Yes, postal money orders do require bank endorsements!

[David Von Pein]

You're talking about the "fine-sort program," where the bank does the sorting so that the Federal Reserve Bank doesn't have to.

[...]

I think it's time for Tom Scully to eat a little humble pie. He keeps pounding on the fine-sort program, like that explains how it is that the money order hasn't any bank stamps on it. Well guess what, Mr. Scully... the fine sort program wasn't established till 1979. It was first tested in a pilot program in 1970 at the Washington-Baltimore Regional Check Clearing Center. In 1974 it was implemented at the New York FRB only. And in 1979 the program was expanded to all FRBs.

You're wrong, Sandy.

Pictured below are two illustrations dug up by Tom Scully that prove such a "fine sorting" system was in place as early as April 1960.

HERE is the 1960 source document which contains the images below.

Click to enlarge:

Edited December 5, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Sandy Larsen]

Sources:

Search for these phrases in the documents: "fine sort," "fine sorted," and "end point sorted."

1970 Washington Pilot Program:

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/docs/publications/frbrichreview/rev_frbrich197005.pdf

1974 New York Impementation:

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/docs/historical/ny%20circulars/1974_07478.pdf

1979 Completed Fine Sort Program:

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/docs/historical/ny%20circulars/nycirc_1979_08621.pdf

1974 Fine Sort Regulations:

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/docs/historical/ny%20circulars/1974_07394.pdf

I don't think those documents say what you seem to think they do.

Yes, of course they mean what I think they do. I've studied them carefully. One of the documents is the announcement for the fine-sort program. It and two of the other documents refer to each other... they are clearly all connected. Only the 1970 document stands alone.

I'll save the 1970 document for last because it is the least straightforward.

1974 New York Impementation:

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/docs/historical/ny%20circulars/1974_07478.pdf

"As part of its continuing program to improve the availability of credit for cash items deposited

for collection in the Federal Reserve System, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York will, effective

November 1, 1974, accept cash letters containing end-point sorted deposits of cash items payable by

or through certain banks (as listed on the attached Pre-Sorted Immediate Credit Items— Cash

Letter Recap form) that receive cash letters from this Bank’s Head Office through the New York

Clearing House."

The phrase "end-point sorted" is synonymous with "fine sorted." A "cash letter" is simply a deposit slip to a FRB. So this is merely stating that the New York FRB (or clearinghouse, because it clears checks) accepts fine-sorted deposits from banks.

If you now look at the next document, the 1979 one, you will see that it comments on the New York FRB accepting fine sorted documents "for the past few years (from 1974 to 1979), and that the program is being extended to all the other FRBs. In other words, it is referring to the New York program announced in this document.

There is a list of eleven requirements listed in this document. You will see that they follow roughly the eight requirements in the 1974 Fine Sort Regulations document below.

1979 Completed Fine Sort Program:

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/docs/historical/ny%20circulars/nycirc_1979_08621.pdf

"Interterritory Fine-Sort Program"

"For several years this Bank [the New York Federal Reserve Bank] has provided to authorized senders

a later closing hour for the receipt of cash items that are end-point sorted according to paying bank. As

part of a continuing effort to improve credit availability for cash items and to discourage remote

disbursement practices, this program will be available at all Federal Reserve offices throughout the

country beginning August 15, 1979."

Look at the title. This document is the Fine Sort Program being announced. And the upper highlighted part is stating that the program has been in place at the New York FRB for "several years." So you see, this is referring to the 1974 program announced above. Note how in the body of the text it uses the phrase "end-point sorted," just as was used in the 1974 announcement above. Again, "end-point sorted" is the same thing as "fine sorted." Just phrased differently.

The document continues:

"The program at this Bank will continue to operate according to the guidelines listed in paragraph 9

of our Operating Circular No. 5. revised effective July 1, 1974, except that there will no longer be a

minimum volume requirement of 200 items per package."

This Operating Circular No 5 referred to here is the following 1974 document, directly below this sentence.

