Jump to content
The Education Forum

DVP - why didn't one of the many US Postal informants in Dallas report the rifle delivery?


Recommended Posts

23 minutes ago, Michael Walton said:

Questions:

I read Oswald was a pack rat and kept everything. Was the purchaser's stub (I'm assuming that would have been given to him) ever found in his possessions (Paine garage, etc)?

Also because of his alleged pack rat status, was the cardboard box that the rifle was shipped in ever found in his possessions?

No on both accounts.

There was no money order or rifle order prior to 11.22.  I cover it all at K&K

Edited by David Josephs
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 54
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

5 hours ago, David Josephs said:

 

The evidence shows the postal money order being found 4 different times in 3 different places....

Holmes' story is pure fantasy...   The found the stub in the money order book... But no stub or book is offered....

Before tearing it should have looked like this.... The stub at the right, in the book of other money orders is proof... Holmes claims are not authentic

59a72fcd2e151_LHOMoneyorderincolorwithsignaturecomparisonsandwhatthestublookslike.thumb.jpg.d45c09e17e637fd224b80c654cfbfcad.jpg

David,

 

Why does the money order say 47 cents, but the stub only says 45 cents?

 

Steve Thomas

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Steve Thomas said:

David,

 

Why does the money order say 47 cents, but the stub only says 45 cents?

 

Steve Thomas

I assume that this is because it's a mock-up of what we "should have" but don't.  The stub on the right (Post Office Record) is what the post office would have retained.  The employee who issued the money order would have machined-stamped the amount on the money order, receipt stub, and record stub at the same time.  The was spelled out in the federal regulations, 39 CFR 171.1(c), at the time.  The mock-up must just be a sloppy job.

This is a good example of the point Bugliosi makes repeatedly:  Once you have a sufficient body of evidence-based facts, secondary facts and the evidence supporting them become irrelevant.  The FBI had the original postal money order within 48 hours after the assassination.  They had all the documentation from Klein's.  The record stub would have added nothing - and certainly not by the time Holmes testified.  Bugliosi also effectively makes the point that this is the modus operandi of conspiracy theorists:  Ignore the conclusive facts establishing that LHO ordered, received and handled the rifle and focus instead on Holmes' supposed "failure" to produce the record stub as "suspicious."  It would not have been suspicious in the context of the investigation at the time; it only becomes suspicious 54 years later, when the objective is not to determine "Who killed JFK?" (as it was in 1963) but rather  to "See what we can find to be suspicious about."

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A mockup. Yes

What Bugs and others dislike is when more evidence which should corroborate, should authentic... Proves the original evidence is as they say in france, merde.  

B)

... Self-corroborating circular evidence which conflicts with standard procedures needs close examination... Whenever evidence is minimized by the likes

Of Bugs et al...  You know they prefer you not look behind the curtain....   Oz must remain elusive.  The rifle evidence is fraught with problems

Just ask Michael Scibor...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Lance Payette said:

Bugliosi also effectively makes the point that this is the modus operandi of conspiracy theorists:  Ignore the conclusive facts establishing that LHO ordered, received and handled the rifle and focus instead on Holmes' supposed "failure" to produce the record stub as "suspicious."  It would not have been suspicious in the context of the investigation at the time; it only becomes suspicious 54 years later, when the objective is not to determine "Who killed JFK?" (as it was in 1963) but rather  to "See what we can find to be suspicious about."

Lance, let's look at it this way. Any good defense attorney would have raised many, many other instances of reasonable doubt in a jury trial if Oswald had not been gunned down on 11/24. I'm too tired and/or lazy to point them out here but they do exist and this is but one example.  Is it a slam dunk? Probably not but like Scott Peterson, OJ and others, Lee Oswald at least deserved his day in court to face a jury of his peers to see if he was guilty or not...and with a good lawyer or bevy of lawyers next to him.

The inconsistent number of shots and sequence of shots in the Z film alone raises enough doubts in many, many people's mind to show that something really fishy took place on 11/22. I don't know what kind of attorney you are, but you have to have that "does it pass the smell test" built into you to analyze and determine if there's a whiff of truth in many things regarding this case.

From the day LHO was gunned down, the entire government apparatus kicked into high gear to prove and bury this case that a single individual did the deed and it's been that way for the past 54 years. And it all began with the Katzenbach memo and has continued on.

