was Oswald other than by inference. Straw man, never even suggested here. A very reasonable question, that I'd expect you should have a very reasonable, logically inferred answer that fits within the procedures and parameters of a criminal investigation (or at least the one conducted by WC/FBI), is that which I asked in my previous post: "If the FBI was able to be so successful in tracking down the weapons so quickly (they were at Seaport Traders half-way across the country within eight days of the shootings), why in the remaining months did they simply not bother to look into the rest of the transaction with REA?" C'mon. Seriously. The FBI had all the information they needed, but simply didn't bother to nail down this segment of the gun's travels. Or else, maybe they did and didn't like what they found (e.g., someone who looked as much like "Oswald" as the guy outside the Cuban embassy in Mexico City), so merely omitted it: after all, who - other than those Feebs who wanted to go home to Thule, Greenland - was going to buck Hoover's November 22-25 solution? There has to be a logical, reasonable answer to that question, one that's at least consistent with the notion that they could and did track down the provenance of the pistol to Seattle inside of eight days, getting statements, copies of documents, etc. Ditto for the rifle. I'm thinking maybe they were just too stupid to realize that, since the gun apparently wasn't delivered by USPS, that it must've been "delivered" by REA. Or that since REA generated paperwork to return COD payment to the shipper, they might also generate paperwork to establish delivery (I mean why bother when they're sending cash back, right?). Or they figured nobody would ask for proof (the defendant being dead and all), and in any case they'd already gotten an overwhelming amount of it, and "more" isn't always "better." What "makes sense" here? To you, that is, and the thousands of other reasonable truth-seekers like you. Y'know, you really can't disparage all those Hindus, Jews, Arabs and so many others who don't take it on faith that Jesus Christ is their personal Savior just because you do. I'll bet that they have perfectly reasonable reasons why they don't. "Reasonable" to them, anyway. But it should be "obvious" that they're wrong. So what's the answer to my "very reasonable question?"

Would you have preferred that I just go ahead and lie and pretend that that I know that Oswald picked up his revolver at such-and-such location (either REA or the Post Office)? Make no mistake about what I'm saying -- LHO absolutely, positively DID pick up that V510210 S&W revolver in March '63. I'm just not sure WHERE he picked it up. But just basic common sense (coupled with the facts listed below) prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Oswald picked up the revolver that he ordered from Seaport: 1.) Oswald ordered a S&W revolver from Seaport in early 1963. 2.) Seaport shipped S&W revolver V510210 to Oswald/"Hidell" on 3/20/63. 3.) Oswald was arrested with Revolver V510210 in his hands on 11/22/63. To deny that Oswald took possession of the V510210 revolver under the above conditions is downright silly. Plus, there's no indication whatsoever that REA sent the revolver back to Seaport, which certainly would have happened if the gun had never been picked up by anybody. And this same thing applies to LHO's Carcano rifle. That gun was never sent back to Klein's by the Post Office. Hence, somebody picked it up. And since Oswald is the person who ordered the rifle and paid for it, the person most likely to pick it up at HIS OWN POST OFFICE BOX is Lee Oswald. Isn't this just basic math? I think it is. So you simply take it on faith and can offer no proof other than your absolute personal certainty, based on logic and not evidence, that this is the case. No problem. Seems reasonable. At least, to a "reasonable person," it does. Does your definition of "reasonableness" extend to your religion as well? Race? Gender? I'm just trying to figure out how many "unreasonable" people there are out there in the world ... or how "reasonable" I might be. That theory makes much more sense than the extremely goofy nonsense being spouted by people like James DiEugenio and his cohorts. The above theory is still dead wrong, of course, because it's fairly obvious (to me anyway) ... As I told DiEugenio the other day, it would be much better for conspiracy theorists if they would just admit to the obvious truth about Oswald ordering and taking possession of both the revolver and the rifle, because then the CTers could pretend that the evil conspirators attempted to frame Oswald with HIS OWN GUNS. That's far more sensible .... ... To you anyway? -- continued next post

