Jump to content
The Education Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Gil Jesus

Klein's $ 21.45 deposit of 3/13/63 was NOT "Hidell" money order

Recommended Posts

Dave,

going into faux paroxysms claiming all that has been posted is impossible because it means everyone involved must be stupid is merely your means of avoiding dealing with substantive issues. You rely on this "debating technique" every time you have nothing else to support your position. It is no way to win a debate.

You actually need to trouble yourself with the issues raised. If you can't, you need to own up to that. If ....you can argue on the evidence, then please, for the love of God, do so.

As it stands, I think the case has pretty much been made that there are manifest problems with the evidence. Your acting like a spoiled brat trying to prove there is no problem with the evidence by calling other posters names and ridiculing your own fallacious assumptions of what faked evidence logically leads to...is getting pretty wearisome.

The Von Peins, McAdamses and Bugliosis of the world use what is called "circular reasoning" in their "nobody but Oswald" ( NBO ) argument. Circular reasoning, though is flawed because it requires them to take the very thing that they SHOULD be trying to prove ( i.e. that Oswald killed Kennedy ), state it as fact, and then circle backwards to conclude through "common sense" that all evidence to the contrary is in error.

You can usually spot this right off the bat because in their arguments they use phrases like, "Because we KNOW Oswald killed Kennedy......".

In other words, it doesn't matter what the witnesses said, because WE KNOW OSWALD KILLED KENNEDY.

It doesn't matter that the shells recovered from the Tippit murder scene were described as .38 autos, because WE KNOW OSWALD KILLED TIPPIT.

It doesn't matter that there's no bullet track through JFK's body because WE KNOW THE SINGLE BULLET THEORY IS FACT.

It goes on and on and on.

In discussing this evidence, I would suggest that he's likewise using a variation of this flawed reasoning, that it doesn't matter if the money order didn't have the REQUIRED stamps proving proof of payment by the bank, because we KNOW the writing on it was Oswald's.

You see, it really doesn't matter to these people what evidence surfaces or what questions are raised regarding the evidence...none of it matters...because WE KNOW OSWALD KILLED KENNEDY.

I learned a long time ago that trying to convince them of their error is an exercise in futility.

And yes, one of their tactics is to resort to childish name-calling when the gas tank is reading empty. When they start calling you names, you know they've got nothing alse to argue with.

Now I would like to take HIS type of reasoning and turn it around on him.

Because we KNOW the money order was never stamped by a bank, never paid on by a bank and never sent through the Federal Reserve System, and since "common sense" tells us that NOBODY would buy and sign a money order that would never be paid on, THE HANDWRITING ON IT IS NOT OSWALD'S, BUT A CLEVER FORGERY.

Why would Oswald sign a money order that would never be processed through the FRS ?

Answer: He wouldn't. No one would.

The "standard" that Cadigan used to compare the handwriting on the money order were letters Oswald wrote in 1961 and 1962 to then Navy Secretary John Connally and to the State Department. IOW, the "standards" had been in the government's possession at the time of the assassination. Couldn't an FBI forger have used the same "standard" to study Oswald's signature ? Couldn't the FBI have borrowed the Klein's "stamp" and used it on the money order ?

There are serious problems with this money order, not the least of all is the broken chain of custody, and until they are satisfactorily addressed, the value of the evidence being discussed is certainly in doubt.

Edited by Gil Jesus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gil,

The writing on ALL of the rifle-purchasing documents (including the money order) was Lee Harvey Oswald's. That's not just MY opinion--that's the OFFICIAL determination made by multiple handwriting analysts for BOTH the Warren Commission and the HSCA.

Are they ALL liars or incompetent boobs at their jobs?

You and your fellow CTers will NEVER be able to skirt around the FACT that Lee Harvey Oswald's writing is on ALL of the documents that prove he purchased the JFK murder weapon (Rifle C2766).

