Oswald's Rifle | JFK Boards

Michael Capasse
Administrator

Posts: 2,125

Oswald's Rifle Aug 28, 2020 8:21:44 GMT -5

Quote

Post by Michael Capasse on Aug 28, 2020 8:21:44 GMT -5

Money Order | Mail Order | Muddle

The most important piece of evidence in any homicide investigation is the murder weapon.
In this case that was a 1940 Italian made Mannlicher-Carcano, 6.5mm single bolt action rifle.
The rifle was supposed to have been ordered thru a mail order catalog, from Chicago, Klein's Sporting Goods.
The VP of Klein's said the money order was deposited on March 13, 1963, but researchers cannot find the line item it matches to.

That same month, the gun was allegedly received by Lee. He had set up a post office box to receive mail.

There is no proof he had designated Alek Hidell to receive mail at that box. Hidell was the name on the rifle and pistol from different catalogs.

Amazingly they arrived on the same day, both without signed receipts.

Harry Holmes was the Dallas Postal Inspector - FBI Informant that missed the PO Box receipt of a 40 inch rifle to a Russian defector.

There is doubt about the time it would have taken for Lee to leave his job at Jager-Stovals to buy the money order.
He was required to log in finished assignments as they were completed. He had no car nor is there evidence of the PO opening before 8am.
The tracking of the payment indicates pitfalls in the cashing and depositing of the money order, raising questions regarding its legitimacy.
These doubts are further augmented by a lack of any payment stamp on the back of the money order prior to the end payment process.

A late night visit to Kleins by the FBI, prior to the Secret Service is suspicious.
Then the FBI took over the jurisdiction by securing a copy of the microfilm containing the orders.
The microfilm evidence received by the FBI has since been lost.

Last Edit: Dec 22, 2023 19:39:20 GMT -5 by ADMIN

Michael Capasse
Administrator

Posts: 2,125

Oswald's Rifle Aug 28, 2020 8:22:38 GMT -5

Quote

Post by Michael Capasse on Aug 28, 2020 8:22:38 GMT -5

PO Box | Part 3 Application

WC Report | Pages 118-119

"Shortly after the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle was found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building,
agents of the FBI learned from retail outlets in Dallas that Crescent Firearms, Inc., of New York City, was a
distributor of surplus Italian 6.5-millimeter military rifles.

During the evening of November 22, 1963, a review of the records of Crescent Firearms revealed that
the firm had shipped an Italian carbine, serial number C2766, to Klein's Sporting Goods Co., of Chicago, Ill.

After searching their records from 10 p.m. to 4 a.m. the officers of Klein's discovered that a rifle bearing
serial number C2766 had been shipped to one A. Hidell, Post Office Box 2915, Dallas, Tex., on March 20, 1963."

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Unauthorized

Lee Oswald returned from the USSR with his wife and new baby in 1962.
In October, Lee opened PO Box 2915 to receive mail.
The application for a PO Box was a 3 part form. 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.
This is where the name Alek Hidell would have to appear in order to receive any mail at this box.
By postal regulations any mail not authorized to be received at a delivery box, will be RETURN TO SENDER.

Dallas Postal inspector Harry Holmes testified before the Commission twice.
Once in April and again in July 1964. It was the 2nd visit that he discussed discarding part 3 of this form.
He lied to Liebeler when he told the Commission it was standard procedure to throw part 3 away.
The regulation is clear to stay on file for 2 years. Somehow without it the FBI determined Hidell was not authorized.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Postal Inspector Harry Holmes | WC Testimony

Mr. LIEBELER. What is the ordinary procedure that is followed when a box
is rented and this form is used?

Mr. HOLMES. The form is completed, usually by the applicant,
and it must be signed by the applicant, even if an employee does complete it.
This portion of the—I don’t know how you want to designate it.

Mr. LIEBELER. We will number them portions 1, 2, and 3.

Mr. HOLMES. All right, part I of this application is simply the instructions on
a combination box, and instructions to the patron is torn off, and he keeps it or they throw it away.