1974 Fine Sort Regulations:

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/docs/historical/ny%20circulars/1974_07394.pdf

"Operating Circular No. 5"

"Revised Effective July 1, 1974"

"9. As provided in the appendices hereto, this Bank has established

a later closing hour for cash letters containing end-point sorted and

MICR computer-acceptable cash items payable by or at certain specified

banks that receive cash letters from any of our offices: Provided,

That the senders of such end-point sorted cash letters have applied for,

and received, authorization from this Bank to make such deposits."

Look at the title, Operating Circular No 5, Revised Effective July 1, 1974. See, this is the document referred to in the 1979 document above. Quoted here is Paragraph 9 of that document, as referenced in the 1979 document above. This document give a list of eight requirements for the program:

"1. End-point sorted cash letters must be enclosed in sealed packages, which should be stamped with the legend

“ Pre-Sorted Immediate Credit Items.”

2. Such letters must not contain nonmachineable cash items. All items (except those described in paragraph

3 below) should be fully qualified for high-speed processing.

3. American Express Travelers Cheques and First National City Travelers Checks may be deposited as

non-dollar amount encoded items in such cash letters, provided each type of such items is sorted and

packaged separately.

4. Each sealed package should contain at least 200 items, and all tape listings and recaps should be clearly

identified and dated.

5. Tape listings and recaps of bundles should be included within each sealed package.

6 . Each package should be clearly marked with the names, routing symbols, and A B A numbers of the depositing

and paying banks.

7. The total dollar amount of the cash letter should be clearly marked on the package.

8 . The total dollar amount of the packages destined for each of the paying banks must be listed on a Pre-Sorted

Immediate Credit Items— Cash Letter Recap form, copies of which will be provided by this Bank, which

should accompany each deposit."

These eight are roughly equivalent to the eleven requirements given in the 1970 document above. Compare them. True, the requirements had been revised. But you can see they are requiring roughly the same things, like cash letters (deposit receipts) being enclosed in sealed packages.

1970 Washington Pilot Program:

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/docs/publications/frbrichreview/rev_frbrich197005.pdf

"The Washington-Baltimore Regional Check Clearing Center"

"Since its inception the Federal Reserve System

has worked with bankers to improve the check collection

process on which the nation’s payments system

is based. The opening of the Washington-Baltimore

Regional Clearing Center on January 2, 1970, represents

a major step in that direction. Regional

clearing centers are perhaps the best immediate

answer to the check collection problem. Moreover,

a series of such centers, connected by wire with each

other and with their participating banks, could well

bridge the gap between the present payments system

and the “ checkless society” of the future."

"If a participating bank desires, it may fine sort its checks by

drawee bank and deliver them to the Center by 5 a.m. for

inclusion in the daily shipment."

This is the oddball of the four documents, and it predates all the other fine-sort related announcements. It describes a pilot program that uses a number of innovations, including a wire-connected network, for improving the efficiency of check processing. It allowed fine-sorting deposits by its participating banks, and this was four years prior to the writing of the fine-sorting regulations used in the New York fine-sorting program.

You say:

"I would have expected a great deal more about this wonderful new sorting method."

Fine sorting wasn't really a big deal, and it wasn't new. Before banks were allowed to do it, the Federal Reserve Banks did. Allowing banks to do it was just a way for them to save money. Because FRBs charged money for the service, and some banks thought they could do it at a lower cost to them.

I think you must be thinking of "high-speed machine sorting," the computer-controlled variety in particular. Now that was a big deal.

Edited December 5, 2015 by Sandy Larsen

[Sandy Larsen]

You're talking about the "fine-sort program," where the bank does the sorting so that the Federal Reserve Bank doesn't have to.

[...]

I think it's time for Tom Scully to eat a little humble pie. He keeps pounding on the fine-sort program, like that explains how it is that the money order hasn't any bank stamps on it. Well guess what, Mr. Scully... the fine sort program wasn't established till 1979. It was first tested in a pilot program in 1970 at the Washington-Baltimore Regional Check Clearing Center. In 1974 it was implemented at the New York FRB only. And in 1979 the program was expanded to all FRBs.

You're wrong, Sandy.

Pictured below are two illustrations dug up by Tom Scully that prove such a "fine sorting" system was in place as early as April 1960.

HERE is the 1960 source document which contains the images below.

Click to enlarge:

No David, I'm right.

