David Von Pein

And look at the serial number on the 1963 U.S. Postal Money Order Lance posted (also shown again below) -- it's 1.4 billion numbers LOWER than the Hidell M.O., even though Lance's example is stamped 6 months AFTER the Hidell money order. That numbering snafu should make John Armstrong's head really spin, huh? Of course, it would appear as if that M.O. Lance posted is some kind of SAMPLE money order. It's only made out for one cent, and still has the stub attached. But all the other markings seem to be in place. Kind of odd. EDIT --- And now I just noticed that the 1961 money order posted in the first post above, made out to the same person, is also made out in the amount of just one cent ($0.01). So that's double the "Harry Smuckler" weirdness. But I see also by this 1961 M.O. that the person who supposedly purchased the M.O. is listed as a "Postmaster" in Samoa. Maybe that has something to do with it. ~shrug~

The Wiki article referred to by Lance: wikipedia.org/wiki/Punched_card

You're joking, right Jon? Big hint coming up.....

As a continuation of what I said in Post #58 (re: the possible reason why we see no First National stamp on the deposit ticket seen in Waldman #10).... Another possibility is: the extra copy of the deposit ticket was stamped by the bank—but on the BACK side of the deposit slip, instead of on the front of it. HERE is an example to prove my point about that (also shown below). It's a deposit ticket that I filled out and sent to my bank in October 2015. After processing the deposit, the bank stamped only the back of the deposit slip, not the front. Now, yes, I'm providing an example from 2015 here, and not from 1963. But I think it's quite possible (even likely) that the basic procedure at most banks for stamping deposit tickets hasn't changed since 1963.

The watermark?

Sandy, But you just said you agreed with Jon when he agreed with me about that one thing (not the "partially correct" thing Jon referred to) --- and that one thing was that the word "drawn" indicates that the "financial organization" that Paragraph C is talking about would have to be shown on the FRONT of the M.O. as the original payee. Hence, it would be "drawn in favor of [a] financial organization". But such was not the case with the Hidell money order. ------------------- "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"." -- DVP "DVP is correct here." -- Jon G. Tidd

Just to show the pot/kettle nature of the thinking of CTer Ben Holmes (who posts about 100 times every day at Amazon.com), I offer up this discussion from October 6 of this year (I won't go "off topic" again in this thread after I make my point here; I promise).... BEN HOLMES SCREAMS: YOU WANT TO CHERRY-PICK THE AUTOPSY REPORT!!! DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Everybody cherry-picks, Ben. LNers do it. CTers do it. Can't be helped. It's human nature and always will be. (And I already told you that same thing several times at this very forum in the past.) Plus.... Ben Holmes is a HUGE hypocrite when he tosses this statement up in my face.... "YOU WANT TO CHERRY-PICK THE AUTOPSY REPORT!!!" ....because YOU, Benny, will forever "cherry pick" the autopsy report. You LIKE the "somewhat into the occipital" verbiage (which is obviously inaccurate as far as an "absence of scalp and bone" is concerned, as the photos and X-rays AND Zapruder Film readily confirm for all time)....but you sure as heck HATE these THREE parts of that VERY SAME autopsy report, don't you Mr. Kettle?..... "It is our opinion that the deceased died as a result of two perforating gunshot wounds inflicted by high velocity projectiles fired by a person or persons unknown. The projectiles were fired from a point behind and somewhat above the level of the deceased." and.... "The fatal missile entered the skull above and to the right of the external occipital protuberance." and.... "The other missile...made its exit through the anterior surface of the neck." So, as we can easily see via the above examples of things that Ben will completely disregard (or label as "lies"), Hypocrite Ben Holmes is a much more blatant and brazen "cherry picker" of JFK's autopsy report than I have ever been. http://www.amazon.com/forum/history/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx33HXI3XVZDC8G&cdMsgID=Mx2TE33G766I1KP&cdMsgNo=7589&cdPage=304&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx3S6UAIF5802TL#Mx2TE33G766I1KP

There's not a DVP "lie" in sight. And yet Healy has determined that I have lied in "at least 30 posts" at Amazon. Have at least SOME pity on a man's weak bladder, will ya, Healy! Jiminy Christmas!

