David Von Pein

Which is the only conclusion that any sensible and reasonable person could possibly reach. Why not join the sensible, Sandy?

The old, worn-out conspiracy myths never die. You should know that that is a basic and fundamental rule of JFK forums by now, shouldn't you Jim? Another worn-out obsolete argument that's currently making the rounds at this forum is "The SBT Is Impossible" claptrap. Next week, the "Badge Man" and "Tippit Was Buried In JFK's Grave" myths will likely be revisited. It never ends. And never will.

But banks obviously didn't treat both checks and Postal Money Orders "exactly the same way" in 1963. How can we know this is so? 1. There's no bank stamps on the Hidell Postal Money Order (other than the Klein's endorsement). BUT, even though #1 is true with respect to Oswald's $21.45 money order.... 2. There IS a File Locator Number (FLN) stamped on the Hidell PMO (just where it should be, in the upper left corner). And we know that FLNs are the very last thing stamped on a PMO after it has been deposited and processed. 3. And the PMO in question ended up in Alexandria, Virginia, at the Postal Records Center --- which is just exactly where it should have ended its journey after being properly processed. Now, tell me again why anyone would believe the Hidell Postal Money Order was a fraudulent document.

That's for CHECKS. Not UNITED STATES POSTAL MONEY ORDERS. Two completely different instruments.

Here are more photos of the "Front-Seat Limo Fragments" (CE567 and CE569)..... https://www.maryferrell.org/photos.html?set=NARA-FRAGMENTS Also, let me add this observation..... The theory that CE567 and CE569 are fake/planted bullet fragments almost certainly MUST be a theory that a lot of conspiracy theorists endorse, whether they know it or not. Because if those two bullet fragments are legitimate pieces of evidence in this case, it positively means that OSWALD'S RIFLE was being fired at President Kennedy in Dealey Plaza. And those two bullet fragments, in conjunction with Oswald's own actions and all of the other many things of a physical nature, go a long way toward incriminating the owner of the rifle that was conclusively linked to those two front-seat bullet fragments. And that owner's name was Lee Harvey Oswald. When arguing with conspiracy theorists over the years, I've noticed that those two limo bullet fragments don't very often come up in conversation. And I think there's a very good reason why CTers like to distance themselves from those two very important (and Oswald-incriminating) pieces of bullet evidence. The CTers can't possibly even begin to prove that those fragments weren't really found in the front seat of JFK's car. And the CTers can't begin to support their nutty idea that ALL of the physical evidence against Oswald in the JFK and Tippit murders is fake, planted, or phony. So the conspiracists normally just ignore the two limo fragments from LHO's gun. I guess maybe they think those fragments will just go away if they don't talk about them very much.

Here's a discussion from 8 years ago about this "Xerox" topic: http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/11/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1065.html

That's incorrect, Tom. Joseph McNally, in his HSCA testimony, said he had examined the original money order: ------------ MR. KLEIN -- "The document, which is marked F-509, the money order, is an original document; is it not?" MR. McNALLY -- "It was; yes." MR. KLEIN -- "And your conclusion is they were written by the same person who wrote the other documents?" MR. McNALLY -- "That is right."

Steve and Sandy, I'm confused now.... I had thought that you (Steve Thomas) were saying that you thought that ONLY the "Hidell" signature on LHO's phony Selective Service card had been written by Marina. But in your last reply to Sandy, you seem to be saying that you think perhaps Marina also wrote the words "A. Hidell" on the Postal Money Order as well. Is that correct? Also, Steve, when you said this earlier today.... ....were you referring to the "A. Hidell" signature on the money order itself? Or some other "signature" (such as the one on the Selective Service card)? If you were referring to the signature on the money order, then you would certainly be incorrect, because handwriting expert Charles C. Scott definitely DID say that the "A. Hidell" we find on the money order was (in his opinion) written by Lee Oswald (see 8 HSCA 246 and the image below, which is from that page). Scott said that ALL of the "fill-ins" on the money order were in Oswald's writing----and that would, of course, include the "A. Hidell" handwriting.

.......

......

