Jump to content
The Education Forum
Jim Hargrove

John Armstrong blasts the mail order rifle “evidence”

Recommended Posts

Sandy Larsen started a thread about the magic money order that seems to have disappeared, so I thought if anyone wanted to discuss it some more, we could do it here. Here is an image of the front and back of the questioned document:

Money%20Order.jpg

Anyone see a dated bank endorsement on it?

As Sandy Larsen has shown here, postal regulations published in 1960 required dated endorsements on Postal money orders:

Items which will be accepted as cash items

1. The following will be accepted for collection as cash items:

(1) Checks drawn on banks or banking institutions (including private

bankers) located in any Federal Reserve District which are collectible

at par in funds acceptable to the collecting Federal Reserve Bank. The

Federal Reserve Par List,” indicating the banks upon which checks will

be received by Federal Reserve Banks for collection and credit, is fur­

nished from time to time and a supplement is furnished each month

showing changes subsequent to the last complete list. This list is subject

to change without notice and the right is reserved to return without

presentment any items drawn on banks which may have withdrawn or

may have been removed from the list or may have been reported elosed.

(2) Government checks drawn on the Treasurer of the United States.

(3) Postal money orders (United States postal money orders; United

States international postal money orders; and domestic-international

postal money orders).

(4) Such other items, collectible at par in funds acceptable to the

Federal Reserve Bank of the District in which such items are payable, as

we may be willing to accept as cash items.

o

o

o

Postal money orders

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 non­

member 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 Treas­

urer of the United States under such symbol numbers as may be

assigned by the Treasurer of the United States. Said agreement fur­

ther 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 representa­

tive 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

o

o

o

Endorsements

13. 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 with some similar

endorsement. 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.” 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 American

Bankers Association transit number of the sending bank in prominent

type on both sides.

Here are copies of vouchers issued to Lee Harvey Oswald by the Texas Employment Commission. Note the many endorsement on both side.

State.jpg

Below are copies of paychecks from Leslie Welding to Oswald. Note all the endorsements on both sides.

Leslie.jpg

Where are the bank endorsements on the Magic Money Order????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where are the bank endorsements on the Magic Money Order????

I really feel the forum needs a separate sub-forum devoted exclusively to this endlessly fascinating topic. You write as though the previous discussions had simply never taken place, which some folks perhaps wish they hadn't. I don't know whether the missing threads have disappeared temporarily or permanently, but surely this topic has been beaten to death and beyond. It is clear that the forum is divided into Armstrong Cheerleaders and Armstrong Critics, and never the twain shall meet. I would respectfully suggest that the money order bears no "bank endorsements" (a misnomer) for the reasons set forth in the 1,523 previous posts (ballpark estimate) wherein, in my estimation as a Critic, Armstrong's research and theory were decisively thumped, thumped and thumped again. I really don't know what could possibly be said that hasn't already been said, by either the Cheerleaders or the Critics. Perhaps you view the removal of the previous threads as an opportunity to pretend they were just a bad dream and begin cheerleading anew; this seems a bit disingenuous to me, but in any event I yield the floor to the Cheerleaders because I really don't see further participation in the "discussion" of this topic as being productive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The Hidell Money Order" (archived discussions, beginning October 2015, with links to all original threads at bottom of page, except for Education Forum threads No. 22610 and No. 22714, which have been deleted by the Edu. Forum moderator(s) for some unknown reason that I don't understand at all, but at least a few posts from those particular threads are archived at my site here)....

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

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No rhetorical sleight-of-hand can keep this evidentiary house of cards from collapsing and utterly destroying the Warren Commission's story of the so-called mail order rifle purchase. Not only is the Magic Money Order demonstrably fraudulent, so is the rest of the so-called “evidence” allegedly supporting it!

We're told that the fine document reproduced below is a deposit slip indicating that Klein's deposited $13,827.98 with the First National Bank of Chicago, which included a $21.45 Magic Money Order from “Lee Harvey Oswald.” Look at it!

