Sandy Larsen

Some people still take Jim Garrison seriously too, Sandy. And Garrison was pretty darn bad (as proven by the preposterous Garrison quotes below). What does that tell you about those CTers? Let the hilarity commence..... "I can't go into all the details on this, but the murder of Tippit, which I am convinced Oswald didn't commit, was clearly designed to set the stage for Oswald's liquidation in the Texas Theater after another anonymous tip-off." -- Jim Garrison; 1967 From what I know, there is no reason to believe Oswald shot Tippit. But there is reason to believe he was set up. For example, that Oswald supposedly dropped his wallet there. (Yeah right! And later his wallet was ALSO taken from him after he was picked up at the theater. LOL) And after murdering Tippit, Oswald felt it necessary to empty his gun of the bullet casings, thus leaving behind evidence. (Yeah, right! Again!) "The clincher, as far as I'm concerned, is that four cartridges were found at the scene of the [Tippit] slaying. Now, revolvers do not eject cartridges, so when someone is shot, you don't later find gratuitous cartridges strewn over the sidewalk -- unless the murderer deliberately takes the trouble to eject them. We suspect that cartridges had been previously obtained from Oswald's .38 revolver and left at the murder site by the real killers as part of the setup to incriminate Oswald." -- Jim Garrison; 1967 What is wrong with this statement, Dave? "If there's one thing the Warren Commission and its 26 volumes of supportive evidence demonstrate conclusively, it's that Lee Harvey Oswald did not shoot John Kennedy on November 22, 1963." -- Jim Garrison; 1967 I agree with Garrison.. Much of the evidence clearing Oswald was included in the WCR's 26 volumes of evidence. But not in the WCR itself. Like the fact that residue wasn't found on Oswald's cheeks, though it WAS found on the cheeks on every one of several test subjects who also fired the gun. "Lee Oswald was totally, unequivocally, completely innocent of the assassination .... and the fact that history, or in the re-writing of history, disinformation has made a villain out of this young man who wanted nothing more than to be a fine Marine .... is in some ways the greatest injustice of all." -- Jim Garrison; Spoken during an on-camera interview for the A&E Cable-TV mini-series "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" (Part 4; "The Patsy") Yep! "There is no 'overwhelming' evidence that Oswald shot from the Book Depository. The only evidence available indicates that he did NOT." -- Jim Garrison; 1/31/68 That's right! I don't think there was any evidence that the gun was even shot that day. Even the neutron activation analysis of the bullet fragments in the limo -- which Bugliosi depended on so much -- has been proven unreliable. jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/jim-garrison-part-1.html

I don't believe Reitzes says anything positive about Nagell. I didn't read every single word of his very-long article (I skimmed what I didn't read), but the impression I was left with was that Nagell was in Military Intelligence for two or three years, and then was stripped of his top secret clearances due to "mental instability." And that he spent the rest of his life complaining to the government. The article clearly was written with an agenda in mind.

Excerpts from Dave Reitzes' article on Richard Case Nagell. Reitzes wrote: [The FBI's] report reads, "When asked for his motive in attempting to hold up the bank. Nagell stated that he was unhappy with the American judicial system, because he had attempted, through judicial procedures, to get to see his two children, a girl 3½ and a boy 2½, in custody of his divorced wife, and the California court had not executed an order in keeping with his request." The source for this statement is The Man Who Knew Too Much. (Really??) Regarding the story that Nagell fired into the bank ceiling in order to protect himself, Reitzes wrote: Nagell adamantly denied such claims. "I was not the least bit [desperate] about anything in September 1963. . . I had no fear of being implicated [in the assassination] at the time of my arrest or prior thereto." And he wrote: Nagell "kept emphasizing throughout the various interviews that his whole purpose in entering the bank in El Paso, Texas when he is alleged to have attempted to rob the bank was for the purpose and sole purpose of getting psychiatric treatment."

Was Dulles's double negative intentional? Isn't what he asked the same as, "How do you prove a fellow was your agent?" Of course you can prove it. If you want to.

