Lee Oswald The Cop Killer

[Walt Cakebread]

If not, no one would buy one.
I know I wouldn't.
If you would ID these pistols that don't have extractor wheels?

Most revolvers do NOT extract all of the spent shells at once....Here's a few of the many in which the spent shell is extracted one at a time... Ruger, Hi Standard, Colt, ...there's more......

[Martin Weidmann]

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.

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.



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

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.

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.

Actually, I don't know what the Klein's stamp on the money order certifies nor have I been shown that the money order reached the Treasury Department. As I understand it, the money order was found at a location where it shouldn't have ended up if it had gone through the system correctly, which of course also makes the explanation that the Treasury Department "receiving" the money order is "confirmation that it had been cashed" a bit questionable. But, be all that as it may, you missed the point I was making. Despite the fact that the Klein's money order had no or very limited evidentiary value when it comes to the actual shipping of the rifle, they searched for it nevertheless.

At Seaport Trading, where the receipt of the C.O.D. amount, also confirmed the collection of the package, they never did that!

What for?

You said it yourself;

In a perfect world, we'd have a bank statement showing the transfer from Railway Express available to us today.

Why would you accept anything less than perfect, when you don't have to?

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.

As I said earlier; you're easy to please! A bankstatement confirming the receipt of a transfer is easily obtainable. The fact that there isn't on in the evidence is extremely telling, if you ask me.

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

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.

You keep on asking the same question I have already answered. A bankstatement confirming the transfer from RE would have eliminated every doubt that the package was collected and that the C.O.D. amount was paid.

I can't make out if the "paid" you have underlined on the invoice is for the full amount or just for the deposit of $10,00. It says on the invoice that it was prepared on 03/18/63 and that the shipment went out on 03/20/63 with an approximate delivery date of one week. All Seaport Trading had when the invoice was prepared was the deposit. I don't know who wrote "paid" on the document or when that was done, but it seems to me that if it was for the full amount, Michaelis could have said so in his testimony. He didn't and instead only concluded that the full payment was received because two documents were attached to eachother, which makes me believe that the "paid" only related to the $10,00 already received, with $19,95 to be collected upon delivery.

[Mitch Todd]

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.

Based on my own experiences back in the day before databases tracked everything, I very much doubt it. The cash from such a transaction would have been lumped in with that from other transactions the REA office made that day, dumped into a vinyl bag, and deposited in one big lump o' tender. I've never seen a bank statement where a cash deposit was broken down  the way you seem to think it would be.  It would be different if a negotiable instrument were involved, but that 's not the case here.

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.

The order form is in Oswald's handwriting, Hidell's name, and lists Oswald's P.O. box as the ship to address. Seaport Traders' internal documentation shows that the make, model, modifications, and serial number of the pistol shipped to "Hidell" match the pistol taken from Oswald at the Texas Theatre. At this point what more do you need?   

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?

So, what you really want is to know more about the documentation that REA might have generated in all of this, and not really anything about bank statements. My first questions would be, what would they have kept and how long would they have kept it?

[Tim Nickerson]

Actually, I don't know what the Klein's stamp on the money order certifies nor have I been shown that the money order reached the Treasury Department.

Actually, it was a stamp on Klein's invoice that demonstrated that the money order had passed through their cash register. The File Locator Number on the money order establishes that it reached the Treasury Department.

As I understand it, the money order was found at a location where it shouldn't have ended up if it had gone through the system correctly, which of course also makes the explanation that the Treasury Department "receiving" the money order is "confirmation that it had been cashed" a bit questionable.

You understand it incorrectly. It ended up exactly where it was supposed to end up.

But, be all that as it may, you missed the point I was making. Despite the fact that the Klein's money order had no or very limited evidentiary value when it comes to the actual shipping of the rifle, they searched for it nevertheless.

At Seaport Trading, where the receipt of the C.O.D. amount, also confirmed the collection of the package, they never did that!

With the Klein's money order, it was something that was known to exist. We don't know that a bank statement unique to the $29.95 payment ever existed . As Mitch Todd has noted, that $29.95 was likely lumped in with other transactions made that day.

You said it yourself;

Why would you accept anything less than perfect, when you don't have to?

I'm a realist. I know that we don't live in a perfect world. We sometimes have to accept what we're dealt with.

You keep on asking the same question I have already answered. A bankstatement confirming the transfer from RE would have eliminated every doubt that the package was collected and that the C.O.D. amount was paid.

