David Von Pein

A "Money Order Timeline" summary.... There is solid evidence to support every step of the Hidell money order's journey --- from the post office in Dallas all the way to the document's final resting place at the Federal Records Center in Alexandria, Virginia (just outside Washington, D.C.).... 1.) The Dallas "G.P.O." Post Office handled the CE788 "Hidell" money order --- via the two stamps applied to the M.O. at the post office (i.e., the "Dallas, Tex.; G.P.O.; Mar. 12, 1963" stamp and the "$21.45" stamp that appear on the money order). 2.) The purchaser, Lee Harvey Oswald, handled the money order --- via the fact that Oswald's handwriting is on the document. 3.) Klein's Sporting Goods Company handled the money order --- via the Klein's "Pay To The Order Of The First National Bank Of Chicago" stamp on the back of the M.O. 4.) The First National Bank of Chicago handled the money order in question --- via the FBI interview with First National Bank Vice President Robert Wilmouth on November 23, 1963 [see CD75]. In that interview, Wilmouth verified that his bank received a $13,827.98 deposit from Klein's on 3/15/63, which contained a U.S. Postal Money Order in the amount of 21 dollars and 45 cents. Wilmouth also verified that the subject money order was sent to the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago on March 16, 1963. 5.) The Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago handled the Hidell money order --- via the presence on the document of the ten-digit "File Locator Number" in the upper left corner, which is a number that is stamped on a money order (or check) only after it has reached a Federal Reserve Bank for processing. 6.) And the CE788 money order was recovered on November 23, 1963, by employees of the Federal Records Center in Alexandria, Virginia, which is precisely where approximately 75% of the U.S. Postal Money Orders were being sent for storage by the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago in March of 1963 [see CD75, Page 669]. Now, if ALL of the above things are fake, fraudulent, or just a bunch of lies, then I think we can all agree that miracles are, indeed, possible. But even with a "File Locator Number" now identified on the Hidell money order, PLUS Lee Harvey Oswald's handwriting (per many handwriting analysts) being on the same money order, PLUS the Klein's stamp being on that same money order, PLUS the "Mar. 12, 1963" and "$21.45" post office stamps being exactly where they should be on that same money order....the conspiracy crowd still wants more proof to show that the M.O. is a legitimate document. As far as most conspiracy theorists are concerned, it always seems to be the things that AREN'T there that become more important and valuable than the things that ARE present and accounted for. The bullets in the JFK case are another good example of this mindset possessed by many CTers. Per those conspiracists, it's the bullets that were never found or recovered that somehow become much more important when it comes to solving JFK's murder than the bullets that are in evidence. Go figure. http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/10/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1058.html

Here's a plain text copyable version of the autopsy report (via JFK Lancer).... http://www.jfklancer.com/autopsyrpt.html

As I said, it's a matter of interpretation. There's not just one way to interpret what Katzenbach meant in his memo. Play the video I posted above. Listen to Katzenbach explain it himself. Plus, why on Earth would Katz write such a memo if his objective was a secretive one involving a cover-up and a bunch of lies? In such a situation, you think Katzenbach would commit it to WRITING? That's absurd.

And the Katzenbach memo is yet another thing that conspiracy theorists have been misrepresenting and misinterpreting for decades now. There is certainly more than one way to interpret the words that Nicholas Katzenbach wrote in his memo to Bill Moyers on 11/25/63, as I discuss HERE and as Mr. Katzenbach himself explains in the HSCA audio excerpt below: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Another interesting non-conspiratorial portion of the Katzenbach memo is this part: "I think this objective may be satisfied by making public as soon as possible a complete and thorough FBI report on Oswald and the assassination." Do conspiracy theorists think that Katzenbach was really talking in some kind of secret code or something when he said that a "complete and thorough FBI report on Oswald and the assassination" should be made public "as soon as possible"? I.E., was Katzenbach REALLY saying that only a "phony" or a "fake" FBI report about Oswald and the assassination should be made public? Because if Katzenbach really knew about Oswald's rumored involvement with the FBI (and CIA), and Katzenbach was "in" on some cover-up operation from the get-go, he certainly wouldn't REALLY want the FBI to release a "complete and thorough" report concerning Oswald, now would he?" -- DVP; Oct. 27, 2007

Your statement above, of course, assumes that the WC had any "aims" to begin with (such as nailing Oswald to the wall at all costs). I don't think they had any such "aim".