Dave Reitzes' article on Nagell is a hatchet job... 100% opposite of The Man Who Knew Too Much, from what I can tell. In his five page essay Reitzes doesn't even mention the ID card identical to Oswald's. (At least I couldn't find it.) At first I wondered if what he wrote could possibly be true -- it makes Nagell out so bad. Then I realized, if Nagell were that bad, nobody would have taken him seriously. Nobody. And yet some did and still do.

The movie theater is a mile from where Tippit was shot. Not exactly nearby. Nevertheless.... I would expect the police to send two squad cars with four officers to check it out. One car for out front and the other for out back. Certainly NOT 15 squad cars and 26 officers! How ridiculous!

This is nothing but total B.S. invented by CTers who are desperate to keep Lee Oswald blameless for all November 22 crimes. The reason the police swarmed the Texas Theater was certainly NOT because Oswald had entered without buying a ticket. The reason, instead, was a perfectly logical and sensible one, all explained by the person who called the police, Julia Postal, in her Warren Commission testimony (the key sentence in Postal's testimony emphasized in bold text by DVP below). I don't think the police even knew that Oswald had not bought a movie ticket when the police went to the theater. There's nothing in Mrs. Postal's testimony that would indicate she told the police on the phone that the man who just entered the theater had not purchased a ticket. It's possible that she told the DPD that information, but she certainly doesn't indicate it here.... Complete Testimony Of Julia Postal Police cars swarmed in as though they had a positive identification on Oswald, when all they really had was a report of suspicious activity by some guy.

What good would that do you, Jon? You mean you'd actually believe that such a bank statement, should it ever be produced, wasn't capable of being faked or manufactured by conspirators? I'm amazed that you'd accept such a "bank statement" as proof of anything. Very few Internet CTers would. That, actually, is a very good point! (Sorry Jon... though if it's any consolation, I though your point was good before I read DVP's counterpoint.) And here, Scott gives a great example of an argument that holds water. There are just too many HIGHLY UNLIKELY occurrences in the JFK assassination case to believe it was what it was made out to be... a simple murder.

That's right! (And don't call me Scott ) The First National Bank employees stamped items every day. The cover-up artists didn't forge PMOs every day.

The cover-up artists didn't ask all the right questions of all the right people. Therefore, unknown to them, their forgery wasn't complete.

No, as I explained in my last post, I choose to believe that the following words within the FRB regulation can be properly applied to the Hidell Postal Money Order, IF that money order had been included in a large bulk "cash letter" type of deposit by the FNB of Chicago. In such a "bulk" deposit, "All cash items" (in BULK form) probably were endorsed via a "cash letter" which accompanied the multiple money orders that FNB sent to the FRB, which would include the Hidell M.O. .... "All cash items sent to us, or to another Federal Reserve Bank direct for our account, should be endorsed without restriction to the order of the Federal Reserve Bank to which sent." Scott, David is making stuff up. He claims that the DEPOSIT SLIP was endorsed rather than the individual PMOs. (The deposit slip is called a "cash letter.") There is NO reason to believe this is true. There is ZERO evidence. Not even a SINGLE HINT of this has been seen ANYWHERE. It's just DVP's theory.

It is well known that "should" is the past tense of "shall" and is often used in its place in polite conversation. The two words share the same meaning. Definition according to Dictionary.com: should [shoo d] /ʃʊd/ 1. simple past tense of shall. 2. (used to express condition): Were he to arrive, I should be pleased. 3. must; ought (used to indicate duty, propriety, or expediency): You should not do that. 4. would (used to make a statement less direct or blunt): I should think you would apologize. Definitions 1, 3, and 4 confirm my understanding of the word, as I stated above.