Does this sum up what I've been saying throughout, that the LN stance is that better evidence (i.e., proved evidence?) is the bar over which CTers must pass, but that "solid, sensible speculation" is all that's required to maintain the no-conspiracy theory? Sort of the reverse of what's required in a criminal proceeding, and largely even that of a civil proceeding? "If the prosecution's theory makes sense, and the defense can't disprove each and every aspect of it, that sucka's gonna fry!" In a way, yes. But in the Hendon example, the physical gun itself would have never been in the post office, that's true. But if Hendon is not correct in the Oswald instance, and IF the Post Office COD regulations were the same in 1963 as they were in 2003 ... means there is another possible way that Oswald could have picked up his revolver in March '63. Via such conditions, he could have picked it up right at the post office, with the P.O. then forwarding the money to REA, with REA then forwarding $19.95 to Seaport Traders. Coulda, woulda, shoulda ... but nothing whatsoever to say he DID. If the FBI was able to be so successful in tracking down the weapons so quickly (they were at Seaport Traders half-way across the country within eight days of the shootings), why in the remaining months did they simply not bother to look into the rest of the transaction with REA? If someone was to say that it was because they actually did, but found something that undermined the Oswald-did-it-alone theory (e.g., a pick-up signature that was demonstrably not made by Oswald), all the LN set can counter with is that "the rest" of the investigation was "good police work," and if the FBI happened to miss something (or determine that it's "not material"), it's "understandable" considering that the rest of the "evidence" pointed most of the way toward Oswald's guilt, so why look any further? After all, he'd never be going to court, and there'd be no defense lawyer raising questions (read "pulling tricks") to get him off, so "solid, sensible speculation" should be sufficient, nicht wahr? Once again, as with standards of proof, it all depends upon what someone considers "reasonable." Generally, those standards are much reduced when the pontificator is not affected by the outcome, and greatly heightened when they are on trial. One answer could be "anyone who didn't actually order it." Another might be "someone who had second thoughts about it." A third, "someone who ordered it for someone else." But who needs proof when you've got "solid, sensible speculation?" (Only those who don't believe!) Clearly, I'm being unreasonable.

Really? I don't see a problem with an imaginary theory here; what's one more? Earlene Roberts said it happened; DPD said it didn't. Either she saw it or she couldn't have. Both can't be right. Don't theorize, explain it.

