Gil Jesus

I would refer you back to the Katzenbach memo which stated that the evidence must be such that Oswald would have been convicted at trial. I believe that although they tried, they failed to attain that. Von Pein and others would like you to believe that people who question the official version are "kooks". He's all over the internet insulting people like me in forums that tolerate such nonsense, but the truth of the matter is that I'm not looking under every rock for a conspiracy. I don't consider myself a conspiracy theorist in the general sense of the word. I'm a guy with a degree and background in criminal justice and experience in police and security and I have serious questions with the legitimacy of the evidence in this case. Conversely, Von Pein and others like him, have no credentials in any aspect associated with criminal justice. The problems with the tampering of the evidence, the slanted police lineups, the altered affidavits, the falsified police reports or the witnesses, some who were intimidated by authorities and others who were equally ignored, brings to mind the bigger question of what was REALLY going on in this investigation. What the Von Penis of the world don't tell you that in addition to all of this, events as described by the police were lies. An example of this was the falsehood that Oswald tried to fire his handgun in the theater when grabbed by police. But when the FBI examined the handgun, it never misfired. And when they examined the unfired round that the cops said had a "nick" in it from the firing pin of the revolver, the FBI determined that "There was no indication, from an examination, that that nick had been so caused by a firing pin ". They came to that conclusion for two reasons: " First of all, it is in the wrong position, it is not in the center of the primer. And, also, a microscopic examination of that nick gave no indication that it was made by a firing pin ". In fact the FBI concluded that their examination revealed " no marks that could be associated with the firing pin in Commission Exhibit 143 ( the Oswald handgun ) , OR ANY OTHER WEAPON ". ( 3 H 460 ) IOW, it was manufactured by the police, the only ones who had previously maintained possession of the unfired round. In looking at the investigation in THIS case, it is difficult for me to understand WHY the police would have gone to such extents as to risk getting the case thrown out of court, in order to frame a GUILTY man.

1. And Oswald's handwriting was not forgeable. 2. Waldman 7 says that the rifle shipped was C20-T750, a 36" rifle, not C20-750, the 40" short rifle. 3. What is the name of the person from Klein's who stamped that money order ? 4. Where's the delivery receipt the post office required for firearms ? But it all doesn't matter, does it, David, because we KNOW Oswald killed Kennedy. I think all that circular reasoning is making you dizzy.

And I would add to your observations that in a normal murder case, this doesn't happen. Questions regarding EVERY SINGLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE just doesn't happen in a normal murder case. Putting Oswald in a police lineup with two teenagers and a Mexican ? Which witness who viewed that lineup, Scoggins or Whaley, described Tippit's killer as either a teenager or a Mexican ? ANSWER--NEITHER !!!! The lineups were slanted against Oswald, and as I said, this doesn't happen in a normal murder case. No criminal investigator worth his salt would risk losing a "cinched" ( as Fritz called it ) case as high profile as this one, by committing acts of police misconduct. I've already shown on my Youtube channel that the FBI LIED in the reports describing what the witnesses said they saw. I've already shown where one witness, Whaley, testified that he signed an affidavit that described his selection of Oswald from a police lineup BEFORE HE EVEN SAW THE LINEUP !!! Then under pressure from WC counsel he backtracked. If I'm the lead investgator in this case and I have this guy nailed, I'm going to do EVERYTHING I can to see that he sees his day in court. I'm going to make sure that the evidence is solid and the case is air-tight. Everything he says in interrogation sessions will be recorded and transcribed. He will be read his rights and given access to a lawyer. The police station will be in total lockdown until he is transferred. And no one will have access to the prisoner except his immediate family and his attorney. No questions, no doubt, no Jack Ruby. This case against Oswald was a joke and I'm inclined to believe that the reason the Dallas Police let Jack Ruby into the basement to kill Oswald was because they knew that if they had to go to trial with the evidence they had against him, not only would he walk, but the DPD would be the laughing stock of the world. Here's some food for thought: When the criminals control the evidence, ANYTHING is possible.

Jack, I would suggest another point that I think is important. That Robert Wilmouth, the official of the First National Bank of Chicago, who was interviewed by the FBI (CD 7, pg. 192 ) was never called to testify before the Warren Commission and identify the "Hidell" money order as having indeed been handled by his bank. And I think its pretty obvious why not.

Of course, this would be the only way of proving that the Money Order was paid. Whether or not it was deposited in bulk or not--- it had to be stamped. Thank You.

