".....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 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, the Commission said,
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 of President Kennedy and Governor Connally.
EVIDENCE THE DEPOSITORY RIFLE WAS
NOT PART OF THE FEBRUARY SHIPMENT TO KLEIN'S
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 ( 520 cartons )
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
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
This is where the paper trail for carton 3376 ends.
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 AMONGTHEM.
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
7 H 371 )
During the month of October, 1962, Rupp removed 264 more rifles from lot
90 on October 4th
70 on October 16
64 on October 24
and the last 40 on October 31
On all of the subsequent shipping
manifests of the rifles removed from Harborside Warehouse by Fred Rupp,
THE LIST OF CARTON NUMBERS IS ABSENT,
even though on the 10/24 manifest, it is clearly marked "list numbers of
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
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.
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
The FBI's " tracking of the rifle " included 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.
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.
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 the 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 slip numbers are 3672, 3504, 4376, 3813, 3789,
3661, 3762, 3544, 3620 and 3770.
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.
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. He didn't accept the shipment of the rifles, yet he was the
one who gave testimony. The people at Klein's whose responsibility it
was to handle such measures were never called to testify to the origin
of the documents.
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 ?
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
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, Rupp
would have had to have started preparing the shipment
right after the order, and that means that
the rifles in 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.
In addition, Rupp told the FBI that the rifle bearing
serial number C2766 which he serviced was a 36" rifle. ( Armstrong,
Harvey & Lee, pg. 446 )
This information is significant, I believe, because it
proves that there was more than one rifle, in this case a 36" rifle and
a 40.2" rifle, bearing the serial number C2766.
The rifle serial number
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 ). The FBI also told the
Commission that although rifles might have the same serial number
sequence, some were preceded by a letter and some were not ( i.e. 2766
vs. C2766 ). ( 3 H 393 )
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.
The Commission never considered that the
serial number of the rifle in evidence may have been modified.
Without knowing it as fact, it just
stated that "This rifle is the only one of its type bearing that
Even if none of the rifles had duplicate
serial numbers, how hard would it have been for someone looking to frame
Oswald to have added a final "6" to the serial number "C276" ? The
hardest part would have been trying to line up the stamp so the numbers
were all in a straight line. Otherwise, the final number may have shown
up askew to the rest of the numbers and that would have looked odd.
PURCHASING THE RIFLE
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 on this page.
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
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.
So where did this second order blank come from and why
did PBS attempt to pass it off as the real deal ?
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 ), 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 ). 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 ?
In light of the fact that 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, is it possible that the documents are not real, but were
created after the assassination with the intent on framing Oswald for
the crime post mortem ?
Post Office Box 2915 and the Application
The 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.
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 3, below ). He
told the Commission that part 3 had been discarded when the box had been
closed, in May 1963, in accordance with postal regulations. Holmes
further went on to say that the New Orleans Post Office hadn't complied
to the regulation by keeping part 3 of Oswald's box application in that
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 )
That was a lie. The postal regulation required that
the box application ( parts 2 & 3 ) 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 replied that in March
of 1963, postal regulation 846.53h required that all box applications,
including part 3, be kept for a period of 2 years after the box was
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.
As if that wasn't bad enough, 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 )
In order to show how ridiculously absurd such a
procedure is, the Post Office regulation is clear.
In response to Mr. Galanor's second question,
regarding mail addressed to someone NOT on the box application part 3,
the post office replied that regulation
355.111b(4) required that the item would have marked "addressee unknown"
and returned to sender.
In other words, if "Hidell's"
name is not on the box application part 3, he CANNOT receive mail in a
box assigned to Oswald.
EVIDENCE THAT OSWALD WAS AT WORK WHEN THE MONEY
ORDER FOR THE RIFLE WAS PURCHASED AND THE ENVELOPE MAILED
Buying and Mailing 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 )
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 )
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.
this document found in Box 50 of the HSCA Segregated CIA files shows
that the post office window opened at 8:00 am:
The document states that Oswald "probably lied" when he signed in on
his timesheet and cautions that the "time sheets should be used with
PROBABLY lied ?
"Probably" is one of those "buzz words" people use when they don't
have any evidence. Like "could be", "maybe" and "possibly".
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.
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 ( yellow arrow ) , when Oswald worked and
allegedly purchased the money order in postal zone 1. And there is
NO EVIDENCE that Oswald gave the envelope to
someone else to mail.
Processing the Money Order
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 single stamp on the back was identified in testimony as the stamp
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,
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.
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 financial institutions
that handled the document.
The fact that it doesn't is proof that it never passed through the
Federal Reserve System.
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 )
So far, in tracking 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 bank.
No evidence that it was received by the Federal Reserve Bank of
No evidence that it was received by any financial institution 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 ENDORSEMENTS
from the financial institutions which handled it.