Also -- If "handwriting analysis" is such a flawed science, then why on Earth do such handwriting analysts exist AT ALL? Do you think they testify in court and for organizations like the WC and HSCA merely for the fun of making impossible-to-prove determinations like the ones made by Alwyn Cole below?:

MELVIN EISENBERG -- "Mr. Cole, I now hand you an item consisting of a U.S. postal money order in the amount of $21.45, payable to Klein's Sporting Goods, from "A. Hidell, P.O. Box 2915, Dallas, Texas." For the record I will state that this money order was included with the purchase order in Exhibit 773 which has just been identified, and was intended and used as payment for the weapon shipped in response to the purchase order, 773. I ask you, Mr. Cole, whether you have examined this money order for the purpose of determining whether it was prepared by the author of the standards?"

ALWYN COLE [Treasury Dept. Document Examiner] -- "Yes, sir."

EISENBERG -- "What was your conclusion, Mr. Cole?"

COLE -- "It is my conclusion that the handwriting on this money order is in the hand of the person who executed the standard writing [i.e., Lee Harvey Oswald]."

4 H 373:

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh4/html/WC_Vol4_0191a.htm

======================

And handwriting expert Joseph McNally (along with others who examined the same documents for the HSCA) came to the same conclusion as Cole did fourteen years earlier--i.e., the money order and all other documents relating to the rifle purchase were written by Lee Harvey Oswald [see McNally testimony at 4 HSCA 355].

http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol4/html/HSCA_Vol4_0180a.htm

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DVP's reality gets weirder and weirder. Now he's suggesting that there has never been an occasion where somebody has ever had their signature forged.

I never suggested any such thing. And why you say I am suggesting such a silly thing is beyond me.

But in THIS (Kennedy) case, I'm saying that there was positively no "forgery" of the Oswald documents, because of the testimony of the experts in the field of identifying writing on questioned documents (e.g., Alwyn Cole and Joseph McNally).

Naturally, though, expert testimony means zilch to people like Lee Farley (esp. if it means having to admit the obvious--i.e., Farley's favorite patsy actually ordered rifle C2766).

WHERE ARE THE BANK STAMPS? WHERE ARE THE BANK STAMPS? WHERE?

WHY DIDN'T THE PLOTTERS WHO FAKED THE MONEY ORDER THINK TO PUT THE PROPER STAMPS ON IT?

WHY DIDN'T THE PLOTTERS WHO FAKED THE MONEY ORDER THINK TO PUT THE PROPER STAMPS ON IT?

WHY WERE YOUR PATSY FRAMERS SO INCREDIBLY SLOPPY AND RETARDED? WHY?

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Tom Scully
http://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&tbo=1&q=%22the+hsca+concluded+that+%22we+were+unable+to+come+to+any+firm*%22&btnG=Search+Books

Reclaiming history: the assassination of President John F. Kennedy - Page 1267

Vincent Bugliosi - 2007 - 1612 pages - Preview

In other words, if it were a forgery, the forgers weren't real pros. The HSCA concluded that "we were unable to come to any firm conclusion regarding this particu- ....

David, your reliance on handwriting as "proof" is very thin, but it is to be expected, given that the Bug is your hero. If you read the page linked above, the Bug declares the letter from Oswald to Hunt is not geniune. This dismissal is followed with the info that three handwriting experts hired by a Dallas newspaper determined the letter was in Oswald's handwriting, but that examination by experts the HSCA retained were inconclusive.

Doesn't the Bug contradict himself, or mislead? Is handwriting testimony reliable proof beyond reasonable doubt? Is such testimony reliable enough "evidence" to overcome the deficiencies of the alleged "proof", Gil has impeached here? Really?

Will you admit you are not interested in the reliability of what the WCR represented as proof, but only in defending that representation without regard to its quality or consistency? The money order has multiple, troubling deficiencies and handwriting analysis is as controversial as lie detector test results, but for you, it overcomes all

that Gil has presented as deficient. The Bug required even less than you. For him, even inconclusive is proof of fakery where the inexact science of forensic handwriting examination is concerned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Tom Scully

Lee, you and I understand that Oswald had no opportunity to examine or rebut government evidence and testimony at trial, no defense team investigators were ever enlisted, and no handwriting expert testified for the defense to render the testimony of government expert witnesses moot. But Oswald was guilty and he acted alone, the government said so and thus, we can rest assured, slam dunk, case closed. Saddam's WMD are buried in Syria, it is the only logical explanation for them not turning up because the government was convinced there were stockpiles of them and production infrastructure kept hidden from U.N. weapons inspectors and president Bush and vp Cheney were such great Americans acting with no other intention than keeping us safe......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No cover up ever has to be perfect--in fact there is no such thing. It just has to suffice to do the job.

