“…..if Oswald did it with this weapon…..it was an absolute miracle, because no one who knew anything about rifles would have chosen such a decrepit, worthless rifle, as this Italian carbine, manufactured in 1938, for which there is such pure ( poor ) ammunition.” ( Testimony of Mark Lane in 2 H 51 )
The Warren Commission concluded that in March of 1963, Lee Harvey Oswald, using the alias, “A.Hidell” ordered a Model 91/38 Italian Mannlicher Carcano bolt-action rifle from Klein’s Sporting Goods in Chicago. It was to be delivered to his post office box 2915 in Dallas, Texas. The Commission provided evidence to support its conclusion, including copies of the order blank, money order and envelope filled out by “Hidell”.
It concluded that Oswald had ordered the weapon from an advertisement in the February 1963 edition of American Rifleman magazine. It was this rifle, a 40.2″ weapon bearing serial number C2766, that was found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository by Dallas Police 45 minutes after the shooting.
Tracking the rifle
In 1958, Crescent Firearms ( under the name Adam Consolidated Industries ) purchased 500,000 rifles from the Italian Government. The final shipment of those rifles left Italy’s port of Genoa after being identified as lot number 91594 and arrived in the New York via the steamer Elettra Fassio on October 25, 1960. The 520 cartons were removed and trucked by the Waterfront Transfer Company to the Harborside Terminal, a bonded warehouse in New Jersey.
As one can see, the CARTON NUMBERS are listed on the manifest. For example, “3086/3094” means that all cartons numbered from 3086 thru 3094 inclusive were on this shipment. The third entry down, 3305/3436, means that all cartons bearing numbers in that range were part of this shipment, including the carton 3376, which allegedly contained a rifle with serial number C2766, the same serial number as the rifle found on the sixth floor of the TSBD.
The shipment was placed in storage and remained there for the next two years.
This is where the paper trail for carton 3376 ends.
The irrelevant preparation records
Fred Rupp was a federally-licensed gun dealer who had a contract with Crescent Firearms to pick up rifles at the Harborside Warehouse and inspect, clean, test-fire, repack and ship them to Crescent’s retail customers. Klein’s purchase order of 1/15/62 requested that 400 model 91TS rifles ( 36″ troop specials ) be delivered.
According to Harborside delivery order # 89138, Rupp removed the first 170 cartons on August 29, 1962. A list of the numbers of the cartons removed was on the manifest. CARTON 3376 WAS NOT AMONG THEM.
Importers of rifles and gun dealers were required BY LAW to maintain a list of SERIAL NUMBERS of the rifles they imported. Rupp was required by law to keep a list of the serial numbers he removed from the warehouse ( which he did on the 8/29/62 manifest ) and the name of the retail customer he shipped them to. And Klein’s was required to keep the serial numbers of rifle they sold to retail customers. ( 7 H 371 )
During the month of October, 1962, Rupp removed 264 more rifles from lot 91594.
90 on October 4th, 70 on October 16, 64 on October 24 and the last 40 on October 31
No record of Carton 3376
On all of the subsequent shipping manifests of the rifles removed from Harborside Warehouse by Fred Rupp, carton 3376 is not listed, even though on the 10/24 manifest, it is clearly marked “list numbers of cases shipped”.
Rupp removed a total of 434 Mannlicher Carcano 91/38 rifles in the month of October 1962 from the lot of 520 rifles ( 91594 ) belonging to Crescent Firearms. He told the FBI that he kept no record of the carton numbers or serial numbers of the rifles he removed from Harborside. ( CD 7, pg. 180 ) In other words, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT CARTON 3376 WAS AMONG the 434 rifles removed by Rupp, even though the FBI said it was.
These documents, used by the FBI to “track” the rifle contained no carton numbers or no serial numbers and thus have no bearing on the tracking of either carton 3376 or rifle C2766. They would not be considered evidence in a court of law.
More fakery from Crescent to Klein’s
The Warren Commission used two documents to “prove” that carton 3376 was shipped to Klein’s Sporting Goods.
The first one is Crescent Firearms invoice # 3178.
Mr. BELIN. Mr. Waldman, referring to Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 3, which are the serial numbers of the 100 rifles which were made in this shipment from Crescent Firearms to you…….is there any way to verify that this payment pertained to rifles which are shown on Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 3?
Mr. WALDMAN. The forms submitted by Crescent Firearms showing serial numbers of rifles included in the shipment covered by their invoice No. 3178 indicate that the rifle carrying serial No. C-2766 was included in that shipment. ( 7 H 368 )
Of course, it shows no such thing.
Because if you look closely at invoice # 3178, you’ll see that ALL OF THE CARTON NUMBERS HAVE LITTLE CHECKS ABOVE THEM EXCEPT CARTON NUMBER 3376.
Which means that in verifying the carton numbers in that shipment, 3376 was never verified as being a part of that shipment. There’s no evidence that the shipper simply forgot to check off the carton number. For that matter, he could very well have shipped another carton in its place and simply forgot to change the number on the manifest.
Dealing with the evidence
But we’re not dealing with opinions here, or what we THINK happened, we’re dealing with what the evidence says.
Note also that carton number 3376 is the last carton on the list, making it easier to have added it after the fact.
The FBI’s ” tracking of the rifle ” included unverified, unsigned and undated documents and manifests.
One such undated and unsigned example of document was Waldman Exhibit 3, the second document the Warren Commission used to “prove” that carton 3376 was shipped to Klein’s in February.
Waldman Exhibit 3 is an undated and unsigned list of ten carton slips which allegedly made up the February shipment from Crescent to Klein’s. Listed on each of the ten carton slips are the serial numbers of the 10 rifles in each carton, including carton 3376. Since there are no dates on any of the slips in Waldman Exhibit 3, it serves no purpose in proving that carton 3376 and thus the C2766 rifle was part of the February shipment.
Undated evidence
In fact, the ten carton slips, including slip 3620 which contained the list of rifles in carton 3376, could have been filled out at any time. If one looks at the slip numbers, which are pre-printed at the bottom of each slip, one will see that those printed numbers are not in sequence, which one would expect them to be if they were created at the same time by the same person and for the same shipment.
The ten slip numbers are 3672, 3504, 4376, 3813, 3789, 3661, 3762, 3544, 3620 and 3770.
Strangely, no one from Crescent Firearms was ever called to give testimony authenticating its documentation. Its author was never identified. Instead, all testimony on the Crescent Firearms documentation was given by the manager of Klein’s Sporting Goods.
The Klein’s witness
William Waldman was anything but an expert. He knew so little about the M-C rifle, that when he was shown the order form from his company to Crescent Firearms, ( Waldman Exhibit 1 ) he testified that the order had been changed from a 91TS to a 91/38EFF:
Mr. BELIN. Now, I notice on Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. I a date well, I might read everything under the column of description; it says Italian Mannlicher-Carcano, Model 91TS, bolt action 6-shot rifle; and then cal.–that’s for caliber–6.5, and then there is an “X” and 52 mm Italian-select, clean, and test-fired, changed to Beretta Terni M19, then a slash line 38 EFF, and then the date of 4/16/62. Explain that date and that description.
Mr. WALDMAN. Yes; this general style of rifle was made by a number of different manufacturers over a period of time and there were minor modifications made by—developed by each of the manufacturers.
Mr. BELIN. Would this be similar to a number of manufacturers making the Springfield rifle in this country?
Mr. WALDMAN. As for example, the different manufacturers making the Springfield rifle. Basically, the weapons were of the same general design, but as I say, there were details that were different. We originally had ordered one style of Carcano rifle, one that was known as the Model 91TS. As time went on, we changed to another model known as the Model 91/38EFF, this on April 13, 1962. ( 7 H 362 )
The problem is, that there is no such thing as a 91/38EFF. The “EFF” on the form was short for the word “effective” followed by the date 4/13/62.
