Chain of custody of CE 399 - big problem or much ado about nothing?

[Lance Payette]

If you’ve been following other threads, you know that several FBI documents refer to persons in the chain of custody of CE 399 as being unable to “identify” CE 399 as the bullet Tomlinson found at Parkland. These conversations occurred in June of 1964, after the WC had asked the FBI to document the chain of custody. The conversations were summarized in WC CE 2011.

CTers appear not to understand what this non-identification means, exaggerate its significance, and suggest it is fatal to the chain of custody.

When an exhibit such as CE 399 is offered into evidence at trial, the first step is always identification. Every lawyer – indeed, every FBI and SS agent – knows this. “Identification” is a legal term of art.

With an unsophisticated witness, the exchange at trial may go like this:

Lawyer: “Let me hand you what has been marked as Plaintiff’s Exhibit 9 and ask if you can identify it?”
Witness: “I wrote this to my cousin Shirley just after …”
Lawyer: “No, right now I just want you to tell the court whether you can identify Plaintiff’s Exhibit 9?”
Witness: “Oh. Yes, it’s a letter I wrote to my cousin Shirley.”

The chain of custody of CE 399 goes like this: Tomlinson → Wright → SS Johnsen → SS Rowley → FBI Todd → FBI Frazier. Todd and Frazier initialed the bullet, so the concern is with those below them.

CTers seem to think identification must go like this at every stage:

Lawyer: “Let me hand you what has been marked as State’s [or Prosecution’s] Exhibit 399 and ask if you can identify it?”
Tomlinson: “Sure, it’s the bullet I found on a stretcher at Parkland the day of the assassination of President Kennedy.”
Lawyer: “No doubt about that?”
Tomlinson: “No, I’ll never forget that moment. I examined the bullet carefully and noticed the peculiar flattening at the base that we see right here on Exhibit 399.”

This would be nice, but no way is it essential. The chain of custody requirement is that when we’re all done and CE 399 is offered into evidence, there is a likelihood it is the bullet found at Parkland. The chain does not have to be perfect at every stage. If the defense can establish significant doubt, then the exhibit may not be admitted. Lesser defects go to the weight the court or jury gives to the exhibit after it is in evidence.

A realistic identification by Tomlinson might go like this:

Lawyer: “Let me hand you what has been marked as Prosecution’s Exhibit 399 and ask if you can identify it?”
Tomlinson: “It’s a bullet in a little plastic bag.”
Lawyer: “Yes, take a closer look and tell the court if you can identify it more specifically.”
Tomlinson: “Well, it looks like the bullet I found on a stretcher at Parkland hospital the day the President was assassinated.”
Lawyer: “Tell the court why you say that.”
Tomlinson: “Well, it’s basically what I remember. I really didn’t look that closely at the bullet and the day was total chaos anyway. I can say it doesn’t look completely different from what I found.”
Lawyer: “OK, but you’re saying you’re not sure?”
Tomlinson: “Right. I have no way of being certain.”
Lawyer: “Have you seen that bullet in that bag before?”
Tomlinson: “Yes, a view weeks ago.”
Lawyer: “Describe the circumstances.”
Tomlinson: “Some FBI agent came to Parkland and asked me if I could identify it as the bullet I found on the stretcher.”
Lawyer: “Do you recall what you told him?”
Tomlinson: “Not exactly, but basically what I just told you – it looks like the same bullet, but there is no way I can be sure it is. I didn’t pay that much attention in the first place, and I have no way of knowing what happened after Mr. Wright gave the bullet we found to some Secret Service guy the day of the assassination.”
Lawyer: “Did you tell the FBI agent you could not identify the bullet?”
Tomlinson: “I don’t remember if I used that exact word, but I pretty much told him what I just told you.”
Lawyer: “Thank you, Mr. Tomlinson. That’s all I have for this witness, your honor.”

