Oswald's Change of Address at the New Orleans Post Office
John McAdams
Posner says that on the morning of September 25, 1963, Oswald mailed a
change-of-address card, postmarked at 11:00 a.m. which would have
forwarded his mail to Ruth Paine's address in Irving.
He cites a page of the Warren Report. But that page (731) says
nothing about the change of address form.
Harry Holmes testimony seems to say that Oswald completed that
forwarding order (or that somebody at the post office did it for him)
on September 24.
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh7/html/WC_Vol7_0269b.htm
Posner seems to be following MARINA AND LEE (p. 466) here. But it
looks to me like this is flatly contradicted by Holmes testimony.
As I missing something?
.John
--
The Kennedy Assassination Home Page
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
yeuhd
> OK, I'm confused.
>
> Posner says that on the morning of September 25, 1963, Oswald mailed a
> change-of-address card, postmarked at 11:00 a.m. which would have
> forwarded his mail to Ruth Paine's address in Irving.
>
> He cites a page of the Warren Report. But that page (731) says
> nothing about the change of address form.
>
> Harry Holmes testimony seems to say that Oswald completed that
> forwarding order (or that somebody at the post office did it for him)
> on September 24.
>
>
> Posner seems to be following MARINA AND LEE (p. 466) here. But it
> looks to me like this is flatly contradicted by Holmes testimony.
>
> As I missing something?
Here is the forwarding order. I don't know where Posner gets the 11:00
a.m. time of day, but the forwarding order was dated September 24,
presumably by Oswald, and postmarked in New Orleans on September 26.
With that postmark, Oswald would have had to mail the card no earlier
than the 25th, assuming mail boxes were emptied at least once every 24
hours on weekdays.
CE 2476, 25 H 670:
http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh25/html/WC_Vol25_0350b.htm
John McAdams
>On Nov 12, 9:20=A0pm, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
>> OK, I'm confused.
>>
>> Posner says that on the morning of September 25, 1963, Oswald mailed a
>> change-of-address card, postmarked at 11:00 a.m. which would have
>> forwarded his mail to Ruth Paine's address in Irving.
>>
>> He cites a page of the Warren Report. =A0But that page (731) says
>> nothing about the change of address form.
>>
>> Harry Holmes testimony seems to say that Oswald completed that
>> forwarding order (or that somebody at the post office did it for him)
>> on September 24.
>>
>> http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh7/html/WC_Vol7...
>>
>> Posner seems to be following MARINA AND LEE (p. 466) here. =A0But it
>> looks to me like this is flatly contradicted by Holmes testimony.
>>
>> As I missing something?
>
>Here is the forwarding order. I don't know where Posner gets the 11:00
>a.m. time of day, but the forwarding order was dated September 24,
>presumably by Oswald, and postmarked in New Orleans on September 26.
>With that postmark, Oswald would have had to mail the card no earlier
>than the 25th, assuming mail boxes were emptied at least once every 24
>hours on weekdays.
>
>CE 2476, 25 H 670:
>http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh25/html/WC_Vol25_0350b.htm
>
Hey, you're good!
But the problem is that, at a postal substation (as opposed to a box
out in the boonies), mail should be picked up much more often than
once every 24 hours. Indeed, it's hard to imagine that it could have
been put in the mail earlier than evening on the 25th, and still have
that postmark.
But Oswald was at (take your pick) the Twifords/Odio's on that
evening.
yeuhd
> But the problem is that, at a postal substation (as opposed to a box
> out in the boonies), mail should be picked up much more often than
> once every 24 hours. Indeed, it's hard to imagine that it could have
> been put in the mail earlier than evening on the 25th, and still have
> that postmark.
But that is assuming that Oswald mailed the card at Lafayette Station,
where it was postmarked. Oswald could have left the card as outgoing
mail on the mailbox at his residence, after the daily mail delivery
had been made on Sept. 25. The card would not have been picked up by
the mailman and postmarked until Sept. 26.
If you are wondering how Oswald would have a change of address card
but not be at the post office to mail it, all mail carriers keep a
supply with them. Oswald could have asked his mail carrier for a
change of address card on the 24th.
As long as Oswald left New Orleans no later than 1 p.m. on the 25th,
he still could have been driven to Sylvia Odio's in Dallas by 9 p.m.
And if he left Dallas no later than 10:45 p.m., he still could have
made the 2:45 a.m. Trailways Bus in Houston.