Sandy, I wouldn't recognize Nagell if I tripped over him. My comment is based on my experience and training as a U.S. Army counter-intelligence officer who served a year in Viet Nam. I know military intelligence first-hand. Nagell never would have been recruited by army M.I. He was too unreliable. I know a tiny bit, just a tiny bit, about the CIA in Viet Nam. Just a tiny bit. Let's just say Nagell had nothing to offer. Nothing. But you've made specific claims about him. That he was disturbed and behaved erratically. You must have a source or two, otherwise you couldn't possibly know those things. The reason I asked is because I read an article about Nagell earlier today, written by a Dave Reitzes. In the article he is painted with much the same brush as yours, but in greater detail. The integrity of the article is suspect, though, as it is hosted on John McAdam's site.

These are good questions, Sandy, and my current theory holds a subordinate place for the CIA involvement in the JFK murder; that is, I recognize CIA Rogues who left the reservation to join a Civilian Plot -- because they hated JFK that much. I count David Morales and Howard Hunt as CIA Rogues, by necessity, since they confessed. Hunt confessed to a "sidelines" role. David Morales was much deeper -- for example, Bill Simpich believes he and his quislings were the ones who Impersonated LHO in Mexico City in early October 1963. I accept that as TRUE. (Tommy Graves also believes Morales was Neck Scratcher in a film of LHO on Canal Street in NOLA. I think that is a very real possibility.) So, I do admit the a few CIA Rogues were involved. But you're asking specifically about Richard Case Nagell. I don't believe that Nagell was one of the Rogues -- but I do believe that Nagell KNEW who was involved. He's a special case. Here's my opinion. (1) Richard Case Nagell was a double-agent. That means that he was more at risk than most CIA agents. He played a riskier game. IMHO, a double-agent could be shot by his own team just as easily as by the Other team. IMHO, a double-agent could barely find a single friend to trust, or who trusted him. His life was always on the line. (2) I find it interesting that LHO was also a wanna-be double-agent. While Nagell was working for the CIA and drawing a handsome salary for his work, LHO was a pitifully poor wannabe who would work odd jobs for cash, or live on unemployment checks, or get chump change from the FBI for some information here or there, or get chump change from Clay Shaw to play ball with Guy Banister. (2.1) I think of LHO as a mercenary -- but rare among mercenaries because he regarded himself as -- and behaved as -- a player on the order of Richard Case Nagell, namely, a double-agent. (2.2) Like all double-agents, he would find few friends to trust, and few friends to trust him. Loran Hall, for example (IMHO) said of Lee Oswald, "You never know how to take him -- he could go either way." This was no way to make friends among the mercenaries, who were fighting for their nation back, and often in a life-or-death situation. (3) Richard Case Nagell took an interest in LHO when he was there in NOLA. In NOLA, as Jim Garrison correctly pointed out (though much of what Garrision believed was mistaken) LHO was associated at 544 Camp Street with Guy Banister and his Radical Right operations. (3.1) Guy Banister was associated at one point with Operation Mongoose -- and other plots to kill Fidel Castro. (3.2) LHO, while working for Guy Banister as a double-agent, was allowing himself in NOLA to be sheep-dipped so that he looked to everybody in the Police Department, in the Newspapers, on Radio and even on TV -- to be a Secretary of