In search of 11/23/63 Richmond teletype RE: rifle

This post is mostly a request for a specific document, but I figured I'd lay out why I'm looking for it and see if anyone has any comments or feedback. 
-------------
Most people who've looked into the rifle chain of custody evidence have seen this teletype from SA Paul Brana in New York regarding the early search of Crescent Firearms records, sent at 10:41pm EST on the night of the assassination:




Fewer people have seen this teletype, sent by Brana three hours later:








The above teletype unambiguously says that Crescent records FAIL to reflect sale of the rifle, basically the exact same language used regarding H.L Green Company records in Dallas, whereas at 10:41pm Crescent was still "currently reviewing records". I haven't seen any evidence the New York Office ever contacted J.J. Edelson, but Richmond did follow through with International Arms Co., and sent a teletype to Washington, Dallas, New York, and Albany which set off the whole Century Arms saga. This response from Albany sent at 1:14pm EST on 11/23 references the Richmond teletype in its heading:




The key line is this: Dallas furnish Albany with complete description of rifle involved including serial number. Sutel immediately.


Dallas sent a reply 90 minutes later but it DID NOT include the serial number, which is ridiculous given that it was explicitly requested and a receiving record for the rifle at Klein's Sporting Goods wouldn't be reported to the Dallas FBI for another four hours:




 


Fast forward four hours later. Dallas finally receives word from Chicago (New York was advised by telephone two hours earlier) that William Waldman telephonically advised he had found a record showing receipt of the rifle from Crescent Firearms, but there is no evidence the information had been verified, and "discovery" of an actual shipment record from Crescent wouldn't be reported for literally another twenty-four hours, well after Oswald had been murdered:




Twenty minutes later, Dallas sent an admonishing teletype to Richmond and Albany ordering them to abort their investigation, and refusing to provide the requested "info. concerning rifle". Recall that the only requested info Dallas hadn't already provided at 1:46pm CST (to Albany) was the most important information of all, the serial number:
 





Even more absurd in the above teletype is that Dallas is refusing to provide information about the ammunition, given that no-one had any idea at this point who supplied it. Even more absurd is that half an hour later, New York sent a teletype to Richmond directing them to begin another investigation into the source of the ammunition. The lead on the ammunition was obtained from, of all places, Crescent Firearms:




Basically I am trying to locate the Richmond teletype sent in response to the 1:45am EST teletype from New York regarding International Arms Co. This Richmond teletype is what originally led the Albany Office to contact Century Arms. I cannot find it in the FBI Headquarters file on maryferrell.org, but I don't see what could be so sketchy about it that it would be suppressed. This is an important subplot to the rifle investigation and it seems like the only document I am missing for 11/23 is the teletype from Richmond. Has anyone seen this document?
If not any comments on my research would be appreciated.

-Tom

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/15ilGyZfOBX1GcJB4E_Jl3uXFsHwuCLco?usp=sharing

Have a look.

Thanks a ton! No Richmond teletype but there is a lot of great stuff in there I wanted, like the New York tel from 1:52pm on 11/23, and the 3/17/64 airtel about Empire Sporting Goods, both of which are redacted online.

I have a question about one of the documents in your drive though that's relevant to this thread.  If there is one file I want to see more than any other it would be NARA record number 180-10120-10337, supposedly a FBI report from 4/7/64 on an FBI contact with Lou Feldsott, which was around the time when all the other rifle witnesses got new 302 reports from their turning over original documents to the Warren Commission in March. Feldsott allegedly provided all the Crescent documents showing the February shipment to Klein's too, but there is no 302 report. Also 4/7/64 is the same day Hoover sent a memo to SA O'Neil telling him to revise Feldsott's 11/27/63 302 report, only mentioning grammar and spelling errors in the memo, but O'Neil actually removed major content most notably any mention of the date of shipment from Crescent to Klein's. There's an HSCA witness evaluation sheet (also in your drive) saying some guy read the 4/7/64 report and supposedly it says something about Feldsott finding a record of shipment to Klein's on 11/22/63, which would support his affidavit. However this is directly contradicted by the earliest communications from New York, which I've included in this thread. My question is, this record is actually in your drive, but it's the same version in the John Armstrong collection where the item appears to be "restricted" and removed by the FBI:






Does this represent what is currently in the National Archives? The NARA spreadsheet for the file says it was opened in full on 2/17/98, and is 2 pages, but is the restricted sheet page 2? The record face sheet in your version says date of last review 7/2/93 but the date at the bottom of the two documents says released 2/6/98. 

