Jump to content
The Education Forum
Sandy Larsen

Yes, postal money orders do require bank endorsements!

Recommended Posts

Marina's testimony is one of the weakest links. Are you talking about the testimony she gave while she was fearful of being deported or the testimony that she gave the New Orleans Grand Jury or what she has said since?

Please be more specific. If you have a case present it.

You are taking this thread way off track - I suggest starting a new thread presenting all your arguments as to why you believe Oswald owned a rifle and I'll be happy to respond. It's a good debate and worth the attention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Marina's testimony is one of the weakest links. Are you talking about the testimony she gave while she was fearful of being deported or the testimony that she gave the New Orleans Grand Jury or what she has said since?

Please be more specific. If you have a case present it.

You are taking this thread way off track - I suggest starting a new thread presenting all your arguments as to why you believe Oswald owned a rifle and I'll be happy to respond. It's a good debate and worth the attention.

Come on, Chris. She was telling the same story about the rifle in TV interviews well into the 90's.

I agree in some ways that this is diverging from the original topic, but in some ways it's not. Because if Oswald really did own the rifle, it should inform the reasons for dissecting the money order in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And after the 90's?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeanne DeMohrenschildt saw a rifle in the Oswalds' Neely Street apartment in 1963. I guess CTers who belong to the "Oswald Never Owned ANY Rifle At All" club must think this testimony by Mrs. DeMohrenschildt is all a lie too....

Mrs. De MOHRENSCHILDT. And I believe from what I remember George sat down on the sofa and started talking to Lee, and Marina was showing me the house that is why I said it looks like it was the first time, because why would she show me the house if I had been there before? Then we went to another room, and she opens the closet, and I see the gun standing there. I said, what is the gun doing over there?
Mr. JENNER. You say---
Mrs. De MOHRENSCHILDT. A rifle.
Mr. JENNER. A rifle, in the closet?
Mrs. De MOHRENSCHILDT. In the closet, right in the beginning. It wasn't hidden or anything.
Mr. JENNER. Standing up on its butt?
Mrs. De MOHRENSCHILDT. Yes.
Mr. JENNER. I show you Commission Exhibit 139. Is that the rifle that you saw?
Mrs. De MOHRENSCHILDT. It looks very much like it.
Mr. JENNER. And was it standing in the corner of the closet?
Mrs. De MOHRENSCHILDT. You want me to show you how it was leaning? Make believe I open the closet door this way. And the rifle was leaning something like that.
Mr. JENNER. Right against the wall?
Mrs. De MOHRENSCHILDT. Yes; and the closet was square. I said, what is this?
Mr. JENNER. It was this rifle?
Mrs. De MOHRENSCHILDT. I don't know. It looks very much like it, because something was dangling over it, and I didn't know what it was. This telescopic sight. Like we had a rifle with us on the road, we just had a smooth thing, nothing attached to it. And I saw something here.
Mr. JENNER. I say your attention was arrested, not only, because when the closet door was opened by Marina you saw the rifle in the closet--you saw a rifle?
Mrs. De MOHRENSCHILDT. Yes.
Mr. JENNER. That surprised you, first?
Mrs. De MOHRENSCHILDT. Of course.
Mr. JENNER. And then other things that arrested your attention, as I gather from what you said, is that you saw a telescopic sight?
Mrs. De MOHRENSCHILDT. Yes; but I didn't know what it was.
Mr. JENNER. But your attention was arrested by that fact, because it was something new and strange to you?
Mrs. De MOHRENSCHILDT. Yes.
Mr. JENNER. You were accustomed to your husband having weapons?
Mrs. De MOHRENSCHILDT. Well, we had only one rifle on our trip. But my father was a collector of guns, that was his hobby.
Mr. JENNER. And being accustomed to rifles, to the extent you have indicated, you noticed this telescopic lens, because you had not seen a rifle with a telescopic lens on it before? Had you seen a rifle with the bolt action that this has?
Mrs. De MOHRENSCHILDT. No; I didn't ever know. I read it was bolt action but I would not know.
Mr. JENNER. But you did notice this protrusion, the ball sticking out?
Mrs. De MOHRENSCHILDT. No; I don't recall. The only thing there was something on it. It could be that it was the telescopic sight or something, but it was something on the rifle. It was not a smooth, plain rifle. This is for sure.
Mr. JENNER. Now, when you saw that, and being surprised, were you concerned about it?
Mrs. De MOHRENSCHILDT. I just asked what on earth is he doing with a rifle?
Mr. JENNER. What did she say?
Mrs. De MOHRENSCHILDT. She said, "Oh, he just loves to shoot." I said, "Where on earth does he shoot? Where can he shoot?" When they lived in a little house. "Oh, he goes in the park and he shoots at leaves and things like that." But it didn't strike me too funny, because I personally love skeet shooting. I never kill anything. But I adore to shoot at a target, target shooting.
Mr. JENNER. Skeet?
Mrs. De MOHRENSCHILDT. I just love it.
Mr. JENNER. Didn't you think it was strange to have someone say he is going in a public park and shooting leaves?
Mrs. De MOHRENSCHILDT. But he was taking the baby out. He goes with her, and that was his amusement.
Mr. JENNER. Did she say that?
Mrs. De MOHRENSCHILDT. Yes; that was his amusement, practicing in the park, shooting leaves. That wasn't strange to me, because any time I go to an amusement park I go to the rifles and start shooting. So I didn't find anything strange.
Mr. JENNER. But you shot a rifle at the rifle range in these amusement parks?
Mrs. De MOHRENSCHILDT. Yes.
Mr. JENNER. Little 22?
Mrs. De MOHRENSCHILDT. I don't know what it was.
Mr. JENNER. Didn't you think it was strange that a man would be walking around a public park in Dallas with a high-powered rifle like this, shooting leaves?
Mrs. De MOHRENSCHILDT. I don't know it was a high-powered rifle. I had no idea. I don't even know right now. Is it a high-powered rifle? Or just a regular one-bullet rifle, isn't it?
Mr. JENNER. It is a one-bullet rifle, but it is a pretty powerful one.
Mrs. De MOHRENSCHILDT. I didn't know that. What caliber is it?
Mr. JENNER. 6.5.
Mrs. De MOHRENSCHILDT. That I don't understand. We had shotgun with us.
Mr. JENNER. Had anything been said up to this point in your acquaintance with the Oswalds of his having had a rifle, or a shotgun, in Russia?
Mrs. De MOHRENSCHILDT. No.
Mr. JENNER. No discussion of any hunting in Russia?
Mrs. De MOHRENSCHILDT. In fact, we never even knew that he was a sharp-shooter or something. We never knew about it.
Mr. JENNER. No discussion of that?
Mrs. De MOHRENSCHILDT. No discussion at all. She just said, we are so short of money, and this crazy lunatic buys a rifle. This is what she told me. And you know what happened after that.
Mr. JENNER. Please. Tell me everything she said on this occasion.
Mrs. De MOHRENSCHILDT. I think the most important thing is, that crazy lunatic bought a rifle when we really need money for other things.
Mr. JENNER. And she also said he took it out in the park and was shooting it.
Mrs. De MOHRENSCHILDT. Something like that; yes.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/demohr_j.htm

