Sandy Larsen

I am officially conceding on the cut-corner issue.

I believe that, while the old-style punch cards (pre-1963) did have a cut corner, the new ones did not.

The reason I held to my earlier position is because the cut-corner was an improvement over the previously un-cut version of the card, and had become the standard in IBM punch cards. It made so sense to me that such a feature would be removed, because in doing so it would allow cards to be inserted upside-down or flipped over. And that would lead to cards not being readable. Or so I thought.

Well, a few days ago something occurred to me. Wouldn't it be nice *if* the cards could be inserted into the card reader in any orientation and still be readable. And that's when it clicked. That indeed could be done as long as there were unused columns in the card. An extra hole could be punched which would indicate to the machine what the orientationof the card was, and the machine could adjust the read code accordingly.

In this thread

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=22434

I showed that the punched holes on the Hidell MO would be decoded as

2202130462 P - [dash]

The number clearly represented the MO's serial number. But I didn't understand the purpose of the P or dash holes.

But now I see that one of these could have been used by the machine to determine the orientation of the card. (Maybe both would be needed for that purpose, depending upon the peculiarities of the machine.)

Now, this idea could be the case only if ALL the cards had the presumed "orientation hole(s)" punched. Well, Lance Payette and DVP have each posted samples of the post-1962 cards and the both have the "P" and "-" characters punched, just like the Hidell MO. If we are to assume all the cards had these punched -- a reasonable assumption -- then indeed one or both of those characters could have been used for orientation detection. And if that were the case, that would explain the elimination of the cut-corner feature.

I believe that this is the case, as it makes a lot of sense. Also given that the extra holes appear to have been added when the cut-corner was eliminated. I wouldn't be surprised if the sorting machine used the orientation information to automatically correct the orientation. Thus eliminating one more step in the sorting process.

Are you familiar with those issues at all? Have you researched them? Or are they irrelevant to you?

What has taken place with the money order strikes me as more in the vein of, "We want the money order to be bogus to fit our theory, ergo it is bogus." It strikes me as what I see too often: The CT True Believers will not be satisfied unless no one was who he appeared to be, no piece of evidence can be trusted, everyone was lying, everyone was part of the conspiracy, etc.

I hope you're not characterizing serious JFK researchers that way Lance, if you are, I suggest you spend more time on the forum getting to know some.

I have no agenda. If I had to bet my life savings, I'd place my money on "The man shot by Jack Ruby had no knowing involvement in the assassination of JFK." But I'm also sane enough to realize I could be 100% wrong. I refuse to be lumped with the crazies, those CT True Believers for whom their particular CT has become a fundamentalist religion.

Again, I hope you're not characterizing serious JFK researchers that way.

Frankly, I'm pretty surprised at what I have managed to turn up with some minimal Internet sleuthing while I sit home with the flu, and even more surprised that it would be causing any controversy here. Perhaps the question should be, "Why did Gil Jesus, David Josephs, John Armstrong, Martha Moyer and Ray Gallagher not find in literally years of research, going back to the nineties, what Barely Interested Lance has found in a day and a half?"

Not fair, Lance. First, researchers like these don't always direct their efforts on one specific issue, like this MO bank stamp thing. Second, not all researchers had the luxury of a well developed Internet to do the hard work for them. Third, not all researchers have a legal background to help them know what to search for. And, last but not least, need I remind you that even you have not found the answer as to whether bank stamps for postal money orders were required in 1963.

[Lance] said he was looking at a narrow issue.

But Tommy, even as a "narrow issue" it makes no sense whatsoever to conclude that the lack of bank markings is irrelevant simply because a number is stamped on the top-left front of the money order. Even DVP's conclusion that the MO had to have been processed -- because Oswald's handwriting is present -- is superior to Lance's (tentative) conclusion. At least it would have taken more than minimal effort to forge the handwriting. Forging a number is nothing compared to that! I don't see how Lance could have entertained the thought of a forged MO, ignoring the handwriting issue, yet place such importance on the number.

Thanks to DVP for posting the images from the article. I had no luck when I tried to do so.

As stated in the 1966 article, the system had been in place since 1957. File Locator Numbers had been used since that time. It is my understanding that this article is talking only about items for which the U.S. Treasury has the ultimate responsibility - Treasury checks, postal money orders and other federal instruments.

Since the article specifically refers to postal money orders and says the processing was "quite similar" to that for Treasury checks, the fact that the specimen in the article is a Treasury Check rather than a postal money order seems irrelevant to me. It is remotely possible that postal money orders did not receive File Locator Numbers, but (1) the author makes the File Locator Number sound like the greatest invention since sliced bread and the key to the system that had been in place since 1957, and (2) the Klein's postal money order has what certainly looks like a File Locator Number.

The File Locator Number tells the Treasury Department where within the Department the item is physically located. I assume the 138 would be a box, bin, shelf or building. I don't believe the number would have anything to do with Dallas or any other geographical location. (I did find two references to "TUS-3515, Chart of Locator Numbers" but had no luck locating the actual chart.)