Both of those diagrams above represent processing facilities at Federal Reserve Banks, NOT commercial banks. Everywhere it says "fine sorted" it is referring to the fine sorting done by FRBs. Fine sorting isn't a fancy type of sorting method. It is just a very thorough and precise type of sorting that is required to properly route checks to their paying banks. Prior to 1974/1979, FRBs did the fine sorting. The reason they introduced the fine-sorting program was to allow banks to do the sorting themselves so they could save money. Because FRBs charged money for the service. And some banks figured they could do it at a lower cost.

Fine sorting is analogous to pre-sorting outgoing mail, which some businesses do to lower their postage costs.

That 1960 article doesn't even mention the fine-sort program.

[David Von Pein]

Yes, you're absolutely correct (I think), Sandy. It would appear that the 1960 document that I referred you to is talking only about the sorting methods of checks AFTER the checks (and probably money orders too) got to a Federal Reserve Bank.

If somebody can show where Sandy is wrong about what he said in his last post about "fine sorting", I'll be happy to update this part of this never-ending battle concerning "The Money Order". (Are you listening, Tom Scully? I'm sure he is.)

I must say, this lengthy debate, featuring more ups and downs than an Otis elevator, has got to be the weirdest, most incredible odyssey I've ever been associated with when it comes to any sub-topic dealing with the JFK assassination. It's simply been unbelievable.

Victory (or so it seems). Then defeat. Then a (partial) victory---or so it seems. Then the rug gets pulled out from underneath somebody yet again in the very next post. Absolutely mind-boggling. It's endless. I've never seen anything like it in all my born days here at the CIA Disinfo Center at Langley. ~wink~

But at this point--as I reach for more aspirin while I wallow in my latest defeat (or so it seems) at the hands of Sandy Larsen regarding the "fine sort" matter--I want to repeat a couple of important things that I have mentioned earlier in this saga, which are things that, in my own opinion, prove the conspiracists are 100% wrong when they cry "That money order is a fake!" ....

"The TWO most important things (IMO) that establish the 1963 Hidell money order as being a legitimate and valid document are: Oswald's writing on the money order (as determined by multiple handwriting analysts in 1964 and 1978 -- Cole, Cadigan, McNally, and Scott) and the Klein's "Pay To The Order Of First National Bank" stamp on the back of the money order. So we KNOW from the above two things that Oswald handled and wrote on that money order and Klein's Sporting Goods handled and stamped the same document. And the above two things are true, IMO, even without any other bank markings present on the document." -- DVP

And let me also repeat this comment from several weeks ago in this discussion....

"As for the lack of any bank stamps appearing on the back of Oswald's postal money order, I don't have a definitive answer to explain it. But I'd be willing to bet the farm that there IS a reasonable and non-conspiratorial answer to explain the lack of markings on the back of that document without resorting to the conclusion that the money order was manufactured and faked by a group of conspirators in a complicated and intricate effort to frame Lee Harvey Oswald for John F. Kennedy's murder." -- DVP

Thank you. And good night.

Edited December 5, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Sandy Larsen]

Yes, you're absolutely correct (I think), Sandy. It would appear that the 1960 document that I referred you to is talking only about the sorting methods of checks AFTER the checks (and probably money orders too) got to a Federal Reserve Bank.

If somebody can show where Sandy is wrong about what he said in his last post about "fine sorting", I'll be happy to update this part of this never-ending battle concerning "The Money Order". (Are you listening, Tom Scully? I'm sure he is.)

I must say, this lengthy debate, featuring more ups and downs than an Otis elevator, has got to be the weirdest, most incredible odyssey I've ever been associated with when it comes to any sub-topic dealing with the JFK assassination. It's simply been unbelievable.

Victory (or so it seems). Then defeat. Then a (partial) victory---or so it seems. Then the rug gets pulled out from underneath somebody yet again in the very next post. Absolutely mind-boggling. It's endless. I've never seen anything like it in all my born days here at the CIA Disinfo Center at Langley. ~wink~

But at this point--as I reach for more aspirin while I wallow in my latest defeat (or so it seems) at the hands of Sandy Larsen regarding the "fine sort" matter--I want to repeat a couple of important things that I have mentioned earlier in this saga, which are things that, in my own opinion, prove the conspiracists are 100% wrong when they cry "That money order is a fake!" ....