The wrong person to ask
Waldman not only had no knowledge of the model of rifle his company handled, he had no knowledge of the language used on shipping forms. Waldman didn’t fill out those slips. He didn’t fill out the order for the rifles. Someone else received the shipment of the rifles, yet he was the one who gave testimony.
He never should have been called as a witness in regard to the processing of the rifle sale.
In fact, the Commission even had him giving testimony about documents that were clearly from Crescent Firearms.
Why would they do that ?
Because at Crescent Firearms there WAS someone familiar with rifle sales. But Louis Feldsott was never called to give live testimony before the Commission and only gave a sworn affidavit. In that affidavit, however, Feldsott swore that Crescent’s records showed that rifle C2766 was sold to Klein’s on June 18, 1962, not in February 1963.
Why would that have been a problem ?
A timing problem
BECAUSE PRIOR TO 4/13/62, KLEIN’S RIFLE ORDER WAS FOR THE 91/38 TS, WHICH ONLY CAME IN 36″ LENGTHS. There’s no way that Fred Rupp could have prepared a shipment between 4/13 and 6/18. That’s only two months. The February 1963 shipment took him five months to prepare.
That means that if rifle C2766 was sold to Klein’s as part of a shipment on 6/18/62 in response to their 1/15/62 order, that order would have been 36″ rifles. Because the order for the 91/38’s didn’t go into effect until 4/13/62, the order change would have been much too late to have altered a shipment that had already been started and would be delivered on 6/18.
This information is significant, I believe, because it proves that there was more than one rifle, in this case both a 36″ rifle and a 40.2″ rifle, bearing the serial number C2766.
The three Carcanos
It was imperative for the Commission to show that the Depository rifle was the only one with the serial number C2766 in order to establish that that was the rifle shipped to “A. Hidell” at box 2915 in Dallas.
In its report, the commission said that, “Information received from the Italian Armed Forces Intelligence Service has established that this particular rifle was the only rifle of its type bearing serial number C2766.” ( Chap.4 , pg. 119 ) The Commission went on to say that, “the number “C2766” is the serial number of the rifle, and the rifle in question is the only one of its type bearing that serial number” ( Appendix X, pg. 554 ).
If there was ever proof that there was more than one rifle with the serial number C2766, it would come from the most unlikeliest of sources, Warren Commission supporter the late John K. Lattimer. In his book Kennedy & Lincoln ( 1980 ) , on page 250 he alludes to an experiment he did with his sons back in the 70’s using a Mannlicher Carcano 91/38 rifle with a serial number of C2766.
Carcano # 1: the 40.2″ Depository rifle
The first is the Depository rifle found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository immediately after the shooting. It was a 40″ Short Rifle bearing the serial number C2766.
Everyone can agree on that.
Carcano # 2: The 36″ rifle allegedly shipped to “A. Hidell “
Then there’s the 36″ Troop Special that was allegedly ordered by Oswald from Klein’s Sporting Goods in Chicago and shipped to “A.Hidell” at P.O. Box 2915 in Dallas, Texas. Waldman exhibit 7 is the shipping Bill of Lading that indicates that the rifle shipped was a 36″ rifle bearing the serial number C2766.The red circle is the Klein’s stock number for the rifle. The C20-T750 is for the 36″ rifle with the scope mounted in-house.
The 40″ rifle had a different stock number and (as the HSCA Hearings showed ) its scope was NOT mounted in house.
The “Oswald did it” crowd will argue that Klein’s simply ran out of 36″ rifles and shipped the 40″ rifles in their stead. In addition, they shipped it with a stock number that indicated it was a 36″ rifle with a scope mounted in-house.
To that I say, show me the evidence to prove that.
If someone has evidence to prove that Klein’s shipped a 40″ rifle, stock number C20-750 and bearing serial number C2766 to Post Office Box 2915 in Dallas on March 20, 1963, please present it and I’ll accept it.
If anybody has ANY evidence that Klein’s shipped a 40″ rifle to ANYBODY who ordered a 36″ rifle in the spring of 1963,
I’d like to see it.
Otherwise, the evidence shows there were two 6.5 Mannlicher-Carcanos, one a 36″ rifle, the other a 40″ rifle with the same serial number, C2766.
But that’s not all.
Carcano # 3: Lattimer’s
Warrennati apologist the late John Lattimer wrote in his book, Kennedy and Lincoln, on page 250, that he did some tests with a 6.5 Mannlicher-Carcano with the serial number C2766.
That’s three 6.5 Mannlicher-Carcanos with the serial number C2766, that we know of.
CE 2562 is a January 1964 memo from FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover verifying the exact point I’m making: that there was more than one rifle with the same serial number.
The significance of this is that with there being more than one rifle with the same serial number, the serial number by itself is not conclusive evidence that the Depository rifle is the rifle Oswald allegedly purchased.
Either there was more than one rifle with the same serial number, or the documents have been faked.
We’ve covered the first of these possibilities. Now for the faking.
The order blank and the order form
The Warren Commission concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald, using the alias “A. Hidell”, ordered the 40.2″ Mannlicher-Carcano rifle found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository by Dallas Sheriff’s Deputies shortly after the shooting in Dealey Plaza. He did this, it said, using an order blank from the February 1963 edition of American Rifleman magazine. The FBI traced the dept. number on the order blank, 358, to that particular magazine.
The problem with the examination of the handwriting on the order blank will be discussed later.
Below is Cadigan Exhibit 3-A, a copy of the envelope and order blank that Oswald allegedly used to order the rifle. It is a copy of a copy, in essence, a copy allegedly made from Klein’s microfilm copy.
If Cadigan Exhibit 3-A is a copy of the original order blank, then PBS “Frontline” needs to explain where it got its copy of the order blank from. In a 1988 production of a program called, “Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald”, the program showed the order blank, but this time the “A” in the “A.Hidell” was in script, not printed.
Where did PBS get this from ?
So where did this second order blank come from and why did PBS attempt to pass it off as the real deal ?
A different catalog number
A second issue I have with the order form and the order blank has to do with the catalog number. The catalog number for the rifle in the Klein’s ad was C20-T750. It described a 36″ rifle ( B, below ) with the scope mounted in-house, while the catalog number for the 40″ rifle, like the one found on the sixth floor of the TSBD, was slightly different, C20-750 ( C, below ). That rifle did not have the scope mounted in-house.
The catalog number for the 36″ rifle was on the order blank ( above, Cadigan 3-A ) and the order form ( A, below ). The order form appears to be a document that was generated by the office of Klein’s which typed in certain information and then passed it on to the warehouse to fill the order. Klein’s control number and the rifle’s serial number were then apparently handwritten by warehouse employees whose job it was to fill the orders.
So one would have to wonder why the documentation indicates that the order was for a 36″ rifle and the order was processed for a 36″ rifle but the serial number was of a 40″ rifle ?
NONE of the Klein’s employees who were responsible for filling the orders or shipping and receiving the weapons were ever called to give testimony to the Commission. Why did the Commission call the heads of companies rather than the people who actually filled out the forms ?
Maybe because the people whose job it was to fill out the forms weren’t actually the ones who filled this one out.
And there are more areas the Commission did not enter into.
Questions about microfilm
Why didn’t the Commission interview the person responsible for converting Klein’s paper documents into microfilm ? Why didn’t they have him or her explain the process and inquire whether or not the microfilm could be altered ? Could a finished microfilm be spliced and a new record be installed ? Could that altered microfilm be copied so the splice did not show ?
The Commission’s records on the rifle were copies of copies and under those circumstances, it should have made an effort to prove that the documents in evidence were reliable and unaltered.
It didn’t.
