Jump to content
The Education Forum

The Framing of Lee Harvey Oswald --- Part III


Gil Jesus
 Share

Recommended Posts

The sins of the Dallas Postal Inspector

by Gil Jesus ( 2021 )

In 1975, it was revealed that agents of the Federal Bureau of investigation opened and photographed foreign and domestic mail at several sites in the United States beginning in 1958 and continuing until 1970.

The openings were centered in New York and Washington, where they involved chiefly mail addressed to Soviet‐bloc embassies and missions to the United Nations, but occurred also in other cities, including San Francisco.

The openings, known within the F.B.I. as “Zcovers,” were accomplished without the authority of judicial search warrants and were thus a violation of Federal statutes prohibiting obstruction of the mails. They had been made with the assistance of “certain officials of the Post Office [who] knew what the F.B.I. was doing.”

An F.B.I. spokesman issued the following statement:


“In connection with its foreign counterintelligence responsibilities, the F.B.I. did engage in opening of mail until 1966, when former Director J. Edgar Hoover ordered the activity to be discontinued. The motive behind it was solely to carry out F.B.I. counterintelligence responsibilities in order to thwart espionage efforts directed against the United States by foreign powers. No activities of this nature were undertaken by the F.B.I. after 1966.”


A spokesman for the Postal Service said that his agency would have no comment on the report “at this time.” ( 1975 )

The bureau's unusual confirmation represents the first disclosure that the F.B.I. participated in the opening and photographing of parcels and letters it believed to be of some intelligence value.

www.nytimes.com/1975/08/06/archives/opening-of-mail-is-traced-to-fbi-agency-concedes-operation-declares.html

Under these conditions, there is no way that the Dallas FBI and Post Office were not aware of Lee Harvey Oswald.

As an FBI informant, Dallas Postal Inspector Harry Holmes held the distinction of having not one but TWO informant codes, T-2 and T-10.

Holmes was a major player in the conspiracy to frame Oswald by supplying the FBI with the fake postal documents they needed in order to "link" Oswald to the rifle.

Among his several contributions were:

1. The destruction of part 3 of the post office box application that showed "A.Hidell" could not receive a rifle at box 2915.

2. A postal money order that was taken from a bundle not yet opened and after Oswald's arrest, pre-dated with a stamp dated 3/12/63.

3. An envelope also postmarked 3/12/63 at 10:30 am.

From the destruction of part 3 of the post office box application being "procedure", to his not knowing when he learned Oswald had box 2915, to his handling of mail and packages to persons not authorized, Holmes repeatedly violated postal regulations and lied about it to the Commission.

Let me lay out for you a scenario of how I believe this framing took place. Keep in mind this is just my opinion based on the evidence.

In the early morning of Saturday, November 23rd, the FBI contacted the Dallas Post Office to inquire how they could obtain an "original" post office money order. ( 7 H 293 ) The postal inspector on duty at the time, being an honest man, misunderstood their request as being for a fully processed money order. He told the agent who called that they'd have to contact Washington, but they'd need the number of the money order to track it down. When Holmes showed up for work, the postal inspector told him of the call, whereas Holmes proceeded to his office. ( ibid. )

He called the FBI to find out what they wanted ( 7 H 294 ) and found out that they wanted a blank money order. He was told that payment was received on 3/13/63 for the amount of $21.45 and the rifle was shipped on 3/20/63.

In order to tie Oswald to the money order, it would have to be stamped in Dallas. I seriously doubt Holmes would have left this secretive a task to a subordinate. He would have handled this himself. Holmes then went to an unopened stack of blank money orders and took one out.

He stamped the money order with the date of 3/12/63, added the amount of $ 21.45 and postmarked the envelope with the same date and a time of 10:30am and marked it "airmail" to insure that it "made it" to Chicago on the 13th.

Having the date of mid March, he added a blank order form that he cut out of a February, 1963 issue of American Rifleman that was in the "nixie" section of the Dallas Post Office.

He then used the number off the money order stub to notify Washington of the number so when they received it, they knew it was the right one.