"The TWO most important things (IMO) that establish the 1963 Hidell money order as being a legitimate and valid document are: Oswald's writing on the money order (as determined by multiple handwriting analysts in 1964 and 1978 -- Cole, Cadigan, McNally, and Scott) and the Klein's "Pay To The Order Of First National Bank" stamp on the back of the money order. So we KNOW from the above two things that Oswald handled and wrote on that money order and Klein's Sporting Goods handled and stamped the same document. And the above two things are true, IMO, even without any other bank markings present on the document." -- DVP

And let me also repeat this comment from several weeks ago in this discussion....

"As for the lack of any bank stamps appearing on the back of Oswald's postal money order, I don't have a definitive answer to explain it. But I'd be willing to bet the farm that there IS a reasonable and non-conspiratorial answer to explain the lack of markings on the back of that document without resorting to the conclusion that the money order was manufactured and faked by a group of conspirators in a complicated and intricate effort to frame Lee Harvey Oswald for John F. Kennedy's murder." -- DVP

Thank you. And good night.

David I thoroughly enjoyed your synopsis of this thread. It truly has been a roller coaster ride. Mind if I borrow a couple of those Excedrin?

[David Von Pein]

Mind if I borrow a couple of those Excedrin?

Sure. I've got plenty now. Since this discussion began, I've been buying it by the gross.

[David Von Pein]

FWIW,

Here's something else (which might not mean anything at all, but I'll add it here anyway since this "Money Order" discussion has become the quintessential example of "How to seemingly win an argument one minute, but then fall flat on your face the next". So why should I do anything to derail that lovely pattern at this point in the proceedings?

The image below comes from another one of the very obscure documents unearthed by Tom Scully deep from the bowels of the amazing Internet. I've added the black box around the relevant text concerning "large commercial banks" and "regularly exchange bundles of checks referred to as "cash letters" with each other".

To see the whole 1964 document, CLICK HERE. ....

[James DiEugenio]

The following video symbolizes what Sandy Larsen has done to DVP on this thread.

Davey has so much rubber on his face from trying so many angles to get around this orphan money order that he looks like Jason from Friday the 13th.

[David Von Pein]

And so, Jim, let's see if you (or your hero, John Armstrong) can defeat by FAR the biggest VICTORY for the "Money Order Is Legit" side in this whole discussion --- the File Locator Number, which is a number we KNOW (via Lance Payette's excellent work) is only stamped on a check or money order AFTER it reaches the Federal Reserve Bank.

Good luck proving the FLN seen on Oswald's M.O. is a forgery, Jimmy. Not to mention the other THREE things that pretty much prove that CTers are dead wrong about the M.O. being fraudulent --- (1) Oswald's own writing on the subject M.O.; (2) the Klein's stamp on that same document; and (3) the fact that the money order was found on 11/23/63 in just exactly the place where you'd expect to find it if it had gone through the proper banking channels--the Federal Records Center in Alexandria, Virginia.

Have fun proving ALL of that stuff was part of a "Let's Frame Oswald" plot, Jim.

(I see a little rubber there on your own face, Jimbo.)






OSWALD'S MONEY ORDER (FULL DISCUSSION):
http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/10/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1058.html

Edited December 5, 2015 by David Von Pein

[James DiEugenio]

Sandy has alredy dealt with that so well, that I am not even going to comment on it.

The written statutes, two sets, plus two bank supervisor witnesses is plenty.

But..

I predict that, in spite of that, DVP will not mention any of the statutes, or either of the interviews--and BTW, the one John did is really something, since the supervisor was literally stunned--and he will now place this on his web site. And he will now say that the MO is for real. Even though it was never stamped as going through the system. As it should have been by law.

As per your other arguments about handwriting, please give us all a break on this. You and John McAdams with your FBI handwriting analysis is like a broken record. David Josephs contravened you very effectively on this, and like everything else that neuters your argument, you shove it under the rug. Down the memory hole so that people at your site don't see it.

As per the date, uh Davey, you very conveniently leave out the role of Harry Holmes don't you? Very predictable by you. Especially for anyone who knows your methodology. As you also leave out David Joseph's work on the timeline. Nice going.