Portions 2 and 3 are completed, too. 2 gives the applicant’s name, the name of his corporation or firm he represents,
if applicable, the kind of business, the business address, the home address, and the place for his signature and the date.

On the third portion is a box for him to indicate whether he wants all mail in the box, or
Just whether he wants some other disposition and so on, and a place for name of person entitled to receive mail through
the box other than the applicant himself, and he first in that.
These two portions then remain together in the file of the post office where he made application,

Mr. LIEBELER. That is portions 2 and 3?

Mr. HOLMES. Until he relinquishes the box.
They pull this out and endorse it so the box has been closed, and the date and
they tear off 3 and throw it away. It has no more purpose. That is what happened on Box 2915.

Mr. LIEBELER. They have thrown part 3 away?

Mr. HOLMES. Yes; as it so happens, even though they closed the box in New Orleans,
they still had part 3 and it showed that the mail for Marina Oswald and A. J. Hidell was good in the box.
They hadn’t complied with regulations. They still had it there.

Mr. LIEBELER. Now is this regulation that says section 3 should be torn off and thrown away,
is that a general regulation of the Post Office Department?

Mr. HOLMES. It is in the Post Office Manual Instructions to employees; yes, sir.

--------------------------------------------------------------
In the report the Commission concluded the following:
“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 IS A LIE.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1966 USPS reply to researcher, Stewart Galanor.

“…in March of 1963, postal regulation 846.53h required that all box applications,
including part 3, be kept for a period of 2 years after the box was closed.“
“…regulation 355.111b(4) required that the item would have marked “addressee unknown” and returned to sender."

FBI Report of 6/3/64 [CE 2585]
"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."

Last Edit: Mar 21, 2021 9:28:02 GMT -5 by ADMIN

Michael Capasse
Administrator

Posts: 2,125

Oswald's Rifle Aug 28, 2020 8:23:26 GMT -5

Quote

Post by Michael Capasse on Aug 28, 2020 8:23:26 GMT -5

A Paper Slip

Holmes goes on to say, 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.

Mr. HOLMES. They would put the notice in the box.
Mr. LIEBELER. Regardless of whose name was associated with the box?

Mr. HOLMES. That is the general practice. The theory being, I have a box.
I have a brother come to visit me. My brother would have my same name—well, a cousin.
You can get mail in there. They are not too strict. You don’t have to file that third portion to get service for other people there.
I imagine they might have questioned him a little bit when they handed it out to him, but I don’t know.
It depends on how good he is at answering questions, and everything would be all right.

Mr. LIEBELER. So that the package would have come in addressed to Hidell at Post Office Box 2915,
and a notice would have been put in the post office box without regard to who was authorized to receive mail from it?

Mr. HOLMES. Actually, the window where you get the box is all the way around the corner and
a different place from the box, and the people that box the mail, and in theory—I am surmising now, because nobody knows.

I have questioned everybody, and they have no recollection. The man would take this card out.
There is nothing on this card. There is no name on it, not even a box number on it. He comes around and says,
“I got this out of my box.” And he says, “What box?” “Box number so and so.”
They look in a bin where they have this by box numbers, and whatever the name on it, whatever they gave him,
he just hands him the package, and that is all there is to it.

Mr. LIEBELER. Ordinarily, they won’t even request any identification because they would assume if he got
the notice out of the box, he was entitled to it?

Mr. HOLMES. Yes, sir

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
It Wouldn't Get that Far

I know this from my personal experience with the Post Office.
From 1975 until 1990 I worked with the Post Office picking up mail for various corporate post office boxes
– I know how this procedure works.

Every job I started at, I was immediately brought to the PO that the box was located.
My boss would bring me – I’d go to a back window where the business PO Boxes are and was
required to fill out a card (just like above) authorizing ME to be able to receive the mail from that PO Box.
And for the first few days I’d show my ID until I was known, but then ALWAYS had to show my ID
to someone that was new to me or filling in for the regular worker.

