JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 585)

Ben "I Love Chaff" Holmes is at it again, I see.

This whole thread is totally insignificant and meaningless, because it doesn't really matter WHERE Lee Oswald got the idea for using "Hidell" as one of his aliases....the fact remains we KNOW that he DID use that name (Alek James Hidell) as an alias on various documents, including a forged Selective Service card [pictured below] that not only has the name "Hidell" on it, but has Lee Oswald's OWN PICTURE on it as well (CE795)!



So anyone who claims (as some conspiracy nuts do still claim) that Oswald was telling the truth to the authorities after his arrest when he said he had never heard the name "Hidell" before, is just a silly person. Period.

As for Ben Holmes' contention that the Warren Commission "lied" about the details of any person with the REAL name of "A.J. Hidell" or "Hidell", Holmes (as usual) is totally nuts. Let's have another look:

"There is no evidence that an "A. J. Hidell" existed." (Warren Report; Page 292)

Now, how is the above statement a lie? Answer--it isn't. Because no such person named "A.J. Hidell" (or "Alek James Hidell") is known to have existed as of the printing of the Warren Commission's Final Report in late 1964.

Next.....

"During the summer of 1963, Oswald rented a post office box in New Orleans, listing the name "Hidell" in addition to his own name and that of his wife. Hidell was a favorite alias used by Oswald on a number of occasions. Diligent search has failed to reveal any person in Dallas or New Orleans by that name. It was merely a creation for his own purposes." (WR; Pages 644-645)

Now, yes, it's true that an acquaintance of Oswald's in the Marine Corps named John Rene Heindel said the following in a May 19, 1964, affidavit:

"While in the Marine Corps, I was often referred to as "Hidell"--pronounced so as to rhyme with "Rydell" rather than "Fidel." This was a nickname and not merely an inadvertent mispronounciation [sic]. It is possible that Oswald might have heard me being called by this name; indeed he may himself have called me "Hidell." However, I have no specific recollection of his either using or hearing this name."

But the fact that Heindel also used the nickname "Hidell" doesn't turn the following two statements made by the Warren Commission into "lies" (as Ben Holmes wants to turn them into):

"There is no evidence that an "A. J. Hidell" existed."

"Diligent search has failed to reveal any person in Dallas or New Orleans by that name [Hidell]. It was merely a creation for his [Oswald's] own purposes."

It seems to me as though the Warren Commission was probably searching for a person whose REAL NAME was "Hidell" (and more specifically "A.J. Hidell" or "Alek James Hidell"), and they were probably not searching for a person (like Heindel) who had "Hidell" as a nickname. And Heindel's real name was not Hidell.

Therefore, it's pretty obvious that Kook Holmes is once again scraping the bottom of his "chaff" barrel and distorting and/or misrepresenting the Warren Commission's words when Ben insists that the WC "lied" when it came to being able to find a person in New Orleans or Dallas whose REAL NAME was "Hidell" (and more specifically "A.J. Hidell").

But the Warren Commission didn't lie, because there was no person in either of those two cities who had the REAL NAME of A.J. Hidell or Hidell.

But let's just assume that Ben Holmes is right (or at least partially right) about this chaff-like item of his that occupies space on his non-stop list of alleged "Warren Commission Lies". My next question would be -- So what?

John Heindel's WC affidavit is right there in Volume #8 of the Warren Commission volumes for everybody to see and read -- right here.

The Commission, therefore, wasn't HIDING Heindel's admission that he had a nickname that was exactly the same name as Lee Oswald's known alias ("Hidell"). It's right there in black-and-white on page 318 of Volume 8.

Does Ben Holmes think that this "Heindel"/"Hidell" coincidence really MEANS something in the long run? Is this supposed to "solve" the case in some way?

Does Ben think that Heindel and Oswald were part of an assassination "team" or something?

In short, WHERE exactly does the "Hidell" thing take Ben Holmes (and conspiracy theorists like him)?

Ben wants to think the Warren Commission lied when they claimed that nobody else in New Orleans or Dallas had the name (or used the name) Hidell.

But does the alleged "lie" somehow make all the evidence of Lee Oswald's guilt in the JFK and Tippit murders suddenly melt and/or disappear?

To sum things up.....

In my personal opinion, Ben Holmes does a good impersonation of James DiEugenio. Because both of those men are good at dredging up totally meaningless loose ends (aka: chaff) regarding unimportant matters concerning the assassination of John F. Kennedy. But neither man is very good at answering a very crucial question connected with their chaff-dredging:

WHERE DOES THIS CHAFF GO?

David Von Pein
June 14, 2009

LEE HARVEY OSWALD IN NEW ORLEANS IN AUGUST 1963: A LOOK AT CE826

Warren Commission Exhibit No. 826 [linked HERE] is a 17-page FBI report on Lee Harvey Oswald that was filed by New Orleans FBI agent Milton R. Kaack on October 31, 1963, three weeks prior to JFK's assassination.

I found CE826 to be a fascinating report. It contains quite a bit of detailed information on Lee Harvey Oswald--three weeks before he murdered President Kennedy.

Commission Exhibit 826 is also interesting for another reason -- Oswald's penchant for telling lies. Oswald dishes up multiple lies via CE826, within the multi-page August 10, 1963, report of New Orleans FBI agent John L. Quigley, which begins on Page 6 of Milton Kaack's 17-page main report.

Quigley interviewed Oswald at the New Orleans Police Department on 8/10/63, which was one day after Oswald had been arrested for "disturbing the peace by creating a scene" on Canal Street while passing out pamphlets for the Fair Play For Cuba Committee.

After his arrest, Oswald himself asked to talk to an FBI agent, and Quigley was the man who was sent to talk with him. The specific reason for Oswald requesting to speak with an FBI agent is something we can only speculate about now. But Oswald certainly seemed anxious to talk about the Fair Play For Cuba Committee and his own one-man "New Orleans chapter" of that Committee.

Among the falsehoods that Oswald told Special Agent John Quigley of the FBI on 8/10/63 was this one (with LHO obviously not wanting to reveal the fact that he had met and married his wife in Russia):

"About four months ago he and his wife, MARINA OSWALD nee Prossa [sic], whom he met and married in Fort Worth, moved to New Orleans."

And then there are the multiple lies that Oswald told Agent Quigley concerning the fictitious "A.J. Hidell". Knowing, of course, that A.J. Hidell only existed in Lee Oswald's imagination, the following portions of Agent Quigley's August 1963 FBI report are really quite humorous to read now. I can envision Oswald talking to himself on the telephone, or sending himself a letter to ask himself if he would go down to Canal Street to pass out some FPCC literature:

"Since receiving his membership card in the New Orleans chapter of the [Fair Play For Cuba] committee he said that he had spoken with [A.J.] HIDELL on the telephone on several occasions. On these occasions, HIDELL would discuss general matters of mutual interest in connection with committee business, and on other occasions he would inform him of a scheduled meeting. He said he has never personally met HIDELL, and he knows HIDELL did have a telephone, but it has now been discontinued. He claimed that he could not recall what the number was.

"OSWALD said that the committee did not have any offices in New Orleans, and whenever meetings were held they were held in residences of various members. He maintained that he had attended only two meetings of this committee, and at each of the meetings there were about five different individuals.

"At each of these meetings the persons present were different. He did not know the last names of any of these individuals and claimed he was only introduced to them by first names. He maintained that he could not recall any of the first names.

"From what he understands there are no regularly scheduled times for meetings, and the only way he knows about them is when somebody gives him a call and tells him there will be a meeting. At these meetings he said the general conversation deals with Cuba and the latest news on the internal affairs of Cuba.

"OSWALD admitted that on one occasion he held a committee meeting at his home, but he declined to elaborate on how he got word to the various members that it would be held.