FNB_Chicago_Deposit_Slip.jpg

Note that there is no bank or date stamp on the document indicating it was actually received by the bank! Try bringing a document like that to your local bank and ask them to come up with THE MONEY YOU CLAIM THEY DIDN'T DEPOSIT TO YOUR ACCOUNT! Without a dated bank stamp, they'll laugh at you, and rightfully so! Anyone can make up a document like that.

But that's not the worst problem. Look at the date: 2/15/63—February 15, 1963.

That's right! THE DEPOSIT SLIP FOR THE MAGIC MONEY ORDER WAS ALLEGEDLY WRITTEN OUT A MONTH BEFORE THE MAGIC MONEY ORDER WAS ISSUED IN DALLAS! A MONTH BEFORE!!!

Here's another fine document:

Waldman_10_List.jpg

The previously mentioned $13,827.98 deposit contained hundreds of items for deposit that are listed on 5 pages of adding machine tape (see below). According to Waldman there are two entries in the amount of $21.45, both listed in the column "Checks on other Chicago Banks." One was supposed to be an American Express money order and the other was supposed to be a postal money order.

However, a close examination of this WC document reveals there were a half-dozen deposit items in the amount of $21.45 ($21.45 items noted in green by David Josephs), and none were identifiable as to cash, check, money order, bank draft, etc. There is no way that Waldman, or anyone examining this list of deposit items, would know the source (check, money order, etc) of a particular item. And when an FBI report states that Waldman (or anyone else) identified a $21.45 money order from this list, then we know that such information was simply not true.

Wilmouth allegedly told the agents the $21.45 money order (included in the $13,827.98 deposit) was received by Kleins on March 13, processed by his bank on March 16 (Saturday), and received by the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago on March 18, 1963. Where did he get this information? Wilmouth was Vice-President of the bank, and banking was his business. Yet the date on the non-stamped bank deposit slip, to which he is referring, is not March 15, nor March 16, 1963. The date on this deposit slip (published in the Warren Volumes) is February 15, 1963--one month before the postal money order was issued in Dallas. However, there is no dated bank stamp. Why would the Vice-President of one of the country's largest banks make such an obvious mistake?

Why didn't Wilmouth, or the FBI agents, simply review and offer in evidence Klein's monthly bank statement for March, 1963, which would have shown the date of the $13,827.98 deposit (if such a deposit existed)? Without bank confirmation the numbers on these adding machine tapes and the $13,827.98 that appears on the non-stamped, non bank dated deposit slip are worthless as evidence. The use of such worthless "evidence" by skilled Warren Commission attorneys, and their failure to support their "evidence" with one monthly bank statement, cannot be dismissed as an innocent mistake.

Who defends this crap?

(Portions of the above are by John Armstrong,

Copyright 2013-2016, from HarveyandLee.net)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Banks have always been required to stamp PMOs. (By "always," I mean from at least 1900 to at least 2000.)

Lance Payette posted the1960 Federal Reserve Bank circular that indicates that ALL cash items (which specifically includes postal money orders) were required to have bank stamps. I subsequently found and posted documents showing that this same requirement was in place prior to 1951, the year FRBs began processing PMOs in accordance with an agreement between them and the Postmaster General. I did the same for PMOs dated between 1987, when the Expedited Funds Act was initiated, and 2001.

Just recently I posted a letter dated 1898 indicating that the same requirement was in place then. I posted the letter because it reveals the early rationale for the bank stamp requirement, and how bank stamps were differentiated from bank endorsements on negotiable instruments.

I have posted documents dated 1898, 1925, 1960, 1969, and 2001, all indicating that PMOs required a bank stamp from presenting banks. Together, these documents show a continuity in the way banks handled PMOs throughout the 1900s.

In contrast, Lance believes that beginning in 1951, when Federal Reserve Banks began processing all PMOs, stamps from presenting banks were no longer required. Even though this contradicts what FRB circulars state. Yet he hasn't produced a single document supporting his view. I contend that Lance cannot produce such a document because no such document exists or ever existed. I contend that Lance is therefore wrong.

Until such time that Lance produces such I document, I do not see how his claim can be taken seriously. Regardless of how strenuously he argues his view. Because the official documentation supports my view, and contradicts Lance's.

Lance's view is merely Lance's opinion.