In addition to the relevant and on-target points brought up by Pat Speer in his post above, let me add this.... The FBI report in question is dated "November 22, 1963" (at the top). If it had been dated November 23 or November 24, it would be a lot easier to make the claim that the report was talking about the two large bullet fragments that were recovered by the Secret Service from the front seat of the Presidential limo late on the night of Nov. 22 (with those fragments then being turned over to Robert Frazier of the FBI at 11:50 PM EST on Nov. 22; see Frazier's testimony at 5 H 67 for confirmation of the "11:50 PM" timestamp). But since the FBI report which has the following information in it was dated Nov. 22nd, it's somewhat difficult to believe (but not totally impossible to accept) that these words below could be referring to the front-seat fragments, which are bullet fragments that weren't even found until close to midnight on the night of the 22nd.... "Shanklin subsequently advised information had been received that a Secret Service Agent had searched the car in which the President was riding and had found the bullet which allegedly killed the President." And so....the mystery deepens.

https://www.facebook.com/mel.ayton.1 Or .... how about this solution? .... just buy THIS BOOK. (Only 19 bucks.) 😁 And you'll also want to purchase this item as well (in order to read O'Dell's appendix).

Well, I just checked, and you're right, it's not the same thing that's in my book at all. It's almost entirely different. Sorry. I wasn't attempting to fool anybody with that McAdams link. Based on the first few words that appear in the McAdams version, I thought it was the same material that's in the BRD book. But it's not.

How can I post something that doesn't exist, Cory? Huh? (WTF?) You think "hard drives" are obsolete in 2023?? ~big shrug~ Why are you continuing this fantasy?

Well, Stu, as it turns out, we don't need to contact anybody on this matter, because after doing a bit of searching myself online, I found that the link you said was broken was very likely this old McAdams link --- http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/odell --- which merely needs to be revised to the "new" 2021 working link with this address: http://jfk-assassination.net/odell And, Voila! -- There's Michael O'Dell's full acoustical study (which was obviously approved by Michael before John McAdams ever put it on his website many years ago). I saw one reference to that webpage which said it had been accessed in February of 2013. So it's been online now for at least 10+ years.

I don't have any version of Michael O'Dell's work that I could post online. And even if I did have one, I'm not too sure it would be right to post the whole thing here without getting Michael's permission first, seeing as how it was first published in Beyond Reasonable Doubt in 2014. I doubt Michael would mind, but I wouldn't want to post it myself to any public forum without talking to him first. Was the "online version" of O'Dell's work that you mentioned above something that Michael himself posted? Or was it somebody else who swiped his entire acoustical essay from the pages of BRD and then put it online? Or would you know such info? ----------- EDIT / CORRECTION --- Sorry, Stu, I was mistaken above when I said I didn't have any version of O'Dell's acoustical study. But I just now looked at my computer files and I was actually surprised to see that I do, indeed, have Michael's full essay/study regarding the HSCA acoustical topic stored on my hard drive. (I had thought that his contribution to the Beyond Reasonable Doubt book was something that was added only after the final galleys were sent to me. But I was wrong. I have the full PDF of the book, including Michael's work too.) But I'm not going to post it here unless you can get Michael's express permission to do so. I'm also thinking that the permission of Mel Ayton (the main author of BRD) should be obtained as well. If they say it's OK, then I could easily send you a PDF version via Private Message here at EF. My guess would be that Mr. O'Dell would probably be happy to see his acoustical work published somewhere online in a PDF file like the one I possess, mainly because the version that appears on Pages 441 to 455 of Beyond Reasonable Doubt was printed in such a small font that it's very hard to read (without the aid of a magnifying glass). And that is something I've been kind of embarrassed about ever since the final version of the book came out in December 2014.* * You should have seen the way the publisher messed up the very first version of the book. Incredibly, Michael's entire essay/study in "Appendix 2" of the book was cut out entirely. There was merely a notation on page 441 that said "See PDF File". LOL. Can you believe that a publishing house would actually print up a final version of a book in such a sloppy and careless manner? Mel and I were boiling, and made them re-print the whole thing, of course. So having a readily accessible online version of Michael's writings would probably be welcomed with open arms by Michael O'Dell, since the font of the PDF version can easily be increased to a bigger size by the reader.

What link?

Happy 7th Birthday to.....

Why is it even necessary to bring up this kind of tawdry stuff here at this forum? What purpose does it serve?

