Users Currently Browsing This Topic:
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Author Topic: Statements That Sink The WC's Conclusions -- #121  (Read 233 times)

Online Rob Caprio

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1439
  • You only receive flak when you are over the target
Statements That Sink The WC's Conclusions -- #121
« on: March 13, 2018, 10:12:05 PM »
📥 "Whether you agree with him or not, researchers such as Rob Caprio for example, took the sensible initiative and saved his own research, and he is now reposting them back on the Forum.
All other members are free to do the same.” –Duncan MacRae

********************************************

Disclaimer: I will no longer respond to any posts that are off topic and/or meant to derail the issue of the opening post. This should not be taken as me running, but instead seen as me keeping the topic on track.

I have no issue with any WC defender, therefore, I am happy to discuss the case in a manner that uses the actual evidence with them. IF the WC was correct in their final conclusion as they claim then this should be no problem for them.

I will not participate in any personal discussions with them as these are meant to distract and discredit instead of focusing on the JFK assassination. I come here to discuss and learn about the JFK assassination and nothing more.
No more games with the LNers. The LNers have to to discuss the WC's, HSCA's and ARRB's evidence or move along.

*******************************************

The Warren Commission (WC) claimed Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) ordered and received a Mannlicher-Carcano 6.5 rifle from the Chicago based mail-order house Klein’s Sporting Goods (KSP) in March 1963. As we have seen in previous posts in this series the rifle was NEVER sent or received by LHO at his Dallas P.O. Box due to him NOT listing a “A. Hidell” on part III of the application (this allowed others you designated to receive mail at your box).

Since this is a FACT, this means the order NEVER happened as claimed OR he received the rifle in another way (i.e. someone delivered it to him, gave it to him, lent it to him, etc…) and this tends to lead to a conspiracy conclusion.

Let’s look at the evidence that allegedly shows he did order the rifle from KSP in March 1963.


*****************************************

The key piece is Commission Exhibit (CE) 773.  This was said to be an order form taken from the February 1963 edition of the American Rifleman magazine published by the National Rifleman Association (NRA). Here it is.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

The order form is pretty basic and if we look at it we will see the KEY parts are the catalog number, the price and the department it was sent to. Here they are in the order I just wrote them out in.

Quote on

Catalog #: C20-T750
Price: $19.95
Department: 358 (from envelope)

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Waldman Ex. 8

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Quote off

If we go back to the twenty-six volumes of evidence to correlate the catalog number with the order we will have an issue.  Why? Because the WC, via witness Postal Inspector Harry Holmes, entered into evidence the WRONG AD for us to check!

Mr. BELIN. You have what magazine?

Mr. HOLMES. Field and Stream of November 1963.

Mr. BELIN. You found a Field and Stream magazine of just November 1963?

Mr. HOLMES. It was the current magazine on the rack.

Mr. BELIN. You got it to look for a gun and identified it in this magazine?

Is this the page? I will call it Holmes Deposition Exhibit 2.

Mr. HOLMES. Here, page 98.

Mr. BELIN. Well, it is on the back of a page numbered 98, is that right?

Mr. HOLMES. That's right.

Mr. BELIN. Or the front side. I am marking on the top of it, "Holmes Deposition Exhibit 2."

Was that the page you tore out?

Mr. HOLMES. Yes, sir.

Why would the largest investigation in the U.S.’s history (up to that time) need to use a magazine that had NOTHING to do with the situation at hand? This is ridiculous. The magazine the WC claimed LHO used was the American Rifleman and NOT the Field & Stream and it was from FEBRUARY 1963 NOT November 1963. How can we expect to find the truth using tainted evidence like this? This isn’t SEMANTICS folks as the DESCRIPTION in the two magazines of what you would get is TOTALLY DIFFERENT, and thus, that is why it was CHANGED IMO.

In the February issue of American Rifleman catalog number C20-T750 correlates to a 36” CARBINE! The alleged murder weapon, CE-139, is a 40” Short Rifle.


CE-139:

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

This is why they SWITCHED the ads as the November issue of Field & Stream only mentions a 40” model. It gives the catalog number of C20-1196, NOT C20-T750!  The number below the C20-1196 number is DIFFERENT too—C20-750 as the “T” is missing from the ad in February! There is NO way this is the same ad for the SAME rifle so it was very misleading and dishonest to include this into evidence to represent what LHO would have used (if he used anything).