The Von Peins, McAdamses and Bugliosis of the world use what is called "circular reasoning" in their "nobody but Oswald" ( NBO ) argument. Circular reasoning, though is flawed because it requires them to take the very thing that they SHOULD be trying to prove ( i.e. that Oswald killed Kennedy ), state it as fact, and then circle backwards to conclude through "common sense" that all evidence to the contrary is in error. You can usually spot this right off the bat because in their arguments they use phrases like, "Because we KNOW Oswald killed Kennedy......". In other words, it doesn't matter what the witnesses said, because WE KNOW OSWALD KILLED KENNEDY. It doesn't matter that the shells recovered from the Tippit murder scene were described as .38 autos, because WE KNOW OSWALD KILLED TIPPIT. It doesn't matter that there's no bullet track through JFK's body because WE KNOW THE SINGLE BULLET THEORY IS FACT. It goes on and on and on. In discussing this evidence, I would suggest that he's likewise using a variation of this flawed reasoning, that it doesn't matter if the money order didn't have the REQUIRED stamps proving proof of payment by the bank, because we KNOW the writing on it was Oswald's. You see, it really doesn't matter to these people what evidence surfaces or what questions are raised regarding the evidence...none of it matters...because WE KNOW OSWALD KILLED KENNEDY. I learned a long time ago that trying to convince them of their error is an exercise in futility. And yes, one of their tactics is to resort to childish name-calling when the gas tank is reading empty. When they start calling you names, you know they've got nothing alse to argue with. Now I would like to take HIS type of reasoning and turn it around on him. Because we KNOW the money order was never stamped by a bank, never paid on by a bank and never sent through the Federal Reserve System, and since "common sense" tells us that NOBODY would buy and sign a money order that would never be paid on, THE HANDWRITING ON IT IS NOT OSWALD'S, BUT A CLEVER FORGERY. Why would Oswald sign a money order that would never be processed through the FRS ? Answer: He wouldn't. No one would. The "standard" that Cadigan used to compare the handwriting on the money order were letters Oswald wrote in 1961 and 1962 to then Navy Secretary John Connally and to the State Department. IOW, the "standards" had been in the government's possession at the time of the assassination. Couldn't an FBI forger have used the same "standard" to study Oswald's signature ? Couldn't the FBI have borrowed the Klein's "stamp" and used it on the money order ? There are serious problems with this money order, not the least of all is the broken chain of custody, and until they are satisfactorily addressed, the value of the evidence being discussed is certainly in doubt.

Show us the stamps on the money order from the banks that handled it.

Absolutely correct. Waldman 10 shows that the $13,000 deposit had a deposit slip of 2/15/63. If you look at that exhibit, you'll see that the date at the bottom of the bank statement is written in by hand as "3-13"63". Nowhere on that document is there a printed date. IOW, that date could have been written in at any time. http://i54.tinypic.com/foj4gj.jpg Interestingly, "2/15/63" is the date that Lifschultz was supposed to deliver the rifles to Klein's. http://i52.tinypic.com/2w7o7if.jpg Before the naysayers respond that the deposit slip could have been in an honest mistake, I would like to point out that BOTH the month AND the day are wrong ( if you buy the deposit being made on 3/13/63 ). I could see an error on the month at the beginning of the month, but an error on the MONTH AND DAY in the MIDDLE of a month ? IMO, it's pretty hard to believe it's an honest mistake. From the evidence I've seen, the FBI apparently used a 2/15/63 deposit of an American Express Money Order and passed it off as a 3/13/63 deposit of a postal money order.

So that constitutes PROOF to you? Ok, tells me ALL I need to know about Gil Jesus. Thank You and yes it does. Your snide little attempt at insulting me notwithstanding, I have provided evidence that banks stamped postal money orders in 1963 and that this money order contained no bank stamp. You, for your part, have continually denied the evidence placed before you and no matter how much I prove to you that "the King has no clothes," all we can expect from you is, apparently, more of the same nonsense that the evidence is not sufficient. I've seen your tactic before. I don't believe that it's possible to convince someone of something when they are in denial. So I'm not trying to convince you, I'm trying to convince the reader. Inasmuch as I have provided this evidence, which I believe would cause a REASONABLE and PRUDENT person ( as the law describes it ) to have doubt that this money order is legitimate, you've provided NO EVIDENCE to support your opposing view. If you have evidence that postal money orders passed through the Federal Reserve System WITHOUT bank stamps, please post it. Otherwise, as far as I am concerned, the issue is closed and let the reader determine for himself or herself if my evidence is convincing enough when compared to your offering of no evidence. PS: I certainly hope that this thread will reveal to a lot of people all they need to know, not just about Gil Jesus, but other posters as well.

