The Decline in Forum Activity

[Gary Murr]

Hi Gary

Good point you make there. It does say, later in the article, that Sharp was the only gunsmith employed at the time at Klein's, but makes no mention of Sharp having assistants.

The article mentions, at the end of the article, the ammo Klein's also sold for the Carcano. Do you know if this was Italian issue or Western Cartridge Co. ammunition?

P.S. I just read the article again. I missed the part where it said he was the only gunsmith at Klein's "at the time of the assassination". My apologies.

Hi Robert:

In answer to your question, the only Carcano ammunition that Klein's had was of Italian make; they did not have any 6.5mm WCC. Also, though Sharp may claim to have been the only gunsmith at Klein's "at the time of the assassination," that is perhaps not totally true. Waldman, like Sharp, was also interviewed on March 11, 1964, by members of the Chicago FBI FO, in fact Waldman was the first interview on that date. At that time he gave the FBI the names of five Klein employees whom he, Waldman, stated were normally involved in "the processing of orders for firearms, which process also includes the mounting of rifles copes where necessary..." Sharps name was naturally one of the five ; of the remaining four only one was potentially a gunsmith, an individual named Witold Ratynski, someone described by Waldman as Sharp's "assistant." Of the remaining three from Waldman's list, two were warehouse men and order clerks, Edward Stanislowski and Anthon Schmidt, while the last member of this list was a packer from the shipping department, Ray Lee Coleman. None of this group of five, including Sharp, could specifically identify the "assassin's" weapon or the scope, nor remember specifically handling this same weapon when shown photographs of it by the Chicago FO SA's. Coleman did identify his initials on the order as that employee who packed the order but again stated that "he could not recall the order or rifle specifically," perhaps not surprising given the quantity of order handled by Klein's.

As far as William Sharp is concerned, I have, as of this moment in time, been unable to find any documentation in support of his claim that FBI agents asked him, on November 23, 1963, for a demonstration of how a Mannlicher Carcano weapon worked; I am not saying it didn't happen - I am just saying I can't confirm that it actually did.

[David Von Pein]

Why would the Post Office accept an incorrectly addressed parcel in the first place, when there was nothing to link Hidell to Oswald's box?

We don't know that Hidell's name wasn't on the application for Box 2915. That portion of the application was discarded.

And for CTers who bring up the FBI report found in CE2585, I offered up this retort in 2010....

" "Our investigation has revealed that Oswald did not indicate on his application that others, including an 'A. Hidell,' would receive mail through the box in question, which was Post Office Box 2915 in Dallas. This box was obtained by Oswald on October 9, 1962, and relinquished by him on May 14, 1963." -- Via FBI Report of 6/3/64 [CE2585]

But we know from all the available (and unavailable) evidence associated with the topic of Lee Harvey Oswald's P.O. Box applications that the FBI did not actually see and examine Part 3 of the application Oswald filled out for Box #2915 in Dallas, because that portion of the application simply does not exist. So, how could the FBI, in November 1963 or June 1964, have seen something that was thrown away in May 1963?

Therefore, when the FBI came to the conclusion cited above on Page 4 of its report dated June 3, 1964, the FBI was relying on information OTHER than Part 3 of Oswald's application for P.O. Box 2915.

And I'm wondering if possibly the FBI made the same mistake that Gary Craig and other people have made [see the link below to see Craig's gaffe]: they mixed up the two P.O. Box applications for boxes 2915 and 6225. The 6225 box application still had Part 3 attached to it, but Box 2915 did not.

Maybe the FBI made the same error conspiracy theorists make when those CTers try and prop up Cadigan Exhibit No. 13 as proof that Oswald didn't list A. Hidell as a person entitled to receive mail at Box 2915.

In any event, even if it was an error on the part of the FBI, the error most certainly cannot be considered to be a sinister lie. Not even conspiracy theorists could consider such an error to be conspiratorial or sinister.

Why?

Because J. Edgar Hoover's FBI is almost always thought to be one of the major forces behind a "cover-up" in the JFK assassination investigation by conspiracy promoters. And this possible mistake about the P.O. Box application of Oswald's is a mistake that makes it appear LESS likely that Oswald could have received the assassination weapon through the mail.

So, if Hoover's boys were making up stories, then they would have lied in the OTHER direction and would have claimed that Oswald definitely HAD listed A. Hidell as a person who could receive mail at P.O. Box 2915. Instead, the FBI concluded that he definitely had NOT listed Hidell on the application.

[...]

BTW, it also makes no sense for Oswald to purchase guns under the name HIDELL and have them shipped to a P.O. Box where he DID NOT have the name HIDELL listed as a person authorized to receive mail.

But, on the other hand, since the post office delivers to ADDRESSES and not specific PEOPLE, it's very likely that Oswald would not have had any problem getting a package addressed to HIDELL even if that name was not on any kind of official authorization form." -- DVP; July 2010

JFK Archives / Oswald's Post Office Applications

Edited February 4, 2014 by David Von Pein

[Ray Mitcham]

Why would the Post Office accept an incorrectly addressed parcel in the first place, when there was nothing to link Hidell to Oswald's box?