"Last Wednesday, August 7, 1963, OSWALD said he received a note through the mail from HIDELL. The note asked him if he had time would he mind distributing some Fair Play literature in the downtown area of New Orleans.

"He said HIDELL knew that he was not working and probably had time. HIDELL also knew that he had considerable literature on the committee which had been furnished to him by the national committee in New York.

"Since he did not have anything to do, OSWALD said he decided he would go down to Canal Street and distribute some literature. He denied that he was being paid for his services, but that he was doing it as a patriotic duty."

[End quotes from FBI report.]

------------------------

I also find it interesting to take note of the things Oswald told Quigley on 8/10/63, versus the remarks he made during his WDSU-Radio interview with Bill Stuckey just seven days later.

On August 10th, Oswald didn't mention anything to Quigley about being the "Secretary" of the New Orleans FPCC chapter. But on August 17th, he told Stuckey that he was, indeed, the secretary of the New Orleans branch of the Committee.

Lee had obviously used those seven days to make up a better and more elaborate lie concerning his one-man chapter of the Fair Play For Cuba Committee prior to making his first of two appearances on WDSU-Radio in New Orleans.

It's also rather interesting to take note of the fact that FBI agent Quigley says in his August 1963 report that Oswald himself "exhibited" to Quigley a Fair Play For Cuba Committee membership card that was signed by "A.J. Hidell". And this is in addition to Oswald telling Quigley that he (LHO) had actually talked with Hidell on the phone several times.

The only reason I mention the above facts is because I believe that I'm correct in saying that a few conspiracy theorists have speculated that just perhaps Lee Harvey Oswald didn't really use the alias "A.J. Hidell" at all in 1963.

But if Oswald HIMSELF was bringing up the name Hidell while talking to an FBI agent in August of '63, and if Oswald HIMSELF had shown Agent Quigley a card with the name Hidell on it, then such a theory about Oswald having no idea who A.J. Hidell was would go up in smoke for all time.

Or maybe some conspiracy theorists want to believe that John Quigley's report that we find in CE826 is nothing but a great-big lie regarding the name "Hidell".

But even if Quigley's report were a lie, there's still the undeniable fact that all of the various documents that bear the name "Hidell" on them were determined by handwriting analysts to be in Lee Harvey Oswald's own handwriting.

David Von Pein
June 2010
August 2010

LINK TO ORIGINAL POST (JUNE 9, 2010)

==================================================

RELATED LINKS:

JOHN QUIGLEY'S W.C. TESTIMONY

LEE HARVEY OSWALD'S RADIO INTERVIEWS

==================================================

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 1011)

LEE FARLEY SAID:

I disagree with the handwriting "experts", who were anything but "experts." His [Lee Oswald's] handwriting is a piece of piss to copy.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

So Cadigan and Cole are liars then, huh Lee?

"A piece of piss"??? :)


LEE FARLEY SAID:

Cuba and his "visit" to Mexico City. Plus, what you have written answers none of the questions or irregularities I posed and posted, Dave. It's no good just saying 'We know he ordered the guns' when there are massive problems with the order. It's no good just saying 'Oswald invented the name' [A.J. Hidell] when the name was never used as an alias by him other than on the gun orders.

When I wrote my post defining a lone-nut's inability to look at the evidence within a wider context, this is exactly the sort of thing I meant.

Bottom line: You believe that a presidential assassin made up a fake name, ordered some firearms from two different states using that fake name in the hope that he could distance himself from the sale, then had them delivered to a P.O. Box that he had set-up in his real name, against all the odds and postal regulations he managed to receive and collect them, he then shot the president with the rifle, but was then lifted just over an hour later with an ID bearing the fake name that led the FBI directly to the rifle sale in less than 12 hours?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Oswald was both smart and stupid at the same time. (Not an uncommon blend of human traits, actually.)

Oswald, of course, didn't purchase his mail-order rifle so that he could kill JFK. He bought the rifle to kill General Walker. (But, yes, it's a similar situation--i.e., buying a gun through the mail using an alias, and then using that gun to commit the illegal act of an assassination attempt. But he did it all the same.)

I've often wondered why in the world Oswald didn't get rid of Rifle C2766 after his unsuccessful attempt at murdering Edwin Walker. LHO surely had to be following the Walker story closely, and probably knew the bullet had been recovered from Walker's house. Keeping the rifle after that point in time was stupid on Oswald's part. But he kept it all the same. Maybe his cheapskate nature played a part in it. Perhaps he said to himself: "I'm not spending $21.45 on a rifle just to fire one bullet from it." :)

Oswald, however, was smart on 11/22/63, in that he was able to keep his rifle hidden all the way up to 12:30 PM. And the "curtain rod" lie was pretty smart too, because it gave Oswald a double excuse for the "package" -- 1.) the excuse for riding to Irving with Wesley Frazier on Thursday night; and 2.) the curtain rod lie explained the physical package on November 22.

We can second-guess Oswald's motives and gun-purchasing actions all day long, but the best evidence tells us that Lee Harvey Oswald DID, indeed, order two guns via mail-order in early 1963. Stupid or not--he did it.



LEE FARLEY SAID:

This is your core belief, that he did it, but it doesn't answer the questions about the extra wallet found in Oak Cliff, why Will Fritz kept withheld that wallet from the FBI for five days...


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Huh? What wallet? Are you suggesting there really WAS a "mystery wallet" that was turned over to the FBI by Captain J.W. Fritz "five days" after the assassination? I'd sure like to see that wallet. (Of course, it doesn't exist.)

The wallet seen in Ron Reiland's film could have belonged to anyone at the scene of the crime--including J.D. Tippit. And I don't think there is any document that expressly says that Tippit's wallet was taken out of one of his pockets after Tippit was taken to Methodist Hospital (and then, later, to Parkland Hospital). If such a document exists, please post a link to it.


LEE FARLEY SAID:

...how Fritz knew about the Beckley address before he was supposed to...


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

This is more "conspiracy myth". If Fritz was made aware of Oswald's 1026 N. Beckley Avenue address at an "early" time on November 22nd, it very likely came about in a regular and ordinary manner.

Are you suggesting that Fritz was "in" on a plot to frame Oswald on the afternoon of November 22nd? Why on Earth would Fritz and the DPD want to FRAME an INNOCENT Oswald for either JFK's murder or Tippit's murder? That's just plain silly talk. I know a lot of people believe that Fritz was part of some kind of "Let's Frame Oswald" plot. But, in my opinion, it's just nutty to believe such a thing in the first place.


LEE FARLEY SAID:

...and why the name Hidell didn't surface through the media until the firearm sales had been established resulting in the embellishment of the Warren Commission testimony of the arresting officers.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

So the name "Hidell" wasn't mentioned by anybody prior to Jesse Curry's hallway interview at City Hall on Saturday, November 23rd. Big freakin' deal! So what? What does it prove? Answer: It proves nothing.

And we're only talking 24 hours or so after the assassination. Curry mentioned the name "A. Hidell" to the press and the world on live television on the afternoon (or early evening) of November 23.

And I suppose you think Marina Oswald was a liar too, right? She testified that she first heard about her husband using the alias "Hidell" while she and LHO were still living in New Orleans in the summer of 1963, many months before the assassination.

Footnote---

Both the Warren Commission and the HSCA concluded that Lee Oswald used the alias "Hidell" to order the C2766 rifle that killed JFK and the revolver that killed Officer Tippit.

Can you, Lee Farley, provide a good, solid, and reasonable explanation for why BOTH of those U.S. Government investigative committees totally blew it when it comes to Oswald using the Hidell alias (if, in fact, strong evidence actually points in the other direction--i.e., toward the direction of the name "Hidell" being invented by someone other than Lee Harvey Oswald)?