Here's something else of interest relating to the subjects of "The Rifle" and "Klein's Sporting Goods"....

Hear, hear! From a 2013 EF thread.... JIM DiEUGENIO SAID: I am really proud of the section on the Paines in my book. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: That figures. Defamation of character is always something to be proud of, isn't it Jimbo? None of that crap DiEugenio wrote in his last post [HERE] comes even close to showing Ruth Paine (or Michael Paine) had anything to do with a conspiracy to murder John Kennedy and/or frame Lee Oswald for that murder. DiEugenio's pathetic attempts to trash Mrs. Paine are sickening. I only wish I could persuade Ruth to start a slander lawsuit. She'd win, hands down. Does anybody have Ruth's phone number? Maybe I'll give her a call. DVP April 14, 2013 jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/04/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-87.html educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=20110

Addendum #5 (or maybe it's #6; I'm losing track).... JIM HARGROVE SAID: Tom.... The subject of this thread [at the Deep Politics Forum] is "The deposit slip that was never stamped by the bank." [...] The discussion currently going on at three different forums concerns DVP's attempt to discredit John Armstrong's discovery a few years ago that the infamous "Hidell" money order was never processed, cashed, or cancelled by a bank or other financial institution. Von Pein and [Greg] Parker have tried to suggest that some of the holes punched into the card actually represented cancellation by other financial institutions. This is clearly not true. The holes indicate the serial number of the money order and the exact amount of the face value, and nothing else. I showed other Oswald financial documents from c. 1963 to show how receiving (cashing) institutions stamped legitimate financial instruments. Your attempt to change the focus of the discussion to how the existing serial number fit into the probable date of issuance of the M.O. itself is irrelevant to the question of whether this document was cashed or deposited into a bank--any bank or any other financial institution. It wasn't. TOM SCULLY SAID: With all due respect, Jim, the more time and effort I put into doing my own research in reaction to your numerous presentations, the more I understand what you do not know and do not care to know. I've become convinced you have no idea what the specific FRB processing/clearing was for the yellow-tinted, tabulation card, aka the money order in the amount of $21.45. I have established the fact that the money order form sold at Dallas until close of business on 4 January, 1963, was processed by FRB and that processing included an FRB processing center operator manually reading the amount displayed on each blue-tinted money order and manually key punching holes into the money order card that denoted the amount the operator had manually read. So that is actual documentation of the FRB marking the blue-tinted money order tabulator card during processing, but the money order in the amount of $21.45 was on a yellow-tinted tabulator card with holes corresponding to the face amount already key punched in as it was created by the new Friden money order machine. No documentation as to how the accepting bank or the FRB processing actually did or did not mark the new yellow-tinted, post-January 4, 1963 money orders sold at the Dallas P.O. has actually been presented. GIL JESUS SAID: Not only did the FNB [First National Bank] of Chicago not stamp money orders, I guess they never stamped deposit slips as well. The alleged Klein's deposit slip of 3/13/63 (Waldman 10) has a date