When Did Oswald Order the Rifle?
Raymond
There have long been problems with how the rifle allegedly used in the
assassination of President Kennedy came to be linked with Oswald.
Raymond Gallagher shows us, astonishingly and with documentation, that
the rifle was shipped before Oswald had ordered it. How could that be?
Index Vol. 5 No. 6 September-October, 1998- PROBE MAGAZINE
Copies of these back issues can be ordered from The Last Hurrah
Bookstore.
Today, due to people like Raymond Gallagher, (Probe Vol. 5 No. 6, p.
10) and especially John Armstrong, we can show that it is highly
doubtful that Oswald ever ordered that rifle. Evidence from the
official records suggests that the sixth floor rifle was not the rifle
delivered to Lee Oswald in March of 1963
Raymond Gallagher, new to PROBE, delves into the unique sales history
of Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano. How did the bank deposit Oswald's
money order for the weapon before Oswald wrote it ?
Louis Feldsott of Crescent Arms told the FBI that C 2766 was sold to
Klein's on June 18,1962, yet Waldman , at Klein's, did not order the
rifles until January 24, 1963. (SEE Waldman Testimony Warren
Commission Hearings: Vol. VII - Page 362 ) To my knowledge, no one has
explained the difference. But there is an even further discrepancy.
Waldman testified that Klein's received Oswald's money order of $21.45
on March 13, 1963 and it was deposited, along with other money orders
and checks, into a company account at the First National Bank of
Chicago. Waldman testified to the Commission attorney David Belin that
the postmark date of the money order leaving Dallas was March 12 ( WC
Vol,7, p. 366.) Waldman further testified that the deposit was made
on the 13th. and it was part of a total deposit of $13,827.98.
( Belin did not ask him to explain how, before the advent of
computers, an order could be shipped 700 miles, received, processed
and deposited in 24 hours) But yet, the bank deposit slip, the extra
copy provided by the bank at the time of the transfer, reads FEBRUARY
15, 1963, not March 13 th. This is about one month before Oswald sent
the coupon for the rifle by air mail to Chicago . ( See Waldman
Exhibit no. 10 p. 706 ) Of course, if the February date is correct,
and there is no reason to doubt it, then C 2766 could not be the
correct serial number on the rifle in the so-called back yard
photographs.
See deposit slip deposited with The First National Bank of Chicago
Date 2/15/63
total deposit: $13,827.98 deposit made by Klein's Sporting Goods Inc.
( 50 91144 ) 4540 W. MADISON ST. CHGO 24 ILL
SEE Feldsott Affadavit
The following affidavit was executed by Louis Feldsott on July 23.
1964.
PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION
ON THE ASSASSINATION OF AFFIDAVIT
PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY
STATE OF NEW YORK,
Country of Rockland, ss:
I, Louis Feldsott, being duly sworn say:
1. I am the President of Crescent Firearms, Inc., 2 West 37th Street,
New York 18, New York.
2. On November 22, 1963, the F.B.I. contacted me and asked if Crescent
Firearms, Inc., had any records concerning .the sale of an Italian
made 6.5 m/m rifle with the serial number C 2766.
3. I was able to find a record of the sale of this rifle which
indicated that the weapon had been sold to Kleins' Sporting Goods,
Inc., Chicago, Illinois on June 18, 1962. I conveyed this information
to the F.B.I. during the evening of November 22, 1963.
4. Further records involving the purchase, sale, and transportation of
the weapon have been turned over to the F.B.I.
Signed the 23d day of July 1964.
(S) Louis Feldsott,
LOUIS FELDSOTT.
Waldman:
Mr. Waldman.
Yes; on the same form we show a record of the receipt of the rifles in
question, specifically this extreme right-hand column which is filled
in, indicating that on February 22, delivery was made to us by
Lifschultz Trucking Co. I might explain the difference in the two
dates here.
Mr. Belin.
Go ahead.
Mr. Waldman.
The February 21 date is the date in which the merchandise came to our
premises whereas the date of February 22, is the date in which they
were officially received by our receiving department.
This is a delivery receipt from the Lifschultz Fast Freight covering
10 cases of guns delivered to Klein's on February 21, 1963, from
Crescent Firearms.
As indicated on Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 7. Now, we cannot
specifically say when this money order was deposited, but on our
deposit of March 13, 1963, we show an item of $21.45, as indicated on
the Xerox copy of our deposit slip marked, or identified by--as
Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 10.
Mr. Belin.
And I have just marked as a document what you are reading from, which
appears to be a deposit with the First National Bank of Chicago by
your company; is that correct?
Mr. Waldman.