And how is it possible for BOTH of those committees (the WC and the HSCA) to have gotten things so totally wrong (from the CTers' POV) with respect to their identical conclusion of Oswald being the person who killed JFK and Tippit? (Particularly the HSCA, which was an organization that desperately wanted to find a conspiracy in the case.)

BOTH the Warren Commission and the HSCA were filled with liars, Lee? Do you really believe that? Really??


LEE FARLEY SAID:

I'm taking my daughters out for the day. I'll respond on my return. If I refer to something as being a "piece of piss", it is Liverpool vernacular that means "easy." Everyone can produce it. There is so much wrong with your reply, it looks like it's going to be a late night. Maybe some other members can start while I'm away.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You can save yourself the trouble, Lee. I know what your responses will be: Total conjecture and nothing of substance. As per usual.

You're a JFK Conspiracy Theorist, so how could I expect ACTUAL EVIDENCE to back up a CTer's claims, when no such actual evidence exists in the first place? After all, you're not Houdini.

And in the final analysis, a bunch of speculation and suspicions coming from a covey of Anybody-But-Oswald hobbyists couldn't possibly matter less when stacked up against the huge pile of evidence that proves Lee Harvey Oswald was a double-murderer.

David Von Pein
August 15, 2010

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 739)

GIL JESUS SAID:

What proof is there that "A.J. Hidell" was approved to receive (TAKE OUT) mail at either of Oswald's Dallas Post Office Boxes (2915 or 6225)?


BUD SAID:

You show you are still ignorant about how post office boxes work. You don't need approval to get mail in a PO box, any mail that has the proper PO Box number will be delivered to it, regardless of what name is on the mail.

The kooks have themselves in a quandary over this issue. I doubt I can walk an idiot like Gil or robcap [Robert Caprio] through it, it seems beyond their capacities. There are two completely different aspects to the PO box issue: putting mail in, and taking mail out.

The post office will put ANY mail in that is addressed to that box, REGARDLESS of the name, because mail is sent to locations, not to individuals. So, mail addressed to anyone by name will go in if the PO Box number is correct, but only those authorized can take it out without breaking the law. Those are the people listed on the application.


"CURT JESTER" SAID:

So anybody could have rented the box and subscribed to newspapers and had them picked up.


BUD SAID:

I try one more time, I know you kooks are a stupid bunch. The person or people whose name is on the application can take mail OUT of the box. Mail going into the box can have any name under the sun on it, because it is mailed to the location, not to a particular individual.

Here's a true story that happened on my block. Two brothers lived together, had a falling out, and one moved out. The one brother told the mail carrier not to deliver mail addressed to his brother to his house anymore. The mailperson (a woman) explained to him that by law she had to deliver any mail addressed to that house to that house, regardless of the name on it (how would the mailperson know who was in the house anyway?).

The brother in the house is a bit of a psycho, and made some dire threat to the mailperson, something about cutting off her head if she put any of his brother's mail into his mail slot ever again. Later that day a small army of federal postal police turned up, and explained to him the regulations regarding mail delivery, and the dire laws involved with threatening a federal employee.


"CURT JESTER" SAID:

And it could have worked for mail too. Do you think you got any grey matter functioning by thinking a rifle could be picked up that way??


BUD SAID:

You are aware that Klein's was selling rifles through the mail, right? Who do you think handled these deliveries -- elves? It was mail, idiot. It gets delivered to the location written on them. The person renting the box picks up the mail delivered to his box.

I know this is all over your heads, which is why investigation is best left to professionals, and not random idiots.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

It doesn't seem to matter how many times this is explained to the kooks, it never sinks in.

Gil Jesus thinks "take out" and "receive" (as in: "a package or letter with Hidell's name on it is delivered to the P.O. Box") are the exact same thing.

As Bud has explained, a package delivered to PO Box 2915 in Dallas could have ANYBODY'S name on it, including "A. Hidell", and Oswald wouldn't have had a bit of trouble picking it up legally. Because when an oversized package is sent to a PO Box (or a residence), and the clerk is presented with the bona fide document left in the PO Box related to that delivery, the clerk assumes that the person with the receipt is entitled to the package. And no signature is needed either.

I've picked up many oversized packages this way myself at my post office. I've never once had to identify myself as the person whose name appears on the package, and I've never once been asked to sign anything to get the package either. I just hand them the yellow slip of paper, and they give me the package. Period.

So, the name "Hidell" appearing on the front of Oswald's rifle package from Klein's is meaningless to the post office workers. They couldn't care less about who the package is addressed to. It's the ADDRESS itself that is important. And that's the ONLY thing that matters. The name on the package is totally irrelevant.

Oswald would have gotten his Carcano package if the name on the label had said Nikita Khrushchev.


BUD SAID:

I can send mail to any PO box or address in the United States. I can buy any item from any catalog, and have it shipped to any location in the United States. I can open a PO Box, and order anything under any name I want to, and have it sent to that box.

Let's say I have a PO box number 100. I can send a money order to TV Guide under the name "Gil Jesus is a fucking idiot", and give the PO box number 100 as the location I want the TV Guide delivered. I will get TV Guides in my PO box. I will be able to take these TV Guides out of the PO box, even though my name is not "Gil Jesus is a fucking idiot".

[...]

Let's say Hidell existed, and he and Oswald shared the box. How would the post office know if Oswald was taking only Oswald's mail, and Hidell was taking only Hidell's mail? They don't get involved. Their responsibility ends in getting the mail to the location on the item.

Now, if Hidell complained that Oswald was opening his mail, then there might be a problem, as this is against the law. But there would have to be a complaint. The only reason I can think of that the post office would require the name of people having access is so if a dispute does arise, they can say "Well, you gave him access".

But really, from what I see, anyone with the key to the PO box can access it, the boxes are in the lobby, and no one checks ID.

I'll tell you what I will do, Gil. I will look into opening up a small PO box. If I do this, I will put the PO box # number here [in a post at the alt.conspiracy.jfk Usenet newsgroup/forum]. You can send a letter to the PO box in any name you can think of, and in the letter you can put a phrase. If I can repeat the phrase here, you will start a post stating "I am Gil Jesus, and I am the stupidest man on the face of the Earth."

You game?

If you want, you can send a box that won't fit in the PO box, address it to "Santa Claus" or whatever you like, and if it has my PO box number on it, they will hold the box for me and give it to me, even if it isn't in my name (because it was sent to my box).


GIL JESUS SAID:

Bud, it seems that you'd rather insult people than answer the question and I always have to ask you these questions over and over and over again.


BUD SAID:

Long after they've been answered. You are just too stupid to understand the answers, so you keep repeating the question.


GIL JESUS SAID:

JUST ANSWER THE QUESTION PLEASE

What proof is there that "A.J. Hidell" was approved (by Oswald, the applicant) to receive (TAKE OUT) mail at either of Oswald's Dallas Post Office Boxes (2915 or 6225)?

Is that question too hard for you to understand?

Or are you just into jerking people?


BUD SAID:

A.J Hidell is a fictitious person, created by Oswald, idiot. Imaginary people cannot pick up mail, idiot. Any mail that went to that PO box was likely picked up by a real person, Oswald. Oswald had access to the PO Box, therefore had access to any items sent to it, REGARDLESS OF THE NAME ON IT, YOU FUCKING IDIOT!

Apparently Oswald put the Hidell name on the application as a person entitled to receive mail on his New Orleans PO box. It is possible he had the same trouble grasping the nuances of getting mail out of the box sent in a different name as you are exhibiting.

Once he had the New Orleans box, he may have realized that he didn't need the Hidell name on it at all, he only needed to put the Hidell name on the stuff being sent to him (weapons and newspapers), and he could get these things without Hidell's name on the PO box at all.