The File Locator number doesn't just mean the item has been paid. It means the item has arrived at its final destination in the process (i.e., the Treasury Department), been examined and determined to have been properly paid, had its information converted to magnetic tape and a File Locator Number assigned, and then placed into storage. In short, the item has reached the end of its road.

The Treasury Department's records retention manual would dictate how long old postal money orders are stored. I didn't find the manual, but I did see references to 5 years and 10 years. There is no way a postal money order from 1963 would still be in storage.

If the ten digits are a File Locator Number, I am satisfied this is the end of the story. To perpetuate the "mystery" would require an extremely far-fetched scenario: The conspirators had an inside contact at the Treasury Department who was able to place a File Locator Number, and they hoped no one would notice the absence of endorsements by FNB and the Federal Reserve Bank. To me, a File Locator Number would pretty well say, "Nothing else matters."

Edit: This is becoming my full-time job, but I did find a newspaper article from 1970 stating that the GSA records retention center in Mechanicsburg, PA, is where all old Treasury checks were stored and that they were destroyed every 7 years. Every month, 60,000,000 checks were shredded. Each year, the center received 400,000 requests from Treasury to locate an item in storage.

Lance,

A ten-digit File Locator Number was no doubt printed on postal money orders in 1963. And the ten-digit number stamped on the Hidell MO is obviously a File Locator Number, or at least is meant to be.

You said earlier:

It appears that they are the "File Locator Number" placed by the Treasury Department, which would seemingly be a pretty definite indication that the money order was processed.

and now:

If the ten digits are a File Locator Number, I am satisfied this is the end of the story.

I respect you for you legal acumen, but to draw that conclusion IMO is utterly ridiculous. A File Locator Number could have easily been stamped on the money order by *anyone* . Isn't that obvious?

With the exception of the handwriting on the MO, I myself would have no trouble faking that money order as we see it today (a photocopy). Or even when I was a teenager. For heaven sakes, forgeries are not an uncommon occurrence. That's why I am astonished by your conclusion.

You yourself have provided proof that stamping bank endorsements on postal money orders in 1963 was at the very least practiced, and that automated machines used at the time were capable of quickly reading money-order punch-holes and stamping a bank endorsement without slowing the process down. In contrast, nobody has provided any evidence that the presence of stamps was optional. (And no, you can't used the the Hidell money order as evidence of that, given that it is the object of suspicion.)

The reason suspicion is being placed on the authenticity of the money order isn't because of missing bank stamps. It's because of a combination of numerous irregularities which, as a whole, scream "something fishy is going on here." The presumably-missing bank stamps is a tiny part of the puzzle.

You said:

To perpetuate the "mystery" would require an extremely far-fetched scenario: The conspirators had an inside contact at the Treasury Department who was able to place a File Locator Number, and they hoped no one would notice the absence of endorsements by FNB and the Federal Reserve Bank.

No. All that need be done is this:

• Acquire the services of a handwriting forger.
• Get a fake ID made for this person, using the name A. Hidell. (Not a big deal... I've seen fake IDs used by underaged teenagers to buy alchohol.)
• Have this person purchase a $21.45 money order using the ID.
• Either bribe the postal worker to stamp a "Mar 12 1963" date on the MO, or alter the stamp later .
• Purchase a stamp to mark the MO with a file locator number.
• Done!

If you plan ahead and have more time, there are other, easier ways of accomplishing the forgery.

You said:

The Treasury Department's records retention manual would dictate how long old postal money orders are stored. I didn't find the manual, but I did see references to 5 years and 10 years.

FYI, as I said earlier, money orders were destroyed after two years. According to CFR 171.5(a) (1970) "Money orders are destroyed 2 years after payment, and photostats cannot thereafter be furnished. [34 FR 1722. Feb. 5 1969]"

Looking at the un-cut money orders, I think I see a feature on them which would allow them to be oriented correctly for machine processing. There is a red circle on the face of each where a square hole is punched out, along with another to the right, and third directly below. I would think that would suffice to determine the orientation of the cards.

Doug, the purpose of the cut corner is to make it QUICKLY obvious that a card among a stack of them is oriented incorrectly. The red circle you cite would require looking at each individual card... a slow process. (If you were to look at each individual card, the red circle would hardly be necessary as it would be obvious if a card were upside-down or flipped over.)

Excellent post, Lance. Thanks for spending the time researching this and reporting on it.

I sure hope you stick around. Lord knows we could use someone who can read legalese. What you've already posted and explained is pretty amazing.

This morning I found the following paragraph repeated in successive issues of The United States Official Postal Guide, all predating 1951:

Payments to Banks - When an [money] order purporting to have been receipted by the payee, or the first endorsee, is deposited in a bank for collection, the postmaster at the office drawn upon may effect payment to the bank, provided there be a guarantee on the part of the bank that the latter will refund the amount if it afterward appear that the depositor was not the owner of the order. An order thus paid should bear upon its back the impression of the stamp of the bank. The person receiving payment in the bank's behalf on an order thus receipted, the signature of the payee or endorsee being left undisturbed, may be required to write his name upon the back of the order.

