Lee Oswald The Cop Killer

[Mitch Todd]

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.

What do you really expect from a bank statement, exactly? For that matter, what documentation do you think would have been generated specifically for the transaction between Oswald/Hidell/etc and Railway Express, over and above what has already presented? I expect that the person receiving the shipment would have been given a receipt, but I also expect that the receipt would have soon wound up where the great majority of them do: in the circular file. Beyond that, I doubt there would be anything else.

[Tim Nickerson]

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?

You mean the money order that was found and that you refuse to accept as having been cashed? That one?

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?

Because that's all we've got that's why. Well, that and the documents themselves. Michaelis exhibit #2 shows us that the full amount of $29.95 had been paid.

b]And why shouldn't we? [/b]

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.

Why would a bank statement trump the two documents and the sworn testimony of Michaelis?

[Martin Weidmann]

What do you really expect from a bank statement, exactly? For that matter, what documentation do you think would have been generated specifically for the transaction between Oswald/Hidell/etc and Railway Express, over and above what has already presented? I expect that the person receiving the shipment would have been given a receipt, but I also expect that the receipt would have soon wound up where the great majority of them do: in the circular file. Beyond that, I doubt there would be anything else.

What do you really expect from a bank statement, exactly?

As Railway Express would not transfer money they did not receive to Seaport Trading, I would suggest that a bankstatement would confirm that a transfer was indeed received, which in turn would confirm that the transaction had been completed and that the C.O..D. package had indeed been collected.

For that matter, what documentation do you think would have been generated specifically for the transaction between Oswald/Hidell/etc and Railway Express, over and above what has already presented?

So far, there are no documents to conclusively show that the C.O.D. amount of $19,90 was collected. All there is to link the C.O.D. package to Hidell is an order form. Everything else is internal documentation from Seaport Trading.

I expect that the person receiving the shipment would have been given a receipt, but I also expect that the receipt would have soon wound up where the great majority of them do: in the circular file. Beyond that, I doubt there would be anything else.

Really? Yes, the person paying for the package would most likely get a receipt, but just as likely would Railway Express retain a copy of that document for their administration. And then of course, the money would have needed to be transferred to Seaport Trading, which would very likely have generated another document of some kind, don't you think?

[Martin Weidmann]

You mean the money order that was found and that you refuse to accept as having been cashed? That one?

Because that's all we've got that's why. Well, that and the documents themselves. Michaelis exhibit #2 shows us that the full amount of $29.95 had been paid.

Why would a bank statement trump the two documents and the sworn testimony of Michaelis?

You mean the money order that was found and that you refuse to accept as having been cashed? That one?

Just because you are easily convinced, doesn't mean others have to be as well, Tim. Besides, I don't think I have ever refused to accept anything of the kind. In fact, when conclusive evidence for it is presented, I will have no problem accepting that the money order issued to Klein's was indeed cashed, but I don't believe I have ever seen anything remotely close to conclusive evidence that it was. All I have ever seen is a weak claim that an amount on a list, equal in value to the amount of the money order, must be the amount of the money order.

Now, can you explain why the investigators never took the trouble to ask for something as simple as a bankstatement to confirm the transfer from Railway Express, or are you going to try to pivot away from that again?

Because that's all we've got that's why. Well, that and the documents themselves. Michaelis exhibit #2 shows us that the full amount of $29.95 had been paid.

Are you always this easy to please, Tim? Please show me where on exhibit #2 does it say that the full amount was paid?

Why would a bank statement trump the two documents and the sworn testimony of Michaelis?

First of all, this is so selfevident that I am surprised it needs to be explained to you. Secondly, the two documents do not prove that the payment of the C.O.D. amount was received and Michealis does not confirm from personal knowledge that the money was received, he merely concluded that it was because the two documents were attached to eachother. The entire thing is a typical case of a witness saying "believe me, because I say so".

Now, don't get me wrong. Before you go there; I am not claiming that Michealis was lying. He may well have offered his conclusion in good faith, but IMO in any other case but this one a mere conclusion by a witness would hardly be sufficient.
 

[Tim Nickerson]

You mean the money order that was found and that you refuse to accept as having been cashed? That one?

Just because you are easily convinced, doesn't mean others have to be as well, Tim. Besides, I don't think I have ever refused to accept anything of the kind. In fact, when conclusive evidence for it is presented, I will have no problem accepting that the money order issued to Klein's was indeed cashed, but I don't believe I have ever seen anything remotely close to conclusive evidence that it was. All I have ever seen is a weak claim that an amount on a list, equal in value to the amount of the money order, must be the amount of the money order.

Martin, you've seen the money order. You've seen Klein's stamp on it which certifies that it passed through their till. You were shown that the money order had reached the U.S. Treasury Department and it was explained to you that the fact that the Treasury Dept received it was confirmation that it had been cashed.

Now, can you explain why the investigators never took the trouble to ask for something as simple as a bankstatement to confirm the transfer from Railway Express, or are you going to try to pivot away from that again?

What for? How would I know if they took the trouble to ask or not? We don't have a bank statement. I don't know why and I don't care. We have what we have. It is more than enough.

Because that's all we've got that's why. Well, that and the documents themselves. Michaelis exhibit #2 shows us that the full amount of $29.95 had been paid.

Are you always this easy to please, Tim? Please show me where on exhibit #2 does it say that the full amount was paid?

It's right there. I underlined it in red for you.

Why would a bank statement trump the two documents and the sworn testimony of Michaelis?

First of all, this is so selfevident that I am surprised it needs to be explained to you. Secondly, the two documents do not prove that the payment of the C.O.D. amount was received and Michealis does not confirm from personal knowledge that the money was received, he merely concluded that it was because the two documents were attached to eachother. The entire thing is a typical case of a witness saying "believe me, because I say so".