Evidence “Hidell” could not have received the rifle at post office box 2915
The post office box application consisted of three parts. The first part included postal rules and instructions for working combination locked boxes. The applicant could throw it away or keep it in his wallet. It included the combination for combination boxes. Parts 2 & 3 comprised the actual application. Part 2 included information on the applicant and his type of business ( if applicable ). Part 3 included special instructions on delivering mail, how to handle special deliveries and listed the names of other people beside the applicant who were entitled to receive mail through the box.
So the question is whether or not “A.Hidell” was authorized to receive mail at Oswald’s box 2915 in Dallas. In order for “Hidell” to receive mail there, the evidence shows that his name would have had to have been on the box application.
“Hidell” not listed on Part 3
Commission Exhibit 2585 is the FBI’s investigation into allegations made by author Thomas Buchanan in his 1964 book, “Who Killed Kennedy”. It indicates that “Hidell’s” name was never on the application, so he could not have received the rifle.
“Oswald did not indicate on his application that others, including an ‘A.Hidell’ would receive mail through the box in question, which was Post Office Box 2915 in Dallas.”
When Dallas Postal Inspector Harry Holmes testified before the Warren Commission, he provided only a copy of part 2 of Oswald’s post office box application ( Holmes Exhibit 1A, above ). He told the Commission that part 3 had been discarded when the box had been closed, in May 1963, in accordance with postal regulations.
When asked why the New Orleans Post Office had kept part 3 of Oswald’s box application in that city, Holmes replied that the New Orleans Post Office hadn’t complied to the regulation. ( 7 H 527 )
In it’s Report, the Commission repeated Holmes’ testimony that the destruction of Part 3 of the PO Box application was in accordance with postal regulations.
“In accordance with postal regulations, the portion of the application which lists names of persons, other than the applicant, entitled to receive mail was thrown away after the box was closed on May 1963.”
( Report, Ch. 4, pg. 121 )
The destruction of evidence
That was a lie. The postal regulation ( 843.53h ) required that part 3 of the box application be kept for a period of 2 years after the box was closed.
In 1966, author Stewart Galanor decided to write to the US Post Office and ask two questions. The first was regarding the post office box application and how long the record was to be kept. The second question regarded what happened to mail that was addressed to someone NOT on the box application part 3.
In response to the first question, the post office verified that in March of 1963, postal regulation 846.53h (above) required that all box applications, including part 3, be kept for a period of 2 years after the box was closed.
Of course, this revelation alone makes a liar out of Harry Holmes. It shows that the New Orleans PO was in compliance with the postal regulation and the Dallas PO was NOT.
A criminal act
The reason why they discarded Part 3 is obvious and the Commission’s own Exhibit 2585 proves it: “A.Hidell” was never on the application and thus could not have received the rifle.
And Part 3 of the post office box application was not discarded until AFTER the FBI examined it in order to hide that fact.
The evidence shows that there was only one short period of time when “A.Hidell” could receive mail through an Oswald Post Office Box and that was at Box 30061 in New Orleans, between June 11th and September 26, 1963.
Was it during this period that the C2766 rifle was ordered under an alias that Oswald only used in New Orleans ? And what of the Box 2915 in Dallas after Oswald closed it ? How long was it before it was reassigned to another person ? Or was it kept closed in order to “receive” the rifle in the June-Sept. timeframe ?
It was never investigated.
Evidence Oswald didn’t buy or mail the money order
The next problem with the purchasing of the rifle is that at the date & time Oswald was alleged to have purchased the money order he allegedly used to pay for it and mailed the envelope containing it, he was at work at Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall. The money order was stamped that it had been purchased on March 12, 1963 and the envelope it was allegedly mailed in had a postmarked time of 10:30 am, meaning that IF Oswald bought he money order, filled it out and mailed it, he had to have accomplished it between the time the Post Office opened and the postmarked time.
The problem comes in when we examine Oswald’s work timesheet from Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall for March 12, 1963, the date the money order was allegedly purchased. Below is Commission Exhibit 1855 and it shows that DURING THE TIME OSWALD SHOULD HAVE BEEN PURCHASING, FILLING OUT AND MAILING THE MONEY ORDER FOR THE RIFLE, HE WAS AT WORK. ( red box )
All of Oswald’s time is accounted for
In fact, the document shows that excluding Oswald’s lunch break from 12:15-12:45pm, EVERY SINGLE MINUTE OF OSWALD’S DAY IS ACCOUNTED FOR FROM 8:00am THROUGH 5:15pm. And there is NO EVIDENCE that Oswald was late for work that day. In fact, according to his boss at JCS, he was “very punctual”.
Mr. JENNER. Was he regular in his arrival at work?
Mr. GRAEF. Yes.
Mr. JENNER. Were his work habits in that connection satisfactory?
Mr. GRAEF. Yes. I would say he was very punctual in his arrival to work.
( 10 H 184 )
There is also NO EVIDENCE that Oswald received a ride to work that day from a co-worker. There IS EVIDENCE from testimony, however, that when co-workers offered rides to Oswald, he declined.
Mr. OFSTEIN. …………..he was also offered rides by Mr. Graef, and I offered him a ride a couple of times either to his home or wherever he wanted to catch a bus, and I know that he always declined my offer of a ride.
Mr. JENNER. What did he say?
Mr. OFSTEIN. He said; no, he would go ahead and walk, and usually in the evening when he would leave he would say, “I am going up to the post office to pick up my mail, and a couple of times I would offer to give him a ride up this way, as it wasn’t much out of my way and I have to come in this direction anyway to Live Oak before I turn, which is only about a block difference, and he always declined to ride and would walk.
( 10 H 205 )
And there’s no evidence that Oswald left work that day in order to purchase the money order and mail it.
No one called to testify
Amazingly, not one single witness was ever called to testify about Commission Exhibit 1855 and there is NO MENTION of this document in ANY of the 15 volumes of testimony. In addition, there is NO EVIDENCE that the Main Post Office opened before 8am, allowing Oswald to make his purchase prior to going to work.
In fact, this document found in Box 50 of the HSCA Segregated CIA files shows that the post office window opened at 8:00 am:
The fact is there’s no evidence that Oswald lied on his timesheet.
There’s no evidence that Oswald was late for work on March 12th.
And there’s no evidence that Oswald was at the post office at 8:00 am.
We know the post office window opened at 8:00 am and the record shows that Oswald was at work at 8:00 am. The burden of proof is on Oswald’s accusers: if they can prove that Oswald was not at work and at the post office at 8 am on March 12, 1963, let’s see their evidence.
Three postal zones away
As if Oswald not having the time to purchase, fill out and mail the money order wasn’t enough, the next problem is that the money order was not mailed at the post office from where it was purchased, but it was mailed instead THREE POSTAL ZONES AWAY. An examination of the postmark on the envelope indicates that it was mailed in postal zone 12, when Oswald worked and allegedly purchased the money order in postal zone 1.
There are those pushing false claims that the “12” on the postmark had to do with some sort of processing machine and that the number represents the number of the machine. But those of us old enough to remember before the advent of “zip codes” , there were postal zones like Detroit 15, Michigan, New York 18, New York or Los Angeles, 24, California. This is what you wrote on the envelopes when you mailed them. The “12” is a postal zone. It’s Dallas 12, Texas. The number has nothing to do with a machine.
https://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/postal-zones-came-before-zip-codes
And there is NO EVIDENCE that Oswald gave the envelope to someone else to mail.
The Warrenatti have argued that the timesheet was not an accurate depiction of time spent but to argue that is to say that Jagger-Childs-Stovall was intentionally overcharging some customers while undercharging others.
Then the question becomes: if the timesheets are not accurate, why use them at all ? Why not just have employees punch in and punch out ?
The phony money order
Dallas Postal Inspector Harry Holmes told the Warren Commission that the money order had been purchased early on the morning of March 12, 1963, ( 7 H 295 ) yet there is nothing on the money order that shows the time of day it was sold.
The only time mark was the post mark on the envelope. So how did Holmes know what time of day the money order was purchased ?
The Warren Commission never asked him.
