David Von Pein

James, Seaport shipped Revolver V510210 to Oswald's PO Box. I assume we can both agree on the above fact, can't we Jim? You surely don't think that Seaport lied about having the "Hidell" invoice in its records on Nov. 30th, do you Jim? You surely aren't silly enough to think that the whole paper trail from Seaport, through REA, to PO Box 2915 was "faked", are you? So, if we can agree that Seaport shipped #V510210 to "Hidell"/(Oswald), then if you have ANY ability to think logically at all, you MUST therefore admit that Seaport received the $10 deposit in the mail from SOMEBODY. Correct or not, Jim? And if you still have doubts about whether Seaport received the $10 deposit, then answer this question for me: Why did Seaport send the revolver to PO Box 2915 if they were never paid that $10? Did they just feel generous that day in March '63--and they said to themselves: Well, guys, we didn't receive a cent of money as a deposit from this dude Hidell in Dallas. But, what the xxxx, we'll just mail him this gun anyway.

Sure. And Seaport undoubtedly deposited the $10 that Oswald mailed them into their bank account. But please tell the world HOW the FBI is going to track or trace a specific $10 bill IN CASH that was deposited by Seaport? How is that done, Jimmy? And, more to the point, WHY would the FBI need to do that? They already knew LHO ordered the gun (the mail-order coupon and the Seaport order form prove that fact for all time)....and the FBI knew that Seaport had received the $10 cash deposit (the fact that Seaport mailed the merchandise to PO Box 2915 is proof of that). So why is there any need whatsoever to track down a particular $10 bill, which the FBI knew was paid IN CASH by Oswald (vs. a traceable check or money order)? Your goofiness is reaching a new zenith, Jimmy. I can think of two good reasons: #1.) Because the Klein's rifle order was paid for via a money order (which was traceable through the U.S. Post Office). #2.) Because Oswald was not caught red-handed with the Mannlicher-Carcano in his hands on 11/22/63. Therefore, additional means of linking the murder weapon to its owner (Oswald) were needed. And that was accomplished without a shred of a doubt. But the #2 item above did not apply to the revolver, because Oswald was nice enough to keep that murder weapon on his person at the time he was fighting with the police in the theater. Instead of focusing almost solely on Oswald's $10 cash deposit for Revolver V510210, you should be much more concerned about the $19.95 + $1.27 S&H that Oswald had to pay on the COD payment after the revolver was shipped. Yes, it's true that apparently there is no official "tracing" of that COD payment made by Oswald. (But LHO probably paid cash for that part of the payment, too. In fact, the Seaport invoice does have the "Cash" box checked for a payment; whether that refers to the $10 deposit or the COD payment, or possibly both, I am not certain.) But even without tracing the $19.95+, the FBI knew the revolver was Oswald's, and since he was caught with the gun on him on 11/22, the FBI actually was able to figure something out that Jimbo DiEugenio hasn't figured out to this day --- Lee Oswald, in March of 1963, picked up the gun that he himself ordered. (Gee, imagine somebody actually doing something like that, huh?) This is very simple stuff to figure out, Jim. Why over-complicate it with your silly "REA" requirements?

How would you suggest the FBI "trace" a particular ten-dollar bill that was mailed IN CASH by a particular person? Was the FBI supposed to collect every $10 bill in existence in 1963 and check each bill for Oswald's fingerprints or something? You're again asking WAY too much of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Why would that be considered odd, Jimbo? Nobody at the Dallas Post Office could remember Oswald picking up the rifle either. But he certainly DID pick it up. Marina took multiple pictures of LHO holding the gun just a few days later in the Neely backyard. (Oh, yes, those are fake too, aren't they Jimmy?) Plus, as noted a dozen times already, the FBI had already established the critical things that needed to be established -- 1.) Oswald having the Tippit murder weapon in his hands when he was arrested (which you will deny until the cows come home). 2.) Oswald ordered a revolver from Seaport, and Seaport shipped him what turned out to be the Tippit murder weapon. Can you get any goofier, Jimbo? Is it possible? WHY do you want to believe in the silly idea that the cops planted Revolver V510210 on Oswald? Plus: If the gun Oswald had in his pants on November 22 wasn't Revolver V510210, then what gun do you think that was that LHO had on him in the theater? There's no evidence that indicates Lee Oswald owned or possessed more than just one single revolver in 1963. And that one revolver that he owned was positively Smith & Wesson revolver #V510210. An unborn child still in the womb could figure this stuff out. But, miraculously, school teacher Jim DiEugenio can't. Bizarre.