But how do we know that, Duke? Did anybody ever go searching for the paper trail? The FBI? Anyone? ~shrug~ And to interject a note of common sense concerning this matter--- Since we KNOW that Lee Oswald certainly DID order (via his own writing) a revolver from Seaport at some point after 1/27/63, and since we know that gun was ON HIM on Nov. 22 of that year, doesn't it seem fairly logical to conclude that Oswald did, indeed, go to the Post Office or to the REA office and pick up (and pay for) the gun that he himself ordered? For heaven sake--who orders something and has it sent to his PO Box, but then never bothers to go get it? Frankly, Duke, that's kinda crazy. And we know how the rifle was paid for, Duke. Oswald paid the full amount on Day 1 of the order (Mar. 12th) -- $21.45. There was nothing else due on the rifle after that first $21.45 payment. You've hit the nail on the head of the problem: the only proof of Oswald's possessing the gun ever, is it being in his hand when he was subdued. Actually, as I've pointed out, it cannot even be proved that the gun that was taken from Oswald's hand in the theater is the one that ended up in evidence. That you or anyone believes it to be the same does not mean that it was the same. There is more than reasonable doubt, "reasonable" of course being a different measure by each and every person's own standards. That's why, I suppose, juries are made up of twelve people and not just one. Not everyone in the courtroom is always guilty. I'd have to say that the FBI did a bang-up job tracking a pistol (and rifle) through the mail in a matter of only about a week, getting receipts and invoices and even talking to the president of one of the companies (but not asking him any questions on the record), tried to get USPS records that didn't exist (but were supposed to have), but well, just "didn't bother" with REA because it was, what, unimportant? Hey, he had the gun in his hand when arrested, why did they even consider a trial (some would say they didn't, really) or an investigation? It seems pretty unimportant when you've already got "all the evidence you'll ever need," and especially true if the accused wouldn't ever see the inside of a courtroom (which by November 30, Oswald wouldn't have) and rules of evidence wouldn't apply. But yet ... they bothered. Why? So somebody contends that somebody else (the real Alek Hidell?) could have maneuvered Oswald into filling out the order blanks, then ordered the guns and gone to pick them up. Somebody did, but there's no actual way of knowing who it was because the receipts aren't signed, and neither a check nor money order were apparently used to pay the COD charges. I forget if shipping charges were included in the price of the gun or not, but if not, who paid REA for shipping? Were their procedures as far as checks' or money orders' payees the same as USPS's? What if "A. Hidell" used a money order made out to REA? Geez, someone could say that someone other than Oswald provably (at the time) paid REA, and the information was suppressed or destroyed because it implicated someone else. Never ask a question you don't want the answer to? Of course, on a common-sense level and using the same rhetoric, why would someone pay for one weapon in full and only part of the other? He'd have to have the money in a couple of weeks when the goods arrived, and (by your supposition) he'd not only already waited a month or so to even mail the order, but couldn't wait a couple weeks to have and mail all the necessary money and avoid what amounted to a 10% COD charge (since he was so flush with cash and a notorious spendthrift)? And increase the likelihood that he might have to sign for the package and maybe even present some form of ID? Seems ridiculous. Crazy. And lo, the weapon that he didn't pay for in full was the one he'd filled out the order form for first. That makes sense, too. The difference is that he could have had it pressed into his hand while being arrested, or only moments before the cops busted into the theater. It cannot be proved that the gun was ever in Oswald's posession at any time before his arrest, which is exactly what the investigation with Seaport was supposed to do. And the FBI had the REA receipt, so no matter what impression Heinz Michaelis left them with, I don't think anyone at the FBI didn't look at the REA receipt and wonder why, if it was shipped to a PO Box via USPS, was REA involved in any way? Oh. Well. They were. Doesn't matter why. Oswald had the gun, we know that, so why are we even bothering with this? Screw it. It's a link in the chain that we don't really need, and as long as we know where the chain starts and ends, that's all we really care about anyway. Of course, the real problem is that Michealis gave the Feebs a wrong impression, and having a PO Box involved and the USPS keeping all sorts of records made it just too damned difficult to figure out what happened with the damned thing, especially for guys with a law degree. It's all about proof. Unfortunately it doesn't exist, and dismissing the facts won't bring it into being. You ask for it from CTers, but don't consider it necessary for yourself? Ridiculing a notion or disparaging its proponent disproves it? Nah, I'm not gonna buy those. (If you believe that Oswald killed Tippit beyond ALL DOUBT, then you would obviously disagree with the notion that not all people in a courtroom are guilty: they'd never even have been arrested if they weren't guilty!)

Concise answer: "I can't explain it, so it's unimportant (and further proof of 'no conspiracy')." I like it, I really do! Is there a page reference in Assassination Logic where I can find the technical term for this logical mechanism, along with possibly some other examples of how it can be used as effectively? Using this lesson, CTers can now shrug off anything they choose as well. Seems fair, doesn't it? What's the logical inference from this? That Earlene Roberts did not see a police car where she says she did? Or that one was undoubtedly there just as she said, just as many other police cars had been there over the years and just as routinely? All the cops denied being there, so the first seems the more likely choice, especially given Mrs Johnson's low opinion of Earlene's truthfulness ... which only begs the question what else she lied about in the course of her statements and testimony? Or else a cop car was there, routinely or otherwise, and the question becomes why they all denied it (not to mention that the record shows the cops in Oak Cliff diverted elsewhere or were at lunch). Either way, "unimportant."