Edited by Sandy Larsen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, David,

The website you point to above, which is filled with IMAGINARY CONVERSATIONS YOU HAVE EXCERPTED FROM PEOPLE HERE WITHOUT THEIR PERMISSION, SHUFFLED AND EDITED TO YOUR ADVANTAGE, is longer than the average book.

If you have arguments for my posts above, PLEASE POST THEM RIGHT HERE, ON NEUTRAL GROUND!

I don't run away and hide on HarveyandLee.net. I post my arguments RIGHT HERE! Let's have an honest discussion that all can see!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Banks have always been required to stamp PMOs. (By "always," I mean from at least 1900 to at least 2000.)

Lance Payette posted the1960 Federal Reserve Bank circular that indicates that ALL cash items (which specifically includes postal money orders) were required to have bank stamps. I subsequently found and posted documents showing that this same requirement was in place prior to 1951, the year FRBs began processing PMOs in accordance with an agreement between them and the Postmaster General. I did the same for PMOs dated between 1987, when the Expedited Funds Act was initiated, and 2001.

Just recently I posted a letter dated 1898 indicating that the same requirement was in place then. I posted the letter because it reveals the early rationale for the bank stamp requirement, and how bank stamps were differentiated from bank endorsements on negotiable instruments.

I have posted documents dated 1898, 1925, 1960, 1969, and 2001, all indicating that PMOs required a bank stamp from presenting banks. Together, these documents show a continuity in the way banks handled PMOs throughout the 1900s.

In contrast, Lance believes that beginning in 1951, when Federal Reserve Banks began processing all PMOs, stamps from presenting banks were no longer required. Even though this contradicts what FRB circulars state. Yet he hasn't produced a single document supporting his view. I contend that Lance cannot produce such a document because no such document exists. I contend that Lance is therefore wrong.

Until such time that Lance produces such I document, I do not see how his claim can be taken seriously. Regardless of how strenuously he argues his claim.

Thanks again, Sandy.

Your patient work on the Magic Money Order is most appreciated!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where are the bank endorsements on the Magic Money Order????

I really feel the forum needs a separate sub-forum devoted exclusively to this endlessly fascinating topic. You write as though the previous discussions had simply never taken place, which some folks perhaps wish they hadn't. I don't know whether the missing threads have disappeared temporarily or permanently, but surely this topic has been beaten to death and beyond. It is clear that the forum is divided into Armstrong Cheerleaders and Armstrong Critics, and never the twain shall meet.

Just to be clear, I am neither an Armstrong Supporter nor an Armstrong Critic. I haven't even read Armstrong's book or his PMO write-up. (Though I do plan to.) I have focused only on the PMO bank stamp issue.

I would respectfully suggest that the money order bears no "bank endorsements" (a misnomer) for the reasons set forth in the 1,523 previous posts (ballpark estimate) wherein, in my estimation as a Critic, Armstrong's research and theory were decisively thumped, thumped and thumped again. I really don't know what could possibly be said that hasn't already been said, by either the Cheerleaders or the Critics. Perhaps you view the removal of the previous threads as an opportunity to pretend they were just a bad dream and begin cheerleading anew;....

Lance, the original thread is still available here.

....this seems a bit disingenuous to me, but in any event I yield the floor to the Cheerleaders because I really don't see further participation in the "discussion" of this topic as being productive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To David Von Pein...

Below is some EXTRA SPACE to post your evidence against the Magic Money Order and it's equally bogus "Supporting Evidence". Please don't run away to your blog of IMAGINARY CONVERSATIONS.... PLEASE POST YOUR EVIDENCE IMMEDIATELY BELOW:

I'm sure you'll post REAL EVIDENCE ABOVE (or below... or whatever....)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.... in my estimation as a Critic, Armstrong's research and theory were decisively thumped, thumped and thumped

Ah... Lance,

Are you REALLY that sure?

I disagree....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To David Von Pein...

Below is some EXTRA SPACE to post your evidence against the Magic Money Order and it's equally bogus "Supporting Evidence". Please don't run away to your blog of IMAGINARY CONVERSATIONS.... PLEASE POST YOUR EVIDENCE IMMEDIATELY BELOW:

I'm sure you'll post REAL EVIDENCE ABOVE (or below... or whatever....)