Yeah, but your so-called "plotters/planters/cover-uppers" screwed up on virtually EVERYTHING, according to your beliefs.

E.G.,

They planted a Mauser instead of a Carcano. (Dumb.)

They shot Tippit with an automatic, when the patsy owned a revolver. (Stupid.)

They forgot to stamp the money order properly. (Silly plotters.)

They shot JFK from the front. (Really idiotic in a plot with the patsy in the TSBD.)

They allowed the patsy to roam around the TSBD, instead of keeping a leash on him, potentially allowing the patsy to gain an alibi (which YOU think he did, of course, in the lunchroom). (Incredibly reckless and stupid.)

They plant a bullet shell in the TSBD that CTers say couldn't possibly have been fired that day. (More stupidity from the bumbling plotters.)

How many more of these silly goofball errors does it take to qualify the JFK Assassination Team Of Patsy-Framers as retards? 150 more? 200?

In reality, of course, none of the above things is true at all. Each item only exists in the fantasy-filled minds of conspiracy theorists. And they fester there until more and more CTers begin to believe in them too. That's why 75%-80% of the American public believes in a conspiracy today. It's not because the EVIDENCE is tainted. It's because of the really silly things that conspiracy theorists like Jim DiEugenio and Jim Garrison and Oliver Stone place their faith in.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

....And they fester there until more and more CTers begin to believe in them too. That's why 75%-80% of the American public believes in a conspiracy today. It's not because the EVIDENCE is tainted. It's because of the really silly things that conspiracy theorists like Jim DiEugenio and Jim Garrison and Oliver Stone place their faith in.

It's not just conspiracy theorists as David likes to label them. It's the American and world population that have historically rejected the conclusions of the Warren Report.

If everything were as cut-and-dried as Von Pein's theory postulates, this would not be the case.

Despite David's fanciful explanations for many things and his avoidance of things for which he has no good answer, people can figure out that they were not told the truth by the Warren Commission.

Bottom line: Von Pein is on the fringe of mainstream thought when it comes to President Kennedy's murder. It's not just conspiracy theorists that know he's misguided.

(David has shown in the past that interpreting poll results is not one of his strong suits.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole business about the BANK stamps is actually a situation where CTers are attempting to close the barn door after the horse has already escaped.

I.E.,

Since we know Oswald definitely signed the 3/12/63 money order (verified by multiple handwriting analysts for the WC and the HSCA)....and since we know that that money order was definitely RECEIVED and STAMPED FOR DEPOSIT by Klein's Sporting Goods (verified by the stamp on the money order and by Klein's V.P. William Waldman, who CTers must certainly think is either a huge xxxx or as dumb as a stump about his own company's procedures and operations)....and since we positively know that Klein's DID ship Rifle C2766 to Oswald/Hidell on 3/20/63.....

It, therefore, doesn't make any difference what happened to the money order after First National Bank in Chicago received it from Klein's. Whether the bank stamped it or not is immaterial for the purpose of determining whether Klein's handled that money order and whether Klein's shipped the rifle to Oswald.

The main point is: We know Klein's received that money order in the mail from Oswald. And as a result of receiving payment (in full) for the ordered rifle, Klein's shipped Rifle C2766 to LHO (as confirmed for all time by Waldman Exhibit #7, which is a document that CTers must ALSO believe is a total forgery).

Do you see the sheer outlandish NUMBER of hoops and contortions a CTer must go through in order to take that rifle out of the hands of Lee Harvey Oswald? I sure do, whether any CTer sees them or not.

WaldmanExhibitNo7.jpg

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With respect to the BANK STAMPS that conspiracy theorists insist should be on the back of Oswald's money order (CE788), I'll offer up the following thoughts and observations:

This question suddenly popped into my head today:

I wonder if my bank puts stamps or other markings on the back of every one of my checks that I have deposited into my personal bank account?

This question became very easy to answer (at least as far as my last several deposits are concerned), since I can check my recent deposits online and I can even see (and enlarge) the front and back of every cancelled/processed check that has been a part of a recent deposit.

