(PART 69)



Where is the CHECK/MONEY ORDER for Oswald's $10 [for the deposit that was paid to Seaport Traders of Los Angeles, California, for the purchase of Oswald's .38 Smith & Wesson revolver in March 1963]?

It specifically asks for a CHECK or MONEY ORDER for the $10 (one-third) deposit.

There was no envelope, and once again, no proof of delivery.

Since Seaport did ship the pistol, SOMEONE sent a $10 deposit.

Who did? When? And where is it? Along with the transfer of the $21.22 to Seaport for the balance?


Seaport shows it got ten dollars CASH, and Josephs correctly asks how the money got to Seaport?

Well if the Post Office was forwarding monies around for Lee (hanging my head low in disbelief), then they must have just forwarded the ten bucks too. (picks myself off floor, straightens my tie, and continues typing)

As DVP says -- "I suppose it's possible that I'm wrong about how these types of C.O.D. transactions worked..."

Ya think?!?!

Yeah, have DVP cough up the Jackson pay stub while he's at it.

Oh that's right, he can't....Just like a Seaport Check/MO or envelope that would need to hold the coupon and/or ten dollars.

They don't exist.

And at this point are fable. .... Facts are not DVP's friend.


Nice work guys.

IMO, the more you look at this, the phonier it gets.

As with so many things in the WC [Warren Commission], you have to buy into an incompetence that is simply not present in the real world.


Just because Seaport Traders preferred customers to make payments using check or money order (as all mail-order companies prefer, quite obviously [and today, with credit cards too, of course]), that doesn't mean that Oswald HAD to use such payment methods.

Oswald sent Seaport $10 in cash [as this order form confirms] and then Oswald paid the C.O.D. balance when he picked up the revolver (regardless of WHERE it was that he picked it up, which was probably at the REA Express office in Dallas).*

* = I was originally incorrect about how REA handled "COD" shipments to P.O. Boxes in 1963. And I fully acknowledge that fact in my article on Oswald's revolver, HERE.

But do the conspiracists in this forum (whose job seemingly is to cast continual and unrelenting doubt on Oswald's guilt, regardless of how flimsy and/or silly their nitpicking theories are) actually think that if Oswald had sent Seaport Traders a ten-dollar bill through the mail (instead of sending the preferred M.O. or check) that Seaport would have REFUSED Oswald's/Hidell's order for the revolver?

Seaport obviously DID receive a $10 payment from Oswald/(Hidell). We know this is true via Heinz Michaelis' WC testimony. And Michaelis said the payment was IN CASH. Michaelis said -- quote -- "We received, together with the order, the amount of $10 in cash."

So why in the world does this thread even exist? It's meaningless and useless. It was started merely for the purpose of casting a shadow of doubt over a subject (Oswald's $10 deposit for the revolver) where absolutely NO DOUBT exists. And such doubt about this matter never did exist.

In short -- There is no doubt whatsoever that Lee Oswald ordered, paid for, and received Smith & Wesson Revolver #V510210 from Seaport Traders in Los Angeles in early 1963.

The only people who have the slightest doubt about that fact are people who WANT Oswald to be labelled "innocent" of murdering Officer J.D. Tippit. And to believe that Oswald was innocent of THAT murder too is, frankly, just too silly for a reasonable person to even contemplate.


Where did he pick it up at, Davey? And what is your proof he did so?


Jimmy D.,

The proof that Oswald picked up the revolver, regardless of where he picked it up, is the undeniable fact that Mr. Oswald had Revolver V510210 in his hands when he was arrested in the Texas Theater on 11/22/63.



Davey, we have been through all this.

But you never get tired of reviving defeated arguments.

It simply was not possible for LHO to be at the scene at the time of the [Tippit] murder. Now you can do the McAdams hit and say the times were all over the place. But see, rational people go for the best evidence--that is watches and clocks.

In addition to Bewley [sic] there is also the witness in Barry Ernest's book, The Girl on the Stairs. That woman also matches Bewley [sic] perfectly. And she said she looked out her window at the time the shots went off. No one looking like Oswald was there. Shades of Acquilla Clemons.

Obviously, it was not possible for Oswald to be at the scene that early. And we have Lee Farley and Robert Morrow to prove that for us.



But further, while [I] was in Dallas, I met someone who knows a police officer who was at the scene of the Tippit shooting. Guess what she told me? This officer saw the wallet also. And the ID was Oswald's. According to this woman, [David] Lifton is working on this one. So it's all over on that score, partner. Someone dropped Oswald's ID there, and it was not Oswald.


The best evidence mean zilch to you conspiracy mongers. And the best evidence in the Tippit murder case is certainly not "watches and clocks" to determine what happened. The best evidence is the physical evidence -- i.e., the bullet shells and the murder weapon being in LHO's hands when he was arrested, while trying to kill still more policemen with it, not to mention all the various witnesses either AT or NEAR the murder scene who positively IDed Lee Oswald.