Greg, All of that stuff you just mentioned is merely the normal (and expected) smoke and mirrors that a defense lawyer would naturally try to use at a trial in which they absolutely have to know the defendant is guilty. (Just like at the O.J. Simpson trial.) http://OJ--Simpson.blogspot.com The defense team would have to convince a jury that this portion of your above scenario actually happened: "The only pistol at the TT was one that the police were trying to force upon him." Tell me, Greg, just exactly WHY would a reasonable jury even BEGIN to believe such a thing occurred? Also: Would a reasonable jury truly believe that the Dallas Police (within MINUTES of Tippit's murder) would have had a desire to "force" a pistol into the hands of a man who was in no way involved in J.D. Tippit's murder? Which would mean, of course, if the jury did buy into the above preposterous notion, that the jury would also have to believe that the DPD would have deliberately allowed the killer of their fellow officer to just get off scot-free, while they framed the innocent man who was arrested in the Texas Theater. Hogwash. All of it.

Oh, good Lord. What a load of baloney. So, via the above CT rules of "proof", nobody could EVER be convicted of a murder involving a handgun or rifle -- because there's always the possibility that the cops were evil and sinister and wanted to switch around the evidence in the case. That is essentially what you've just said above. Okay, Duke, you're up to bat now: Please tell me just exactly how it could ever be "proven" to your satisfaction (under any hypothetical circumstances) that the gun taken off Oswald in the Texas Theater on 11/22/63 was the very same gun that Seaport Traders shipped to Oswald/"Hidell", which we know was Revolver V510210.* * = Or do you now want to claim that there's some doubt about the serial number of the gun Seaport sent to Oswald? And if so, then how could THAT be proven to your satisfaction; i.e., how could anyone "prove" to you that Revolver V510210 was really the exact gun shipped to Oswald? And how can ANY answer you are going to provide possibly eliminate the ever-present possibility of the authorities pulling a switcheroo on the guns at some later point in time? I await your logical and forthright answers to these inquiries, Mr. Lane.

The Tippit murder weapon was ALREADY in Oswald's hands at the time of his arrest, for Pete's sake. Why do you think it is absolutely essential and mandatory to find out exactly where and when Oswald INITIALLY gained possession of that revolver? And it's a particularly moot point in THIS (Oswald) case, because the FBI DID know that it was a revolver that WAS ordered by Oswald in March '63. The documentation on that fact is clear and distinct and was in the Seaport Traders files as of 11/30/63 when the FBI checked on it. Therefore, the FBI knew that the Tippit murder weapon belonged to Lee H. Oswald. I suppose that additional details about how and where LHO came into possession of the Tippit murder weapon in March might be kind of nice to know, from the standpoint of: We can now eliminate the idea of an accomplice possibly picking up the gun for Oswald at REA -- or something along those lines. But that type of information certainly is not required to establish the key things that need to be established in this case. These things: 1.) Did Lee Oswald kill Officer Tippit with Revolver V510210? 2.) Did the Tippit murder weapon belong to Lee Oswald? The answers to those two inquiries are, unquestionably, Yes and Yes. And those two answers were easily arrived at by the authorities, even without the help of the Railway Express Agency. No. Not really.

Greg, Your example is not analogous with the REA/Pistol example, and for the reasons I outlined, which are reasons that make perfect sense to me.

Bad comparison, Greg. The September 25/Winn-Dixie example is not at all the same as the REA/pistol thing. Because the question of Oswald taking possession of the Tippit murder weapon has NEVER been in doubt (except when you talk to off-the-wall CTers who apparently think, incredibly, that Oswald NEVER had Revolver V510210 in his hands at ANY time--not even in the Texas Theater at 1:50 PM CST on 11/22/63). But in the September example, the FBI was trying to find out if, indeed, Oswald could have actually been at Sylvia Odio's door at some point in late September 1963. And part of that particular investigation involved tracing Oswald's check. So, of course, they would naturally want to trace that check all the way through the system, to see if that tracing might turn up some additional lead of some kind that might take the FBI in a different direction re the check. But in November, there was no real need to know exactly where and when Oswald picked up Revolver V510210. Because even without that knowledge, Oswald would still be guilty as ever in the Tippit murder, and he still would have had the Tippit murder weapon in his hand in the theater thirty-five minutes after Tippit was slain.

