Lee Oswald The Cop Killer

[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?

[Tim Nickerson]

Please elaborate.

It ended up at the National Archives and Records Service, Federal Records Center, Alexandria, Virginia. Which is where the Treasury Dept officials and Postal Service Inspectors in Washington knew it would be. The Treasury Dept. requested the Postal Inspection Service to find it and, because of the File Locator Number on it, it was found in short order.

The CT myth is that it should have been in Kansas City, Missouri.

[Mitch Todd]

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 rifle was purchased via money order. Money orders are handled more or less like checks, so they inherently leave an easy-to-follow trail through the banking system as they pass from institution to institution. Cash doesn't leave such fingerprints; it just gets piled up and deposited, no more questions asked. That's why it's the preferred method of payment for shifty business.

Anyway, If you read Michaelis' testimony, you'll find that he fingered his exhibit five as the notification from REA that REA had been paid. If you look at the far left of the doc carefully, you'll notice two things. The first is a field for "amount to be paid." It includes the helpful instruction, "for destination agent's use only;" that is, it's for the guys at REA's Dallas office. In fact, it's the spot where the agent on the receiving end tells his coworkers how much to remit back to the shipper. And just below that field, under  "C.O.D. draft issued" there is a serial number stamped, somewhat sloppily. A draft is a form of payment, and REA is issuing it. The only people  they would be issuing to in this case is Seaport Traders.

The draft leaves open an interesting question, since a draft can be a negotiable instrument like a check. However, Seaport Trader's probably did enough business with REA that they had an active account. I'm willing to bet that the draft was simply credited to ST's REA account, and whatever money was paid to REA was the balance of the account after it had been settled for the week/fortnight/month.

That's all kind of long winded. Here's the upshot:

1.) What you say you are looking for is Michaelis exhibit 5
2.) While there is the possibility that a draft was physically issued for the transaction, there is no good reason to expect that it happened that way, and good reason not to.

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.

I have this funny feeling that you won't be satisfied until you locate a time machine, travel back to 1963, go to the Texas Theatre and actually see it for yourself. Just a word of advice: make sure you buy a ticket before you go in. They're sticklers for that in Oak Cliff. Even then, I kinda expect you won't be satisfied.

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.

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

A fiscal year doesn't necessarily start on Jan 1, and there's no guarantee how long that REA would keep the docs for a single transaction for long after everything is settled at FYE.

[Martin Weidmann]

The rifle was purchased via money order. Money orders are handled more or less like checks, so they inherently leave an easy-to-follow trail through the banking system as they pass from institution to institution. Cash doesn't leave such fingerprints; it just gets piled up and deposited, no more questions asked. That's why it's the preferred method of payment for shifty business.

Anyway, If you read Michaelis' testimony, you'll find that he fingered his exhibit five as the notification from REA that REA had been paid. If you look at the far left of the doc carefully, you'll notice two things. The first is a field for "amount to be paid." It includes the helpful instruction, "for destination agent's use only;" that is, it's for the guys at REA's Dallas office. In fact, it's the spot where the agent on the receiving end tells his coworkers how much to remit back to the shipper. And just below that field, under  "C.O.D. draft issued" there is a serial number stamped, somewhat sloppily. A draft is a form of payment, and REA is issuing it. The only people  they would be issuing to in this case is Seaport Traders.

The draft leaves open an interesting question, since a draft can be a negotiable instrument like a check. However, Seaport Trader's probably did enough business with REA that they had an active account. I'm willing to bet that the draft was simply credited to ST's REA account, and whatever money was paid to REA was the balance of the account after it had been settled for the week/fortnight/month.

That's all kind of long winded. Here's the upshot:

1.) What you say you are looking for is Michaelis exhibit 5
2.) While there is the possibility that a draft was physically issued for the transaction, there is no good reason to expect that it happened that way, and good reason not to.

This is a long winded way of presenting speculation whilst not answering my basic question. In his testimony, Michaelis concluded that payment of the C.O.D. amount had been received because two documents were attached to eachother. That's it.... not a word about a draft (which would leave a paper trail) being issued or any further explanation about what was on the document. Now, what Michaelis said may well be true, but it doesn't explain - and that was my question - how Seaport Trading would know which payments were actually received and which documents should be attached to eachother. Your answer, as it is, doesn't explain that either.

I have this funny feeling that you won't be satisfied until you locate a time machine, travel back to 1963, go to the Texas Theatre and actually see it for yourself. Just a word of advice: make sure you buy a ticket before you go in. They're sticklers for that in Oak Cliff. Even then, I kinda expect you won't be satisfied.

You can have a funny feeling as much as you like but in this case you would be wrong. It's really very simple. For a piece of physical evidence, such as a revolver taken from Oswald, there must be a credible chain of custody, which is a way designed by law to ensure that evidence is authentic and not tampered with. In this case, for the revolver there isn't such a chain of custody. Instead what you've got is some police officers being in the department's lunchroom, when Hill walks in (some two hours or so after Oswald's arrest) and he puts a revolver in front of them to be initialed, telling them this is the revolver that was taken from Oswald. They believe him but in truth they really have no way of knowing if what he said was true. It could of course be true, but it most certainly isn't protocol and it leaves the door wide open for a claim of possible evidence tampering. Now, if you are being kind to Hill, you could simply say he screwed up but there was no malice but that would be an opinion based on nothing at all. Now, if this was the only time when there was a problem with timelines and chains of custody you might just accept it as a good faith mistake, but in this case there are similar problems with evidence everywhere you look. And when that happens you can't just ignore it.... at least I can't. Perhaps you can?. with enough bias!

But let me put this question to you; how do you propose to prove that the revolver now in the National Archives is in fact the same revolver that was taken from Oswald at the Texas Theater?

A fiscal year doesn't necessarily start on Jan 1, and there's no guarantee how long that REA would keep the docs for a single transaction for long after everything is settled at FYE.

Nobody said anything about when the fiscal year starts.... between the purchase of the revolver and the murders there was only 8 months. Companies are required to keep the records intact for much longer. Your reply simply exposes your willingness to overlook anything that sheds a bad light on the investigation.

[Joffrey van de Wiel]

I find it odd that 'Oswald's rifle' and 'Oswald's revolver,' although allegedly ordered months apart, were shipped on the exact same date.