Jump to content
The Education Forum

The Secret Service And CE399


David Von Pein
 Share

Recommended Posts

[David Von Pein] tried to say that the post office kept a separate drawer so it could collect the payment for Railroad Express deliveries that were shipped to POST OFFICE BOXES! So that when Oswald was there to allegedly pick up his handgun--which he never did--he paid for it there! Then the post office kept the money and gave it to the actual carrier. Thereby serving as a fiduciary for a private company.

I swear DVP supported this and argued it for weeks vehemently, even though it is one of the silliest, nuttiest, most desperate moves by a WC defender I can recall of late. I mean not even McAdams would write such nonsense.

Oh, how quickly Jimbo forgets:

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/12/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-72.html

The link above provides the proof that I discovered on December 1, 2011 (via the USPS website), which indicates that the U.S. Post Office DOES, indeed, act as a "fiduciary", as Jim loves to say, when it comes to COD mail -- at least via the 2003 information that I found online. The rules re COD mail could possibly have been different in circa 1963, that's true. But the main point is: I proved that the U.S. Post Office did perform a service regarding COD mail that Jim DiEugenio was absolutely positive was a loony idea -- i.e., the Post Office would collect money from people who received COD mail, and then the Post Office would forward that money to the appropriate party on behalf of the person who made the payment.

"Any mailer may use collect on delivery (COD) service to mail an article for which the mailer has not been paid and have its price and the cost of the postage collected from the recipient. If the recipient pays the amount due by check payable to the mailer, the USPS forwards the check to the mailer. If the recipient pays the amount due in cash, the USPS collects the money order fee(s) from the recipient and sends a postal money order(s) to the mailer."

http://pe.usps.com/archive/html/dmmarchive0810/S921.htm

And there's nothing in that Post Office regulation cited above that would indicate that they would NOT do the same thing for a "private company". In fact, the USPS regulation I cited above expressly indicates that "Any mailer" can send COD mail to a customer and then have the USPS send them the money.

So maybe Jimbo should stop pretending that he isn't aware of that USPS regulation. If he did that, perhaps his feet wouldn't so often find themselves located in his huge mouth.

=========================

ADDENDUM FROM 2011 (WORTH A REPLAY A YEAR LATER):

DAVID VON PEIN SAID ON 12/1/2011:

And I also decided to bring forth that USPS.com webpage about COD mail policies for another reason (which, I'll admit, I cannot confirm with 100% certainty; but I have a strong feeling I'm right in what I'm about to say about you; feel free to admit it if you like, but I doubt you will):

I'm guessing that you, Mr. DiEugenio, were of the opinion (before this morning; 12/1/11) that the US Post Office never forwarded cash to "mailers" (or sellers), regardless of who they were. You didn't think the USPS did that for COD mail PERIOD, did you Jim?

JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

You have the BA of a pitcher in the National League. A weak hitting one at that.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I'll remind you that Bob Gibson batted .303 in 1970 for the Cardinals.

You, however, Jim, consistently swing the lumber below the Mendoza line. From the absurd theories you actually have the gonads to still endorse here in the 21st century (LHO being innocent of BOTH the JFK & Tippit murders; there possibly being NO SHOOTERS AT ALL on the sixth floor; Buell Frazier just MAKING UP the paper bag story; and Jim Garrison's nonsensical New Orleans plot to name just a handful of the bizarre things you have endorsed), it's a wonder that Mr. Stengel still lets you sit on the bench at all.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=18411&st=195&p=239764entry239764

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 68
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Looking at the NARA photographs that John Hunt used I think I see a set of initials that I do not believe John Hunt mentioned. I am just putting this out for review.

CLICK IMAGE TO ENLARGE TO SEE or click this link http://imageshack.us...huntbullets.png

huntbullets.png

Color (Click image to enlarge or click this link http://imageshack.us/a/img217/7874/huntsbullets4.png )

huntsbullets4.png

huntsinitials.png

Edited by Mike Rago
Link to comment
Share on other sites

you said it was 40 years between the assassination and when Wright told Thompson CE 399 was not the bullet he gave to the SS. It was actually three, as anyone can see by looking at SSD on page 175. No person could possibly make that kind of mistake innocently. Therefore it was a lie on your part.

My comment was related to Odum's statement that he did not show the bullets to Wright and Tomlinson. It was 38 years between when that event occurred and when he(Odum) spoke to Thompson.

You need to be careful with your words.