The only way he could have known was if he had seen or handled the envelope before the assassination.
Another problem, this one of the money order itself ( CE 788, below ) is that it contained no stamp from any financial institution. The only stamp on it was a stamp on the back from Klein’s Sporting Goods for deposit into its account ( number 50-91144 ) in the First National Bank of Chicago. ( red arrows below )
Bank stamps were used on postal money orders in those days as is evidenced by the referral to same ( “bank stamps are not regarded as endorsements” ) on the back of the money order.
The only stamp is Klein’s
The single stamp on the back was identified in testimony as the stamp of Klein’s.
Mr. BELIN. I hand you what has been marked as Commission Exhibit No. 788, which appears to be a U.S. postal money order payable to the order of Klein’s Sporting Goods…..And on the reverse side there appears to be an endorsement of a bank. I wonder if you would read that endorsement, if you would, and examine it, please.
Mr. WALDMAN. This is a stamped endorsement reading “Pay to the order of the First National Bank of Chicago,” followed by our account No. 50 space 91144, and that, in turn, followed by “Klein’s Sporting Goods, Inc.”
Mr. BELIN. Do you know whether or not that is your company’s endorsement on that money order?
Mr. WALDMAN. It’s identical to our endorsement.
( 7 H 367 )
The stamp wasn’t an endorsement from a bank. It was the endorsement stamp of Klein’s Sporting Goods transferring the funds into its bank account. The money order was never paid by any financial institution. Had the money order been processed by the First National Bank of Chicago, the bank would have put its DATED stamp on it.
Stamps required for payment
Financial institutions stamp checks and money orders in order to ensure that each institution pays only once on each item. Without the stamp, there’s no proof that the money was actually paid by the bank and credited to the customer’s account. The stamps also assist law enforcement in tracking finances in criminal cases. This money order should have had on it the DATED stamps of all banks or financial institutions that handled the document.
The proof of that is in how Oswald’s paychecks were handled.
The fact that it doesn’t is proof that it never passed through the Federal Reserve System.
How postal money orders were handled
Postal Money Orders received by the First National Bank of Chicago, were then sent to the Federal Reserve Bank, also in Chicago. The First National Bank did NOT microfilm money orders. To confound the tracking of the money order, the Federal Reserve Bank in Chicago kept records of money orders for only six months, which means that it too had no record of this particular money order. At the time the money order would have been processed, 75% of money orders were being sent to Washington, D.C. and the other 25 % were being sent to Kansas City, Missouri. Lester Gohr of the Federal Reserve Bank in Chicago provided the FBI with the addresses of both locations. ( CD 7, pg. 193 )
In fact, according to the US Postal Guide of 1925, banks were REQUIRED to put their stamps on the backs of money orders deposited in their institutions in order to get paid.
“When an order…….is deposited in a bank for collection…….( it ) should bear upon its back the impression of the stamp of the bank”.
Summing up
So far, in processing the money order, this is what we have:
The money order with a stamp for Klein’s Sporting Goods for deposit into its account into the First National Bank of Chicago.
No evidence that it was received by the First National Bank of Chicago.
There is no evidence that it was received by the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago.
No evidence that it was received by the postal money order clearing houses in either Kansas City or Washington, D.C.
And yet, this “magic money order” is able to find its way through the Federal Reserve System WITHOUT ANY PROOF IT WAS PAID by any of the financial institutions which handled it.
This is truly amazing.
Not surprisingly, this phony money order becomes part of a phony deposit.
The phony deposit
Still another problem with the purchasing of the rifle involves the alleged deposit of the “Hidell” money order by Klein’s Sporting Goods. Waldman 10 shows that the $13,000 deposit had a deposit slip of 2/15/63. If you look at that exhibit, you’ll see that the date at the bottom of the bulk statement is the date “3-13″63”.
I believe that these two documents represent a deposit which was made on 2/15/63, the bulk list being a monthly bank statement dated 3/13/63 for the account activity for the month of February.
Before the naysayers respond that the deposit slip could have been in an honest mistake, I would like to point out that BOTH the month AND the day are wrong ( if you believe the deposit being made on 3/13/63 ). I could see an error on the month at the beginning of the month, but an error on the MONTH AND DAY in the MIDDLE of a month ?
There’s another reason why it’s pretty hard to believe it’s an honest mistake. No bank would accept a deposit slip with the wrong date of deposit. In my younger days, I ran my own business and I know that when you go to the bank and make a deposit, they don’t give you a list of all the checks you deposited, they give you a receipt with the total.
What we’re really looking at
From the evidence I’ve seen, the FBI used a 2/15/63 deposit of an American Express Money Order and tried to pass it off as a 3/13/63 deposit of “Oswald’s” postal money order.
Let me explain why I believe that.
In Commission Document 7, pg. 192 ( below ) , Robert Wilmouth, Vice President of the First National Bank of Chicago, Klein’s bank, told the FBI that there were TWO deposits of $ 21.45 and the one in the $ 13,827.98 deposit ( Waldman 10 ) was an American Express money order, NOT the postal money order sent by “A.Hidell”. He said that “the item appeared on a tape between an item of $ 15.08 and an item of $ 14.36, precisely where David Belin put a mark on Waldman 10.
Wilmouth was specific in his identification of the AmEx money order. He said that it was on a tape between deposits of $ 15.03 and $ 14.36, precisely the deposit that the WC said was the postal money order sent by “A.Hidell”.
They couldn’t have used an actual March deposit slip because that one would have included a bank statement dated the middle of April.
It seems to me, looking at the evidence, that Klein’s never had a deposit of $ 21.45 in March of 1963 but had 2 in February.
The problem with a February deposit, obviously, was that neither of the deposits could have been a “Hidell” postal money order with a postal stamp of 3/12. So the FBI took the monthly bank statement dated 3/13/63, which was actually for the 2/15 deposit, and claimed that it was all part of a 3/13 deposit.
Again, that’s my opinion, based on what I’ve seen.
Waldman can’t say the money order was deposited
Absent the dated stamp of the bank, it was IMPOSSIBLE to say when and IF the money order had been deposited. Waldman, who was mistaken that there was a rifle model 91/38EFF, was also mistaken about the date of the deposit, in spite of his own exhibit # 10 showing the deposit date of 2/15/63.
Mr. WALDMAN. ….. Now, we cannot specifically say when this money order was deposited, but on our deposit of March 13, 1963, we show an item of $21.45, as indicated on the XEROX COPY OF OUR DEPOSIT SLIP marked, or IDENTIFIED by–AS WALDMAN DEPOSITION EXHIBIT No. 10.
Mr. BELIN. And I have just marked as a document what you are reading from, which appears to be a deposit with the First National Bank of Chicago by your company; is that correct?
Mr. WALDMAN. That’s correct.
Mr. BELIN. 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 ?
Mr. WALDMAN. That’s correct.
( 7 H 367-368 )
Waldman’s knowledge of his company’s deposits are exceeded only by his knowledge of it’s rifles.
In other words, this money order was never deposited. The money order is a fake.
We know that the $ 21.45 deposit they are referring to is an American Express Money Order and NOT the “Hidell” postal order because it is described IN DETAIL by Robert Wilmouth, Vice President of the First National Bank of Chicago, Klein’s bank. His description is so precise that he described the entries listed before and after the “$ 21.45” in Waldman 10 to their exact penny.
That’s pretty credible to me.
Another witness not called
Needless to say, Robert Wilmouth never appeared on the FBI’s witness list to testify before the Commission and identify the “Hidell” money order as having passed through his bank, either in live testimony or by deposition.
But there is another problem with this “deposit”.
Oswald allegedly purchased this money order on Tuesday, March 12, 1963 between 8 and 10:30am. This money order couldn’t possibly have gone from Dallas to the Chicago Post Office, sorted and delivered to Klein’s, processed by them and deposited into their bank account before noontime on the following day which was Wednesday.