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?

Go to 8:35: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzw3RlNgR1s

Billy Lovelady HIMSELF said he was the man in the doorway. Shouldn't Lovelady know where he was located when the motorcade passed? It's incredible that in the year 2011 there would STILL be people contending that Oswald was Doorway Man.

Mr. MICHAELIS. We received, together with the order, the amount of $10 in cash. [...] Mr. BALL. Is there anything in your files which shows that the Railway Express did remit to you the $19.95? Mr. MICHAELIS. The fact that the exhibit number--may I see this green one? Mr. BALL. Five. Mr. MICHAELIS. Was attached to the red copy of the invoice. Mr. BALL. Red copy of the invoice being---- Mr. MICHAELIS. No; was attached to the red copy of the invoice, exhibit number---- Mr. BALL. Two. Mr. MICHAELIS. Indicates that the money was received. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/michaelis.htm =================== Why are you even questioning this stuff, Jim? It's beyond silly. And you know it is. Plus, as I mentioned multiple times already, we can KNOW that Seaport received the initial $10 deposit -- because they would not have shipped the merchandise to "Hidell" in Dallas unless they had been paid. That's the way businesses usually operate, Jim. A customer gives them money, then the seller ships the merchandise. Surely you know how that works, don't you? And why in the world you think that a $10 bill sent in cash by Oswald would have to leave a detailed RECORD or paperwork trail for that SPECIFIC ten-dollar bill (or two fives) is also a silly thing to believe. Seaport shipped the gun to Dallas....therefore, they definitely received the $10 deposit. Period. And we know the gun WAS shipped by Seaport (via REA), and this REA document proves it: http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/08/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-42.html

WTF are you talking about, Jimmy? The initial $10 CASH deposit that Oswald mailed never needed to be "transferred" to Seaport by REA, because REA never handled or saw that ten dollars. Nobody else handled that $10 except Seaport. Oswald mailed it in an envelope directly to Seaport in Los Angeles. (Duh.) Why are you even asking such a silly question? Oh, yes, I know why -- Michaelis lied about Seaport receiving the $10 deposit IN CASH. Right? Well, even if that were true (which it isn't), you're still out to lunch, because even if Oswald had mailed in a check or a money order, REA still wouldn't be involved in any way with THAT money. It would have been mailed directly by Oswald to Seaport, regardless of method of payment. Why are you trying to get REA involved in the initial deposit sent by Oswald? That's nuts. REA only became involved with the COD part of the shipment. Plus, we know the $10 deposit WAS received by Seaport. How can we know that for a fact? Simple: Because if the $10 deposit had not been received by Seaport, then they (obviously) would never have shipped the gun to Oswald/Hidell at all. Do you think that Seaport sent a $30 gun to "Hidell" without ever having received the 10% deposit at all? You're a real piece of work, Jimbo. Although, unfortunately, I do agree with you about the quite subpar "Lost Bullet" program on NatGeo. Here's why: DVP REVIEW: "JFK: THE LOST BULLET"

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. And I imagine that at least a few people in the FBI had enough common sense to add up the following things and arrive at the obvious conclusion that Oswald took possession of V510210 in March '63: 1.) Oswald ordered the revolver from Seaport. 2.) Seaport's paperwork establishes that they [seaport Traders, Inc.] received Oswald's/Hidell's order (probably on March 13th, 1963, via the typewritten date on Michaelis Exhibit No. 2). 3.) Seaport's paperwork establishes the fact that Revolver V510210 was sent to Oswald's P.O. Box (or at least a notification card was sent to the box, with Oswald possibly needing to go to the REA office to get the gun itself). 4.) The gun was never returned to Seaport as "undelivered". 5.) The Seaport paperwork further indicates that the revolver shipped to Oswald was definitely PAID FOR and the order completed on REA's end, because the proper forms are attached to the red copy of the invoice in Seaport's files. (And this is another fact that CTers on this forum apparently want to completely ignore; and this fact was established in Heinz Michaelis' WC testimony.) 6.) J.D. Tippit was murdered with Revolver V510210. 7.) Lee Harvey Oswald had Revolver V510210 in his hands (attempting to shoot a policeman with it) at approximately 1:50 PM CST on Friday, November 22nd, 1963 AD. Given the above ironclad facts, tell me again WHY the Federal Bureau of Investigation (or anybody else for that matter) would have needed to go to the REA office to establish whether or not Lee Oswald picked up Revolver V510210 and whether or not Oswald shot Officer Tippit with that same gun? In actuality, you could really throw out Items 1 through 5 above, because even without establishing those things, Oswald is still proven guilty of murdering J.D. Tippit. Just #6 and #7 by themselves establish that fact for all time.