In any case, Hidell, being non-existent, was handicapped from getting the stuff sent in his name. Now tell me again how I haven't answered the question, and I'll get a gradeschooler from the South to attempt an explanation.


"CURT JESTER" SAID:

Now tell how the Fed's kidnapped you to a MK Ultra camp.


BUD SAID:

Well, first they shot me with a sleep dart fired from an umbrella. Then they replaced me with a double, so that no one would know I was gone. They put me in a cell with a TV that only showed Disney films 24/7.

They said that if I didn't cooperate, they [would] feed my nuts to rabid weasels. They told me my country needed my services, that the CTers in this newsgroup, although comprised mainly of the stupidest folks on the planet, were somehow getting close to cracking the JFK conspiracy (something about retardation in its purest form having powers far beyond that of the rational mind). So, I signed on to thwart that process, by pointing out to them how mail works.


BUD LATER SAID:

If Klein's broke some postal regulations when it shipped rifles, what does that have to do with Oswald getting this rifle in Hidell's name?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Curt must think that a PO Box is entirely different from a home mailbox, right Curt?

Because the NAME on a piece of mail has absolutely no bearing on if it gets delivered to a person's home mailbox. Why on Earth would a "PO Box" have different rules in this regard? It's stupid to think a PO Box has different rules in this regard.

And how on Earth can the post office employees know for certain WHO is living at a particular residence at any particular time and, therefore, might get mail delivered there? They can't, of course.

The mail is delivered to the ADDRESS...not the INDIVIDUAL.

And WHY would a PO BOX be ANY different at all?

I've picked up many large boxes at the P.O., too, and have never been asked for ID of any kind. The P.O. assumes that the person who has the yellow slip in their hand is entitled to receive the package associated with that yellow slip of paper.


"CURT JESTER" SAID:

You have no understanding of Postal procedures or law. You have never ordered a firearm before.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Then go blame Klein's....not the post office.

As Bud pointed out earlier, is the post office supposed to X-ray every package or look in every "sporting goods" package to see if it contains some kind of "firearm" before handing it over to the recipient?

Did Klein's mark their rifle packages with the word "FIREARMS" or something like that? I have no idea if they did or not, but I think Bud is right in the sense that you kooks seem to be blaming a potential legal error made by KLEIN'S on the POST OFFICE.

Seems to me, in this area of "mail-order guns", it's up to the SOURCE supplying those guns (in this case, Klein's in Chicago) to meet all of the specific legal requirements for shipping those guns to customers. The post office is merely the 'middle man' in this scenario, between the source (Klein's) and the recipient (Oswald).

Is it the kooks' contention that the post office should be liable and responsible for a gun reaching the hands of a person who ordered it from a mail-order company, even if that mail-order company doesn't fulfill its legal obligations?

Also:

Do the conspiracy theorists of the Earth have some verification that Klein's was not meeting its legal burdens when mailing people (such as Oswald/Hidell) the rifles they were ordering in 1963?


"CURT JESTER" SAID:

By your biased scenarioizing MO, people could just order a rifle from 7-11, as there would be no restrictions on getting one, as it would be like any other product.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Again, gripe to Klein's about it then. The post office has nothing to do with this type of argument (at least in circa 1963-1964 anyway). And the Warren Commission testimony of Harry D. Holmes proves that fact.

The post office delivers the mail. They aren't responsible for any laws that might be broken by the companies that mail it.

RIFLE-RELATED ADDENDUM:

Whenever the topic of Oswald getting a gun through the mail comes up, I'm always reminded of an episode of a TV show ("The Fugitive"), made in 1966, not too many years after the JFK assassination.

Now, I know I'll probably get blasted by the CTers for even mentioning a "TV show" script when talking about John Kennedy's murder, but this episode of "The Fugitive" always pops into my mind anyway when thinking about the subject of "mail-order rifles".

The TV episode I'm talking about is called "In A Plain Paper Wrapper", and it co-stars a young Kurt Russell as the leader of this local gang of kids in a small U.S. town.

Kurt and his buddies send away for a rifle by mail-order (and then they use it to try and capture "the fugitive", Dr. Richard Kimble). One of the kids in the gang, a 12-year-old boy, goes to the local post office and comes out with the mail-order rifle in his hands. A 12-year-old boy picked it up. (And the box was marked "firearms" too, if my memory serves correctly.)

Now, I'm guessing that famed producer Quinn Martin (who helmed "The Fugitive" from 1963 to 1967) probably always aimed for a certain sense of realism and accuracy in the scripts that ended up ultimately being filmed for the TV audience to watch.

So I can't help but wonder if the script for "Paper Wrapper" wasn't actually pretty accurate with respect to the scene which has this small boy able to walk out of a U.S. post office with a rifle in his arms.

Yes, this "TV" example of a boy picking up a rifle at the post office is proof of NOTHING with respect to this discussion about Lee Oswald's rifle. I'll readily admit that. And I'll even stress that fact.

But I also can't help but wonder if that very same gun-purchasing and gun-obtaining scenario hasn't played itself out in just that way in hundreds of post offices around the USA over the years.

And, as conspiracy advocates like to point out so often when discussing Oswald and his mail-order rifle, evidently Oswald could have gone into any gun shop in the state of Texas and walked out with a rifle that "could never be traced" (to quote from Oliver Stone's movie).*

* BTW, I've always found that so-called fact to be very hard to believe. Didn't gun-shop owners, even in 1963, require purchasers to present any kind of I.D. at all? Seems very strange to me. But, I'll admit, I don't have the slightest idea what the regulations were in Texas for purchasing firearms in the year 1963. [Also see the related posts HERE, HERE, and HERE.]

But if it, in fact, is true that Oswald could have bought a rifle that "could never be traced" at a gun store in Texas, then what did Klein's do that was any different than what the gun-shop owners were doing, circa 1963, when it came to gun purchases (from the standpoint of ensuring that the weapon being sold was going to end up in the hands of the right person)?

Seems to me that the answer to that last question is --- Nothing.





GIL JESUS SAID:

Because "Hidell's" name wasn't on the application, even Oswald wouldn't have been able to pick up a package with a Hidell ID.


BUD SAID:

It's tough to keep explaining these things to idiots. What did [Postal Inspector] Holmes say about picking up packages too large to fit in the PO box, idiot? Have you offered anything that shows what he said to be wrong?


GIL JESUS SAID:

Holmes was a liar.


BUD SAID:

That should be easy enough to prove. Just cite a regulation concerning mail sent to a PO box that contradicts him.


GIL JESUS SAID:

To think the larger packages were just handed off to whoever came looking for them without any verification of identity is nothing but BS.


BUD SAID:

Again, we have an expert stating the regulations and procedures. Again, an idiot says he doesn't like what the expert said, offering nothing of substance to contradict the expert.

It has been explained to these idiots that a ticket is placed inside the PO box. This ticket does two things...it alerts the person renting the box that there was a package too big for the box sent to it, and the ticket verifies to the people at the desk that they are holding an oversized box for the person with access to that PO box (if they didn't have access to the PO box, they wouldn't have the ticket).

What this issue proves once again is that you kooks are clueless idiots. And you do nothing to cure your ignorance, you just keep saying "I can't believe this".


ROB CAPRIO SAID:

What a bunch of bull. The package comes in, it says A. Hidell on it along with the box number. They look up the box number and see it belongs to a Lee H. Oswald. Then they pull his application to see if this name, Hidell, is allowed to receive mail at this box. Guess what??? It is NOT listed, thus they would have to return the package to the sender and say you have sent it to the wrong address.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Like a good mega-kook, Rob's up to speed -- i.e., ignore anything and everything in officialdom that might lead down a path of guilt for the patsy. Like these words uttered by Harry D. Holmes:


WESLEY LIEBELER -- "Now, supposing that Oswald had not, in fact, authorized A. J. Hidell to receive mail here in the Dallas box and that a package came addressed to the name of Hidell, which, in fact, one did at Post Office Box 2915; what procedure would be followed when that package came in?"