That leaves about 1 hour and 45 minutes in Dallas to (1) make a long
distance call to the Twiford home in the hope of arranging a (very)
late-night meeting with Horace Twiford in Houston; and (2) to go to
the Odio residence.
John Fiorentino
on Sept. 24, 63 Oswald wants his mail from Box 30061 in New Orleans
forwarded to Ruth Paine.
Then we have the "3546" form, obviously filled out by someone other than
Oswald, in New Orleans, dated Oct. 11, 1963 "canceling" the forwarding
order for Box 30061? Which according to the previous order of Sept. would
have already been closed for over a month.
This has always baffled me. Maybe someone can clue me in?
BTW, it's also been fascinating to me, that the date of Sept, 24, 1963 on
the "original" change is so much darker, and in a thicker point width than
the rest of the order. More closely matching the notations of 11/23/63
down the right hand vertical.
It does make you think.........doesn't it?
John F.
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:4afcc094...@news.supernews.com...
John Fiorentino
"which had already been closed several weeks previously."
John F.
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:4afcd1f9...@news.supernews.com...
yeuhd
wrote:
> Frankly, lots of things confuse me when it comes to Posner. In any event,
> on Sept. 24, 63 Oswald wants his mail from Box 30061 in New Orleans
> forwarded to Ruth Paine.
>
> Then we have the "3546" form, obviously filled out by someone other than
> Oswald, in New Orleans, dated Oct. 11, 1963 "canceling" the forwarding
> order for Box 30061? Which according to the previous order of Sept. would
> have already been closed for over a month.
>
> This has always baffled me. Maybe someone can clue me in?
You appear to be conflating two different acts. The closing of the post
office box was done separately but simultaneously with the submission of
the forwarding order. One can cancel a p.o. box without filing a
forwarding order (mail will be returned to sender). And a forwarding order
can be cancelled by the addressee at any time.
> BTW, it's also been fascinating to me, that the date of Sept, 24, 1963 on
> the "original" change is so much darker, and in a thicker point width than
> the rest of the order.
Looks the same thickness/darkness as the "Irving, Texas".
John Fiorentino
the gist of it is.........The 3546 filled out by somebody in NO is sent to
the PM in Dallas to re-direct mail from his Dallas PO Box 2915 to Ruth
Paine's, while simultaneously "canceling" the forwarding order from Box
30016 in NO to Paine's house.
The only (big?) problem there is, Oswald didn't have PO Box 2915 in Dallas
in Oct. 1963 as the box was closed May 14, 1963.
These dates have admittedly gone over my head for decades.
John F.
"John Fiorentino" <johnfio...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:4afd92d0$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
John Fiorentino
I seem to have screwed this up again: Let me correct it.
I just went back and read Holmes testimony, it's a little convoluted, but
the gist of it is.........The 3546 filled out by somebody in NO is sent to
the PM in Dallas to re-direct mail from his Dallas PO Box 2915 to Ruth
Paine's, rather than forwarding mail from PO Box 2915, Dallas to Box 30016
in NO.
Now that was easy, right?
John F.
"John Fiorentino" <johnfio...@optonline.net> wrote in message news:...
David Von Pein
>>> "It's also been fascinating to me, that the date of Sept, 24, 1963 on the "original" change [CE2476] is so much darker, and in a thicker point width than the rest of the order. More closely matching the notations of 11/23/63 down the right hand vertical." <<<
But the "Sept. 24, 1963" date seems to be the same thickness/width as
the words "IRVING, TEXAS" on the same form (CE2476):
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh25/html/WC_Vol25_0350b.htm
John Fiorentino
while I read all of this years ago, the dates just never sunk in. I'm aware
of what you said, and thank you for your comments.
However, the issues are these:
When the 3546 was filled out in NO on the 11th/Oct., Oswald was in Dallas,
not NO. It also is not in his handwriting. His box, from which this form
seeks to "forward" mail, (Box 2915 in Dallas) was closed on May, 14, 1963.
BTW: Here's Liebeler questioning Holmes:
Mr. LIEBELER. Let me suggest this. There is not the slightest evidence that
Oswald ever filled that form out or ever saw it?
Mr. HOLMES. No; that is right.
Mr. LIEBELER. Because it is perfectly obvious this isn't his handwriting.
Mr. HOLMES. That is my opinion, too.
There's some more, but then he apparently drops the whole thing?
So, there appears (at least on surface) to be some issues here.
BTW, I spoke with my Postmaster here where I live yesterday, and he says
this action cannot be done over the phone.
