Yes, postal money orders do require bank endorsements!

[Jim Hargrove]

Take some deep breaths.

In through the nose, out through the mouth, in through the nose, out through the mouth...

--Tommy

I'm relaxed, Tommy, but thank you for your concern. No doubt your breath control instructions indicate that you too have failed to find an actual bank endorsement on the Magic Money order. Will you or Hank or David someone post it anytime this new year?

[David Von Pein]

A "Bleed-Thru" Addendum....

In addition to Cadigan Exhibit No. 11 — the significance of which was demonstrated on December 5, 2015, by Tim Brennan at another JFK forum — I found another "clean" photo of the Hidell Postal Money Order today (June 2, 2016) while reading the 12/9/63 FBI report on the assassination (Commission Document No. 1).

The picture of the money order in the FBI report can be seen HERE (and also below). The money order shows no signs at all of any "bleed thru" on either the front side or the back side, and is a picture that must have been taken prior to the document being chemically processed for fingerprints (just like Cadigan Exhibit No. 11).

Click to enlarge:



jfk-archives.blogspot.com / The Hidell Money Order

Edited June 3, 2016 by David Von Pein

[Tom Hume]

Hi David

This photo appears to have been taken with high-contrast film - I think they used to call it “line copy film”. It was good for taking pictures of documents, and one just sees the stark difference between black and white. All extraneous grey details are lost. Notice how the “138.....” number across the top is almost gone. If they'd tweaked the exposure a little more, it probably would've disappeared. In a previous life, I took and processed a lot of high-contrast photos.

Tom

[David Von Pein]

Notice how the “138.....” number across the top is almost gone.

But the "138" in Cadigan No. 11 is just as dim. In fact, it looks a little dimmer in Cadigan 11....

Edited June 3, 2016 by David Von Pein

[Tom Hume]

Hi David.

I was responding to your comment in post #422:

“The money order shows no sign at all of any “bleed thru” on either the front side or the back side, and is a picture that must have been taken prior to the document being chemically processed for fingerprints (just like Cadigan Exhibit No. 11).”

You may be right about Exhibit 11 having been taken prior to the document being chemically processed, I don’t have an opinion, but I’m just saying that if the photographer’s goal is to make a messy looking document look pristine, it’s not only possible, it’s done all the time. Without suggesting anything sinister, if there was bleed thru on the document (or even lightly pencilled secret messages), we would never know by looking at the two “clean” appearing high-contrast document photos you’ve written about.

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/10/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1058.html

A little over half way down the page on your long article linked above, we see your side by side comparison of CE 788 and Cadigan Exhibit No 11. In addition to the FBI’s markings on CE 788, many other artifacts, real or illusionary, can be seen. If it’s true that the devil’s in the details on some of the evidence the Government has provided, I want to see the details, and the rather stark difference between the “138...” number at the top of the two examples appears to show the document photographer’s preference for “clean” readability over “dirty” detail.

But thanks for pointing out your new find.

Tom

[David Von Pein]

Well, Tom, I guess you could conceivably be correct when you said this -- "If there was bleed thru on the document...we would never know by looking at the two “clean” appearing high-contrast document photos you’ve written about" -- but when looking at a side-by-side comparison (below) between the FBI photo and Commission Exhibit 788, I have a hard time believing that NONE of the obvious bleed-thru that can be seen in CE788 (particularly the bleeding through of the "March 12" post office stamp in the corner) would be visible in the FBI's photograph of that same document if the bleed-thru had actually been present on the money order at the time the FBI picture was taken. But as we can see, not a trace of any "bleed thru" can be seen on the back side of the Postal Money Order in the FBI photo:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BTW, Tom, as I pointed out on my webpage devoted to this topic, the picture in Cadigan #11 was definitely taken before the money order was treated for fingerprint analysis:

MR. EISENBERG -- "Are the photographs which you produced photographs of the items before they were treated for fingerprints or after?"

MR. CADIGAN -- "Yes; before they were treated for fingerprints. In other words, it is regular customary practice to photograph an exhibit before it is treated for latents for exactly this reason, that in the course of the treatment there may be some loss of detail, either total or partial."

Edited June 3, 2016 by David Von Pein

[Micah Mileto]

On 11/19/2015 at 5:30 AM, Sandy Larsen said:

Lance,

A ten-digit File Locator Number was no doubt printed on postal money orders in 1963. And the ten-digit number stamped on the Hidell MO is obviously a File Locator Number, or at least is meant to be.

You said earlier:

It appears that they are the "File Locator Number" placed by the Treasury Department, which would seemingly be a pretty definite indication that the money order was processed.

and now:

If the ten digits are a File Locator Number, I am satisfied this is the end of the story.

I respect you for you legal acumen, but to draw that conclusion IMO is utterly ridiculous. A File Locator Number could have easily been stamped on the money order by *anyone* . Isn't that obvious?