That's correct.
Mr. Belin.
And on that deposit, one of the items is $21.45, out of a total
deposit that day of $13,827.98; is that correct?
Mr. Waldman.
That's correct.
However, the date on that deposit slip was 2/15/63
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0365b.htm
THE RIFLE
The Fourth Decade, Volume 7, Issue 3
Current Section: The Rifle, by R.F. Gallagher
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId...
THE SECOND CARCANO
http://jfkresearch.freehomepage.com/c2766.html
Raymond
>
> THE RIFLE
> The Fourth Decade, Volume 7, Issue 3
Correction:
Current Section: The Rifle, by R.F. Gallagher
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=520627.
David Von Pein
There aren't any unsolvable "problems" with the documentation of how
Lee Oswald came into possession of Rifle #C2766 at all. Only a CTer
bent on FINDING some "problems" has a "problem" with that particular
part of the case (as per the CT norm, of course).
WC Testimony:
DAVID W. BELIN. Is there anything which indicates in what form you
received the money?
WILLIAM J. WALDMAN (VP of Klein's Sporting Goods Inc.). Yes; below the
amount is shown the letters "MO" designating money order.
Mr. BELIN. Now, I see the extreme top of this microfilm, the date,
March 13, 1963; to what does that refer?
Mr. WALDMAN. This is an imprint made by our cash register indicating
that the remittance received from the customer was passed through our
register on that date.
Mr. BELIN. And to the right of that, I see $21.45. Is that correct?
Mr. WALDMAN. That's correct.
Mr. BELIN. Is there any other record that you have in connection with
the shipment of this rifle other than the particular microfilm
negative frame that we are looking at right now?
Mr. WALDMAN. We have a--this microfilm record of a coupon clipped from
a portion of one of our advertisements, which indicates by writing of
the customer on the coupon that he ordered our catalog No. C20-T750;
and he has shown the price of the item, $19.95, and gives as his name
A. Hidell, and his address as Post Office Box 2915, in Dallas, Tex.
=============
Mr. BELIN. I hand you what has been marked as Commission Exhibit No.
788, which appears to be a U.S. postal money order payable to the
order of Klein's Sporting Goods, and marked that it's from a purchaser
named A. Hidell, and as the purchaser's street address is Post Office
Box No. 2915, and the purchaser's City, Dallas, Tex.; March 12, 1963:
and underneath the amount of $21.45, the number 2,202,130,462. And on
the reverse side there appears to be an endorsement of a bank.
I wonder if you would read that endorsement, if you would, and examine
it, please.
Mr. WALDMAN. This is a stamped endorsement reading "Pay to the order
of the First National Bank of Chicago," followed by our account No. 50
space 91144, and that, in turn, followed by "Klein's Sporting Goods,
Inc."
Mr. BELIN. Do you know whether or not that is your company's
endorsement on that money order?
Mr. WALDMAN. It's identical to our endorsement.
Mr. BELIN. And I hand you what has been marked as Waldman Deposition
Exhibit No. 9 and ask you if you can state what this is.
Mr. WALDMAN. This is our endorsement stamp which reads the same as
that shown on the money order in question.
Mr. BELIN. You have just now stamped Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 9
with your endorsement stamp?
Mr. WALDMAN. Correct.
Mr. BELIN. Do you have any way of knowing when exactly this money
order was deposited by your company?
Mr. WALDMAN. I cannot specifically say when this money order was
deposited by our company; however, as previously stated, a money order
for $21.45 passed through our cash register on March 13, 1963.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/waldman.htm
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0352a.htm
>>> "How did the bank deposit Oswald's money order for the weapon before Oswald wrote it? .... The bank deposit slip, the extra copy provided by the bank at the time of the transfer, reads FEBRUARY 15, 1963, not March 13th. This is about one month before Oswald sent the coupon for the rifle by air mail to Chicago." <<<
Yes, Waldman Exhibit No. 10 (below) does indeed indicate the date
"2-15-63" on the First National Bank receipt. But I think the key to
KNOWING beyond a reasonable doubt that the "Feb. 15" date is merely a
slipped digit on the part of whoever wrote out that extra copy of the
receipt is the fact that the TOTAL DEPOSIT that is indicated on the
"2-15-63" bank deposit slip is identical (to the penny) to the total
deposit listed on the detailed document (which is dated "3-13-63")
shown right above the "Feb. 15" 1st National receipt in Waldman #10
below ($13,827.98, although the first couple of digits are difficult
to make out on the 1st Natl. receipt, but it's fairly obvious that the
totals are identical):
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0365b.htm
>>> "Belin did not ask him {Waldman} to explain how, before the advent of computers, an order could be shipped 700 miles, received, processed and deposited in 24 hours." <<<
Simple -- Oswald mailed the Money Order via Air Mail. And Air Mail is
much faster than regular "snail" mail.
