Destroying the WC lies --- The Rifle, Part III

[Gil Jesus]

 Post Office Box 2915 and the Application

The post office box application consisted of three parts. The first part included postal rules and instructions for working combination locked boxes. The applicant could throw it away or keep it in his wallet. It included the combination for combination boxes. Parts 2 & 3 comprised the actual application. Part 2 included information on the applicant and his type of business ( if applicable ). Part 3 included special instructions on delivering mail, how to handle special deliveries and listed the names of other people beside the applicant who were entitled to receive mail through the box.

 
So the question is whether or not "A.Hidell" was authorized to receive mail at Oswald's box 2915 in Dallas. In order for "Hidell" to receive mail there, the evidence shows that his name would have had to have been on the box application.

 

Commission Exhibit 2585 is an FBI response to claims made in the James Buchanan's book, 'Who Killed Kennedy", one of the first books to question the case against Oswald. It indicates that "Hidell's" name was never on the application, so he could not have received the rifle.
"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."

When Dallas Postal Inspector Harry Holmes testified before the Warren Commission, he provided only a copy of part 2 of Oswald's post office box application ( Holmes Exhibit 1A, above ). He told the Commission that part 3 had been discarded when the box had been closed, in May 1963, in accordance with postal regulations. 
When asked why the New Orleans Post Office had kept part 3 of Oswald's box application in that city, Holmes replied that the New Orleans Post Office hadn't complied to the regulation. ( 7 H 527 )

In it's Report, the Commission repeated Holmes' testimony that the destruction of Part 3 of the PO Box application was in accordance with postal regulations.
"In accordance with postal regulations, the portion of the application which lists names of persons, other than the applicant, entitled to receive mail was thrown away after the box was closed on May 1963." 
( Report, Ch. 4, pg. 121 )

That was a lie. The postal regulation ( 843.53h ) required that part 3 of the box application be kept for a period of 2 years after the box was closed.
 

In 1966, author Stewart Galanor decided to write to the US Post Office and ask two questions. The first was regarding the post office box application and how long the record was to be kept. The second question regarded what happened to mail that was addressed to someone NOT on the box application part 3. In response to the first question, the post office replied that in March of 1963, postal regulation 846.53h (above) required that all box applications, including part 3, be kept for a period of 2 years after the box was closed.

 Of course, this revelation alone shows Harry Holmes lied. It shows that the New Orleans PO was in compliance with the postal regulation and the Dallas PO was NOT.
 

The reason why they discarded Part 3 is obvious and the Commission's own Exhibit 2585 proves it: "A.Hidell" was never on the application.

 

Receiving the rifle

No clerk in the Dallas Post Office has ever come forward admitting that they handed a long package to Oswald in March of 1963.
There's no documented evidence or eyewitness account proving that anyone ever took possession in March of 1963 of a rifle that had been received at Post Office Box 2915 in Dallas.

There may be a reason for that: the rifle was never received by anyone.

Postal Inspector Holmes also lied about how mail addressed to persons whose names were NOT on the post office box application was handled. He told the Commission that when the post office received mail or a package addressed to someone NOT on the application, a notice would be put in the box REGARDLESS OF WHOSE NAME WAS ON THE MAIL and when someone came to the desk with the notice, they got the mail/package, REGARDLESS OF WHO THEY WERE.
( 7 H 527-528 )

In order to show how ridiculously absurd such a procedure is, the Post Office regulation is clear.

In response to Mr. Galanor's second question, regarding mail addressed to someone NOT on the box application part 3, the post office replied that regulation 355.111b(4) required that the item would have marked "addressee unknown" and returned to sender.

In other words, if "Hidell's" name is not on the box application part 3, he CANNOT receive mail in a box assigned to Oswald and the mail must be returned to sender.

The point is  that Harry Holmes lied about a lot of stuff that was going on in the Dallas Post Office. Holmes himself was designated as FBI informant "T-2". He notified the FBI when Oswald was receiving marxist publications like The Worker but failed to notify them when he received a rifle and a handgun ?  "Hidell" wasn't on the post office box application and could not have received a rifle addressed to that box. More importantly, the FBI must have seen that part three to come to that conclusion and I submit that the part 3 was destroyed after the FBI examined it in order to remove any physical evidence of the absence of "Hidell" on it.

Tomorrow : EVIDENCE OSWALD DID NOT BUY OR MAIL THE MONEY ORDER
 

Edited July 7, 2021 by Gil Jesus

[James DiEugenio]

Nice going Gil.  I like the way you display the exhibits to show your argument.

Holmes was about the worst witness one could get.  Even for the Warren Commission.

Which is saying something.

You wonder, why did they not get someone higher up in the organization.  Then you see why.

Edited July 7, 2021 by James DiEugenio

[Joseph McBride]

You wonder too what Harry got out of his involvement in

framing Oswald or what they had on Harry to make him do it.

[Tony Krome]

The earliest FBI information regarding Post Office Box 2915;

[Ron Bulman]

1 hour ago, Tony Krome said:

The earliest FBI information regarding Post Office Box 2915;

The earliest?  I.E. 11/23/64? Rented by Mrs. Lee H. Oswald?  Hilarious if not for the serious implications.

Edited July 7, 2021 by Ron Bulman

[James DiEugenio]

OMG, that is out of this world.  