Of course this predates both FRB processing and punch card MOs. But it does indicate that the bank stamping of money orders was a welll established practice, having been performed for at least a couple decades that I saw. The above paragraph had disappeared by the time the final Official Postal Guide was published in 1953 (or 1954?). But I think that was a victim of abridgment , not a change in practice or law.

Klein's didn't just endorse the money order.... Klein's used a "special endorsement," thus making its bank the payee of the money order. The Klein's stamp actually reads "Pay to the order of First National Bank." Which makes Klein's a drawer and First National Bank the payee.

I understand you are trying to salvage a theory, but trying to make the bank into a payee is pounding round pegs into square holes.

Actually I just thought you hadn't noticed the "pay to the order of" stamp. I don't know if endorsing over to the bank would have made any difference. If it were a check we are talking about, and today rather than 1963, then definitely the bank would be required to endorse it either way. FRBs require it. I just don't know if that was necessarily the case for money orders in 1963.

The Klein's stamp was a garden-variety deposit stamp with the company's account number on it. It is better practice to say, "For deposit only" than "Pay to the order of," but both types of deposit endorsements are very common and widely accepted. Most common is probably "Pay to the Order of Bank XYZ for Deposit Only to Account 1234567." These are called restrictive endorsements. The depository bank does not then become a payee who is separately required to endorse the instrument as it makes it way to its ultimate destination.

Okay. But let me ask you a couple questions: 1) Isn't it true that if I was the payee of the MO and I endorsed it with "pay to the order of Lance Payette," you would then be the payee? If so, then why not the bank if I did the same with them? 2) Why does Klein's stamp even have the words "pay to the order of?" Why not just "for deposit only" alone?

Surely, there have to be scads of 1963-era money orders around.

I don't understand why you say that. I mean, if you're talking about ones that were processed. Those were boxed up for two years and then destroyed. I can't think of a reason why there would be any left at all these days. Even if a handful somehow escaped their demise, it seems that people would have tossed them in the waste basket by now.

EDIT FOR BREAKING NEWS:

Looks interesting. I'll study it later when I have more time.

I have discovered a highly significant item that cuts against my previous position! The following appears in the court's opinion in UNITED STATES v. CAMBRIDGE TRUST COMPANY, 300 F.2d 76 (First Circuit 1962):

From October 1956 to January 1958 one Ralph Porter purchased 699 postal money orders payable to himself. The orders were in the usual form and each bore on its face the legend "Void If Altered." Porter cleverly raised each order about ninety dollars and then transferred them to E. M. F. Electric Supply Company, Inc., by the endorsement: "Pay to E. M. F. Electric Co. Ralph Porter, Payee." E. M. F. delivered each order to the appellee bank, referred to hereinafter sometimes as the Bank, for deposit to the credit of its account with the endorsement: "For deposit only E. M. F. Electric Supply Co. and Camera Exchange" Printed on the deposit slip accompanying each order was the statement that in receiving items for deposit the Bank "acts only as depositor's collecting agent and assumes no responsibility beyond the exercise of due care" and that "all items are credited subject to final payment in cash or solvent credits." The Bank stamped each order with its usual clearing house stamp reading: "Pay to the Order of Any Bank, Banker or Trust Co. Prior Endorsements Guaranteed Cambridge Trust Company" and transmitted the orders to the First National Bank of Boston for collection. That bank in turn presented each order to the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston for payment, and it paid the full face amount of each order as raised.

So this certainly suggests that the Klein's money order should have been stamped by First National Bank of Chicago. The question would be whether this was mandatory, standard practice, or what.

I admittedly skipped the Postal Money Order class in law school, but there is only one "payee" - here, Klein's. The money order was "drawn in favor of" Klein's. Klein's, as the payee, then "endorses" the money order. Klein's deposits the money order in its bank, which is a member of the Federal Reserve system; it is the "depository bank" but neither a payee nor an endorser.

Klein's didn't just endorse the money order.... Klein's used a "special endorsement," thus making its bank the payee of the money order. The Klein's stamp actually reads "Pay to the order of First National Bank." Which makes Klein's a drawer and First National Bank the payee.

(If Klein's had endorsed the money over to some third party, that party would have become an "additional endorser" and could have deposited the money in its bank.) Klein's bank as the depository bank credits the money order to Klein's account, as indicated by the stamp on the back. The stamp is the depository bank's guarantee to the Federal Reserve bank that Klein's endorsement is genuine and the money order has been paid. (If the money order had been endorsed by Klein's over to a third party which deposited it in its bank, that bank's stamp would have guaranteed the genuineness of all endorsements, including Klein's.) Klein's bank, as the "presenting bank," then forwards the money order to the Federal Reserve bank, which credits the presenting bank and sends the money order to the Postal Service. I will defer to anyone who is more knowledgeable, but this is how I read the current regulations and understand negotiable instruments to work.

