Oswald’s Seaport Trader Order Coupon Mystery Solved

[Peter Goth]

Not trying to change subject on this but the PO box itself is suspect too:

The two sets of identification for Oswald and Hidell being found in one wallet was particularly damaging to Oswald, as Oswald denied during the afternoon of November 22 that he was the owner of the rifle. It was worldwide news by 11/23/63 that the rifle that was left at the scene was purchased by mail order with a postal money order used by “A. Hidell” and listing Oswald’s PO Box as the place for pick-up. It did not make the news that this postal money order had no stamp indicating that it was ever used or ever deposited.[ 16 ] Nor did it make the news that postal inspector Harry Holmes admitted that anyone who had access to Oswald’s PO box could have picked up the rifle [or the pistol] without even showing identification. Nor did it make the news that post offices were required by law to retain “delivery receipts for firearms” for four years, something not done in this case. A. J. Hidell was all over Oswald’s phony FPCC literature as the fictional chairman of his fictional New Orleans branch. Oswald and Hidell were now tied together by the rifle and the wallet.

State Secret - https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/State_Secret_Chapter6.html

 

[Tim Nickerson]

Not trying to change subject on this but the PO box itself is suspect too:

It did not make the news that this postal money order had no stamp indicating that it was ever used or ever deposited.

The money order had a stamp on it. One that indicates that Klein's had accepted it. The money order has something else on it that indicates that it was deposited.

Nor did it make the news that post offices were required by law to retain “delivery receipts for firearms” for four years, something not done in this case.

Were they required by law to retain “delivery receipts for firearms” for four years?  What specific law required that?

[Tim Nickerson]

Nor did it make the news that post offices were required by law to retain “delivery receipts for firearms” for four years, something not done in this case.

I followed the link. The Third Decade piece made the claim that forms 2162 and 1508 were required to be retained for four years. However, neither of those forms would have been used at all.  Forms 2162 and 1508 were required for the mailing of concealable firearms. Rifles are not concealable firearms.

[David Von Pein]

To David VP:

That image you posted showing the Traders receipt or order or whatever it is and the address typed up, what exactly is that? Was that sent into the company from the customer to place the order or is it some kind of receipt generated by the company?

It's the internal order invoice created by Seaport Traders on 3/13/63. It's the equivalent of Waldman Exhibit No. 7 for the Klein's/Rifle order. (I find it hard to believe you don't already know this information.)

[Martin Weidmann]

It's the internal order invoice created by Seaport Traders on 3/13/63. It's the equivalent of Waldman Exhibit No. 7 for the Klein's/Rifle order. (I find it hard to believe you don't already know this information.)

David,

Do you agree that, by themselves, these two documents, and Waldman 7, have very little to none evidentiary value, as they are merely internal documents with no direct relation to Oswald?

[Thomas Graves]

David,

Do you agree that, by themselves, these two documents, and Waldman 7, have very little to no evidentiary value, as they are merely internal documents with no direct relation to Oswald?

Dear Marty,

Just curious.

If Joe Blow had ordered guns from the same companies (or ones like them), would you expect them to create a document or documents showing or proving a "direct relationship" with Mr. Blow?  And what do you mean by "direct relationship" in this context, anyway?

A Xerox of the money order, check, or ...?

Isn't the purchaser's name and mailing address on the documents good enough, especially if the company reasonably assumed that the post office would ensure that only that person would be allowed to collect the package?

--  MWT 

[Michael Walton]

David, thanks for clarifying. That's what I thought but just wanted to make sure. I do find it interesting how they're filled out and yet the name and address is stamped onto them and not filled out like the rest of the entries on it.

I mean, what are the odds that these companies are taking in hundreds if not thousands of orders and what did Judy in the office do - create a stamp for every single customer?

It'd be interesting to see what John Smith's and Harry Davis's internal paperwork looked like - the ones before and after this one.