of 2/15/63 and is not stamped by the First National Bank of Chicago, which it should have been had it been deposited. JIM HARGROVE SAID: Gil, Mega thanks for pointing out that the First National Bank of Chicago deposit slip for the alleged Klein's money order wasn't stamped or processed either, just like the money order itself. I had noticed other problems with the so-called deposit slip, but not that. This whole thing is ludicrous. The WC's Waldman Exhibit #10 shows that the alleged deposit slip for the alleged money order for the alleged Hidell purchase of the rifle was dated 2/15/63, A MONTH BEFORE THE MONEY ORDER WAS ALLEGEDLY ISSUED!! Deposited nearly a month before it was issued?? DAVID VON PEIN SAID: I just realized today [November 14, 2015] that the incorrect date on the "Extra Copy" of the deposit ticket that Klein's filled out in March 1963 (pictured at the bottom of Waldman Exhibit No. 10) has only one inaccurate number printed on it, instead of two slipped digits. I had previously remarked to someone at one of the JFK forums in the last few days that TWO digits were written incorrectly on that deposit slip (the "2" and the "15" in the date), but when we look at Warren Commission Document 75, which is an FBI FD-302 report filed in November 1963 by three Chicago FBI agents, we see that the deposit that Klein's made which included the Hidell postal money order was actually not deposited on March 13, 1963, which was the day Klein's received the order form and money order from Oswald/Hidell in the mail. Per CD75, the deposit with the Hidell money order in it was sent by Klein's to First National Bank of Chicago on Friday, March 15, 1963, two days after Klein's received the Hidell order for the rifle. Here's what it says in CD75: "A deposit made with the bank on March 15, 1963, by Klein's Sporting Goods, Inc., 4540 West Madison Street, Chicago, Illinois, in the amount of $13,827.98, included two items in the amount of $21.45, and was processed by the bank on March 16, 1963." -- CD75, Page 668, Paragraph 4 So that means that only the "2" in the date—which is written as "2/15/63" on the extra copy of the deposit ticket—is inaccurate. The rest of the numbers are correct (per the info found in CD75). The 2 (February) should, of course, really be a 3 (March). Someone at Klein's must have still thought it was February when they wrote out that deposit slip on March 15th. But the key to knowing that the incorrect date on the deposit ticket was just a case of an innocent slipped digit is the fact that the total amount shown on the "2/15/63" deposit slip is identical to the penny when compared with the detailed summary sheet of Klein's 3/13/63 sales, which is also pictured in Waldman Exhibit 10. Both items show a total of $13,827.98. And a probable reason for why that "extra copy" was not stamped or marked in any way by the bank is because that piece of paper was probably never sent to the bank by Klein's. It's an "extra copy" that might have been retained by Klein's for its records only, and might not have gone to the bank with the original copy of the deposit ticket. But even if that extra copy did make it to the bank, it's also quite possible that only the FIRST (primary) copy of the deposit ticket gets stamped or marked by the bank. In the alternate scenario where ALL copies of the deposit record do get sent to First National by Klein's, the top copy is likely the only one that stays with the bank (and is marked or stamped), while any carbon copies get sent back to Klein's unmarked. Another possibility is: the extra copy of the deposit ticket was stamped by the bank—but on the BACK side of the deposit slip, instead of on the front of it.

