Lee Oswald The Cop Killer

[Tim Nickerson]

The two documents would not have been attached to each other if the payment had not been received.

In a perfect world, that might be true, but why rely on a conclusion by Michaelis when a document showing the actual receipt (like a bankstatement showing the tranfer from Railway Express) would prove it conclusively?

Wrong. In a perfect world, we'd have a bank statement showing the transfer from Railway Express available to us today. Unfortunately, we do not. We'll just have to rely on the available documents and on what Michaelis testified to under oath. And why shouldn't we?

[Martin Weidmann]

Wrong. In a perfect world, we'd have a bank statement showing the transfer from Railway Express available to us today. Unfortunately, we do not. We'll just have to rely on the available documents and on what Michaelis testified to under oath. And why shouldn't we?

we'd have a bank statement showing the transfer from Railway Express available to us today. Unfortunately, we do not.

And why is that? At Klein's they tried to trace the money order, so why not check an easily obtainable bankstatement?

We'll just have to rely on the available documents and on what Michaelis testified to under oath.

Why should we have to rely on a conclusion of a witness?

And why shouldn't we?

Because conclusive evidence such as a bankstatement confirming a transfer from Railway Express trumps a conclusion by a witness that is only based on two pieces of paper being attached to eachother.

[Mitch Todd]

we'd have a bank statement showing the transfer from Railway Express available to us today. Unfortunately, we do not.

And why is that? At Klein's they tried to trace the money order, so why not check an easily obtainable bankstatement?

We'll just have to rely on the available documents and on what Michaelis testified to under oath.

Why should we have to rely on a conclusion of a witness?

And why shouldn't we?

Because conclusive evidence such as a bankstatement confirming a transfer from Railway Express trumps a conclusion by a witness that is only based on two pieces of paper being attached to eachother.

What do you really expect from a bank statement, exactly? For that matter, what documentation do you think would have been generated specifically for the transaction between Oswald/Hidell/etc and Railway Express, over and above what has already presented? I expect that the person receiving the shipment would have been given a receipt, but I also expect that the receipt would have soon wound up where the great majority of them do: in the circular file. Beyond that, I doubt there would be anything else.

[Tim Nickerson]

we'd have a bank statement showing the transfer from Railway Express available to us today. Unfortunately, we do not.

And why is that? At Klein's they tried to trace the money order, so why not check an easily obtainable bankstatement?

You mean the money order that was found and that you refuse to accept as having been cashed? That one?

We'll just have to rely on the available documents and on what Michaelis testified to under oath.

Why should we have to rely on a conclusion of a witness?

Because that's all we've got that's why. Well, that and the documents themselves. Michaelis exhibit #2 shows us that the full amount of $29.95 had been paid.

b]And why shouldn't we? [/b]

Because conclusive evidence such as a bankstatement confirming a transfer from Railway Express trumps a conclusion by a witness that is only based on two pieces of paper being attached to eachother.

Why would a bank statement trump the two documents and the sworn testimony of Michaelis?

[Martin Weidmann]

What do you really expect from a bank statement, exactly? For that matter, what documentation do you think would have been generated specifically for the transaction between Oswald/Hidell/etc and Railway Express, over and above what has already presented? I expect that the person receiving the shipment would have been given a receipt, but I also expect that the receipt would have soon wound up where the great majority of them do: in the circular file. Beyond that, I doubt there would be anything else.

What do you really expect from a bank statement, exactly?

As Railway Express would not transfer money they did not receive to Seaport Trading, I would suggest that a bankstatement would confirm that a transfer was indeed received, which in turn would confirm that the transaction had been completed and that the C.O..D. package had indeed been collected.

For that matter, what documentation do you think would have been generated specifically for the transaction between Oswald/Hidell/etc and Railway Express, over and above what has already presented?

So far, there are no documents to conclusively show that the C.O.D. amount of $19,90 was collected. All there is to link the C.O.D. package to Hidell is an order form. Everything else is internal documentation from Seaport Trading.

I expect that the person receiving the shipment would have been given a receipt, but I also expect that the receipt would have soon wound up where the great majority of them do: in the circular file. Beyond that, I doubt there would be anything else.