Now, don't get me wrong. Before you go there; I am not claiming that Michealis was lying. He may well have offered his conclusion in good faith, but IMO in any other case but this one a mere conclusion by a witness would hardly be sufficient.

It may be self-evident to you but it's not to me. Why would a bank statement trump the two documents and the sworn testimony of Michaelis?  The Exhibit #2 shows that the $29.95 was paid and Michaelis himself confirmed under oath that it was. Explain how a bank statement would trump both of those taken together.

[Walt Cakebread]

If not, no one would buy one.
I know I wouldn't.
If you would ID these pistols that don't have extractor wheels?

Most revolvers do NOT extract all of the spent shells at once....Here's a few of the many in which the spent shell is extracted one at a time... Ruger, Hi Standard, Colt, ...there's more......

[Martin Weidmann]

Martin, you've seen the money order. You've seen Klein's stamp on it which certifies that it passed through their till. You were shown that the money order had reached the U.S. Treasury Department and it was explained to you that the fact that the Treasury Dept received it was confirmation that it had been cashed.

What for? How would I know if they took the trouble to ask or not? We don't have a bank statement. I don't know why and I don't care. We have what we have. It is more than enough.



It's right there. I underlined it in red for you.

It may be self-evident to you but it's not to me. Why would a bank statement trump the two documents and the sworn testimony of Michaelis?  The Exhibit #2 shows that the $29.95 was paid and Michaelis himself confirmed under oath that it was. Explain how a bank statement would trump both of those taken together.

Martin, you've seen the money order. You've seen Klein's stamp on it which certifies that it passed through their till. You were shown that the money order had reached the U.S. Treasury Department and it was explained to you that the fact that the Treasury Dept received it was confirmation that it had been cashed.

Actually, I don't know what the Klein's stamp on the money order certifies nor have I been shown that the money order reached the Treasury Department. As I understand it, the money order was found at a location where it shouldn't have ended up if it had gone through the system correctly, which of course also makes the explanation that the Treasury Department "receiving" the money order is "confirmation that it had been cashed" a bit questionable. But, be all that as it may, you missed the point I was making. Despite the fact that the Klein's money order had no or very limited evidentiary value when it comes to the actual shipping of the rifle, they searched for it nevertheless.

At Seaport Trading, where the receipt of the C.O.D. amount, also confirmed the collection of the package, they never did that!

What for?

You said it yourself;

In a perfect world, we'd have a bank statement showing the transfer from Railway Express available to us today.

Why would you accept anything less than perfect, when you don't have to?

How would I know if they took the trouble to ask or not? We don't have a bank statement. I don't know why and I don't care. We have what we have. It is more than enough.

As I said earlier; you're easy to please! A bankstatement confirming the receipt of a transfer is easily obtainable. The fact that there isn't on in the evidence is extremely telling, if you ask me.

It's right there. I underlined it in red for you.

It may be self-evident to you but it's not to me. Why would a bank statement trump the two documents and the sworn testimony of Michaelis?  The Exhibit #2 shows that the $29.95 was paid and Michaelis himself confirmed under oath that it was. Explain how a bank statement would trump both of those taken together.

You keep on asking the same question I have already answered. A bankstatement confirming the transfer from RE would have eliminated every doubt that the package was collected and that the C.O.D. amount was paid.

I can't make out if the "paid" you have underlined on the invoice is for the full amount or just for the deposit of $10,00. It says on the invoice that it was prepared on 03/18/63 and that the shipment went out on 03/20/63 with an approximate delivery date of one week. All Seaport Trading had when the invoice was prepared was the deposit. I don't know who wrote "paid" on the document or when that was done, but it seems to me that if it was for the full amount, Michaelis could have said so in his testimony. He didn't and instead only concluded that the full payment was received because two documents were attached to eachother, which makes me believe that the "paid" only related to the $10,00 already received, with $19,95 to be collected upon delivery.

[Mitch Todd]

What do you really expect from a bank statement, exactly?

As Railway Express would not transfer money they did not receive to Seaport Trading, I would suggest that a bankstatement would confirm that a transfer was indeed received, which in turn would confirm that the transaction had been completed and that the C.O..D. package had indeed been collected.

Based on my own experiences back in the day before databases tracked everything, I very much doubt it. The cash from such a transaction would have been lumped in with that from other transactions the REA office made that day, dumped into a vinyl bag, and deposited in one big lump o' tender. I've never seen a bank statement where a cash deposit was broken down  the way you seem to think it would be.  It would be different if a negotiable instrument were involved, but that 's not the case here.

For that matter, what documentation do you think would have been generated specifically for the transaction between Oswald/Hidell/etc and Railway Express, over and above what has already presented?

So far, there are no documents to conclusively show that the C.O.D. amount of $19,90 was collected. All there is to link the C.O.D. package to Hidell is an order form. Everything else is internal documentation from Seaport Trading.

The order form is in Oswald's handwriting, Hidell's name, and lists Oswald's P.O. box as the ship to address. Seaport Traders' internal documentation shows that the make, model, modifications, and serial number of the pistol shipped to "Hidell" match the pistol taken from Oswald at the Texas Theatre. At this point what more do you need?   

I expect that the person receiving the shipment would have been given a receipt, but I also expect that the receipt would have soon wound up where the great majority of them do: in the circular file. Beyond that, I doubt there would be anything else.

Really? Yes, the person paying for the package would most likely get a receipt, but just as likely would Railway Express retain a copy of that document for their administration. And then of course, the money would have needed to be transferred to Seaport Trading, which would very likely have generated another document of some kind, don't you think?

So, what you really want is to know more about the documentation that REA might have generated in all of this, and not really anything about bank statements. My first questions would be, what would they have kept and how long would they have kept it?