Not surprizingly, this money order without bank stamps becomes part
of a deposit which never included it.
EVIDENCE THAT THE "$ 21.45" ENTRY ON
KLEIN'S BANK STATEMENT WAS NOT THE "HIDELL"
The Klein's deposit
& its deposit slip
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 bank statement of account action for the period ending 3/13/63.
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 buy 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 ?
IMO, it's pretty hard to believe it's an honest mistake.
From the evidence I've seen, the FBI apparently 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 a postal money order.
Let me explain why I believe that.
I believe that we're looking at TWO documents, dated a
month apart, for the SAME deposit. the first is the February 15, 1963
deposit slip with a total of $ 13,827.98 in deposits from Klein's
sporting goods to be deposited into their account in the First National
Bank of Chicago. (
21 H 706 )
The second ( the bulk statement ) appears to me to be a bank
statement, mailed to Klein's ONE MONTH LATER, dated March 13, 1963
and listing all of the checks and money orders deposited on 2/15 and
part of that exhibit ( Waldman 10 ) includes one other separate deposit
of $ 2,116.91 , date unknown ( below ). If Klein's bank statements
were tallied as of the 13th of the month, then a deposit on the 15th of
February would not show up until March 13th's statement.
Unfortunately, the date for this second "deposit" is
cut off, making it impossible to determine its exact date.
That is, I believe, why the "deposit" has two different dates. One is
for the actual deposit and the other is for the bank statement received
by Klein's the following month. If true, then the FBI took a bank
deposit for February 15th, 1963 that included TWO items for $ 21.45 and
tried to pass one of them off as a deposit of the "Hidell" money order,
using the date of the statement as a date of deposit.
Again, my opinion is that 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 bank statement dated 3/13/63, which
was actually for the 2/15 deposit, and claimed that it was all part of a
Again, that's my opinion, based on what I've seen.
Absent the dated stamp of the bank, it was IMPOSSIBLE
to say when and IF the money order had been deposited. It was
particularly difficult for Waldman in his testimony to nail down the
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 )
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.
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
If the deposit was made in February, as I suggest,
then the $ 21.45 in Waldman 10's deposit of $ 13.827.98 couldn't
possibly be the "Hidell" money order . And there's evidence
showing that it wasn't.
In Commission Document 7, pg. 192 ( below ) , Wilmouth
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
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
Finding the money order
HARRY HOLMES TESTIFIED THAT THE MONEY ORDER STUB 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. ( 11 AM )
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.
( 12 NOON )
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 )
BUT ALTHOUGH THEY HAD THE MONEY ORDER NUMBER, THE DATE, & KNEW THE
AMOUNT AND RELAYED THAT INFO TO WASHINGTON "IMMEDIATELY" after 12:10pm,
IT TOOK AN IBM COMPUTER ANOTHER SEVEN HOURS TO
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.
RECEIVING THE RIFLE
The Federal Firearms Act of 1938 said that "Nobody is
permitted to ship, transport, or cause to be shipped or transported, in
interstate or foreign commerce, any firearm or ammunition to any person,
knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person is a
fugitive or is under indictment for, or was convicted of a crime of
In order to prove that a weapons customer wasn't a
fugitive or violent criminal, Texas law REQUIRED that a "certificate
of character" be issued by a judge in the county of residence of the
purchaser of a firearm. ( VERNON'S TEXAS PENAL CODE, article 489a ( 1925
No "certificate of character" exists for the sale of
In addition, no clerk in the Dallas Post Office has
ever come forward admitting that they handed a long package to Oswald in
March of 1963.
In other words, 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.
In addition to the envelope being mailed at a time
when Oswald was at work, being mailed three postal zones away, not
having a bank stamp on it, being included in a deposit that it was
clearly not a part of, missing part 3 of the post office box application
and the "certificate of character" required by law, the lack of evidence
that anyone physically took possession of the weapon from the post
office and the unbelievable amount of time it took to find the money
order after the discovery of the stub, there seems to be only one area
of the purchasing of the rifle left to destroy.
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.
Unfortunately, the chain of custody of those photos was never
ESTABLISHED because those "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.
"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.
Many of the standards in the examination of Oswald's handwriting were
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
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.
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
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 234,
How could an Oswald signature be faked ?
In his examination of the "Dear Mr. Hunt " letter for the HSCA, McNally
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
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
Finally, we should always keep in mind that a document examiner's
conclusion is correctly considered a professional opinion, not evidence.
EVIDENCE THAT THE DEPOSITORY RIFLE
IS NOT THE RIFLE IN THE FAMOUS "BACKYARD" PHOTOGRAPHS
The Sling Mount
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.