Also, since Oswald was in Dallas and not NO, the normal course of events
would have been for him to make the "change" in Dallas.
John F.
"yeuhd" <needle...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:17711242-1465-4f0c...@a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
John Fiorentino
John F.
"David Von Pein" <davev...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:3e67a94c-0c5d-4e21...@w19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
yeuhd
wrote:
> BTW, I spoke with my Postmaster here where I live yesterday, and he says
> this action cannot be done over the phone.
But today is 2009. What were the rules and practice in 1963? (I say
rules and practice, because sometimes actual practice deviates from
the rules.)
John Fiorentino
regs. concerning this has changed since 63.
I recently sent this to someone re: the changes.........
I think Holmes was mistaken, that's what I seem to have uncovered anyway.
Post Office rules require a live body, they won't do it over the phone.
(Quite frankly, for obvious reasons) - Also, they really aren't supposed
to even fill it out for you. My postmaster says he knows of cases where
the party was "handicapped" and the agent filled the form out. That is NOT
the rule however.
John F.
"yeuhd" <needle...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:269139ed-7eb4-490b...@v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
John McAdams
>On Nov 12, 10:31�pm, john.mcad...@marquette.edu (John McAdams) wrote:
>> But the problem is that, at a postal substation (as opposed to a box
>> out in the boonies), mail should be picked up much more often than
>> once every 24 hours. �Indeed, it's hard to imagine that it could have
>> been put in the mail earlier than evening on the 25th, and still have
>> that postmark.
>
>But that is assuming that Oswald mailed the card at Lafayette Station,
>where it was postmarked. Oswald could have left the card as outgoing
>mail on the mailbox at his residence, after the daily mail delivery
>had been made on Sept. 25. The card would not have been picked up by
>the mailman and postmarked until Sept. 26.
>
I think you are right about this.
All that would be necessary is for Oswald to put it in a box that
picked up (say) at 11:00 a.m., putting it in at (say) 11:45 a.m.
>If you are wondering how Oswald would have a change of address card
>but not be at the post office to mail it, all mail carriers keep a
>supply with them. Oswald could have asked his mail carrier for a
>change of address card on the 24th.
>
Yep.
>As long as Oswald left New Orleans no later than 1 p.m. on the 25th,
>he still could have been driven to Sylvia Odio's in Dallas by 9 p.m.
>And if he left Dallas no later than 10:45 p.m., he still could have
>made the 2:45 a.m. Trailways Bus in Houston.
>
>That leaves about 1 hour and 45 minutes in Dallas to (1) make a long
>distance call to the Twiford home in the hope of arranging a (very)
>late-night meeting with Horace Twiford in Houston; and (2) to go to
>the Odio residence.
>
OK, but that's stretching things a bit.
In the first place, Odio was pretty sure it was on the 26th or 27th.
In the second place, that would have been a *very* late night meeting
with Twiford. Admittedly, if we go with a "Twiford and not Odio"
scenario, it's a late (after 10:00 p.m.) meeting, but if we go with a
"Twiford plus Odio" scenario it get pushed later.
Have you read the testimony of Odio's psychiatrist to the HSCA?
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/einsdep.txt
I think people have wasted a lot of time asking whether Sylvia was
lying or not.
Not the right question, in my mind. The question is whether she was
excitable, suggestible and perhaps prone to hysteria.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
tomnln
Sylvia Odio mentioned the visit by the 3 men Long before the
Assassination.
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/sylvia_odio1.htm
She recognized Oswald AFTER the Assassination.
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:ro7gg51clqaoj3v8s...@4ax.com...
John McAdams
>
>
>Sylvia Odio mentioned the visit by the 3 men Long before the
>Assassination.
>
>SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/sylvia_odio1.htm
>
>She recognized Oswald AFTER the Assassination.
>
>
There is no doubt that *some* three men visited Odio. The problem is
that it's unlikely Oswald was among them.
Just to mention a name you guys avoid like the plague: Twiford.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
John McAdams
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=1140&relPageId=734
Sloppy citing on his part, but he didn't make it up.
--
Anthony Marsh
> On 21 Nov 2009 14:09:09 -0500, "tomnln"<tom...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Sylvia Odio mentioned the visit by the 3 men Long before the
>> Assassination.
>>
>> SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/sylvia_odio1.htm
>>
>> She recognized Oswald AFTER the Assassination.
>>
>>
>
> There is no doubt that *some* three men visited Odio. The problem is
> that it's unlikely Oswald was among them.