You guys can't possibly really be serious in questioning Oswald's ownership of Revolver V510210, can you? The evidence is a mile deep that Oswald, in his OWN WRITING (which you also dispute is his, naturally) ordered both the revolver and the rifle. This is a FACT beyond dispute (to reasonable people, that is). In fact, if you were to poll conspiracy theorists off the street who know at least a LITTLE something about the details of the JFK & Tippit murder cases, I'd bet that a vast majority would concede that the revolver and the rifle were Oswald's. (And as I mentioned twice previously, the "Patsy" plot even makes much more sense from the POV that the two guns WERE really Oswald's. The evil patsy framers would then have framed Oswald with HIS OWN WEAPONS.) And the assertion by some conspiracy theorists that the gun that was wrested from Oswald's hands during the scuffle in the Texas Theater was really not Revolver V510210 is an assertion that's almost too ridiculous to even talk about. Because if the gun taken from Oswald in the theater wasn't V510210, then we'd have to believe that the Dallas cops (and/or the FBI) had a desire to frame Oswald for a cop-killing he never committed (which is REALLY absurd when thinking about the DPD doing this, since a lot of those guys knew the slain officer personally, and certainly wouldn't want to see Tippit's murderer go free). And if the gun taken from LHO wasn't the V510210 gun, we'd also have to assume that the cops and Federal agents then engaged in a very swift and efficient sinister plot of faking all of the various records pertaining to Oswald's mail-order purchase for the revolver. The cops must have then somehow convinced at least SOME employees of Seaport Traders to join in their frame-up of Oswald, because the paperwork concerning Oswald's revolver purchase was found in the SEAPORT FILES on November 30th, 1963. JOSEPH BALL -- "That [Michaelis Exhibit No. 2] was in your records, was it, as of November 30, 1963?" HEINZ MICHAELIS -- "Yes, it was." Did the FBI send an agent to Seaport to "pose" as a Seaport employee so that this covert agent could then "plant" the "Hidell" invoice in the Seaport files? It's only when you get to Internet forums like this one do you find the incredibly silly theories being tossed around -- such as Oswald NOT shooting Tippit, Oswald NOT shooting JFK, Oswald NOT purchasing the revolver, Oswald NOT purchasing the rifle, and Tan Jacket Man "handing off" some suspicious item to somebody in a two-second film clip taken shortly after the assassination. As an additional example of what I mean, this 2003 ABC poll shows that 83 percent of the 1,031 people being polled believed that Lee Oswald was a gunman in the JFK murder: "Do you think Lee Harvey Oswald was the only gunman in the Kennedy assassination, do you think there was another gunman in addition to Oswald there that day, or do you think Oswald was not involved in the assassination at all?"..... ONLY OSWALD ----------- 32% ANOTHER GUNMAN ------- 51% OSWALD NOT INVOLVED -- 7% NO OPINION ------------- 10% http://www.pollingreport.com/news3.htm#Kennedy How big do you suppose the percentage would be in those first two categories ("Only Oswald" and "Another Gunman [Plus Oswald too]") if the respondents consisted only of people who posted regularly at Internet forums?

