Greg Doudna

6 minutes ago, Bill Brown said:

Oswald clearly admitted to a reporter, on film, that he was in the building "at the time".

Oswald is saying that he was inside the Depository at the time of the assassination.  Therefore, he is not out on the steps or the landing at the time.

Is it possible Oswald could have been inside the doors looking out through the glass doors at the parade, at the time of the shots, then upon hearing the shots moved through the door to stand at the northwest first step, not moving to see better but moving to overhear better, what people were saying as to what had just happened?

In that scenario, he would be out the front door in time for Wiegman to catch him on film, but would be answering accurately to the newsmen in confirming he was inside the building at the time the president was killed?

11 minutes ago, Alan Ford said:

 

At the bottom of the bottle is that a Dr. Pepper logo on the bottle (as Steve Roe has suggested), or is it a crumpled piece of paper or a coffee cup or something in front of a bottle of indeterminate beverage? It just looks like the outline of that lighter-toned patch extends to the right beyond the shape of the bottle, or is that optical illusion? 

56 minutes ago, Gene Kelly said:

you have Ruth and Michael Paine producing daming evidence on Oswald (i.e., the rifle, Walker letter, Minox camera, Mexico City).  

Objection, unsubstantiated, let alone settled fact no matter how many times repeated. 

21 minutes ago, Marcus Fuller said:

My mind reading skills are only surpassed by your conjecturing skills. Because assuming he went to the post office for 8am, got served straight away because it wasn't busy, then got to work without anyone noticing by 8.15am is a much larger leap! 

Well he was fired soon thereafter.

How do you know it wasn't noticed?

20 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I repeat, I've never said a word about the things you said I did in your first post.

Since you insist on arguing with me, I demand that you retract what you said. Either put up or shut up.

In the "Brian Baccus on Ruth Paine Thread, p. 15, Fri Dec 1, 10:10 am, you quoted Jean Ceulemans who had written: "So Ruth was evasive on questions about her sister ? IMO she was fully entitled to do so, if she knew her syster had nothing to do with the case.  I would do the same, given the fact there was no connection between Ruth and her sister within the JFKA case. Garrison tried making a connection, to sketch Ruth, she defended herself rightfully so IMO".

And that was a summary of a longer post from Jean on the same topic. To which you responded:

So you believe that Ruth Paine committed perjury in court?  I do as well.

Maybe you're the one who ought to retract, if you don't think that accurately represents you. Jean Ceulemans is calling you out on the perjury accusation toward Ruth, and rather than respond substantively, you deny saying what you said, which just confuses things. 

4 hours ago, Tom Gram said:

You did a complete 180 and deleted that comment the second I pointed out that Marina was was Ruth Paine on March 12th, the day the money order was mailed. Paine also testified that they were together in the mid-morning. 

Paine couldn’t keep straight what happened on the 12th vs. the 20th in her testimony. The 12th was the first day Paine visited Marina…is the idea that Paine could have innocently assisted Marina with a few errands that day, including a trip to the Post Office to drop off an anonymous letter that Paine didn’t even know about so intolerable to you that it would make you completely change your mind and go on the offensive that quickly? 

Your bias toward Paine is a little over the top sometimes, and this was one of those times. 

Tom, please see my most recent above just now to Steve Thomas, on the two Hidell signatures on the postal money order, and the Selective Service card. Do you agree or disagree that they look like written by the same hand, that that hand looks like Oswald's, and that that hand does not look like Marina's?

On that money order, whoever bought it did so during business hours at the main US Post Office on the morning of March 12, bought it at the window, paid for it, filled in the fillins, signed it "Hidell", and mailed it right there, same time.

It is excluded that that money order could have been prepared in advance or bought earlier than that morning, or mailed later than that morning.

And the writing on that money order--which was handwritten by someone in those moments following purchase before putting it in the mailbox that morning-- looks like Oswald's handwriting, was identified as Oswald's handwriting by expert testimony, and does not look like Marina's handwriting.