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0331a.htm
>>> "Today, due to people like Raymond Gallagher, and especially John Armstrong, we can show that it is highly doubtful that Oswald ever ordered that rifle." <<<
Even though handwriting experts have PROVEN that the writing on the
Money Order and on the American Rifleman magazine coupon were the
handwriting/(handprinting) of Lee Harvey Oswald....right?
CTers think that some OTHER rifle from Klein's was shipped to Oswald's
Dallas P.O. Box, is that it? If that's not "it", then what IS the
"it"?
We know beyond ALL doubt that Oswald possessed A RIFLE in the year
1963. Marina Oswald verified this fact, because Marina saw the rifle
herself on multiple occasions, and saw Lee dry-firing the weapon.
Plus: At least one other person saw the rifle in the Oswald residence
in Dallas. (I forget at the moment who it was, perhaps Mrs.
DeMohrenschildt, but this "rifle sighting" is discussed, in detail, in
Vincent Bugliosi's 2007 book "Reclaiming History".)
INSTANT REPLAY (JUST FOR THE LAUGHS):
>>> "...And especially John Armstrong..." <<<
Thanks for the opening here. I always enjoy it when the opportunity
arises to re-post the following text from pages 565 to 567 of Endnotes
in Mr. Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History" (dealing with Mr. Armstrong,
whom many CTers seem to like so well of late):
"John Armstrong actually went on to publish a 983-page book in
2003 called "Harvey and Lee: How the CIA Framed Oswald", in which he
carries his fantasy about a double Oswald to such absurd lengths that
not only doesn't it deserve to be dignified in the main text of my
book, but I resent even having to waste a word on it in this
endnote. ....
"Obviously, if Armstrong had a source for any of the things he
charges, he would be only too eager to give it. Instead, his only
source is his exceptionally fertile imagination. ....
"On the day of the assassination, Armstrong has both Lee Harvey
Oswald and Harvey Oswald, two people {per looney author Armstrong} who
are spitting images of each other, in the Depository. .... At the
moment of the assassination, HARVEY Oswald was in the second-floor
lunchroom having lunch and LEE Harvey Oswald was on the sixth floor
firing at Kennedy. ....
"Lee Harvey Oswald escaped arrest, but Armstrong doesn't tell
his readers what happened to him thereafter, though...he tells them
near the beginning of the book that he may be "very much alive"." --
VINCE BUGLIOSI
===================================================
"Reason does not always appeal to unreasonable men." -- John F.
Kennedy; November 16, 1961
===================================================
www.blogger.com/profile/12501570830179992520
===================================================
robcap...@netscape.com
> >>> "There have long been problems with how the rifle allegedly used in the assassination of President Kennedy came to be linked with Oswald. Raymond Gallagher shows us, astonishingly and with documentation, that the rifle was shipped before Oswald had ordered it. How could that be? .... How did the bank deposit Oswald's money order for the weapon before Oswald wrote it?" <<<
"There aren't any unsolvable "problems" with the documentation of how
Lee Oswald came into possession of Rifle #C2766 at all. Only a CTer
bent on FINDING some "problems" has a "problem" with that particular
part of the case (as per the CT norm, of course)."
There are plenty of problems that show there was NO clear chain of
purchase by LHO. Firstly, Riva's contract called for him to REMOVE
all serial numbers from the Carcano's he was assigned to renovate and
repair. NO ONE has shown beyond all doubt that he failed to do this,
thus it would mean that NONE of the rifles that wound up in Klein's
ads should have had a serial number. Secondly, the item number, C20-
T750, was tied to a 36 inch carbine, not a 40.2 inch rifle. Thirdly,
the price paid, $21.45, was for a 36 inch carbine, a scope and
shipping and handling. How could LHO, or anyone, pay for a 36 inch
rifle and receive a 40.2 inch rifle? Finally, there is NO proof
Klein's ordered a batch of 40.2 inch rifles in February 1963 (the time
they allegedly ordered the 36 inch rifles - carton number 3376),
therefore the argument they simply made a mistake is highly
unlikely.
"WC Testimony:
DAVID W. BELIN. Is there anything which indicates in what form you
received the money?
WILLIAM J. WALDMAN (VP of Klein's Sporting Goods Inc.). Yes; below the
amount is shown the letters "MO" designating money order."
The serial number on the alleged money order would not be used for
several years by the issuing bank, how do you explain this?