BTW / FYI.... Tim Nickerson at John McAdams' forum recently posted a link to this high-quality color version of Lee Harvey Oswald's money order that I had never seen before.* Now, if Tom Scully is correct and if the Hidell/Oswald money order was part of the "new batch" of money orders that were punched at the post office instead of at the Federal Reserve Bank, then that money order linked above should be yellow-tinted. The old style money orders had a blue tint, says Tom. But I can't really tell what (if any) "tint" that color version of the money order possesses. Is it yellowish? Could be. (I'm partially color blind, so I'm at a disadvantage when it comes to determining colors.) ~shrug~ * And I'm assuming that the above color picture of the Hidell money order is not merely a "colorized" version that was taken from a black-and-white photo of the document (which, I suppose, is a possibility).

And the saga continues...... TOM SCULLY SAID: The purpose of Federal Reserve Bank clearing of postal money orders had been different for Dallas region Post Office issued money orders before January 5, 1963, than it was after. The FRB was paid an annual fee by the Postal Money order service to key-punch the face amount of each money order, into the money order, AKA the blue tinted tabulator card. After this operation, the money order card with its freshly key punched holes was returned to the automated reading/sorting process and the result was that a paper tape of the day's FRB money order processing was sent along with the key-punched money order cards t the national money order audit center in Kansas City. The paper tape contained machine readable data reconciling the amount owed to each bank in the federal reserve banking system for reimbursement by the Postmaster's money order account at the GAO. The pre-punched rectangular serial number machine code on each money order card determined the location of where money order had been issued and the FRB key-punched round holes determined the amount each issuing post office owed to the GAO account. When the FRB sent the day's money order processing to Kansas City with the reconciliation data tape, the K.C. money order office batch processed the 12 regional packets of money orders the FRB processing had organized. For Dallas-issued money orders sold beginning 5 Jan., 1963, a new process sequence began. These new yellow-tinted money orders came out of the new P.O. sales counter Friden M.O. machines with the face amount both printed and key punched into the money order AKA tabulator cards. When they reached the FRB to be processed, they could be handled much more quickly and cheaply because no operator any longer had to set each money order in a viewer and key-punch machine code holes corresponding with the face amount. The Postal money order service was able to cease paying the FRB in excess of $600,000 annually for the former key-punch service. The new style money orders were processed on new, faster machines and sorted and sent to a new postal audit/data center with the FRB reconciliation data recorded on magnetic tape. Unlike a check, a postal money order is a non-negotiable instrument and is considered void if endorsed more than once. [...] The $21.45 postal money order allegedly sold in Dallas in March, 1963 was of a new type destined for a new processing method by the FRB on new processing machinery and then it was routed to a new postal audit center in Washington where the US goverment and US Post Office investigators claimed it was located and retrieved and David noticed the familiar name of the postal official who retrieved it, J. Harold Marks, the man in the 1960 congressional hearing describing the FRB key-punching of postal money order face amounts. A check, unlike a postal money order, is a negotiable instrument of multiple endorsements, but....even a check, it turns out, is not required to receive an FRB processing endorsement --- CLICK HERE. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Thank you, Tom. The work you've put into researching this "Money Order" topic is staggering. Much appreciated. JEAN DAVISON SAID: Wow, Tom. "The Federal Reserve Bank punches the amount as it appears on them....They punch this amount into the money order." So is this, then, evidence of the long-missing "bank stamp" showing that the money order was cashed? Should we all shout "Eureka"? DAVID VON PEIN SAID: No, not quite, Jean. As Tom Scully explained, the Federal Reserve Bank stopped punching the round holes in the money orders as of January 5, 1963, two months before Lee Oswald purchased the famous "CE788" money order. So the punch holes in OSWALD'S money order were likely placed there by the post office at the time Oswald bought the M.O. (see Tom's earlier link from the 1962 Palm Beach newspaper article, linked again here). But this remark Tom made is quite interesting, isn't it?.... "Unlike a check, a postal money order is a non-negotiable instrument and is considered void if endorsed more than once." -- Tom Scully