Is this a sufficient identification? I guarantee you it is. The defense could then attempt to poke holes in Tomlinson’s testimony, of course. Exhibit 399 would not be offered into evidence at this point, Tomlinson merely being the first link in the chain.

Assuming Wright testified he was sure the bullet was a pointy-headed hunting slug, would this inevitably be fatal? Not at all. If Wright’s testimony were bracketed by Tomlinson and Johnsen making the sort of identification described above, Wright’s testimony might reasonably be chalked up to faulty memory. The court or jury could consider his testimony in deciding how much weight to give CE 399, but his testimony surely would not keep CE 399 out of evidence.

If Johnsen and Rowley gave similar testimony, this likewise would probably be sufficient identification. I don’t actually know to what extent Johnsen and Rowley documented their receipt of the bullet, but if they violated some SS rule by not initialing it this would be significant but by no means inevitably fatal.

I think it’s unlikely there would have been a significant chain-of-custody issue with CE 399. When CE 399 was shown to Tomlinson, Wright, Johnsen and Rowley in June of 1964 at the request of the WC, it was in the custody of Todd (for Johnson and Rowley) and Odum or someone (for Tomlinson and Wright). If Odum said “No way – I never handled the bullet and didn’t go to Parkland at all,” this would merely cast doubt on the accuracy of CE 2011. If Tomlinson and Wright said no more than “Yeah, some FBI guy showed it to me at Parkland in June,” this would put the Odum issue to bed. If that “FBI guy” could be accurately described or identified, so much the better.

The bottom line: Characters like Jim DiEugenio who fixate on NO WAY WOULD CE 399 EVER HAVE BEEN ADMITTED AT TRIAL!!! simply don’t know what they are talking about. It might not have been admitted, but my pretty confident guess is that it would have been. When they further suggest AND THUS WE CAN’T TRUST CE 399 AT ALL!!! they are merely spouting Conspiracy World hyperbole. The suggestion is that CE 2011 somehow locks in Tomlinson, Wright, Johnsen and Rowley as being UNABLE TO IDENTIFY CE 399 AND NOTHING THEY COULD SAY AT TRIAL COULD CHANGE THIS. This is not true at all. We don't even know who wrote CE 2011, and it is nothing but a second- or third-hand summary that suggests no more than that they could not honestly say they were certain CE 399 was the bullet they had previously handled.

[Charles Collins]

It seems to me that the physical ballistic evidence showing that CE399 was fired from the same rifle that other bullet fragments (that were recovered from the limo) were fired from should also be considered. In other words, the totality of the evidence is what should be considered when forming conclusions.

[Martin Weidmann]

Why in the world would anybody think that, if this case had gone to trial, the defense would object to CE 399 being admitted into evidence?

Just consider what happened when Specter introduced CE 399 into evidence during the testimony of Dr. Humes;

Mr. SPECTER - Doctor Humes, I show you a bullet which we have marked as Commission Exhibit No. 399, and may I say now that, subject to later proof, this is the missile which has been taken from the stretcher which the evidence now indicates was the stretcher occupied by Governor Connally. I move for its admission into evidence at this time.
The CHAIRMAN. It may be admitted.
(The article, previously marked Commission Exhibit No. 399 for identification, was received in evidence.)

and instantly needed to lie when Dulles started asking questions about where CE 399 was found;

Mr. DULLES - Yes. I wonder if there is other evidence of this.
Mr. SPECTER - There has been other evidence, Mr. DULLES - If I may say at this point, we shall produce later, subject to sequential proof, evidence that the stretcher on which this bullet was found was the stretcher of Governor Connally. We have a sequence of events on the transmission of that stretcher which ties that down reasonably closely, so that on the night of the autopsy itself, as the information I have been developing indicates, the thought preliminarily was that was from President Kennedy's stretcher, and that is what led to the hypothesis which we have been exploring about but which has since been rejected. But at any rate the evidence will show that it was from Governor Connally's stretcher that the bullet was found.

We now know, and at trial this would have been shown as well, that not only was there no "other evidence" but no proof that the bullet was found on Connally's stretcher was ever provided.