I always had to sign something for receipt of a package.
Holmes said Hidell would have a card left for him. They don't leave a card for a name not on the box
Let’s take a mail truck from Chicago to Dallas, once received in Dallas the 1st thing they do is
separate the packages from the letter mail and the street addressed carrier mail from the PO Box mail.
–it may even come in this way.

Once the PO Box mail is separated it is brought to PO Box “sort boards”
– the sort board is the other side of the PO BOX door where the postal worker sorts the mail into the box
- from the back – He has tags for the names on each of the cubbyholes he puts mail into
– he knows the regular names on his board and they are written there for when someone else is filling in for him.
– this is where the delivery for the rifle STOPS.

– The worker would NOT see the name Hidell authorized for this PO Box.
– THERE WOULD BE NO CARD.
– The item would be marked “Addressee Unknown” / “Return to Sender.”

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Why does Harry Holmes lie? – I don’t know, but he does.
We can surmise he is FBI informant T-7 in Dallas.

He is a US Post Office Inspector and would be in charge of monitoring the mail of
a Russian defector but somehow he himself missed a 40” rifle to a PO Box,
then released that package to an unauthorized name. That makes no sense.

There still should be a signature at the window showing receipt of the package and that would then be sent to
Klein's as receipt of delivery. How else would Klein s know it was actually delivered.
Also any regulations can be checked. It is obvious that he either doesn’t know the code or had set out to deceive.

Last Edit: Nov 29, 2020 9:55:26 GMT -5 by ADMIN

Michael Capasse
Administrator

Posts: 2,125

Oswald's Rifle Aug 28, 2020 8:23:53 GMT -5

Quote

Post by Michael Capasse on Aug 28, 2020 8:23:53 GMT -5

Harry D. Holmes FBI Informant
(from) The Four Faces of Harry D Holmes
by Ian Griggs

"Post Office Inspector Holmes had been allocated a Dallas Informant Number – T-7.
It is a problem that no document, FBI report or anything else positively states this as a fact.
However, close perusal of Commission Exhibit 1152 does prove the point.

That exhibit is an FBI report which deals exclusively with information supplied by “Confidential Informant, Dallas T-7”.
It contains many precise details which can only have been known to Harry D Holmes in his capacity as a Dallas Postal Inspector.
It is thus proved beyond any doubt that FBI Informant T-7 and Harry D Holmes are one and the same.
A study of that exhibit – CE 1152. is essential to this understanding.

In his Warren Commission testimony, Holmes told Assistant Counsel David Belin that he was
“feeding change of addresses as bits of information to the FBI and the Secret Service and a sort of a coordinating deal on it”
At this stage, Belin immediately silenced him with one of those convenient “discussions off record” and
they then went on to something completely different.”

Mr. HOLMES. Well, throughout the entire period I was feeding change of addresses as bits of information to
the FBI and the Secret Service, and sort of a coordinating deal on it, but then about Sunday morning about 9:20----'

Mr. BELIN. Pardon me a second. (Discussion off the record.) Anything else now, Mr Holmes?

Mr. HOLMES. I might cover the record of his rental of the post office box in New Orleans. Do you want me to go into that?
Mr. BELIN. All right, go ahead.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Original applications for Boxes 2915 and 6225 in Dallas and Box 30061 in New Orleans

When a change-of-address notice for a post office box is received by the post office, the box is routinely closed.
The original box application (Postal Form 1093) is retrieved from postal files and the date of closure is
written in the box on the form marked “DATE BOX CLOSED” by a postal clerk.

On the front and backside of Oswald’s application for Box 30061 a postal employee with the initials “RJ” wrote “Box Closed 9-26-63.
The original application forms for Boxes 2915 and 6225 in Dallas and Box 30061 in New Orleans were allegedly
given to the FBI by Postal Inspector/FBI Informant Harry Holmes.
The Bureau then photographed the original forms and provided photostats to the Warren Commission.

Commission attorney Wesley Liebeler was concerned about the disappearance of the original postal forms and
pointedly asked Harry Holmes, he wouldn’t answer:

Mr. LIEBELER. The basic thrust of my question is that you have given the originals of the documents to the FBI?

