David Von Pein

What good would that do you, Jon? You mean you'd actually believe that such a bank statement, should it ever be produced, wasn't capable of being faked or manufactured by conspirators? I'm amazed that you'd accept such a "bank statement" as proof of anything. Very few Internet CTers would.

Thank you, Saint Scott. However, as unlikely as the "Bank Screwed Up" theory might be, I will say this.... That "Screwed Up" theory is still MUCH more likely to be true than the nonsensical "Everything Connected To The Rifle Purchase Is Fake" theory. "Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity [or incompetence]." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon's_razor

Scott, I said in Post 119 that the "bank forgot" theory is "pretty unlikely". Did you forget that post?

OK. Sorry. I thought you were trying to say you thought the plotters were "incompetent". But you (incredibly) think that the plotters KNEW that there SHOULD be 3 or 4 FNB stamps on the money order, but they decided to take a chance and NOT put any of them on the PMO, because it would create another line of inquiry that they didn't want. So they just hoped nobody would notice (or care) that the 3 or 4 FNB markings were nowhere to be found on a PMO that they surely wanted to make people think was real and genuine. Gotcha. Thanks.

No, Scott. You offered up "incompetence" as an excuse. I assumed you meant incompetence by the CONSPIRATORS. Isn't that what you meant?

So, Scott, the plotters could be guilty of incompetence, but the First National employees could not? Is that it?

And yet, incredibly, apparently the plotters who allegedly faked the Hidell PMO must ALSO have believed in that same "theory" that DVP has endorsed....because those plotters decided to not place a single FNB marking on that phony Hidell PMO. So, Sandy Larsen either believes in mind-boggling stupidity on the part of the conspirators.....or he'd have to put some stock in my theory about cash letters and bulk bank deposits. Is there a third alternative, Sandy?

I look at it this way.... If Sandy Larsen is 100% correct about bank endorsements being mandatory on the front and/or back of every single individual U.S. Postal Money Order that was deposited by First National Bank of Chicago in March 1963, then one of the following two things must have occurred.... 1.) If the Hidell money order is a fake (and the plotters had any brains at all), then those plotters faking the PMO would have surely known that at least SOME First National Bank markings would need to be placed on the PMO if they wanted it to look "real" and "kosher". Right? But the plotters not only failed to stamp the money order ONE time with a phony First National endorsement, but (per the FRB regulations cited by Sandy Larsen) those stupid conspirators omitted at least three or four separate FNB markings that should be on that money order -- including the date of the transaction and TWO separate ABA transit numbers. or: 2.) If the Hidell money order is legitimate and was not faked by anyone, then we'd have to believe that the First National Bank personnel just forgot to put at least 3 or 4 of their stamps on the Hidell money order before sending it along to the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago. I ask --- How likely is it for EITHER one of the above two scenarios to be the true and accurate one? I'd say it's pretty unlikely that either option is correct. Therefore, IMO, this is the likely solution.... "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; December 3, 2015

David (J.) is wrong, Scott. As usual. And there's a very good chance that the CTers are dead wrong about the "Zone 12" argument too.... jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-postmark-on-commission-exhibit-773.html

No, as I explained in my last post, I choose to believe that the following words within the FRB regulation can be properly applied to the Hidell Postal Money Order, IF that money order had been included in a large bulk "cash letter" type of deposit by the FNB of Chicago. In such a "bulk" deposit, "All cash items" (in BULK form) probably were endorsed via a "cash letter" which accompanied the multiple money orders that FNB sent to the FRB, which would include the Hidell M.O. .... "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."

Scott..... MR. EISENBERG -- "Did you see these items before they were treated for fingerprints." MR. CADIGAN -- "I know I saw Exhibit No. 788 [the money order] 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."