It should be noted that when Dr Humes testified, Specter had already taken a deposition from Tomlinson and thus knew that there was no certainty on Tomlinson's part on which stretcher the bullet had been found.

The admittance of CE 399 into evidence would also have opened up the opportunity for the defense to have Tomlinson and Wright testify and not only ask them if they could identify the bullet (which of course they could not) but also ask them if Odum had shown them that bullet in April 1964 and if their statements (if they were made at all) were correctly represented by the FBI.

IMO CE 399 would serve the defense much better having been admitted into evidence then not

[Lance Payette]

It seems to me that the physical ballistic evidence showing that CE399 was fired from the same rifle that other bullet fragments (that were recovered from the limo) were fired from should also be considered. In other words, the totality of the evidence is what should be considered when forming conclusions.

Yes, but you have to get it into evidence to be able to discuss it at all. No one could testify that CE 399 was fired from Oswald's rifle unless and until it had been admitted into evidence.

[Lance Payette]

Just a quick addition:

Tomlinson, of course, did testify for the Warren Commission. He was interrogated under oath by Specter at Parkland on March 20, 1964 (almost three months before he was questioned by Odum or some other FBI agent about CE 399). He was grilled about the stretchers, not the bullet.

I was struck by what an amazing and excellent witness he was – excellent in the sense of refusing to allow Specter to put words in his mouth or to be badgered into saying anything other than the truth as he recalled it. A lowly plant engineer, he firmly held his ground.

Read this remarkable exchange. Not only does it mesh well with my imaginary testimony, but I think it gives a good idea as to how the June 1964 conversation about CE 399 might have gone and why CE 2011 said he couldn’t identify it as the bullet he found.