the FPCC, that is, a friend of Fidel Castro. (3.3) Richard Case Nagell took an interest in LHO for this very reason. Fidel Castro was a target -- and to keep his cover with the USSR, Richard Case Nagell had to tell the USSR what was happening with regard to plots against Fidel Castro. (3.4) Richard Case Nagell couldn't tell which side LHO was on. This was amusing. Nagell evidently thought that LHO was really a Communist-sympathizer trying to infiltrate the Radical Right. So Nagel tried to warn LHO that his associates (e.g. Loran Hall, Larry Howard and others like them in Interpen and Lake Pontchartrain) were actually Faking LHO out and weren't fooled by his game. LHO just ignored Nagell, so Nagell worried about LHO, and what LHO was going to do next). (3.5) Richard Case Nagell, IIRC, warned LHO that if he tried to sneak into Cuba through Mexico City, that Nagell would have to shoot LHO dead, just to preserve his reputation with the USSR. (3.6) This did worry LHO, IMHO, and LHO cried one night that summer in his kitchen, according to Marina, because of the stress he was under. Also, LHO tried to think of other ways to get to Cuba for his "mission" for Guy Banister -- e.g. hijack an airplane. (3.7) That is speculation, but what we know for certain (from the Lopez-Hardway Report) is that LHO entered Mexico City "as a passenger in a car," and he took with him a Fake Resume of Fake Credentials that he had built up with the help of Guy Banister and his crew there in NOLA. LHO went to Mexico City pretending to be an FPCC Secretary -- knowing that FPCC Secretaries get special treatment to enter Havana Cuba. Instead, LHO and his Fake Credentials were laughed out of the Cuban Consulate offices, as well as out of the USSR Embassy there in Mexico City. (4.0) Be that as it may, Richard Case Nagell failed to kill LHO for going to Mexico City, but Nagell also figured something out that LHO never figured out, namely, that LHO was really being sheep-dipped to be used as a Patsy for a Right-Wing coup-de-etat. (4.1) Richard Case Nagell also realized that any double-agent -- whether mercenaries like LHO, or even CIA double-agents -- were totally at risk of being made into the Patsy of this Right-Wing coup-de-etat. (4.2) Therefore, Richard Case Nagell got himself arrested after he found out that LHO had successfully entered Mexico City with impunity. (5.0) So, there you go, Sandy. I believe the Nagell story entirely -- it makes sense to me -- just as the participation of CIA Rogues like Morales and Hunt makes sense to me. (5.1) As I say -- not every CIA Agent could be made into a Patsy -- but a double-agent was far more at risk than an ordinary CIA Agent. (5.2) LHO was not in the CIA -- but he wanted to be with all his heart. LHO fooled himself that Guy Banister and his rag-tag band of mercenaries in NOLA were "really" in the CIA, and they may have led him on. Certainly Fred Crisman led Tom Beckham on. Surely David Ferrie was not above leading young men on. Guy Banister probably told LHO that if he was successful in his "mission" in getting to Cuba, that LHO would get a real job in the CIA. So, LHO would evidently do anything for Guy Banister -- even be a double-agent. Thanks for the legitimate question, Sandy. Regards, --Paul Trejo Thanks for your thorough explanation, Paul. I must say I found every word you said fascinating... and eye-opening. I had no idea that you accepted the idea that CIA rogues could have been involved. I suppose because I've only seen you discussing Ruth Paine since I joined the forum. I admit that I expected your assessment of Nagell to be more inline with Jon Tidd's. Thanks again for spending the time explaining that.