Something it would have had to do because banks closed on Wednesdays at noon.
If the deposit was made in February, as the evidence says, then neither of the $ 21.45 deposits in Waldman 10’s deposit of $ 13.827.98 could possibly be the “Hidell” money order.
“Finding” the money order
Dallas Postal Inspector Harry Holmes testified that the money order was found at 12:10 pm on 11/23/63.
Mr. HOLMES. I didn’t have any luck, so along about 11 o’clock in the morning, Saturday, I had my boys call the postal inspector.
Mr. HOLMES. ….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.
So then I passed the information to the men who were looking for this money order stub…. I relayed this information to them and ….within 10 minutes they called back and said they had a money order in that amount…..( 12:10 PM )
( 7 H 294-295 )
The Commission never asked Holmes who it was who found the stub.
A very slow computer
But although they had the money order number, the date, and the exact amount and relayed that information to Washington “immediately” after 12:10 pm, it took an IBM computer another 7 hours to find it.
Mr. BELIN. …..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 it turned out….to be the correct money order.
( 7 H 295-296 )
Using only manual labor and the money order amount as a guide, they found the stub in ten minutes, but it took a computer 7 hours with the number, amount and date info to find the money order ?
There’s no way they could have done a computer search for that money order because the money order was never processed.
Money Order number out of sequence
Another point is raised by researcher Brian Doyle that the number of the money order was out of sequence. Money orders were issued in sequence and the number ( 2,202,130,462 ) should not have been issued from the Dallas GPO until late 1964 or early 1965.
So how did this happen ?
My opinion:
The unused, never deposited money order was removed from the middle of a stack of postal money orders at the Dallas General Post Office ( GPO ) by Harry Holmes on the afternoon of November 23rd. He then stamped the front of it “Mar 12, 63 Dallas Texas GPO”. He did the same thing to a blank envelope, postmarking it “Mar 12, 1963, 1030 am”. It was then flown in a package to Washington where it was channeled to the FBI.
This is why it took seven hours to “find” the money order in Washington.
The FBI then used either a “cut and paste” method or a carbon trace method to attach Oswald’s handwriting of Klein’s address and the return address of “A.Hidell” to the envelope and microfilmed it. They did the same thing to the order blank.
They had examples of Oswald’s handwriting because they had copies of letters he had written thanks to their alliance with the post office during their mail-intercept program, which was part of the COINTEL program.
If a person was “red-flagged” as a possible Communist, the post office would open their mail, copy it and reseal the envelope and pass it through to its destination. The copies would then be sent to the FBI.
Another method
The money order was filled out using a tracing method where you put a carbon sheet between two pieces of paper and trace what is on the original and see it come out the same behind the carbon sheet. You didn’t have to be an artist or a handwriting expert, just able to trace.
In order to use the either of these methods, the original document may have to be sacrificed because of the cutting process. Because of this the original must be copied before the cutting process begins.
In the tracing method, the original is marked up, so it must be destroyed when the forgery is completed and its copy becomes the original.
In the cut and paste method, the originals are copied and then carved up and pieced together, this new “original” is actually a compilation of words or letters that are pieced together from different documents. Then a copy is made of that. When the copy is sufficient, the pieced together “original” is destroyed and the copy becomes the original document.
This may explain why the Commission’s signature comparison “experts” did not see the original documents, but were forced to view copies.
Again, this is my opinion based on the evidence I’m looking at.
Evidence Oswald never received the rifle
No clerk in the Dallas Post Office has ever come forward admitting that they handed a long package to Oswald in March of 1963.
There’s no documented evidence or eyewitness account proving that anyone ever took possession in March of 1963 of a rifle that had been received at Post Office Box 2915 in Dallas.
There may be a reason for that: the rifle was never received by anyone.
Postal Inspector Holmes also lied about how mail addressed to persons whose names were NOT on the post office box application was handled. He told the Commission that when the post office received mail or a package addressed to someone NOT on the application, a notice would be put in the box REGARDLESS OF WHOSE NAME WAS ON THE MAIL and when someone came to the desk with the notice, they got the mail/package, REGARDLESS OF WHO THEY WERE.
( 7 H 527-528 )
But there’s more.
Oswald’s handwriting: a question of forgery
Two experts gave testimony to the WC concerning questioned documents: Alwyn Cole and James C. Cadigan. Cole apprenticed as a questioned document examiner for 6 years, from 1929 to 1935, and had been an examiner of questioned documents for the U.S. Treasury Department since then. Cadigan had been a questioned document examiner with the FBI for 23.5 years, following a specialized course of training and instruction. Both had testified many times in Federal and States courts. ( WCR, App. X, pg. 566 ) Their conclusions were identical. The mail order and envelope for the C2766 rifle were photographed by Klein’s on microfilm, and then destroyed. ( ibid., pg. 569 )
The money order was never microfilmed.
In his testimony, Cadigan was careful to say that CADIGAN 11 had been prepared by LHO and NOT CE 788. The reason he said it that way is because Cadigan never compared the ORIGINAL, CE 788, to Oswald’s handwriting. He compared a PHOTOGRAPH of CE 788, which was Cadigan 11. ( 7 H 423 )
Likewise, Cole examined a COPY of the original, which is CE 789, and not the origin, CE 788. ( 4 H 374 )
In fact, ALL of the Commission’s handwriting examinations, with regard to the ordering and purchase of the rifle by BOTH Cadigan and Cole, were made of PHOTOGRAPHS of the original exhibits, not the exhibits themselves. In addition, since each handwriting expert was not trained in photographic processing, the photographs they examined were not made by the examiners themselves, but rather “under their supervision”.
Meaning someone else.
And because someone else was involved in the “creation” of this evidence, the person or persons responsible for that creation also created a chain of custody of the evidence.
No chain of possession
Unfortunately, the chain of custody of those photos was never ESTABLISHED because those persons “under their supervision” remained unnamed, never marked the photos after they processed them and were never called to testify and identify the photos as the ones they took or to describe the technical processes they used in creating them.
And for that matter, neither Cole nor Cadigan was asked any technical questions about the photos even though they admitted supervising their creation. Instead of photographic technicians, the legitimacy of the photographs were confirmed VISUALLY by the examiners, Cadigan and Cole.
In spite of the lack of a chain of custody, the Commission did what it usually did numerous times in its hearings and accepted ALL of the photographs as evidence and designated them as exhibits.
Both Cole and Cadigan testified that the photographs they examined were clear enough to permit an identification through examination. Their opinions covered both the copies of the standards ( the known handwriting of Lee Harvey Oswald ) and the copies of the questioned documents, like the money order.
Identification explained
“Standards” are the known, verifiable handwriting samples that are compared to the disputed handwriting. It is important to remember that, in an examination involving disputed handwriting, the standards will make or break your case. If the examiner has poor standards, this will impact the strength of the opinion.
The standards should be relevant, contemporaneous, in sufficient numbers and as always, ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS.
An optical transfer, in which a genuine signature is transferred onto a document by use of a photocopier, scanner, facsimile machine, or photography. With this type of forgery, an examiner cannot positively identify a signature as genuine without having the original for comparison. Indications of this type of forgery are often but not always present on a copy of the questioned document. Extreme care should be taken by anyone, especially the court system, in evaluating the veracity of documents and signatures when no original can be produced.”
https://4n6.com/handwriting-and-forgery-examination/
Many of the standards in the examination of Oswald’s handwriting were COPIES.
Signature and other handwriting identification problems examined from photocopies limit the ability of the forensic document examiner to observe evidence such as speed of execution, lifts of the writing instrument, pauses of the writing instrument and other important evidence.
Reproductions from microfilm or microfiche tend to be of LESSER quality than standard photocopies.
The “Oswald” documents were copies made from microfilm.