Until today, I had never bothered to check on any kind of "official" United States Post Office regulations concerning the handling of C.O.D. mail by the USPS. But today I found an interesting page on the Internet that confirms that the USPS definitely DOES collect money from individuals who receive C.O.D. mail, and the USPS does forward payments to the sellers (or "mailers", as they are called in the regulations cited below). It evidently happens all the time. The regulations cited below are not 1963 U.S. Post Office regulations (they're from August of 2003), and they don't deal directly with C.O.D. mail and packages sent to P.O. Boxes, but these regulations are certainly indicating that the USPS can and does handle cash and checks from people who receive C.O.D. mail. .... Are we confusing the fact that something could've happened with the certainty that it did happen? It strikes me that the basic premise of this thread is that there's a "hole" in the theory - and it is ONLY a theory since there doesn't appear to be anyone with direct knowledge of it - of how Oswald presumably came into possession of a weapon since there doesn't appear to be a complete paper trail that completes the link-up. That "hole" can't be filled with supposition, as nice and easy as that would be to do. The possibility exists that cash was sent to Seaport Traders for the pistol, but that is NOT proven by the check-mark on the Seaport form that could apply as equally to how they want to receive the balance of the payment (which seems to be a more substantial concern because if whatever the deposit was paid by is no good, they wouldn't fill the order and are not "out" any merchandise like they would be if a check for the balance bounced). The same holds at the receiving end, where it is possible that cash was paid on receipt of the merchandise at the post office - presuming that the postal service would take responsibility for collecting a COD amount from an addressee when the item was not shipped via USPS, and USPS (apparently) wasn't paid for mailing and collection fees. DVP appears to have established that USPS does in fact handle COD parcels, but there's no indication that it would take a package from another shipper and hold it for the addressee, and then collect the money and turn it over to the other shipper when there is no benefit (e.g., collection of shipping charges and collection fees) to USPS to ONLY take responsibility for the package and the money. That is, that USPS will take an original shipment on a COD basis, transport it (even across the floor of the post office), collect at the receiving end, and remit payment to the shipper for free, but not that they would simply take and hold-for-payment a package at the receiving end that was shipped by other means solely to act as a financial agent of the other shipper. In any case, to prove that such was indeed the case, the USPS would, according to its own procedures (presumably the same 40 years earlier than the cited document), have maintained a record of the receipt of cash, and there would be some form of payment record - e.g., an endorsed draft - on file at USPS to show that the cash received was remitted to the sender, even if only to settle a dispute between USPS and the sender in the event the latter claims not to have been paid. Given a lack of such records, it not only isn't proven that cash COD payment was made and received, it seems unlikely that it was since the usual paper trail wasn't generated or maintained. The only "proof of payment" by anyone seems to be the appropriately-colored page of the multi-part form to which something from REA was attached. While that may have satisifed Seaport that they didn't have to go looking for the money, it hardly speaks to who originally paid the COD amount, how they paid it, or who paid it. There likewise doesn't seem to be a trail leading from REA to USPS and back, and it just doesn't strike me as likely that a shipper would take a COD package down to the post office and say, in effect, "here, you guys collect the money" when they were perfectly capable of doing so themselves but for the fact that the delivery address was a PO box. Even if a USPS regulation exists that says that they will take a COD package from another shipper for the express purpose of receiving and delivering the parcel (for which they were not paid) and collecting and remitting the funds (ditto?), there would still be a paper trail to show how the money was handled. (Alternately, someone could propose that REA simply took the parcel to a post office, paid the postage for its delivery plus COD fees, and either deducted that amount from what they'd charged Seaport, or somehow passed the charge along to Seaport in their final accounting.) Does such a paper trail exist? Is there any documentation from REA that suggests a more complete answer to the original question? And, as an aside question, how was the rifle paid for? Just because something presents a simple explanation of how something could've occurred, it hardly establishes that the "something" did occur that way.

I was ... and I wasn't. There could be a hundred reasons for a police car - a regular patrol car incidentally, not a traffic control car - to have been there and honked, including one that I alluded to above. Except that all the cops on DPD said they weren't there any time around that time, so it sort of begs the question. We also can't forget what Gladys Johnson had to say about Earlene Roberts, not only in terms of the police car (as will be some people's wont, now that I'm offering a straw to grasp), but also in terms of almost everything she had to say. In short, she had a reputation for - shall we say - making it difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff when she related things. And then she disappears, quite literally, into the night. Just wasn't there the next morning, and never came back. If her employer questioned Earlene's veracity, how do we (who never knew her, and can't even hear her testimony) decide what and how much of what she had to say is true, and how much isn't? I guess the answer is ... to take what we like and toss the rest? Set it all aside and ignore it completely? Take what she said as gospel truth, word for word? It's a conundrum riding the horns of a dilemma between a rock and a hard place, isn't it?