Jon, What are your sources for information on Nagell?

Paul, You keep dismissing the idea (or fact, as I consider it) that the CIA was involved in the assassination. How do you account for Richard Case Nagell? He shot at the ceiling of the bank and waited for police to arrive. He told them they would know soon why he did that. He got himself arrested for protection. He had on him a copy of Oswald's military ID card. CTers who believe the CIA was involved quickly understand the Nagell situation... it makes sense. But it seems that for you it would make no sense at all. Nagell must have been close to Oswald (in order to have gotten the ID card), but beyond that he must have been crazy to have done what he did. I'm curious to know your take on him.

Jim DiEugenio and Jim Hargrove are right about DVP's website giving him the last word. I have a perfect example. Several posts ago Scott Kaiser tried to prove to DVP that postal money orders do indeed require bank stamps. Unfortunately he quoted regulations for DISBURSEMENT postal money orders, which are a special type of PMO and not the type used by Hidell. In Post 85 on this page, DVP replied by pasting from his website a sequence of posts made by DVP's buddies on another forum, where they point out that I had made the same mistake. Oddly, one of the posts among them was mine from THIS forum, not theirs. So David showed Scott that he was wrong. Not surprisingly, David didn't reveal to Scott the FRB circulars that cover regular money orders and prove that they too require bank stamps. Anyway, I wondered if DVP posted ANYTHING on that page of his website regarding FRB circulars and my proof. What I found is, to say the least, enlightening. The date span of that page on DVP's site covers the whole PMO debate, up through yesterday. So it should have posts regarding my proof. But no, there is not one single post where I show that the FRB circulars tell bank managers that bank stamps are indeed required on PMOs. Not One! In addition, I stumbled across an odd exchange between me and David on his site. David had this theory that banks didn't stamp individual items, but instead stamped the deposit slip (called a "cash letter") just once for all items. I proved him wrong by showing an actual check that Oswald had deposited. Here is what he has on his site: SANDY LARSEN SAID: It is easy to prove today -- right now -- that a bank stamp on a cash letter (bulk deposit slip) wasn't the way things were done in the 1960s. For the sake of argument, let's suppose that cash items were NOT stamped individually, because it was done on the cash letter. If that were the case, then how would you explain check #7419 on this page? On the reverse side of the check you can see the FRB Chicago stamp (rectangular), so you know the check was processed by a Federal Reserve Bank. And you can see two bank stamps for Fort Worth National Bank (one is a hexagon and the other a rectangle with a decorative border). Since this is a national bank, it was the one that submitted the check to FRB Chicago. Why are those bank stamps there, David?? When one stamp on the cash letter would have sufficed? DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Probably because you're talking about CHECKS and not POSTAL MONEY ORDERS in that example, Sandy. That's why. Big difference. The First National Bank of Chicago very likely handled Postal Money Orders differently (in bulk) than they did checks. What? No rebuttal from me? Well, no. Not on DVP's site. But if you go to the source -- this forum -- there IS a rebuttal. Here it is: SANDY LARSEN SAID: But the part of the regulation you quoted, regarding bulk deposits and cash letters, applies to all cash items, not just PMOs. And cash items include checks, money orders and other such instruments. So if the FRBs allowed bank stamps to be on the cash letter instead of individual items, that would apply to checks, PMOs, and the rest. What I showed is that what you described wasn't the case for checks. And so it wouldn't have been be the case for PMOs either. After a few more exchanges DVP lost the mini-debate. But his website leads one to conclude otherwise. (If anybody wants to see for themselves, start at Post 25 on this page. Skip the long post to Lance Payette.)

Scott, The document that you cite here gives regulations for cashing a postal money orders (PMO) at post offices. You need to cite the regulations for cashing PMOs at banks. You are right, and David is wrong, that a bank stamp was required on Hidell's PMO. Bank stamps have always been required, ever since banks began accepting them. The same is true for Federal Reserve Banks. (Actually, the latest date for which I've checked these regulations is 2001. So things may be different now... I don't know.) You will find proof of what I'm saying in Post 197 on this page. David knows about the proof but simply refuses to acknowledge it.

According to your way of thinking, David, forgeries do not occur because checks, etc. are stamped. And somehow "legitimate looking" stamps prevent or stifle forgery. Problem is, preventing forgery is generally not the reason for stamps. Stamping is for 1) completing a negotiation; 2) indicating conditions; 3) indicating restrictions on negotiability; 4) indicating rejection or acceptance of responsibility; and/or 5) record keeping.

I've learned from my Alternative Explanation experiment that it makes no sense to look at just a single piece of information or a short narrative when trying to determine whether noted problems are sinister in nature or can be explained by innocent mistakes. Because the explanation you come up with to reconcile the problems can very well depend upon whether you initially assume the story to be sinister or innocent. In other words, the process of explaining the problems can be a pointless exercise of circular reasoning. Or... Maybe the lesson to be learned is that almost any problem can be explained away as being due to mere mistakes and misunderstandings. The simpler the problem, the easier it is to explain away. Whichever the case, I've learned my lesson. I won't be doing any more of these experiments.

Our esteemed Lance Payette made the following statement in his recent post: [To Armstrong, the] "failure" of Belin and Waldman to notice the absence of ... stamps that the money order “should” have had is deemed “suspicious.” For you fans of logic ... this is the fallacy known as “assuming that which is to be proven.” So he thinks Armstrong has committed the fallacy when in fact it is he who has. For it is Armstrong who has asked a bank executive if bank stamps were required and received an answer in the affirmative, and since that time has seen for himself the Federal Reserve Bank regulations requiring bank stamps. In contrast, Lance has only supposed that bank stamps were not required, using a line of self-concocted reasoning. The man's arrogance is astonishing.