November 1963 Field & Stream advertisement:


You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

We have further proof that the alleged order would have come from the February 1963 issue of American Rifleman too. It comes via the Vice President of KSP—William Waldman.

Mr. BELIN. Can you just give us one or more of the magazines in which this coupon might have been taken?

Mr. WALDMAN. Well, this coupon was specifically taken from American Rifleman Magazine, issue of February 1963. It's identified by the department number which is shown as--now, if I can read this--shown as Department 358 on the coupon.

Mr. BELIN. And that number also appears in the address on the envelope to you, is that correct, or to your company?

Mr. WALDMAN. That's correct.

Mr. BELIN. Now, I believe that you said the total amount was $19.95, plus $1.50 for shipping charges, or $21.45; is that correct?

Mr. WALDMAN. The $1.50 is for both shipping charges and handling.

What is odd is that the order form does NOT reflect the S&H costs at all—it simply shows $19.95 as the total amount enclosed. This testimony shows us LHO, or whomever filled this out, was ordering from the February issue of the American Rifleman and NOT the November issue of the Field & Stream that is in evidence. Again, why was the WRONG ADVERTISEMENT admitted into evidence in a case involving the murder of our president?

The other thing the November issue of the Field & Stream offers is something which was NOT available in March 1963--a SCOPE mounting option for the 40” model. We would see this was NOT an option from testimony given by FBI expert Robert Frazier when he said this to the WC. His testimony included a comment about that in order to ascertain whether or not Klein's mounted the scope on the rifle, the FBI asked them to supply a duplicate rifle with a scope and then HAD TO TELL KLEIN'S WHERE ON THE FRAME TO MOUNT THE SCOPE.


Mr. FRAZIER. We contacted the firm, Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago, and asked them concerning this matter to provide us with a similar rifle mounted in the way in which they normally mount scopes of this type on these rifles, and forward the rifle to us for examination. In this connection, we did inform them that the scope should be in approximately this position on the frame of the weapon.

Mr. EISENBERG. Pardon me, Mr. Frazier. When you say "this position," so that the record is clear could you—

Mr. FRAZIER. Oh, yes; in the position in which it now is, approximately three-eighths of an inch to the rear of the receiver ring.

This clearly shows the folks at KSP had NOT yet had experience in mounting scopes on the 40” model. This testimony would be corroborated many years later by Mitchell Westra and William Sharp. This is from an article by James DiEugenio called “Von  Pein: Still Cheerleading” and is on the CTKA website.

Quote on

The Klein's employee who originated the idea of mounting a scope on the rifle was Mitchell Westra. He told the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) that Klein's only mounted the scope on the 36 inch MC. (HSCA interview of Westra 2/20/78.)  The man who actually mounted the scopes for Klein's was Bill Sharp, their in-house gunsmith.  He confirmed what Westra testified to: the package deal with the scope and MC rifle was used by Klein's to market the 36 inch MC. (HSCA interview of Sharp, 2/21/78.)  Again, if this is so, where did the Warren Commission's rifle -- a 40 inch MC with scope -- come from?

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Quote off

So we see TWO KSP employees said they did NOT mount scopes on the 40” model in March of 1963. True, some WC defenders like to claim this proves nothing, but it is the WEIGHT of evidence that leads us into a direction and that weight leans to them NOT mounting scopes on 40” models.

This leads us to the question of where did this 40” model with a scope come from then? There are other issues too, like the money order used to allegedly purchase this weapon with.  Let’s head back to Holmes’ WC testimony.


Mr. BELIN. I notice there is a magazine or there is a number of guns identified on that page.

Mr. HOLMES. Yes, sir.

Mr. BELIN. I See one circled in red, is that correct?

Mr. HOLMES. That's correct.

Mr. BELIN. Who circled that in red?

Mr. HOLMES. I did.

Mr. BELIN. Then I see that it is a picture with a gun with a scope on it and it says, "6.5 Italian carbine," in big black letters. And underneath it says, "Late military issue. Only 40 inches overall. Weighs 7 lbs. Shows only slight use, test-fired and head spaced, ready for shooting. Turned-down bolt. 6-shot, clip fed, rear sight." And it is marked "$12.78."

Mr. HOLMES. With scope, it is $19.95.