>
PROVE that three men visited Odio and exactly when. The moment you try to
do that you start relying on witnesses, and those witnesses said it was
Oswald. So you have to cherry pick what you want to accept from the
witnesses and the ONLY thing you want to exclude is Oswald. I would think
you'd love for it to be Oswald so that it fits your conspiracy theories.
But no, nothing can indicate that Oswald was anything more than a nobody
malcontent, so you throw out any hint of associations or premeditation.
John Fiorentino
I want to post some of the things I sent to .John about this, but didn't
post here on the N/G.
I also want to postulate, that it is the "3546" form dated Oct. 11, 1963,
and NOT the change of address "dated" Sept. 24, that is the issue more
deserving of investigation.
Below are just some copies of things I sent to .John. in no particular
order.
=====================================================
SILVIA ODIO : The American was introduced as Leon Oswald. That will always
be in my mind very clearly.
That is from Sylvia's interview on Frontline.
BTW in the memo to Rankin, Father McChann stated "Leon" never used the name
Oswald. He claims Sylvia said he was only introduced as "Leon."
++++++++++++
Oz could have given it to his mailman. BTW, check out the date of Sept 24 on
the original. That is what I'm looking into now.
Also, since the Sept 26 postmark in this particular case indicates both
receipt, and delivery, there really isn;t any issue that I see.
++++++++++++
Here's my thoughts from memory, and I have more which I'm looking for.
1. Twiford's wife wasn't sure of the date of the call. Mr. Twiford
returned home Sept 27, 63. So the best you can really do is sometime,
roughly in the week before his return.
2. Twiford was just a telephone call, so Oz could theoretically have been
anywhere.
3. Twiford's wife didn't "think" it was a "long-distance" call. However Oz
could have called from the bus station in Houston on Sept. 25 for example
as the bus stopped there around 10pm. IF it was indeed the 25th that she
received the call.
4. Theoretically an Odio/Twiford scenario is possible, if in fact Oz
actually visited Odio, to which there is no evidence that he did.
5. If Oswald's call to Twiford was from the bus station, thus not
long-distance. Then that lends great credence to the WCR conclusions.
6. Oswald could have mailed the change on the 24th as indicated. Your
assumptions about mail deliveries and pickups aren't really accurate.
7. I have no idea where Posner, (or I should say Posner's "researchers" )
got that information.
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Now re: the 3546 form, Dated Oct. 11, 63
However, the issues are these:
When the 3546 was filled out in NO on the 11th/Oct., Oswald was in Dallas,
not NO. It also is not in his handwriting. His box, from which this form
seeks to "forward" mail, (Box 2915 in Dallas) was closed on May, 14, 1963.
BTW: Here's Liebeler questioning Holmes:
Mr. LIEBELER. Let me suggest this. There is not the slightest evidence that
Oswald ever filled that form out or ever saw it?
Mr. HOLMES. No; that is right.
Mr. LIEBELER. Because it is perfectly obvious this isn't his handwriting.
Mr. HOLMES. That is my opinion, too.
There's some more, but then he apparently drops the whole thing?
So, there appears (at least on surface) to be some issues here.
++++++++++++++++++++++
What I uncovered re: the idea that someone in NO "filled out the form for
Oswald, because Oz may have called the change in by phone"
I think Holmes was mistaken, that's what I seem to have uncovered anyway.
Post Office rules require a live body, they won't do it over the phone.
(Quite frankly, for obvious reasons) - Also, they really aren't supposed
to even fill it out for you. My postmaster says he knows of cases where
the party was "handicapped" and the agent filled the form out. That is NOT
the rule however.
You've missed the point on the Oct. 11 change. That change sought to
forward mail from his PO 2915, to Ruth Paine's NOT his "new" one which he
didn't even open until Nov. 1, I believe. But his PO Box 2915 was closed
on May 14, 63. Also, of course LHO was in Dallas on Oct. 11 not NO. So, if
this whole thing is even real, why didn't he simply go to his Dallas PO
and request the change instead of contacting NO to send the change back to
the PM of Dallas? Doesn't make any sense.
more if anyone wants to discuss it............
John F.
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:ro7gg51clqaoj3v8s...@4ax.com...
John McAdams
<johnfio...@optonline.net> wrote:
>I agree with .John on most of this, and yeuhd also.
>
>I want to post some of the things I sent to .John about this, but didn't
>post here on the N/G.
>
>I also want to postulate, that it is the "3546" form dated Oct. 11, 1963,
>and NOT the change of address "dated" Sept. 24, that is the issue more
>deserving of investigation.