Please show us the graphic evidence that proves the money order was missing stamps, which you say proves it did not go through the system. The proof that bank stamps were used on postal money orders is right on the back of the money order itself: "More than one endorsement is prohibited by law. BANK STAMPS are not regarded as endorsements." http://i56.tinypic.com/20aqrl2.jpg In 1963, postal money orders were stamped by banks.

The proof that bank stamps were used on postal money orders is right on the back of the money order itself: "More than one endorsement is prohibited by law. BANK STAMPS are not regarded as endorsements." http://i56.tinypic.com/20aqrl2.jpg In 1963, postal money orders were stamped by banks.

Please show us the graphic evidence that proves the money order was missing stamps, which you say proves it did not go through the system. I find it hard to believe that a man your age doesn't know how money orders are handled.

Pat, there are so many problems wwith this money order, it's not even funny. Why on earth the WC didn't call the person who stamped "Klein's" on it to testify is beyond me. Instead, they heard from a VP of the Company, William Waldman, who didn't know his butt from a hole in the wall. I don't find it beyond reason that the FBI could have taken the Klein's stamp to "examine it" and stamp the money order on the back while they had it. Here are some of the problems with this money order: 1. The number of the money order was out of sequence for the Dallas PO. 2. The MO contained no stamp from the First National Bank of Chicago 3. The MO contained no stamp from the Federal Reserve Bank in Chicago. 4. The MO contained no stamp from the Federal Postal Money Order Center in Kansas City. 5. There were TWO $ 21.45 entries in Klein's deposit of 3/13/63 and the one the WC said was a postal money order sent by "A.Hidell" was an American Express Money Order.( CD 7, pg. 192 ) 6. No Dallas Postal employee was ever named as the one who found the "stub" of the sale to "Hidell". 7. No record of the MO was found after the assassination in Kansas City. 8. The Dallas stamp of "Mar 12, 63" could have been stamped on it after the assassination. Thanks for the info on the forgers on the FBI payroll. That's something I was not aware of.

The WC Exhibit that the WC never spoke about ----- CE 779 Oswald blasts CPUSA for its "servile conformity" to the Soviet Union's will and the Russians for "committing crimes unsurpassed even by their early day caplitalist counterparts". http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0337a.htm http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0337b.htm

Can any of you tell me why it was that Klein's Sporting Goods microfilmed the "Hidell" order blank and envelope, but didn't microfilm the money order ?

That's true. There were actually TWO deposits of $ 21.45 in Waldman Exhibit 10 ( 21 H 706 & another on 21 H 707 )and both of them were listed under "Checks on other Chicago Banks". The first one was a part of a deposit totalling $ 13,827.98 http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0365b.htm The second one was part of a deposit totalling $ 2,116.91 http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0366a.htm In Commission Document 7, pg. 192, Robert K. Wilmouth, VP of the 1st National Bank of Chicago, told the FBI that the first deposit was an American Express money order, NOT the postal money order sent by "A.Hidell". He knew this because the bank handled money orders differently. They sent the AmEx money orders directly to American Express in New York City. They sent the Postal money orders to the Federal Reserve bank in Chicago, which in turn sent them to a central processing center in Kansas City, Missouri. He also said that the second $ 21.45 money order WAS a postal money order and that that one was sent on to the Fed bank in Chicago. BTW, after the assassination, Postal inspectors searched for the "Hidell" money order in Kansas City and never found it. It wasn't there. Wilmouth was specific in his identification of the AmEx money order. He said that it was on a tape between deposits of $ 15.03 and $ 14.36, precisely the deposit that the WC said was the postal money order sent by "A.Hidell". http://i52.tinypic.com/xm1n35.jpg Of course, you doubters will doubt no matter how much evidence I produce. For example, I could direct you to the 8 money orders Oswald used to pay back his State Dept. loan and the stamps on those, but you'd only argue that it was a different date or a different bank , or some other nonsense. Not only did the Warren Commission not produce another non-stamped money order to prove that this was the way they were handled, it never called Robert Wilmouth to testify and identify the "Hidell" money order as having passed through his bank ? Why ? BECAUSE IT DIDN'T !!! The purpose of bank endorsements and date stamps is to ensure that each item ( check or money order in those days ) is paid only once by each financial institution. The bank stamps allow an item to be tracked as it is routed through the banking system. If an item lacks a bank endorsement, it simply means that an item was never deposited or cashed at a financial institution. This is not debatable, THIS IS FACT. And it's also FACT that this money order had NO STAMP from the First National Bank of Chicago, it had NO STAMP from the Fedreal Reserve Bank in Chicago, and it had NO STAMP from the Federal Postal Money Order Center in Kansas City. Absent the required stamps of the financial institutions through which this money order was ALLEGED to have passed, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THIS MONEY ORDER WAS EVER PROCESSED BY ANY FINANCIAL INSTITUTION. And for those of you who can't see the obvious, I feel sorry for you.