Mr. BELIN. There is a number. That $12.78 says "C20-1196." And underneath that it says, "C20-750, carbine with brand new 4x- 3/4" diameter (illustrated) $19.95." Is that right?

Mr. HOLMES. That's correct.

Notice this confirms the catalog numbers I listed above—neither of these are C20-T750 as we see in the ad LHO allegedly used.

Mr. BELIN. Then on the lower right-hand corner of the page there is a kind of place for clipping out of coupons It is marked "Klein's Sporting Goods at 227 West Washington Street, Chicago 6, Illinois," then there is a place for a box to be checked. It says, "cash customers, send check or money order in full. Unless otherwise specified, send $1.00 postage and handling on any size order . . . $1.50 on shotgun and rifles."

Then there is a place at the bottom of the page. It is a place for putting the name and address and the city and State, is that correct?

Mr. HOLMES. That's correct.

The amount for the rifle with scope plus S&H is $2145 per Holmes and the Postal Inspector for Chicago, IL. Here is what Holmes said before the WC regarding the money order.

Mr. BELIN. Then what was the next thing that you had contact with pertaining to the assassination?

Mr. HOLMES. Saturday morning----

Mr. BELIN. This would be November 23?

Mr. HOLMES. Twenty-third. I came into the lobby of the terminal annex, and the postal inspector that was on duty mentioned that the FBI agent had called to inquire as to how they could obtain an original post office money order. He said he had told them that they would have to get it in Washington, but would have to know the number of the post office money order. So he was worrying then as to how he could get that number.

So I knew about the post office money order. They said that Oswald---they said that also this FBI agent had passed on the information that I don't know whether he told him or I called the FBI after--I went on up to my office, but somewhere I got the information that the FBI had knowledge that a gun of this particular Italian make and caliber had been purchased from Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago, that it had been purchased, and the FBI furnished me the information that a money order of some description in the amount of $21.95 had been used as reimbursement for the gun that had been purchased from Klein's in Chicago, and that the purchase date was March 20, 1963. I immediately had some men begin to search the Dallas money order records with the thought that they might have used a U.S. postal money order to buy this gun.

Mr. BELIN. Now I notice on a piece of scrap paper you have taken the $19.95 which would be the exact amount for the rifle with the scope, and then added the $1.50 for the charge that the coupon says for postage and handling and you come up with a total of $21.45. I thought you said the FBI said $21.95?

Mr. HOLMES. He had, and that was the amount of money order I had been looking for. So I had my postal inspector in charge call our Chicago office and suggested that he get an inspector out to Klein's Sporting Goods and recheck it for accuracy, that if our looking at the right gun in the magazine, they were looking for the wrong money order.

Mr. BELIN. So what happened?

Mr. HOLMES. So in about an hour Postal Inspector McGee of Chicago called back then and said that the correct amount was $21.95---$21.45 excuse me, and that the shipping---they had received this money order on March the 13th, whereas I had been looking for March 20.

Mr. BELIN. I am going to get to that. Then what did you do?

Mr. HOLMES. I gave that information to my boss by telephone. He called Washington immediately. Of course this information included the money order number. This number was transmitted by phone to the chief inspector in Washington, who immediately got the money order center at Washington to begin a search, which they use IBM equipment to kick out this money order, and about 7 o'clock Saturday night they did kick out the original money order and sent it over by, so they said, by special conveyance to the Secret Service, chief of Secret Service at Washington now, and it turned out, so they said, to be the correct money order. I asked them by phone as to what it said on it, and it said it had been issued to A. J. Hidell, which to me then was the tip that I had the correct money order. Up to then I didn't know whether I had the correct money order or not.

Mr. BELIN. Anything else now about this money order? Do you have a record of the number of the money order?

Mr. HOLMES. No; I don't.

Well, Holmes may not have had more about the money order, but researchers over the years sure did/do. Here are the points research have shown over the years.

1) It appears that the unused, never-deposited money order was removed from the middle of a stack of postal orders at the Dallas GPO by a postal employee on the afternoon of November 23 (circa 3:00 p.m.).

Note: The serial number of the money order, No. 2,202,130,462, indicates that it came from money orders that were not sold by the GPO in Dallas until late 1964 or early 1965.