Mr. SPECTER. Do you remember if you told the Secret Service man which stretcher you thought you took off of the elevator?
Mr. TOMLINSON. Well, we talked about taking a stretcher off of the elevator, but then when it comes down on an oath, I wouldn’t say for sure, I really don’t remember.
Mr. SPECTER. And do you recollect whether or not you told the Secret Service man which stretcher you took off of the elevator?
Mr. TOMLINSON. What do you mean?
Mr. SPECTER. You say you can’t really take an oath today to be sure whether it was stretcher A or stretcher B that you took off the elevator?
Mr. TOMLINSON. Well, today or any other day, I’m just not sure of it, whether it was A or B that I took off.
Mr. SPECTER. Well, has your recollection always been the same about the situation, that is, today, and when you talked to the Secret Service man and
when you talked to the FBI man?
Mr. TOMLINSON. Yes; I told him that I wasn’t sure.
Mr. SPECTER. So, what you told the Secret Service man was just about the same thing as you have told me today?
Mr. TOMLINSON. Yes, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. When I first started to ask you about this, Mr. Tomlinson, you initially identified stretcher A as the one which came off of the elevator car?
Mr. TOMLINSON. Yes, I think it’s just like that.
Mr. SPECTER. And, then, when-
Mr. TOMLINSON (interrupting). Here’s the deal- I rolled that thing off, we got a call, and went to second floor, picked the man up and brought him down.
He went on over across, to clear out of the emergency area, but across from it, and picked up two pints of, I believe it was, blood. He told me to hold for him, he had to get right back to the operating room, so I held, and the minute he hit there, we took off for the second floor and I came back to the ground. Now, I don’t know how many people went through that-I don’t know how many people hit them- I don’t know anything about what could have happened to them in between the time I was gone, and I made several trips before I discovered the bullet on the end of it there.
Mr. SPECTER. You think, then, that this could have been either, you took out of the elevator as you sit here at the moment, or you just can’t be sure?
Mr. TOMLINSON. It could be, but I can’t be positive or positively sure, I think it was A, but I’m not sure.
Mr. SPECTER. That you took off of the elevator?
Mr. TOMLINSON. Yes.
Mr. SPECTER. Now, before I started to ask you questions under oath, which have been taken down here, I told you, did I not, that the Secret Service man
wrote a report where he said that the bullet was found on the stretcher which you took off of the elevator- I called that to your attention, didn’t I?
Mr. TOMLINSON. Yes; you told me that.
Mr. SPECTER. Now, after I tell you that, does that hare any effect on refreshing your recollection of what you told the Secret Service man?
Mr. TOMLINSON. No, it really doesn’t-it really doesn’t.
Mr. SPECTER. So, would it be a fair summary to say that when I first started to talk to you about it, your first view was that the stretcher you took off of the elevator was stretcher A, and then I told you that the Secret Service man said it was-that you had said the stretcher you took off of the elevator was the one that you found the bullet off, and when we talked about the whole matter and talked over the entire situation, you really can’t be completely sure about which stretcher you took off of the elevator, because you didn’t push the stretcher that you took off of the elevator right against the wall at first?
Mr. TOMLINSON. That’s right.
Mr. SPECTER. And, there was a lot of confusion that day, which is what you told me before?
Mr. TOMLINSON. Absolutely. And now, honestly, I don’t remember telling him definitely-I know we talked about it, and I told him that it could have been. Now, he might have drawed his own conclusion on that.
Mr. SPECTER. You told the Secret Service agent that you didn’t know where--
Mr. TOMLINSON (interrupting). He asked me if it could have been brought down from the second floor.
Mr. SPECTER. You got the stretcher from where the bullet came from, whether it was brought down from the second floor?
Mr. TOMLINSON. It could have been-I’m not sure whether it was A I took off.
Mr. SPECTER. But did you tell the Secret Service man which one you thought it was you took off of the elevator?
Mr. TOMLINSON. I’m not clear on that-whether I absolutely made a positive statement to that effect.
Mr. SPECTER. You told him that it could have been B you took off of the elevator?
Mr. TOMLINSON. That’s right.
Mr. SPECTER. But, you don’t remember whether you told him it was A you took off of the elevator?
Mr. TOMLINSON. I think it was A-I’m not really sure.
Mr. SPECTER. Which did you tell the Secret Service agent-that you thought it was A that you took off of the elevator?
Mr. TOMLINSON. Really, I couldn’t be real truthful in saying I told him this or that.
Mr. SPECTER. You just don’t remember for sure whether you told him you thought it was A or not?
Mr. TOMLINSON. No, sir; I really don’t remember. I’m not accustomed to being questioned by the Secret Service and the FBI and by you and they are
writing down everything, I mean.
MR. SPECTER. That’s all right. I understand exactly what you are saying and I appreciate it and I really just want to get your best recollection.
We understand it isn’t easy to remember all that went on, on a day like November 22nd, and that a man’s recollection is not perfect like every other part
of a man, but I want you to tell me just what you remember, and that’s the best you can do today, and I appreciate that, and so does the President’s Commission, and that’s all we can ask a man.
Mr. TOMLINSON. Yes, I’m going to tell you all I can, and I’m not going to tell you something I can’t lay down and sleep at night with either.
Mr. SPECTER. Do you know where the stretcher came from that you found on the elevator?
Mr. TOMLINSON. No, sir; I do not. It could have come from two, it could have come from three, it could have come from some other place.

[Lance Payette]

Regarding the comments of he who is Not Worth My Time, who suggests the Oswald defense would not have objected to the admission of CE 399 (even though it's a fixation with CTers like Jim DiEugenio!):

1. The critical points for the prosecution would have been that CE 399 was fired from Oswald's rifle, was found at the hospital where JFK and Connally had been taken and provided a plausible explanation for the SBT. Precisely which stretcher it was found on would not have been an issue in the admissibility of CE 399.

2. The defense surely would have attempted to prevent the admission of CE 399 into evidence because, duh, it had been fired from Oswald's rifle, was found at the hospital where JFK and Connally had been taken and provided an explanation for the SBT.