Mr. HOLMES. I have the receipts, except for Ruby’s box, which nobody ever asked me for, and I still have them.
That is Ruby’s box at the Terminal Annex. Liebeler knew that Holmes gave the original postal forms to the FBI,
and also knew the Bureau had given only “photostatic copies” to the Commission.

-------------------------------------------------------
"Liebeler may have suspected that the original postal forms disappeared while in FBI custody,
but did not know if the copies given to the Commission had been altered.

The Commission, who could rely only on the “photostatic copies,” concluded that Box 30061 at the Lafayette sub-station
was closed on September 26, 1963 after receiving Oswald’s “Change of Address Order.” (John Armstrong, Harvey and Lee, p. 606)

Last Edit: Jun 8, 2023 8:02:52 GMT -5 by ADMIN

Michael Capasse
Administrator

Posts: 2,125

Oswald's Rifle Aug 28, 2020 8:24:20 GMT -5

Quote

Post by Michael Capasse on Aug 28, 2020 8:24:20 GMT -5

Cramped In Quarters

Jaggers Chiles Stovall, 1970

The money order to buy the rifle was purchased on March 12, 1963. It was stamped directly on the front.
The time of the postmark on the envelope after the purchase and mailing is 10:30am local time.
HSCA evidence shows the Main Post Office was NOT open before 8am, disqualifying Lee having made his purchase prior to work.

Oswald was on the job at 8am that morning. His time sheet indicates he worked continuously on several jobs.
He was required to log in the start and end times on each assignment - He had no less than 5 tasks before 10:30a.
All were completed and some proof read then submitted on time as required.

Dennis Ofstein was a co worker at Jaggers Chiles Stovall that had a connection to Lee thru the Russian language.
Ofstein admitted to Jenner he attended Monterey School of Language, and had learned Russian thru an Army intelligence program.
The same school brought up in Executive Session Jan 27^th.

Amazingly, not one single witness was ever called to testify about Commission Exhibit 1855 (time sheets) and
there is NO MENTION of this document in ANY of the 15 volumes of testimony.
Instead, he didn't like Lee. Nobody did. Jenner said, "Go ahead"

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dennis Ofstein | WC Testimony

Mr. OFSTEIN. Well, we work in a rather tight area.
There is little room to move around in the darkroom, just about enough room for a man to stand by the developing trays and
allow one person to squeeze behind him and get by, and he would make it a habit of just bursting through there
head on with no regard to who was in the room if anyone was there, and also we were required to get proofs of the
work we had done on a Bruning machine, which is somewhat like a Thermofax--
it works on the same principle of making proof of it or a copy of it.

Mr. JENNER. I tried a patent case against the Bruning Co., so I know what their machines are.

Mr. OFSTEIN. But the other department with which we shared the Bruning machine requires a little more delicate work with the machine,
as their proofs are proofread. Ours are just for further use in case a job comes back and we need to know what was on the job.

He would burst in there and if someone else was on it, didn't make him any difference,
he would go ahead and put his work through and, of course, this made people mad about it.

Mr. JENNER. How would you describe all this, that he was inconsiderate?
Mr. OFSTEIN. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. And selfish and aggressive with respect to himself and impatient with the rights of others?

Mr. OFSTEIN. Yes; I think he thought he had the right of way in any case, either that or he was just in a hurry to get through,
and through his hurrying be made no regard for anyone else's well-being or anyone else's jobs.

Mr. JENNER. Go ahead.

Mr. OFSTEIN. I never heard him ask anyone to go to lunch with him, or no one, including myself, that I recall,
asked him to go to lunch, I believe I might have asked him at one time and he always ate alone.

Last Edit: Dec 11, 2020 20:32:26 GMT -5 by ADMIN

Michael Capasse
Administrator

Posts: 2,125

Oswald's Rifle Aug 28, 2020 8:25:05 GMT -5

Quote

Post by Michael Capasse on Aug 28, 2020 8:25:05 GMT -5

Pay to the Order of

The next thing that happens in the tracking of this evidence is quite extraordinary.
Look closely at the components of the money order front and back

The front has the paid to and from. The number of the MO and the amount is at the top right.
At the top center is the final paid receipt number given to the MO when it reaches its final storage location in Virginia.
The dispute in the proof of this evidence is there is no PAID stamp on the document while being cashed to the first payee, Klein's.