I don't think ANY official testimony should be changed--ever--regardless of whether it's Warren Commission testimony, HSCA testimony, or some other case not related in any way to the JFK assassination. If Paul Stombaugh said something on the record, it should stay on the record forever--and in print. As I just demonstrated in the above examples of WC testimony from witnesses who said things that certainly didn't lead down a path of Oswald's sole involvement in the assassination, the Warren Commission obviously had no qualms about eliciting testimony from witnesses whom they had to know before they ever called them to the witness stand were going to testify, on the record, in a manner that would seem to point in the direction of conspiracy. But they didn't shy away from taking testimony from people like S.M. Holland and Jean Hill and Billy Lovelady and a host of others as well. Regarding Paul Stombaugh.... My guess is that these words attributed to Stombaugh, which appear in WC Volume 4 and are after the so-called "change" was made to his testimony, very likely were actually uttered by Mr. Stombaugh himself at some point in time.... "There is no doubt in my mind that these fibers could have come from this shirt. There is no way, however, to eliminate the possibility of the fibers having come from another identical shirt." So the end result was probably looked upon by the Warren Commission as a necessary "revision", as opposed to the wicked and underhanded "change" or "alteration" that conspiracy theorists seem to want to label it as being. However, I do agree with Sandy Larsen on this issue. I think ALL of Stombaugh's testimony ("revised" and otherwise) should be available to read in the WC volumes. Any omission or deletion of testimony from the official record only makes the Warren Commission more of a "suspect" in the eyes of many people who are already not exactly big fans of Earl Warren's investigation. But let me again repeat this main point I made earlier, which I think is important (especially if you believe the WC was as crooked as they come right from Day #1 of its existence).... "The final result of what we now see on Page 88 of Warren Commission Volume #4 are altered words that nobody would have wanted to alter if their desire was to make people think that the fibers found on the butt plate of Mannlicher-Carcano Rifle #C2766 had come from the shirt worn by Lee Harvey Oswald on November 22, 1963."

Then you should be wondering how testimony like this ended up in the 26 volumes.... S.M. HOLLAND -- I counted four shots. .... There were definitely four reports. Mr. STERN -- You have no doubt about that? Mr. HOLLAND -- I have no doubt about it. I have no doubt about seeing that puff of smoke come out from under those trees either. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ JEAN HILL --- I have always said there were some four to six shots. There were three shots---one right after the other, and a distinct pause, or just a moment's pause, and then I heard more. .... At that time I didn't realize that the shots were coming from the building. I frankly thought they were coming from the knoll. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Mr. SPECTER -- What is your opinion as to whether bullet 399 could have inflicted all of the wounds on the Governor, then, without respect at this point to the wound of the President's neck? DR. ROBERT SHAW -- I feel that there would be some difficulty in explaining all of the wounds as being inflicted by bullet Exhibit 399 without causing more in the way of loss of substance to the bullet or deformation of the bullet. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Mr. BALL -- Where was the direction of the sound? BILLY LOVELADY -- Right there around that concrete little deal on that knoll. Mr. BALL -- That's where it sounded to you? Mr. LOVELADY -- Yes, sir; to my right. I was standing as you are going down the steps, I was standing on the right, sounded like it was in that area. Mr. BALL -- From the underpass area? Mr. LOVELADY -- Between the underpass and the building right on that knoll. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Mr. BALL -- You say you heard these three sounds which you later thought were probably shots, you thought it came from a certain direction. Can you tell us from what direction as illustrated on the map? .... BUELL WESLEY FRAZIER -- It is my true opinion, that is what I thought, it sounded like it came from over there, in the railroad tracks.

So, Sandy, you think these two comments (which I did not mention in my Post #6 above, because they weren't necessary to make the point I was making about the WC) are miles apart in meaning? ..... "...but I know of no scientific method to prove this, so therefore I am unable to say this." Vs.: "...There is no way, however, to eliminate the possibility of the fibers having come from another identical shirt." The two remarks above are virtually identical in meaning. In each statement, Stombaugh is saying he cannot say for certain that the butt-plate fibers positively came from Oswald's shirt. So, once more, we have CTers making enormous mountains out of things that aren't really even bumps in the road.

But my point is still entirely valid. I.E., If the Warren Commission was truly the corrupt and evil Oswald-framing entity that many (most) Internet conspiracy advocates think it was, then Stombaugh's original remark --- "In my mind I feel that these fibers came from this shirt" --- would most certainly have been left intact in WC Volume #4. Such a change in the wording of expert testimony to a conclusion that makes it LESS likely that Oswald was the guilty party, albeit marginally so, only tends to indicate that the Warren Commission was most certainly not railroading Oswald at all costs--even when, in this instance, they could have made it look as if Oswald was just a tad bit more guilty by merely leaving Stombaugh's original testimony alone. Is that the way Earl Warren's Commission would have behaved if they were on a dedicated mission to convince the American public of Lee Oswald's guilt?

