Yes, postal money orders do require bank endorsements!

[Guest]

Klein's didn't just endorse the money order.... Klein's used a "special endorsement," thus making its bank the payee of the money order. The Klein's stamp actually reads "Pay to the order of First National Bank." Which makes Klein's a drawer and First National Bank the payee.

I understand you are trying to salvage a theory, but trying to make the bank into a payee is pounding round pegs into square holes. The Klein's stamp was a garden-variety deposit stamp with the company's account number on it. It is better practice to say, "For deposit only" than "Pay to the order of," but both types of deposit endorsements are very common and widely accepted. Most common is probably "Pay to the Order of Bank XYZ for Deposit Only to Account 1234567." These are called restrictive endorsements. The depository bank does not then become a payee who is separately required to endorse the instrument as it makes it way to its ultimate destination.

You make that conclusion based on seeing just one money order? The one that is suspect? Doesn't make sense to me.

No, I make my tentative conclusion on the basis of the regulations pertaining to money orders, the limited research I have been able to do, and my knowledge of the way the world works. Surely, there have to be scads of 1963-era money orders around. I own checks signed by several famous people that survived the decades simply because they were signed by famous people. It simply does not make sense, and is not consistent with the way the world of negotiable instruments works, that a money order to Klein's would have to bear endorsements from the depository bank or the Federal Reserve bank. But as I said, if there are examples of this, let's find them. What doesn't make sense, to me anyway, is to leap to the conclusion that the Klein's money order is suspicious and extraordinary when, on its face, it appears perfectly non-suspicious and ordinary. Representatives of the First National Bank of Chicago and the Federal Reserve Bank were interviewed in 1964; I don't know the precise circumstances, but apparently the Klein's money order didn't cause them to leap out of their chairs.

I personally would LOVE it if the Klein's money order were entirely bogus. I just see no evidence that it is.

EDIT FOR BREAKING NEWS:

I have discovered a highly significant item that cuts against my previous position! The following appears in the court's opinion in UNITED STATES v. CAMBRIDGE TRUST COMPANY, 300 F.2d 76 (First Circuit 1962):

From October 1956 to January 1958 one Ralph Porter purchased 699 postal money orders payable to himself. The orders were in the usual form and each bore on its face the legend "Void If Altered." Porter cleverly raised each order about ninety dollars and then transferred them to E. M. F. Electric Supply Company, Inc., by the endorsement: "Pay to E. M. F. Electric Co. Ralph Porter, Payee." E. M. F. delivered each order to the appellee bank, referred to hereinafter sometimes as the Bank, for deposit to the credit of its account with the endorsement: "For deposit only E. M. F. Electric Supply Co. and Camera Exchange" Printed on the deposit slip accompanying each order was the statement that in receiving items for deposit the Bank "acts only as depositor's collecting agent and assumes no responsibility beyond the exercise of due care" and that "all items are credited subject to final payment in cash or solvent credits." The Bank stamped each order with its usual clearing house stamp reading: "Pay to the Order of Any Bank, Banker or Trust Co. Prior Endorsements Guaranteed Cambridge Trust Company" and transmitted the orders to the First National Bank of Boston for collection. That bank in turn presented each order to the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston for payment, and it paid the full face amount of each order as raised.

So this certainly suggests that the Klein's money order should have been stamped by First National Bank of Chicago. The question would be whether this was mandatory, standard practice, or what.

Edited November 17, 2015 by Guest

[Sandy Larsen]

Klein's didn't just endorse the money order.... Klein's used a "special endorsement," thus making its bank the payee of the money order. The Klein's stamp actually reads "Pay to the order of First National Bank." Which makes Klein's a drawer and First National Bank the payee.

I understand you are trying to salvage a theory, but trying to make the bank into a payee is pounding round pegs into square holes.

Actually I just thought you hadn't noticed the "pay to the order of" stamp. I don't know if endorsing over to the bank would have made any difference. If it were a check we are talking about, and today rather than 1963, then definitely the bank would be required to endorse it either way. FRBs require it. I just don't know if that was necessarily the case for money orders in 1963.