Are there piles of 1963 (or 1964 or 1965) money orders bearing some evidence of processing different from the Klein's M.O. (perhaps there are - I'm sincerely asking)?

Of course there aren't any cleared money orders to be found... they were never in the public domain and were destroyed two years after being processed. Any evidence there is long gone.

If there are not, I'm not seeing anything inherently suspicious about the fact that the Klein's money order bears no stamp (apart from Klein's deposit stamp) indicating processing by the depository bank or the Federal Reserve. Surely the definitive question has to be, "Is there something different about this money order versus the tens of millions of other ones deposited in local banks and processed through the Federal Reserve in 1963 or thereabouts?" If the answer is yes - OK, that's extremely noteworthy.

Subject to being corrected, my belief is that the stamp we do see on the back of the Klein's money order would be all we would expect to see if the m.o. had in fact been processed through the system.

You make that conclusion based on seeing just one money order? The one that is suspect? Doesn't make sense to me.

As I dive into this issue, I continue to be struck by the fact that the experts continue to assure us there "should be" evidence of processing but never seem to provide examples; they just assume there "should be."

The evidence suggesting there should be bank markings is as follows:

1. There is a section on the back side of the money order set aside for bank markings.

2. In the note printed above that area, it is stated that only one endorsement is allowed, and that bank stamps are not counted toward that maximum. Implying that bank stamps are expected.

3. In 1951 (if I remember correctly) it was decided that postal money orders should be processed the same way as checks were -- via Federal Reserve Banks (FRB). And so the Postal Service was issued a Federal Reserve Routing Number, which was printed on postal money orders, just as bank checks have their routing numbers printed on them. With money orders being processed the same way as checks, one would naturally expect to see bank markings on them just as one sees them on cleared checks.

4. FRBs require banks to endorse checks before handing them over to them. Since money orders were supposedly being handled the same way as checks, one would think they would require the same bank endorsement.

How is it possible that no one in the past decades has located someone who could definitively say, "This was the process in 1963, this is what should be on a processed money order, and this is what 138 4159796 means"?

Someone had to have taken the initiative. Nobody did. It's as simple as that. I wish someone would have. I'm sure there are still people living who know the answer to the question. The problem is finding them.

Lipsey's testimony and subsequent statements are discussed in detail in chapter 17 of patspeer.com. Here is section in which I discuss his subsequent statements.

The Return of Richard Lipsey

And, speaking of strange... As the country neared the 50th anniversary of Kennedy's death, Richard Lipsey re-appeared in a series of interviews and articles in which he pushed that Oswald acted alone. (While there are probably more, I have come across a November 2013 article on Lipsey in Country Roads Magazine, an 11-17-13 article on Lipsey in the Baton Rouge Advocate, an 11-20-13 article on Lipsey in The New Orleans Times-Picayune, an 11-22-13 interview of Lipsey on radio station WKRF, and an 11-22-13 interview of Lipsey on C-SPAN2.) Now, it's not so strange that Lipsey would reappear as the country neared the 50th anniversary. He was an important witness, after all. No, what's strange is the content of his interviews. He said he'd been impressed with Gerald Posner's book Case Closed, and that he also supported Vincent Bugliosi's book Reclaiming History, even though he had never actually got around to reading it.

Well, this might lead one to believe Lipsey had changed his mind, and that he no longer stood by what he'd told the HSCA back in 1978. Beyond claiming that "the direction" of the bullets as determined at autopsy supported that the shots came from behind, after all, he avoided detailed discussion of the President's wounds. One might conclude, then, that he no longer stood by his earlier account of the autopsy, an account that was totally at odds with the autopsy as presented by Posner and Bugliosi.

But one would almost certainly be wrong. In one of the interviews, Lipsey let it slip that he'd studied the FBI's report on the autopsy, and that he largely agreed with it. This report claimed that no passage connecting the back wound with the throat wound had been discovered during the autopsy. This was precisely what Lipsey had told the HSCA. Well, if Lipsey had subsequently come to believe there had been such a passage, well, then, why didn't he say so?

When one sifts through another article on Lipsey, this one published in The Advocate back on 9-6-92, for that matter, one finds even more reason to believe Lipsey never backed off from his 1978 recollections. The article claimed: "Lipsey said he also spoke years later with two other men in the room, Lt. Sam Bird, who was in charge of the honor guard that carried the casket from Air Force One to the ambulance and from the ambulance into the hospital, and FBI agent Francis O'Neill. Lipsey said that a few months ago O'Neill let him read the report he submitted after the autopsy. "I agreed with, like, 90 percent of what he said, and I'm sure the 10 percent I didn't agree with wasn't because he was correct or I was correct," Lipsey said. "It was because... after 30 years your memory gets a little foggy. His report that was written one hour after the autopsy really corroborates my way of thinking."