The money order, envelope and order blank were flown by special courier to the FBI in Chicago, where Klein's endorsement stamp could be put on the back of the money order. From there, it was flown directly to Washington, where the "Oswald handwriting" could be copied from documents the FBI already had in their possession. It was officially "found" at 8pm Saturday night, some 7 hours after postal officials had been notified of the number.

Plenty of time for a private flight to Washington with a stopover in Chicago for a quick stamp.

This explains why the money order does not have the stamp of any financial institution on it nor the stamp of the Federal Reserve Bank.

It never went through the system.

As icing on the cake, the envelope and order blank were microfilmed by the FBI before they were destroyed. This would make identification of the handwriting more difficult and would hide any hint that the documents were forgeries.

Like the Walker bullet, none of the people who allegedly handled this money order and whose intials were on the back were called to testify about its authenticity.

Also, none of the Dallas postal employees were ever called to establish that Oswald purchased the money order. Neither the postal employee who "found the stub" nor the postal inspector who took the call from the FBI on Saturday morning were ever identified.

There is no supporting evidence that anything Harry Holmes said about the money order was the truth. Contacts he claimed to have made in Chicago and Washington were never called to testify in support of his claims.

And under those conditions, we must be very suspicious of Mr. Harry Holmes and his role in the framing of Lee Harvey Oswald.

At least, that's what the evidence tells me.

Next week: Part IV --- The sins of the Commission's lawyers

Edited by Gil Jesus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 38
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Thanks so much for this, Gil.  As always, it is concisely written and beautifully reasoned.

I’m well aware that the Magic Money Order was never endorsed and therefore never cashed. Bank endorsements, instead of dated FBI initials, should have appeared on the back of the money order (see bottom image below).  

Money%20Order.jpg

Regarding the numerical sequencing of the Magic Money Order, John Armstrong wrote on our website:

These money orders were purchased in numerical sequence beginning in November, 1962. These serial numbers show that some 1200 money orders per week were purchased at the downtown post office in Dallas. At this rate we see that Oswald's alleged purchase of a money order on March 12, 1963 should have been numbered 2,202,011,935. But the serial number of the money order published in the Warren Volumes was more than 118,000 numbers higher. At the rate of 1200 money order per week, this money order should have been purchased in late 1964 or early 1965.

Postal Inspector/FBI informant Harry Holmes was instrumental in framing “Lee Harvey Oswald.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Back in 2015, Sandy Larsen posted proof that Postal money orders required bank endorsements in 1963 on this forum:  It is a fairly lengthy proof, but he also provides shorter versions in links near the top of the page.

Proof that . . . Postal money orders required bank endorsement stamps in 1963.

 

 

And his supposed "proof" was promptly shredded by other forum members in the same thread. 

Edited by Jonathan Cohen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From Sandy's article, quoting the Federal Reserve Bank regulations (emphasis, in red, added by Sandy):

Endorsements

 

13. 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, or endorsed to the

order of any bank, banker or trust company, or with some similar

endorsement. Cash items will be accepted by us, and by other Federal

Reserve Banks, only upon the understanding and condition that all

prior endorsements are guaranteed by the sending bank. There should

be incorporated in the endorsement of the sending bank the phrase,

“ All prior endorsements guaranteed.” The act of sending or deliver­ing a

cash item to us or to another Federal Reserve Bank will, however,

be deemed and understood to constitute a guaranty of all prior

endorsements on such item, whether or not an express guaranty is

incorporated in the sending bank’s endorsement. The endorsement of

the sending bank should be dated and should show the American

Bankers Association transit number of the sending bank in prominent

type on both sides.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jonathan, that is  not true.

That debate went on for days on end. I was a part of it and I even went to my local banker for an interview.

Von Pein was here and he even relented on the issue.

What is it with you?  Anything related to Armstrong sends you into "I Must defend civilization mode" of attack?

And I will wager that like most of John's  critics you have not even read the book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

What is it with you?  Anything related to Armstrong sends you into "I Must defend civilization mode" of attack?

And I will wager that like most of John's  critics you have not even read the book.