Not to you it wouldn't.

I can't make out if the "paid" you have underlined on the invoice is for the full amount or just for the deposit of $10,00. It says on the invoice that it was prepared on 03/18/63 and that the shipment went out on 03/20/63 with an approximate delivery date of one week. All Seaport Trading had when the invoice was prepared was the deposit. I don't know who wrote "paid" on the document or when that was done, but it seems to me that if it was for the full amount, Michaelis could have said so in his testimony. He didn't and instead only concluded that the full payment was received because two documents were attached to eachother, which makes me believe that the "paid" only related to the $10,00 already received, with $19,95 to be collected upon delivery.

Paid is obviously for the full amount. It's inane to suggest otherwise.

[Bill Brown]

Actually, it was a stamp on Klein's invoice that demonstrated that the money order had passed through their cash register. The File Locator Number on the money order establishes that it reached the Treasury Department.

You understand it incorrectly. It ended up exactly where it was supposed to end up.

With the Klein's money order, it was something that was known to exist. We don't know that a bank statement unique to the $29.95 payment ever existed . As Mitch Todd has noted, that $29.95 was likely lumped in with other transactions made that day.

I'm a realist. I know that we don't live in a perfect world. We sometimes have to accept what we're dealt with.

Not to you it wouldn't.

Paid is obviously for the full amount. It's inane to suggest otherwise.

Good to have you back, Tim.  You stayed away much too long.  I'm going to call you the "Weidmann Whisperer".

[Martin Weidmann]

Based on my own experiences back in the day before databases tracked everything, I very much doubt it. The cash from such a transaction would have been lumped in with that from other transactions the REA office made that day, dumped into a vinyl bag, and deposited in one big lump o' tender. I've never seen a bank statement where a cash deposit was broken down  the way you seem to think it would be.  It would be different if a negotiable instrument were involved, but that 's not the case here.

Perhaps you are right, but if your speculation is true, how would Seaport Traders ever know which shipments were paid and which were not? Klein's also made deposits of lumped sums, but they at least kept a list of the individual items. Do you have anything to suggest that Seaport Traders wouldn't have a similar system?

The order form is in Oswald's handwriting, Hidell's name, and lists Oswald's P.O. box as the ship to address. Seaport Traders' internal documentation shows that the make, model, modifications, and serial number of the pistol shipped to "Hidell" match the pistol taken from Oswald at the Texas Theatre. At this point what more do you need?   

At this point what more do you need?

How do you know that the revolver taken from Oswald at the Texas Theater is the one shipped to "Hidell"? I know that the revolver now in evidence is the one sold by Seaport Traders, but I don't know if that was the revolver they took from Oswald.

So, what you really want is to know more about the documentation that REA might have generated in all of this, and not really anything about bank statements.

What I really want to know is what I have been asking for all along; conclusive evidence of a transfer from Railway Express to Seaport Trading for the C.O.D. amount they had collected.

My first questions would be, what would they have kept and how long would they have kept it?

As we are talking about events that took place in one fiscal year, I would expect their records to be complete.

[Martin Weidmann]

Actually, it was a stamp on Klein's invoice that demonstrated that the money order had passed through their cash register. The File Locator Number on the money order establishes that it reached the Treasury Department.

I'd better have another look at the Klein's invoice.

You understand it incorrectly. It ended up exactly where it was supposed to end up.

Please elaborate.

With the Klein's money order, it was something that was known to exist. We don't know that a bank statement unique to the $29.95 payment ever existed . As Mitch Todd has noted, that $29.95 was likely lumped in with other transactions made that day.

But we do know that $19,95 should have been collected and it stands to reason that this money had to make it's way back to Seaport Trading somehow, right? In other words, it may not have involved a money order, but there certainly should have been a money trail. And what Mitch Todd and you think is likely, doesn't really tell me much. A couple of decades ago I owned a mail order business for vinyl records and yes, we would get a lump sum deposit in our account from the postoffice on a daily basis, but we also got an itemized list to go along with it.

I'm a realist. I know that we don't live in a perfect world. We sometimes have to accept what we're dealt with.

I repeat; you're easy to please. Btw a realist would also understand that it's not always a good thing to accept the first thing offered to you and not ask follow up questions.

Not to you it wouldn't.

Well, I just said it would, so what do you know that I don't?

Paid is obviously for the full amount. It's inane to suggest otherwise.

Obviously? That's the reply to the reasoning I gave you for believing it was only for the $ 10,00 deposit?