Furthermore, as Anthony Summers pointed out in "Conspiracy" (page 213)
many years ago LHO was at work at the time of the purchase of the
money order, so how could he be in two places at once?
"Mr. BELIN. Now, I see the extreme top of this microfilm, the date,
March 13, 1963; to what does that refer?
Mr. WALDMAN. This is an imprint made by our cash register indicating
that the remittance received from the customer was passed through our
register on that date."
Notice Mr. Belin mentions "microfilm", why? Because the the original
order form and envelope were allegedly destroyed so they had to work
with microfilm copies. Sound familar? It should, what bag?
"Mr. BELIN. And to the right of that, I see $21.45. Is that correct?
Mr. WALDMAN. That's correct."
This is the amount for the 36 inch rifle, scope ($19.95) and shipping
and handling ($1.50) NOT for a 40.2 inch rifle with scope.
"Mr. BELIN. Is there any other record that you have in connection with
the shipment of this rifle other than the particular microfilm
negative frame that we are looking at right now?
Mr. WALDMAN. We have a--this microfilm record of a coupon clipped from
a portion of one of our advertisements, which indicates by writing of
the customer on the coupon that he ordered our catalog No. C20-T750;
and he has shown the price of the item, $19.95, and gives as his name
A. Hidell, and his address as Post Office Box 2915, in Dallas, Tex."
More microfilm, where's the original? There is no proof that any
alias could pick-up mail at that P.O. box as LHO did NOT list any on
the Part 3 of the application. I wonder if this is the correct ad,
February's American Rifleman, and not the one the WC would use later
on, November's Field and Stream.
> =============
"Mr. BELIN. I hand you what has been marked as Commission Exhibit No.
788, which appears to be a U.S. postal money order payable to the
order of Klein's Sporting Goods, and marked that it's from a purchaser
named A. Hidell, and as the purchaser's street address is Post Office
Box No. 2915, and the purchaser's City, Dallas, Tex.; March 12, 1963:
and underneath the amount of $21.45, the number 2,202,130,462. And on
the reverse side there appears to be an endorsement of a bank. I
wonder if you would read that endorsement, if you would, and examine
it, please.
Mr. WALDMAN. This is a stamped endorsement reading "Pay to the order
of the First National Bank of Chicago," followed by our account No. 50
space 91144, and that, in turn, followed by "Klein's Sporting Goods,
Inc."
Mr. BELIN. Do you know whether or not that is your company's
endorsement on that money order?
Mr. WALDMAN. It's identical to our endorsement."
None of this proves LHO actually sent the money order, as again, the
serial number sequence above would NOT come into being for several
years and the originals were destroyed. The small amount of writing
makes it virtually impossible to show it was forged. Finally, LHO
listed NO aliases for his P.O. box in Dallas and this was confirmed by
Postal Inspector Harry Holmes and the FBI after the assassination
"Mr. BELIN. And I hand you what has been marked as Waldman Deposition
Exhibit No. 9 and ask you if you can state what this is.
Mr. WALDMAN. This is our endorsement stamp which reads the same as
that shown on the money order in question.
Mr. BELIN. You have just now stamped Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 9
with your endorsement stamp?
Mr. WALDMAN. Correct.
Mr. BELIN. Do you have any way of knowing when exactly this money
order was deposited by your company?
Mr. WALDMAN. I cannot specifically say when this money order was
deposited by our company; however, as previously stated, a money order
for $21.45 passed through our cash register on March 13, 1963."
Notice how they spend ZERO time explaining why a money order for the
amount of a 36 inch carbine with a scope actually gets a 40.2 inch
rifle with a scope for LHO, how come? They also spend ZERO time
explaining or mentioning that despite the advert offering ammunition
and a clip as added extras LHO did not order either. Why is this
important? Because they NEVER did find out how LHO got the ammo he
allegedly had, as they combed the stores in Dallas but never found a
sale for any ammo for the rifle or pistol. Also, when the rifle was
initially found there was NO clip in it as it is not mentioned in the
inventory log by the officer who found he rifle.
> http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/waldman.htm
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0...