You didn't look very hard then, Sandy, because I've given your so-called "proof" plenty of space at my site. Although you haven't proved what you think you've proved, because of the word "should" in the regulation. But anyway, here are excerpts from my webpage (and, no, I didn't just this second add these posts to my page, in case you want to accuse me of that bit of deception. And the reason I didn't copy and paste Sandy's entire post into my page here is because his post was very very long, with a lot of indented text and hyperlinks; and for really long posts like that, I normally do what I did in this instance, I include a direct link to the post and embed the link in the word "THIS". But Sandy's arguments are all here for anyone to read. And I even repeat the regulations Sandy cited in my reply. So the text of the regulation is visible on my site too.... SANDY LARSEN SAID THIS. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Thanks, Sandy. But as part of these sections of the regulation you cited.... "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. .... 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. .... 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." ....why couldn't something like this procedure I talked about yesterday at another forum have been in place for "bulk" transfers of U.S. Postal Money Orders? Yes, it says "All cash items" in that postal regulation you cited, and it also says the cash items should be dated and should show a transit number "on both sides" (geez, imagine the time it would take to place all those markings and stamps on BOTH SIDES of each and every one of the hundreds if not thousands of Postal Money Orders that were being sent to a huge bank like the First National Bank in Chicago on a daily basis), but I'm still thinking that in the case of large bulk transfers or deposits of U.S. Postal Money Orders, the process I speculate about at that last link I provided above was probably the way First National Bank handled the Hidell money order in 1963 (seeing as how that M.O. does not have any First National stamp on it at all). [Later....] SANDY LARSEN SAID: I've notice in the postal money order debate that [Tommy Graves] agree with nearly anyone who presents an argument that bank stamps weren't required on PMOs in 1963. Maybe you believe they were never required. I've given documentary proof that they were required. .... I just want to understand why you pick the less likely of two choices.

Sandy needs to look up the word "should".

Wrong again, Scott. What you're seeing is merely the bleeding through of the ink from the other side of the money order (as a result of the FBI applying liquid to the M.O. to check it for fingerprints). Fortunately, however, Cadigan Exhibit No. 11 shows a photo of the M.O. BEFORE the liquid was applied to it, so we see no bleed-thru at all here.... http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0152a.htm

Good night, Scot [sic]. (Do you really think the name "Dave" is spelled without an E on the end? That's mighty peculiar.)

Scott, Nothing you just cited proves what you want it to prove. Sorry.