The Klein's stamp was a garden-variety deposit stamp with the company's account number on it. It is better practice to say, "For deposit only" than "Pay to the order of," but both types of deposit endorsements are very common and widely accepted. Most common is probably "Pay to the Order of Bank XYZ for Deposit Only to Account 1234567." These are called restrictive endorsements. The depository bank does not then become a payee who is separately required to endorse the instrument as it makes it way to its ultimate destination.

Okay. But let me ask you a couple questions: 1) Isn't it true that if I was the payee of the MO and I endorsed it with "pay to the order of Lance Payette," you would then be the payee? If so, then why not the bank if I did the same with them? 2) Why does Klein's stamp even have the words "pay to the order of?" Why not just "for deposit only" alone?

Surely, there have to be scads of 1963-era money orders around.

I don't understand why you say that. I mean, if you're talking about ones that were processed. Those were boxed up for two years and then destroyed. I can't think of a reason why there would be any left at all these days. Even if a handful somehow escaped their demise, it seems that people would have tossed them in the waste basket by now.

EDIT FOR BREAKING NEWS:

Looks interesting. I'll study it later when I have more time.

I have discovered a highly significant item that cuts against my previous position! The following appears in the court's opinion in UNITED STATES v. CAMBRIDGE TRUST COMPANY, 300 F.2d 76 (First Circuit 1962):

From October 1956 to January 1958 one Ralph Porter purchased 699 postal money orders payable to himself. The orders were in the usual form and each bore on its face the legend "Void If Altered." Porter cleverly raised each order about ninety dollars and then transferred them to E. M. F. Electric Supply Company, Inc., by the endorsement: "Pay to E. M. F. Electric Co. Ralph Porter, Payee." E. M. F. delivered each order to the appellee bank, referred to hereinafter sometimes as the Bank, for deposit to the credit of its account with the endorsement: "For deposit only E. M. F. Electric Supply Co. and Camera Exchange" Printed on the deposit slip accompanying each order was the statement that in receiving items for deposit the Bank "acts only as depositor's collecting agent and assumes no responsibility beyond the exercise of due care" and that "all items are credited subject to final payment in cash or solvent credits." The Bank stamped each order with its usual clearing house stamp reading: "Pay to the Order of Any Bank, Banker or Trust Co. Prior Endorsements Guaranteed Cambridge Trust Company" and transmitted the orders to the First National Bank of Boston for collection. That bank in turn presented each order to the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston for payment, and it paid the full face amount of each order as raised.

So this certainly suggests that the Klein's money order should have been stamped by First National Bank of Chicago. The question would be whether this was mandatory, standard practice, or what.

[Guest]

Further on this, which is an EXCEEDINGLY complicated topic. I am going to bow out of further discussion until Someone Who Actually Knows What He's Talking about in terms of the nuances of the processing of 1963-era postal money orders surfaces (a category in which I will be happy to include John Armstrong if he surfaces and the shoe fits, but this is really a subject for someone with a level of practical expertise in punch-card era banking practices).

A veritable gold mine of searchable information is the Federal Reserve historical archive: https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/ . Using FRASER, I have at least determined the following from Operating Circulars of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York:

• Beginning with the punch-card era in 1951, banks were authorized to treat postal money orders as cash items:

Federal Bank of New York, Operating Circular No. 3723 (June 20, 1951).

"All Federal Reserve Banks have agreed to receive the new card form postal money orders

as cash items and to give immediate credit therefor as provided in their time schedules. Accordingly,

member and nonmember clearing banks in the Second Federal Reserve District may

include in their cash letters to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York new card form postal

money orders, which they receive from their depositors or others."

This was reemphasized in Operating Circular No. 4929 (August 18, 1960).