HARRY D. 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."

MR. LIEBELER -- "It is very possible that that, in fact, is what happened in this case?"

MR. HOLMES -- "That is in theory. I would assume that is what happened."

-------------------

Rob Caprio also misinterprets the words "allowed to receive mail". He thinks this prohibits Oswald from picking up mail that has been addressed to A. Hidell at Box 2915. But, of course, that's not the case at all.

A letter addressed to "Rob The Moron" at Box 2915 would still have been put inside Box 2915. And who would have received that letter addressed to Rob? Oswald of course, when he opened his box next time.

Rob must think that ALL mail addressed to anybody but Lee and Marina Oswald was not put in the PO box, instead it was confiscated and held back by the post office and taken to the back rooms (with the large packages).

This premise, of course, is idiotic. I get mail occasionally addressed to someone else, but it still gets delivered. That's because they deliver to the ADDRESS....not the PEOPLE.


ROB CAPRIO SAID:

If LHO was having the rifle sent to his OWN box anyway, why NOT just use his OWN name? IF Hidell was listed as an alias to LHO, and it was not, what good was ordering it under the alias's name in the first place?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Yeah, it was pretty silly of the patsy framers to do something so transparently obvious and phony....wasn't it Rob?

Why do you suppose the patsy framers did this? Especially with sharp-eyed idiots like Rob on the case to expose their obvious fraud?


"CURT JESTER" SAID:

You could look it up, ask a carrier, take a trip to your post office.


BUD SAID:

Why would I look it up, I know how mail is handled. You're the ignorant party, I've tried to enlighten you, to no avail. The information is there, DVP provided it, Holmes supplied it, you just don't like it. BTW, it's unlikely I could get 1963 postal regulations from a mail carrier or post office.


"CURT JESTER" SAID:

Of course when the WHOLE process is a fabrication, a false P.O. box name alias that is tied to an Oswald known in advance by a band of conspirators would deem having this name the ONLY way to go. Bone up on postal regs and all of Harry [Holmes'] deeds, Bud. You'll end up needing them.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

You kooks just never stop, do you? You'll go to whatever lengths necessary to take that rifle out of Oswald's hands.

And not just on 11/22/63 itself -- but the kooks seem to practically want to deny the existence of the Klein's C2766 rifle entirely....it's as if it never even existed at all, despite the paper trail leading from Oswald to Klein's and back to Oswald again (via the backyard photos and C2766 with LHO's multiple prints on it in the TSBD on 11/22).

Why don't the kooks just pretend that JFK wasn't killed at all?

David Von Pein
October 2008

LEE HARVEY OSWALD'S POST OFFICE BOX APPLICATIONS

ROB CAPRIO SAID:

You are presupposing there was a rifle to pick up! We know from the postal application form (page 3) that LHO listed NO aliases or other persons (including Marina) to be allowed to receive mail or packages at this post office box. So how would a supposed package made out to a "A. Hidell" get to him again?

====================================

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Rob Caprio is making stuff up (again).

The fact is this -- Nobody knows for certain whether Oswald listed Hidell on the Dallas P.O. Box [#2915] form or not. The likelihood is that he probably DID list that name, but the portion of the application that revealed such information was discarded after Oswald closed out the box.

If he listed Hidell on his New Orleans P.O. Box forms (which he definitely did), then why wouldn't he list Hidell on his Dallas P.O. Box form? Common sense would suggest that he likely treated those forms the same and listed Hidell on both.

[MARCH 2011 EDIT -- Although, yes, it is true that Oswald did not list "Hidell" on the application he filled out on 11/1/63 for Box 6225; but by that date, he had already purchased both of his guns via his Hidell alias, and he possibly felt he would no longer have any need to utilize that fake name for post office transactions in the future.]

But Rob doesn't know for a fact that Hidell wasn't on the Dallas P.O. Box application. In fact, Postal Inspector Harry D. Holmes told the Warren Commission that Oswald might very well have put Hidell on the form. Let's take a gander, shall we?:

MR. LIEBELER -- "On the other hand, it is also possible that Oswald had actually authorized Hidell to receive mail through the box?"

MR. HOLMES -- "Could have been. 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."

[Source for the above Warren Commission testimony: 7 H 528.]

====================================

IAN KINGSBURY SAID:

Dave,

Who's speculating now?

There must have been a record. Even the British post keep records.

====================================

DVP SAID:

According to Postal Inspector Harry Holmes:

HARRY HOLMES -- "They pull this out and endorse it so the box has been closed, and the date and they tear off [Part] 3 and throw it away. It has no more purpose. That is what happened on box 2915."

WESLEY 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 -- "It was a lucky thing."

MR. HOLMES -- "We wish they had here."

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."

MR. LIEBELER -- "So there is no way, as I understand it, to tell from the records maintained, as far as you know anyway, who was authorized to receive mail at Post Office Box 2915 that Oswald had while he was here in Dallas before he went to New Orleans in April of 1963; is that correct?"

MR. HOLMES -- "Other than Oswald himself and his name on the application."

[Source for the above Warren Commission testimony: 7 H 527.]

====================================

DVP SAID:

Post Office Addendum:

BTW, it also makes no sense for Oswald to purchase guns under the name HIDELL and have them shipped to a P.O. Box where he DID NOT have the name HIDELL listed as a person authorized to receive mail.

But, on the other hand, since the post office delivers to ADDRESSES and not specific PEOPLE, it's very likely that Oswald would not have had any problem getting a package addressed to HIDELL even if that name was not on any kind of official authorization form.

====================================

ROB CAPRIO SAID:

Your witness, Harry Holmes, knew for certain when he told the N.Y. Times on 11/29/63 the following:

Quote on:

No one other than Oswald was authorized to receive mail at that box.

Quote off

He either fibbed or violated all Postal regulations when he said he destroyed the page 3 section when LHO closed his box, as he was required by law to keep that for TWO YEARS AFTER THE BOX WAS CLOSED!

IF anyone is so inclined they can look up this regulation/law, Section 846.53b [sic; it's actually 846.53h], in the Postal regs.

====================================

DVP SAID:

I now offer up a replay 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:

[March 14 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.

[March 14 Quote Off.]

====================================

GARY CRAIG SAID:

A. Hidell isn't listed. No name is in the box for people to recieve [sic] mail other than LHO. Here's a link to the actual document [Cadigan Exhibit No. 13]. Take a look.

====================================

DVP SAID:

Gary,

Cadigan Exhibit No. 13 [pictured below] doesn't prove what the CTers want it to prove at all. That document doesn't show Part 3 of the application for P.O. Box 2915. It only shows the first part. There's not even a line listed on that part of the document in Cadigan 13 that says "OTHERS ENTITLED TO RECEIVE MAIL".

Why in the world do conspiracists think this document proves that the Warren Commission and Harry Holmes lied? It does no such thing. In fact, it only serves to strengthen the testimony of Holmes, because Part 3 of the application for Box 2915 is not shown in Cadigan #13:



====================================

GARY CRAIG SAID:

David,

Read the printing above Oswald's signature. What does it say?

In case you've misplaced your reading glasses, it says: "Names of Persons Entitled to Recieve Mail Through Box".

====================================

DVP SAID:

You're wrong, Gary. Dead wrong.

You're mixing up the two P.O. Boxes. Check the box number in the upper right-hand corner. (If you need to borrow some reading glasses, I can supply them.)

The application card that says "Names Of Persons Entitled To Recieve Mail Through Box" is on the application that Oswald filled out on November 1, 1963, for Dallas P.O. Box 6225. It's not the application for Box 2915. And Box 2915 is the box where Oswald had the rifle shipped in March '63.