Edited by Michael Walton
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

All the rifle documents, and the pistol documents as well, placed in evidence and now at the National Archives are all black and white COPIES.  What happened to all those ORIGINALS that the FBI confiscated? 

Jim H - are you sure about that?  Reason why I ask is the mock up shows color and I don't think they had color copy machines back then. But if the *original* is color as seen above, I doubt that would be a copy of something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oswald never ordered a pistol either.  NO Evidence of the seaport traders (?) Theory offered by the Lone Nut Warren Omission.  HE said he bought it at a pawn shop in Fort Worth where he used to live.  No ID necessary in 1963 Texas.  A modified, defective weapon.  From which shells were recovered at the Tippitt scene which it could not have produced, this part from memory only.  I may be wrong, again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

Oswald never ordered a pistol either. .... I may be wrong, again.

You can say that, again.

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

Incredibly, if you're an Internet conspiracy theorist, the fact that Lee Oswald was caught red-handed with the Tippit murder weapon in his very own hands on 11/22/63 is very likely of far less importance to you than being able to answer the following question --- When and where did Oswald first pick up the revolver after he purchased it by mail order in early 1963?

Properly being able to prioritize doesn't seem to be a strong suit for a great number of CTers.

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

7 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

Incredibly, if you're an Internet conspiracy theorist, the fact that Lee Oswald was caught red-handed with the Tippit murder weapon in his very own hands on 11/22/63 is very likely of far less importance to you than being able to answer the following question --- When and where did Oswald first pick up the revolver after he purchased it by mail order in early 1963?

The usual flurry of insults from Mr. Von Pein won't make the evidence for the revolver any better.  It stinks, just like the rifle evidence.

See...

Oswald Did NOT Purchase a Pistol from Seaport Traders

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Michael Walton said:

Lance, let's look at it this way. Any good defense attorney would have raised many, many other instances of reasonable doubt in a jury trial if Oswald had not been gunned down on 11/24. I'm too tired and/or lazy to point them out here but they do exist and this is but one example.  Is it a slam dunk? Probably not but like Scott Peterson, OJ and others, Lee Oswald at least deserved his day in court to face a jury of his peers to see if he was guilty or not...and with a good lawyer or bevy of lawyers next to him.

The inconsistent number of shots and sequence of shots in the Z film alone raises enough doubts in many, many people's mind to show that something really fishy took place on 11/22. I don't know what kind of attorney you are, but you have to have that "does it pass the smell test" built into you to analyze and determine if there's a whiff of truth in many things regarding this case.

From the day LHO was gunned down, the entire government apparatus kicked into high gear to prove and bury this case that a single individual did the deed and it's been that way for the past 54 years. And it all began with the Katzenbach memo and has continued on.

As of January 1, I am a "retired" attorney.  Before that, my private practice was as a civil litigator.

I didn't think the mission of the JFK research community was merely to see if sufficient reasonable doubt could be raised to acquit LHO.  As we have seen in any number of high-profile cases, juries can be convinced that reasonable doubt exists with respect to clearly guilty defendants.  A trial is, unfortunately, closer to a game show or drama than to a quest for truth.  As I said long before the OJ trial, I would cheerfully flip the switch on the electric chair.  He's a sociopathic killer - but voila, he's "not guilty."

A good attorney starts with a plausible theory of the case that he hopes to sell to the judge or jury.  He then amasses the evidence that, to one degree or another, supports that theory.  If the theory is cockamamie, as the great majority of JFK conspiracy theories are, or is flatly contradicted by the best evidence, as the great majority of JFK conspiracy theories are, the attorney's case is going nowhere.  Harvey & Lee, alteration of the body between Parkland and Bethesda, etc.?  Going nowhere, except perhaps in the same sense that Scientology has gone somewhere, in the form of attracting a small cadre of faithful loonies.

You have probably heard the old saying, "When the facts are against you, argue the law.  When the law is against you, argue the facts.  When the facts and law are against you, scream and pound the table."  This is essentially what a criminal defense attorney with a hopeless case does.  It is what OJ's Dream Team did.  It is what the proponents of the loony conspiracy theories do.