• The processing of postal money orders has long been governed by an agreement between the Postmaster General and the Federal Reserve (a copy of which I could not find), as well as Federal Reserve Regulation J. Regulation J applies unless the agreement says otherwise. Concerning postal money orders, the Regulation J in effect in 1960 stated:

"11. Postal money orders will be handled in accordance with an agreement made by the Postmaster General, in behalf of the United States, and the Federal Reserve Banks as depositaries and fiscal agents of the United States pursuant to authorization of the Secretary of the Treasury; and with respect to matters not covered by such agreement, the provisions of Regulation J, this circular and our time schedules shall be deemed applicable to all postal money orders. Immediate credit will be given to member banks and nonmember clearing banks for postal money orders as provided in our time schedules and simultaneously with such credit we will debit the amount of such money orders against the general account of the Treasurer of the United States under such symbol numbers as may be assigned by the Treasurer of the United States. Said agreement further provides in effect that no claim for refund or otherwise with respect to any money order debited against the general account of the Treasurer of the United States and delivered to the representative of the Post Office Department as provided in said agreement (other than a claim based on the negligence of a Federal Reserve Bank) will be made against or through any Federal Reserve Bank; that if the Post Office Department makes any such claim with respect to any such money order, such money order will not be returned or sent to a Federal Reserve Bank, but the Post Office Department will deal directly with the bank or the party against which such claim is made; and that the Federal Reserve Banks will assist the Post Office Department in making such claim, including making their records and any relevant evidence in their possession available to the Post Office Department."

• The above would suggest that member banks could simply send along postal money orders to the Federal Reserve like cash, the Federal Reserve would treat them like cash, and if there was any problem the Post Office had to deal with the complaining party. However, the 1960 version of Regulation J also contains the following language suggesting that the depository bank must endorse cash items (because they are not, in fact, cash):

"15. All cash items sent to us, or to another Federal Reserve Bank direct for our account, should be endorsed without restriction to the order of the Federal Reserve Bank to which sent, or endorsed to the order of any bank, banker, or trust company, or endorsed with equivalent words or abbreviations thereof. Cash items will be accepted by us and by other Federal Reserve Banks only upon the understanding and condition that all prior endorsements are guaranteed by the sending bank. There should be incorporated in the endorsement of the sending bank the phrase, “All prior endorsements guaranteed,” which may be abbreviated as, for example, “ P.E.G.” in conformity with the A.B.A. uniform transit instructions, or “ Pr. Ends. Gtd.” The act of sending or delivering a cash item to us or to another Federal Reserve Bank will, however, be deemed and understood to constitute a guaranty of all prior endorsements on such item, whether or not an express guaranty is incorporated in the sending bank’s endorsement. The endorsement of the sending bank should be dated and should show the A.B.A. transit number of the sending bank in prominent type on both sides."

The above raises two questions:

1. Would the "pay to the order" stamp on the Klein's money order satisfy the above requirement? Seemingly not, IMHO, but commercial practices are often very different from what the words seem to say - hence the need for a true expert.

2. Did something in the agreement between the Postmaster General and the Federal Reserve override the above requirement?

Edited November 18, 2015 by Guest

[Sandy Larsen]

Excellent post, Lance. Thanks for spending the time researching this and reporting on it.

I sure hope you stick around. Lord knows we could use someone who can read legalese. What you've already posted and explained is pretty amazing.

This morning I found the following paragraph repeated in successive issues of The United States Official Postal Guide, all predating 1951:

Payments to Banks - When an [money] order purporting to have been receipted by the payee, or the first endorsee, is deposited in a bank for collection, the postmaster at the office drawn upon may effect payment to the bank, provided there be a guarantee on the part of the bank that the latter will refund the amount if it afterward appear that the depositor was not the owner of the order. An order thus paid should bear upon its back the impression of the stamp of the bank. The person receiving payment in the bank's behalf on an order thus receipted, the signature of the payee or endorsee being left undisturbed, may be required to write his name upon the back of the order.