So of the two possibilities--either it was Lee (Oswald) at that postal teller's window who bought it, filled it in, signed it Hidell, and mailed it, even though his job-timings log at work that day filled out by him showed him at Jaggars (he fudged his time sheets at work as Steve R. pointed out must have happened) ... or it was Marina given a ride there by Ruth Paine, both of whom concealed that in testimony, and either Marina or Ruth highly skillfully and successfully forged all of the handwriting on the front of that money order to look so much like Lee's that the experts testifying before the Warren Commission were all fooled (by either Marina or Ruth).

It is that last item--the requirement that either Marina or Ruth must be supposed to have forged all of the handwriting looking exactly like Lee's handwriting, on that money order, which is the supposition that cannot be correct, which jumps the rails.

I suggest neither Marina nor Ruth had the ability, nor any training or experience, in on-the-spot perfect forgery of Oswald's handwriting. That that is unreasonable and excluded.

Therefore it was Oswald, in agreement with what the handwriting looks like.

Do you specifically disagree? Are you going to defend a suggestion that either Marina or Ruth forged Oswald's handwriting in the writing on that postal money order? 

The only way to have Ruth Paine and Marina in this is if you were going to say Ruth Paine and Marina drove Lee to the post office and back from Jaggars, lessening though not removing the amount of time Lee slipped away from Jaggars off the books that morning for that errand. And there is no evidence or reason to suppose that, or reason why that should be the case.

This has nothing to do with "bias toward [Ruth] Paine".

6 hours ago, Steve Thomas said:

Greg,

I am not a handwriting expert, but in my amateur opinion, they are written by the same person.

I say this for three reasons:

1) The way the two sides of the letter H do not touch,

2) The way the letter H flows into the letter I. This is very unusuaI. and consistent in both signaturs

3) The offset dot above the letter i. Again, this is consistent in both.

In my amateur opinion.

Steve Thomas

Steve, you are right, they do look by the same hand, thanks, sorry. 

I reread your discussion, "Did Marina Order the Rifle?", at https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/24667-did-marina-order-the-rifle/.

Please correct if I have anything wrong here, but from your discussion I see Charles C Scott, handwriting expert, testified all "the fillins on the front of the money order" were written by the same hand as all the other Lee Oswald handwritings, i.e. by Oswald.

I don't see any expert testimony claiming the Selective Service card Hidell signature was by anyone else. If the two Hidell signatures were written by the same hand, as I agree with you they do look like, that means both would be by the Lee Oswald hand, which is how they both look according to both you and me (right?).

In your article you quoted where Oswald refused to confirm that the Selective Service Hidell was his signature when he was shown the card in his interrogation. 

Oswald would not confirm that. But I see you characterize Oswald as having also "denied" the Hidell signature on the Selective Service card was written by him. I cannot find any reference in any of the interrogations that you quoted where he "denied", as distinguished from refused to confirm, on the Selective Service Hidell signature. Do you have a quote where he "denied"? The point does not determine whether he did or didn't, just wonder if that was a small error in description at your end or a missed reading on mine. It doesn't matter. 

Back to what matters. I then looked up four samples of Marina's handwriting in English that you noted in the WC exhibits, mailed envelopes with Ruth Paine's name and street address written on the front in English by Marina.

I saw there that Marina's handwriting looks different to me from the writing of Oswald (Lee) and from the Selective Service Hidell signature. Would you take a look at Marina's handwriting compared to the Selective Service Hidell signature and give your opinion on this? Do you see any differently? Thanks.

So far as I can tell, no handwriting expert said the Selective Service card Hidell was by Marina, nor did any handwriting expert say the Selective Service card Hidell was written by a different hand than the Klein money order Hidell.

The Selective Service card Hidell signature looks like Oswald's hand, not Marina's. 

Therefore both of those Hidell signatures appear to be by the same hand--both either the hand of Oswald or someone writing like Oswald--neither are the writing of Marina because do not agree with the writing of Marina, and there is no expert testimony in conflict with both of those signatures being Oswald's, or claiming otherwise. 

What do you think? Is there some reason not to conclude both of those Hidell signatures were written by the same hand, Oswald, not Marina? 

1 hour ago, Tom Gram said:

Alwyn Cole did not testify that Oswald wrote the Hidell signature. He didn’t even mention it. 

I meant Charles C Scott. He testified everything written on that money order was by the same hand as the other Oswald handwriting items. That includes the Hidell signature since he didn’t exclude it. “The fillins on the front of the money order”, all by Oswald.