3. He who is NWMT states the admission of CE 399 would have allowed the defense to call Tomlinson and Wright and show they couldn't identify it as the found bullet. Uh, no. To get CE 399 into evidence in the first place, the PROSECUTION would have had to call T and W as part of the chain of custody. For the reasons stated in my original post, I don't believe this would have been a problem.

4. He who is NWMT further states that the admission of CE 399 would have allowed the defense to ask T and W if Odum had shown them that same bullet in June and if their statements were correctly represented by the FBI in CE 2011 and Shanklin's AIRTEL. With respect to the admission of CE 399, all that would have mattered was what T and W said at trial in terms of identification. Whether they had been shown CE 399 in June by Odum or someone else would have been irrelevant to any issue other than the accuracy of CE 2011 and Shanklin's AIRTEL, neither of which would have had anything to do with the admissibility of CE 399. If the defense had attempted to "impeach" T and W with CE 2011 and the AIRTEL, the prosecution would have pointed out that these documents were second-, third- or fourth-hand hearsay and had nothing to do with T's or W's ability to identify CE 399 at trial. If the judge had nevertheless allowed a question along the lines of "Did you tell Odum you couldn't identify CE 399?" the answer would likely have been as I described in my imaginary testimony: "Yes, Odum or some FBI agent showed me CE 399 in June and I told him, just as I'm telling the court now, that I could not identify CE 399 with certainty" - and that would not have been a bar to the identification and admissibility of CE 399.

5. He who is NWMT actually makes my point for me: Foaming-at-the-mouth, non-lawyer CTers look at a set of facts and completely misunderstand the actual implications of those facts. This is the point of this thread, not whether CE 399 would actually have been admitted at trial. The point is that even CTers of the level of Tink Thompson and Gary Aguilar build a dark and sinister case around CE 399 when the facts are not really dark and sinister at all. Out here in the real world, where we don't have to obsess over legal technicalities, there is no reason to doubt that CE 399 was fired from Oswald's rifle and found at Parkland after JFK and Connally had been taken there.

[Martin Weidmann]

Regarding the comments of he who is Not Worth My Time, who suggests the Oswald defense would not have objected to the admission of CE 399 (even though it's a fixation with CTers like Jim DiEugenio!):

1. The critical points for the prosecution would have been that CE 399 was fired from Oswald's rifle, was found at the hospital where JFK and Connally had been taken and provided a plausible explanation for the SBT. Precisely which stretcher it was found on would not have been an issue in the admissibility of CE 399.

2. The defense surely would have attempted to prevent the admission of CE 399 into evidence because, duh, it had been fired from Oswald's rifle, was found at the hospital where JFK and Connally had been taken and provided an explanation for the SBT.

3. He who is NWMT states the admission of CE 399 would have allowed the defense to call Tomlinson and Wright and show they couldn't identify it as the found bullet. Uh, no. To get CE 399 into evidence in the first place, the PROSECUTION would have had to call T and W as part of the chain of custody. For the reasons stated in my original post, I don't believe this would have been a problem.

4. He who is NWMT further states that the admission of CE 399 would have allowed the defense to ask T and W if Odum had shown them that same bullet in June and if their statements were correctly represented by the FBI in CE 2011 and Shanklin's AIRTEL. With respect to the admission of CE 399, all that would have mattered was what T and W said at trial in terms of identification. Whether they had been shown CE 399 in June by Odum or someone else would have been irrelevant to any issue other than the accuracy of CE 2011 and Shanklin's AIRTEL, neither of which would have had anything to do with the admissibility of CE 399. If the defense had attempted to "impeach" T and W with CE 2011 and the AIRTEL, the prosecution would have pointed out that these documents were second-, third- or fourth-hand hearsay and had nothing to do with T's or W's ability to identify CE 399 at trial. If the judge had nevertheless allowed a question along the lines of "Did you tell Odum you couldn't identify CE 399?" the answer would likely have been as I described in my imaginary testimony: "Yes, Odum or some FBI agent showed me CE 399 in June and I told him, just as I'm telling the court now, that I could not identify CE 399 with certainty" - and that would not have been a bar to the identification and admissibility of CE 399.