Of course this predates both FRB processing and punch card MOs. But it does indicate that the bank stamping of money orders was a welll established practice, having been performed for at least a couple decades that I saw. The above paragraph had disappeared by the time the final Official Postal Guide was published in 1953 (or 1954?). But I think that was a victim of abridgment , not a change in practice or law.

Edited November 18, 2015 by Sandy Larsen

[Guest]

OK, one more. This may solve the ten digits at the top of the Klein's money order. 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.

I found on the website of the Computer History Museum a 1966 paper entitled "The Check Payment and Reconciliation Program of the U.S. Treasury: Present Status and Future Prospects" by George F. Stickney of the Treasury Department. It can be located here: https://www.computer.org/csdl/proceedings/afips/1966/5068/00/50680479.pdf

Five pages into the paper (page 483), the author explains what a "File Locator Number" is and provides a specimen Treasury check with the File Locator Number highlighted. The digits and location appear to be identical to the Klein's money order.

The article explains that the File Locator Number "may be viewed as the second serial number" and is added to each item as the final step of the card-to-tape conversion process. The author describes it as a hugely significant innovation that allows Treasury to handle each item only once, as opposed to the previous 15-20 times. (Don't be misled by his reference to the "new" system - he is talking about the "new" system adopted in 1957.) Later in the article (page 494), he says that the procedures for postal money orders are "quite similar."

I also found a February 1963 article in Computer and Automation (http://bitsavers.trailing-edge.com/pdf/computersAndAutomation/196302.pdf - see page 42) for the IBM 1420 bank transit system which stated that the machine would process 1600 checks or 1900 postal money orders per minute and would also "imprint the bank's endorsement during processing with no reduction in speed." I couldn't find a manual for the 1420, but I did find the following for a competitive machine manufactured by GE:

Endorser - prints a 3/4 inch by 1 3/4 inch stamp in one of nine different locations on the back of each check passed through the Document Handler, without reducing the input speed. The three horizontal positions of the
endorsing stamp can be changed by the operator. The endorsement stamp contains six items:
1. Bank transit number, 2. Date (operator changeable - no tools), 3. Name of bank, 4. City and state, 5. Pay any bank P.E.G., 6. Six variable digit positions (0 - 9, operator changeable, no tools required)

So now we have the mystery that the Klein's money order appears to have no bank endorsement but does appear to have a File Locator Number that would be added only after the money order had found its way to its final destination at the Treasury Department.

[David Von Pein]

The number of extremely old documents available on the Internet is incredible. While searching for stuff relating to this "Money Order" topic the other day, I actually came across a 102-year-old document of more than 700 pages, "Postal Laws and Regulations of the United States of America; Edition of 1913".

So I guess it's possible to find almost anything online, even if it's 102 years old.

Here's a photo of the sample check which appears on page 483 of the 1966 PDF document Lance provided above, indicating where on a processed check the "File Locator Numbers" are found. And it does, indeed, match the Klein's/Hidell money order exactly, with respect to the number of digits (10) and the format/placement of those digits (3 numbers, then a space, followed by seven additional numbers)....

And here's an excerpt from the 1966 PDF with more information about the "File Locator Numbers". The key words here are: "The file locator number...is printed on each paid check..."





Emphasizing these words again -- "Each PAID check..."

The check has, therefore, been PAID already before a File Locator Number is added to the check. And as Lance alluded to earlier, U.S. Postal Money Orders were likely being handled in a "similar" fashion to checks at the time.

Thank you, Lance Payette, for what must have been hours of tedious Google searching in an effort to dig up that banking information.

Edited December 3, 2023 by David Von Pein

[David G. Healy]

the location of the original money order, is where? Not a "xerox" copy not a 1st generation photo image of same, nor second, third or fourth generation. And IF it's location is known is it available for validation? TWO (2) simple questions.

Edited November 19, 2015 by David G. Healy

[David Von Pein]

PAUL ERNST SAID:

And when was the above system introduced, which year David?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

It's from a 1966 document. But the 10-digit number is also seen on the Hidell M.O. from 1963. Same formatting....three digits, a space, then seven more numbers.