It's a Federal postal money order, so it makes its way to be paid by the Federal Reserve bank that pays postal money orders.
That bank pays to the Klein's bank before the MO reaches it's final archive stamp as paid.
But it is simply unbelievable that the first bank would pay Klein's on "same as cash" and not mark the paper in some way.

The back of the money order gives no resolve to the matter.
Indicated on the back is the Klein's endorsements stamp and the signatures of the FBI agents that handled the document.
There is a bleed thru of the date paid stamp from the front when the MO was originally purchased.

Financial institutions stamp checks and money orders in order to ensure that each institution pays only once on each item.
This is a piece of paper ONE TIME-SAME AS CASH. Without the stamp, there’s no proof that the money was actually paid by
the bank and credited to the customer’s account. The stamps also assist law enforcement in tracking finances in criminal cases.
This money order should have had on it the DATED stamps of all financial institutions that handled the document.

It should be noted that around 1963-1964, banks introduced automation into the banking processes
-eliminating the need for manual bank to bank stamps, however this does not negate the necessity for the document to
be marked by AT LEAST the first paying institution to protect it from ever being presented again for payment.

This Postal Money Order has NO such mark.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Actually No, it's Not

Mr. BELIN. I hand you what has been marked as Commission Exhibit No. 788,
which appears to be a U.S. postal money order payable to the order of Klein’s Sporting Goods…..
And on the reverse side there appears to be an endorsement of a bank.
I wonder if you would read that endorsement, if you would, and examine it, please.

Mr. WALDMAN. This is a stamped endorsement reading “Pay to the order of the First National Bank of Chicago,”
followed by our account No. 50 space 91144, and that, in turn, followed by “Klein’s Sporting Goods, Inc.”

Mr. BELIN. Do you know whether or not that is your company’s endorsement on that money order?
Mr. WALDMAN. It’s identical to our endorsement.

Waldman Exhibit 9 shows the Klein's endorsement stamp, there are noted differences when compared to the money order.
So is Waldman in on it? - Is he framing Lee Oswald with the killing of the president. Of course not.
But the Vice President of Klein's wouldn't know the minute differences in a stamp that was duplicated on a money order.
Or an order that was created and inserted into the microfilm records of his company. How would he know?

If the gun came from Crescent's (and I believe it did), then could the paperwork be created to match their client Klein's
No payment marks from a financial institution and a questionable endorsement should be concerning in verifying ownership of this murder weapon.
A late night secret visit from the FBI to Klein's ahead of the Secret Service is suspicious.

Last Edit: Jun 9, 2021 20:28:56 GMT -5 by ADMIN

Michael Capasse
Administrator

Posts: 2,125

Oswald's Rifle Aug 28, 2020 8:25:32 GMT -5

Quote

Post by Michael Capasse on Aug 28, 2020 8:25:32 GMT -5

Midnight Writer

William Waldman was the Vice president of Klein's Sporting Goods. Mitchell Scibor was the records keeper.
On Friday evening (11/22) the FBI contacted Scibor asking permission to view the rifle purchase records of the store.
Scibor contacted Waldman and the two men went down to open the records for the FBI.

The FBI never did disclose how they knew it was Crescent Firearms that had sold these guns, and to then search for Klein's.
By the time the FBI left Klein's and told Waldman not to discuss this with anyone, that became concerning to the Secret Service.
The search went into the night, and was found the next day on the back end, already archived in Alexandra VA.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Mitchell Scibor Employee Klein’s | WC Testimony

Mr. SCIBOR. I got a call Friday evening, November 22, asking if it would be possible to get at the records
—at our records to see if that gun had been in our possession or sold by us.

I got permission from one of the executives to open the store and view our records,
and I came down here somewhere between 10 and 11 o’clock.