Indeed, Greg. Here's what I said about that topic of "bulk batch" deposits during these marathon EF forum sessions concerning the Hidell money order back in 2015: ----------------------------- DAVID VON PEIN SAID: I would guess that the Hidell money order was probably "endorsed" as part of a bulk batch of U.S. Postal Money Orders sent by First National Bank to the Federal Reserve Bank in Chicago. All of the money orders in such a "bulk" transfer were going to be sent to the very same place--the FRB in Chicago, Illinois--so I can't see why a single stamped endorsement placed on a separate document (which would be attached to the bundle of bulk money orders being sent from First National to the FRB) wouldn't suffice in a bulk transaction like that, instead of having to stamp a separate endorsement on each and every money order. I do not know for certain if such a "single endorsement on bulk transfers" procedure was actually in place at major U.S. banks in 1963, but such a process makes perfect sense to me. And it would certainly save the bank a lot of "stamping" time too. [...] DVP LATER SAID: To reiterate, a "cash letter" for a bulk deposit would, in my view, still satisfy the regulation cited below, without the First National Bank personnel needing to place multiple separate stamped endorsements on each and every U.S. Postal Money Order that was part of such a "bulk" deposit/transfer. If the bulk transfer from First National Bank to the Federal Reserve Bank was accompanied by a slip of paper that had all the stamped endorsements and information mentioned in Rule 13 (from the 1960 regulations) or Rule 15 (from the 1969 regulations), please tell me why that would not satisfy the endorsement policy? Maybe we can now get into a big debate over the words "All cash items" vs. the words "Each cash item". It seems to me that a bulk transfer, which would include just one piece of paper (i.e., deposit slip) for the entire "batch" of money orders being sent to the FRB (i.e., for "ALL cash items" within the bundled bulk package), would be a way of transferring a large amount of money orders from FNB to the FRB without violating anything written in this regulation here.... "All cash items sent to us, or to another Federal Reserve Bank direct for our account, should be endorsed without restriction to, or to the order of, the Federal Reserve Bank to which sent, or endorsed to, or to the order of, any bank, banker, or trust company, or endorsed with equivalent words or abbreviations thereof. The endorse­ment of the sender should be dated and should show the A.B.A. transit number of the sender, if any, in prominent type on both sides of the endorsement." And I'd like to again remind everyone of Regulation #12 (from 1960):

From 2015..... JAMES DiEUGENIO SAID: 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 SAID: 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. [...] DVP ALSO SAID: Let's review.... >> Oswald's writing is on the Hidell money order (per multiple handwriting analysts---all of whom were total boobs or incompetents or L-words, per people like DiEugenio). >> Klein's stamp is on the back of the M.O. >> A File Locator Number is on the M.O. (which is ONLY put there AFTER the M.O. has gone to the FRB). >> The M.O. is found just where it should be found (per CD75) on 11/23/63---the Federal Records Center in Alexandria/Washington. >> The "bleed thru" issue is now a total NON-issue, as proven by Tim Brennan (via his pointing out the "No Bleed-Thru" status that exists in the M.O. as seen in Cadigan Exhibit No. 11.) But all of the above is FAKE/FRAUDULENT, per many CTers. You're fighting a losing battle, CTers. The money order was handled by Lee Harvey Oswald, Klein's Sporting Goods, and the Federal Reserve Bank. Maybe it's time for conspiracy theorists to accept that fact. ALBERT DOYLE SAID: Even if the Money Order turns out to be processed with Oswald's handwriting on it, the situation involves 2 Oswalds being worked as a team. One Oswald could have been used to set-up the other and the rifle could still be worked around the Oswald who was being set-up. I don't think Von Pein realizes how easy the Money Order evidence could fit this scenario. Von Pein doesn't understand (or pretends not to) that the Money Order could have been sent but sent in a way where it was covertly worked around the normal flagging triggers in the system. Everything Oswald did was Intel-guided after he came back from Russia. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: In other words --- If one stupid, unproven conspiracy theory falls flat on its face, CTers will merely insert another stupid conspiracy theory to take its place. Nice policy! [...] ALBERT DOYLE SAID: Do you understand that the Money Order could be processed, or partly processed, and still be 'handled' through the system in order to frame Oswald? In other words, it could have a legitimate File Locator stamp and still be planted on Oswald in order to frame him. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: I love that constant moving of the goalposts by CTers. Since it couldn't be more obvious that the Hidell money order now has a proper path to legitimacy (and conspiracy theorists like Albert Doyle know it), we're now treated to more sheer crackpot speculation about how the LEGITIMATE money order (with Oswald's writing on it that was bought and handled by Oswald HIMSELF) was being used to frame Oswald anyway. The CTer mind is a spinning whirlwind of ever-expanding and forever changing concocted claptrap. IOW --- Whatever it takes to pretend Lee Harvey Oswald was a patsy on 11/22/63, an Internet CTer is ready and eager to do it -- even if the number of goalposts that must be moved reaches triple digits.