Are you saying that the identical formatting for that number meant something OTHER than the "File Locator Number" discussed in that 1966 PDF document that Lance posted earlier?

Gee, there's an amazing coincidence, huh?

Plus, Lance made this comment about the "new" system discussed in the 1966 document....

"Don't be misled by his reference to the "new" system — he is talking about the "new" system adopted in 1957. Later in the article (page 494), he says that the procedures for postal money orders are "quite similar." " -- Lance Payette


PAUL ERNST SAID:

David, we are talking here about BANK CHECKS and not a MO.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

From the same 1966 PDF document Lance provided....





And this excerpt below—from that same 1966 PDF file—pretty much indicates that the entire 1966 document is talking about procedures that began ten years earlier, in Fiscal 1957....





PAUL ERNST SAID:

And what about the question [regarding the first three digits stamped at the top-left of the Hidell money order] --- 138 = Dallas???

Where can I find that back?

I found something about postal zones...but not about that 138 number = DALLAS?

Can you help me out?


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

No, I can't. I tried searching the "138" prefix all day yesterday (in the hopes that something might pop up to indicate that "138" did, indeed, mean something specifically), but I had no luck in finding any info on it. After about 1,000 Google searches, I tossed in the towel.

But maybe you'll have better luck. Or maybe Lance Payette or Sandy Larsen or Tom Scully have some kind of "magic Google Search touch" that enables them to dig out long-forgotten, decades-old PDF documents regarding very old 1960s and 1950s U.S. postal procedures.

All three of them seem to have hit paydirt of one kind or another with respect to this topic of the money order. Who knows what might turn up next. ~shrug~

 

Edited December 3, 2023 by David Von Pein

[Guest]

Thanks to DVP for posting the images from the article. I had no luck when I tried to do so.

As stated in the 1966 article, the system had been in place since 1957. File Locator Numbers had been used since that time. It is my understanding that this article is talking only about items for which the U.S. Treasury has the ultimate responsibility - Treasury checks, postal money orders and other federal instruments.

Since the article specifically refers to postal money orders and says the processing was "quite similar" to that for Treasury checks, the fact that the specimen in the article is a Treasury Check rather than a postal money order seems irrelevant to me. It is remotely possible that postal money orders did not receive File Locator Numbers, but (1) the author makes the File Locator Number sound like the greatest invention since sliced bread and the key to the system that had been in place since 1957, and (2) the Klein's postal money order has what certainly looks like a File Locator Number.

The File Locator Number tells the Treasury Department where within the Department the item is physically located. I assume the 138 would be a box, bin, shelf or building. I don't believe the number would have anything to do with Dallas or any other geographical location. (I did find two references to "TUS-3515, Chart of Locator Numbers" but had no luck locating the actual chart.)

The File Locator number doesn't just mean the item has been paid. It means the item has arrived at its final destination in the process (i.e., the Treasury Department), been examined and determined to have been properly paid, had its information converted to magnetic tape and a File Locator Number assigned, and then placed into storage. In short, the item has reached the end of its road.

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. There is no way a postal money order from 1963 would still be in storage.

If the ten digits are a File Locator Number, I am satisfied this is the end of the story. 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. To me, a File Locator Number would pretty well say, "Nothing else matters."

Edit: This is becoming my full-time job, but I did find a newspaper article from 1970 stating that the GSA records retention center in Mechanicsburg, PA, is where all old Treasury checks were stored and that they were destroyed every 7 years. Every month, 60,000,000 checks were shredded. Each year, the center received 400,000 requests from Treasury to locate an item in storage.

Edited November 19, 2015 by Guest

[David Von Pein]

TIM NICKERSON SAID:

David,

According to that 1966 document, the Treasury Department began converting the money order operation to the electronic system in June 1962.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

What page number of the '66 document, Tim? I want to capture it.