You're wrong, Scott. The regulations you cited are for a totally different type of money order, called a "Disbursement Postal Money Order". That's not the same thing as a regular M.O. that Oswald purchased. More.... HENRY SIENZANT SAID: David, Not sure if you caught this, but Sandy Larsen is confusing P.O. DISBURSEMENT money orders with P.O. CONSUMER money orders (like the one Oswald purchased). He says "Here's the proof", then cites something that doesn't apply to Oswald's money order whatsoever: Sandy wrote: "From the Code of Federal Regulations, 39 CFR 762.29c .... "Endorsement of disbursement postal money orders drawn in favor of financial organizations: All Disbursement Postal Money Orders drawn in favor of financial organizations, for credit to the accounts of persons designating payment so to be made, shall be endorsed in the name of the financial organization as payee in the usual manner." [End Quote.] A disbursement money order is one the Post Office issues to pay its own bills... they disburse the money to various contractors who do repairs, or those who they buy stuff from. See the prior page, section 762.13: "Disbursement Postal Money Orders are issued solely by Postal data centers and solely for the purpose of paying Postal Service obligations." Also see that page, section 762.11: "Disbursement Postal Money Orders, unlike other postal money orders, bear on their face the phrase, "This special money order is drawn by the postal service to pay one of its own obligations"." And see page 211, section 762.11(a): "Disbursement Postal Money Orders have words of negotiability -- "Pay to the Order of" -- printed on their face, while other postal money orders simply bear the words "Pay to" on their face." Oswald's money order was clearly NOT a disbursement money order. Oswald's money order bears the words "pay to", so it was NOT a disbursement money order. As always, there's sleight of hand when conspiracy theorists try to present evidence. They claim it's one thing, but it's another thing entirely. Either they don't know the difference, or they know the difference and are trying to pull a fast one. Count your fingers when discussing the JFK assassination with conspiracy theorists. Larsen also cites this website: FRB Procedures for Processing Postal Money Orders: http://tfm.fiscal.treasury.gov/v2/p4/c700.html But nowhere in there that I can find does it say the bank must affix its stamp to the money order. These are also the current rules, and he presents no evidence all this applied in 1963 (checks now have a number of safeguards to prevent forgery, and no doubt Postal Money Orders have improved & the processing may have changed in various ways in the intervening 52 years as well). DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Thanks, Hank. Excellent work on noting the difference between "Disbursement Postal Money Orders" and the type of ordinary money orders that consumers purchase at post offices. I'm glad you scrolled back one page in those Postal Regulations, Hank, because apparently nobody else did -- and that includes me. And I'm ashamed to admit that I didn't scroll back to that page you discovered. Because by doing so, you have totally defeated Sandy Larsen's "proof" regarding this topic. Plus, let me add one more section of Postal Regulation 762.11 that you didn't mention in your post, Hank.... 762.11© --- "The amounts of Disbursement Postal Money Orders are printed in words as well as numbers, while the amounts of postal money orders available at post offices are printed in numbers only." As we can see, the Oswald/Hidell money order has the amount ($21.45) printed only in numbers, not in words: So, I guess I was on the right track when I said this to Sandy Larsen last month: "I'm not sure that the information in "Paragraph C" of those money order regulations really means what you think it means. The word "drawn" has me confused. The Hidell money order was "drawn" in favor of Klein's Sporting Goods, was it not? It wasn't "drawn" "in favor of [a] financial organization". And Paragraph C says that, in effect, the financial organization is the "payee". Wouldn't that mean the name of the financial institution would also be on the "PAY TO" line on the front of the money order too?" -- DVP; 11/12/2015 SANDY LARSEN SAID: Since 1987, postal money orders have, by law, required bank endorsements. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: But unless someone can prove that the 10-digit File Locator Number stamped at the top of the Hidell money order is fake (which nobody is ever going to be able to prove, of course), then there is solid EVIDENCE that the CE788 money order did go through the regular banking channels in order to reach the Federal Reserve Bank. And if some conspiracy believers want to maintain that a First National Bank endorsement was necessary on a processed money order in 1963, and if those same CTers also believe that the File Locator Number seen on the Hidell M.O. is a fraudulent number and was placed there by conspirators who wanted to frame Lee Harvey Oswald, then the question MUST be asked: If the plotters were smart enough to know they needed to fake the File Locator Number on the money order, then why didn't they also realize that they needed to fake a First National Bank stamped endorsement on the back of the money order as well? Also see THIS POST by Tom Scully. MORE: http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/10/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1058.html

What a nice convenient blanket excuse you've got there. Aren't you glad you can always fall back on that lame excuse, Scott? Lucky you.

Who's Dav?

Well then, Scott, what's the point of even stamping ANYTHING on any check or money order? If EVERYTHING can possibly be faked (like rubber stamps and File Locator Numbers and all the things that were stamped on the front of the M.O. by the Dallas Post Office on 3/12/63), then it can never be proven that ANY check or money order that has ever been processed by any bank in the world is legit. Right? So, I'll ask again --- at what point do the LEGITIMATE LOOKING THINGS on the document make you want to stop pretending everything's been put there by conspirators?

EVIL FBI CONSPIRATOR -- "Hey, Bill [Waldman], can I borrow that Klein's rubber stamp that's on your desk? I need it so I can put a fake Klein's endorsement on this fake blank money order that another evil FBI conspirator swiped from the post office a couple of hours ago." KLEIN'S VICE PRESIDENT WILLIAM J. WALDMAN -- "Yeah, sure. Anything I can do to help J. Edgar. Here you go." FBI CONSPIRATOR -- "Thanks, Bill. I'll give it back to you in a few minutes, after I get through faking Oswald's handwriting and the post office markings and the File Locator Number and the punch holes that I've got to fake so that they line up perfectly with the phony $21.45 numerals that I'm faking on the money order too. So this might take a little while after all." BILL WALDMAN -- "No problem. I never saw a thing. And don't forget about the massive amount of fakery you FBI guys need to do with the nonexistent documents that you're going to say you discovered in our Klein's files tonight too -- e.g., the Waldman No. 7 invoice and the Hidell order form and envelope. So you guys have got a lot of faking to do tonight. If you need me, I'll be in my office practicing the tissue of lies that I'll be needing to tell the Warren Commission in a few months. See ya."