Of course YOU don't have a hard time believing he took six minutes....because you erroneously think the time Tippit was shot was 1:10, right? In reality, of course, Bowley's call came about 3.5 to 4 minutes after the shooting (with Bowley getting through to the dispatcher at 1:18 after Benavides pumped the mike for 90 seconds). Which means Benavides got on the radio just about 2 minutes after Tippit was shot. A perfectly reasonable time estimate too. But 10 minutes is ridiculous. It is what it is, no matter how we want to think about it. We have four pieces of information that dovetail. Those are: Helen Markham leaving her house a few minutes after 1:00 (was she specific? I don't recall), her usual time to catch her usual bus, and estimating the shooting having taken place around 1:06 or 1:07 (plenty of time for her to catch the next bus at 1:12 after she left her house); Donnie Benavides ducking down on the floor (or seat) of his truck and waiting "a few minutes" to be certain the shooter had gone and wasn't going to get him; Time for a "crowd" to gather (according to Bowley), which at least entails the guys from the car lots to trot up the street (before, I might add, Calloway got there); and Bowley to see said crowd, drive half-way up the street, admonish his daughter to stay in the car, and walk up to the scene. (I don't recall whether Donnie wandered over to his mother's house before or after trying to get on the radio, so this may or may not factor into the delay as well.) Given all of these, and without denigrating exactly what was reported because there might be a "better explanation," why is ten minutes "ridiculous" and out of the question? Y'know, it wasn't that long ago that some people were adamant that it wasn't Bowley on the radio, that it was Benavides, largely because Benavides said it was and the WC agreed with him, rendering Bowley's statement "immaterial" because it "wasn't him" talking. Now that Bowley's actions are acknowledged, how long before it'll be that the time he read on his watch will be?

You're absolutely right that the honking police car "means nothing," not even when you consider that, at the time it supposedly did so, none of the Oak Cliff patrol units were in their assigned districts, and every other officer denied having been there when Earlene Roberts saw the car when they were called upon to account for their whereabouts. It likewise "means nothing" when two other patrol officers reported their positions in Oak Cliff when their assigned districts were each some 10 miles distant, they had not been reassigned there, had no discernable cause to be there, and later denied it. Since they said they weren't where they reported being, it clearly couldn't have been them. Earlene Roberts couldn't have seen any police car there, because none were, according to those who were driving police cars that day. Or she did see one there, and nobody owned up to it for some innocuous reason. She imagined it ... or she didn't. If she did, who's to say what else she only thought she saw? Otherwise, you're right: police cars had undoubtedly been by there, and most likely had blown their horns there from time to time, possibly to get someone dawdling at the light to get it in gear. Explains everything.

I'm not criticizing you, merely picking a recent example of where conjecture becomes "fact." This isn't personal for me at all. Ultimately, I'm commenting on how anyone who supports any given notion finds their own suppositions (and those that agree with their point of view) much more plausible and palatable than any put forth by someone whose position they take issue with. Those with an opposing point of view are demanded to provide absolute proof, while those who posit a supporting one usually make "very good points." You reinterpreted Earlene Roberts' words to get Oswald in and out of the rooming house more rapidly, thus giving him a few more minutes to get 8/10 of a mile away, deciding that she "really" meant he was in-and-out in the time it took him to duck into his bedroom, grab stuff, and bolt back out, and that she didn't really mean it was "three or four minutes" like she said. If on the other hand someone had said that Oswald (or whomever) had dashed in and out so quickly that Roberts, busy with the TV reception, didn't actually have the time to do much more than glance at him and maybe not even look at him, merely presuming it was him because of where he'd gone (who else would have gone into his room, after all?), it would not be surprising if his being in the rooming house "three or four minutes" turned into "plenty of time to look at and recognize him." Anyone can spin anything to bolster their point. Its acceptance is largely a function of the audience. My point throughout: does what you posit stand up to the same level of proof that you demand of those with opposing viewpoints? My impression is that it doesn't. If you want to make it all about you, though, please feel free.

See, here we go with what we "know," based upon something that the deponent didn't actually know himself, but at least believed to be true based on his knowledge of procedure and/or the people involved whom he got the information from (including the often-silent Mr Rose, who did actually have a hand in the process). I can understand and appreciate getting the closest possible testimony when the best testimony isn't available, but how is it that someone with direct knowledge was almost completely avoided even while he was sitting there in the same room and interjecting his comments and corrections into the interview? It smacks of not wanting whatever information Rose might've been able to provide, and taking in its stead the second- and third-hand information gleaned through someone else. This is not necessarily the case, mind you, but why would someone who wasn't even in the job be interviewed when the company president who actually handled the mail was sitting right there?!?

