Lee Oswald The Cop Killer

[Eddie Haymaker]

well,I dont know about all that

but Mr Frazier who knew LHO in Dallas perhaps the best say's

he was VERY intelligent and a hard worker

In fact he used language the common man struggles to understand

"I emphatically deny these charges" who talks like that?

His IQ must be in the 140 plus range imo

[Tim Nickerson]

According to Michaelis, the money was received.

That's right Bill.





Mr. BALL. Is there anything in your files which shows that the Railway Express did remit to you the $19.95?
Mr. MICHAELIS. The fact that the exhibit number--may I see this green one?
Mr. BALL. Five.
Mr. MICHAELIS. Was attached to the red copy of the invoice.
Mr. BALL. Red copy of the invoice being----
Mr. MICHAELIS. No; was attached to the red copy of the invoice, exhibit number----
Mr. BALL. Two.
Mr. MICHAELIS. Indicates that the money was received.

[Martin Weidmann]

That's right Bill.





Mr. BALL. Is there anything in your files which shows that the Railway Express did remit to you the $19.95?
Mr. MICHAELIS. The fact that the exhibit number--may I see this green one?
Mr. BALL. Five.
Mr. MICHAELIS. Was attached to the red copy of the invoice.
Mr. BALL. Red copy of the invoice being----
Mr. MICHAELIS. No; was attached to the red copy of the invoice, exhibit number----
Mr. BALL. Two.
Mr. MICHAELIS. Indicates that the money was received.

It seems all we have to confirm that the money was received from the person who collected the package and was subsequently transferred to Seaport Trading is Michaelis saying so?. No receipt, no proof of transfer, no deposit in a bankaccount..... Wow!

So, how did Michaelis know the money was received? Did he check the company's records? It seems he didn't, because his own testimony shows that he concludes the money was received based exclusively on two documents being attached to eachother.....

And that is somehow supposed to be conclusive?

[Tim Nickerson]

The coupon that AJ Hidell sent to Seaport included a MO for $10.00   ...  Right there on that coupon it is stated that the COD had to be for 1/2 the purchase price.    The purchase price was $29.95....   $10.00 dollars is only 1/3 of the purchase price...

So how the hell did AJ Hidell receive the pistol??

It says 1/3 on the coupon, not 1/2.

[Tim Nickerson]

It seems all we have to confirm that the money was received from the person who collected the package and was subsequently transferred to Seaport Trading is Michaelis saying so?. No receipt, no proof of transfer, no deposit in a bankaccount..... Wow!

So, how did Michaelis know the money was received? Did he check the company's records? It seems he didn't, because his own testimony shows that he concludes the money was received based exclusively on two documents being attached to eachother.....

And that is somehow supposed to be conclusive?

Martin, Michaelis tells us how he knew that the money was received. It's right there in the text that I provided. The two documents would not have been attached to each other if the payment had not been received.

[Martin Weidmann]

Martin, Michaelis tells us how he knew that the money was received. It's right there in the text that I provided. The two documents would not have been attached to each other if the payment had not been received.

Martin, Michaelis tells us how he knew that the money was received. It's right there in the text that I provided.

Yes, I know

The two documents would not have been attached to each other if the payment had not been received.

In a perfect world, that might be true, but why rely on a conclusion by Michaelis when a document showing the actual receipt (like a bankstatement showing the tranfer from Railway Express) would prove it conclusively?

[Tim Nickerson]

The two documents would not have been attached to each other if the payment had not been received.

In a perfect world, that might be true, but why rely on a conclusion by Michaelis when a document showing the actual receipt (like a bankstatement showing the tranfer from Railway Express) would prove it conclusively?

Wrong. In a perfect world, we'd have a bank statement showing the transfer from Railway Express available to us today. Unfortunately, we do not. We'll just have to rely on the available documents and on what Michaelis testified to under oath. And why shouldn't we?

[Martin Weidmann]

Wrong. In a perfect world, we'd have a bank statement showing the transfer from Railway Express available to us today. Unfortunately, we do not. We'll just have to rely on the available documents and on what Michaelis testified to under oath. And why shouldn't we?

we'd have a bank statement showing the transfer from Railway Express available to us today. Unfortunately, we do not.

And why is that? At Klein's they tried to trace the money order, so why not check an easily obtainable bankstatement?

We'll just have to rely on the available documents and on what Michaelis testified to under oath.

Why should we have to rely on a conclusion of a witness?

And why shouldn't we?

Because conclusive evidence such as a bankstatement confirming a transfer from Railway Express trumps a conclusion by a witness that is only based on two pieces of paper being attached to eachother.