Really? Yes, the person paying for the package would most likely get a receipt, but just as likely would Railway Express retain a copy of that document for their administration. And then of course, the money would have needed to be transferred to Seaport Trading, which would very likely have generated another document of some kind, don't you think?

[Martin Weidmann]

You mean the money order that was found and that you refuse to accept as having been cashed? That one?

Because that's all we've got that's why. Well, that and the documents themselves. Michaelis exhibit #2 shows us that the full amount of $29.95 had been paid.

Why would a bank statement trump the two documents and the sworn testimony of Michaelis?

You mean the money order that was found and that you refuse to accept as having been cashed? That one?

Just because you are easily convinced, doesn't mean others have to be as well, Tim. Besides, I don't think I have ever refused to accept anything of the kind. In fact, when conclusive evidence for it is presented, I will have no problem accepting that the money order issued to Klein's was indeed cashed, but I don't believe I have ever seen anything remotely close to conclusive evidence that it was. All I have ever seen is a weak claim that an amount on a list, equal in value to the amount of the money order, must be the amount of the money order.

Now, can you explain why the investigators never took the trouble to ask for something as simple as a bankstatement to confirm the transfer from Railway Express, or are you going to try to pivot away from that again?

Because that's all we've got that's why. Well, that and the documents themselves. Michaelis exhibit #2 shows us that the full amount of $29.95 had been paid.

Are you always this easy to please, Tim? Please show me where on exhibit #2 does it say that the full amount was paid?

Why would a bank statement trump the two documents and the sworn testimony of Michaelis?

First of all, this is so selfevident that I am surprised it needs to be explained to you. Secondly, the two documents do not prove that the payment of the C.O.D. amount was received and Michealis does not confirm from personal knowledge that the money was received, he merely concluded that it was because the two documents were attached to eachother. The entire thing is a typical case of a witness saying "believe me, because I say so".

Now, don't get me wrong. Before you go there; I am not claiming that Michealis was lying. He may well have offered his conclusion in good faith, but IMO in any other case but this one a mere conclusion by a witness would hardly be sufficient.
 

[Tim Nickerson]

You mean the money order that was found and that you refuse to accept as having been cashed? That one?

Just because you are easily convinced, doesn't mean others have to be as well, Tim. Besides, I don't think I have ever refused to accept anything of the kind. In fact, when conclusive evidence for it is presented, I will have no problem accepting that the money order issued to Klein's was indeed cashed, but I don't believe I have ever seen anything remotely close to conclusive evidence that it was. All I have ever seen is a weak claim that an amount on a list, equal in value to the amount of the money order, must be the amount of the money order.

Martin, you've seen the money order. You've seen Klein's stamp on it which certifies that it passed through their till. You were shown that the money order had reached the U.S. Treasury Department and it was explained to you that the fact that the Treasury Dept received it was confirmation that it had been cashed.

Now, can you explain why the investigators never took the trouble to ask for something as simple as a bankstatement to confirm the transfer from Railway Express, or are you going to try to pivot away from that again?

What for? How would I know if they took the trouble to ask or not? We don't have a bank statement. I don't know why and I don't care. We have what we have. It is more than enough.

Because that's all we've got that's why. Well, that and the documents themselves. Michaelis exhibit #2 shows us that the full amount of $29.95 had been paid.

Are you always this easy to please, Tim? Please show me where on exhibit #2 does it say that the full amount was paid?

It's right there. I underlined it in red for you.

Why would a bank statement trump the two documents and the sworn testimony of Michaelis?

First of all, this is so selfevident that I am surprised it needs to be explained to you. Secondly, the two documents do not prove that the payment of the C.O.D. amount was received and Michealis does not confirm from personal knowledge that the money was received, he merely concluded that it was because the two documents were attached to eachother. The entire thing is a typical case of a witness saying "believe me, because I say so".

Now, don't get me wrong. Before you go there; I am not claiming that Michealis was lying. He may well have offered his conclusion in good faith, but IMO in any other case but this one a mere conclusion by a witness would hardly be sufficient.

It may be self-evident to you but it's not to me. Why would a bank statement trump the two documents and the sworn testimony of Michaelis?  The Exhibit #2 shows that the $29.95 was paid and Michaelis himself confirmed under oath that it was. Explain how a bank statement would trump both of those taken together.