Jim, Much of what you wrote (below) has since been addressed in other posts. I will respond only to anything not addressed so far. My writing in green.

You mean like assuming postal money orders don't require bank stamps? Even though regulations state they do? I'm glad we got that cleared up.

Alternate Explanation for Incorrect Rifle Information Being Reported Based on David Von Pein's Post 116 in this Thread Version 4 Date: 2/24/16 Substantive changes in red. The FBI has the Carcano rifle in their possession at 11:45 PM CST by 2:15 Dallas time on Friday the 22nd, from which they get the serial number C2766. The FBI discovers from a gun dealer in Dallas that Italian surplus WW2 rifles were being distributed by Crescent Firearms in New York City. This leads the FBI to Klein's in Chicago after discovering that Crescent had sold the C2766 rifle to Klein's. The FBI searches Klein's records and the Internal Invoice matching the C2766 rifle is found. (This is "Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 7"). The FBI also found on microfilm the "Order Letter," as Curry later called it. (This is CE773). The Order Letter consists of an order form clipped out of the Feb. 1963 American Rifleman magazine, and the envelope in which it was mailed. The FBI quickly determined that the writing on the Order Letter was that of Lee Harvey Oswald. Internal Invoice Information: A. Hidell customer name; 3/13/63 receipt date; 3/20/63 processing & shipping date; $19.95 rifle cost; $21.45 total cost; C2766 serial number; paid via money order; "W/ 4X SCOPE". Order Letter Information: a few words in Hidell's handwriting; Hidell's address; $19.95 rifle price. WHY DID THIS SEARCH TAKE 7 HOURS? DVP HYPOTHESIS: Somebody in the FBI transmitted the wrong total price to other FBI personnel ($21.95 instead of $21.45). This led to confusion when the FBI and Secret Service began searching for the money order. SDL HYPOTHESIS #1: Somebody in the FBI was given a copy of the Internal Invoice (and perhaps also the Order Letter) and was assigned to search for Klein's ads matching the C2766 rifle. He finds one. The ad has a large "$12.78" price printed on it. The agent notes the 3/20/63 processing/shipping date on the Internal Invoice, and determines it to be a suitable "purchase date." He clumsily doesn't realize that the $12.78 price didn't include the scope. (Or perhaps he has heard that the Texas Sports Shop had added the scope later.) This information is passed on to Chief Curry of the DPD. SDL HYPOTHESIS #2: The Texas Sports Shop episode (with Dial Ryder) is an unrelated event. The FBI nevertheless investigates it. It may reveal that the original scope was replaced with a second one.EVEN I, AS THE AUTHOR OF THIS HYPOTHESIS, HAVE A HARD TIME BUYING IT. MAYBE THE PART ABOUT A REPLACEMENT SCOPE COULD BE BELIEVABLE. BUT TO ME THE WHOLE DIAL RYDER THING WREAKS OF CONTRIVANCE THAT IS BEYOND WHAT WC APOLOGISTS ATTRIBUTE TO DIAL RYDER. I THEREFORE CALL UPON DVP TO ANSWER THIS. In a hallway press conference on the night of Nov. 23 at ~7:00 PM Dallas time, Chief Jesse Curry comments on the Order Letter. He reports that the price of the rifle, including the scope, was $12.78; that it “was advertised in some magazine for that [price];” that the purchase date was Mar. 20, 1963; and that the writing had been authenticated as Oswald's. This info had been provided to the DPD by the FBI. THE FBI HAD AUTHENTICATED OSWALD’S HANDWRITING FROM WHAT LITTLE TEXT WAS IN THE ORDER LETTER? (THEY DIDN'T HAVE THE MONEY ORDER YET.) On the evening of Nov. 23, the media began reporting the following information regarding the rifle purchase: 1) Mar. 20 purchase date; 2) $12.78 price tag; and 3) that the order handwriting was Oswald’s. Some in