[NOTE --- IN ADDITION TO JAMES DiEUGENIO
AND DVP, SOME OTHER PEOPLE TAKE PART
IN THIS DISCUSSION TOO.]
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
As I stated
two or three years ago, it's quite possible that the Hidell money order was part of a bulk transfer of postal money orders which was accompanied by a cash letter (deposit ticket), which could very well have had various stamps on it (i.e., the date of the transaction and the American Bankers Association [ABA] transit numbers).
It's silly, in my opinion, to believe that the Oswald/Hidell money order (
Warren Commission Exhibit No. 788) is fraudulent, especially when we
KNOW it was found just exactly where it should have been found—in Alexandria/Washington—on November 23, 1963.
And we also have information in
Commission Document No. 75 coming from a First National Bank Vice President (Robert Wilmouth) verifying that First National
DID handle the $21.45 Postal Money Order in question. (Unless conspiracy theorists want to argue that the $21.45 money order mentioned by Wilmouth in CD75 is a
different $21.45 M.O. entirely.)
DAVID VON PEIN LATER SAID:
Perhaps banker Jason Ward can shed some light on the concept of "cash letters" and "bulk transfers" of U.S. Postal Money Orders.
JASON WARD SAID:
Sorry, we barely submit anything in paper form anymore and although I recall bulk transfers from earlier in my career, I don't have any details to share. I respond to you because you have a grip on rational thought--however, the whole topic should be at most two posts long: a non-banker asking for a banker's opinion followed by an answer in the next post.
If you don't believe ME, ok, simply print out the back of the money order and bring it to your bank and ask if this is a valid endorsement. The fact is with a large commercial depositor, no one at any stage of processing is checking the endorsement - it could be a scribble, it could be in Chinese, it could be missing entirely. The endorsement means almost nothing (in this case), likewise any "missing" endorsement or ABA number means nothing.
The Fed promulgated guidelines and has since time began never enforced them in routine daily transactions. Then and now processing occurs without signatures, with missing dates, and with all kinds of arguably invalid attributes. To imagine Klein's is in on the assassination is why CTers are seen as the lunatic fringe.
Imagining you can read a tiny snippet of federal regulations and become an expert on check processing without any bank experience is ridiculous.
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
Jason:
Are you saying that CT's are the lunatic fringe?
1. Does this mean you believe the Single Bullet Fantasy?
Please click, as this always throws DVP into a tantrum....
KennedysAndKing.com/The Impossible One-Day Journey Of CE399
2. That Oswald got off three shots in six seconds, including 2 direct hits in the head and shoulder area?
Something that the legendary Carlos Hathcock, the greatest sniper of the Vietnam War said he could not do, no matter how many times he tried, and unlike the WC and CBS, he did not cheat.
3. That somehow, all those witnesses at Parkland and Bethesda somehow were all wrong about the hole in the back of JFK's head?
If so, why did the HSCA lie about their testimony?
4. That a bullet at the top of Kennedy's skull somehow damaged the cerebellum at the bottom of his skull?
5. That somehow Stringer forgot what kind of film he used for twenty years, and the process he used for autopsy photographs?
BTW, the idea that somehow Klein's had to be involved in the plot is so silly that I don't even think you really believe it. It's like saying REA [Railway Express Agency] planned part of the plot.
Finally, people who doubt the WR [Warren Report] are not in the "lunatic fringe". We are in a very big majority, anywhere from 61-75%, depending on whose poll you use.
And we would be in the low to mid nineties if not for the MSM. Which, when you use the term "lunatic fringe", you sound like you are a part of, or want to be part of.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Regarding this comment made by DiEugenio above:
"...the idea that somehow Klein's had to be involved in the plot is so silly that I don't even think you really believe it."
Given the fact that
Klein's internal paperwork (
Waldman #7) and a
Klein's-produced microfilm for the order form for a rifle (
Commission Exhibit #773) and the detailed testimony of
Klein's Vice President William J. Waldman all play an integral and key role in the "Rifle Evidence" against Lee Harvey Oswald, I can't see any
reasonable way for Klein's Sporting Goods Company of Chicago, Illinois, to
NOT be "involved in the plot" that conspiracy theorists like James DiEugenio have invented for themselves.
Good gosh, the key and relevant rifle documents (CE773 and Waldman Exhibit No. 7) were, in fact,
found in the Klein's files in Chicago, and were
found by Klein's employees themselves early in the morning of 11/23/63.
But, incredibly, per conspiracy fantasists like Mr. DiEugenio, we're supposed to believe that there was really
no such legitimate "Hidell" order form for Rifle C2766 found in the Klein's files at all! —— because Jim doesn't think Oswald/Hidell really ordered
ANY rifle from Klein's at any time!
Talk about believing in something "silly". The
"Oswald Never Ordered A Rifle At All" nonsense would certainly be it. And I don't see how any such ridiculous theory could possibly
NOT include at least a few Klein's employees who must have been privy to the "plot". Maybe James D. can explain how that could have happened.
JIM HARGROVE SAID ALL THIS.
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
Thanks Jim H, I knew DVP would walk into my trap, and I knew you would nail him on it.
JIM HARGROVE SAID:
A close examination of events shows that the FBI was just making up stories for a week following the assassination, before settling on the final legend.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
That's total nonsense, Jim.
As I have mentioned in previous discussions, there are very sensible and logical (and
non-sinister) explanations for the initial inaccurate reports concerning the details of the Hidell/Oswald rifle purchase -- particularly the confusion that arose from the
"$12.78" figure and the
"March 20" date.
But to an Internet conspiracy theorist, however, virtually everything done by Officialdom is looked at as being part of some secretive and underhanded plot. So silly.