FInally, as you will see when John is done, it was not actually found exactly where it should be found.

But see, that is the kind of work you do. Which is why Mel Ayton contacted you.

Edited December 5, 2015 by James DiEugenio

[David Von Pein]

JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

Sandy has alredy [sic] dealt with that so well, that I am not even going to comment on it.

The written statutes, two sets, plus two bank supervisor witnesses is plenty.

But...

I predict that, in spite of that, DVP will not mention any of the statutes, or either of the interviews--and BTW, the one John [Armstrong] did is really something, since the supervisor was literally stunned--and he will now place this on his web site. And he will now say that the MO is for real. Even though it was never stamped as going through the system. As it should have been by law.

As per your other arguments about handwriting, please give us all a break on this. You and John McAdams with your FBI handwriting analysis is like a broken record. David Josephs contravened you very effectively on this, and like everything else that neuters your argument, you shove it under the rug. Down the memory hole so that people at your site don't see it.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Talk about a broken record. I think you're a great example of a "broken record", Jimmy. And it's the exact same song on both Side A and Side B -- "This Is Fake! This Is Fake!"

Please give everyone a break from that silly refrain, will ya?

As for the handwriting analysis, Jim has no choice but to think that all of the various questioned documents examiners who looked at the ORIGINAL "HIDELL" MONEY ORDER in 1964 and 1978 for the Warren Commission and the HSCA were wrong (or liars).

Or, as an alternative, Jim must think that someone was able to perfectly re-create Lee Oswald's handwriting on the CE788 money order so that this alleged forgery was able to fool MULTIPLE handwriting experts who would later be rendering an opinion on the matter.

Yeah, sure, Jim.

BTW, I recently had a battle with a mega-kook named Ben Holmes over at Amazon concerning the subject of the handwriting on the money order. That discussion can be found HERE.


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

As per the date, uh Davey, you very conveniently leave out the role of Harry Holmes don't you? Very predictable by you. Especially for anyone who knows your methodology.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

News Flash for James DiEugenio!! ----

David Von Pein, unlike Jim DiEugenio, isn't obligated by law to believe that every single person in Dallas and Washington was on a mission to frame a patsy named Lee Harvey Oswald in November 1963!

You and other conspiracy hounds see sinister and underhanded activity in the testimony and the statements of Postal Inspector Harry D. Holmes. I, however, do not "see" things the same strange way you see them, Jim. And I "see" no good enough reason in the written statements or actions of Harry Holmes to cause me to believe he was lying through his teeth with respect to the manner in which the Hidell money order was found and recovered OR with respect to the things Holmes said in his testimony regarding the manner in which Lee Harvey Oswald very likely took possession of the Carcano rifle at the Dallas post office in late March of 1963.

If you want to toss Holmes under your conspiracy bus, go right ahead. But I'm certainly not going to help you do it.


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

You also leave out David Josephs' work on the timeline. Nice going.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Typical of you, Jim. You fail, yet again, to factor in ANY "ordinary human error" into the equation. In your mind, ANY kind of discrepancy or error in time-keeping or other human-like mistakes that might have cropped up while trying to hunt down the Hidell money order MUST have some kind of sinister roots and therefore can ONLY signal Foul Play.

But we know that Harry Holmes was initially futilely searching for a money order made out in the amount of $21.95, instead of the correct amount of $21.45. So this led to some confusion at the beginning of the search....