2) The postal employee who removed the money order then used a cancellation stamp from the Dallas GPO to stamp the front side "MAR 12, 63 DALLAS, TEX GPO."  The money order was then flown to Washington DC and arrived a few hours later (which may explain why Harry Holmes told postal inspectors in Fort Worth the serial number of the money order at 3:30 p.m., but waited several hours before advising the money order could be located in Washington, DC).

3) After arriving in Washington, DC the $21.45 money order was either planted among used money orders at the Federal Records Center or given directly to Robert Jackson, an employee of the National Archives. Jackson hand carried the postal money order to J. Harold Marks who then gave it to Secret Service Agent Parker who gave it to the FBI.

Who was the Dallas postal employee who could have fabricated the $21.45 money order?  To answer that question we only need to look at the facts surrounding the money order and the Dallas postal employee who:

o Provided the FBI and Secret Service information following the assassination.
o Allegedly found a postal money order "stub" which disappeared.
o Knew the serial number of the $21.45 money order (circa 3:30 p.m.).
o Advised the money order could be located in Washington, DC (circa 6:30 p.m.).
o Told the WC the delay in finding the money order was caused by the FBI.
o Told several different stories about finding a Nov, 63' issue of Field & Stream.
o Never discussed postal regulations concerning firearms with the WC.
o Lied about statements made during LHO's interrogation.

This Dallas employee was most likely Inspector/FBI Informant Harry Holmes. The money order issue is a big one as the number on the one allegedly used by LHO was NOT for sale in February 1963 (or any part of 1963 for that matter), so how could LHO get it to use? Researcher John Armstrong has devoted years to study in this area and here is what he has said about the money order issue.

CE-788, Postal Money Order:


You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Quote on

The FBI obtained US postal money order No. 2,202,130,462 from the Secret Service and gave it to the Warren Commission.   The money order was made payable to the order of "Klein's Sporting Goods," the purchaser was listed as "A. Hidell," and the address was listed as "P.O. Box 2915, Dallas Texas."  The first order of business for the Commission was to show that "Lee Harvey Oswald" purchased the money order.  To "prove" their claim the Commission asked the FBI for a handwriting analysis.

FBI document "experts" Alwyn Cole and James Cadigan examined the money order and gave their opinions to the Commission.  Cole testified that the writing on the money order with the known writing of Oswald. Cadigan testified the writing on the money order was done by Lee Harvey Oswald but only by comparing the words "Dallas, Texas" with Oswald's known writing.

The Commission then needed to show the money order was purchased and the airmailed from Dallas before noon.  If the mony order was mailed from Dallas after 10:00 a.m., it could not have reached Chicago and could not have been deposited into Klein's bank account the following day.

NOTE:  It is extremely unlikely that a letter mailed from Dallas in 1963 could have reached Klein's office, in Chicago, the following day.

Harry Holmes told the WC, "The money order had been issued early in the morning of March the 12th, 1963.  Belin failed to ask Holmes how he knew the money order was issued on the morning of March 12.

NOTE: There is nothing on the front or backside of the money order that indicates it had been issued on the morning of March 12. There was, however, a postmark of 10:30 a.m. on the mailing envelope which allegedly contained the money order and coupon.  But Klein's allegedly discarded the envelope when they received "Hidell's" order and the only copy of the envelope was on Klein's microfilm, which had been given to the FBI at 5:00 a.m. on November 23 and was not seen again until William Waldman's testimony in Chicago, on May 20, 1964.  There is no legitimate way for Harry Holmes to have known about the 10:30 am postmark on the mailing envelope.

Klein's Vice President William Waldman discussed the mailing envelope with the Commission and said, "This shows in the upper left-hand corner the return address of a. Hidell, Post Office Box 2915, Dallas, Tex."  Waldman apparently never noticed the "12" following, "Dallas, TX," which indicated the letter was mailed in postal zone 12, which was several miles from downtown Dallas.

NOTE: David Belin should have asked Waldman why Klein's microfilmed the envelope in which the order was received, yet failed to microfilm the postal money order.

David Belin asked Waldman about depositing the money order into Klein's bank account and said, "I hand you what has been marked as Commission Exhibit No, 788, which appears to be a US Postal money order payable to the order of Klein's Sporting Goods....And on the reverse side there appears to be an endorsement....I wonder if you would read the endorsement, if you would, and examine it, please."

As an experienced attorney and businessman Belin knew that the stamp on the backside of the money order was a "deposit endorsement."   He also knew that the money order did not have a single bank endorsement or date stamp and no indication whatsoever that it was ever deposited into a bank or financial institution.