Marcus, That's a pretty decent job at imitating Oswald's writing. Especially your two "Hidell" attempts. I salute you. So, Marcus, do you think all of the various "Questioned Documents Experts" (i.e., the handwriting experts) who testified in front of the Warren Commission and HSCA were all wrong (or perhaps lying) when several of them testified that the writing on the money order was put there by Lee Harvey Oswald himself? --------------- Warren Commission Testimony: Mr. EISENBERG -- Did you compare Exhibit No. 788 with the standards to determine whether Exhibit No. 788 had been written by Lee Harvey Oswald? Mr. CADIGAN -- Yes. Mr. EISENBERG -- What was your conclusion? Mr. CADIGAN -- That the postal money order, Cadigan Exhibit No. 11, had been prepared by Lee Harvey Oswald. Mr. EISENBERG -- The postal money order is Commission Exhibit No. 788 and your picture is Cadigan Exhibit No. 11, is that correct? Mr. CADIGAN -- That is correct. -------------- HSCA Testimony: Mr. KLEIN -- The document, which is marked F-509, the money order, is an original document; is it not? Mr. McNALLY -- It was; yes. Mr. KLEIN -- And your conclusion is they were written by the same person who wrote the other documents? Mr. McNALLY -- That is right. -------------- The second picture below is Cadigan Exhibit No. 11, which is a higher-quality version of the Postal Money Order, which shows the money order prior to it being treated for fingerprints (hence, the "Bleed-Thru" mystery of CE788 is explained): 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. ------------------------ Also See: DVP's JFK Archives / Archived Discussions Regarding The "Hidell" Money Order

Just look at the autopsy photos of John F. Kennedy's own body, Pat. Why are you ignoring those photos of the actual victim in favor of a CD case?

We don't really even need the Clark Panel to know the HSCA was full of beans regarding that one particular matter about the back & throat wound locations. All we need is this composite of two of the autopsy photos:

Dead wrong. (As per usual.) And CE903 forever provides the proof that Pat Speer is dead wrong when he says that "the autopsy photos show a back wound too low to support the single-bullet theory". And Pat's above comment also means (I guess) that the Clark Panel was filled with nothing but scheming rotten l-i-a-r-s too. ---------------- "There is an elliptical penetrating wound of the skin of the back located approximately 15 cm. medial to the right acromial process, 5 cm. lateral to the mid-dorsal line and 14 cm. below the right mastoid process. This wound lies approximately 5.5 cm. below a transverse fold in the skin of the neck. This fold can also be seen in a lateral view of the neck which shows an anterior tracheotomy wound. This view makes it possible to compare the levels of these two wounds in relation to that of the horizontal plane of the body. .... The center of the circular wound [in the front of the neck] is situated approximately 9 cm. below the transverse fold in the skin of the neck described in a preceding paragraph. This indicates that the bullet which produced the two wounds followed a course downward and to the left in its passage through the body." -- From Clark Panel Report ----------------- So, as we can see, the Clark Panel concluded that the bullet hole in Kennedy's throat was located 3.5 centimeters LOWER (anatomically) than the bullet wound in his upper back. But, instead of relying on the Clark guys, I'm supposed to trust Dr. Speer's analysis re: the SBT and CE903 and lots of other medical issues.* Thanks. But no thanks. * Yes, it's true that I'm tossing in the trash the HSCA's ridiculous "11-degree upward angle" nonsense re: the back & throat wounds. But any sensible person MUST do that after looking just once at the appropriate autopsy photos.