Yup. And if you go downtown to Dealey Plaza on November 22, you'll meet an ex-cop there who will tell you that he was "undercover" on the day of Kennedy and Tippit's shootings and, while dressed as a "beatnik," helped to subdue Oswald in the theater. It helps to believe everything you hear from people who have no reason to lie.

Where is your proof the rifle and pistol arrived at the P.O. (coming from Chicago and Los Angeles, respectively) "on the same day"? There's no proof of that. (Not that it really matters, of course.) Plus: Why couldn't Oswald have picked up his guns on a Saturday, instead of a workday? He didn't work Saturdays at Jaggars, did he? And weren't the post offices open at least a half-day on Saturdays in Dallas in 1963? (They are here in Indiana.) Another basic, common-sense point needs to be made here---- Who the heck orders something through the mail, and then doesn't even bother to go and pick it up? And please don't chime in with "Where's the proof Oswald ordered ANY guns through the mail?" -- because that's totally absurd. OF COURSE Oswald ordered his guns via mail-order. Hence, he would have been expecting them to arrive at the place he had them sent--his P.O. Box. Hence, he would have picked the damn things up. Can anyone possibly fight the basic logic of my last paragraph? It is not the logic of the presumption that I'd be at odds with, but with the notion that a "logical conclusion" is either the only conclusion or an accurate conclusion. While many thinks "make sense" to occur as a result of another event, they don't always. And, when we look at a murder case (even against a dead defendant), we must seek proof, and not merely substitute logical conclusions as concrete fact. While some good points seem to have been made in the above, much of it is based on inference rather than direct evidence. I should note at the outset, however, that I like the transition from "IMO" and it's "almost a certainty" to how we can "know" something with no steps in between, how opinion transitions in short order into seemingly established fact. Let's look, however, at the last point: The line in reference here reads three things: first, that a $10.00 down payment was received; second, that there is a balance due; and third, something was paid – or was to be collected — in cash. The trouble is that you can't tell which it is: that $10.00 was paid in cash, or that $10.00 was due on delivery in cash. Insofar as this exhibit and the associated Michaelis exhibits is/are concerned, this particular question remains unanswered, and it could be either, and is neither to the exclusion of the other. Heinz Michaelis testified about this (7H372, et seq.), but we find not only did he not process the order and thus had no personal knowledge of the transaction, but that he didn't even become responsible for order processing until long after the order in question was processed, in October 1963 "after the regular girl left." The regular girl, Emma Vaughn, was apparently not sought and certainly not interviewed. In any case, Emma was only the supervisor and would not have handled the transaction herself anyway. That, according to Michaelis, would have been left to an "order filler and packer," whom Michaelis "doubt(ed) ... would remember this particular order." The packer was apparently neither identified nor interviewed, despite the possibility, however remote, that s/he might have remembered it. Michaelis nevertheless stated that $10.00 in cash was received with the order, but gave no explanation of how he knew that. The person who, according to Michaelis, would have opened the envelope containing the order and money, Mr. George Rose, president of the parent company of Seaport Traders, was present during the Michealis interview but was not asked about the order. While Rose neither was asked about the order nor volunteered anything about it (including whether he actually would have opened the mail or whether the order contained cash), he was otherwise quick to interject answers to questions posed by Ball to Michaelis, such as this exchange in which Rose not only corrects Michaelis, but also answers for him: Mr. Ball. Are you employed, self-employed, or do you work for some company? Mr. Michaelis. I work for the George Rose & Co. Mr. Ball. What business is the George Rose & Co. engaged in? Mr. Rose. You work for Merchanteers. Mr. Michaelis. Oh, pardon me; Merchanteers, Inc. Mr. Ball. Your immediate employer is Merchanteers, Inc.? Mr. Michaelis. Merchanteers, Inc. Mr. Ball. Is that associated with the George Rose & Co.? Mr. Michaelis. Yes. Mr. Ball. In what business is Merchanteers, Inc., engaged? Mr. Michaelis. Merchanteers, Inc. has mail order---- Mr. Rose. Mail order and management. Mr. Michaelis. And management. Mr. Ball. And does it do work for George Rose & Co.? Mr. Michaelis. Do I work for George Rose & Co.? Mr. Rose. Yes. Michaelis states that "we received, together with the order, $10.00 in cash," a fact he admittedly has no personal knowledge of, and Rose, the company president and mail-opener, gives no clarification as to what he actually found when he opened the envelope or how he disposed of it (e.g., gave it to Emma Vaughn, separated the cash from the order and deposited it, or what), nor once again was he asked. During two pages of interrogatory discussing REA's shipment of the parcel to a PO Box and requiring a COD balance, the question is never asked in what form the payment was or should have been received, and there is thus no answer to that question or what the "order filler and packer" or Emma Vaughn was actually indicating by the marking of "cash." It may be inferred, but it is not asked and answered. The following exchange specifically asked about how the order would have been handled, and which Mr Rose also felt compelled to respond to: Mr. Ball. Now, can you tell me who would have actually received the mail order through the mail and who would have filled the order and shipped it? Do you know what person would have done this? Mr. Michaelis. There are various operations. The order was received by---- Mr. Rose. I probably would have opened it. Mr. Michaelis. Yes; Mr. Rose usually opens the mail and distributes the mail. This particular order would have gone to the person in charge at that time of the Seaport Traders, who was Emma Vaughn. The remainder of the deposition goes into such detail as the colors of the pages of the multi-part form, what they are for and how they are disposed of, how various details of the order (such as the date of the company's original receipt of the pistol and its handling through the time it was shipped to Dallas, and how they knew they'd actually received the COD amount for it from REA), among other various details. At no time is it discussed, with either Michaelis or Rose, how they knew that the initial payment for the order was made in cash. We may, of course, infer that there was a way that they'd have known, and even infer how they'd have known, but inference isn't established fact. The "X" by "cash" could have referred to the funds the company received, or it could just as possibly have referred to how it wanted the remaining funds on delivery, cash being a preferred option more most companies sending product to a stranger (cash doesn't bounce and can't be stop-paid; it's guaranteed). Ultimately, that the order was initially paid for in cash is one of those things we "know" because it "makes sense" to someone with a particular point of view, said POV satisfied with inferences of its own while decrying inferences that disagree with theirs. The WC had plenty of opportunity to nail this question down, and indeed nailed a lot of other seemingly unimportant details down during their interview with Michaelis and Rose, but failed to provide the information that allows us to know this conclusion beyond any doubt. Inference isn't proof, even when it's presented as if it were. Finally, for the sake of pointing out another "obvious" detail, can we not also infer that payment was not by cash simply by dint of the fact that the company waited a full week before taking the invoice the "order filler and packer" had generated to the warehouse for it to be shipped? Would or could the purpose of that seven-day delay be to allow non-cash funds to clear? Does this create a reasonable doubt as to how the order was paid, by cash or otherwise? In some minds, probably not (which only goes to underscore the value of having a dozen minds on a jury!).