5. He who is NWMT actually makes my point for me: Foaming-at-the-mouth, non-lawyer CTers look at a set of facts and completely misunderstand the actual implications of those facts. This is the point of this thread, not whether CE 399 would actually have been admitted at trial. The point is that even CTers of the level of Tink Thompson and Gary Aguilar build a dark and sinister case around CE 399 when the facts are not really dark and sinister at all. Out here in the real world, where we don't have to obsess over legal technicalities, there is no reason to doubt that CE 399 was fired from Oswald's rifle and found at Parkland after JFK and Connally had been taken there.

You seem to be replying a lot to somebody you claim isn't worth your time. It's really pathetic!

1. The critical points for the prosecution would have been that CE 399 was fired from Oswald's rifle, was found at the hospital where JFK and Connally had been taken and provided a plausible explanation for the SBT. Precisely which stretcher it was found on would not have been an issue in the admissibility of CE 399.

And all of those points would run into serious problems. Except for a photocopy of a microfilm showing an order form, which an FBI expert claimed (despite another expert saying such claims can not be made with 100% certainty) that it was written, there is no conclusive evidence that rifle that fired CE 399 did in fact belong to Oswald. That's can of worms # 1

The second one is that there is no evidence that shows that the bullet now in evidence as CE 399 was ever at Parkland. That's can of worms #2

For these two reasons alone the defense would not object to CE 399 being entered into evidence, because it would allow them to completely destroy the prosecutor's case.

2. The defense surely would have attempted to prevent the admission of CE 399 into evidence because, duh, it had been fired from Oswald's rifle, was found at the hospital where JFK and Connally had been taken and provided an explanation for the SBT.

Self serving speculation based on facts not in evidence or at least not proven.

3. He who is NWMT states the admission of CE 399 would have allowed the defense to call Tomlinson and Wright and show they couldn't identify it as the found bullet. Uh, no. To get CE 399 into evidence in the first place, the PROSECUTION would have had to call T and W as part of the chain of custody. For the reasons stated in my original post, I don't believe this would have been a problem.

Well your original post was nothing more that self serving BS. Tomlinson and Wright have never confirmed that the bullet now in evidence as CE 399 is the one they found and saw on 11/22/63. Wright actually is on record saying that CE 399 is not the pointed bullet he received from Tomlinson. So if the prosecution puts both men on that stand to confirm the chain of custody it would actually even be better for the defense. You have already stated that you were impressed by the way Tomlinson stood his ground against Specter. Why would he not do the same at a trial? But even if the prosecution got Tomlinson to say what they wanted him to say, the defense would still have another shot at him to set the record straight and create plausible reasonable doubt.

4. He who is NWMT further states that the admission of CE 399 would have allowed the defense to ask T and W if Odum had shown them that same bullet in June and if their statements were correctly represented by the FBI in CE 2011 and Shanklin's AIRTEL. With respect to the admission of CE 399, all that would have mattered was what T and W said at trial in terms of identification. Whether they had been shown CE 399 in June by Odum or someone else would have been irrelevant to any issue other than the accuracy of CE 2011 and Shanklin's AIRTEL, neither of which would have had anything to do with the admissibility of CE 399

We're already beyond the admissibility of CE 399. In my scenario the defense would not object to CE 399 being admitted into evidence.

If the defense had attempted to "impeach" T and W with CE 2011 and the AIRTEL, the prosecution would have pointed out that these documents were second-, third- or fourth-hand hearsay and had nothing to do with T's or W's ability to identify CE 399 at trial. If the judge had nevertheless allowed a question along the lines of "Did you tell Odum you couldn't identify CE 399?" the answer would likely have been as I described in my imaginary testimony: "Yes, Odum or some FBI agent showed me CE 399 in June and I told him, just as I'm telling the court now, that I could not identify CE 399 with certainty" - and that would not have been a bar to the identification and admissibility of CE 399.