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I intentionally avoiding mentioning the DeMohrenschildts or Paines account of the gun because if someone believes in a conspiracy, their trustworthiness is suspect for multiple reasons. So, let's not let the conversation spiral into one of whether or not the DeMohrenschildts or Paines were bona fides, but rather why Marina would lie to make her husband look guilty for 50+ years if he really didn't own the gun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

Mrs. De MOHRENSCHILDT. And I believe from what I remember George sat down on the sofa and started talking to Lee, and Marina was showing me the house that is why I said it looks like it was the first time, because why would she show me the house if I had been there before? Then we went to another room, and she opens the closet, and I see the gun standing there. I said, what is the gun doing over there?

...

oh-boy.... perhaps George told her to get lost for a while? "and I believe from what I remember..." what a way to start her tour of a 700 sq. foot apartment... this son is dumpster diving at its finest. lmao!

Let's see, Marina showing off the house and opens closet doors to show the Mrs DeM, WHAT? Nonsense.... pure bunk!

btw, 3 rifles were seen in the TSBD the day BEFORE the assassination... wanna duel?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
btw, 3 rifles were seen in the TSBD the day BEFORE the assassination... wanna duel?

And how many of those rifles were linked ballistically to the JFK assassination?

En garde!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anybody here even used a money order?

It seems there is some confusion as to what a money order is as a financial tool.

It is not similar to a check in that it is already a 'secured' form of payment, therefore the 'endorsement' doesn't meant the same thing as it does with a check.