O'Neill's report, of course, claimed the bullet creating the back wound did not enter the body. While it's possible Lipsey thought this an understandable mistake that was cleared up the next day, it's hard to see how he could think such a thing, and 1) claim his disagreements with O'Neill (who never believed the bullet entered the body) were due to the passage of time, and 2) still claim O'Neill's report "corroborates my way of thinking."

And there's yet another reason to suspect Lipsey never wavered from his statements to the HSCA. In none of these post-HSCA interviews did Lipsey bring up his earlier claim a bullet entered low on the back of the head and exited from the throat. But more to the point, in none of these interviews did the interviewer point out that the "official" story pushed by the men to whom Lipsey was now deferring--Posner and Bugliosi--holds that no bullet of any kind entered low on the back of the head, and that, as a consequence, no discussion of a bullet entering low on the back of the head could have been overheard by Lipsey during the autopsy. And that Lipsey's statements to the HSCA were thereby balderdash...

In fact, these interviews failed to mention Lipsey's ever saying anything at odds with the Posner/Bugliosi version of the Oswald-did-it scenario.

But he was not always so careful. A 10-31-09 article on Lipsey found on 225BatonRouge.com, for example, claimed that upon re-reading his statements to the HSCA, Lipsey, "notes that some of his responses were not as clean and concise as they could have been." He didn't admit he was wrong, mind you. The article then discussed the autopsy in some detail, and claimed the "doctors concluded there were three entry wounds: one in the lower neck, one in the upper neck/lower skull region and one at the rear crown of the head." Well, this was just bizarre; one might guess that the writer of this article, LSU Professor, James E Shelledy, was trying to hide that the bullet hole now claimed to be the fatal bullet hole, the one on the crown of the head, was not observed or discussed at the autopsy. To wit, Shelledy then offered "Several years later, second opinions by doctors determined Kennedy was hit by only two bullets." So, yeah, Shelledy made a strange mistake, and this mistake allowed him to conceal that the wound now claimed to be the fatal entrance wound was not observed by any witness to the autopsy, including Lipsey, and that Lipsey also failed to recall any discussion of such a wound.

A look back at Lipsey's words to the HSCA, however, put this strange passage in context, and make it clear Lipsey was responsible for the description of three bullet entrances, and not Shelledy. Lipsey told the HSCA's investigators: "as I remember them there was one bullet that went in the back of the head that exited and blew away part of his face. And that was sort of high up, not high up but like this little crown on the back of your head right there, three or four inches above your neck. And then the other one entered at more of less the top of the neck, the other one entered more or less at the bottom of the neck." And to this, he later added: "I feel that there was really no entrance wound --maybe I said that --in the rear of his head. There was a point where they determined the bullet entered the back of his head but I believe all of that part of his head was blown. I mean I think it just physically blew away that part of his head. You know, just like a strip right across there or may have been just in that area -- just blew it out."

So, there it is. The entrance by the crown, to Lipsey's recollection, was the rear entrance to the large head wound he claimed had been described as a wound of both entrance and exit. It was not the small red spot in the cowlick later "discovered" by the Clark Panel. Well, it follows, then, that Lipsey thought this large wound was later found to be an exit for the bullet entering on the "upper neck/lower skull". Lipsey had, after all, no recollection of an entrance wound in the cowlick.

And this goes to show that Lipsey, as late as 2009, still believed the doctors had on the night of the autopsy concluded the large head wound was a tangential wound of both entrance and exit. And that they only subsequently decided that this wound was connected to the wound at the upper neck/lower skull.

We have good reason to doubt, then, that Lipsey ever changed his mind about what he told the HSCA. He supported O'Neill, who claimed there was no passage from the back wound into the body. And he continued, as late as 2009, to claim the doctors initially concluded the large head wound was a wound of both entrance and exit.

It seems clear from this, moreover, that Lipsey, who left the military in 1964 to embark on a long and prosperous career as an arms dealer and big game hunter, wanted it both ways. Much as Governor Connally, and FBI agent Frank O'Neill, before him, he wanted to go on the record as saying Oswald did it by all himself, even though his personal recollections were in conflict with that conclusion. Strange. And sad.

Interesting, Pat. Thanks for writing and posting it.

If we accept Lipsey's testimony as fact -- something I'm inclined to do -- it means that Humes said during the autopsy that a bullet went in through the cowlick area. But by the following day he rejected that idea and claimed that it was the EOP bullet that caused the head damage.

Years later the HSCA relocated Humes' EOP wound right back to the cowlick area, with Humes protesting all the way. How weird is that?

Lipsey was listening closely to the autopsy doctors and, from what he was able to gather, the EOP wound was not necessarily at the EOP. He believed it might have been lower. He also stated that the doctors believed this wound was caused by a bullet that exited JFK's throat.

That's right. And in fact he said the doctors were *certain* about that, that the near-EOP bullet exited the throat.

I mentioned this before, but I believe that Lipsey's description of the wounds may very well be what Humes put down in his first report that he burned.