26 minutes ago, Steve Roe said:

Greg, actually the front window at the GPO was open at 8:00 AM.

VOLUME II: HSCA REVIEW AT HQ - OSWALD CHRONOLOGY (maryferrell.org)

This was consistent with my research on the GPO front window counter over the years in old newspaper accounts. That was a busy post office roughly 1/2 mile away from JCS on Browder Street. Oswald often walked on Ervay street to his post office box from his JCS work. You can find that in Dennis Ofstein's WC testimony.

I see, I was going from memory, thanks Steve. 

11 hours ago, Steve Thomas said:

Hidell Oswald signatures.

On the top is the Selective Service card.

On the bottom is the rifle Postal Service Money Order.

Steve Thomas

These two Hidell signatures, Selective Service card (top) and the Klein’s rifle postal money order (bottom) visibly do not look written by the same person, nor did any handwriting expert claim they were.

Therefore: top, Selective Service card Hidell, written by Marina, who admitted she wrote the Hidell signature on some items?

Bottom, postal money order, written by Lee Oswald (all writing incl Hidell signature on that money order written by Lee Oswald testified by handwriting expert Charles C Scott)?

CORRECTION: they do appear to be by the same hand, Oswald's for both

17 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Finally, I do not think you understand what Greg Parker noted in one of his cross postings here about Ruth.

Ruth was  careful about the way she replied to questions on the case (…)

Jim D, I know you like Greg P and I do too but he was just wrong on that. Not what Ruth was doing and not any custom in any Quaker primary text or that any religion sociologist ever noticed of Quakers.

37 minutes ago, Steve Roe said:

You're mistaken again. First of all, it was JCS, not TSBD. JCS did not have a punch clock timecard, like Reilly Coffee or Leslie Welding. The "clock-registered" time on the handwritten job timesheet refers to the actual times entered on each job, I.E 9:15 to 10:00 (Sam Bloom), 10:00 to 10:15 (Sears) for example.  Each job had to agree in sequence so they could payroll can account accurately what to pay the employee. 

Oswald could have very easily fudged his written timesheet. From the GPO to JCS was only a 15-minute walk. 

Yes! I spent no end of time researching opening times of U.S. post offices, calculating times and distances, puzzling over that, all on the unquestioned premise that those handwritten time notations at Jaggars were hard proof Oswald was there without leaving after 9:00 on a morning when he bought and mailed a postal money order at the main post office which only opened at 9:00 am.

But the premise was not hard (as in “known secure”). 

What is hard is that money order was bought, signed by Oswald, and mailed that morning after the post office opened for business at 9:00 am.

Those Jaggars handwritten time records probably were filled in by Oswald himself and did not disclose time off the books for a personal unnoticed errand which there is evidence occurred that morning. Every mistake or puzzle peeled away is closer to ability to get at what did happen. Thanks Steve.

I don’t think any of these other issues you raise Michael Griffith are relevant to the interpretation of the Kleins money order’s lack of a bank stamp. 

But, distinct question and issue, yes I think Oswald had the rifle. Both Marguerite and Marina testified that on Nov 22 Marina showed Marguerite a photo or photos of Oswald holding a rifle which sounds like BYP, and that Marina concealed it or them in her shoe. The next day both Marguerite and Marina testified Marina destroyed it or them by fire in a hotel room at Marguerite’s urging. I think that weighs in favor of the BYPs existing. The BYPs held up to forensic examination by the HSCA panel of experts which could not find evidence of forgery or alteration.

I don’t know why he did it by mail order and alias instead of an in person purchase but he was witnessed interested in mail order advertisements of rifles in New Orleans as well, and a lot of researchers have conjectured his mail ordering could have involved informant activity. 

The lack of ammo or rifle cleaning equipment found in Oswald’s belongings, and separately, lack of any recent practicing, with the rifle prior to Nov 22 I believe is weight against him shooting JFK on Nov 22, distinct issue. It also—this is less noticed—is weight to me weakening notions of widespread evidence fabrication since ammo would have been planted in Oswald’s belongings if so. 

I don’t know why Oswald was lying about having that rifle or mail ordering it when interrogated. It’s what a defense counsel would say was not helpful to his case. But that doesn’t prove he shot the rifle which is a distinct issue and some pretty compelling evidence argues he didn’t. 