Wright was very familiar with firearms since he worked in law enforcement. This is why Specter avoided him on this issue. That is why you will not see his name in the WR. Also, someone dithered with his report in the Price Exhibits. Since in his report on that day, he never reported his giving of the projectile to the SS.

Wright said the slug that Odum showed him looked like the one he(Wright) gave to Richard Johnsen on the day of the assassination.

According to CE 2011 here is what O.P. Wright said

"On June 12, 1964, O.P. Wright, Personnel Officer, Parkland Hospital, Dallas, Texas, advised Special Agent Bardwell D. Odum that Exhibit C1, a rifle slug, shown to him at the time of the interview, looks like the slug found at Parkland Hospital on November 22, 1963, which he gave to Richard Johnsen, Special Agent of the Secret Service. He stated he was not present at the time the bullet was found, but on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, as he entered the Emergency Unit on the ground floor of the hospital, Mr. Tomlinson, an employee, called to him and pointed out a bullet, which was on a hospital carriage at that location. He estimated the time as being within an hour of the time President Kennedy and Governor Connally were brought to the hospital. He advised he could not postiviely identify C1 as being the same bullet which was found on November 22, 1963."
Edited by Mike Rago
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice try at a Houdini escape act.

But anyone can see that what you just sketched above is not what you were proposing back then.

You were proposing an ongoing business relationship in which the USPS continuously collected funds for REA as they gave USPS customers merchandise from REA. You said the USPS kept a drawer of these funds which they turned over on a regular basis.

Jimmy must have inhaled too much L.A. smog today or something, because anybody can go back to our original discussions and see that Jimmy is the one trying to impersonate Houdini here--not me.

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/08/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-42.html

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/08/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-43.html

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/08/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-47.html

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/12/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-72.html

You said the USPS kept a drawer of these funds which they turned over on a regular basis.

Oh, good! Jim has decided to make some xxxx up (again). What a surprise. The words "kept a drawer" never came out of my mouth. Those are Jimbo's words--not mine.

And I love watching the fish squirm, as he actually tries to assert that this situation (quoting Jim D.):

"You were proposing an ongoing business relationship in which the USPS continuously collected funds for REA...which they turned over on a regular basis."

....is somehow entirely different from this scenario (quoting the USPS website):

"Any mailer may use collect on delivery (COD) service to mail an article for which the mailer has not been paid and have its price and the cost of the postage collected from the recipient. If the recipient pays the amount due by check payable to the mailer, the USPS forwards the check to the mailer. If the recipient pays the amount due in cash, the USPS collects the money order fee(s) from the recipient and sends a postal money order(s) to the mailer."

Talk about a classic "potato/po-tah-to" argument. I love it.

You should have just kept silent about this matter, Jimbo. Because now everybody can see that you've not only got both feet in your mouth--you've got an arm or two in there too.

--------------

BONUS "COMMON SENSE" ADDENDUM:

"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." -- DVP; December 2011

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Harris for you to take the attitude that you have just displayed shows that you are more interested in defending your position than discovering the truth.

I am just pointing out what is obviously there. I can see why you do not want to see it however.

What this shows is that you have to view the actual bullet, you cannot determine what initials are on that bullet from the photographs.

Click the image to enlarge or click this link http://imageshack.us...ntsbullets4.png

huntsbullets4.png

Edited by Mike Rago
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess CTers must have totally forgotten (or deem as fake too) Elmer Todd's FBI report which is seen in Commission Document No. 7, which is a report that was written by Todd himself on the night of the assassination, wherein he says that he etched his initials into the nose of the stretcher bullet.

So we've not only got CE2011 (from June/July '64) to confirm that Todd marked the bullet, we've got a report written by Todd himself on 11/22/63 which says the exact same thing (that Todd marked the bullet):

CD7.png

In point of fact, there is, indeed, a complete chain of possession (chain of custody) for Bullet CE399 when all of the various documents and testimony are assembled and reasonably and sensibly evaluated:

From Tomlinson/Wright to Richard Johnsen (via Johnsen's typed note on White House stationery, which was stapled to the envelope that Johnsen put the bullet into; a copy of Johnsen's note appears in CE1024, at 18 H 800).

From Johnsen to Rowley (via CE2011, which verifies that Johnsen gave the bullet to Rowley).

From Rowley to Todd (via CD7 [Todd's 11/22/63 FD-302 report] and via the envelope which has the very key words written at the bottom by Elmer Todd, with Todd saying he had received the envelope and its contents from Rowley).