> >>> "How did the bank deposit Oswald's money order for the weapon before Oswald wrote it? .... The bank deposit slip, the extra copy provided by the bank at the time of the transfer, reads FEBRUARY 15, 1963, not March 13th. This is about one month before Oswald sent the coupon for the rifle by air mail to Chicago." <<<
"Yes, Waldman Exhibit No. 10 (below) does indeed indicate the date
"2-15-63" on the First National Bank receipt. But I think the key to
KNOWING beyond a reasonable doubt that the "Feb. 15" date is merely a
slipped digit on the part of whoever wrote out that extra copy of the
receipt is the fact that the TOTAL DEPOSIT that is indicated on the
"2-15-63" bank deposit slip is identical (to the penny) to the total
deposit listed on the detailed document (which is dated "3-13-63")
shown right above the "Feb. 15" 1st National receipt in Waldman #10
below ($13,827.98, although the first couple of digits are difficult
to make out on the 1st Natl. receipt, but it's fairly obvious that the
totals are identical):"
Slipped digit? Imagine the fun the defense team would have had with
this.
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0...
> >>> "Belin did not ask him {Waldman} to explain how, before the advent of computers, an order could be shipped 700 miles, received, processed and deposited in 24 hours." <<<
"Simple -- Oswald mailed the Money Order via Air Mail. And Air Mail is
much faster than regular "snail" mail."
Air mail is also very EXPENSIVE, why would LHO spend so much more on
this method? What was the hurry?
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0...
> >>> "Today, due to people like Raymond Gallagher, and especially John Armstrong, we can show that it is highly doubtful that Oswald ever ordered that rifle." <<<
"Even though handwriting experts have PROVEN that the writing on the
Money Order and on the American Rifleman magazine coupon were the
handwriting/(handprinting) of Lee Harvey Oswald....right?"
They never said it was in uncertain terms as the amount of writing to
sample was too small, they said "probably" it was LHO's.
"CTers think that some OTHER rifle from Klein's was shipped to
Oswald's Dallas P.O. Box, is that it? If that's not "it", then what IS
the "it"?"
Gee, I don't know why, I mean the ad said 36 inch carbine, NOT 40.2
inch rifle. The price the alleged money order was written out for was
for a 36 inch carbine, a scope and S&H, NOT for a 40.2 rifle, scope
and S&H. The item number given, C20-T750, by Klein's matches the 36
inch carbine in the ad, NOT a 40.2 inch rifle. You have the money
order bearing a serial number sequence that would not be used for
years, handwriting on it and the envelope that could NOT be said to be
LHO's beyond all doubt, AND the same M.O. and envelope that would be
conveniently destroyed. I can't imagine why we have doubts.
"We know beyond ALL doubt that Oswald possessed A RIFLE in the year
1963. Marina Oswald verified this fact, because Marina saw the rifle
herself on multiple occasions, and saw Lee dry-firing the weapon."
Marina was not solid on this as she initially said he ordered a rifle
in the fall of 1962 until the WC steered her in the right the
direction. NO one ever saw LHO with the alleged murder weapon in his
hands.
"Plus: At least one other person saw the rifle in the Oswald residence
in Dallas. (I forget at the moment who it was, perhaps Mrs.
DeMohrenschildt, but this "rifle sighting" is discussed, in detail, in
Vincent Bugliosi's 2007 book "Reclaiming History".)"
So a rifle in the residence of the Paine's (their house) makes it
LHO's? Good logic there.
> INSTANT REPLAY (JUST FOR THE LAUGHS):
> >>> "...And especially John Armstrong..." <<<
"Thanks for the opening here. I always enjoy it when the opportunity
arises to re-post the following text from pages 565 to 567 of Endnotes
in Mr. Bugliosi's
"Reclaiming History" (dealing with Mr. Armstrong, whom many CTers seem
to like so well of late):
"John Armstrong actually went on to publish a 983-page book in 2003
called "Harvey and Lee: How the CIA Framed Oswald", in which he
carries his fantasy about a double Oswald to such absurd lengths that
not only doesn't it deserve to be dignified in the main text of my
book, but I resent even having to waste a word on it in this
endnote. ...."
Mr. Bugliosi is as ingnorant of our CIA's programs as you are, no
wonder you love him.
"Obviously, if Armstrong had a source for any of the things he
charges, he would be only too eager to give it. Instead, his only
source is his exceptionally fertile imagination..... "On the day of
the assassination, Armstrong has both Lee Harvey
Oswald and Harvey Oswald, two people {per looney author Armstrong} who
are spitting images of each other, in the Depository. .... At the
moment of the assassination, HARVEY Oswald was in the second-floor
lunchroom having lunch and LEE Harvey Oswald was on the sixth floor
firing at Kennedy. ....
"Lee Harvey Oswald escaped arrest, but Armstrong doesn't tell his
readers what happened to him thereafter, though...he tells them near
the beginning of the book that he may be "very much alive"." -- VINCE
BUGLIOSI"
I love how he offers NO evidence or proof that would show Mr.
Armstrong to be wrong. Just personal attack methods all LNers use.
