CE 2562

[Martin Weidmann]

We do know that they sent a 40 inch rifle because the Carcano bearing serial number C2766 is a 40 inch rifle.

Are you 100% sure that serial number was exclusive to only a 40" MC rifle?

I'm not saying that the February edition was definitely in stores in December. I'm just saying that it probably was and was almost certainly on store shelves in January.

Again, I don't know why else Klein's would send a 40 inch rifle instead of a 36 inch, other than human error. if it was a mess up on their part then Oswald could have complained about getting an "upgrade". I doubt that he even realized that he did. 

I'm not saying that the February edition was definitely in stores in December. I'm just saying that it probably was and was almost certainly on store shelves in January.

That doesn't make the point I am making any different. When you have a business and are advertising in a magazine dated February 1963, no matter when it hits the store shelves, it might be a good thing that you ensure that you have enough stock to fill orders for a particular item. Also, if it was not uncommon for Klein's to send a 40" rifle when a 36" was ordered, then why did they bother with the Department coding in the first place?

Again, I don't know why else Klein's would send a 40 inch rifle instead of a 36 inch, other than human error.

I also don't know why they would send a 40" rifle instead of the 36" ordered. It seems a bad business practice to do so. Far better would be to inform the client that they had run out of 36" and offer him a 40" or his money back.

Human error is indeed a possibility, although it seems unlikely as Klein's employees William Sharp and Mitch Westra, who worked in the gun department, have both stated to HSCA investigators that Klein's did not sell 40" MC rifles with a four power scope mounted on it.

Another remarkable comment of William Sharp to the HSCA is that he mounted scopes on at least 12 duplicate rifles for the FBI.

[John Iacoletti]

Are you 100% sure that serial number was exclusive to only a 40" MC rifle?

It sure would have been nice to see the rest of that “missing” microfilm, huh?

[John Tonkovich]

We do know that they sent a 40 inch rifle because the Carcano bearing serial number C2766 is a 40 inch rifle.

We know there is a 40" rifle -serial #C2766 - in the National Archives.

Not much else.


Addendum: the WC presents paperwork that alleges:
A Hidell ordered a 36" rifle.
A Hidell received a 40" rifle, with a "unique" serial number.
Lifschutz Fast Freight shipped 100 rifles, weighing 750 lbs.

[Jack Trojan]

This one seems pretty straightforward. We need to examine the weight of CE 2562 and determine its accuracy. If we added up the weight of 100 rifles and added the weight of the container there is no way in hell it would come to exactly 750 lbs.

750 lbs was obviously an estimate based on each rifle being 7.5 lbs, excluding the container, regardless whether it was accurate or actually weighed. EOS.

[John Tonkovich]

This one seems pretty straightforward. We need to examine the weight of CE 2562 and determine its accuracy. If we added up the weight of 100 rifles and added the weight of the container there is no way in hell it would come to exactly 750 lbs.

750 lbs was obviously an estimate based on each rifle being 7.5 lbs, excluding the container, regardless whether it was accurate or actually weighed. EOS.

Excluding the container.

So shipping companies don't charge by weight?
Instead, they ..feel sympathetic, and let the customer only pay for the weight of the items they are selling?
Interesting.
Can you provide examples of such practices?

[Jack Trojan]

Excluding the container.

So shipping companies don't charge by weight?
Instead, they ..feel sympathetic, and let the customer only pay for the weight of the items they are selling?
Interesting.
Can you provide examples of such practices?

Or the rifles were 7 lbs x 100 + a 50 lb container. But my point is that if CE 2562 was actually weighed, then it would NOT be exactly 750 lbs. That is obviously an estimate, not an actual weight, for whatever reason.

[John Mytton]

Excluding the container.

So shipping companies don't charge by weight?
Instead, they ..feel sympathetic, and let the customer only pay for the weight of the items they are selling?
Interesting.
Can you provide examples of such practices?

Before I start, C2766 can be traced from Crescent to Kleins to Neely street to The Texas School Book Depository and yet you think the key to deception is an insignificant weight discrepancy? Hilarious!

Here is a copy of the delivery schedule for the Chicago run that had the Kleins delivery and we have 21 weighted objects and ten of those weights end in a zero and another 6 end in a five, does that suggest that every item was weighed to within a pound or did the various companies who sent the items just guess?



And as for how transport companies charge for delivering weighted items, they don't charge for every single gram/pound/kilogram/ton but charge for different weight categories.









JohnM