Belin asked Waldman when the money order was deposited to the Klein's bank account and he replied, "I CANNOT specifically say when this money order was deposited by our company......" Waldman could not determine the date of deposit was because there was no bank endorsement or date stamp anywhere on the money order.

NOTE: Both Waldman and Belin should have realized that a postal money order with no bank endorsement or date stamps could not possibly have been deposited to Klein's bank account, routed through the US banking system, or returned to the US Post Office. IT is difficult to believe that neither the FBI, Secret Service, Dallas Police, Warren Commission members, their staff attorneys, nor anyone who examined this postal money order noticed that bank endorsements and dates were missing.

By ignoring the fact that the postal money order lacked a single bank endorsement or date stamps, and therefore could not have been deposited into any financial institution, the Commission demonstrated their willingness to manipulate evidence in order to frame Oswald. (Emphasis mine)

Harvey and Lee, How The CIA Framed Oswald, J. Armstrong pps. 467-77

Quote off

We see a lot in this synopsis, don’t we. Like how did Holmes know the time when LHO would have purchased the money order? Why did LHO go miles away to purchase this money order when he did NOT drive? Why did KSP microfilmed the envelope but NOT the money order? Why was there no depositing stamp on the back of the money order to show it was deposited by KSP?

Waldman, with Belin’s help would try and claim that Waldman Exhibit 10 showed the deposit of the money order, but again Armstrong was on this.


Quote on

David Belin ignored the fact that the $21.45  money order contained no bank endorsement stamps and asked William Waldman, "Do you have any way of knowing when exactly this money order was deposited by your Company?"  Waldman said, "I cannot specifically say when this money order was deposited by our company; however, as previously stated, a money order for $21.45 passed through our cash register on March 13, 1963....we show an item of $21.45 as indicated on the ***Xerox copy*** of our deposit slip marked, or identified by-Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 10."  Belin added, "And on that deposit, one of the items is $21.45 out of a total deposit that day of $13,827.98; is that correct?  Waldman answered, "That's correct."

The item for $21.45 appears in the first column under the heading "Checks other Chicago Banks" and, if accurately recorded, was a CHECK in the amount of $21.45 from another Chicago bank. If Belin had conducted an honest investigation he would have wanted to know why a money order from Dallas, Texas was listed under "Checks other Chicago Banks."

In addition to the discrepancies mentioned above, the First National Bank of Chicago deposit slip of $13,827.98 is dated February 15, 1963- a month before the $21.45 money order was purchased!!

In order for the Commission to conclude that a postal money order purchased by Oswald in the amount of $21.45 was deposited to Klein's bank account in March, they had to IGNORE the date of February 15 on the First National Bank deposit slip (February 15, 1963), IGNORE the fact statement of Robert Wilmouth, ignore the list of deposits totaling $2116.91, IGNORE the fact that the $21.45 entries came from "Other Chicago banks, and IGNORE he fact that money order No. 2,202,130,462 was never deposited into any financial institution. The fact that the Commission made no attempt to resolve any of these discrepancies clearly demonstrates their willingness to manipulate evidence in order to help frame Oswald.

Today, it is impossible to verify the date of any of the entries to Kleins' bank account.  Klein's microfilm records DISAPPEARED WHILE in FBI custody, Klein's Sporting Goods went bankrupt in December, 1973, and their bank records were destroyed long ago.  But the fact remains that money order No. 2,202,130,462, published on page 677 of Volume 17, was never deposited to any bank or financial institution and could not have been used to pay for a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle or anything else.
(Emphasis mine)

Waldman Ex. 10

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Harvey and Lee, How The CIA Framed Oswald, J. Armstrong pps. 467-77

Quote off

Whether you agree or disagree with Armstrong’s work on the “two Oswalds” his research in the area of the rifle is impeccable. He and others have shown that KSP had NO 40” models in stock in March 1963 to send to LHO even by accident. The FACT the WC used the WRONG ad and accepted a deposit slip from FEBRUARY 13, 1963 instead of March 13 says all we need to know about the WC’s claims and conclusions.  Once again, their OWN evidence sinks them.

JFK Assassination Forum

Statements That Sink The WC's Conclusions -- #121
« on: March 13, 2018, 10:12:05 PM »