If this is still what's at NARA, why on earth would the FBI remove this file unless it was something fairly explosive? If it was quietly released a couple weeks after anyone looked at it, I think it's worth getting a copy  of. 

Aloha Tom,
That particular teletype has been looked for since the beginning of time;



RECENT RELEASE... Oh so close..



It's in the category of FBI material that has been seen, documented in other memos or teletypes, but doesn't "exist" in the natural world. A rare species.

Cheers, Ed

Hey Ed,

That’s basically what I was asking barto, cause all I’ve seen of 180-10120-10337 is the version I attached. It’s in the NARA spreadsheets and shows it was already “released in full” on 2/17/98 and I was wondering if it’s still the same version that has been removed by the FBI, cause the two attached documents to the face sheet, which has “last review 7/2/93”,  say “released 2/6/98”. So are you saying yes, it has been looked at since 2/17/98, and is still “restricted” and stashed away by the FBI even though NARA claims it was released in full? If so that seems about as close as it gets to a smoking gun.

As for the 11/23/63 Richmond teletype, I’ll take another look at the NARA spreadsheets and try to find it. I got a new computer and all I have right now is apple spreadsheet program and I don’t know how to do multiple column searches, so I’ll either figure that out today or just download Excel. I feel like it should be in the FBI HQ file on maryferrell.org though, even if it’s redacted. It might just be low quality or tilted so the search doesn’t work. I’ll keep digging. The 11/23 1:45am New York tel to Richmond I included in the original post is same kind of deal.

Aloha Tom
Good luck on the search...

Your questions are:
1.. has (it) been looked at since 2/17/98, and is still “restricted” and stashed away by the FBI even though NARA claims it was released in full?"

NO.
It's been looked FOR since 1997. (More like 95 when it was known to be in the files)
If NARA had it available soon thereafter, Feb 98, then these are the copies of it.

I've never seen the Richmond teletype. Doubt I ever will.
If it was available and in the NARA files Malcolm Blunt would of copied it and Bart would have it to share.

Qestion 2.
Whether page 2 above is actually the restriction sheet... a guess would be yes. As the 93 dates (Few days apart) are so close it is likely pg 2 is the restriction sheet. 

But,
If this bugs you and you believe it is a smoking gun, check with NARA, and verify the files veracity and contents.

Again good hunting.
Ed

Thanks Ed,

I requested the Feldsott report from NARA a while ago but it was too late to get a reproduction sent due to COVID restrictions. That’s kind of what I was thinking with the 2/6 vs. 2/17 dates though, so that’s a bummer. As for it being a smoking gun, at least for the rifle investigation, why else would the FBI remove an interview with Lou Feldsott from the archives unless it explodes the official story? According to the HSCA witness evaluation sheet from the guy who read it it supposedly says something about Feldsott finding a record and turning it over to the FBI on the night of the assassination. We have the Martin Greely evidence submission sheet dated 11/22 with the Crescent side of the Waldman 1 order sheet (that never made it to the WC), and a list saying Greely obtained the so called original sales order, bill of lading and shipping slips, but no dates or invoice numbers are mentioned. The sales order, BoL and slips were all mentioned in the “original” Feldsott 302 report, with the February date. Then on 4/7/63, same day as the missing report, Hoover himself sends a memo ordering the Feldsott 302 to be “revised”, and any mention of a date, plus the bill of lading is deleted from the report. Then of course no mention of ANY shipment records from Crescent was reported by the FBI until after Oswald was killed, and we have the July ‘64 Feldsott affidavit with the June ‘62 shipment date. Basically I think there’s ample reason to be extremely suspicious of the missing report.

Yes Feldsott says and is said to have supplied the information on the rifle on 11/22.

I believe that was the 1962 documents that didn't fit a '63 order timeline.

Maybe time to poke at Nara again eh Tom.
Get some closure on this.