Can you show us examples of other USPS money orders processed that day to back up your statement above? reasonable doubt written all over this one Craigster -- Can you show us examples of other USPS money orders processed that day to back up WCR exihibit-statement, your move! Yah Dave, that's a pretty weak argument from that guy. To suggest that USPS money orders processed on THAT DAY didn't need a bank endorsement or tracking stamp for payment...this is SOP for paying instruments of utterance, such as checks and money orders. Doesn't matter what day, what US bank or what type of document it is. They're all stamped "Paid" when paid. Not even Von Pein would try to suggest that.

Mr. BELIN. I hand you what has been marked as Commission Exhibit No. 788, which appears to be a U.S. postal money order payable to the order of Klein's Sporting Goods.....And on the reverse side there appears to be an endorsement of a bank. I wonder if you would read that endorsement, if you would, and examine it, please. Mr. WALDMAN. This is a stamped endorsement reading "Pay to the order of the First National Bank of Chicago," followed by our account No. 50 space 91144, and that, in turn, followed by "Klein's Sporting Goods, Inc." Mr. BELIN. Do you know whether or not that is your company's endorsement on that money order? Mr. WALDMAN. It's identical to our endorsement. Mr. BELIN. And I hand you what has been marked as Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 9 and ask you if you can state what this is. Mr. WALDMAN. This is our endorsement stamp which reads the same as that shown on the money order in question. Mr. BELIN. You have just now stamped Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 9 with your endorsement stamp? Mr. WALDMAN. Correct. ( 7 H 367 ) http://i53.tinypic.com/15oieq1.jpg The only endorsement on that money order was the stamp of Klein's Sporting Goods. The money order was never paid by any financial institution. Gil, Isn't there an on-going thread on this topic already? Let's not confuse the Cubans, because I am. BK One was that the money order was never processed, the other is that the amount on the deposit slip wasn't this particular money order. I guess in hindsight we could have combined them into one argument, that is that the money order itself and the deposit were both phony. I'll take note of that for future reference. :-)

THE MONEY ORDER CONTAINED NO STAMP ON IT FROM ANY FINANCIAL INSTITUTION. THE ONLY STAMP ON IT WAS KLEIN'S OWN STAMP FOR DEPOSIT. http://i56.tinypic.com/20aqrl2.jpg Mr. BELIN. I hand you what has been marked as Commission Exhibit No. 788, which appears to be a U.S. postal money order payable to the order of Klein's Sporting Goods.....And on the reverse side there appears to be an endorsement of a bank. I wonder if you would read that endorsement, if you would, and examine it, please. Mr. WALDMAN. This is a stamped endorsement reading "Pay to the order of the First National Bank of Chicago," followed by our account No. 50 space 91144, and that, in turn, followed by "Klein's Sporting Goods, Inc." Mr. BELIN. Do you know whether or not that is your company's endorsement on that money order? Mr. WALDMAN. It's identical to our endorsement. Mr. BELIN. And I hand you what has been marked as Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 9 and ask you if you can state what this is. Mr. WALDMAN. This is our endorsement stamp which reads the same as that shown on the money order in question. Mr. BELIN. You have just now stamped Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 9 with your endorsement stamp? Mr. WALDMAN. Correct. ( 7 H 367 ) http://i53.tinypic.com/15oieq1.jpg The only endorsement on that money order was the stamp of Klein's Sporting Goods. The money order was never paid by any financial institution. Commission Document 7 indicates that the $ 21.45 entry on Waldman 10 was an American Express Money Order and NOT a postal money order. http://i52.tinypic.com/xm1n35.jpg

Had the money order been processed by the First National Bank of Chicago, the bank would have put its DATED stamp on it. Financial institutions stamp checks and money orders in order to ensure that each institution pays only once on each item. Without the stamp, there's no proof that the money was actually paid by the bank and credited to the customer's account. The stamps also assist law enforcement in tracking finances in criminal cases. This money order should have on it the DATED stamps of all financial institutions that handled the document. The fact that it doesn't is proof that payment was never made to Klein's account.