Thanks, Pat. I find it interesting, however, to note that the "change" in Paul Stombaugh's Warren Commission testimony only SOFTENS the testimony and makes Stombaugh look a little LESS certain in his opinion that the fibers came from Oswald's shirt. If the Warren Commission had been on a dastardly mission to paint Lee Oswald as the lone gunman at all costs, there's no way on this Earth that we would have had this comment.... "In my mind I feel that these fibers came from this shirt..." ....changed to this.... "There is no doubt in my mind that these fibers could have come from this shirt..." If there was, in fact, any "change" made to Paul Stombaugh's above testimony, the final result of what we now see on Page 88 of Warren Commission Volume #4 are altered words that nobody would have wanted to alter if their desire was to make people think that the fibers found on the butt plate of Mannlicher-Carcano Rifle #C2766 had come from the shirt worn by Lee Harvey Oswald on 11/22/63. Some cover-up there. ~Yawn~

Whose testimony was changed? Can you cite it please?

Maybe this wider look of the TSBD will help....

Nolan, Bell, Wade, Connally, and the imaginary bullet.... http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/07/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-737.html

Of course that's out of the question. Because the one and only bullet that hit John Connally was CE399, which certainly wasn't plucked from the Texas Governor's left leg.

No, he was just wrong. Not lying. So you definitely DO think Gregory was lying. That's nice.

So you think Dr. Gregory was lying through his teeth here?.... "We were disconcerted by not finding a missile at all."

Dr. Charles Gregory, who was responsible for Governor Connally's wrist injury, gave the following testimony, which proves that Dr. Robert Shaw did not have all the facts when he told the press that the bullet was still inside Connally's leg. DVP's emphasis.... DR. GREGORY -- "I think again that bullet, Exhibit 399, could very well have struck the thigh in a reverse fashion and have shed a bit of its lead core into the fascia immediately beneath the skin, yet never have penetrated the thigh sufficiently so that it eventually was dislodged and was found in the clothing. I would like to add to that we were disconcerted by not finding a missile at all. Here was our patient with three discernible wounds, and no missile within him of sufficient magnitude to account for them, and we suggested that someone ought to search his belongings and other areas where he had been to see if it could be identified or found, rather."

Probably just bureaucratic red tape that none of the agencies ever wants to bother fighting. But whenever a new and previously "classified" document does get released --- what's in it? Certainly nothing that has proven a conspiracy.

Only a rabid CTer could possibly think Stone's movie full of fantasy and sheer speculation has "set back" WCR supporters in any way whatsoever. But, then too, Healy's current address is "Another Planet", so who knows what he's likely to believe (or swallow).

LEE HARVEY OSWALD, MARRION BAKER, ROY TRULY, AND THE COKE: Excerpt..... "Officer Baker's 9/23/64 statement is weird, I'll grant the conspiracy theorists that much. It's obviously not Baker's handwriting. It's someone else's. But Baker DID sign it and initial the cross-outs. There's no doubt about that either. If CTers want to think Baker was coerced into crossing out the "Coke" reference, I'll ask again -- Why didn't the FBI simply re-write the whole thing--sans any "Coke" reference--and then have Baker sign the revised statement? That would have taken--what?--an extra 5 minutes? The fact that CROSS-OUTS exist in that document at all is pretty good proof that the FBI wasn't hiding anything concerning that document. Heck, they could also have just as easily crossed out the word "Coke" entirely. But they didn't even do that. The word "Coke" can still easily be read underneath Baker's cross-out. Some cover-up there." -- DVP; January 11, 2013

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/oswald-baker-truly-and-coca-cola.html

No. Not unless the person was carrying a gun. Baker very likely would have let him go from the sixth floor (just like he did on the 2nd floor) after Mr. Truly identifies LHO as just another employee. Baker originally thought the gunshots came from the roof, not the 6th floor (or any other floor). Is that Rule #2A from "The CTer Guide To Make-Believe JFK Conspiracy Theories"? But such a rule probably is in place for many Internet CTers. Otherwise, outer-fringe conspiracy theorists like James DiEugenio and Greg R. Parker wouldn't be able to build up their lists of never-ending liars in the JFK case nearly as easily. Good imaginary rule, Greg. It keeps you from having to accept the reality of Lee Harvey Oswald's obvious guilt.

Good. Then you agree that Oswald himself said he encountered the policeman on the second floor. It's good to have that finally settled. Thanks. Will the number of liars in that "major piece" be three dozen or four dozen?