Jim, I'm glad you asked (and yes, I've read the book, but I barely survived the experience). I applaud John Armstrong's tenacity as a researcher, and the collection of documents he has donated to Baylor is a very valuable addition to the assassination research archive. However, I believe his theory is absolutely preposterous on numerous levels, and the mountain of anomalies on which this theory rests is easily toppled by alternate explanations that don't involve a laughably complex conspiracy involving doppelgangers. It is an embarrassment to the larger JFK community, with which Armstrong refuses to engage.

What's worse, imagine for a moment someone who has newfound interest in the assassination after having watched your documentary, or the new documentary on Josiah Thompson's book. They do some Googling and eagerly arrive at this forum to get a sense of what's new with the case. Instead, they find thread after thread of nonsense about multiple Lee Harvey Oswalds, multiple Marguerite Oswalds, family members who were "in" on a decades-long plot, ludicrous claims of massive photo evidence fakery to disguise all these lookalikes running amok in Dealey Plaza, and on and on. It's an incredible disservice to all the dedicated people trying to move assassination research forward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Jonathan, that is  not true.

That debate went on for days on end. I was a part of it and I even went to my local banker for an interview.

Von Pein was here and he even relented on the issue.

What is it with you?  Anything related to Armstrong sends you into "I Must defend civilization mode" of attack?

And I will wager that like most of John's  critics you have not even read the book.

True.  But, that doesn't keep Jonathan from making broad, declamatory statements.

 

8 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

And his supposed "proof" was promptly shredded by other forum members in the same thread. 

I've usually a victim of this kind of statement from JC.  You're wrong and you know it.   Or, something similar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/18/2021 at 1:33 PM, Jonathan Cohen said:

Jim, I'm glad you asked (and yes, I've read the book, but I barely survived the experience). I applaud John Armstrong's tenacity as a researcher, and the collection of documents he has donated to Baylor is a very valuable addition to the assassination research archive. However, I believe his theory is absolutely preposterous on numerous levels, and the mountain of anomalies on which this theory rests is easily toppled by alternate explanations that don't involve a laughably complex conspiracy involving doppelgangers. It is an embarrassment to the larger JFK community, with which Armstrong refuses to engage.

What's worse, imagine for a moment someone who has newfound interest in the assassination after having watched your documentary, or the new documentary on Josiah Thompson's book. They do some Googling and eagerly arrive at this forum to get a sense of what's new with the case. Instead, they find thread after thread of nonsense about multiple Lee Harvey Oswalds, multiple Marguerite Oswalds, family members who were "in" on a decades-long plot, ludicrous claims of massive photo evidence fakery to disguise all these lookalikes running amok in Dealey Plaza, and on and on. It's an incredible disservice to all the dedicated people trying to move assassination research forward.

DSL Comment:  

Jonathan, permit me to make a modest observation.

The reason that some of the hypotheses proposed here lead to consequences that are “laughably complex” — an apt description, IMHO—is because the “model of conspiracy” being proposed "starts too late"; i.e., in the Spring of 1963.  By “starting too late” (conceptually), there is —in effect—one mess after another requiring “clean-up”; for example, the money order anomalies being discussed on this thread.

But let’s take a closer look:

If the reader will “push back” on the time-line of events move back in time to an earlier date,  and “start” with Oswald’s mid-June 1962 return to the U.S. from the USSR (where he had been living for about 37 months, from Oct. 1959, when he had exited the Marines and defected), these problems disappear.

In that model, which requires the adoption of a “longer view” as to when all of this entire affair began (or at least was “already underway), Oswald —the preselected patsy —returns to the U.S. in mid-June 1962; at a point in time when the "political plot" is already underway.   Then he lives with his brother in Ft. Worth for a while (summer of ’62); then moves from Ft. Worth to Dallas (Oct 1962); then shifts his location to New Orleans (late April 1963, and on into the summer); then comes the Mexico Ciy episode, and then a return to Dallas in mid-Oct. 1963; and then the rest, as they say, is “history.”

Without getting into further detail, my basic point is this: if one posits a conspiracy that “starts too late,” then yes, the result will be a number of these anomalies which don’t make sense. But if one pushes back the “start date” to an earlier time (and I'm choosing June 1962, for the sake of this discussion), then these problems basically disappear.