We don't know that Hidell's name wasn't on the application for Box 2915. That portion of the application was discarded.

And for CTers who bring up the FBI report found in CE2585, I offered up this retort in 2010....

" "Our investigation has revealed that Oswald did not indicate on his application that others, including an 'A. Hidell,' would receive mail through the box in question, which was Post Office Box 2915 in Dallas. This box was obtained by Oswald on October 9, 1962, and relinquished by him on May 14, 1963." -- Via FBI Report of 6/3/64 [CE2585]

But we know from all the available (and unavailable) evidence associated with the topic of Lee Harvey Oswald's P.O. Box applications that the FBI did not actually see and examine Part 3 of the application Oswald filled out for Box #2915 in Dallas, because that portion of the application simply does not exist. So, how could the FBI, in November 1963 or June 1964, have seen something that was thrown away in May 1963?

Therefore, when the FBI came to the conclusion cited above on Page 4 of its report dated June 3, 1964, the FBI was relying on information OTHER than Part 3 of Oswald's application for P.O. Box 2915.

And I'm wondering if possibly the FBI made the same mistake that Gary Craig and other people have made [see the link below to see Craig's gaffe]: they mixed up the two P.O. Box applications for boxes 2915 and 6225. The 6225 box application still had Part 3 attached to it, but Box 2915 did not.

Maybe the FBI made the same error conspiracy theorists make when those CTers try and prop up Cadigan Exhibit No. 13 as proof that Oswald didn't list A. Hidell as a person entitled to receive mail at Box 2915.

In any event, even if it was an error on the part of the FBI, the error most certainly cannot be considered to be a sinister lie. Not even conspiracy theorists could consider such an error to be conspiratorial or sinister.

Why?

Because J. Edgar Hoover's FBI is almost always thought to be one of the major forces behind a "cover-up" in the JFK assassination investigation by conspiracy promoters. And this possible mistake about the P.O. Box application of Oswald's is a mistake that makes it appear LESS likely that Oswald could have received the assassination weapon through the mail.

So, if Hoover's boys were making up stories, then they would have lied in the OTHER direction and would have claimed that Oswald definitely HAD listed A. Hidell as a person who could receive mail at P.O. Box 2915. Instead, the FBI concluded that he definitely had NOT listed Hidell on the application.

[...]

BTW, it also makes no sense for Oswald to purchase guns under the name HIDELL and have them shipped to a P.O. Box where he DID NOT have the name HIDELL listed as a person authorized to receive mail.

But, on the other hand, since the post office delivers to ADDRESSES and not specific PEOPLE, it's very likely that Oswald would not have had any problem getting a package addressed to HIDELL even if that name was not on any kind of official authorization form." -- DVP; July 2010

JFK Archives / Oswald's Post Office Applications

Strange that, although the Postal Sevice should have kept the portion of the box application form which would have shown what name(s) were on it, it was disposed of. By whom, we know not. Unfortunate that.

Your point about the Postal Service delivering to addresses and not to people is a red herring, as we are not talking about delivering, we are talking about collecting. If for some reason my post is held at the Post Office, I have to show proof of both address and name. So your suppositon that it is "very likely"that Oswald would not have had any problem is just that your supposition.

Why on earth would the FBI say they knew that only Oswald's name was on the form, if they hadn't seen it or knew about what it contained.?

Your point about Why would Oswald order a rifle in the name of Hidell when the box didn't have Hidell's name on it, is quite right,. Why on earth would he? Or should we say Did he?

Edited February 4, 2014 by Ray Mitcham

[Robert Prudhomme]

Hello Gary

There seems to be a limited amount of information regarding the mounting of scopes on Carcano rifles at Klein's. Do you know how much care and attention was put into the mounting of these scopes? For instance, did the gunsmith take the time to boresight each weapon, to ascertain whether or not the scope and barrel were generally pointing in the same direction, or were the scopes simply bolted onto the rifles with the intent of letting the customer worry about alignment problems?

Considering the very inexpensive price Klein's was quoting to sell AND mount a scope, I cannot see how they could make a profit spending a lot of time fine tuning a rifle scope for the price they were charging. It is small wonder that, in post-assassination shooting trials, the scope base had to be adjusted with shims to even allow for adjustments to be made on the scope.

If Klein's was not a main supplier of Western Cartridge Co. 6.5 mm Carcano ammunition, do you know who was? There seemed to be a lot of this ammunition around in 1963, and it had to be coming from somewhere.

P.S. A quick perusal of the Klein's ad shows they were selling 6.5 Italian military ammo in lots of 108 cartridges, with clips. This would make sense, as the Carcano clips held 6 cartridges, and were issued in lots of 3 loaded clips, or 18 cartridges. Divide 108 by 18 and you would have 6 lots of 18 cartridges. Reading the article again about the Klein's gunsmith, it is clear he does not know what brand of ammo Oswald was supposed to have used that day. The hangfire experienced by him on the one demonstration shot he did for the FBI was typical of the SMI Italian military cartridges which were, of course, the cartridges sold by Klein's.

Edited February 4, 2014 by Robert Prudhomme

[David Von Pein]

Related video (re: Klein's and Oswald's rifle purchase):