From Todd to Frazier (via Frazier's initials on the bullet and via CD7 and via Frazier's testimony).

It's not nearly strong enough of a chain to please CTers (naturally), but it is a chain nonetheless.

Edited by David Von Pein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On June 11, 1964 Bardwell Odum exhibited 3 "slugs" ( note the use of the word slug) to Dr. Earl Rose. Can someone please show me the FD-302 that Mr. Odum filled out for this interview?

On June 12 1964 Bardwell Odum exhibited a slug (again note the use of the word slug) to Patrolman R.A. Davenport. Can someone please show me the FD-302 that Mr. Odum filled out for that interview?

odumdrrosetippit.png

Are FBI "interviews" always before two FBI agents? Are the above "interviews"?

"An FBI FD-302 is used by FBI agents to "report or summarize the interviews they conduct" "

An FD-302

(Click on image to enlarge or click on this link http://imageshack.us.../4623/fd302.png)

fd302.png

Edited by Mike Rago
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On June 11, 1964 Bardwell Odum exhibited 3 "slugs" ( note the use of the word slug) to Dr. Earl Rose. Can someone please show me the FD-302 that Mr. Odum filled out for this interview?

On June 12 1964 Bardwell Odum exhibited a slug (again note the use of the word slug) to Patrolman R.A. Davenport. Can someone please show me the FD-302 that Mr. Odum filled out for that interview?

odumdrrosetippit.png

Are FBI "interviews" always before two FBI agents? Are the above "interviews"?

"An FBI FD-302 is used by FBI agents to "report or summarize the interviews they conduct" "

An FD-302

(Click on image to enlarge or click on this link http://imageshack.us.../4623/fd302.png)

fd302.png

Below I present a quote from the article The Magic Bullet Even More Magical Than We Knew

http://www.history-m...MoreMagical.htm

On Mr. Tilley’s behalf, Mr. Stuart Culy, an archivist at the National Archives, made a search. On July 16, 1999, Mr. Culy wrote that he searched for the FBI records within the HSCA files as well as in the FBI records, all without success. He was able to determine, however, that the serial numbers on the FBI documents ran “concurrently, with no gaps, which indicated that no material is missing from these files.[11] [Fig. 10] In other words, the earliest and apparently the only FBI report said nothing about either Tomlinson or Wright seeing a similarity between the bullet found at the hospital and the bullet later in evidence, CE #399. Nor did agent Bardwell Odum’s name show up in any of the files.

[editor's note: Dr. Aguilar followed up in 2005 with the National Archives, asking them in letters datedMarch 2 and March 7 to search for any FBI "302" reports that would have been generated from CE399 being shown to those who handled it. On March 17, 2005 David Mengel of NARA wrote back reporting that additional searches had not uncovered any such reports.]

The highlighted portions of the above quote would indicate that it is likely there are no (released ?) FD-302 reports for the two "slug exhibitions" (by Bardwell Odum) that I refer to in my previous post.

Edited by Mike Rago
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Odum said he never did what the report said he did. In other words, showed the so called CE 399 to Wright.

And he said he would recall that if he did since he knew Wright.

In other words, someone lied.

Now, if you put that together with the fact that Wright's name is not in the WR, all 888 pages of it, and there is not any evidence that Specter interviewed him on this point, well I think we know why. In fact, in Walt Brown's valuable book, The Warren Omission, you will see a list of al the witnesses that the WC interviewed both in Washington and outside of the town, that is by lawyer deposition. The list comes to over 400 witnesses. Tell me when you find O. P. Wright's name there. In any real investigation, he would have been in the top five. I wonder why he was not? Maybe I should draw you a map at what this means?

It is getting to the point where it is not even worth responding to you but I will in the interest of the truth, not your version of the truth. You should study the evidence.

Odum made his statement to Josiah Thompson 38 years after the event took place. He said that if he did forget about it surely he would have written an FD-302 concerning the event. However, the assumption that he would have filled out an FD-302 for that event is thrown in serious doubt, but you cannot see that because you are not searching for the truth. You are to narrowly focused.

As I showed in my previous post, there are several other instances where Mr. Odum exhibited "slugs" to individuals and where there do not appear to be any corresponding FD-302 reports.

The assumption that Mr. Odum filled out a FD-302 for the Wright interview is not at all certain. An objective researcher would see that. You are not an objective researcher, that is all too clear.

The FBI report written in 1964 indicated that Mr. Odum did show that slug to Mr. Wright.