Cheers!
Ed

Do you have an opinion on this Ed? The only actual “evidence” of Feldsott turning over documents on the 22nd concerning C2766 besides his affidavit is the Greely evidence submission sheet that supposedly included the “Waldman 1” order form section, but that has the Feb ‘63 date. You have guys like David Josephs, John Armstrong and Gil Jesus all with different theories. You have the FBI and Waldman both provably lying from the early communications out of Chicago and New York. I’ll get out to NARA II at some point once it reopens, and/or hopefully be able to order reproductions of some stuff I don’t have (redacted 11/23 Belmont-Tolson memo where Belmont orders Shanklin to obtain the P.O. Box documents comes to mind), but one thing I do agree with Josephs on is the rifle investigation seems to be a pretty misunderstood aspect of the case.

Hey Greg,

Could you clarify a bit on the methodology comment? Like am I going about this the right way or screwing up lol? Basically what got me looking at the rifle stuff was Gil Jesus’ series on Ed forum, then read Joseph’s Klein’s Rifle pdf, then Armstrong’s Mail Order Rifle write up, and was like “what the *$!@ is going on here?”. So I’ve been trying to look at all the original documents I can to try and find those anomalies, and connect the dots best I can based on what the documents actually say. I’ve already found some interesting stuff that isn’t in any of the previously mentioned rifle write ups, but I’m trying to keep an open mind until I get some more research done and try to put everything together. Admittedly I’m pretty suspicious of William Waldman though, and I can see bias creeping in in how I look at documents. I’m leaning towards him being an FBI informant. Fun fact there’s a withheld in full collection of FBI reports in Waldman’s HSCA subject file from 1953 from contact with the Chicago Field Office…head of the Chicago FBI at that time was Guy Bannister.

JFK_FNG,

unless I'm reading Greg's post incorrectly I'm pretty sure he was referring to the "others" (Everything's a conspiracy mob) in the JFK community not appreciating your methodology.

I can't speak for Greg obviously but that's my take on what he's said.

That's what I figured, I guess I'm just paranoid I guess cause well, I'm the f*&$n' new guy. 

Since this thread was unsuccessful in locating the Richmond teletype, but was very successful thanks to barto in me getting some great stuff I didn't have that's not online as far as I can tell, I'll end with a plea for this memo:


https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62251#relPageId=83

I've mentioned it a couple times, and this one is definitely near the top of my wish list at the moment for documents from 11/23/63 regarding the rifle, P.O. Box, microfilm, money order, etc. If anyone has an unredacted copy of this I'd be super grateful.

No speculation necessary.
Feldsott is on record, late in the game (July) saying he did give the records concerning that specific rifle over to FBI November 22nd.


And FELDSOTT, based on those records was able to trace C2766 to Klein's.... but on a June 18th 1962 order.



Not as if this was an Nov 22 affidavit and his facts weren't squared away

The only evidence Feldsott had was their own Cresent docs or what Rupp sent him.
Cresent showed a rifle sold to Chicago.
The loose nature of the paperwork doesn't tell us who's lying but Rupp has every opportunity to switch guns, not keep packing slips or even copies of packing slips!!!
It unusual for anyone shipping Firearms.
And why is his Federal Firearms license dated August 30 1963?
Isn't that a bit late of a date.


As for the document that you requested,
62-109060-49
It falls into that same category of docs that we have quotes from but don't have the document (unredacted in this case).

"Lopez Report excerpted a memorandum from FBI’s Belmont to Tolson on 11/23/63, which states:
…..In as much as the Dallas Agents who listened to the tape of the conversation allegedly of Oswald from the Cuban Embassy to the Russian Embassy in Mexico and examined the photographs of the visitor to the Embassy in Mexico and were of the opinion that neither the tape nor the photograph pertained to Oswald,…..[2]"



Cheers!
ED

Hey Ed,

We actually do have the unreacted memo mentioned in the Lopez Report:



This other one I assume is unreacted in the FBI HQ file at the archives, but I haven't seen it anywhere online:



Note the change in narrative regarding the P.O. Box. I'd love to just know the time of this supposed second phone call with Shanklin. 