Sure: Earlene Roberts was very likely wrong about her "3 to 4 minute" estimate. Oswald, just like Frederic Forrest in the 1978 movie scene I linked to, probably was in his cubbyhole of a room for about 30 seconds, and not anywhere near three or four minutes. David Belin & Co. walked the distance from Neely & Beckley to 1026 Beckley in 5 min. & 45 sec. If Oswald had moved considerably faster than Belin's "walking" pace, he could have shaved some time off of Belin's re-creation time and could have likely been inside his room by about 12:57. He's in his room for 30 seconds, then heads for Tenth Street. He can positively get to Tenth & Patton in about 11 minutes (that's been done by Dave Perry and others in past reconstructions). That puts him beside Tippit's patrol car at precisely 1:09. Which, as mentioned, would also have to mean that Domingo Benavides stood beside Tippit's police car picking lint out of his belly button for SEVEN MINUTES before using the police radio. And that is not a reasonable thing to believe, IMO. My bad on the misquote of "1026 N Beckley to 10th & Patton" when clearly it was not. Indeed, based on my calculations and the distance as actually stated (0.4 miles), this dovetails precisely with "normal walking speed." Nevertheless, we end up using conjecture and speculation, mixed with a little baseless disbelief, to arrive at what "couldn't" have happened, which in fact could've happened in total, as much as it could've happened in part.