And that's why the "Part 3" portion of the Box 6225 application still existed as of the date of Oswald's death on 11/24/63, because Box 6225 had not yet been closed and therefore the third part of the application had not been discarded (unlike the third part of the application for Box 2915, which was a box closed by Oswald in May 1963).

In New Orleans, however, they saved the third portion of Oswald's P.O. Box application (for some reason), even though the standard by-the-book postal procedure (according to Postal Inspector Holmes) was to throw away that Part 3 section after a box has been closed out.

Gee, you'd think you CTers would have at least looked at the associated BOX NUMBERS at the top of the two separate documents seen in Cadigan Exhibit No. 13. But, I guess not.

[Note --- The bottom half of Cadigan Exhibit No. 13 is exactly the same as
Warren Commission Exhibits 791 and 792, except that CE791 and CE792
don't have all the arrows drawn in on the document.]



So, once again, we're back to where we were previously -- As I said, Cadigan #13 does not prove what the conspiracy theorists think it proves at all, because the silly CTers seem to think that both documents pictured in Cadigan #13 represent parts of the SAME post office box application. But, of course, they do not.

Better try again, Gary. Because this kind of goof on your part sure makes the "Anybody But Oswald" conspiracy crowd look mighty sloppy.

====================================

MILES SCULL SAID:

David Von Pein is making stuff up, again.

[MILES THEN CITED COMMISSION EXHIBIT NO. 2585, AT 25 H 859, WHICH I QUOTE DIRECTLY IN MY NEXT POST.]

====================================

DVP 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. This box was obtained by Oswald on October 9, 1962, and relinquished by him on May 14, 1963." -- Via FBI Report of 6/3/64 [CE2585]

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.

====================================

MILES SCULL SAID [BY WAY OF COPYING-AND-PASTING ANOTHER PERSON'S WORDS INTO HIS POST, WITHOUT CREDITING THE REAL AUTHOR OF THESE WORDS]:

Fortunately, Postal Inspector Holmes is not the final authority on Postal Regulations. The Postal Manual, Section 846.53b, states quite unequivocally that "Part 3 of the box rental application, identifying persons other than the applicant authorized to receive mail must be retained for 2 years after the box is closed."

====================================

DVP SAID:

That's nothing but a flat-out lie, Miles.

You should really start doing at least a little bit of research on your own before slapping together a copy-and-paste post like your last one about the postal regulations.

First off, you're incorrect on the number of the postal regulation that you think is going to save the conspiracy theorists from further embarrassment concerning this issue. It's not 846.53b. The one you're referring to is the regulation concerning post office boxes, and that's 846.53h (highlighted by the arrows here).

I also find it interesting to note that this particular error about the number of the regulation is the exact same mistake made by conspiracy theorist Rob Caprio in an earlier post in this thread. He, too, seems to think it's 846.53b. (This probably means that Caprio and Scull are relying on the same conspiracy-flavored kookbook or website for their "facts" and information.)

Secondly, the copy-and-pasted quote you provided earlier -- "Part 3 of the box rental application, identifying persons other than the applicant authorized to receive mail must be retained for 2 years after the box is closed" -- is nowhere to be found in Postal Regulation 846.53h (and it's not in 846.53b either). So whoever put those exact words inside quotation marks is nothing but a liar. Simple as that.

What probably happened is this: The conspiracy theorist whom Rob Caprio and Miles Scull trust so dearly with their information concerning the 1963 United States Postal Regulations likely just copied the main thrust of Ralph R. Rea's words that appear in Rea's May 3, 1966, letter to Stewart Galanor.

As we can easily see when doing a comparison, the words are almost identical in the two quotes. In fact, beginning with the word "identifying", the quote used by Miles Scull is verbatim to the words that we find in Ralph Rea's 1966 letter [which can be seen HERE].

And Rea's information is obviously not correct, because, as I mentioned earlier, there's nothing at all in Postal Regulation 846.53h that says that "Part 3" of a P.O. Box rental application must be retained for two years after the box is closed.

So many conspiracy myths. And so many people willing to believe in almost all of them--hook, line, sinker, and P.O. Box application.

====================================

DVP SAID:

I contend that's it's logical to conclude (after reading Harry Holmes' testimony on the matter) that the only section of the multi-part post office application that needed to be retained was Part 1, which had the most pertinent info about the applicant on it.

Why would they need to save a useless section of the application that told them who could receive mail---particularly since the box was now closed and they knew that nobody related to the applicant could ever get mail at that P.O. Box ever again anyway? Makes sense to me that Part 3 would, indeed, be discarded, because it was useless after a box had been closed.


====================================

GARRY PUFFER SAID:

This reasoning I find absolutely charming in its silliness, given that we are trying to establish who had access to the PO box, the very thing DVP is claiming no one would ever need to know.

Gotta love that LN logic.


====================================

DVP SAID:

I doubt very much the post office employees cared whose names were listed on Part 3 of that application. It's absurd to think that the mailmen were checking the applications of every P.O. Box before placing mail in those Dallas post office boxes. It's laughable, in fact, to envision a busy post office ever doing such a thing.

If a piece of mail was addressed to "P.O. Box 2915", the mailman stuck it in Oswald's box. Period. Regardless of whose name was on the envelope (or package).

Part 3 of the application was likely just a hunk of useless red tape that was totally ignored 99.9% of the time.

David Von Pein
July 15-17, 2010
February 13, 2016

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 100)

ROBERT CAPRIO SAID:

>>> "I wish LHO or his mom was here to sue you for this slanderous term, double-murderer, as he was NOT convicted of either one. You need to learn to use the term "alleged", as is the custom for all people not yet convicted in a court of law." <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

To hell with your stinking "alleged" rule. There's no "alleged" about
it in LHO's case. He killed two men in Dallas in 1963. The evidence
proves it. And so do Oswald's own actions, which scream out "I'm
Guilty".

For some reason, CTers pretty much want to totally ignore Oswald's own
November 22nd post-12:30 ACTIONS and WORDS, which are actions and
words (i.e., lies) that are not indicative of an innocent patsy who
never fired a shot at anyone on 11/22/63.

And I guess Mama Marguerite would be very busy filing the lawsuits
too, because I'm certainly not alone here. The Warren Commission and
the HSCA would need to be sued too (they don't use the word "alleged"
either).....

"On the basis of these findings the Commission has concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald was the assassin of President Kennedy." -- Warren Report; Page 195




"Lee Harvey Oswald fired three shots at President John F. Kennedy. The second and third shots fired struck the President. The third shot he fired killed the President." -- HSCA Report; Page 3


>>> "You also need to provide proof of an alias being used by LHO beyond a silly card found the next day (11/23/63) in his wallet." <<<

It wasn't found "the next day", Mister Kook. It was found in his
wallet by the DPD within minutes of LHO's arrest on 11/22/63.

As usual, a kook is mangling the evidence. Surprise!


>>> "It [the Hidell I.D. card] was not there at the time of his arrest. Lay some real proof on us just for fun, okay?" <<<

Okay....

Via Gerald Hill's WC testimony:


GERALD L. HILL -- "I asked Paul Bentley, 'Why don't you see if he has
any identification.' Paul was sitting sort of sideways in the seat,
and with his right hand he reached down and felt of the suspect's left
hip pocket and said, 'Yes, he has a billfold,' and took it out. I
never did have the billfold in my possession, but the name Lee Oswald
was called out by Bentley from the back seat, and said this
identification, I believe, was on the library card. And he also made
the statement that there was some more identification in this other
name which I don't remember, but it was the same name that later came
in the paper that he bought the gun under."

DAVID BELIN -- "Would the name Hidell mean anything? Alek Hidell?"

