Post by Gil Jesus on Jul 9, 2021 6:03:22 GMT -5
Post Office Box 2915 and the Application
The post office box application consisted of three parts. The first part included postal rules and instructions for working combination locked boxes. The applicant could throw it away or keep it in his wallet. It included the combination for combination boxes. Parts 2 & 3 comprised the actual application. Part 2 included information on the applicant and his type of business (if applicable). Part 3 included special instructions on delivering mail, how to handle special deliveries and listed the names of other people beside the applicant who were entitled to receive mail through the box.
So the question is whether or not "A. Hidell" was authorized to receive mail at Oswald's box 2915 in Dallas. In order for "Hidell" to receive mail there, the evidence shows that his name would have had to have been on the box application.
Commission Exhibit 2585 indicates that "Hidell's" name was never on the application, so he could not have received the rifle.
"Oswald did not indicate on his application that others, including an 'A. Hidell' would receive mail through the box in question, which was Post Office Box 2915 in Dallas."
When Dallas Postal Inspector Harry Holmes testified before the Warren Commission, he provided only a copy of part 2 of Oswald's post office box application (Holmes Exhibit 1A, above). He told the Commission that part 3 had been discarded when the box had been closed, in May 1963, in accordance with postal regulations.
When asked why the New Orleans Post Office had kept part 3 of Oswald's box application in that city, Holmes replied that the New Orleans Post Office hadn't complied to the regulation. (7 H 527)
In it's Report, the Commission repeated Holmes' testimony that the destruction of Part 3 of the PO Box application was in accordance with postal regulations.
"In accordance with postal regulations, the portion of the application which lists names of persons, other than the applicant, entitled to receive mail was thrown away after the box was closed on May 1963."
(Report, Ch. 4, pg. 121)
That was a lie. The postal regulation (843.53h) required that part 3 of the box application be kept for a period of 2 years after the box was closed.
In 1966, author Stewart Galanor decided to write to the US Post Office and ask two questions. The first was regarding the post office box application and how long the record was to be kept. The second question regarded what happened to mail that was addressed to someone NOT on the box application part 3. In response to the first question, the post office replied that in March of 1963, postal regulation 846.53h (above) required that all box applications, including part 3, be kept for a period of 2 years after the box was closed.
Of course, this revelation alone makes a liar out of Harry Holmes. It shows that the New Orleans PO was in compliance with the postal regulation and the Dallas PO was NOT.
The reason why they discarded Part 3 is obvious and the Commission's own Exhibit 2585 proves it: "A. Hidell" was never on the application.
TOMORROW: EVIDENCE OSWALD DIDN'T BUY OR MAIL THE MONEY ORDER
The post office box application consisted of three parts. The first part included postal rules and instructions for working combination locked boxes. The applicant could throw it away or keep it in his wallet. It included the combination for combination boxes. Parts 2 & 3 comprised the actual application. Part 2 included information on the applicant and his type of business (if applicable). Part 3 included special instructions on delivering mail, how to handle special deliveries and listed the names of other people beside the applicant who were entitled to receive mail through the box.
So the question is whether or not "A. Hidell" was authorized to receive mail at Oswald's box 2915 in Dallas. In order for "Hidell" to receive mail there, the evidence shows that his name would have had to have been on the box application.
Commission Exhibit 2585 indicates that "Hidell's" name was never on the application, so he could not have received the rifle.
"Oswald did not indicate on his application that others, including an 'A. Hidell' would receive mail through the box in question, which was Post Office Box 2915 in Dallas."
When Dallas Postal Inspector Harry Holmes testified before the Warren Commission, he provided only a copy of part 2 of Oswald's post office box application (Holmes Exhibit 1A, above). He told the Commission that part 3 had been discarded when the box had been closed, in May 1963, in accordance with postal regulations.
When asked why the New Orleans Post Office had kept part 3 of Oswald's box application in that city, Holmes replied that the New Orleans Post Office hadn't complied to the regulation. (7 H 527)
In it's Report, the Commission repeated Holmes' testimony that the destruction of Part 3 of the PO Box application was in accordance with postal regulations.
"In accordance with postal regulations, the portion of the application which lists names of persons, other than the applicant, entitled to receive mail was thrown away after the box was closed on May 1963."
(Report, Ch. 4, pg. 121)
That was a lie. The postal regulation (843.53h) required that part 3 of the box application be kept for a period of 2 years after the box was closed.
In 1966, author Stewart Galanor decided to write to the US Post Office and ask two questions. The first was regarding the post office box application and how long the record was to be kept. The second question regarded what happened to mail that was addressed to someone NOT on the box application part 3. In response to the first question, the post office replied that in March of 1963, postal regulation 846.53h (above) required that all box applications, including part 3, be kept for a period of 2 years after the box was closed.
Of course, this revelation alone makes a liar out of Harry Holmes. It shows that the New Orleans PO was in compliance with the postal regulation and the Dallas PO was NOT.
The reason why they discarded Part 3 is obvious and the Commission's own Exhibit 2585 proves it: "A. Hidell" was never on the application.
TOMORROW: EVIDENCE OSWALD DIDN'T BUY OR MAIL THE MONEY ORDER