And that "June 1962" date is interesting, indeed, because it's the exact same month when the new yellow-tinted money orders were being introduced, per the Palm Beach newspaper article discovered recently by Tom Scully [pictured below; the Google Books version of the Palm Beach article has mysteriously disappeared from the Internet as of today; but, fortunately Tom Scully captured an image of it before it went AWOL from the Web].

TIM NICKERSON SAID:

Page 498.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Thank you. I see it now. (See image below.)

Edited November 19, 2015 by David Von Pein

[James DiEugenio]

LP: The File Locator Number tells the Treasury Department where within the Department the item is physically located. I assume the 138 would be a box, bin, shelf or building. I don't believe the number would have anything to do with Dallas or any other geographical location.

LP: If the ten digits are a File Locator Number, I am satisfied this is the end of the story. 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. To me, a File Locator Number would pretty well say, "Nothing else matters."

Lance:

Just out of curiosity, how long have you been investigating this case?

I say that because your urge to find closure on this issue, with conclusions that to most people would seem jerry built strikes me as being rather odd for any kind of person who is very familiar with this case. Also, your lack of any interviews or documentary research into the provenance of the money order is also puzzling.

I mean lawyers are supposed to be ultra vigilant about the issues of chain of possession. That is, how did a piece of evidence get from one step to another, how did it originate? Because if there are any lacunae in that chain, the court, the jury and judge will look askance at that evidence.

Yet, in your eagerness for finality, you have not asked one question about this issue. Therefore in just a matter of days and sixteen posts, you have done what say Gil Jesus, David Josephs, John Armstrong, Martha Moyer and the later Ray Gallagher could not do in literally years of research, going back to the nineties.

Are you familiar with those issues at all? Have you researched them? Or are they irrelevant to you?

Edited November 19, 2015 by James DiEugenio

[Guest]

LP: The File Locator Number tells the Treasury Department where within the Department the item is physically located. I assume the 138 would be a box, bin, shelf or building. I don't believe the number would have anything to do with Dallas or any other geographical location.

LP: If the ten digits are a File Locator Number, I am satisfied this is the end of the story. 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. To me, a File Locator Number would pretty well say, "Nothing else matters."

Lance:

Just out of curiosity, how long have you been investigating this case?

I say that because your urge to find closure on this issue, with conclusions that to most people would seem jerry built strikes me as being rather odd for any kind of person who is very familiar with this case. Also, your lack of any interviews or documentary research into the provenance of the money order is also puzzling.

I mean lawyers are supposed to be ultra vigilant about the issues of chain of possession. That is, how did a piece of evidence get from one step to another, how did it originate? Because if there are any lacunae in that chain, the court, the jury and judge will look askance at that evidence.

Yet, in your eagerness for finality, you have not asked one question about this issue. Therefore in just a matter of days and sixteen posts, you have done what say Gil Jesus, David Josephs, John Armstrong, Martha Moyer and the later Ray Gallagher could not do in literally years of research, going back to the nineties.

Are you familiar with those issues at all? Have you researched them? Or are they irrelevant to you?

I have read Harvey and Lee cover to cover twice and, in connection with this research, have reviewed at least some of the work of all the names you mention. What struck me was precisely what you seem to be accusing me of - assumptions and conclusions as to what the Klein's money order "should" show, with little back-up documentation as to why it "should" show this. I know John Armstrong put a tremendous amount of work into Harvey and Lee, and I regard it as an invaluable resource, but he did make mistakes and some of his conjecture is far from convincing to me. What has taken place with the money order strikes me as more in the vein of, "We want the money order to be bogus to fit our theory, ergo it is bogus." It strikes me as what I see too often: The CT True Believers will not be satisfied unless no one was who he appeared to be, no piece of evidence can be trusted, everyone was lying, everyone was part of the conspiracy, etc.

I have no agenda. If I had to bet my life savings, I'd place my money on "The man shot by Jack Ruby had no knowing involvement in the assassination of JFK." But I'm also sane enough to realize I could be 100% wrong. I refuse to be lumped with the crazies, those CT True Believers for whom their particular CT has become a fundamentalist religion.