DAVID VON PEIN SAID: And yet another addendum (~sigh~).... John Mytton at Duncan MacRae's JFK Assassination Forum provided me with THIS DOCUMENT from the year 1951 (also pictured below) relating to the manner in which U.S. Postal Money Orders were handled at that time. That 1951 information is probably not very useful or valid in most respects when compared to the procedures that were in place when Oswald bought his money order in 1963, but the '51 document does prove one thing (as does the information from 1960 provided earlier by Tom Scully) -- it proves that the Federal Reserve Bank definitely DID utilize a method of mechanically punching holes in postal money orders (at least as of 1951 and then, via Scully's info, 1960 as well). But the precise method by which U.S. Postal Money Orders were handled, processed, and marked (or punched) by the Federal Reserve Bank, circa 1963, has not yet been established with any certainty. My thanks to John Mytton for providing this 1951 postal document: TIM NICKERSON SAID: That's just more concise, easy to understand confirmation that the money order had to have been cashed. The legalese stuff that I've been reading lately just gives me a headache. DAVID VON PEIN SAID: Yeah, I've got a headache from it too. But the TWO most important things (IMO) that establish the 1963 Hidell money order as being a legitimate and valid document are: Oswald's writing on the money order (as determined by multiple handwriting analysts in 1964 and 1978 -- Cole, Cadigan, McNally, and Scott) and the Klein's "Pay To The Order Of First National Bank" stamp on the back of the money order. So we KNOW from the above two things that Oswald handled and wrote on that money order and Klein's Sporting Goods handled and stamped the same document. And the above two things are true, IMO, even without any other bank markings present on the document. Many CTers, naturally, disagree. They think (evidently) that somebody faked perfect "Oswald" handwriting (good enough to fool those four handwriting examiners who looked at the ORIGINAL money order in 1964 and 1978) AND the skillful plotters were able to somehow steal a rubber "Pay To The Order" stamp owned by Klein's Sporting Goods of Chicago, Illinois. (Either that, or the conspirators were able to somehow convince a representative from Klein's to jump on board the plotters' crowded "Let's Frame Oswald" cruise ship.) As we can see, the "conspiracy" options involved in making that CE788 money order a fake document are much harder to swallow than to just believe that it is a genuine document that wasn't stamped by anybody after Klein's stamped it (possibly because no such additional stamps or endorsements were required to be placed on it).

Another "Money Order" Addendum: Now we have an incredible find made by Tom Scully (which Scully posted at the aaj forum HERE on November 13, 2015). It's a PDF file of a congressional hearing regarding the post office and civil service that took place on March 30, 1960, three years before Oswald purchased his money order in Dallas. Here's the relevant passage from that 1960 hearing (complete PDF file linked below): "We use the machine method. The Federal Reserve bank punches the amount as it appears on them [money orders], and as it was cleared to them by the cashing bank. They punch that amount into the money order so if a figure is misread or if a figure has been raised it is punched for the erroneous amount by the Federal Reserve bank. When it comes out through our money order center, we process it through a tabulating machine which only reads the hole that is in there." -- J. Harold Marks; Finance Officer, Bureau of Finance, Post Office Department (March 30, 1960) SOURCE: https://bulk.resource.org/gao.gov/91-375/0000AA67.pdf RELEVANT PAGE: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-iJpYz9HKZXg/VkbVOuSUNYI/AAAAAAABIHc/GTOY48KIufg/s1600/1962andEarlierFRBpostalMO.jpg -------------------- So, perhaps Brian Castle and Mike Giampaolo and Jean Davison weren't wrong after all. It looks like at least SOME of the punch holes in U.S. Postal Money Orders issued prior to 1963 WERE, indeed, placed there by the Federal Reserve Bank as part of the processing of those money orders. Whether or not this exact same system was in place when Oswald's money order was purchased in Dallas, Texas, in March 1963, I really do not know. But it's an interesting piece of information nonetheless. Thank you, Tom Scully. As a side note to all this --- A rather amazing coincidence exists concerning the above testimony of Mr. J. Harold Marks of the Post Office Department. It just so happens that Mr. Marks is the very same person who took physical possession of the Hidell postal money order in Virginia on November 23, 1963, shortly after JFK's assassination (as confirmed in Commission Document 87). Small world, isn't it?

And, as I said in my previous post, that is exactly what DID happen with the Hidell money order --- i.e., Klein's stamped it with its rubber stamp ("PAY TO THE ORDER OF FIRST NATIONAL BANK"). But you, Sandy, think that FIRST NATIONAL would need to do the same thing in order to send it from First National to the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago....is that correct?