The House Select Committee on Assassinations examined the Oswald handwriting using a three member panel consisting of Joseph P. McNally, David J. Purtell, and Charles C. Scott.
The conclusions of the HSCA panel confirm that there are problems with comparing copies with originals.
Problems comparing copies to originals
Scott concluded that while all of the original handwriting purported to be Oswald’s was made by the same person, only a “tentative opinion” could be reached as to the reproductions.
( 8 HSCA 247 )
McNally agreed, saying that while the writing on the envelope and the money order matched, there was a caveat ( condition ) that the writing on the envelope was a photo reproduction from microfilm. ( 4 HSCA 355 )
Earlier he explained why the “qualifying” identification when discussing the panel’s examination of Oswald’s Cuban visa application. He said that because it was not an original document, it “could not be examined microscopically”. ( ibid. )
During his testimony, McNally was forced to admit that copies were never as good as originals for handwriting comparison:
Mr. FAUNTROY. Are photocopies as good as original handwriting for analysis purposes?
Mr. McNALLY. No, never.
( 2 HSCA 393 )
David Purtell said,
“Photocopies have several limitations. They do not reproduce all the fine details in handwriting needed in making an examination and comparison…..Document examiners only render a qualified or conditional opinion when working from copies. They stipulate that they have to examine the original before a definite opinion will be made.”
( 8 HSCA 239 )
BTW, the money order ( Item 29 in 8 HSCA 230 ) which was examined by both McNally and Purtell was described as a XEROX COPY. ( 8 HSCA 239 )
Cut and paste: a means for faking
How could an Oswald signature be faked ?
In his examination of the “Dear Mr. Hunt ” letter for the HSCA, McNally explained it:
Mr. MCNALLY. ….Oswald’s general writing pattern is simple and tends to be rather legible, and to turn out something like that would be not particularly difficult.
( 4 H 360 )
On the next page, he described HOW it could be done.
Mr. McNALLY. ……It could very well be a situation where this thing has been patched together from original writing of Oswald. It can be done using a photo reproduction process.
( 4 HSCA 361 )
Purtell explained further:
“….it is possible to incorporate or insert changes and alterations into copies. A method frequently used is to paste together parts of documents to make one fradulent document, which is then copied. If the first copy can pass inspection, it will be used; if not, it will be reworked to eliminate all signs of alteration. This amended copy is then recopied for the finished product. This is usually referred to as the “cut and paste” method.”
( 8 HSCA 239 )
In addition, the ease with which an individual can reproduce an original genuine writing from one document onto another document using the photocopier is always a consideration. It is possible to make such a transfer with little or no evidence which would reveal such a fraudulent preparation.
The government’s handwriting double standard
In its examination of whether or not Oswald ordered the handgun and rifle, the FBI had only COPIES of those order forms. They were able to determine, without a doubt, that Oswald filled out both of those order forms.
But when it came to the “Dear Mr. Hunt” letter, the FBI said that they could not determine if the handwriting was Oswald’s because it was a copy and without the original document, it would be “almost impossible to certify whether it was genuine or not.”
So if that is the case, that the original document is needed to compare the handwriting, then the “experts” identification of Oswald’s handwriting from COPIES of the order blanks is worthless as evidence.
You can’t have it both ways: either you can identify the handwriting from copies or you can’t.
Finally, we should always keep in mind that a document examiner’s conclusion is correctly considered a professional opinion, not evidence.
The FBI / Post Office link
The question remains who would have the capability to use a photocopier to forge someone’s handwriting ?
The Post Office.
I say this because the Post Office was part of the FBI’s counter intelligence program, COINTELLPRO. Part of that program was to intercept, open, read and copy mail from American citizens the Bureau deemed subversive.
Below is a list of FBI informants. Of particular interest is that both the postal inspectors of the cities where Oswald stayed, Dallas and New Orleans, are on the list. It may be no coincidence that the name “A.Hidell” first appeared in New Orleans. I’ll bet these two postal inspectors had flagged Oswald, were reading his mail going in and out of their cities and New Orleans was sharing copies of their Oswald mail with Dallas.
Why Dallas ? Because the Dallas P.O. would have become the home office of the surveillance on Oswald when he received his first copy of The Worker.
Evidence CE 139 is NOT the rifle in the famous “backyard photograph” CE 133-A
One of the inconsistencies in the evidence regarding the rifle is the obvious difference in the sling mounts between the rifle found one the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository and the rifle depicted in the famous “backyard photographs”, CE 133-A thru C. As the reader can see, the Depository rifle, CE 139, had side mounts for the sling both front and rear:
While the rifle in the backyard photos obviously has a bottom mount for the sling in front.
There is obviously a difference between the front sling mount which is on the bottom in the backyard photos and the front sling mount on the Depository rifle which is on the side.
Lyndal Shaneyfelt, the FBI photography expert testified that he had taken photographs of CE 139 ( the depository rifle ) and compared them to the rifle in CE 133-A ( the “backyard photo” ). He told the Commission:
“…I did not find any really specific peculiarities on which I could base a positive identification to the exclusion of all other rifles of the same general configuration.” ( 4 H 281 )
In other words, he couldn’t positively identify the Depository rifle as the one in the “backyard photograph”.
Big surprise, huh ?
But wait, we’re not done yet.
The House Select Committee on Assassinations Photographic experts found that in examining the photos, there were distinctive marks on the rifle in the DeMohrenschildt and CE 134 ( large photo, above ) BY photos that matched the Depository rifle. ( 2 HSCA 428 )
What about the difference in the sling mounts ?
It was never addressed.
Rust: Proof CE 139 was never fired on November 22nd
Normally, an investigator examining a weapon to determine if it has been fired, will look first at the outside of the weapon. A visual examination of the condition of the weapon, including an examination of the condition of the firing pin. Next, he examines the inside of the weapon, checking the inside of the barrel and examining the inside of the operating mechanism, the bolt and its parts.
In his testimony, FBI firearms expert Robert Frazier testified that he observed that the inside of the barrel of the Depository rifle was “roughened from corrosion”, then connected the “corrosion” to rust with his comment that “if a barrel is allowed to rust, one round will remove that rust.”
So how could the barrel have surface rust after THREE rounds had been fired through it ?
The rusted barrel
It is common knowledge among gun owners that ammunition is corrosive and firing it through a gun barrel will begin to rust the bore within 24 hours if left unchecked.
The culprits are the compounds used in the primers of the ammunition. These contain corrosive salts that embed themselves in the metal pores of the barrel. These salts attract atmospheric moisture and hold it in contact with the bare steel inside the bore, hence rust.
FBI firearms expert Robert Frazier described the condition of the Depository rifle when he examined it.
Mr. FRAZIER. The stock is worn, scratched. The bolt is relatively smooth, as if it had been operated several times. I cannot actually say how much use the weapon has had. The barrel is–was not, when we first got it, in excellent condition. It was, I would say, in fair condition. In other words, it showed the effects of wear and corrosion.
( 3 H 394 )
Frazier was then asked to be more specific on the condition of the rifle barrel when he first got it for inspection.
Mr. McCLOY. When you examined the rifle the first time, you said that it showed signs of some corrosion and wear?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. McCLOY. Was it what you would call pitted, were the lands in good shape?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; the lands and the grooves were worn, the corners were worn, and the interior of the surface was roughened from corrosion or wear.
Frazier mentions rust
Mr. McCLOY. Could you say roughly how many rounds you think had been fired since it left the factory, with the condition of the barrel as you found it?
Mr. FRAZIER. No, sir; I could not, because the number of rounds is not an indication of the condition of the barrel, since IF A BARREL IS ALLOWED TO RUST, ONE ROUND WILL REMOVE THAT RUST and wear the barrel to the same extent as 10 or 15 or 50 rounds just fired through a clean barrel.