Raymond
>
> There aren't any unsolvable "problems" with the documentation of how
> Lee Oswald came into possession of Rifle #C2766 at all. Only a CTer
> bent on FINDING some "problems" has a "problem" with that particular
> part of the case (as per the CT norm, of course).
Mr. WALDMAN. I CANNOT SAY specifically say WHEN this money order was
deposited by our company;
RE: Comment by David Von Pain :
"BUT I THINK " .(.I THINK won't play in a courtroom before a jury)
the key to KNOWING beyond a reasonable doubt that the "Feb. 15" date
is merely a SLIPPED digit on the part of whoever wrote out that extra
copy of the receipt is the fact that the TOTAL DEPOSIT that is
indicated on the "2-15-63" bank deposit slip is identical (to the
penny) to the total deposit listed on the detailed document (which is
dated "3-13-63") shown right above the "Feb. 15" 1st National receipt
in Waldman #10 below ($13,827.98, although the first couple of digits
are difficultto make out on the 1st Natl. receipt, but it's fairly
obvious that the
totals are identical.
IF you examine this DETAILED DOCUMENT, which is an alleged cash
register record, you will find that there is more than one record of a
sale for
$21,45 on it. And, there is no way to identify whether they were money
orders or even cash.
After ALLEDGELY interviewing William Waldman agents Johnson, Hanlon,
and Wanerus interviewed Robert Wilmouth, Vice-President of
the First National Bank of Chicago *(on Sunday morning)*. According
to their FBI report, Wilmouth said that Klein's made a deposit in the
amount of $13,827.98 on Friday, March 15, 1963. This deposit
contained hundreds of entries on 5 pages of adding machine tape, with
*two entries* in the amount of $21.45 ( the FBI report was wrong;
there
was only *one entry for $21.45* in he $13,827 deposit ). Wilmouth
told the agents that one of the entries represented an American
Express money order and the second deposit item represented a postal
money order, both in the amount of $21.45. *But how would Wilmouth
know if these deposits were made with money orders when looking at
numbers on adding machine tapes? (see Vol 21, p. 706).
Wilmouth told the agents that both deposits were made on March 15,
were processed by his bank on March 16 (Saturday), and were received
by the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago on March 18, 1963. *But the
date on the deposit slip reads "2/15/63-a month before the rifle was
ordered (p. 706, Volume 21).* *And how could Wilmouth possibly know
the date that a money order was deposited at the Federal Reserve Bank
without looking at the cancelled money order, which he did not have??
* Wilmouth told the agents, "Postal money orders are sent to the
Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, which in turn sends them to a central
processing center located in KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI.
Senator Thomas Dodd was investigating Klein's for mail-order firearm
sales. at the time of the assassination and in 1963, a gun could be
purchased in the state of Texas without a permit or any record of the
purchase which Dodd felt had to be corrected.
Dodd was interested in the unregulated traffic of Italian Mannlicher-
Carcanos and especially in the company that Oswald used to order his
weapon. .... Klein's Sporting Goods of Chicago.... and their record
keeping of sales of these weapons. This was before Oswald ordered the
alleged murder weapon
--- George Michael Evica,,, author, Assassination Chronicles
CT RESEARCHER Raymond
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0...
>
> >>> "How did the bank deposit Oswald's money order for the weapon before Oswald wrote it? .... The bank deposit slip, the extra copy provided by the bank at the time of the transfer, reads FEBRUARY 15, 1963, not March 13th. This is about one month before Oswald sent the coupon for the rifle by air mail to Chicago." <<<
>
> Yes, Waldman Exhibit No. 10 (below) does indeed indicate the date
> "2-15-63" on the First National Bank receipt. But I think the key to
> KNOWING beyond a reasonable doubt that the "Feb. 15" date is merely a
> slipped digit on the part of whoever wrote out that extra copy of the
> receipt is the fact that the TOTAL DEPOSIT that is indicated on the
> "2-15-63" bank deposit slip is identical (to the penny) to the total
> deposit listed on the detailed document (which is dated "3-13-63")
> shown right above the "Feb. 15" 1st National receipt in Waldman #10
> below ($13,827.98, although the first couple of digits are difficult
> to make out on the 1st Natl. receipt, but it's fairly obvious that the
> totals are identical):
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0...
>
> >>> "Belin did not ask him {Waldman} to explain how, before the advent of computers, an order could be shipped 700 miles, received, processed and deposited in 24 hours." <<<
>
> Simple -- Oswald mailed the Money Order via Air Mail. And Air Mail is
> much faster than regular "snail" mail.
>
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0...
David Von Pein
>>> "The serial number on the alleged money order would not be used for several years by the issuing bank, how do you explain this?" <<<
~Laugh Break Time~
And yet, there it is, in B&W for all to see -- Money Order
#2,202,130,462:
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0352a.htm
And yet, per Mr. Kook, this MO # didn't exist until "several years"
after March 1963.
That's a new one too (at least as far as my dealings with you Mega-
Kooks). I'd never heard the one about Oswald's Money Order "Not
be{ing} used for several years by the issuing bank".
A good one, too. It shows that you kooks are on the ball -- i.e.,
focusing detailed attention on all that chaff, in lieu of the massive
field of wheat that's directly under your feet every day of the week.
[Industrial-Sized LOL Icon Goes HERE.]
>>> "Notice Mr. Belin mentions "microfilm", why? Because the the original order form and envelope were allegedly destroyed so they had to work with microfilm copies. Sound familar? It should, what bag?" <<<
Dealing with microfilm copies sounds reasonable to me. For, why should
(or would) Klein's need to keep the "originals" after they've been
photographed on microfilm? Six of one; half-dozen of the other; and
the microfilm was probably much easier to organize internally for
Klein's and various other companies in pre-PC [computer] days.
>>> "Air mail is also very EXPENSIVE, why would LHO spend so much more on this method? What was the hurry?" <<<
General Walker, of course.
Kook.
David Von Pein
Jesus Horacio Christ, what a bunch of kooks you ABO [Anybody But
Oswald] nuts are!
EVERY single tiny thing connected to this case has to be looked at
sideways by you conspiracy kooks. It's simple remarkable (and
idiotic).
If the kooks would utilize just one-third of their "research" efforts
to focus on some stuff that actually MATTERS, they'd all be better off
-- and (of course) they'd all be LNers within a week as well.
But, instead of focusing on something that GOES SOMEWHERE, they'd
rather bury themselves in unimportant matters like a possible SECOND
item on a Klein's form for $21.45. Kooky.
Okay, Raymond, your turn now.....
Please tell us WHERE your arguments about the $21.45 items and the
First National receipts, etc., takes you? Where?
You must think that ALL of the documentation (in Oswald's writing) has
been somehow FAKED, right? If you don't think that, then what's the
point of bringing up ANY of your tripe about multiple "$21.45" items?
Kooks can't even face the obvious fact that Lee Oswald bought and paid
for (and obviously took possession of) Rifle C2766 from Klein's in
March of 1963.
The kooks have to even turn THAT evidence upside-down & inside-out.
And where does it take them? Noplace. Noplace at all. Because after
this charade they've created re. the juggled numbers and "fixed"
records (or whatever), what are we left with?----
We're left with Lee Oswald STILL BEING THE POSSESSOR & OWNER OF A
MANNLICHER-CARCANO RIFLE AS OF 11/22/63....i.e., the very same rifle
that murdered John Kennedy.
Can a CTer answer this final question for me?----
Is there a SINGLE scrap of evidence in the JFK & Tippit cases that you
kooks DON'T think has been manipulated, man-handled by plotters,
planted, faked, or manufactured to frame Mr. Oswald?
If so, we could probably list all of those items on the head of a pin.
robcap...@netscape.com
> >>> "The serial number on the alleged money order would not be used for several years by the issuing bank, how do you explain this?" <<<
"~Laugh Break Time~
And yet, there it is, in B&W for all to see -- Money Order
#2,202,130,462:"
Counterfeit money looks good too, but it doesn't make it real.
> http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0...
"And yet, per Mr. Kook, this MO # didn't exist until "several years"
after March 1963."
It is not me but the issuing bank that would say this sequence was not
used unti 1965 or 1966.
"That's a new one too (at least as far as my dealings with you Mega-
Kooks). I'd never heard the one about Oswald's Money Order "Not
be{ing} used for several years by the issuing bank"."
Of course it is a new one to you as you have not read much beyond
1964.
"A good one, too. It shows that you kooks are on the ball -- i.e.,
focusing detailed attention on all that chaff, in lieu of the massive
field of wheat that's directly under your feet every day of the week."
Sure, all we get is fake laughter.
[Industrial-Sized LOL Icon Goes HERE.]
> >>> "Notice Mr. Belin mentions "microfilm", why? Because the the original order form and envelope were allegedly destroyed so they had to work with microfilm copies. Sound familar? It should, what bag?" <<<
"Dealing with microfilm copies sounds reasonable to me. For, why
should (or would) Klein's need to keep the "originals" after they've
been photographed on microfilm? Six of one; half-dozen of the other;
and the microfilm was probably much easier to organize internally for
Klein's and various other companies in pre-PC [computer] days."
You are off balance so of course it sounds normal to you. Anyone who
thinks the SBT and the official theory makes sense are apt to believe
ANYTHING! Geez, I don't know, maybe the originals should have been
siezed as evidence maybe? You are clueless on a lot of things,
especially how a criminal case is built. NO wonder you thought they
did a good job at the TSBD that day.
> >>> "Air mail is also very EXPENSIVE, why would LHO spend so much more on this method? What was the hurry?" <<<
"General Walker, of course. Kook."
He had a month for that alleged shooting, there was NO rush and he was
cash poor so why spend extra if not neeeded?
David Von Pein
>>> "Geez, I don't know, maybe the originals should have been siezed as evidence maybe?" <<<
Even though the original paperwork didn't even exist as of Nov. 1963,
huh?
How are the already-trashed originals supposed to be seized?
>>> "You are clueless on a lot of things, especially how a criminal case is built." <<<
Tell that to veteran L.A. prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi, who is a person
who I think knows a TAD bit more than Rob The Super-Kook when it comes
to knowing "how a criminal case is built".
Mr. Bugliosi:
"I can tell the readers of this book {"RECLAIMING HISTORY"} that
if anyone in the future maintains to them that Oswald was just a patsy
and did not kill Kennedy, that person is either unaware of the
evidence against Oswald or simply a very silly person. .... Any denial
of Oswald's guilt is not worthy of serious discussion." -- Vince
Bugliosi; Page 969 of "RH" (c.2007)
Now, let's watch Robcap piss all over the above statement made by Mr.
Bugliosi.
It's always fun to watch a CT player who is currently batting .000
acting like he just won the Triple Crown.
So, have at it, Rob-Kook. Don't disappoint us. Tell us all about how
the above-quoted words of seasoned L.A. Deputy D.A. Vincent T.
Bugliosi are nothing but pure crap.
robcap...@netscape.com
> >>> "Geez, I don't know, maybe the originals should have been siezed as evidence maybe?" <<<
"Even though the original paperwork didn't even exist as of Nov. 1963,
huh?
How are the already-trashed originals supposed to be seized?"
Perhaps it never existed, either way, it is highly suspicious they
would destroy the original paperwork so fast. Most companies in the
non-computer age waited at least a year before they archived
documents. The fact the original paperwork could not be produced
would have caused serious doubts as to the authenticity of this
alleged paperwork.
> >>> "You are clueless on a lot of things, especially how a criminal case is built." <<<
"Tell that to veteran L.A. prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi, who is a
person who I think knows a TAD bit more than Rob The Super-Kook when
it comes to knowing "how a criminal case is built"."
For the last time - the POLICE build the cases and the prosecutors
prosecute!
"Mr. Bugliosi:
"I can tell the readers of this book {"RECLAIMING HISTORY"} that if
anyone in the future maintains to them that Oswald was just a patsy
and did not kill Kennedy, that person is either unaware of the
evidence against Oswald or simply a very silly person. .... Any denial
of Oswald's guilt is not worthy of serious discussion." -- Vince
Bugliosi; Page 969 of "RH" (c.2007)"
Sure, lack of evidence makes all silly and not serious if we don't
believe the WC. What a huckster this one is.
"Now, let's watch Robcap piss all over the above statement made by Mr.
Bugliosi."
It is his OPINION and nothing more, the evidence does NOT show LHO to
be guilty of shooting anyone.
"It's always fun to watch a CT player who is currently batting .000
acting like he just won the Triple Crown."
When a LNer says a CTer is batting .000 it really MEANS they are
batting 1.000 as they will never admit they have NO evidence or proof
on their cockamamie side.
"So, have at it, Rob-Kook. Don't disappoint us. Tell us all about how
the above-quoted words of seasoned L.A. Deputy D.A. Vincent T.
Bugliosi are nothing but pure crap."
He was NOT seasoned in building cases, just taking them to court.
Besides, the quote above is just opinion, nothing more.
David Von Pein
>>> "Besides, the quote above is just opinion, nothing more." <<<
But Robcap's tripe is MORE than just "opinion", right Mr. Kook? He
knows WAY more than the silly WC and HSCA. Right?
==============================================================
FEBRUARY'S "MORONIC POST OF THE MONTH":
"The evidence does NOT show LHO to be guilty of shooting
anyone." -- Rob-Kook; 02/26/2008
==============================================================
robcap...@netscape.com
lack any proof LHO purchased a 40.2 inch rifle in March 1963.