HARRY HOLMES -- "The FBI furnished me the information that a money order of some description in the amount of $21.95 had been used as reimbursement for the gun that had been purchased from Klein's in Chicago, and that the purchase date was March 20, 1963. I immediately had some men begin to search the Dallas money order records with the thought that they might have used a U.S. postal money order to buy this gun. .... So in about an hour, Postal Inspector McGee of Chicago called back then and said that the correct amount was $21.95--$21.45 excuse me--and that the shipping---they had received this money order on March the 13th, whereas I had been looking for March 20. So then I passed the information to the men who were looking for this money order stub to show which would designate, which would show the number of the money order, and that is the only way you could find one. I relayed this information to them and told them to start on the 13th because he could have bought it that morning and that he could have gotten it by airmail that afternoon, so they began to search and within 10 minutes they called back and said they had a money order in that amount issued on, I don't know that I show, but it was that money order in an amount issued at the main post office, which is the same place as this post office box was at that time, box 2915 and the money order had been issued early on the morning of March the 12th, 1963."

~~~~~~~

Plus, the confusion about exactly WHERE the processed money order should have been found is, as far as I am concerned, explained in full in Commission Document No. 75 (on Pages 668 and 669), wherein the FBI first received some information from First National Bank Vice President Robert Wilmouth stating his belief that the Federal Reserve Bank in Chicago sent all of its processed money orders to Kansas City.

But on the next page of the FBI report (Page 669), it's revealed by FRB Assistant Cashier Lester Gohr that not all of the money orders handled by the FRB in Chicago are sent to Kansas City. Gohr told the FBI that 75% of them were being sent to Washington (i.e., Alexandria, VA.), while only about 25% were sent to Kansas City.

I see nothing sinister or conspiratorial in the way any of this information was being relayed, forwarded, or acted upon by the people who ultimately found the Oswald/Hidell Postal Money Order in exactly the location where it should have been found--Alexandria, Virginia--after it had gone through the hands of Klein's, First National Bank, and the FRB in Chicago.

And I see nothing in David Josephs' "Money Order Timeline" that would suddenly make me want to jump aboard the CT ship. In fact, I think that ship has been floundering for 52 years.


JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID:

Finally, as you will see when John is done, it was not actually found exactly where it should be found.

But see, that is the kind of work you do. Which is why Mel Ayton contacted you.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

So, Jim, I guess that means you are now adding the three Chicago FBI agents who were responsible for the report in CD75 to your list of liars now, eh? Or maybe you think the Assistant FRB Cashier, Lester Gohr, was the [L-word] when he told those three FBI men that "three-fourths of the money orders were being sent to Washington, D.C." from the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago.

Was Mr. Gohr lying through his teeth when he said that to those three FBI agents on November 23, 1963?

I'd really like to see your "Complete List Of Liars" connected to the JFK assassination, Jim. Based on the huge number of bizarre things that I know you believe, I'm guessing that the length of such a list might rival Vincent Bugliosi's "Reclaiming History" for size and sheer bulk.

Edited December 5, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Doug Buitenbos]

Sandy, the 1970 article describes the new clearing center policy, not the policy of any FRB. But all that means that commercial banks were fine sorting by 1970, before the FRBs would accept them. Still, as for the when the FRB fine-sort program was implemented, I must concede.

Edited December 5, 2015 by Doug Buitenbos

[David Von Pein]

TIM BRENNAN SAID:

The Money Order Bleed-Thru Problem Explained....

One of the reservations expressed about the veracity of [the Hidell money order] is the apparent "bleed thru" effect of the postal stamp and other details, given that US Postal Money Orders were actually of a computer punch card type by this time in 1963.

However, it seems that this issue can be explained. The card was subjected to a chemical process, which bleaches and makes inks run, in order to establish whether or not there were latent fingerprints upon it.

After this, a process known as "desilvering" was applied to the card to return it as much as possible to its previous state, though obviously some effects of the fingerprinting process, like ink run, remained in place.

Fortunately, though, FBI handwriting expert James C. Cadigan examined the card and had it photographed BEFORE the fingerprinting process took place. This is a much CLEARER copy of the Money Order, Cadigan's handwriting arrows notwithstanding ----> CADIGAN EXHIBIT NO. 11.

As can be seen, the UNTREATED card, Cadigan Exhibit 11, DOESN'T appear to exhibit the "bleed thru" problems we see in CE 788.

Relevant parts of Cadigan's testimony re this matter are here and here.

H/T to DVP re this, who has been fighting the good fight on the Postal Money Order matter over at the Education Forum for WEEKS.

Way to go DVP!

Regards,
Tim Brennan
Sydney, Australia


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Excellent, Tim!

Thank you for pointing out the difference between the photos of the money order. The picture of the M.O. as seen in Cadigan Exhibit No. 11 most certainly does not exhibit the bleed-thru that is apparent in Commission Exhibit No. 788.

Here's a direct comparison of the two exhibits:



And, as Tim pointed out, Cadigan #11 is a picture that was taken BEFORE the money order was treated for fingerprints, per Cadigan's Warren Commission testimony (at 7 H 434).

Here's what Cadigan said:

MELVIN A. EISENBERG -- "Do you know why Exhibit No. 820 was not reprocessed or desilvered?"

JAMES C. CADIGAN -- "No, this is a latent fingerprint matter."

MR. EISENBERG -- "Can you explain why the signature, "Lee Oswald" or rather "L. H. Oswald" is apparent, while the signature "A. J. Hidell" is not?"

MR. CADIGAN -- "Different inks."

MR. EISENBERG -- "Some inks are more soluble in the solution used for fingerprint tests than others?"

MR. CADIGAN -- "Definitely."

MR. EISENBERG -- "Other Commission Exhibits, specifically Nos. 788, 801, and 802 also appear to have been treated for fingerprints?"

MR. CADIGAN -- "That is correct."

MR. EISENBERG -- "Exhibit No. 788 has been desilvered?"

MR. CADIGAN -- "Desilvered, and Exhibits Nos. 801 and 802 are still in their original silvered condition."

MR. EISENBERG -- "Did you see these items before they were treated for fingerprints."

MR. CADIGAN -- "I know I saw Exhibit No. 788 before it was treated for fingerprints. As to Exhibits Nos. 801 and 802, I don't know at this time."

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."

