Jim DiEugenio 2003, 2009, 2018

[Tom Gram]

39 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Tom, you say that part 3 was only one of the postal forms that was deep sixed?

Did you not also write that a letter carrier testified that he was carrying mail to Ruth Paine's house for Oswald much earlier than the mail should have been delivered there?

And that Ruth and Marina actually filed a change of address form together?

Correct. Four change of address forms were also deep-sixed: three for Marina and one for Oswald. The change of address for Oswald from Ruth Paine’s house to 4907 Magazine dated 5/15/63 is was what first led investigators to New Orleans after the assassination. It was turned over to the Secret Service by Postal Inspectors and subsequently “disappeared”. 

The letter carrier told Postal Inspectors (the same guys that found the 5/15 forwarding order) on the day of the assassination exactly that. He said that when he took over the Irving route in late July ‘63 he started delivering Oswald’s mail to Paine’s house. He said he did so the entire time Paine was on her “vacation”, and that someone regularly emptied her mailbox the entire time she was away. Paine has never been asked about this.  

The reason the carrier delivered Oswald’s mail to Paine’s house at all goes to your last question. Marina filed a change of address on 5/10/63 from Box 2915 to Paine’s house. May 10th was the same day Paine drove Marina to New Orleans, so Paine almost certainly drove Marina to the Post Office, and likely helped fill out the form since Marina didn’t speak English. Paine has never been asked about this, and the form itself was deep-sixed (also most likely by the Secret Service). 

The evidence overwhelmingly indicates that Marina checked the box for “entire family or firm” on this form, which would have closed the P.O. Box, and changed Oswald’s address along with her own to Paine’s house on May 10th. This is why Oswald had to mail in the May 15th form to get his mail to New Orleans. He had sent a form in previously that arrived in Dallas on May 14th requesting his and Marina’s address be changed from P.O. Box 2915 to 4907 Magazine, but the form was rejected because Marina had already closed the box and changed the family address to Paine’s house. That same day, May 14th, Oswald mailed in his “correction” form to Irving, with an effective date of May 15th, changing the address from Paine’s house to Magazine St.   

The Irving carrier said that he was not informed of the May 15th change of address when he took over the route in late July, so he delivered Oswald’s mail in accordance with Marina’s May 10th change from Box 2915 to Paine’s house.

There is compelling evidence that the carrier was telling the truth, and that the WC concocted a false story to cover it up. 

[James DiEugenio]

Interesting as all get out and on more than one count.

[David Von Pein]

3 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

why was the part 3 disposed of but the other part of the application was still there? Pretty simple point I think.

Here's a portion of a post I wrote on March 14, 2010, when I was in the midst of arguing about this exact "P.O. Box Regulations" subject with another conspiracy theorist at the alt.conspiracy.jfk Usenet newsgroup:

[3/14/2010 DVP Quote On:]

The document [pictured below] doesn't specify whether PART THREE of the P.O. Box application should be specifically saved for two years. It states that the "Box rental applications and control cards showing payment" should be saved. And Oswald's "box rental application" (the top portion with Oswald's name and signature) WAS saved. It is shown in CE791 and CE792.



It looks to me like Ralph R. Rea, the man who wrote that 1966 letter to Stewart Galanor (which appears in Mark Lane's book "Rush To Judgment"), has added some information about "Part Three" that doesn't necessarily have to apply to Postal Regulation 846.53h. Rea said this to Galanor on May 3, 1966:

"Section 846.53h, of the Postal Manual, provides that the third portion of box rental applications, identifying persons other than the applicant authorized to receive mail, must be retained for two years after the box is closed."

But as we can easily see above, nowhere in regulation 846.53h does it SPECIFY that the "third portion" of a P.O. Box application should be retained for two years.

It looks as if Rea was merely assuming that ALL PARTS of the application had to be saved via that postal regulation. And I'm not so sure he's right about that at all. And we've got Harry D. Holmes' testimony too, wherein Holmes said that Part 3 of P.O. Box applications are routinely thrown away after a box is closed.

Edited July 14, 2022 by David Von Pein

[Tom Gram]

Section three of P.O. Box 30061 was retained when that box was closed. There is also an internal letter in the files of the Postal Inspection Service where an Inspector inquires in 1965 if a handwriting examination had ever been performed on the application for P.O. Box 2915, since he hadn’t seen it mentioned in the press. He mentions that the entire application should still be on record as per postal regulations, and suggests that a handwriting examination should be performed on section three. What’s really interesting is this guy’s request gets bounced around until it ends up at Harry Holmes. Holmes deflects and mentions nothing of this so called “routine destruction” - or anything about section three at all, if I’m remembering correctly.

Holmes committed perjury, plain and simple. Let us not forget that Holmes actually testified that it was a regulation in the Post Office Manual to destroy section three of the application. That regulation simply does not exist.

None of this even matters though IMO, because the evidence very strongly suggests that section three existed after the assassination, it actually said the name “A. Hidell”, Holmes saw it; and he subsequently colluded with his FBI handler Alfred Ellington (which Holmes indirectly confirmed to Larry Sneed) and the Secret Service to bury problematic evidence. 

Edited July 14, 2022 by Tom Gram

[David Von Pein]

1 hour ago, Tom Gram said:

...the evidence very strongly suggests that section three [of Lee Oswald's application for P.O. Box #2915] existed after the assassination. It actually said the name “A. Hidell”. Holmes saw it, and he subsequently colluded with his FBI handler Alfred Ellington (which Holmes indirectly confirmed to Larry Sneed) and the Secret Service to bury problematic evidence. 

But why on Earth would that "Part 3" of the application be considered "problematic evidence" for Holmes (or anybody else)---especially if it really DID say that "Hidell" was authorized to receive mail at Box 2915? In such a case, that would, of course, cut the legs out from under the people (like Mark Lane, for one) who keep telling the world that "Oswald could not have legally gotten the rifle in the mail because HIDELL was not authorized to get mail in that box".  *

So your "problematic evidence" argument makes no sense. Because there's no reason under the sun why anybody would have a desire to destroy or deep-six Part 3 of that P.O. Box application, particularly if the name "Hidell" had been written on it.

* And CTers like Lane make the above claim even though they really don't have the slightest idea WHOSE names were on Part 3, because Part 3, per H. Holmes, was thrown away in May '63. So the CTers who make the above claim are simply pretending they KNOW something that nobody really knows with any certainty whatsoever.

Plus, according to the FBI report we find in CE2585 (at 25 H 859), the FBI said exactly the opposite of what Tom Gram just claimed was observed by Harry Holmes. In CE2585, the FBI said:

"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." -- Via FBI Report of 6/3/64 [CE2585]

Here's what I said several years ago when discussing this subject:

"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: 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."

-- DVP; Circa 2010

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/post-office-applications.html

Edited July 14, 2022 by David Von Pein

[Denny Zartman]

You certainly know your stuff, @Tom Gram. Good work.

[Pete Mellor]

Just listened again to Jim's DPUK presentation from 2018 on 'JFK's Foreign Policy'. (Almost 4 years ago!  Time is flying.)

Such a very interesting history, especially for me, a U.K. bod who was largely ignorant of U.S. 20th century foreign policy, pre and post JFK's presidency.

Of the book recommendations, I never got hold of my own copy of Poulgrain's brilliant 'Incubus of Intervention'.  Around £100 on Amazon!!  However, in 2020 Poulgrain covered the same ground in 'JFK vs Alan Dulles' which is also highly recommended.