THE MONEY ORDER CONTAINED NO STAMP ON IT FROM ANY FINANCIAL INSTITUTION. THE ONLY STAMP ON IT WAS KLEIN'S OWN STAMP FOR DEPOSIT. http://i56.tinypic.com/20aqrl2.jpg Mr. BELIN. I hand you what has been marked as Commission Exhibit No. 788, which appears to be a U.S. postal money order payable to the order of Klein's Sporting Goods.....And on the reverse side there appears to be an endorsement of a bank. I wonder if you would read that endorsement, if you would, and examine it, please. Mr. WALDMAN. This is a stamped endorsement reading "Pay to the order of the First National Bank of Chicago," followed by our account No. 50 space 91144, and that, in turn, followed by "Klein's Sporting Goods, Inc." Mr. BELIN. Do you know whether or not that is your company's endorsement on that money order? Mr. WALDMAN. It's identical to our endorsement. Mr. BELIN. And I hand you what has been marked as Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 9 and ask you if you can state what this is. Mr. WALDMAN. This is our endorsement stamp which reads the same as that shown on the money order in question. Mr. BELIN. You have just now stamped Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 9 with your endorsement stamp? Mr. WALDMAN. Correct. ( 7 H 367 ) http://i53.tinypic.com/15oieq1.jpg The only endorsement on that money order was the stamp of Klein's Sporting Goods. The money order was never paid by any financial institution.

Mr. BELIN. I hand you what has been marked as Commission Exhibit No. 788, which appears to be a U.S. postal money order payable to the order of Klein's Sporting Goods.....And on the reverse side there appears to be an endorsement of a bank. I wonder if you would read that endorsement, if you would, and examine it, please. Mr. WALDMAN. This is a stamped endorsement reading "Pay to the order of the First National Bank of Chicago," followed by our account No. 50 space 91144, and that, in turn, followed by "Klein's Sporting Goods, Inc." Mr. BELIN. Do you know whether or not that is your company's endorsement on that money order? Mr. WALDMAN. It's identical to our endorsement. Mr. BELIN. And I hand you what has been marked as Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 9 and ask you if you can state what this is. Mr. WALDMAN. This is our endorsement stamp which reads the same as that shown on the money order in question. Mr. BELIN. You have just now stamped Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 9 with your endorsement stamp? Mr. WALDMAN. Correct. ( 7 H 367 ) http://i53.tinypic.com/15oieq1.jpg The only endorsement on that money order was the stamp of Klein's Sporting Goods. The money order was never paid by any financial institution.

http://i56.tinypic.com/20aqrl2.jpg

It was charged from another Chicago Bank http://i56.tinypic.com/2zxsbb9.jpg

Absolutely correct. In fact, when the FBI asked Klein's for a replica rifle of the 40 inch rifle found on the sixth floor, they HAD TO TELL THEM WHERE TO MOUNT THE SCOPE. Mr. EISENBERG. Did you make an attempt to determine, by use of this C-250, whether the firm which had sold Exhibit 139 had mounted the scope on Exhibit 139? Mr. FRAZIER. Yes, sir. Mr. EISENBERG. Can you describe how you made that attempt? Mr. FRAZIER. We contacted the firm, Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago, and asked them concerning this matter to provide us with a similar rifle mounted in the way in which they normally mount scopes of this type on these rifles, and forward the rifle to us for examination. In this connection, we did inform them that the scope should be in approximately this position on the frame of the weapon. Mr. EISENBERG. Pardon me, Mr. Frazier. When you say "this position," so that the record is clear could you-- Mr. FRAZIER. Oh, yes; in the position in which it now is, approximately three-eighths of an inch to the rear of the receiver ring. Mr. EISENBERG. On the---- Mr. FRAZIER. On the C-250 rifle. ( 3 H 396 )