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) that Oswald's reason for purchasing the rifle was to kill General Edwin Walker. The timing of the Walker shooting dovetails perfectly with Oswald having ordered and received his mail-order guns in late March of '63. 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 than believing in the far-out theory that has the entire paper trail for BOTH the rifle and the revolver being forged and completely manufactured by the bad guys. Plus, when thinking about all the complicated stuff that the "patsy-framers" would have had to fake and create out of whole cloth to make it look as though Patsy Oswald had really purchased the two guns in March '63 via mail-order, there's an additional level of fakery that DiEugenio & Co. must think the plotters engaged in regarding the revolver order: the REA skullduggery. Because if the same rules and regulations for "C.O.D." mail and packages were in place in March '63 as they were in 2003, it would mean that the "plotters" who wanted desperately to make it look like Oswald had purchased a mail-order revolver from Seaport Traders could have faked the paper trail without using REA as the package delivery service at all. They could have had Seaport deliver the gun to P.O. Box 2915 via the regular U.S. Post Office delivery, instead of using REA, even though a COD payment was due on the gun. Which brings up another point -- If the whole paper trail for the revolver was completely phony, why in the world did the plotters want to have Oswald paying for the gun via COD? Why not just fake it to make it look like Oswald had paid for the entire purchase price when he ordered it, just like the Patsy Framers supposedly did with LHO's Carcano purchase? The mysterious plotters didn't have Oswald paying COD for the rifle. Why did they do that with the revolver? The COD angle adds yet another level of needless complexity into such "fakery", because "they" need Oswald to make two payments instead of just one. Of course, just HOW they managed to place the phony paperwork in the REA and Seaport files is another matter, which is yet another level of the plot that complicates the whole works, just as it does with the Klein's paperwork in Chicago. Because it was the Klein's people who scoured their records all night on Nov. 22-23 for the paper trail of LHO's rifle. Do the CTers think that Klein's employees, like William Waldman and whoever might have been helping him find the documents, were "in" on the plot too? It's so silly, it's truly beyond ALL belief that such a complicated plot of fakery could have possibly taken place (or that anyone with any common sense could believe that anything of the sort could have occurred in this case). But instead of just faking the Seaport documents, these overworked plotters decided it might be nice to add more levels of complexity into their fakery, so they had Railway Express act as the package delivery service for Oswald's "bogus" gun purchase. Therefore, STILL MORE paperwork had to needlessly be faked and created from whole cloth in order to meet the conspirators' demands. I wonder why more conspiracy theorists can't see the built-in craziness of such a "faked paper trail" scheme? But I sure can.

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.

Correct. Because Myers quoted someone who is familiar with REA procedures in 1963. Why is it so hard for you to believe that I would accept BETTER EVIDENCE to trump evidence (or speculation) that isn't nearly as solid? Should I ALWAYS go with the mushy evidence, even when a guy like Hendon is telling us what was done in other cases where REA dealt with an order shipped to a P.O. Box? 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 (which, I'll admit, I cannot know for sure, but if they were, then "Any mailer" could have used the COD mailing methods described in the regs I posted earlier), which then 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. But regardless of WHERE he picked it up, all reasonable people who have looked at this case know that Oswald DID pick up the gun that HE HIMSELF ordered in March 1963 from Seaport Traders, Inc. And, once again, I'll ask this very logical question: Who in the heck orders something by mail-order, and has it sent to his post office box, but then doesn't even bother to pick it up? That'd be kinda crazy to do that, wouldnt it? And, yes, Jim, I know that you and your CT buddies think that there's no evidence whatsoever to show that Oswald even ORDERED the Smith & Wesson revolver. But, again, we have to distinguish between the Anybody-But-Oswald "conspiracy clowns" (like you) and "reasonable people interested in the truth" (people like me and many thousands of others). And when that distinction is made and observed, then the truth regarding Lee Harvey Oswald's 1963 revolver purchase becomes a lot clearer.

That's as good a guess as any, Thomas.

This thread tends to exemplify the mindset of CTers on the Internet -- they look at a picture or film clip, with "conspiracy" swimming in their heads (as always) -- so, naturally, EVERYTHING becomes sinister. Even if Tan Man has an umbrella -- so what? Is he going to now replace Louis Witt as Umbrella Man? We'll have to give the Tan Man a new acronym then -- he'll be TJMWU (Tan Jacket Man With Umbrella) .... or perhaps TUM2.

A professional what?

[Duplicate deleted.]

You're right. I stand corrected. Good catch. It's virtually impossible to tell what his left hand is doing in the full-speed clip. But in this clip, I don't see an object in his left hand. I see his fingers moving, though. The coolest part of this clip, though, is watching the man in the background (in the raincoat/trenchcoat). Set his moves to some "Saturday Night Fever" music, and you're all set.

How can there possibly be a "hand-off"? The Tan Jacket Man has BOTH hands in his pockets. (It looks that way to me anyway.)

Lee and Duke, Would you have preferred that I concoct some imaginary theory about the honking police car, instead of my ~shrug~? What am I expected to say about it? I haven't the foggiest what it was all about. And, equally as important, neither do you. So why keep beating your head against the car door about it? It reminds me of the Odio incident in a sense. As Jean Davison put it: "The point to be stressed is this: Sylvia Odio gave testimony of obvious, even crucial importance, and no one could explain what it meant." -- J. Davison