The thing with Feldsott's affidavit is that it was pre-written and provided to him to sign by the WC, and of course it contradicts the entire official chain of possession of the rifle. In an honest investigation the WC would have deposed Feldsott, Rupp, and especially Martin Greely, but instead all you get is Feldsott's affidavit. If the affidavit is credible, the official story collapses. So the question is: with the all the reports, documents, etc. saying that Feldsott corroborated the Feb '63 shipment date (first reported after Oswald was dead) why would the WC even allow Feldsott's affidavit in the 26 volumes, and pre-write it and send it to him to sign? I think some clues are probably in the missing report from 4/7/64.

Aloha Tom.

That doesn't appear to be "the" memo

Where is the quote I quoted?

Thanks, Ed

Well dang I guess you’re right! I just remembered the subject matter and uploaded the picture, didn’t even re-read it to see if the quotes matched. My mistake. That’s what I get for replying to forum posts at work I guess.

Also, I didn’t even see that the time for the Shanklin call 11:50 a.m. was listed on the Lopez Report! That seriously helps a ton. Thank you.

Sorry forget to mention the time!
My fault. Thanks for picking up on it.

That is a excellent memo from and to the same and dated same. RIF #?

Also as an aside is the Underhill connection to this.
Just thought of all the intriguing things that he said and wound up suicided.

Can't imagine Feldsott not playing ball.
And what he signed is the extant record.
The reasoning behind it and it's use are like hillbilly mechanics given laser alignment tools, very accurate trash?

Oh another point is that Rupp said(?) they use or receive parts weapons in the cartons or he turns a defective weapon into a working one with these parts rifles.
Ideas?
How about the carton on the manifest to Klein's was damaged and not check marked thusly not acceptable and sent back to Fred... or any similar normal business day scenario that happens every day in shipping/receiving...?

I don't think I've gotten answers to what happens to rifle ordered but not shipped or held at Klein's...?
What happens if it's not signed for at Post office?
Is its sent back and held or resold by Klein's?
What if Klein's ships a wrong weapon? Opps.
What if it is sent back, etc. but they have no stock left of the correct item.?
Would Klein's hold the order and not process the payment under certain circumstances? What are these?
Etcetera etc
I guess I wanted a cross examination of this charade, but got a Warren Ommission Retort
Cheers, Ed

Ed,

I don't have the RIF number for that Belmont-Tolson memo, but here's the link to the redacted version from the FBI-HQ file on MFF, and it looks like the FBI number is 62-109060-488, so if you plug that into the NARA spreadsheets it should give the RIF. I'd do it now but I have to leave in a couple minutes. 

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62256#relPageId=131

Your question about what happens when an order is not shipped is interesting, especially because of Crescent Invoice #3166 which is the number for the order of 200 rifles on Waldman 1, and is corroborated by Rupp's shipping book. What's weird is that this order was supposedly invoiced on 1/30/63 turned over to NP-Lifschultz on 2/7/63, so before Invoice 3178, but there is no delivery listed on Waldman 1. The Crescent order form side of Waldman 1 has the quantity 200 crossed out, but then Rupp's shipping book shows it was turned over for shipment to Klein's. Interesting stuff. This one deserves a proper treatment and I was thinking of doing a post on it at some point.

Here's the Richmond teletype. I finally got my rifle documents from NARA, and the subject of this thread was included:



The documents helped fill in some major gaps in the investigation, but unfortunately Lou Feldsott's affidavit is still a mystery. There is no interview report from April '64 as I had hoped - so I really have no idea what the hell happened. It looks like either a few FBI agents trying to cover their ass and massively screwing up in the process, or the entire Crescent to Klein's shipping record was fabricated. I'm leaning heavily toward the former, but it's such a clusterfuck that I honestly have no idea. The timeline and lies surrounding what happened at Crescent and Klein's on the night of the assassination, which culminated in a report stating unequivocally that Crescent did not sell the rifle is pretty damn interesting - but unless William Waldman was wittingly involved in a plot to frame Oswald I think incompetence and subsequent ass-covering is the more likely explanation for all the contradictions in the record. 

That said, there is a file on Waldman that is withheld in full, under court seal so exempt from the JFK Act, from the Chicago Field Office in 1953 - when Guy Bannister was the SAC.