HILL -- "That would be similar. I couldn't say specifically that is
what it was, because this was a conversation and I never did see it
written down, but that sounds like the name that I heard."

~~~~~~~

Via C.T. Walker's WC testimony:

C.T. WALKER -- "We took him up the homicide and robbery bureau...and I
went inside, and Oswald sat down, and he was handcuffed with his hands
behind him. I sat down there, and I had his pistol, and he had a card
in there with a picture of him and the name A.J. Hidell on it."

~~~~~~~~

Via Will Fritz' WC testimony:

JOSEPH BALL -- "That day, at sometime during the 22nd when you
questioned Oswald, didn't you ask him about this card he had in his
pocket with the name Alek Hidell?"

CAPTAIN J. WILL FRITZ -- "I did; yes, sir."

BALL -- "What did you ask him about that?"

FRITZ -- "I believe he had three of those cards if I remember
correctly, and he told me that was the name that he picked up in New
Orleans that he had used sometimes. One of the cards looked like it
might have been altered a little bit and one of them I believe was the
Fair Play for Cuba and one looked like a social security card or
something."

~~~~~~~~

All of the above testimony indicates that the "Hidell" I.D. card was
found on Oswald on the day of the assassination (November 22). Only
an evidence-skewing maniac could possibly believe otherwise. Do you
qualify, Robert?


>>> "For arguments sake, we can even say it [the LHO-did-it evidence] wasn't [manipulated to implicate only Oswald], but of course it was..." <<<

But you, of course, can't provide a stitch of PROOF to back up your
all-encompassing "All The Evidence Against Oswald Is Fake" claim. But
just SAYING it's all "fake" or "planted" is good enough for conspiracy
theorists like you, right? Right.


>>> "And you still don't [have] enough proof to show LHO did either of the shootings. Basically a purse snatcher couldn't be convicted with the "evidence" the WC put forth." <<<

The WC didn't gather up the physical evidence, idiot. The DPD, FBI, and
Secret Service collected the evidence. And it all leads to Oswald, like it
or not. The WC (and the HSCA) merely evaluated that evidence.

And what did BOTH the WC and the HSCA conclude? -- Both the WC and
HSCA said that Oswald was the only gunman who hit any limo victims.

And what are the chances that both of those U.S. Government panels
(dealing with the same assassination, 15 years apart) would be filled
with nothing but either rotten liars or utter incompetents?

Have you got your "Kook Kalculator" on you to figure those odds?


>>> "Your theory is even crazier, as it requires LHO to open his revolver and EMPTY the shells--evidence--onto the ground so the police could find them and match these to his revolver. Now how many killers do this?" <<<

I don't really care how many other murderers have shaken empty bullet
cartridges out of their guns. But one particular police killer in Oak
Cliff did that for sure on 11/22/63 -- and that killer was positively
Lee H. Oswald.

Or are you willing to call multiple witnesses who observed the shell-
ejecting incident all liars (Barbara Davis, Virginia Davis, Helen Markham,
and Domingo Benavides)?

It looks like Rob favors the "Jim Garrison tactic" with respect to the
"Dumping The Bullet Shells On 10th Street" issue. Garrison
enjoyed totally ignoring the ironclad "shell-ejecting" evidence too.
Looks like his lunacy has rubbed off on future generations of you
kooks.


>>> "And just to make sure the police made no mistakes, he [Lee Oswald] left his wallet [on 10th Street] too." <<<

No, he didn't. Oswald's wallet was found in one of his pockets just
minutes after he was arrested at the Texas Theater (as can be verified
via the Warren Commission testimony displayed earlier).

How many people carry two wallets on them? Not many that I've ever
encountered.


>>> "Mr. Myers cannot show LHO's guilt in the crime; all he can do is show the evidence points to LHO." <<<

LOL. And "Duh!" time.


>>> "The court is the only place "guilt" can be assigned for a crime. Nowhere else." <<<

LOL.


>>> "You can't show LHO to be "guilty". We have to use terms like "most likely involved" when we make our statements." <<<

Fuck your kook rules. I'll call LHO a guilty double-murdering bastard
anytime I please. Because it's true.


>>> "How many bullets did LHO have on him before the [Tippit] shooting?" <<<

Either 15 or 16. And that's a decent-sized number of bullets for an
"innocent patsy" to be carrying around if this "patsy" of yours was
merely strolling to the movies to watch a couple of war flicks. Don't
you think?

The number of bullets would be 15 if Oswald fired a total of four
shots at Officer Tippit. And it'd be 16 if LHO got off five total
shots (including one shot that missed Tippit completely).

The five-shot scenario is entirely possible, given the "I heard five
pistol shots" testimony of Ted Callaway, plus the mismatch of the
Remington & Western type bullets and shells found at the scene of the
crime.

I think it's quite likely that Oswald fired five shots, instead of
just four. Of course, that can never be proven beyond all doubt, since
a fifth bullet was never recovered.


>>> "Neither [Davis] woman could ID the shells when shown them." <<<

Who cares? Means nothing whether they could officially "identify" the
shells or not. Not even most CT-Kooks think the "chain of possession"
for the two bullet shells found in the yard of Barbara and Virginia Davis
is weak or broken. There's a clear chain of custody for both of those
shells....from the Davis property to the DPD.

Naturally, Rob, being a nut, has to make something shady out of the
two Davis bullet cartridges too.


>>> "The bullets in J.D. Tippit did NOT match LHO's revolver, therefore, he could NOT be the shooter." <<<

You're an idiot (yet again). The bullets were consistent with bullets from
Oswald's revolver. Plus, they were the identical TYPE/BRAND of bullets
that Oswald had inside his gun when captured (Remington-Peters and
Winchester-Western).

Plus, there's Joe Nicol's testimony. (You know what that is, right,
Mr. Idiot?)


>>> "The Carcano had a rusty, eroding pin ready to go at any time." <<<

Cite please.

Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano was fired many, many times after November
22, 1963, and AFAIK it never misfired and it never jammed during the
FBI's tests. The firing pin, therefore, must have been in "okay" condition
for those many post-11/22 tests.

But keep working on your "Anybody But Oswald And His Weapons"
theories. Pretty soon you'll probably be claiming that Rifle #C2766
never really existed in the first place.


>>> "Who would give LHO a gun with a bent firing pin? He just ordered it in January and received it in March, according to the WC. Would they mail a revolver with a bent firing pin?" <<<

The pin could have sustained damage after the revolver was shipped to
Oswald by Seaport-Traders in March 1963 (probably during the wild theater
scuffle on November 22nd).

But, being the idiot you evidently are, you seem to think that any damage
to the gun MUST have occurred prior to Oswald having received it in the mail.


>>> "What [Oswald-is-guilty] stuff in the movie theater? .... What are you talking about?" <<<

Oh, I don't know....let me think....

Oh yeah! That little small-potatoes "stuff" when Oswald tried to kill
some people within the theater (after having NOTHING else said to him
by the police except "get on your feet").

And then there's Ozzie's "It's all over now" statement made in the
theater too. And, per some witnesses, possibly another comment made by
LHO as well, "This is it".

I guess those comments are the words of a totally innocent "patsy", huh?


>>> "And you know this because the police and WC did an exhaustive search on anyone who might have a MOTIVE to shoot officer Tippit?" <<<

Lee Harvey Oswald had the best motive imaginable for the murder of a
policeman on Tenth Street -- LHO had just shot the President of the
United States forty-five minutes earlier.

(Looks like it's "Duh!" time once more.)


>>> "Oh, that's right, they [the DPD] looked at no one else [re: Tippit's murder], did they?" <<<

You're a (super) idiot.

Why on Earth would the police need to keep looking for J.D. Tippit's
killer after they knew they had captured the right man in the movie
theater?

I guess, per you CTers, the cops should have PRETENDED that all of the
evidence against Oswald was tainted in some way; and they should have
also PRETENDED that all of the dozen or so witnesses who identified
Oswald as the ONLY KILLER at (or near) the scene of Tippit's murder
were all wrong.

Right, kook?

This puts me in mind of the joke about a guy who loses his car keys.
He eventually finds the keys stuffed behind the sofa cushions in his
living room....but he continues to search for them even after he finds
them in the sofa.

I guess Rob would have preferred that all members of the Dallas Police
Department in 1963 had done the same thing as that man looking for his
keys -- just keep on looking for the damn things even after you've got
them in your hands.

David Von Pein
December 26, 2007


==============================


OTHER DVP WEBSITES:

JFK ASSASSINATION ARGUMENTS (PART 5)

A CONSPIRACY THEORIST SAID:

>>> "Roger Craig: Officer of the Year in 1960. Yeah, he has no
credibility." <<<


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

I don't care if he was named "Boy Scout Of The Year" five years in a
row, Craig still would have ZERO credibility when it comes to the JFK
case (because of his outlandish and provable bald-faced LIE about
having seen the words "7.65 Mauser" stamped on Oswald's Mannlicher-
Carcano rifle on November 22, 1963).

Roger Craig was a liar when it came to a crucial aspect (the rifle) of
the John F. Kennedy murder case. That is a known fact. And one lie
usually tends to feed more lies.

But if you, Richard, choose to believe some (or all) of Craig's tales,
knock yourself out. Wouldn't surprise me. After all, you have proven
yourself to be a conspiracy-loving kook over the last several weeks.


>>> "David, I know this disagrees with your theory, but he [Officer McDonald] did say "Oswald" when he entered the theatre." <<<

That is pure outright bullshit.

McDonald did not (and could not) have called the name "Oswald" when he
entered the Texas Theater. No way. No how. It never happened. And
that's because as of 1:45 to 1:50 PM CST on 11/22/63, the Dallas
Police Department (including Officer Nick McDonald) had no idea who
the suspect in the theater was. The man who ducked into the theater
was, at that hour, merely a nameless suspect in the Tippit killing.

When a person retells the details of an event days, months, and years
after the event has taken place, additional and incorrect information
can easily seep into a recounting of the event.

A good example of this type of thing can be found in the 1964 motion
picture "Four Days In November". There's a re-created scene in that
documentary film that shows shoe clerk Johnny Calvin Brewer retelling
the movie audience what he saw on November 22nd, 1963 (the movie was
filmed in early to mid 1964, several months after the assassination).

In that re-created scene [see the video below], Brewer himself tells the
audience (via a voice-over) something that only applies in a RETELLING
of the event, and is something that Brewer did not know as of approximately
1:36 PM on 11/22/63 -- and that is when Brewer tells the movie audience
that he heard on the radio that "Officer Tippit" had been shot.

But it was impossible for Brewer to have known the exact name of the
policeman as of approx. 1:36 PM on 11/22/63, since the name "Tippit"
was certainly not revealed to the public over the radio or TV until well
after that early time on November 22.

The name "Tippit" was obviously learned by Brewer much later than the
initial reports he heard on his radio in Hardy's Shoe Store on
Jefferson Boulevard. But he re-told the story as if he had known at
the time on 11/22 that the officer's name was "Tippit".



The exact same type of thing (with respect to the name "Oswald")
occurred during Johnny Brewer's Warren Commission session on April 2,
1964. Let's take a look:

JOHNNY BREWER -- "Yes; the sirens were going away. I presume back to
where the officer had been shot, because it was back down that way.
And when they turned and left, Oswald looked over his shoulder and
turned around and walked up West Jefferson towards the theater."

DAVID BELIN -- "Let me hold you a minute. You used the word Oswald.
Did you know who the man was at the time you saw him?"

BREWER -- "No."

BELIN -- "So at the time, you didn't know what his name was?"

BREWER -- "No."

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/brewer_j.htm