>
>Below are just some copies of things I sent to .John. in no particular
>order.
>
>=====================================================
>
>SILVIA ODIO : The American was introduced as Leon Oswald. That will always
>be in my mind very clearly.
>
The problem here is that thanks that didn't happen can be in one's
mind very clearly.
That's pretty normal.
>That is from Sylvia's interview on Frontline.
>
>BTW in the memo to Rankin, Father McChann stated "Leon" never used the name
>Oswald. He claims Sylvia said he was only introduced as "Leon."
If memory serves, there was no McChann conversation until after the
assassination.
>++++++++++++
>Oz could have given it to his mailman. BTW, check out the date of Sept 24 on
>the original. That is what I'm looking into now.
>
>Also, since the Sept 26 postmark in this particular case indicates both
>receipt, and delivery, there really isn;t any issue that I see.
>++++++++++++
I agree. I now think there was no issue.
>
>Here's my thoughts from memory, and I have more which I'm looking for.
>
>1. Twiford's wife wasn't sure of the date of the call. Mr. Twiford
>returned home Sept 27, 63. So the best you can really do is sometime,
>roughly in the week before his return.
>
Fair enough. But he was known to be in Hoston on the night of the
25th.
>2. Twiford was just a telephone call, so Oz could theoretically have been
>anywhere.
>
Yes, but he said he had only a few hours before he flew out to Mexico,
with the clear implication that he wanted to come over and talk with
Mr. Twiford.
>3. Twiford's wife didn't "think" it was a "long-distance" call. However Oz
>could have called from the bus station in Houston on Sept. 25 for example
>as the bus stopped there around 10pm. IF it was indeed the 25th that she
>received the call.
>
Agreed.
>4. Theoretically an Odio/Twiford scenario is possible, if in fact Oz
>actually visited Odio, to which there is no evidence that he did.
>
I think you pretty much have to have him leaving NO on the 24th to get
that.
>5. If Oswald's call to Twiford was from the bus station, thus not
>long-distance. Then that lends great credence to the WCR conclusions.
>
>6. Oswald could have mailed the change on the 24th as indicated. Your
>assumptions about mail deliveries and pickups aren't really accurate.
>
> 7. I have no idea where Posner, (or I should say Posner's "researchers" )
>got that information.
>++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>Now re: the 3546 form, Dated Oct. 11, 63
>
>However, the issues are these:
>
>When the 3546 was filled out in NO on the 11th/Oct., Oswald was in Dallas,
>not NO. It also is not in his handwriting. His box, from which this form
>seeks to "forward" mail, (Box 2915 in Dallas) was closed on May, 14, 1963.
>
I think the Oct. 11 form is a real mystery.
.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
tomnln
I already posted Twifford's official record that the phone call came at
the end of October.
SEE>>> http://whokilledjfk.net/mexcity.htm
(middle of the page)
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:unegg59ln4c7hg06b...@4ax.com...
tomnln
Your attempt to salvage the WCR Lies Fails AGAIN ! ! !
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4b083e0f$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
tomnln
"Fair enough. But he was known to be in Hoston on the night of the 25th."
Please give us an Official Citation for that John.
"John McAdams" <john.m...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
news:sgihg5dtr7349064u...@4ax.com...
yeuhd
> The HSCA Report said they "Believe" Odio. (page 139)
Are you saying that if the HSCA Report said they believed something, that
means it is true? The HSCA Report also said that all shots that struck
Kennedy and Connally were fired by Lee Oswald from the sixth floor of the
TSBD building.
So answer the question: Are you saying that if the HSCA Report said they
believed something, that means it is true?
John Fiorentino
> On 21 Nov 2009 23:42:38 -0500, "John Fiorentino"
> <johnfio...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>I agree with .John on most of this, and yeuhd also.
>>
>>I want to post some of the things I sent to .John about this, but didn't
>>post here on the N/G.
>>
>>I also want to postulate, that it is the "3546" form dated Oct. 11, 1963,
>>and NOT the change of address "dated" Sept. 24, that is the issue more
>>deserving of investigation.
>>
>>Below are just some copies of things I sent to .John. in no particular
>>order.
>>
>>=====================================================
>>
>>SILVIA ODIO : The American was introduced as Leon Oswald. That will always
>>be in my mind very clearly.
>>
>
> The problem here is that thanks that didn't happen can be in one's
> mind very clearly.
>
> That's pretty normal.
>
>
>>That is from Sylvia's interview on Frontline.