With the exception of the handwriting on the MO, I myself would have no trouble faking that money order as we see it today (a photocopy). Or even when I was a teenager. For heaven sakes, forgeries are not an uncommon occurrence. That's why I am astonished by your conclusion.

You yourself have provided proof that stamping bank endorsements on postal money orders in 1963 was at the very least practiced, and that automated machines used at the time were capable of quickly reading money-order punch-holes and stamping a bank endorsement without slowing the process down. In contrast, nobody has provided any evidence that the presence of stamps was optional. (And no, you can't used the the Hidell money order as evidence of that, given that it is the object of suspicion.)

The reason suspicion is being placed on the authenticity of the money order isn't because of missing bank stamps. It's because of a combination of numerous irregularities which, as a whole, scream "something fishy is going on here." The presumably-missing bank stamps is a tiny part of the puzzle.

You said:

To perpetuate the "mystery" would require an extremely far-fetched scenario: The conspirators had an inside contact at the Treasury Department who was able to place a File Locator Number, and they hoped no one would notice the absence of endorsements by FNB and the Federal Reserve Bank.

No. All that need be done is this:

• Acquire the services of a handwriting forger.
• Get a fake ID made for this person, using the name A. Hidell. (Not a big deal... I've seen fake IDs used by underaged teenagers to buy alchohol.)
• Have this person purchase a $21.45 money order using the ID.
• Either bribe the postal worker to stamp a "Mar 12 1963" date on the MO, or alter the stamp later .
• Purchase a stamp to mark the MO with a file locator number.
• Done!

If you plan ahead and have more time, there are other, easier ways of accomplishing the forgery.

You said:

The Treasury Department's records retention manual would dictate how long old postal money orders are stored. I didn't find the manual, but I did see references to 5 years and 10 years.

FYI, as I said earlier, money orders were destroyed after two years. According to CFR 171.5(a) (1970) "Money orders are destroyed 2 years after payment, and photostats cannot thereafter be furnished. [34 FR 1722. Feb. 5 1969]"

There's no information about what the file locating number 138 4159796 could mean or if it makes sense?

[David Von Pein]

Micah,

The fact that the File Locator Number is there at all is the most significant point. It's a solid indication that the money order was processed and went through the proper banking channels after leaving the hands of Klein's Sporting Goods and the First National Bank in Chicago.

Full Discussion....

 

Edited December 12, 2016 by David Von Pein

[Micah Mileto]

Just now, David Von Pein said:

Micah,

The fact that the File Locator Number is there at all is the most significant point. It's a solid indication that the money order was processed and went through the proper banking channels after leaving the hands of Klein's Sporting Goods and the First National Bank in Chicago.

 

I heard that point, I read the whole thread over.

[David Von Pein]

Just now, Micah Mileto said:

I heard that point, I read the whole thread over.

But you still think the File Locator Number might be a fake?

[Micah Mileto]

Just now, David Von Pein said:

But you still think the File Locator Number might be a fake?

I'm wondering if there's any way, in 2016, to understand almost exactly what those numbers mean and if they mean what they're supposed to mean.

[David Von Pein]

The File Locator Number, I would assume, was part of the internal filing system utilized by the Federal Reserve Bank in circa 1963 for the filing of (and subsequently the locating of, if need be) a particular file or document. (Time for a "Duh!" here, I guess.)

As I mentioned in my "Hidell Money Order" article previously, I had theorized that the first 3 digits in the number (138) might be more significant (and possibly traceable) because those digits are set apart from the following 7 digits. That might indicate, I surmised, that those 3 numbers could signify a part of the country where the document originated, or a specific banking institution. I tried finding some info to verify that theory last year, but I had no luck finding out anything about the number.

Edited December 12, 2016 by David Von Pein

[Sandy Larsen]

A file locator number can be faked just like any other part of a postal money order. To think otherwise is wishful LN thinking. It's like saying a signature at the bottom of a check is proof the check is legitimate.

[David Von Pein]

Sure, Sandy. Everything in life COULD be fake, I guess. Perhaps my mother was really an imposter who switched places with my real mother the day after I was born. (After all, how would I know? I was just 24 hours old!)

But as I asked before --- At what point do the LEGITIMATE LOOKING THINGS on the Hidell money order make conspiracists want to stop pretending everything was placed there by conspirators?

[Sandy Larsen]

Just now, David Von Pein said:

Sure, Sandy. Everything in life COULD be fake, I guess.

There is reason to believe the money order was faked.... it had no bank stamps! You know, the customary ones that are required by law.

Perhaps my mother was really an imposter who switched places with my real mother the day after I was born. (After all, how would I know? I was just 24 hours old!)

But as I asked before --- At what point do the LEGITIMATE LOOKING THINGS on the Hidell money order make conspiracists want to stop pretending everything was placed there by conspirators?

When all the necessary things are in place on the money order.