~~~~~~

I'll add this note regarding Johnny Brewer -- Brewer testified that he had
probably seen Oswald in his shoe store prior to November 22nd. But,
even so, Brewer admitted that he had not known Oswald's name as of
11/22/63 (as the above testimony indicates).

But in the hands of a conspiracy theorist who is bent on skewing the
true facts (even innocent witness testimony), those "Tippit" and
"Oswald" statements made by Brewer when he was recounting his 11/22
observations could be used by certain CTers to make it look like Mr.
Brewer somehow knew the exact names of Tippit and Oswald as of about
1:30 to 1:40 PM CST on November 22, which, of course, is not possible.

I'd be willing to bet a large sum of greenbacks that the very same
kind of embellished retelling of a story has occurred (in some fashion)
regarding Officer M.N. McDonald.


>>> "I love your assessment of Oswald. He lied most of the time, but when he didn't lie, it just happens to support your version of events. That's a hoot!" <<<

And it makes total sense too. And if you weren't so deeply buried in
your fictional account of the assassination (and of Oswald), you'd see
that it makes perfect (common) sense.

I.E.:

Lee H. Oswald (the killer of both John F. Kennedy and J.D. Tippit
without a shred of a reasonable doubt) told many provable lies to the
police about CRUCIAL, SUBSTANTIVE MATTERS, such as:

The rifle and the revolver....his whereabouts at exactly 12:30....the
backyard photos showing LHO with the guns he used to killed JFK and
JDT....the long, brown package he took with him into the Book
Depository on the morning of 11/22....the alias A.J. Hidell that he
used to order both the rifle and the revolver....the "curtain
rods"....and on and on.

But when it came to not-very-critical matters like the bus ride or the
cab ride home or something else fairly innocuous in nature, Oswald
doesn't lie, because he doesn't NEED to lie about those things.

And, moreover, what I have said about Oswald's "lies" vs. his "non-
lies" can be backed up with OTHER EVIDENCE AND WITNESSES to show
that I am 100% correct regarding this topic of "LHO's Falsehoods".

Such as:

1.) Mary Bledsoe (passenger on bus who IDed Oswald as having been on
bus).

2.) William Whaley (cab driver who verified positively that LHO was in
his cab on November 22).

3.) Buell Wesley Frazier and Linnie Mae Randle (who both verified that
Oswald lied when he said he didn't carry ANY type of long, brown bag
to work with him on the day of JFK's murder).

And who had more reasons to tell lies after JFK's murder -- Lee Harvey
Oswald or Frazier/Randle? In other words, why on Earth would BOTH
Frazier and Randle want to make up a false story about Oswald carrying
a bulky paper package?

4.) Marina Oswald (who confirmed she did, in fact, take the backyard
photos of LHO, proving that Oswald lied when he said the pictures were
fakes/composites).

5.) The handwriting experts who gave testimony to the Warren Commission
(who verified beyond ALL possible doubt that the writing on ALL of the
pertinent documents surrounding the ordering of Mannlicher-Carcano Rifle
#C2766 and Smith & Wesson Revolver #V510210 in early 1963 were in the
handwriting of one "Lee Harvey Oswald".*

* = This important fact, of course, provides the proof for many more
of Oswald's lies...e.g. (paraphrasing each lie): "I don't own a rifle"; "I've
never owned a rifle"; "I bought the revolver in Fort Worth"; "I didn't order
any guns via mail-order"; "I don't know who A.J. Hidell is".

6.) The HSCA (whose photographic experts confirmed beyond all
reasonable doubt that the backyard photos of Oswald were genuine
articles and had not been faked in any way whatsoever. Allow me to
quote the HSCA directly on this topic:

"The panel detects no evidence of fakery in any of the backyard
picture materials." -- 6 HSCA 146

David Von Pein
October 2007

LINK TO ORIGINAL POST (OCTOBER 13, 2007)