This thread is about whether the Klein's money order should show evidence of endorsement by FNB and the Federal Reserve Bank, a very narrow issue. Ditto for the thread about the non-cut corner: a very narrow issue with a seemingly easy solution. I don't purport to be any postal money order expert; I could be wrong about what I am seeing. Frankly, I'm pretty surprised at what I have managed to turn up with some minimal Internet sleuthing while I sit home with the flu, and even more surprised that it would be causing any controversy here. Perhaps the question should be, "Why did Gil Jesus, David Josephs, John Armstrong, Martha Moyer and Ray Gallagher not find in literally years of research, going back to the nineties, what Barely Interested Lance has found in a day and a half?"

Truly, if the money order is bogus, I'll be delighted - this would be way more interesting than the alternative. If it isn't bogus - well, surely, no CT stands or falls with the money order. I'm just trying to follow the evidence where it leads. Just in my posts, I have publicly waffled from thinking (1) the money order didn't require bank endorsements, to (2) the money order did require bank endorsements, to (3) the money order appears to show evidence of final processing by the Treasury Department. This is a "rush to find closure," in your view? (The File Locator Number, if that's what it is, does strike me as "closure," I'll have to admit. It seems to me to be a deal-killer, simply because of what a File Locator Number is. If I learn beyond question that your car was sitting in your garage at the time of the accident, all of my other "evidence" it was involved in the accident pretty much falls by the wayside. If this is a File Locator Number and someone wants to persist with a new and improved theory as to why the FLN is just part of the conspiracy, be my guest.)

Where is John Armstrong? I thought he was going to be educating us in short order.

[James DiEugenio]

What struck me was that once you assumed you knew what the File Locator number was and what it represented, you then said, that was it. Either its closed or everyone is nuts.

Period.

As if nothing else mattered.

Without interviewing any bank presidents or supervisors etc.

Which John just did. And that interview will have a very much divergent view than yours. I think a 35 year bank president would be a pretty good court witness. But that does not mean anything to you it seems. And you did not think it important to call one did you?

[Thomas Graves]

What struck me was that once you assumed you knew what the File Locator number was and what it represented, you then said, that was it. Either its closed or everyone is nuts.

Period.

As if nothing else mattered.

Without interviewing any bank presidents or supervisors etc.

Which John just did. And that interview will have a very much divergent view than yours. I think a 35 year bank president would be a pretty good court witness. But that does not mean anything to you it seems. And you did not think it important to call one did you?

Relax, Jimbo.

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

--Tommy

[James DiEugenio]

Secondly, Lance, one of the big probeme with the WC is that it never followed in detail the whole chain of possession of a piece of evidence.

In some instances, it never even examined in a perfunctory way any key piece of evidence, e.g. the autopsy x rays, the autopsy photos, CE 399, the shells found at the so called sniper's lair etc. In some cases, like the wallet at the Tippit murder, that was not even mentioned.

Again, a lawyer would be very keen on these matters I would think.

So we have this rifle, which as you must know is the wrong rifle. In both classification and in length and weight. It was not the rifle the WC says Oswald ordered.

It is also not the rifle Marina referred to in her first SS interviews.

About which no postal employee ever said they recall Oswald picking up.

And which the WC lied about how Oswald could have picked it up since he should not have been able to pick it up due to postal regs.

The man who bailed out the WC on this problem was Harry Holmes. Holmes' family later apologized for his perfidy chalking it up to the Cold War Pressures of the time.

Now, I assume you know how important Holmes was in this whole money order imbroglio? In fact, one can say he started it from the one end.

As a lawyer, why should a man who has been shown to be so untrustworthy, go completely unmentioned by you, when he would seem to be crucial to the whole issue?

Simply because of the FLN?

And the rest of us--Ray G, Martha Moyer, Armstrong, Gil, David,-- are, in your words, True Believers?

Edited November 19, 2015 by James DiEugenio