~~~~~~~~~~

Thanks again, Tim Brennan, for this discovery. It looks like you've just hammered one more nail into the coffin of the "Money Order Is Fake" theory.

Source link:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.assassination.jfk/0wrJY1LBj78/knAU6EFkBwAJ

Edited December 6, 2015 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

ALBERT DOYLE SAID:

I don't want to search through this thread, but I mentioned way back that the bleed-through might be due to side effects of police technical analysis of the Money Order during the investigation. Seemed like an obvious possible cause.


DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Good job, Albert.

And now to "Pre-empt the Defense".....

We can now probably expect to hear from the CTers regarding a different "Money Order" subject....

Whether or not Jim Cadigan and Alwyn Cole examined the original money order for the handwriting analysis BEFORE or AFTER it was treated for fingerprints.

If it was AFTER, the CTers will, of course, say we must disregard Cadigan's & Cole's anaylsis of it being Oswald's writing, because the chemical treatment of the M.O. had altered the document and the ink before it was examined.

And it also means that McNally and Scott and the other HSCA handwriting experts examined the M.O. only after it had been treated with chemicals (quite obviously, since it was treated in 1963 and the HSCA didn't exist until the 1970s).

EDIT --- Alwyn Cole definitely examined the money order only AFTER it had been treated for fingerprints....

MR. EISENBERG -- "Mr. Cole, before you discuss your conclusion, the handwriting on 788 seems to have a slight blur in some parts. Could you explain that in any way?"

MR. COLE -- "Yes; it is my view that this document has been in contact with moisture which affected the ink of the handwriting. Such contact might have been through an effort to develop fingerprints."

MR. EISENBERG -- "Was it or is it discolored at this point at all, do you think?"

MR. COLE -- "There are only two small areas of discoloration on this document, one of them being along the upper edge just above the figure "9," and the other along the right edge just opposite the figure "5." This indicates to me that at one time this document was more deeply stained but has been cleared up by some chemical bleach."

MR. EISENBERG -- "Was it in the same condition when you examined it as it is now?"

MR. COLE -- "It was."

Edited December 6, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Sandy Larsen]

Sandy, the 1970 article describes the new clearing center policy, not the policy of any FRB.

But the new clearing center was owned and operated by the Richmond FRB . Surely either the Richmond FRB or the Federal Reserve Board of Governors set the clearing house's policies. Or maybe all the FRBs as a whole did.

The clearly center's fine-sort policy may have been totally unconnected to the 1974 fine-sort policy of the New York FRB and 1979 Fine-Sort Program, if that's what you're getting at.

But all that means that commercial banks were fine sorting by 1970, before the FRBs would accept them.

Yes, fine sorting was being done by member banks of clearing house associations (like the New York Clearing House Association) even before the Federal Reserve was created, and continued to do so afterward.

Still, as for the when the FRB fine-sort program was implemented, I must concede.