Jim, could you dial back the combative tone a bit? Restraint is always more persuasive than counterattack, even in the face of multiple challenges. Aggressiveness is an automatic disqualification, in my view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

.... in my estimation as a Critic, Armstrong's research and theory were decisively thumped, thumped and thumped

Ah... Lance,

Are you REALLY that sure?

I disagree....

OK, you disagree. Am I sure that Armstrong's research and theory have been pretty decisively thumped? Well, yes, as the thumper I am pretty sure. Is it humanly possible that the money order is nevertheless bogus and part of an exceedingly elaborate conspiracy? Certainly it is possible. As a very experienced lawyer - which, I hasten to add, does not make me uniquely qualified in this matter by any means but does at least guarantee that I have some level of analytical skills and some understanding of the way that statutes and regulations are interpreted - I operate on the basis of evidence, logic, common sense, reasonable inferences and probabilities. Those factors tell me to a near-certainty that the money order is not bogus. But I realize that no amount of evidence, logic or common sense is going to carry any weight with those for whom 115-year-old postal instructions are regarded as decisive pieces of evidence. Honestly, who cares what I think, you think or Armstrong thinks? The money order either is or is not bogus. I believe I have put forth a pretty compelling case that Armstrong's research was less-than-stellar, that his arguments in regard to the money order are inconsistent with the evidence, logic and common sense, and that what we now see on the part of his defenders is after-the-fact grasping at straws. Those who do not find the case that I have put forth compelling will, for reasons having little to do with evidence, logic or common sense, never find it compelling. I am struck by how quickly this "discussion" is heading down the same path as previous ones, and I decline to keep beating my head against a brick wall.

Edited by Lance Payette

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lance's view is merely Lance's opinion.

There is decisive evidence out there somewhere. Hundreds of millions of postal money orders were processed through the Federal Reserve System every year during the 1960's. Somewhere there are bank manuals, elderly postal or bank employees who were directly and knowledgably involved in the process, other processed money orders and similar resources that would settle once and for all whether punch card postal money orders were stamped by banks as they made their way through the Federal Reserve collection process and whether the "failure" of a this particular postal money order to bear any stamp other than the Klein's deposit stamp would have been fatal. This issue could be resolved by some diligent inquiry, but what fun would that be? It's far more fun - and far more likely to sell books - to speculate that a veritable team of FBI, Secret Service, Postal Service and Treasury Department officials were involved in an elaborate scheme of fabrication and deception. Has anyone noticed that the "evidence" Sandy now regards as dispositive in not the evidence on which Armstrong relied at all in formulating his claims? And that the "evidence" Armstrong did rely on has gone poof? And that massive new evidence to the contrary, such as the File Locator Number, has surfaced and been blithely ignored? As one who truly has no dog in this fight, I'm just following the evidence where it, logic, common sense, and reasonable inferences and probabilities seem to lead. If extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, I would respectfully suggest that the "evidence" on which you rely does not come close to the level of being "extraordinary." If the postal money order is such a critical issue, I would suggest that someone do the sort of diligent research that Armstrong should have done before making his claims and then get back to us. And I am emphatically not talking about vague and off-the-cuff questions to anonymous bank officials, which are then reported back to us with assurances in the vein of "Yeah, he really seemed to know what he was talking about, and he agreed with everything I said."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But I realize that no amount of evidence, logic or common sense is going to carry any weight with those for whom 115-year-old postal instructions are regarded as decisive pieces of evidence.

Lance,

You are misrepresenting how I regard the 1998 postal instructions I posted.

Just because those instructions accurately represented the way postal money orders were handled by banks up till 1951, as per Post Office Department regulations then in force; and just because they continued to accurately represent the way PMOs were handled post-1951, according to Federal Reserve Bank regulations; and just because they reflected accurately how Jon Tidd had described the handling of PMOs (which you described as "gibberish" IIRC), does not mean that I regard them as decisive pieces of evidence. I do, however, consider them to be supportive pieces of evidence. Highly supportive.

Edited by Sandy Larsen

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...