Mr. BELIN. And what did you do when you got down here?

Mr. SCIBOR. We went in with the Government men and—just before we went in,
Mr. Waldman came down and we came in and he took over as far as getting—trying to find the information that we needed.

Mr. BELIN. How did you try to find that information?

Mr. SCIBOR. By looking in our microfilm records of sales of merchandise for that particular gun.
The FBI furnished us with information stating that we had received the gun from Crescent Firearms.

How would they know that yet?

Mr. BELIN. Do you know how the FBI happened to contact you or your company?
Mr. WALDMAN. The FBI had a record of a gun of this type and with this serial number having been shipped to us by Crescent Firearms.

Mr. BELIN. Do you mean that Crescent Firearms gave the FBI this information?
Mr. WALDMAN. Well, I—I must assume that’s the case. I don’t know it for a fact.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Secret Service Report 2-34030 | November 23, 1963

"At approximately 1:45 PM on November 23, 1963 Special Agents Tucker arrived at
Kleins Sporting Goods and began an interview with William Waldman Vice President.

Waldman advised special agent Tucker that the FBI had been at his place of business from approximately
10 PM on November 22nd until approximately 5 AM on November 23rd and also that he, Waldman had given the
original microfilm of records pertaining to the mail-order sale of the suspected murder weapon to special agents
Robert J Dolan FBI and Dolan had allegedly departed Chicago for Washington DC on the morning of
November 23 apparently to hand-deliver the microfilm to the FBI laboratory for analysis

It should be noted at this points that Waldman kept reiterating that he had allegedly been instructed by the FBI
not to discuss this investigation with anyone and it is necessary for Special Agent Tucker and
subsequently also Special Agent Griffith when he joined Special Agent Tucker at Klein’s Sporting Goods to
point out to Waldman that the US Secret Service has primary jurisdiction in the case of this nature and we had definite interests."

Last Edit: Aug 29, 2020 11:08:42 GMT -5 by ADMIN

Michael Capasse
Administrator

Posts: 2,125

Oswald's Rifle Aug 28, 2020 8:26:00 GMT -5

Quote

Post by Michael Capasse on Aug 28, 2020 8:26:00 GMT -5

“Eureka!” They had the stub!

"But if it could not be carried on a person, such as a pistol, like a shotgun or a rifle, then it was $1.25 or $1.37 extra.
Shipping charges were also added, so I added those together,
took that figure and called around to all the different stations and the main office where these crews were checking stubs."

"It wasn’t ten minutes that they hollered, “Eureka!” They had the stub!"
Notes from Harry Holmes | (this all occurs at the Dallas GPO prior to 1pm)

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Finding the Postal Money Order

Mr. HOLMES. I didn’t have any luck, so along about 11 o’clock in the morning, Saturday,
I had my boys call the postal inspector. ( 11 AM )

Mr. HOLMES. ….So I had my postal inspector in charge call our Chicago office and
suggested that he get an inspector out to Klein’s Sporting Goods and recheck it for accuracy,
that if our looking at the right gun in the magazine, they were looking for the wrong money order.

Mr. BELIN. So what happened?

Mr. HOLMES. So in about an hour Postal Inspector McGee of Chicago called back then and
said that the correct amount was $21.95—$21.45 excuse me, and that the shipping—they had received this money order on March the 13th,
whereas I had been looking for March 20. (12 NOON )

So then I passed the information to the men who were looking for this money order stub….
I relayed this information to them and …within 10 minutes they called back and said they had a money order in that amount…..
(12:10 PM - they found the money order by the stub - (where is the stub?)

Mr. BELIN. …..Then what did you do?

Mr. HOLMES. I gave that information to my boss by telephone. He called Washington immediately.
Of course this information included the money order number. This number was transmitted by phone to the chief inspector in Washington,
who immediately got the money order center at Washington to begin a search, which they use IBM equipment to kick out this money order,
and about 7 o’clock Saturday night they did kick out the original money order…and it turned out to be the correct money order.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
David Josephs said:
Sept 17, 2019 14:01:23 GM

Hey there Michael....