I interviewed a man once who was in his eighty's who we know for a fact was on press bus one but that man was certain when he spoke to me that he was press bus three.

You jump to a lot of conclusions.

Marilyn Sitzman's name is not in the Warren Report either. I wonder why?

I do not think she was called as a witness in the HSCA either.

Even after the HSCA made a conclusion that a shot was fired from the Grassy Knoll and Mr.Zapruder was long since deceased, leaving Sitzman as the only living witness on that pedestal that day, the HSCA did not call her as a witness. I wonder why? A witness , btw, who said she did not hear a shot from her left side while she stood on the pedestal.

I honestly did not realize how much fluff there is to you. You have read too many books. I do not think you have any idea of what actually happened that day. But what is worse, I do not think you have the ability to understand it any more. You have read too many books on the subject! You do not know how to weigh the data. You weigh the sources but not the data.

Edited by Mike Rago
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know what, there was a time when I might have cared what you thought about me but that time has long since gone. A person is either part of the solution or part of the problem and it is all too clear that you are part of the problem.

You have had 50 years and still no solution. I am quite sure that if given 50 more years you will still not have the solution.

You are barking up the wrong tree!

Edited by Mike Rago
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ringl ragoo wrote: You have read too many books

LOL

.

Rago: tell us the number of books one should read about that subject?

10?

1000?

10 000?

Thx

Edited by Karl Kinaski
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe that Cmdr Humes was used to introduce CE 399 because Specter wanted to establish that CE 399 could have passed through the presidents body and could have struck Connally after exiting the presidents body. However Cmdr Humes was adamant that he did not believe that CE 399 could have caused the damage to Connally;s wrist, rib and thigh.

Cmdr Humes was saying that CE 399 is consistent with the bullet which passed through JFK's neck but not consistent with the bullet which caused all the damage to Connally.

Part of the testimony of Cmdr Humes.

Mr. Specter. Doctor Humes, I show you a bullet which we have marked as Commission Exhibit No. 399, and may I say now that, subject to later proof, this is the missile which has been taken from the stretcher which the evidence now indicates was the stretcher occupied by Governor Connally. I move for its admission into evidence at this time.

The Chairman. It may be admitted.

(The article, previously marked Commission Exhibit No. 399 for identification, was received in evidence.)

Mr. Specter. We have been asked by the FBI that the missile not be handled by anybody because it is undergoing further ballistic tests, and it now appears, may the record show, in a plastic case in a cotton background.

Now looking at that bullet, Exhibit 399, Doctor Humes, could that bullet have gone through or been any part of the fragment passing through President Kennedy's head in Exhibit No. 388?

Commander Humes. I do not believe so, sir.

Mr. Specter. And could that missile have made the wound on Governor Connally's right wrist?

Commander Humes. I think that that is most unlikely. May I expand on those two answers?

Mr. Specter. Yes, please do.

Commander Humes. The X-rays made of the wound in the head of the late President showed fragmentations of the missile. Some fragments we recovered and turned over, as has been previously noted. Also we have X-rays of the fragment of skull which was in the region of our opinion exit wound showing metallic fragments.

Also going to Exhibit 392, the report from Parkland Hospital, the following sentence referring to the examination of the wound of the wrist is found:

"Small bits of metal were encountered at various levels throughout the wound, and these were, wherever they were identified and could be picked up, picked up and submitted to the pathology department for identification and examination."

The reason I believe it most unlikely that this missile could have inflicted either of these wounds is that this missile is basically intact; its jacket appears to me to be in tact, and I do not understand how it could possibly have left fragments in either of these locations.

Mr. Specter. What wounds did Governor Connally sustain in his chest area, based upon the records of Parkland Hospital, which you have examined, Doctor Humes?

Commander Humes. Governor Connally received in his chest a wound of entrance just--this is again from 392--just lateral to the right scapula close to the axilla which had passed through the lattisimus dorsi muscle, shattered approximately ten centimeters of a lateral and anterior portion of the right fifth rib, and emerged below the right nipple anterially."

These were the wounds of the chest of Governor Connally.

Mr. Specter. Now assuming that there were only three missiles fired, and bearing in mind the positions of President Kennedy and Governor Connally from the photograph marked Commission Exhibit 398, do you have an opinion as to the source of the missiles which inflicted the wound on President Kennedy marked 385-C to D, and the wound in Governor Connally's chest which you have just referred to?