( 3 H 395 )
Frazier’s replacing the term “corrosion” to rust means he KNEW when he visually inspected the rifle that rust in the barrel meant that the rifle had not been fired, because just one round fired through it would have removed all rust. The fact that he visually saw rust in the barrel made it clear to him that there was no need to conduct a “swab test” to test for metal shavings and fouling in the barrel.
Mr. McCLOY. Was there metal fouling in the barrel?
Mr. FRAZIER. I did not examine it for that.
( ibid. )
Had Frazier visually examined the barrel and found no rust, it would have been standard procedure to next do the “swab test” to determine if there was no rust because the barrel was clean or because a bullet had passed through it. The “swab test” would have detected any metal shavings from the bullet’s jacket and gunpowder residue ( fouling ). A clean swab from a barrel with no rust would have proven the rifle had not been fired, while a swab with residue would have proven that it had.
Why Frazier never examined the barrel for “fouling”
The ONLY thing that would have prevented Frazier from doing the swab test would have been if his visual inspection had revealed that the inside of the barrel was rusted and thus that no bullet had passed through the barrel in the last 24 hours.
If there is any question as to whether or not the inside of the barrel was susceptible to rust, that question was answered by the Firearms Panel of the House Select Committee on Assassinations in the 1970’s. The Panel examined the C2766 rifle before it did any test firing and reported the rifle’s condition:
“A visual examination of the rifle revealed pitting, rust and copper oxidation to test-firing, which the panel believed should be removed prior to test-firing. Accordingly, a dry cloth patch was pushed through the bore.
( 7 HSCA 365 )
So the inside of the barrel ( “the bore” ) showed “pitting, rust and copper oxidation” as a result of the rifle having not been fired since the last “test-firing”, some 13 years previously. This is what happened to this barrel from non-use — it rusted. But it wasn’t the only part of the rifle which contained rust.
The rusted firing pin
The firing pin was rusted so badly, that they were afraid it might break. So they “dry fired” the rifle without pulling the trigger.
Mr. EISENBERG. How much practice had they had with the weapon, Exhibit 139, before they began firing?
Mr. SIMMONS. They had each attempted the exercise without the use of ammunition, and had worked the bolt as they tried the exercise. They had not pulled the trigger during the exercise, however, because we were a little concerned about breaking the firing pin.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you give us an estimate of how much time they used in this dry-run practice, each?
Mr. SIMMONS. They used no more than 2 or 3 minutes each.
( 3 H 447 )
Undisturbed rust on the firing pin
CE 2974 states that there was rust on the firing pin of the rifle and “This rust would have been disturbed had the firing pin been changed…”. What the FBI was saying is that there was “undisturbed rust” on the firing pin. That rust would have been disturbed if the firing pin had moved in the previous 24 hours.
Rust could not have formed on the rifle AFTER the assassination. Frazier testified that he examined it on the day after Kennedy was murdered, not enough time for rust to have settled in:
Mr. McCLOY. How soon after the assassination did you examine this rifle?
Mr. FRAZIER. We received the rifle the following morning.
Mr. McCLOY. Received it in Washington?
Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir.
Mr. McCLOY. And you immediately made your examination of it then?
Mr. FRAZIER. We made an examination of it at that time, and kept it temporarily in the laboratory.
( 3 H 395 )
Frazier testified that when he examined the rifle the FIRST TIME, on the day after the assassination, he found that the inside of the barrel had been “roughened” by corrosion and wear. Then he referenced the effect of what ONE SHOT would have on a rusted barrel. Why would he do this if the “roughened surface” he saw on the inside of the barrel wasn’t rust ? What connection could there be between a rusted barrel and the “roughened” barrel of Oswald’s rifle other than that the two were both rusted ?
The implication of a rusted barrel
If the inside of the barrel of the Depository rifle was rusted or had rust in it, then NOT A SINGLE ROUND HAD BEEN FIRED FROM IT IN THE PREVIOUS 24 HOURS.
Meaning that it had not been fired.
Meaning that it wasn’t the murder weapon.
Now you know why the FBI never did a “swab test” of the inside of the barrel to determine if the rifle had been fired. A swab test would have detected copper fouling in the barrel. With a rusted barrel and undisturbed rust on the firing pin, there was no need to check to see if the rifle had been fired recently.
Robert Frazier’s testimony suggests that the rifle he saw on November 23rd had rust in the barrel. When he saw that there was rust in the barrel and rust on the firing pin and spring, he knew that the rifle had not been fired. So he had no reason to check the barrel for metal fouling.
They knew that this weapon had not been fired, so they sent it back to the Dallas Police.
A difficult bolt to operate
Ronald Simmons’ testimony is even more compelling regarding the issue of rust, this time, with the bolt. Simmons testified that the bolt was so difficult to operate that the shooters had to take 2 or 3 minutes EACH before shooting to work the bolt back and forth in a “dry-run exercise”, exactly like one would use to loosen a rusted part.
The ease of operation of the bolt was essential in their attempts to obtain the elapsed time required for one gunman to have performed the killing. There is no way that one gunman, whether it was Oswald or anyone else, could have fired three shots from that rifle in the required time with the bolt in the condition as Simmons described it.
Oil evaporates. It goes from a thick liquid when first applied, to a thin film. The fact that the pin and spring were “well” oiled indicates that evaporation was not complete, i.e., that the oil had been applied rather recently.
The point is, that if oil was added to the rifle AFTER it was rusted, it must have been rusted pretty badly.
It all adds up to this: The condition of the rifle that the Dallas Police sent to the FBI on the night of the assassination was such that it was not capable of performing the assassination of President Kennedy and the wounding of Governor Connally. The FBI knew this and sent it back to the Dallas Police.
The stiff bolt
Ronald Simmons’ testimony indicates that the bolt was extremely difficult to operate:
Mr. EISENBERG. Did they make any comments concerning the weapon?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes; there were several comments made particularly with respect to the amount of effort required to open the bolt. As a matter of fact, Mr. Staley had, difficulty in opening the bolt in his first firing exercise. He thought it was completely up and it was not, and he had to retrace his steps as he attempted to open the bolt after the first round.
( 3 H 447 )
The obvious way of freeing the bolt is by operating it bolt in a “dry run “. They unloaded the weapon and each shooter “worked” the bolt back and forth in a “practice exercise” for 2-3 minutes each BEFORE he began firing.
That’s a total of 6-9 minutes to free it. The bolt was so stiff that operating it tended to move the rifle off target. Of course, the more you use the bolt, the freer it becomes and the faster the elapsed times are for the shooters.
Mr. SIMMONS. …..the pressure to open the bolt was so great that we tended to move the rifle off the target, whereas with greater proficiency this might not have occurred.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could this experience in operating the bolt be achieved in dry practice, Mr. Simmons?
Mr. SIMMONS. Yes; it could be, if sufficient practice were used. There is some indication of the magnitude of change with one of our shooters who in his second attempt fired three-tenths of a second less time than he did in the first.
( 3 H 449 )
The scope mounting issue
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 William 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 )
Additional evidence that Klein’s did not mount the scopes on 40″ rifles comes from FBI expert Robert Frazier, who testified that when the FBI ordered a replica rifle to the 40.2″ Depository Carcano from Klein’s, they had to tell Klein’s where to position the scope on the rifle. ( 3 H 396 )
The difference in the catalog numbers supports the fact that Klein’s did not mount scopes on the 40″ rifles.
The scope mounted for a left hander
But that’s not the only problem with the scope. Commission Exhibit 2560 is an April 6, 1964 phone call from the Aberdeen Proving Grounds to the Commission’s counsel. It explains that “the gunsmith observed that the scope as we received it was installed as if for a left-handed man.”
Most people have a dominant eye that corresponds to their dominant hand. For example, if you are left-handed, you are more likely to have a dominant left eye. Right-handed folks are more likely to have a dominant right eye. There are exceptions, but they are rare.
