JIM DiEUGENIO SAID:
>>> "Are you really saying that when a money transaction is involved and the post office is the fiduciary, there is no signed receipt necessary? Or are you saying the check or money order is the receipt?" <<<
I'll admit--I have no idea. I would think a receipt would be issued at the post office if a cash transaction was involved. But on OSWALD'S end, not finding any such receipt among his possessions eight months later doesn't seem strange in the slightest. Why would he keep such a receipt for 8 months? I doubt he would.
But on the POST OFFICE side of the transaction, I'm not sure. Would they be required to keep on file a copy of any such receipt for eight months (or forever)? I just do not know.
>>> "The problem here is that there is no check or money order in evidence. So there is no proof of payment made." <<<
Well, Jim, I think it's quite likely that Oswald paid cash. That's why we have no money order in evidence. And we couldn't have any check either, since Oswald had no checking account.
>>> "In these types of situations, the FBI goes to bank receipts. They then trace the daily deposit and find the individual deposits that made that day's grand total. They then locate this particular transaction from that day. That did not happen. Why?" <<<
I have no idea. But if Oswald paid with cash (which I think is quite likely), then obviously there could be no tracing of a particular money order or check via such an FBI investigation.
And if he paid with cash, there almost certainly would be no possible way to trace Oswald's $21.22 that he gave to the post office clerk, because that cash would have gone into a cash drawer and then would have merely been part of that day's "cash" deposit, along with the cash given to the post office that day by many other customers who bought stamps, etc.
>>> "I have given you every benefit of the doubt. Ok, let us say that LHO did not have to go to REA offices. Let us say that in this particular case, normal procedure was not followed. If so, 1.) How did LHO get the merchandise if his name was not on it? and 2.) Where is there any proof of the money transaction?" <<<
Well, there is no "proof" of the money transaction, other than Heinz Michaelis' testimony, in which he verified to the Warren Commission that the $19.95 COD payment was made to them at Seaport Traders.
And WHO would have made that payment? My guess would be it was the same guy who mailed the order form for the revolver (along with a $10 bill) to Seaport Traders in Los Angeles.*
* = And, btw, as I mentioned in another post, it's my belief that Oswald very likely mailed the order form for the revolver on the exact same day he mailed [via Air Mail, btw] the order form for the rifle--March 12, 1963--even though Oswald wrote the date "1/27" on the revolver order form. But that doesn't mean he had to actually drop it in the mailbox on January 27.
I think he might very well have mailed the two forms together, and both via Air Mail, which is why we find "March 13" dates on the invoices at both Klein's in Chicago and Seaport Traders in Los Angeles.
As for Oswald getting the revolver, even though it wasn't mailed under his name---well, the exact same thing happened with the Carcano rifle at about the same time in late March of 1963, with the only difference being: the rifle package was paid in full with no COD attached to it.
1.) Oswald finds a card or piece of paper in P.O. Box 2915 at the Dallas Post Office.
2.) LHO then takes this card to the front desk.
3.) The clerk at the front desk then goes and gets the package.
4.) Oswald then pays the clerk $21.22 (the $19.95 COD plus the REA $1.27 service charge).
5.) Oswald is then given his Smith & Wesson revolver.
And the reason OSWALD was given the package, even though the package was mailed to HIDELL is because when a person takes a card/slip to the front desk that he got out of a P.O. Box, the clerk at the post office assumes that the person with the card/slip is entitled to the package because that person must have had access to the P.O. Box in the first place -- which is exactly the same scenario that occurred with the rifle too, as explained by Harry D. Holmes, the postal inspector whom Jim DiEugenio loves to call a liar and a document-tamperer, such as when Jim made this ridiculous and unprovable statement about Mr. Holmes earlier tonight: "Holmes obviously faked the money order after the fact."
So, the post office doesn't automatically assume that the person wanting to claim a package has stolen the key to someone else's post office box. Instead, the post office assumes that the person with the slip of paper is a person who rightfully gained access to the P.O. Box. So, the package is given to the person who produces the slip of paper to the clerk.
Maybe the post office (circa 1963) should have checked everyone's I.D. to make sure they weren't giving merchandise to people who weren't entitled to it. But they obviously did not do that. Hence, Oswald got his rifle....and his revolver.
Plus, even if some identification had been required at the post office, Oswald could have easily provided it. He had "Hidell" fake I.D. cards. He could have flashed one of those (with his picture on it too). I'm sure that would have satisfied the postal clerk at the desk. In fact, Harry Holmes suggested that Oswald might have done that very thing when he picked up his Mannlicher-Carcano rifle:
"And on the other hand, he had this identification card of Hidell's in his billfold, which he could have produced and showed the window clerk. Either way, he got it." -- Harry D. Holmes
David Von Pein
LINK TO ORIGINAL POST (AUGUST 4, 2010)