[Lawrence Schnapf]

Gil- I'll be interested if you will be clarifying two important issues involving the cancellation mark on the envelope and the lack of endorsements on the rear of the money order. Here are two important issues:

1. Armstrong suggested the cancellation mark represented where the envelope was deposited. If he was right, that would have meant that LHO really did not have time to cross the river to deposit the envelope. However, there is considerable uncertainty about what the cancellation mark means. In many post offices, the mark represents the machine in the general collection office (the office where the mail is sorted and not the mailbox where the envelope is deposited . If the latter applied in Dallas, the mark could not be used to argue that Oswald did not have the time to deposit the envelope (e.g., he could have deposited the night before and the stamp then represents when the envelope was processed at the general PO).  I have not seen any evidence that anyone has ever talked to former members of the Dallas post office to clarify this situation.

2.  I believe the money order regulations in effect at the time have been handled money orders as if they were cash. Some have agued that the absence of endorsements by the federal reserve member banks meant the money order was never "cashed" However, the banking rules may remove the absence of endorsements of any significance. I have not seen any evidence that any banking regulators from that time were interviewed to clarify how money orders were processed by the federal reserve.

 

L     

[Gil Jesus]

6 hours ago, Lawrence Schnapf said:

Gil- I'll be interested if you will be clarifying two important issues involving the cancellation mark on the envelope and the lack of endorsements on the rear of the money order. Here are two important issues:

1. Armstrong suggested the cancellation mark represented where the envelope was deposited. If he was right, that would have meant that LHO really did not have time to cross the river to deposit the envelope. However, there is considerable uncertainty about what the cancellation mark means. In many post offices, the mark represents the machine in the general collection office (the office where the mail is sorted and not the mailbox where the envelope is deposited . If the latter applied in Dallas, the mark could not be used to argue that Oswald did not have the time to deposit the envelope (e.g., he could have deposited the night before and the stamp then represents when the envelope was processed at the general PO).  I have not seen any evidence that anyone has ever talked to former members of the Dallas post office to clarify this situation.

2.  I believe the money order regulations in effect at the time have been handled money orders as if they were cash. Some have agued that the absence of endorsements by the federal reserve member banks meant the money order was never "cashed" However, the banking rules may remove the absence of endorsements of any significance. I have not seen any evidence that any banking regulators from that time were interviewed to clarify how money orders were processed by the federal reserve.

 

L     

To answer your question # 1, it could not have been mailed the night before because the money order was purchased on the 12th, so it could not have been mailed before the money order was purchased. The earliest it could have been purchased was at 8am on the 12th. You're correct in saying that the postal zone mark only reveals what post office it went through and not the individual mail box. 

But Harry Holmes testified that the money order was purchased at the same post office where the envelope was mailed from, the main post office.

Your second statement is also correct, they should have interviewed people responsible for the handling of money orders. But they weren't doing a regular investigation here, i.e. getting to the truth, they were trying to build a case against Oswald. You and I know what steps we would have taken had we been in their places. Sadly, the more doors they didn't open, the better their case was. This is why so much of the evidence was ignored or not followed up on. Plus they had a mandate from Johnson to get it done before the '64 election.

Edited July 7, 2021 by Gil Jesus

[Gil Jesus]

10 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Nice going Gil.  I like the way you display the exhibits to show your argument.

Holmes was about the worst witness one could get.  Even for the Warren Commission.

Which is saying something.

You wonder, why did they not get someone higher up in the organization.  Then you see why.

Thanks, Jim. I like people to see the evidence and not think I'm just handing them another line of BS.

[Lawrence Schnapf]

Thanks! Great work!

[Tony Krome]

On 7/7/2021 at 11:52 AM, Ron Bulman said:

The earliest?  I.E. 11/23/63? Rented by Mrs. Lee H. Oswald?  Hilarious if not for the serious implications.

By the way, the "MRS" is no mistake on behalf of investigators. They went on to say that they suspected it may of been the mother of Oswald that rented the PO Box. So someone, very early on, witnessed "Mrs Lee H Oswald" on a PO Box application form that indicated her as the primary.

Edited July 8, 2021 by Tony Krome

[John Butler]

On 7/6/2021 at 11:52 PM, Ron Bulman said:

The earliest?  I.E. 11/23/64? Rented by Mrs. Lee H. Oswald?  Hilarious if not for the serious implications.

That would be Marina?  Our favorite Soviet "honey pot' spy.

[John Butler]

1 hour ago, Tony Krome said:

So someone, very early on, witnessed "Mrs Lee H Oswald" on a PO Box application form that indicated her as the primary.

 

1 hour ago, Tony Krome said:

So someone, very early on, witnessed "Mrs Lee H Oswald" on a PO Box application form that indicated her as the primary.

It couldn't be Marina and it must have been someone else like his mother.  Marina would mean Soviet involvement and possible war.  A phony excuse to cover up Marina as participating in the JFKA would be dear old mom.

[Gil Jesus]

On 7/6/2021 at 11:52 PM, Ron Bulman said:

The earliest?  I.E. 11/23/64? Rented by Mrs. Lee H. Oswald?  Hilarious if not for the serious implications.

Tony, you need to find a new source or do some research on your own instead of swallowing everything you're fed.

Ron is right. Oswald rented that box. No one else. Here's the proof.

CADIGAN EXHIBIT 13 -- part 2 of Oswald's application for post office box 2915

The lower PO Box application-- there's no MRS there.

https://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0152b.htm

 

 

Edited July 9, 2021 by Gil Jesus

[Tony Krome]

1 hour ago, Gil Jesus said:

Tony, you need to find a new source or do some research on your own instead of swallowing everything you're fed.

Ron is right. Oswald rented that box. No one else. Here's the proof.

CADIGAN EXHIBIT 13

The lower PO Box application-- there's no MRS there.

https://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0152b.htm

 

 

My source is the FBI files over at Mary Ferrell, FBI 62-109060 JFK HQ File