I'm reasonably informed about the money order issue but am not following the significance of this thread. Here is a 1963 postal money order that does not have the corner cut. (Weirdly, the payee is the same as the 1961 example in the OP: Harry Smuckler.) The Wikipedia article on punched cards states, "Some cards have one upper corner cut so that cards not oriented correctly, or cards with different corner cuts, could be easily identified." So it doesn't appear that a corner cut is essential.

1_af1f64b76362ea939a7fa6537ea4b468.jpg

Thanks for posting that, Lance.

The money order I posted was issued when the Federal Reserve Bank was charged with punching the amount codes (with round holes). The one you posted was issued later, when Postal workers were charged with that duty.

I wonder what the deal is with Harry Smuckler being sent 1 cent money orders. And why they still exist. Very, very odd.

May I ask where you got that photo from? I'd like to see the back side if possible.

It looks like I am wrong about the corner. But given the oddity of the two MOs, I'm not quite ready to concede yet.

If I am wrong (and I think I probably am), I suspect that that the cut corner was removed when they switched over to the new cards that were punched by Postal workers. Though it makes no sense for them to do that.

BTW, I'm not of the opinion that the news article is showing a card with no cut corner. To me it looks like they are holding the card upside-down, so that the cut corner is located on the opposite corner. Posing for the photo and not paying attention to the card.

P.S. Does your wife know if Oswald was known to speak Russian there in Minsk?

Top left corner (looking at the front)?

Yep! The registration cutout is missing. There's no way the Hidell money order could have been fed into the card reader as-is. LOL

I noticed this last night, and Chris Newton noticed it today (I think).

What feature of the M.O. allows it to be aligned face up or face down in a sorter?

The M.O. illustration in the documentation in Armstrong's archive shows a corner removed that would then allow the card to be orientated. The extant M.O. appears rectangular and no corners are missing.

I was gonna bring this up in a day or two. (Because the forum is wearing me out.) But here goes...

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=22447

Nice catch, Chris!

Here's an IBM punch card that was used in the 1960s to program computers:

Here's a 1961 postal money order whose design was based on the IBM punch card:

Now, here's the 1963 Hidell money order:

Notice anything missing from the Hidell money order? (Or rather, not missing?)

Hint: Ask Chris Newton.

EDIT: I no longer believe this to be an issue. Post-1962 cards no longer used the cut-corner feature. See post 41 on page 3.

Lipsey's testimony and subsequent statements are discussed in detail in chapter 17 of patspeer.com. Here is section in which I discuss his subsequent statements.

The Return of Richard Lipsey

And, speaking of strange... As the country neared the 50th anniversary of Kennedy's death, Richard Lipsey re-appeared in a series of interviews and articles in which he pushed that Oswald acted alone. (While there are probably more, I have come across a November 2013 article on Lipsey in Country Roads Magazine, an 11-17-13 article on Lipsey in the Baton Rouge Advocate, an 11-20-13 article on Lipsey in The New Orleans Times-Picayune, an 11-22-13 interview of Lipsey on radio station WKRF, and an 11-22-13 interview of Lipsey on C-SPAN2.) Now, it's not so strange that Lipsey would reappear as the country neared the 50th anniversary. He was an important witness, after all. No, what's strange is the content of his interviews. He said he'd been impressed with Gerald Posner's book Case Closed, and that he also supported Vincent Bugliosi's book Reclaiming History, even though he had never actually got around to reading it.

Well, this might lead one to believe Lipsey had changed his mind, and that he no longer stood by what he'd told the HSCA back in 1978. Beyond claiming that "the direction" of the bullets as determined at autopsy supported that the shots came from behind, after all, he avoided detailed discussion of the President's wounds. One might conclude, then, that he no longer stood by his earlier account of the autopsy, an account that was totally at odds with the autopsy as presented by Posner and Bugliosi.

But one would almost certainly be wrong. In one of the interviews, Lipsey let it slip that he'd studied the FBI's report on the autopsy, and that he largely agreed with it. This report claimed that no passage connecting the back wound with the throat wound had been discovered during the autopsy. This was precisely what Lipsey had told the HSCA. Well, if Lipsey had subsequently come to believe there had been such a passage, well, then, why didn't he say so?

When one sifts through another article on Lipsey, this one published in The Advocate back on 9-6-92, for that matter, one finds even more reason to believe Lipsey never backed off from his 1978 recollections. The article claimed: "Lipsey said he also spoke years later with two other men in the room, Lt. Sam Bird, who was in charge of the honor guard that carried the casket from Air Force One to the ambulance and from the ambulance into the hospital, and FBI agent Francis O'Neill. Lipsey said that a few months ago O'Neill let him read the report he submitted after the autopsy. "I agreed with, like, 90 percent of what he said, and I'm sure the 10 percent I didn't agree with wasn't because he was correct or I was correct," Lipsey said. "It was because... after 30 years your memory gets a little foggy. His report that was written one hour after the autopsy really corroborates my way of thinking."