Another favorite tactic is to parse the evidence into ever-finer parts.  This is likewise what OJ's Dream Team did.  One of my few criminal experiences was a DUI case where the defense attorney asked the jury, "How many of you have driven your car over the curb?  How many of you have spilled the contents of your purse, stumbled while getting out of your car, wobbled while trying to walk a straight line?" and so on and so forth through all the things the woman had been observed doing.  The easy answer to that was, "How many of you have done ALL of those things on the same evening when you weren't drunk?"

Something like Harvey & Lee, which I know you do not support, starts with a cockamamie theory, ignores the mountains of contradictory evidence, and then plays an endless game of "Well, what about this ... what about this ... what about this?"  OK, in a perfect world we believe that Dallas post office clerks should have been so on top of things that they would have reported to the FBI a package from Klein's Sporting Goods addressed to A. Hidell at a box owned by Lee Harvey Oswald, a former defector to the USSR who was receiving Communist literature at that box.  OK, in a perfect world we believe that Holmes would have produced the post office record stub that led to the discovery of the postal money order.  But the point is, the folks in 1963 had the Klein's order coupon in LHO's handwriting, the original postal money order in LHO's handwriting, the post office box application in LHO's handwriting, and solid evidence that LHO had been seen with, practiced with and otherwise handled the rifle that was found at the scene of the crime and determined to have fired the bullets responsible for the wounds.  The Dallas post office clerks did not report the delivery of the rifle - sorry, too bad, but it's irrelevant.  Holmes did not bring the record stub with him when he testified - sorry, too bad, but it's irrelevant.  There is nothing "suspicious" about either of these non-events.

Perhaps that wasn't Holmes at all.  Perhaps he was too inept to be trusted, so everything associated with Holmes was actually an FBI imposter.  Did we ever see an ID?  Did we, huh, huh?  Why was every clerk who had worked at the Dallas post office in 1963 not interviewed by the Warren Commission?  Why not, huh, huh?  Why did they just take Holmes' word for anything?  It's an ENDLESS and endlessly SILLY game.

Sure, the bare facts of the assassination - a widely detested President; an assassin who had worked at a U-2 base, defected to the USSR, and was enamored of Cuba; some pretty nifty shooting with a $21 rifle; the murder of the assassin himself while in police custody - scream for a close look.  But when you get into the level of work that the FBI and Warren Commission did (some of which is truly mind-boggling), and then the review by the HSCA, you realize that the assassination DID receive a close look.  It may be the accepted conspiracy gospel that the Warren Report was a slipshod effort, but that is simply not true,  I have no problem if someone wants to keep looking, so long as it remains within the bounds of sanity.  As I've said, I am not utterly opposed to the notion that LHO himself may have been the instigator of a small pro-Castro conspiracy that would have provided him with an escape route out of Dallas, or that LHO may have been a participant in a small-scale pro-Castro conspiracy.  Those are within the bounds of sanity.

When your conspiracy theory is more elaborate, convoluted and multi-faceted than any conspiracy in the history of the world - and yet weirdly inept at crucial points - you have exceeded the bounds of sanity.  When your conspiracy theory hinges on LHO being someone other than we know him to have been, and than everyone who knew him knew he was, you have exceeded the bounds of sanity.

Enough from me, these discussions inevitably go nowhere.  One either has the conspiracy mindset, or one does not - that's my bottom-line conclusion on all the Weirdness forums on which I participate.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

All the rifle documents, and the pistol documents as well, placed in evidence and now at the National Archives are all black and white COPIES.  What happened to all those ORIGINALS that the FBI confiscated? 

Would that really make a bit of difference to you or other Anybody But Oswald conspiracy theorists like you? Don't make me laugh! You guys wouldn't believe anything relating to Oswald's ownership of the rifle---even if Charlie Givens had taken an up-close picture of Oswald holding the rifle while standing in the Sniper's Nest at 12:30 PM on Nov. 22. You'd find some way to disregard that photo, just like you disregard all of the "LHO Did It" evidence in this case.

After all, an "original" document can be a fake and a forgery too, can't it? For example, many CTers think that Cadigan Exhibit No. 11 (Oswald's money order; aka CE788) is a fake document. The rabid CTers of the world don't think Oswald touched that money order at all. And yet it is an "original" document, not just a "copy". (See the testimony of Cadigan, Cole, McNally, and Scott.)

image.thumb.png.4841b7e4d49eae0b11650bd834abe4bf.png

Edited by David Von Pein
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...