But conspiracy theorists have a built-in excuse -- It's all faked.

Incredible silliness. Does it ever end?

I just thought of something interesting....

Since you [James DiEugenio] are of the incredibly wrong opinion that Oswald wasn't even at Tenth & Patton on 11/22/63, then you most certainly have no choice but to believe that witness Ted Callaway was either mistaken or an outright liar when he identified LHO as the man he saw running from the murder site with a gun in his hands. Right, Jimmy?

Now, by all accounts (except to perhaps an Anybody-But-Oswald conspiracy buff like Mr. DiEugenio), Ted Callaway was a very good witness (and a very brave one too).

As far as I am aware, Callaway never ever changed his story one bit since Day #1 on November 22, 1963. He always maintained he heard FIVE pistol shots (which might very well be true, accounting for the mismatch in the brands of bullets and shells recovered), and Callaway always maintained from Day 1 that the gunman he saw just seconds after Tippit was killed was Lee Harvey Oswald.

Now, Jim D., how do you explain Callaway's observations in your theory that Oswald wasn't even at the Tippit murder scene at all on 11/22/63?


David, correct me if I'm wrong, but the only reason for saying this would be to indicate that changes in a story over time is indicative of someone lying (here, I am referring only to substantial changes that give an entirely different picture to that originally stated). Is that about how you see it?


Essentially, yes, I think that would be an accurate way to put it, Greg. And Jean Hill and Roger Craig are probably the two best examples of such behavior you'll find in the JFK case. There's no question that both Craig and J. Hill were outright liars when it came to some of the things they said in later years.

The people who love to cite Roger Craig's "7.65 Mauser" story have no choice but to totally ignore Craig's 1968 interview with the Los Angeles Free Press, where he specifically said that he had no idea WHAT KIND of gun the rifle was that was found on the sixth floor of the TSBD.

QUESTION: "Did you handle that rifle [found on the sixth floor of the TSBD]?"

ROGER CRAIG: "Yes, I did. I couldn't give its name because I don't know foreign rifles."

This March 1, 1968, L.A. Free Press article (with "RC" being Roger Craig) is the proof that Craig was a bald-faced liar when he later insisted in the Mark Lane video "Two Men In Dallas" that he had seen (with his own eyes) the words "7.65 Mauser" stamped on the barrel of the gun.


Craig also claimed to have "handled" the rifle after it was found on 11/22/63. That very likely is another lie told by Craig.

But getting back to Ted Callaway -- He was always very consistent in his story, from 1963 and onward. And he IDed LHO on the day of the assassination, not at some later point in time. (And yes, you can now throw Howard Brennan up in my face if you like--because he did not ID Oswald on 11/22. But, IMO, his reason for not doing so on 11/22 makes a great deal of sense to me. YMMV.)


You [DVP] cannot be serious with the bullet evidence.

I mean that stuff is so compromised it literally smells of garbage. But the point is you know all the problems with it, yet you still bring it up.

Why? In any other case it would be a liability. But yet you do not even detail it before accepting it.

For the prurient reader, the sorry details are in Henry Hurt's book (pgs. 152-56) and Jim Garrison's (pgs. 197-201).

And please do not reply with that old standard of yours, "It's only the Poe bullet." Completely false. And again you know it.

Therefore both the provenance of the revolver is in question as is the ballistics evidence.


There's absolutely NO question marks hanging over the two bullet shells found by the Davis girls on 11/22/63. They each found a shell and turned it over to a different DPD detective (Doughty and Dhority), who, in turn, marked the shell they each received.

You can't slip away from this one, Jimbo. For, even WITH a question mark hanging above the two Poe shells, you have nowhere to run regarding the other two shells, which are shells that are positively from Oswald's gun, and we also know that ALL of the shells being dumped at 10th & Patton were being dumped there by JUST ONE SINGLE GUNMAN.

You surely don't deny my last statement about "one single gunman" being seen dumping shells out of a revolver by BOTH of the Davis girls (Barbara and Virginia), do you?

Are both of the Davis girls liars, too, when they said they saw a man they both IDed as Oswald cutting across their yard dumping shells from a gun (which couldn't have been an AUTOMATIC pistol, of course, because an automatic would eject the shells by itself)?

Keep fighting City Hall, Jimbo. I love watching conspiracy clowns continually trying to exonerate a proven double-killer. (It's sad and pathetic to watch, but fun.)

[Still waiting for Jimbo's brilliant "Oswald's Innocent" explanation when factoring in the observations and testimony of Ted Callaway. Maybe Jimbo can use the pathetic excuse that conspiracy kook Tom Rossley utilized in a radio debate, when he casually decided to toss aside the testimony of Callaway just because he was a car salesman. I guess anybody who sells used cars cannot possibly make a decent eyewitness.]

David Von Pein
November 2011