O'Neill's report, of course, claimed the bullet creating the back wound did not enter the body. While it's possible Lipsey thought this an understandable mistake that was cleared up the next day, it's hard to see how he could think such a thing, and 1) claim his disagreements with O'Neill (who never believed the bullet entered the body) were due to the passage of time, and 2) still claim O'Neill's report "corroborates my way of thinking."

And there's yet another reason to suspect Lipsey never wavered from his statements to the HSCA. In none of these post-HSCA interviews did Lipsey bring up his earlier claim a bullet entered low on the back of the head and exited from the throat. But more to the point, in none of these interviews did the interviewer point out that the "official" story pushed by the men to whom Lipsey was now deferring--Posner and Bugliosi--holds that no bullet of any kind entered low on the back of the head, and that, as a consequence, no discussion of a bullet entering low on the back of the head could have been overheard by Lipsey during the autopsy. And that Lipsey's statements to the HSCA were thereby balderdash...

In fact, these interviews failed to mention Lipsey's ever saying anything at odds with the Posner/Bugliosi version of the Oswald-did-it scenario.

But he was not always so careful. A 10-31-09 article on Lipsey found on 225BatonRouge.com, for example, claimed that upon re-reading his statements to the HSCA, Lipsey, "notes that some of his responses were not as clean and concise as they could have been." He didn't admit he was wrong, mind you. The article then discussed the autopsy in some detail, and claimed the "doctors concluded there were three entry wounds: one in the lower neck, one in the upper neck/lower skull region and one at the rear crown of the head." Well, this was just bizarre; one might guess that the writer of this article, LSU Professor, James E Shelledy, was trying to hide that the bullet hole now claimed to be the fatal bullet hole, the one on the crown of the head, was not observed or discussed at the autopsy. To wit, Shelledy then offered "Several years later, second opinions by doctors determined Kennedy was hit by only two bullets." So, yeah, Shelledy made a strange mistake, and this mistake allowed him to conceal that the wound now claimed to be the fatal entrance wound was not observed by any witness to the autopsy, including Lipsey, and that Lipsey also failed to recall any discussion of such a wound.

A look back at Lipsey's words to the HSCA, however, put this strange passage in context, and make it clear Lipsey was responsible for the description of three bullet entrances, and not Shelledy. Lipsey told the HSCA's investigators: "as I remember them there was one bullet that went in the back of the head that exited and blew away part of his face. And that was sort of high up, not high up but like this little crown on the back of your head right there, three or four inches above your neck. And then the other one entered at more of less the top of the neck, the other one entered more or less at the bottom of the neck." And to this, he later added: "I feel that there was really no entrance wound --maybe I said that --in the rear of his head. There was a point where they determined the bullet entered the back of his head but I believe all of that part of his head was blown. I mean I think it just physically blew away that part of his head. You know, just like a strip right across there or may have been just in that area -- just blew it out."

So, there it is. The entrance by the crown, to Lipsey's recollection, was the rear entrance to the large head wound he claimed had been described as a wound of both entrance and exit. It was not the small red spot in the cowlick later "discovered" by the Clark Panel. Well, it follows, then, that Lipsey thought this large wound was later found to be an exit for the bullet entering on the "upper neck/lower skull". Lipsey had, after all, no recollection of an entrance wound in the cowlick.

And this goes to show that Lipsey, as late as 2009, still believed the doctors had on the night of the autopsy concluded the large head wound was a tangential wound of both entrance and exit. And that they only subsequently decided that this wound was connected to the wound at the upper neck/lower skull.

We have good reason to doubt, then, that Lipsey ever changed his mind about what he told the HSCA. He supported O'Neill, who claimed there was no passage from the back wound into the body. And he continued, as late as 2009, to claim the doctors initially concluded the large head wound was a wound of both entrance and exit.

It seems clear from this, moreover, that Lipsey, who left the military in 1964 to embark on a long and prosperous career as an arms dealer and big game hunter, wanted it both ways. Much as Governor Connally, and FBI agent Frank O'Neill, before him, he wanted to go on the record as saying Oswald did it by all himself, even though his personal recollections were in conflict with that conclusion. Strange. And sad.

Interesting, Pat. Thanks for writing and posting it.

If we accept Lipsey's testimony as fact -- something I'm inclined to do -- it means that Humes said during the autopsy that a bullet went in through the cowlick area. But by the following day he rejected that idea and claimed that it was the EOP bullet that caused the head damage.

Years later the HSCA relocated Humes' EOP wound right back to the cowlick area, with Humes protesting all the way. How weird is that?

Have these marks been discussed?

Is the curly j at the circle an alignment mark to align a printer?

I believe the curly J is really a 4. I don't know what the purpose of the circle is.

I don't know if this link will provide any leads to the process but it might:

https://www.google.com/patents/US2745493

The holes punched by those machines were used for sorting purposes.

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

Let's look at Jon's post again again and I'll explain.

<Begin Jon Tidd's Post>

DVP said:

"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"."