It appears that the rifle in the BY photos has a front sling mount
similar to the one depicted below, but with a "D" ring added.:
CE 133-B also shows the "rope sling" apparently tied to the bottom of
the front of the rifle. Had it been tied to a front side sling mount,
the knots ( yellow arrows, below ) especially the rear knot, would have
been on the "Oswald side" of the rifle and out of the camera's view:
Likewise, CE 133-C also shows the rope tied to the bottom of the
rifle at the front ( yellow arrow, below ) and not the side.
Although some may argue that
the rear sling mount was attached to the side, whether or not it was is
irrelevant because the Depository rifle did not have two different types
of sling mounts. What IS relevant is the
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
"...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.
It would seem that IF Oswald ordered a 36" rifle and received a 36"
rifle, then the 40" Depository rifle was not his.
You can see more info on the difference in the sling mounts on this
video from my
EVIDENCE THAT THE DEPOSITORY RIFLE
WAS NOT FIRED ON NOVEMBER 22, 1963
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
So how could the barrel have surface rust after THREE rounds had been
fired through it ?
The Rusted Barrel
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.
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 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
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.
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 Bolt
Not only was there rust on the inside of the barrel, rust that should
not have been there if the rifle had been fired ONCE ( never mind THREE
times ), Ronald Simmons' testimony indicates that the bolt was also
Mr. EISENBERG. Did they make any comments concerning
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 "getting the rust out", is by operating the 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 BEFORE he
began firing. The firing pin was rusted so badly, that they were afraid
it might break.
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
They worked the bolt for a total of 6-9 minutes to free it from its
rust. The bolt was so rusted that operating it tended to move the rifle
off target. Of course, the more you use the bolt, the freer from 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
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 rusted firing pin, & spring
Then there was enough rust on the firing pin and its spring for
someone to have oiled it:
".....the firing pin of this rifle has been used extensively as shown
by wear on the nose or striking portion of the firing pin and, further,
THE PRESENCE OF RUST ON THE FIRING PIN
AND ITS SPRING....." ( CE 2974 )
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
So how is there rust on a firing pin that
has been used three times in the last 24 hours ?
This document also states that not only was "the firing pin and
spring of this weapon well oiled", the rust "must have formed prior to
the oiling of these parts."
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 ?
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.
Mr. McCLOY. Was there metal fouling in the barrel?
Mr. FRAZIER. I did not examine it for that.
( ibid. )
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.
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
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 one of the rifle "experts" 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
EVIDENCE THAT THE SCOPE ON THE
DEPOSITORY RIFLE WAS NOT MOUNTED BY KLEIN'S
As I've already shown above, the ad that the
Commission says Hidell/Oswald ordered his rifle from was for the 36 inch
length MC that was offered with the scope. 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 during
March 1963, Klein's only mounted the scope on the 36 inch MC.
The man who actually mounted the scopes for Klein's
was Bill Sharp, their in-house gunsmith. He confirmed to the HSCA what
Westra told them: the March 1963 package deal with the scope was for the
36 inch MC ONLY.
Confirmation that Klein's did not mount scopes on the
40" rifle came in the testimony of FBI firearms expert Robert Frazier,
who told the Warren Commission that when the FBI ordered a duplicate
rifle to the Depository rifle from Klein's,
they had to tell them where to put the mount for 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
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.
( 3 H 396 )
Why would the FBI have to tell Klein's where to mount
the scope if Klein's normally mounted scopes on these rifles ?
MORE TO COME
NOTABLE NOTES FROM THIS PAGE
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 Crescent Firearms invoice 3178 lists 10 cartons shipped to Klein's
Sporting Goods, but only nine are actually checked off. The tenth,
carton # 3376 ( which allegedly contained rifle C2766 ) is not checked
A C2766 rifle sold to Klein's in June of 1962 would have been a 36"
rifle. The time consumed in preparing the order would have required it
to have been begun prior to 4/13/62, the effective date of the order
change. That would have made the rifle a 91/ 38 TS ( troop special ) ,
which only came in a 36" length.
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.
The money order in evidence was not stamped by any financial
institution that handled it and passed through the Federal Reserve
System without any stamps at all..
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.
Using only manual labor and the money order amount as a guide, the
Dallas Post Office employees found the money order stub in ten minutes,
but it took an IBM computer in Washington 7 hours to find the money
order with the number, amount and date info.
Part 3 of Oswald's Post Office Box application was destroyed in
violation of Federal postal regulations.
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
The Klein's catalog number of the rifle "Hidell" ordered was
different than the catalog number of the rifle found on the sixth floor
of the TSBD.
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.
The sling mounts on the Depository rifle are not the same as the
sling mounts on the rifle depicted in the famous "backyard" photographs.