>>
>>BTW in the memo to Rankin, Father McChann stated "Leon" never used the
>>name
>>Oswald. He claims Sylvia said he was only introduced as "Leon."
>
> If memory serves, there was no McChann conversation until after the
> assassination.
This is all contained in CE 2943
>
>
>>++++++++++++
>>Oz could have given it to his mailman. BTW, check out the date of Sept 24
>>on
>>the original. That is what I'm looking into now.
>>
>>Also, since the Sept 26 postmark in this particular case indicates both
>>receipt, and delivery, there really isn;t any issue that I see.
>>++++++++++++
>
> I agree. I now think there was no issue.
I still have an issue with the date of Sept. 24, on the original.
So do I. I'm trying to look into it further.
>
> .John
> --------------
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
James K. Olmstead
the handwriting conflict....I mentioned it in the check
thread.
Since Oswald's mail recieved at that PO Box in September of 1963 deals with
letters from Russia, the SWP and the CPUSA, I think the change of address
form maybe a issue that Holmes and the WC didn't
want to get into.
Liebler does say "I have cleared up the basic problems
we had. Of course, you managed to raise a few more".
I believe we are addressing those "few more" questions
that should have been explored such as PO mail opening
operations, watch lists etc.
jko
"John Fiorentino" <johnfio...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:4b0975e1$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
Raymond
> John: �Just noticed this thread and see that you noticed
> the handwriting conflict....I mentioned it in the check
> thread.
>
> Since Oswald's mail recieved at that PO Box in September of 1963 deals with
> letters from Russia, the SWP and the CPUSA, I think the change of address
> form maybe a issue that Holmes and the WC didn't
> want to get into.
>
> Liebler does say "I have cleared up the basic problems
> we had. Of course, you managed to raise a few more".
>
> I �believe we are addressing those "few more" questions
> that should have been explored such as PO mail opening
> operations, watch lists etc.
>
> jko
>
>
> news:4b0975e1$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "John McAdams" <john.mcad...@marquette.edu> wrote in message
> >news:sgihg5dtr7349064u...@4ax.com...
> >> On 21 Nov 2009 23:42:38 -0500, "John Fiorentino"
>
> - Show quoted text -
Hi James. Grade my work.
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=519986
ex nihilo nihil fit (L)
out of nothing, nothing comes
RUTH and ROY'S PLACE
The building is the secret-if ya wanna know the truth.
And how they got Lee in there-ya needa ask Miss Ruth.
The place is full of cub-by-holes and spots where you could hide.
And, you didn't need a stairway-there were other ways outside.
An architect could show you how the dirty deed was done;
And, where the man was hiding-the man who shot the gun.
When the policeman came and asked the man to help him find his
way,
The guy in charge of everything had only this to say:
" Would you like to see the basement? Or, the stairway would be
fun!
The shooter should be out by now; there's no need for us to run.
We know these folks weren't strangers-they knew each other well,
And, soon they'll be together to celebrate in HELL.
So, the building is the secret-take another look,
The secret isn't magic-the answer's in the book
Have a great holiday season
Gallagher
James K. Olmstead
"grade" your work. You have look into areas way before many others. I am
however looking at some of your work, that you sent me years ago relating
to things going on in the Oak Cliff area. I will be in Calif in Feb
looking into some things....will discuss them with you after I return.
jko
"Raymond" <Bluer...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:e7a2c1ea-1982-4131...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 27, 10:34?am, "James K. Olmstead" <jolmst...@neo.rr.com> wrote:
> John: ?Just noticed this thread and see that you noticed
> the handwriting conflict....I mentioned it in the check
> thread.
>
> Since Oswald's mail recieved at that PO Box in September of 1963 deals
> with
> letters from Russia, the SWP and the CPUSA, I think the change of address
> form maybe a issue that Holmes and the WC didn't
> want to get into.
>
> Liebler does say "I have cleared up the basic problems
> we had. Of course, you managed to raise a few more".
>
> I ?believe we are addressing those "few more" questions
> >> I agree. ?I now think there was no issue.
>
> > I still have an issue with the date of Sept. 24, on the original.
>
> >>>Here's my thoughts from memory, and I have more which I'm looking for.
>
> >>>1. Twiford's wife wasn't sure of the date of the call. Mr. Twiford
> >>>returned home Sept 27, 63. So the best you can really do is sometime,
> >>>roughly in the week before his return.
>
> >> Fair enough. ?But he was known to be in Hoston on the night of the