Addendum.... Another thought after reading this paragraph yet again: "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." Even if I am 100% wrong and completely off my rocker about what I said in Posts 11 and 47 in this thread, I still don't think Sandy Larsen has a leg to stand on. Why? Because even if the postal regulation cited above is referring only to markings that would appear on the back side of a U.S. Postal Money Order (versus showing up after the "PAY TO" line on the front of the M.O.)....so what? Under those circumstances, that regulation cited by Sandy would be referring to an endorsement that we all KNOW is already present on the Hidell money order, which is the Klein's stamp on the back endorsing the M.O. over to First National Bank "for credit to the accounts of persons designating payment so to be made" [citing the 762.29 postal regulation] -- with First National then becoming the second "payee". So there's nothing new or groundbreaking there at all, regardless of how that word "drawn" is interpreted.

Sandy, The entire starting point for your argument that occupies the title of this thread -- "Yes, postal money orders do require bank endorsements!" is flawed, based on what I said yesterday at 1:39 PM EST in Post 11. And even Jon G. Tidd agrees with me, as he said in Post 17. And Jon is apparently a lawyer. (Is that right, Jon? Are you?) Sandy said:

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

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

I've answered many of those questions in Healy's thread-starter. They were asked originally in 2007 by a rabid CTer named Ben Holmes. At that time, Holmes' list had just 21 questions on it. I answered them on January 11, 2007, here.... https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.conspiracy.jfk/9eZqPIn8vms/Mm7iJxysuW0J

QUESTIONS THAT ARE NEVER ANSWERED BY CONSPIRACY THEORISTS.... JFK conspiracy theorists are usually pretty good at asking questions regarding President John F. Kennedy's 1963 assassination. But conspiracists aren't so good at coming up with any answers themselves to many of the big-ticket questions that lone-assassin believers have for them. For example, these eight inquiries: 1.) Where are those other non-C2766 [non-Mannlicher-Carcano] bullets? Who hid those bullets? When did they hide them? 2.) What other weapons were used? 3.) Why is it that out of all the bullets and fragments connected with the murder of President Kennedy, not one of the presumed-to-exist non-Carcano bullets/fragments turned out to be large enough to be tested so as to eliminate Lee Harvey Oswald's Mannlicher-Carcano rifle as the weapon that fired those bullets/fragments? More good fortune for the ever-lucky plotters? 4.) If the Single-Bullet Theory is false, what anti-SBT theory replaces it? And if the throat shot was a frontal shot, how could two bullets fail to go through JFK's soft flesh without damaging any parts of JFK's back/neck to account for the double-stoppage of the bullets? And where did those two bullets go? If the throat wound was an entry wound, then Kennedy should have had two bullets in his upper back and throat regions when he was autopsied. Where are those two bullets? 5.) Where could a frontal gunman have been located to have caused a large exit wound in the right-rear portion of JFK's head (which is a wound that almost all conspiracy theorists think existed, even though such a rear head wound is not visible at all in the President's autopsy photographs and X-rays)? 6.) Why does everything lead to Lee Harvey Oswald, including every scrap of the physical evidence in the whole case, if LHO was really innocent? A patsy plot, right? Then why doesn't Mr. Oswald name some names of his co-conspirators during the two days he was in police custody, instead of saying the Dallas Police Department framed him via his totally-misunderstood "I'm Just A Patsy" declaration, which is a comment that has Oswald clearly aiming the blame at the DPD and not the Mob, CIA, etc.? 7.) If a pre-arranged "solo patsy" plot really existed prior to 11/22/63 (as per the plot proposed by kooks like Jim Garrison and Oliver Stone and many other conspiracy theorists), then why on Earth did the conspirators try to kill JFK by firing multiple guns from different angles in Dallas' Dealey Plaza? Were those plotters just playing it safe? Or were they merely retarded idiots who wanted the plot to be uncovered within minutes of shooting the President from so many different angles? 8.) Related to the latter portion of #6 above --- Why was Lee Harvey Oswald willing to remain so tight-lipped for 46 hours if he truly was a "patsy" and knew at least something about the plot swirling around him (and even most of the JFK conspiracy kooks who populate the world think Oswald knew something)? Or was Lee Harvey truly the bonehead to end all boneheads and either (somehow) knew nothing of any plot to murder the President, or was willing to take the lone rap for two murders he never committed (including the murder of Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippit)? David Von Pein April 4, 2008 May 2012