Absolute nonsense, Scott. There are multiple other explanations without having to constantly resort to "forgery". Question for you, Scott.... How did the Klein's "Pay To The Order" stamp get on the back of the Hidell money order if that money order was never handled by anyone at Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago? Do you think the Klein's stamp is a "forgery" too? Even though Bill Waldman testified that the stamp on the M.O. is "identical to our endorsement". And what about Oswald's handwriting? Should I believe that LHO's writing on the M.O. is a "forgery" too? Even though handwring specialist Alwyn Cole told the Warren Commission this: "It is my conclusion that the handwriting on this money order is in the hand of the person who executed the standard writing [i.e., Lee Harvey Oswald]." How many things that appear to be kosher does it take to make an item cross over into the category of "Real and Legitimate"? Or is that a stupid question to ask a conspiracy believer?

It's quite possible that Oswald went to the post office on March 12th BEFORE he ever went to work at Jaggars that day. That's the most likely answer, IMO. And Gary Mack, five years ago, hinted at that possibility too.... Subject: RE: Buying the Money Order Date: 3/12/2011 11:01:42 AM Eastern Standard Time From: Gary Mack To: David Von Pein Dave, Oswald could have left JCS [Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall] at any time between 8am and 10:30 IF there was no work for him to do. Oswald was given simple tasks as they came in, so if no orders were waiting, all he could do was sit and wait.....and get paid for doing so. I assume he'd have to check with his supervisor about taking a few minutes to go to the post office, but his time card certainly does not confirm that he was on the job every single minute. It merely shows that he was at the office and "on the clock" all day. And maybe, just maybe, he went over there on JCS business? Or perhaps a co-worker — his supervisor? — also needed something from the PO so Oswald went and took advantage of the opportunity? In short, there are many reasons Oswald's PO visit was entirely legitimate. It would not surprise me to learn that the Main Post Office opened at 7am, but I don't know that to be the case. I'd have to check the 1963 directories, but I sort of remember doing that years ago. Anyway, I can take a look when I get back to the office on Monday. Gary ------------------------------------------------ Subject: Main Post Office hours Date: 3/17/2011 5:28:21 PM Eastern Daylight Time From: Gary Mack To: David Von Pein Hi Dave, None of the directories at the Museum show the hours at the main post office in Dallas in 1963. However, the USPS online search service shows the main distribution center today opens at 7am. But that building wasn’t there in 1963. The main post office, and presumably the distribution center, was at 400 N. Ervay in 1963 and it would likely have had the early business hours. The Ervay PO is the one that was just a few blocks from J-C-S which was located at 522 Browder. According to Google maps, the two are only 8 blocks, or ½ mile, apart. Oswald could have walked or run, or probably ridden the bus, since Ervay was a main north-south street. For that matter, he could have bummed a ride from a co-worker. In short, I don’t see anything that prevents Oswald from getting to the post office, then buying and sending his money order to Klein’s. As to why the envelope is postmarked in a different zone [it probably wasn't, as discussed here], I have no clue, but there’s no evidence such a practice was out of the ordinary. Gary http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/12/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1081.html

What difference does it really make, Jon? Even if Lance has no connection to the law profession whatsoever, every single thing he said in his last post still makes perfect (logical) sense. (At least to me it does.) As for the "Zone 12" red herring.... Even if the "12" on CE773 (the envelope used by Oswald to mail his rifle order to Klein's) is a Dallas postal zone code -- and I'll admit that it could conceivably be a zone code (although as I demonstrate HERE, there's a very good chance that the "12" does not represent "Zone 12" in Dallas, Texas) -- why on Earth would that have to mean that the person who dropped that piece of mail in a mailbox must have mailed it inside "Zone 12" in Dallas? Why couldn't an alternate possibility be that Oswald mailed it at the Main Post Office in Dallas and then the letter was moved by the Dallas Post Office employees to "Zone 12" for processing, and then the postmark was stamped on the envelope (after the mailman moved it to "Zone 12")? Why is that possibility not even considered to be remotely plausible by JFK conspiracy theorists? ~shrug~

In 2003, Ruth Paine talks briefly about the accusation that she is a wicked, evil, patsy-framing CIA operative.... http://ftpcontent.worldnow.com/kdfw/projects/JFKvideo/video/jfk001.html