Jon said:

DVP is correct here.

DVP said:

"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."

Jon said:

DVP is partially, but only partially, correct here. Klein's was the original payee. Its endorsement stamp made the Chicago bank the second payee. The basic rule here is that any time a check is transferred (negotiated) by a "pay to" type of endorsement, the transferee is a payee.

</End>

I agree with all Jon says here. Even the two times he agrees with you.

The Hidell money order was indeed "drawn" in favor of Klein's sporting good. At which time Klein's was the payee.

However, the moment an authorized person at Klein's endorsed the money order by stamping the back, the payee became the First National Bank of Chicago. The money order became drawn in the favor of first National Bank. (Certainly not still drawn in Klein's favor. Though First National would, according to their banking account agreement with Klein's, deposit the $21.45 to Klein's account )

I love you guys. Keep that mouth running long enough, you can convince yourselves of anything.

LOL

And the saga continues......

TOM SCULLY SAID:

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.

What is the source for the statement, "even a check, it turns out, is not required to receive an FRB processing endorsement"? I couldn't see it when I clicked where it says "CLICK HERE." Also, I'm not sure that FRB stamps are endorsements."

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

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.

The ROUND punch holes representing the amount/value of the money order were indeed punched by the Federal Reserve Bank prior to 1963.

I'm not sure why they chose to enter the amounts in that way for money orders, given that some other method was used for checks.

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

[sandy's underline.]

The underlined part of that sentence is alluded to on the back side of the Hidell money order. But it is also stated that bank endorsements don't count.

All Postal Money Order payments to banks, to be credited to the accounts of account holders, shall be endorsed in the name of the bank as payee, in the usual manner (i.e. as is done for checks, etc.).

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").

I repeat what I said (above) with relevant emphasis:

All Postal Money Order payments to banks, to be credited to the accounts of account holders, shall be endorsed in the name of the bank as payee, in the usual manner (i.e. as is done for checks, etc.).

Klein's is not a bank. First National is. So First National should have endorsed the money order in its name. Also, remember, Klein's had endorsed the MO over to First National, making First National the new payee. Now read again what I said and see if it now makes sense.

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?

Yes, that's correct.

Can I just do a Devil's Advocate-type comment on your statement: "I like to use the fact that the money order was never cashed because it is such a simple things to see and understand." If we accept that 1) a cancel stamp was required, and 2) there is no such stamp on this money order, a more objective-less advocative reading of the evidence would not call it a "fact," and would state only that it does not appear to have been processed as a cashed money order would be processed.

Anybody can take any fact and find words to explain it away.

I invite you, as a devil's advocate, to provide a plausible explanation for the lack of stamps on the back of the money order. I'll be happy to consider and respond to that.

You're certain that there's no other possible interpretation: "fact...never cashed"?

I'd say I'm about 98% certain that is the case.

Because everything we knows points to the (presumed) fact that money orders were to be endorsed by the bank. The Fractional Federal Reserve Routing Number is present on the Hidell MO, indicating that it was to be processed by a Federal Reserve Bank. There is testimony that the MO was to be processed by a FRB. There is a place on the Hidell MO for bank endorsement stamps, and a note above that area mentioning such endorsements. We've seen the federal law requiring an endorsement stamp of the bank. The processing of negotiable documents like checks and money order was mature in 1963, including the adoption of the MICR numbering system that we're all familiar with. (MICR = Magnetic ink character recognition.) So there is no reason to believe that money order were treated any differently in 1963 than they are today.

The ONE THING that contradicts all we know is the Hidell money order. Just that.

In addition to that, I've shown (to my own satisfaction) that the bleed-thru we see on the Hidell money order is highly unlikely to have occurred on a real postal money order card. I've done tests only on 7 mil cards I have on hand. But I found some actual postal money order receipts from the 1960s on eBay that were torn away from the part that you deposit. I've purchased those and will do ink tests on them once I get them.

One other thing is this: I found an actual 1961 postal money order on e-Bay. The price for it is $100 so I won't be buying it. But there is a noteworthy difference between it and the Hidell money order. One of its corners has the notch in the upper right-hand corner that IBM punch cards all had. We don't see one on the Hidell card. Why not?

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.

But when a bank is the payee of a money order, on behalf of one of its account holders, the bank is required by law to endorse it as the payee before handing it over to a Federal Reserve Bank. That is what paragraph c states.

And even Jon G. Tidd agrees with me, as he said in Post 17.

No, Jon Tidd agrees with me. (He merely agreed to one thing you said, as would have I.) He said

[DVP said:]

"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."

DVP is partially, but only partially, correct here. Klein's was the original payee. Its endorsement stamp made the Chicago bank the second payee. The basic rule here is that any time a check is transferred (negotiated) by a "pay to" type of endorsement, the transferee is a payee.

[Formatting added for clarity.]

Even on the back of the MO you can see that Klein's paid the money order to their bank. Because the endorsement field is preceded by the words "Pay to."