A money order isn't a check. But it's processed the same way a check is, through a Federal Reserve Bank using their routing number system. There are also other "financial instruments" processed that way.

The purpose of the endorsement is to indicate who is to be paid the money. When you receive a check, you have to endorse it over to the bank because you aren't a member of the Federal Reserve. (The Federal Reserve will pay only member banks.) The bank can then receive payment from a Federal Reserve Bank (and credit it to your account). But the bank must also endorse the instrument... for what reason I'm not sure. But it is required by law. Maybe they are endorsing it over to the Federal Reserve. Or maybe it just creates a paper trail on the check. Makes no difference to me the reason, though it would be nice to know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Plus, even if the money order was legitimate, why is that necessarily a tally on the side of LN'ers?

I get why trying to prove the money order was somehow faked would be a great shortcut to proving fallacious evidence in the official record, but this seems to represent another pushing of the envelope on the part of CT'ers.

Brian - good point. I posted somewhere recently that it's not a question of whether all evidence against Oswald was faked, but rather whether any of it was. This particular issue may be a diversion, because knowing whether Oswald ordered a MC rifle doesn't answer the more important question what did he do with it.

E-X-A-C-T-L-Y ! ! ! ! Nutters absolutely need diversions.... the WCR and its evidence is a complete failure.

While it's true that there are a number of inconsistencies and inexplicable things indicating Oswald didn't shoot the Carcano or any rifle that day, I like to use the fact that the money order was never cashed because it is such a simple things to see and understand. And the fact that an unprocessed MO was used as evidence against Oswald is strong evidence he was being framed.

Think about it. The prosecution presents as evidence the murder weapon, and a money order that was used to pay for the murder weapon, along with related document... only, the money order was NOT used to buy anything. The way the weapon was paid for is a critical link, but is proven to be false evidence. How can it be explained? Well, maybe the weapon was shipped without payment being received. Oh really? Then how do you explain the records showing the MO was deposited?? That's right, the MO that wasn't deposit was deposited. I don't think so. It smacks of framery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get why trying to prove the money order was somehow faked would be a great shortcut to proving fallacious evidence in the official record, but this seems to represent another pushing of the envelope on the part of CT'ers.

In Dallas, back in 1963 you could walk into any place that sold guns and buy any longarm without using an ID.

The entire charade regarding Kleins, the money order, the P.O. boxes, and the bogus murder weapon was hastily contrived to pin blame on Oswald. Without that evidence there would be essentially no case at all, it was required to prop up the Lone Nut theory

Exactly! Thanks Chris.

(Not to diss the other feedback. All feedback is useful, even if only to clarify.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can I just do a Devil's Advocate-type comment on your statement: "I like to use the fact that the money order was never cashed because it is such a simple things to see and understand." If we accept that 1) a cancel stamp was required, and 2) there is no such stamp on this money order, a more objective-less advocative reading of the evidence would not call it a "fact," and would state only that it does not appear to have been processed as a cashed money order would be processed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"Well, in the case of the subject Hidell postal money order, the BANKS certainly aren't the PAYEES. The "payee" is Klein's Sporting Goods of Chicago, Illinois. It was Klein's getting PAID the $21.45, not First National Bank or the Federal Reserve Bank." DVP is partially, but only partially, correct here. Klein's was the original

payee. Its endorsement stamp made the Chicago bank the second payee. The basic rule here is that any time a check is transferred (negotiated) by a "pay to" type of endorsement, the transferee is a payee.

Jon understands it the way I do, though after reading the way he put it I think I understand now why Klein's endorsement is required.

1. The Payee is originally Klein's.

2. Klein's endorses it over to their bank, and the bank becomes the payee.

3. The bank endorses it over to the Federal Reserve Bank, and the Federal Reserve Bank becomes the payee.

4. After that, I suppose the Federal Reserve Bank presents the MO to the Postal Service, and the Postal Service pays the money to the payee, which is the Federal Reserve Bank.

The process I describe here makes sense to me. Honestly, I have no idea if it's all correct, but what I do know is that 1 and 2 are correct, and that by law the bank must endorse the MO before presenting it to the Federal Reserve Bank for processing. If the bank doesn't endorse it, the Federal Reserve Bank cannot honor it because the payee, Klein's, is not a member bank of the Federal Reserve.

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

×
×
  • Create New...