I’ll have more to say about this in Final Charade.

DSL (12/20/21; 4 AM PST; 4:;30 AM PST)

Edited by David Lifton
Improve clarity.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, David Lifton said:

Without getting into further detail, my basic point is this: if one posits a conspiracy that “starts too late,” then yes, the result will be a number of these anomalies which don’t make sense. But if one pushes back the “start date” to an earlier time (and I'm choosing June 1962, for the sake of this discussion), then these problems basically disappear.

David, I'm willing to allow for the possibility that a plot to assassinate JFK was in the works as far back as you suggest, and even that Oswald may have been a pre-selected patsy from an early stage. There is certainly evidence that Oswald was being closely monitored by government agencies by this point. But I cannot understand how any intelligent person would make the leap that this plot includes doppelgangers for Oswald, his mother and god knows who else as part of a separate conspiracy that began when the historical Lee Harvey Oswald was just a boy.

Edited by Jonathan Cohen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/18/2021 at 3:33 PM, Jonathan Cohen said:

I applaud John Armstrong's tenacity as a researcher, and the collection of documents he has donated to Baylor is a very valuable addition to the assassination research archive. However, I believe his theory is absolutely preposterous on numerous levels, and the mountain of anomalies on which this theory rests is easily toppled by alternate explanations that don't involve a laughably complex conspiracy involving doppelgangers. It is an embarrassment to the larger JFK community, with which Armstrong refuses to engage.

Do you now wish to engage?  Let's see....

If the Oswald Project hadn’t been an intelligence operation, it surely wouldn’t have been as complex.  As it is, the history of “Lee Harvey Oswald” bears all the earmarks of the smoke and mirrors central to any intel project.  You know it as well as I do…. “Oswald” was a spy! 

"Oswald" was a creature of the CIA! Eh?

Even after all these years, why can’t we answer the simplest questions about “Lee Harvey Oswald?” Why was he one of the most impersonated people in history, from grade school in the 1950s to late 1963?  

How did he learn to speak Russian as well or better than he spoke English before ever setting foot in the Soviet Union?  Can you explain that?  Care to argue about it?

Could “Oswald” drive a car? How did he visit the Bolton Ford dealership in New Orleans and work with the anti-Castro Cuban ex-pats in south Florida at the VERY same he was in Russia?  Was he a miracle worker or was he simply a U.S. spy?

Are doubles part of spycraft?  Want to argue about it?

Why was “Oswald” impersonated in and around Dallas at least a dozen times late in 1963, just  weeks before JFK was killed?  Are you seriously going to tell me "Lee Harvey Oswald" was NOT a U.S. spy?

Do you believe "Oswald" drove a demo car at Downtown Lincoln Mercury in Dallas in November 1963 without presenting a legitimate Texas driver's license? Seriously?  

Let's talk about this, Jonathan.  And please.... let the insults fly! I always win when you resort to B.S.  

Edited by Jim Hargrove
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Even after all these years, why can’t we answer the simplest questions about “Lee Harvey Oswald?”

There is, of course, no such thing as "The Oswald Project," and all of the anomalies you list have been debated to death on this and other forums. You have been presented time and again with perfectly logical alternative explanations, but you just keep bringing up the same things over and over, while clinging to the most absurdly complex and illogical theory, which involves decades worth of doppelgangers. There's simply nothing more to talk about, which is clear from the fact that "Harvey and Lee" is dismissed by the vast majority of serious JFK assassination researchers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m going to ignore the personal attacks and just point out that Gil’s original post here is quite accurate.  There simply were no bank stamps on the back of the Magic Money Order, even though they were required by Federal Reserve Bank regulations.  Why?  Because the  money order was never cashed.  Personnel in the FBI, possibly with the help of Harry Holmes, faked it. 

The money order itself could be faked, but bringing other banks into the charade would have been too dangerous, and it wasn’t done.  As Gil pointed out, the Magic Money Order was also well out of sequence.  More fabrication of evidence in this case.

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...