For the above mentioned reasons, the gunsmith recognized that the scope had been mounted for a left-eye dominant shooter and thus the shooter was a left-handed man.
The problem was that Oswald was right-handed. ( 22 H 763 ), ( 1 H 293-294 )
The evidence that the scope was not suitable for use by a right-handed shooter is verified by the information that shims had to be used to elevate it and to move it to the left before the weapon could be used in rifle tests. ( 3 H 444 )
The Commission became silent on Oswald’s left-handed vs, right-handedness. No step was taken to resolve the issue. Since Klein’s did not mount the scope on the 40″ rifle, the Commission should have hunted down the gunsmith who did in order to find out why and on whose orders he mounted the scope for a left hander.
The smoking guns
The Warren Commission produced shipping documents that did not include carton 3376, which contained rifle C2766. As a result there is no record when carton number 3376 was removed from the Harborside Warehouse. It arrived at the Harborside on 10/25/60 and isn’t seen again on record until it appears on Crescent Firearms invoice # 3178 dated 2/7/63.
That invoice 3178 lists 10 cartons shipped to Klein’s Sporting Goods, but only nine are actually checked off. The tenth, carton # 3376 is not checked off. The Commission produced 4 shipping documents showing 264 rifles were removed from Harborside but none of those documents listed the carton numbers that were taken.
Without a reference to carton 3376, these documents are worthless as evidence and prove nothing. In addition, the FBI used an undated list of serial numbers to show carton 3376 contained a rifle bearing the serial number C2766. When tracking an object, an undated document is worthless as well.
More than one rifle with the same serial number
We now know of at least three 6.5 Mannlicher Carcanos with the serial number C2766. No one less than J. Edgar Hoover himself advised the Warren Commission that more than one rifle had the same serial number. As long as there was more than one rifle with the same serial number, the serial number as evidence is worthless.
The phony money order
The money order in evidence was not stamped by any financial institution that handled it and never passed through the Federal Reserve System. The envelope containing the money order was mailed from a postal zone that was 3 zones away from the main post office and Oswald’s place of employment at a time when Oswald was documented at work. There is no evidence that Oswald left work to purchase and mail the money order.
The phony bank deposit
The FBI used a March 1963 monthly statement of a February 1963 Klein’s deposit to “prove” that the money order was deposited by Klein’s. But the VP of Klein’s bank told the FBI that the “$21.45” item on the tape ( Waldman Exhibit 10 ) between the $15.08 and $14.36 items was an American Express Money Order. This is the same one the WC claimed was the “Hidell” postal money order. There is no evidence that this money order ever actually moved through the Federal Reserve System.
“Hidell” could not receive the rifle
Part 3 of Oswald’s Post Office Box application was destroyed in violation of Federal postal regulations. The FBI claimed to have checked the part 3 and no one other than Oswald was to receive mail at box 2915. This means that anything addressed to anyone other than Oswald, including “A.Hidell”, would be returned to sender. There is no evidence that Oswald ever received the rifle.
Postal forms ( delivery receipt, seller’s statement ) required to be filled out for firearms sales were never filled out for the rifle sale. A “certificate of character” from a judge in the county where “Hidell” lived was also required for the purchase of the rifle. No such certificate exists.
Different models of rifles
There were three different types of Mannlciher-Carcano rifles. There was a 42″ Long Rifle, a 40.2″ Short Rifle and a 36″ Troop Special. The rifle “Hidell” allegedly ordered and the rifle they said was shipped was a 36″ Troop Special. The rifle found on the sixth floor of the TSBD was a 40.2″ Short Rifle. There is no evidence that a 36″ rifle was ordered and a 40″ rifle was substituted in its stead.
Comparing COPIES of Oswald’s handwriting
The WC experts comparing Oswald’s handwriting used first and second generation COPIES, rather than original documents. The HSCA experts also used copies but explained the problems when not using originals. A document examiner’s conclusion is correctly considered a professional opinion, not evidence. Without the original documents, there is no evidence to prove that Oswald’s handwriting wasn’t forged by a “cut and paste” method.
In fact, the phony “Hidell” selective service card is an example of how much technology they had in this field.
The rifle’s sling mounts
While we’re on the subject of “cut and paste”, let’s look at the rifle in the “backyard photographs”. If anything should give you pause on whether the “backyard photographs” are real or not, it’s the sling mounts on the rifle. The sling mounts on the Depository rifle are not the same as the sling mounts on the rifle depicted in those photographs.
Rust on the rifle
Then there’s the condition of the rifle itself. The FBI received the rifle the day after the assassination. They found that the barrel and firing pin of the Depository rifle had undisturbed rust, indicating that the rifle had not been fired in the recent past. They returned the rifle to Dallas. There is no evidence that the Depository Rifle was ever fired in Dealey Plaza.
Media coverup
The mainstream media has historically been a co-conspirator in the ongoing character assassination of Oswald. For example, it’s so-called “experts” viewed the partial fingerprints on the trigger guard and pieced them together to get a whole fingerprint. Then they matched the whole print to Oswald.
But those of us who have done fingerprinting and examined fingerprints, we know that this is not the way it’s done. You don’t piece partials together. You examine each individual partial and compare it to the whole print. If you have 6 or more similarities, it’s considered a match. Anything less is not a match. The more similarities, the stronger the case is for a match.
It’s like building a car using a door of a Dodge, the hood of a Chevy and the fender of a Ford and claiming it’s a Cadillac. It’s ridiculous.
That’s why when the FBI first got the rifle and examined the prints they said that there were no legible prints on the trigger guard. Not enough similarities to match Oswald’s prints.
Conclusion
I don’t believe that the rifle was ever shipped. I believe that the paperwork is all faked, that those responsible for the framing of Oswald had a 40″ rifle serial number C2766 in their possesson and made up the paperwork AFTER the assassination to match the rifle’s serial number.
As their evidence, the FBI produced shipping documents that did not include the serial number of the rifle or the carton number that contained it. They produced a money order that was never processed and wasn’t deposited and an envelope that was postmarked at a time when Oswald was proven to be at work. The Postal Service destroyed part 3 of the post office box application in order to hide the fact that the name “A.Hidell” was not on it and thus could not receive the rifle, then lied to the Commission by telling them the destruction was standard procedure.
In order for Oswald to have fired a shot at General Walker in April, they had to have him ordering the rifle in March. But the only rifle Klein’s had in stock at that time was the 36″ rifle. They couldn’t have known that there was difference between the rifle they had and the rifle in the advertisement. So they made the paperwork that showed Oswald purchased a 36″ rifle using the same serial number as their 40″ rifle, which, according to Louis Feldsott, was sold in June of 1962.
A final thought
It wasn’t necessary for Klein’s to be involved in the framing, all they had to do was whatever the FBI requested they do. If the FBI wanted blank order forms, they’d get them. If they wanted order forms filled out or partially filled out, they’d get them. All they had to say was that they wanted them for comparison. Under the circumstances, Klein’s would have complied with whatever the FBI wanted.
They could very well have filled out the form and left the control number and the serial number blank. In fact, examination of the Waldman 7 indicates that more than one person filled out the form.
This may have been one reason why Klein’s shipping employees were never called to give testimony as to the authentication of the order form bearing the serial number C 2766.
The Klein’s “records” were on microfilm. Both the FBI and the CIA had a microfilm machines and could have easily produced the altered documents.
The bottom line is that in the business world, you can’t have a money order that wasn’t processed and wasn’t deposited and have a finished sales transaction. Regardless of what the item is, without payment, it’s never going to be shipped.
The evidence that it wasn’t paid for is the evidence that it was never shipped and thus it ws never received.
Again, this is my opinion based on the evidence I’ve seen.
Looking at all the evidence with regard to the rifle in detail, it’s hard to imagine how any sane person would accept this garbage as evidence. It’s harder to imagine that any prosecutor worth his salt would take this case forward.
He’d be laughed out of court.