I think more conspiracy believers should embrace Hanlon's Razor....
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
JIM HARGROVE SAID:
Well, [DVP] will probably just continue to wave Waldman 7 around and tell us how trustworthy the FBI was in this case. (Interesting, though, that the Bureau worked so hard to hide the fact it had confiscated Klein’s microfilm—preferring to let people believe it was safely locked away at Klein’s!) That’s how they had the opportunity to alter the documents.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
Yeah, that must be why the FBI wrote up
Commission Document No. 75, which plainly states that William J. Waldman relinquished control of the microfilm on 11/23/63 to the FBI, with Waldman himself saying that very thing in his Warren Commission testimony.
Waldman also put his initials on the cardboard box containing the microfilm (
FBI Exhibit D-77 / Waldman Exhibit No. 6). And the date "11-23-63" appears twice on the cardboard box as well.
CD75 also plainly says that Waldman made available the microfilm
"from a safe in his control", which perfectly aligns with the earlier FBI FD-302 report we find in CD7.
And when examining both reports (
CD7 vs.
CD75), we see that the EXACT same detailed information is provided in both reports regarding the things that were found on the Klein's "Order Blank" (which would become Waldman No. 7) -- e.g., the transaction number, the VC number, the C2766 serial number, the March 20th date, etc.
All info is identical in both FBI reports, one of which (CD7) was written prior to the FBI taking the microfilm from Waldman/Klein's; with the second report (CD75) being prepared after the FBI took control of the microfilm from Klein's.
CTers like John Armstrong evidently think that BOTH of those FBI reports are false and full of lies regarding the things the FBI agents saw on the Order Blank provided by Klein's. But in reality, the truth is:
William Waldman kept possession of the microfilm in his safe for just a very short period of time on 11/23/63 (certainly no more than a few hours) before he turned it over to the FBI that very same day. CD7 precedes CD75 as far as the chronological order of the reports.
And if you're a person who
isn't prone to thinking the FBI faked everything imaginable concerning the JFK case, then CD7 --
all by itself -- provides the written proof that Klein's Sporting Goods most definitely had in its possession on November 23, 1963, an internal "Order Blank" for a 6.5-mm. Italian rifle (Serial # C2766) that was shipped by Klein's to "A. Hidell" in Dallas on 3/20/63.
That
should be enough, right there, for all reasonable people to stamp this mystery "Solved".
JASON WARD SAID:
This in my count is version #3 of how they came to determine the rifle came from Klein's.
[...]
The appearance of manufactured evidence and chaotic, ludicrous explanations like
this one from Pinkston is all over the place.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
But keep in mind, Jason, that the Nat Pinkston quote previously supplied is a quote from
July of 2007. That makes it 44 years after the events took place, and Pinkston is trying to recall every small detail. He likely got a few details wrong.
But, essentially, Pinkston's 2007 account is fairly accurate with respect to how the FBI first was made aware of Klein's in Chicago (with Dallas FBI agents
scouring local gun shops to try and find a store that might have sold the Italian-made rifle).
Pinkston, however, left out one of the steps that led the FBI to Klein's---Crescent Firearms in New York. But, again, it's 44 years after the fact (per that document posted previously by David Josephs), so I'd cut Pinkston a tiny bit of slack on some of the details. Wouldn't you?
Someone might ask ---
But, Dave, how could Pinkston possibly get things so mixed up--even 44 years after the fact? And why didn't he mention Crescent Firearms, etc.?
Well, you just never know how a person's memory of an event is going to be recalled so many years later. A good example of this would be when Buell Wesley Frazier decided (for some reason) to start adding things to his story in about 2002. Frazier, at that time in '02, started saying in interviews [like
this one] that he had actually seen Lee Oswald walking down Houston Street shortly after the assassination, which is a detail that completely contradicts what Frazier said in his
11/22/63 affidavit. And I don't think for a minute that Buell Frazier is a deliberate liar at all. But, for some odd reason, that extra info about seeing Oswald out on the street at about 12:35 to 12:40 on November 22nd has now surfaced every time Buell is interviewed. ~shrug~
RON BULMAN SAID:
There is absolutely no proof REA ever shipped a gun to him [Oswald] or Hidell.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
You must be joking. The Seaport Traders & REA paper trails are extensive, and provide conclusive proof (via their paperwork) that Revolver V510210 was shipped to "Hidell" in March '63.
Is all
this paperwork supposedly phony too?
Plus, Oswald was caught with the Tippit murder weapon
ON HIM on 11/22/63. So why anyone even
CARES about where or when Oswald
initially gained possession of the revolver eight months earlier is something I fail to completely understand. I think the priorities of CTers regarding the topic of Oswald's pistol are misguided (to say the least).
JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:
I am still trying to get a reply about what is the proof, or evidence, that LHO picked up the handgun from REA.
I also think he [Jason Ward] is saying that LHO did get the rifle in question, and the FBI knew about it. I guess he knows none of the problems with that transaction.
BTW, since Ward is such a great pontificator to us all about the rules of evidence etc, (maybe he is lawyer also?) when is he going to explain why it's the wrong rifle?
Or maybe he will just defer us to Von Pein.
DAVID VON PEIN SAID:
DiEugenio, of course, knows full well what the
logical and reasonable answer is to his perpetual
"Wrong Rifle" BS. It's been explained to him dozens of times. But he'll continue to pretend that it's an explanation that makes no sense at all---even though it makes perfect sense, especially when we consider what length of rifle Klein's started selling to its mail-order customers in
April of 1963, very shortly after Oswald purchased his gun from Klein's.
David Von Pein
April 24-27, 2018
ALSO SEE:
