A Dallas Postal Inspector in 1963 or an Internet krank in fantasy land.
As has already been posted several times on this thread:
Holmes lied and spread misinformation.
Names not listed on Part 3 are rejected and not delivered to a PO Box for the simple reason,
among many reasons, that if that were not the case, then a valuable parcel addressed to a previous
owner to the PO Box might be wrongfully delivered to the current owner.
That's why Part 3 was created and existed: to ensure proper delivery. It is reasonable to assume that
proper delivery of mail is the first and primary purpose of the postal system.
The FBI is categorical, definite and clear that part 3 of Oswald's application listed NO names
of other individuals who were to receive mail in their names via Oswald's PO Box.
Had the FBI been able to confirm that "Hidell" was a listed authorized recipient on Oswald's application, then
that fact would have been trumpeted as A KEY STONE and A LYNCH PIN of the WC case against Oswald as a LN.
Post Office Box 2915 and the Application
The application consisted of three parts. The first part included postal rules and instructions for working combination locked boxes. The applicant could throw it away or keep it in his wallet. It included the combination for combination boxes. Parts 2 & 3 comprised the actual application. Part 2 included information on the applicant and his type of business ( if applicable ). Part 3 included special instructions on delivering mail, how to handle special deliveries and listed the names of other people beside the applicant who were entitled to receive mail through the box.
So the question is whether or not "A.Hidell" was authorized to receive mail at Oswald's box 2915 in Dallas. In order for "Hidell" to receive mail there, the evidence shows that his name would have had to have been on the box application.
When Dallas Postal Inspector Harry Holmes testified before the Warren Commission, he provided only a copy of part 2 of Oswald's post office box application ( Holmes Exhibit 3, below ). He told the Commission that part 3 had been discarded when the box had been closed, in May 1963, in accordance with postal regulations. Holmes further went on to say that the New Orleans Post Office hadn't complied to the regulation by keeping part 3 of Oswald's box application in that city. ( 7 H 527 )
In it's Report, the Commission repeated Holmes' testimony that the destruction of Part 3 of the PO Box application was in accordance with postal regulations.
"In accordance with postal regulations, the portion of the application which lists names of persons, other than the applicant, entitled to receive mail was thrown away after the box was closed on May 1963." ( Report, Ch. 4, pg. 121 )
That was a lie. The postal regulation required that the box application ( parts 2 & 3 ) be kept for a period of 2 years after the box was closed.
In 1966, author Stewart Galanor decided to write to the US Post Office and ask two questions. The first was regarding the post office box application and how long the record was to be kept. The second question regarded what happened to mail that was addressed to someone NOT on the box application part 3. In response to the first question, the post office replied that in March of 1963, postal regulation 846.53h required that all box applications, including part 3, be kept for a period of 2 years after the box was closed.
Of course, this revelation alone makes a 
out of Harry Holmes. It shows that the New Orleans PO was in compliance with the postal regulation and the Dallas PO was NOT.
As if that wasn't bad enough,
Holmes also lied about how mail addressed to persons whose names were NOT on the post office box application was handled. He told the Commission that when the post office received mail or a package addressed to someone NOT on the application, a notice would be put in the box REGARDLESS OF WHOSE NAME WAS ON THE MAIL and when someone came to the desk with the notice, they got the mail/package, REGARDLESS OF WHO THEY WERE.
( 7 H 527-528 )
In order to show how ridiculously absurd such a procedure is, the Post Office regulation is clear.
In response to Mr. Galanor's second question, regarding mail addressed to someone NOT on the box application part 3, the post office replied that regulation 355.111b(4) required that the item would have marked "addressee unknown" and returned to sender.
In other words, if "Hidell's" name is not on the box application part 3, he CANNOT receive mail in a box assigned to Oswald. --G. Jesus