That PMO Stub is, to me, extremely important in that it would be direct and
authentic evidence that it was real and used in the normal course of business...

It would, of course, have looked a bit like this BEFORE they tore it apart to give Ozzie his 2 parts (yet another omission,
Ozzie has 1956 tax forms but not the receipt for the money order used to buy the rifle.... [cough cough BS]

So not only finding but entering the MONEY ORDER BOOK into evidence showing that Money Order prior to and after this one were indeed used
- AS NORMAL - yet this does not happen... and we know that the number of the PMO is much too high given the most recent transactions.

Last Edit: Aug 23, 2021 20:22:16 GMT -5 by ADMIN

Michael Capasse
Administrator

Posts: 2,125

Oswald's Rifle Aug 28, 2020 8:26:19 GMT -5

Quote

Post by Michael Capasse on Aug 28, 2020 8:26:19 GMT -5

In the Jungle

Waldman Exhibit 10 is Klein's deposit slip and tally for March 13, 1963. It is a useless jungle of numbers.
It cannot be added, it cannot be verified. There are numbers cut off and illegible. There are dates and totals indecipherable.
The date in the deposit slip itself is Feb 13, 1963, one month before the supposed deposit was made.

There are 2 deposits for $21.45 that can be found on this document.
One that was specifically pointed to, but disqualified by Robert Wilmouth of the First National Bank of Chicago.
The other has the date cut off at the bottom of the deposit slip and cannot be verified.
It is a disgrace this important evidence should be submitted in a such a manner that it cannot deciphered much less verified.
And the legitimacy will always be questioned, compounded by the lack of affiliation with a specific line item purchase.

Mr. WALDMAN. "...Now, we cannot specifically say when this money order was deposited, but on our deposit of March 13, 1963,
we show an item of $21.45, as indicated on the Xerox copy of our deposit slip marked, or identified by--
as Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 10.

Mr. BELIN. And I have just marked as a document what you are reading from,
which appears to be a deposit with the First National Bank of Chicago by your company; is that correct?

Mr. WALDMAN. That's correct.

Last Edit: Aug 29, 2020 11:09:18 GMT -5 by ADMIN

Michael Capasse
Administrator

Posts: 2,125

Oswald's Rifle Aug 28, 2020 8:26:39 GMT -5

Quote

Post by Michael Capasse on Aug 28, 2020 8:26:39 GMT -5

Stop Check | Summary

There is no evidence the post office box had the authorization for Alek Hidell to receive mail or packages.
It is astounding the Postal Inspector had "sort of a coordinating deal on it" and missed a 40 inch rifle delivery.
Released from the PO Box of a Russian defector, but there may have been a copy of "The Worker".

Lee was very busy that day as evidenced by his completed time sheet, and the Post Office didn't open before 8am.
The shop was small and there was no time for him to get from Jaggers Chiles to the PO without being missed.
In the days before Fed Ex or even zip codes, the money order arrived and was deposited the next day in Klein's Chicago Bank.

The FBI made a midnight visit to Mr. Waldman, and would have asked him the components of a Klein's rifle order.
Agents took the microfilm before the Secret Service maintained the proper jurisdiction, and instructed Mr. Waldman not to talk.
The microfilm has since been lost and cannot be recovered to verify the legitimacy of the original Klein's order.

There was a stub when the MO was issued. That stub was used by Harry Holmes to locate the paid slip. Where is that stub?
Where is the original Money Order Book, that would show all stubs and back carbon copies of the money order.
The lack of any PAID stamp on the back of this document is suspicious when all else is taken into account surrounding this payment.
Endorsement stamps that do not look identical, deposit slips that cannot be verified by date or figures. Numbers are botched out.
The Vice President of the bank that received the deposit cannot match it up to the financial institution that pays Postal Money Orders.

There is too much wrong to give it a pass as mistaken within any reasonable margin of error.

Last Edit: Jun 15, 2023 10:10:42 GMT -5 by ADMIN