The defense does not have to attempt to impeach Tomlinson and Wright. All they need to do is let both men say what they have been saying. So, we have to assume that the prosecution are not going to get a positive identification from Tomlinson or Wright. Which leaves the prosecution with a problem. Do they call Odum as a witness or accept that they can not show that the bullet now in evidence as CE 399 is the one Tomlinson found? In both cases they are screwed !

5. He who is NWMT actually makes my point for me: Foaming-at-the-mouth, non-lawyer CTers look at a set of facts and completely misunderstand the actual implications of those facts.

Oh superior one ( ), tell me, what makes you thinl I'm a CTer or a non-lawyer?

This is the point of this thread, not whether CE 399 would actually have been admitted at trial. The point is that even CTers of the level of Tink Thompson and Gary Aguilar build a dark and sinister case around CE 399 when the facts are not really dark and sinister at all. Out here in the real world, where we don't have to obsess over legal technicalities, there is no reason to doubt that CE 399 was fired from Oswald's rifle and found at Parkland after JFK and Connally had been taken there.

And there is the die hard LN cult manuscript!

It basically says, why obsess about discrepancies in the the evidence, when we already know that Oswald fired CE399 from his rifle. Never mind that we can't conclusively prove that it was Oswald's rifle to begin with.

Your opinions about this case are not based on facts and/or critical examination of the evidence. Instead it's about assumptions, cherry picked evidence and a massive subjective bias.

[Tom Graves]

Except for a photocopy of a microfilm showing an order form, which an FBI expert claimed (despite another expert saying such claims cannot be made with 100% certainty) that it was written, there is no conclusive evidence that rifle that fired CE 399 did in fact belong to Oswald.

From the Warren Report:

According to its microfilm records, Klein's received an order for a rifle on March 13, 1963, on a coupon clipped from the February 1963 issue of the American Rifleman magazine. The order coupon was signed, in hand printing, "A. Hidell, P.O. Box 2915, Dallas, Texas." (See Commission Exhibit No. 773, p. 120.) It was sent in an envelope bearing the same name and return address in handwriting. Document examiners for the Treasury Department and the FBI testified unequivocally that the bold printing on the face of the mail-order coupon was in the hand printing of Lee Harvey Oswald and that the writing on the envelope was also his. [5] Oswald's writing on these and other documents was identified by comparing the writing and printing on the documents in question with that appearing on documents known to have been written by Oswald, such as his letters, passport application, and endorsements of checks. [6] (See app. X, p. 568-569.)

In addition to the order coupon the envelope contained a U.S. postal money order for $21.45, purchased as No. 2,202,130,462 in Dallas, Tex., on March 12, 1963. [7] The canceled money order was obtained from the Post Office Department. Opposite the printed words "Pay To" were written the words "Kleins Sporting Goods," and opposite the printed word "From" were written the words "A. Hidell, P.O. Box 2915 Dallas, Texas." These words were also in the handwriting of Lee Harvey Oswald. [8] (See Commission Exhibit No. 788, p. 120.)

From Klein's records it was possible to trace the processing of the order after its receipt. A bank deposit made on March 13, 1963, included an item of $21.45. Klein's shipping order form shows an imprint made by the cash register which recorded the receipt of $21.45 on March 13, 1963. This price included $19.95 for the rifle and the scope, and $1.50 for postage and handling. The rifle without the scope cost only $12.78. [9]

. . . . . . .

Weedyman,

Given the fact that you believe the order coupon was forged by some evil, evil person to frame Oswald as "the patsy" because . . . gasp . . . some FBI expert said you can't trust a crummy microfilm of something regarding the handwriting that's on it, I've got to ask you a question:

How many evil, evil bad guys and really, really bad gals do you figure were wittingly involved, altogether, in the planning, the "patsy-ing," the shooting and the all-important cover up?

Oodles and gobs?