the media had a Klein’s catalog ad showing the $12.78 price. (See the Frank Reynolds Video in Post 102.)WHY DID IT TAKE NEARLY A WEEK FOR THE FBI TO CORRECT THE PRICE OF THE RIFLE BEING REPORTED BY THE PRESS? The price being $19.95, not $12.78. According to FBI report CD75, on Nov. 23, the following information was received from the VP of Klein's's bank. -- On Mar. 15 1963, Klein's had deposited $13,827.98 in its bank. The deposit included a $21.45 postal money order. -- On Mar. 16 the bank had sent the $21.45 PMO to the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago. It would have been received by the FRB on Mar. 18. According to SS report CD87, at about 8:30 PM EST on Nov. 23 a request was issued to locate and obtain postal money order #2,202,130,462 dated 3/12/63 in the amount of $21.45 payable to Klein's by Alek James Hidell.[question: how and when did the SS get the money order number and date? (technically, that info probably isn't relevant to this list)] The postal money order was recovered at 9:35 PM EST (8:35 PM Dallas time) on Nov. 23. Corrections to Address Jim Hargrove: Post 145 on this page. Addressed! Post 160 on this page. Addressed! Jim DiEugenio: Post 161 on this page. Addressed! Information to Review David Josephs: Posts 129 and 135 on this page. Jim Hargrove: Post 145 on this page. Important Topics to Address Later Jim DiEugenio: The 1962 rifle shipment that was replace with a 1963 one. (See post 161 on this page, item 2. Also previous related posts.) =============================================================================== EDITING: Alternate Explanation for Incorrect Rifle Information Being Reported Innocent Explanations for Mail Order Rifle Anomalies Version 5 Date: 3/4/16 Substantive changes in red. UNEXPLAINED ANOMALIES IN ALL CAPS FBI Locates the Hidell Purchase Order at Klein's The FBI has the Carcano rifle in their possession by 2:15 Dallas time on Friday the 22nd, from which they get the serial number C2766. The FBI discovers from a gun dealer in Dallas that Italian surplus WW2 rifles were being distributed by Crescent Firearms in New York City. This leads the FBI to Klein's in Chicago after discovering that Crescent had sold the C2766 rifle to Klein's. The FBI searches Klein's records and the Internal Invoice matching the C2766 rifle is found. (This is "Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 7").SDL HYPOTHESIS (3/4/16): It takes seven hours to locate the Hidell order because only the rifle's serial number and an approximate date of sale were known. Thousands of internal invoices have to be pulled and inspected. The FBI then finds on microfilm two purchase orders that matches the price and payment method as indicated on the Internal Invoice. One was paid for with an American Express MO, the other with a postal MO. The latter is suspected of being the offending purchase order, or what Chief Curry will later call the "Order Letter." (This is CE773). The Order Letter consists of an order form clipped out of the Feb. 1963 American Rifleman magazine, and the envelope in which it was mailed. The FBI quickly determines that the writing on the Order Letter was that of Lee Harvey Oswald. Internal Invoice Information: A. Hidell customer name; 3/13/63 receipt date; 3/20/63 processing & shipping date; $19.95 rifle cost; $21.45 total cost; C2766 serial number; paid via money order; "W/ 4X SCOPE". Order Letter Information: a few words in Hidell's handwriting; Hidell's address; $19.95 rifle price. WHY DID THIS SEARCH TAKE 7 HOURS? HOW COULD THE FBI AUTHENTICATE OSWALD’S HANDWRITING FROM WHAT LITTLE TEXT WAS IN THE ORDER LETTER? (THEY DIDN'T HAVE THE MONEY ORDER YET.) Purchase Order Information is Released to the Press SDL HYPOTHESIS (2/23/16): Somebody