Commander Humes. Yes. I would preface this statement by the following: As I testified earlier in the afternoon, as much as we could ascertain from our X-rays and physical examinations, this missile struck no bony structures in traversing the body of the late President. Therefore, I believe it was moving at its exit from the President's body at only very slightly less than that velocity, so it was still traveling at great speed.

I believe in looking at Exhibit 398, which purports to be at approximately the time the President was struck, I see that Governor Connally is sitting directly in front of the late President, and suggest the possibility that this missile, having traversed the low neck of the late President, in fact traversed the chest of Governor Connally.

Mr. Specter. How much of the velocity, if any, or would there be an appreciable diminution of the velocity of the projectile on passing through the portions of President Kennedy's body which you have described?

Commander Humes. I would have to defer to my associate, Colonel Finck, for an opinion about this.

Notice the highlighted text. Specter asks Humes to assume there was only three missiles fired. Under that assumption Humes would have to agree that CE 399 caused the damage to Connally even though his previous statements denied that was possible.

Humes does not know how fast the bullet was traveling after exiting the presidents body. The condition of CE 399 together with the Connally flinch video indicates that the bullet was traveling a very low velocity after exiting the presidents body. The bullet is deformed along its long axis indicating that the object it traveled through did work on the bullet(ie slowed it down)

For future reference

http://www.history-m...reakability.htm

1)All witnesses describe that the shot for that bullet as sounding like a firecracker.

2)The bullet passed through the presidents body at a very low angle.

3)The bullet passed through muscle, hit no bone, pierced no arteries or vital organs.

4)Bad ammunition ->low muzzle velocity?

5)Gil Jesus

http://educationforu...492

Mr. ZAPRUDER - Yes, the reverberation was such that a sound--as it would vibrate--it didn't vibrate so much but as to whether it was a backfire--in other words, I didn't from the first sound, from him leaning over--I couldn't think it was a shot, but of course, the second--I think it was the second shot. I don't know whether they proved anything--they claim he was hit--that the first bullet went through him and hit Connally or something like that--I don't know how that is.

http://mcadams.posc....ny/zapruder.htm

.

Edited by Mike Rago
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess CTers must have totally forgotten (or deem as fake too) Elmer Todd's FBI report which is seen in Commission Document No. 7, which is a report that was written by Todd himself on the night of the assassination, wherein he says that he etched his initials into the nose of the stretcher bullet.

So we've not only got CE2011 (from June/July '64) to confirm that Todd marked the bullet, we've got a report written by Todd himself on 11/22/63 which says the exact same thing (that Todd marked the bullet):

CD7.png

In point of fact, there is, indeed, a complete chain of possession (chain of custody) for Bullet CE399 when all of the various documents and testimony are assembled and reasonably and sensibly evaluated:

From Tomlinson/Wright to Richard Johnsen (via Johnsen's typed note on White House stationery, which was stapled to the envelope that Johnsen put the bullet into; a copy of Johnsen's note appears in CE1024, at 18 H 800).

From Johnsen to Rowley (via CE2011, which verifies that Johnsen gave the bullet to Rowley).

From Rowley to Todd (via CD7 [Todd's 11/22/63 FD-302 report] and via the envelope which has the very key words written at the bottom by Elmer Todd, with Todd saying he had received the envelope and its contents from Rowley).

From Todd to Frazier (via Frazier's initials on the bullet and via CD7 and via Frazier's testimony).

It's not nearly strong enough of a chain to please CTers (naturally), but it is a chain nonetheless.

This would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic and desperate.

First of all, you don't use one of Todd's own reports to prove that he was telling the truth. That's like say OJ was innocent because he wrote a report saying he didn't kill anybody.

And secondly, it wouldn't matter whether he etched his initials into the stretcher bullet or not, because those initials are not on CE399, which was obviously, not the same bullet.

Come on David. Take a course in critical thinking:-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Harris for you to take the attitude that you have just displayed shows that you are more interested in defending your position than discovering the truth.

I am just pointing out what is obviously there. I can see why you do not want to see it however.

What this shows is that you have to view the actual bullet, you cannot determine what initials are on that bullet from the photographs.

Click the image to enlarge or click this link http://imageshack.us...ntsbullets4.png

huntsbullets4.png

You're using a dark, low resolution copy of the picture. You can't even see Killion and Frazier's initials on the side where you think you see these phantom initials, which just happens to be right over the top of where Frazier's initials are.

initials.png

Edited by Robert Harris
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...