Thank you, Jon Tidd, for all of that information. Very helpful indeed. So I guess I was incorrect about Klein's being the ONLY "payee" as far as the Hidell money order is concerned. I accept your explanation regarding First National Bank becoming the "second payee" after Klein's endorsed the back of the money order. Although it still seems a bit strange to me to have the bank considered a "payee", since it's really KLEIN'S money, regardless of where it's being stored. But, oh well. ~shrug~ But, it would appear by your first comment above ("DVP is correct here") that Sandy's cited example of Regulation 762.29c does NOT mean what Sandy thinks it does. Correct? In other words, since that word "drawn" is included in that paragraph Sandy cited, that would mean that any money order "drawn in favor of financial organizations" (quote from 762.29c) would have had the financial organization's name shown on the front of the money order next to the "PAY TO" line, correct? But we know the Hidell money order has "Klein's Sporting Goods" written on the "PAY TO" line. So, Jon, is it back to the drawing board for the conspiracy theorists on this matter or not? I'm still perplexed by some of the language. Thank you.

So the man who told Groucho Marx on the "You Bet Your Life" radio show in January 1952 that a letter could be delivered overnight from California to New York was just lying through his teeth. Is that what you think, DGH? Maybe "they" were already starting to frame Oswald way back in '52, huh?

Sandy, All of that legalistic language can be quite confusing as to exact meaning. But 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? The language has me scratching my head as to WHO IS WHO there. ~shrug~ But upon reading the page you linked to a little further, Paragraph B is quite interesting. That section seems to imply that NO endorsement IS an acceptable way to handle a U.S. Postal Money Order (emphasis is mine).... --- QUOTE: --- 762.29b --- Endorsement of disbursement postal money orders by a financial organization under the payee's authorization.... When a Disbursement Postal Money Order is credited by a financial organization to the payee's account under his authorization, the financial organization may use an endorsement substantially as follows: Credit to the account of the within-named payee in accordance with payee's or payees' instructions. Absence of endorsement guaranteed. A financial organization using this form of endorsement shall be deemed to guarantee to all subsequent endorsers and to the Postal Service that it is acting as an attorney in fact for the payee or payees, under his or their authorization. --- END QUOTE --- Now, does the above merely mean that even if Klein's had not put their "Pay to the order of First National Bank" stamp on the back of the M.O., that First National would still have credited it to Klein's account? Or does "Absence of endorsement guaranteed" mean something else? ~shrug~ However, the words "to all subsequent endorsers" would seem to imply that it's likely that a money order WILL later be endorsed by other institutions. But I'm still confused a bit by the language. EDIT/ADDENDUM --- And I also just now noticed that the heading for everything that follows in Section 762.29 of those postal regulations cited by Sandy Larsen is this heading: "Endorsement of disbursement postal money orders by payees." The key words there are "BY PAYEES". 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. So I think that heading of that regulation--alone--makes Sandy's assumption that the BANKS were required to endorse U.S. Postal Money Orders to be an unproven assumption based on Postal Regulation 762.29. https://books.google.com/books?id=sfQIBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA213&lpg=PA213&dq=CFR+Title+39+762.29&source=bl&ots=0yisztpk2H&sig=vHRvehU3ARSDQwLZU6hT6bfC1UQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDUQ6AEwBmoVChMIoY6KuvmKyQIVC-RjCh3s8QEt#v=onepage&q=CFR%20Title%2039%20762.29&f=false As a side note, let me state that I appreciate the tremendous amount of work and effort and Google searching that Sandy Larsen has done in the last few days to try and nail down details relating to this controversial "Money Order" topic. Excellent work, Sandy.