in the FBI was given a copy of the Internal Invoice (and perhaps also the Order Letter) and was assigned to search for Klein's ads matching the C2766 rifle. He finds one. The ad has a large "$12.78" price printed on it. The agent notes the 3/20/63 processing/shipping date on the Internal Invoice, and determines it to be a suitable "purchase date." He clumsily doesn't realize that the $12.78 price didn't include the scope. (Or perhaps he has heard that the Texas Sports Shop had added the scope later.) This information is passed on to Chief Curry of the DPD. SDL HYPOTHESIS (2/24/16): The Texas Sports Shop episode (with Dial Ryder) is an unrelated event. The FBI nevertheless investigates it. It may reveal that the original scope was replaced with a second one. EVEN I, AS THE AUTHOR OF THIS HYPOTHESIS, HAVE A HARD TIME BUYING IT. MAYBE THE PART ABOUT A REPLACEMENT SCOPE COULD BE BELIEVABLE. BUT TO ME THE WHOLE DIAL RYDER THING WREAKS OF CONTRIVANCE THAT IS BEYOND WHAT WC APOLOGISTS ATTRIBUTE TO DIAL RYDER. I THEREFORE CALL UPON DVP TO ANSWER THIS. In a hallway press conference on the night of Nov. 23 at ~7:00 PM Dallas time, Chief Jesse Curry comments on the Order Letter. He reports that the price of the rifle, including the scope, was $12.78; that it “was advertised in some magazine for that [price];” that the purchase date was Mar. 20, 1963; and that the writing had been authenticated as Oswald's. This info had been provided to the DPD by the FBI. On the evening of Nov. 23, the media began reporting the following information regarding the rifle purchase: 1) Mar. 20 purchase date; 2) $12.78 price tag; and 3) that the order handwriting was Oswald’s. Some in the media had a Klein’s catalog ad showing the $12.78 price. (See the Frank Reynolds Video in Post 102.) WHY DID IT TAKE NEARLY A WEEK FOR THE FBI TO CORRECT THE PRICE OF THE RIFLE BEING REPORTED BY THE PRESS? The price being $19.95, not $12.78. FBI Locates the Money Order According to FBI report CD75, on Nov. 23, the following information is received from the VP of Klein's bank, Robert Wilmouth. -- On Mar. 15 1963, Klein's deposited $13,827.98 in its bank. The deposit included a $21.45 postal money order. -- On Mar. 16 the bank sent the $21.45 PMO to the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago. It would have been received by the FRB on Mar. 18, according to Wilmouth. SDL HYPOTHESIS (3/4/16): Klein's deposit slip is accidentally hand-dated Feb. 15, 1963 instead of the correct date of deposit, Mar. 15, 1963. WHY DIDN'T THE WC VERIFY THE CORRECT DATE OF THE DEPOSIT BY SHOWING THE BANK RECEIPT (SUPPOSEDLY) STAMPED ON THE BACK SIDE OF KLEIN'S DEPOSIT SLIP? OR BY PRODUCING A KLEIN'S BANK STATEMENT SHOWING THE DEPOSIT? DVP HYPOTHESIS: Somebody in the FBI transmitted the wrong total price to other FBI personnel ($21.95 instead of $21.45). This led to confusion when the FBI and Secret Service began searching for the money order. According to SS report CD87, at about 8:30 PM EST on Nov. 23 a request was issued to locate and obtain postal money order #2,202,130,462 dated 3/12/63 in the amount of $21.45 payable to Klein's by Alek James Hidell.[question: how and when did the SS get the money order number and date?] The postal money order was recovered at 9:35 PM EST (8:35 PM Dallas time) on Nov. 23. Corrections to Address Jim DiEugenio: Post 161 on this page. Addressed! Information to Review David Josephs: Posts 129 and 135 on this page. Jim Hargrove: Post 145 on this page. Important Topics to Address Later Jim DiEugenio: The 1962 rifle shipment that was replace with a 1963 one. (See post 161 on this page, item 2. Also previous related posts.) Search Keywords alternate explanation for incorrect rifle information being reported