I found that only SOME of my cancelled checks have ANY bank markings on them at all, while some others are COMPLETELY VOID of any and all bank stamps.

This discovery suggests to me that it's quite possible that this same "hit and miss" type of activity regarding the stamping of cancelled checks (and money orders) could have been the reason we find no official bank markings on the back of CE788.

For proof of this, I offer up the following two images of the front and back of one of my own cancelled checks from November 2010. This check was deposited (by mail) into my account at a major U.S. bank. And please note the back side of the check, which doesn't have any bank markings on it whatsoever (nor does the front). It merely has my own signed endorsement (much like what we see in CE788, which has just the Klein's rubber stamp marking and account number on it).

And, btw, in case anyone wants to accuse me of "faking" or "whiting out" some of the markings on this cancelled check--I have not altered this image in any way (other than to remove my account number under the words "Deposit Only" on the back side of the check):

Check%2BSample%2BFront.png

Check%2BSample%2BBack.png

It's my feeling, too, that in many cases where a large, bulk deposit is made which includes many checks and money orders (which would certainly have been the case with the $13,000+ deposit made by Klein's Sporting Goods on March 13, 1963) that it's quite possible that only the DEPOSIT TICKET for the entire bulk amount gets stamped by the bank after it is received.

That last part about "bulk deposits" with a lot of checks and money orders shouldn't be too hard to verify at some point in the future. (Are there any bank employees posting at this forum?)

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lee,

You misunderstood my terms. When I said "cancelled" check, I didn't mean that I had literally CANCELLED it. I meant "processed". It's a check from late last year that I deposited, and it was positively PROCESSED and added to my personal account by a major U.S. bank via a Bank By Mail deposit ticket.

And that's not the only example I have either. I can dig up at least one or two more "processed" checks that went into my bank account that don't have a single marking or stamp on them from the bank where it was deposited.

But, as I also said, SOME of the checks DO have a stamp on them from my bank, but not all of them.

It's possible (I suppose) that the check in question was stamped by my bank only AFTER they had taken a digital image of it to put online for me to see. I'll admit that's possible. But all I can go by is what the digital image shows right now--and there's no bank stamp on it anywhere.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Lee; I DID WORK IN a bank back then, but here in Canada, '' that in many cases where a large, bulk deposit is made which includes many checks and money orders (which would certainly have been the case with the $13,000+ deposit made by Klein's Sporting Goods on March 13, 1963) that it's quite possible that only the DEPOSIT TICKET for the entire bulk amount gets stamped by the bank after it is received.

''

i do not know if the process was the same, in the states, ''but here every cheque money order whatever in a deposit, was stamped , as it was also with the stamp of the bank where it was first presented,on the back... fwtw....b

Edited by Bernice Moore

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DiEugenio doesn't have the PROOF that Oswald's $21.45 money order [CE788] is a fraud. In fact, the BEST EVIDENCE tells us just the opposite -- OSWALD'S WRITING IS ON THE DAMN THING.

Naturally, this BEST EVIDENCE means zilch to conspiracy mongers like DiEugenio. He WANTS Oswald to be innocent (for some reason), so he'll jump through every impossible hoop and turn himself (and the evidence) into an unidentifiable pretzel in order to achieve that silly goal.

Another great example of DiEugenio's Mister Salty pretzel twists comes in the form of what he's done to totally misrepresent and mangle the "paper bag" evidence.

There's way, way more evidence to tell us that Oswald WAS carrying that paper bag on the morning of November 22 than there is to suggest a reasonable doubt that he didn't. But DiEugenio WANTS that paper bag to vanish off the planet--so, by God, he'll do and say anything to make that happen. Even to the point of accusing TWO COMPLETELY INNOCENT PEOPLE (Linnie Mae Randle and 19-year-old kid Buell Wesley Frazier) of just MAKING UP the bag from whole cloth.

This, you see, is the fantasy world DiEugenio lives in every day regarding the assassination of President Kennedy. And he relishes it. He basks in it daily. Well, he can have it. I like EVIDENCE instead of silly speculation about people like Buell and Linnie Mae.

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The FBI never found the money order in that 13,000 deposit.

So in addition to never being stamped, it was never found, period.

Then what is this a picture of, Jimbo? A figment of my imagination?.....

WH_Vol17_0352a.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×