I think my paper on Oswald repairing and reinstalling the crappy original scope and base mount on the rifle on Nov 11 at the sport shop in Irving has brought new information and finding of fact to the table which simply must be considered and integrated in any interpretation proposing to solve the case, missed in most prior discussions. 

But again, none of those things have anything—anything—to do with the specific and answerable narrow question of whether the lack of a bank stamp on the back of the Kleins money order indicates or establishes that that money order was never processed for payment.

Sandy—Lance Peyette is irrelevant, leave him out of this. I have no idea what he argued and it doesn’t matter. You can’t cite his alleged failings as an argument.

You keep repeating as mantra, over and over as if repeating it will make it true, concerning Regulation J: “Wrong—it’s not about cash letters”.

And I can only again just quote the Fed saying the exact opposite: “Regulation J, which outlines the rules and procedures for processing cash letters”.

And you agreed, “Yes, Regulation J covers cash letters”.

And then after admitting that you just do a 180 and insist the opposite three times, that Regulation J is “not about cash letters”.

I stand by what I wrote. Before I read Regulation J I was confused. After I read it I saw the problem. You were insisting on an interpretation that both was never stated and makes no sense. I saw what it was about in agreement with what the Fed explicitly said it was about—rules and procedures for processing cash letters. So we’ll just disagree here, no need to belabor it.

David von Pein got it right in terms of common sense, but I realized this is not simply a reasoning from common sense. It is the meaning of the written words snd nothing supports your insistence on the nonsensical interpretation. You can carry on. But I know there is nothing wrong with the allegedly missing bank stamp on the Kleins m.o. Nothing at all on that score. 
 

(bumped) 

10 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

There is no "certainly" that it is "evidence that it wasn't processed", no "certainly" about it being evidence the Klein's money order was not processed.

You are assuming based solely on what you assert is "strongly implied", without quoting anything specifically establishing what you are asserting. 

Thank you for the link you gave to the "Efficiency in Cash Letters" document. Truly, that helps me on a rapid learning curve to see what is going on here.

That document states that Regulation J, which is what you have been on about all along, is about cash letters. The document you linked says that is what Regulation J is about, in the very first words of the document you just linked:

"Cash letters are an integral part of the banking industry, and they allow for the efficient transfer of funds between financial institutions. However, the process of sending and receiving cash letters can be complex and requires adherence to strict guidelines. One such guideline is Regulation J, which outlines the rules and procedures for processing cash letters. 

OK.

And that now locks for me into place the answer to a question which puzzled me no end up until this moment: when that circular you kept citing spoke of the importance of endorsing both sides ... I kept wondering to myself, both sides of what"? Why wasn't that document making clear what? 

Well, the answer is (though it could have been clearer to people like us if it had optionally been stated explicitly): the "what" is cash letters, because both original authors and readers of that original text knew it was about cash letters, because that is what Regulation J is about (see above quote).

No wonder that Fed advisory emphasized to banks stamp both sides! Of the cash letters! A sensible precaution, for very understandable reasons, backup in case the wrong side got photocopied or photographed in a batch scan or whatever. Cash letters! Both sides! Doesn't even matter whether a bank thought it was needed. The Fed is telling banks, you do that, that is what we want done. So banks stamped both sides of those cash letters. 

Then you cite a detail within the document you have just provided which you think still refers to a requirement that the bank must individually stamp every single cotton-pickin' last one of those individual money orders even though the cash letter has fully identified and endorsed them and been stamped on both sides with that endorsement, no matter how tedious and time-consuming and totally unnecessary, because ... rule (you say). 

But Sandy, this appears in the context of urging banks to make sure all individual items in the cash letter are in order. No missing signatures. No missing dates. And no missing endorsement from the payee to the bank.

Not the bank to the Fed. But the payee named on the money order signing it over or stamping it over to the bank. 

We can see that on the Klein's postal money order. The Klein's money order has that.

Klein's, the payee, has a stamp endorsing it over to its bank, stamped right on the back. 

That is not talking about the bank endorsing those checks to the Fed, which is done in the cash letter. The bank endorses to the Fed by means of the cash letter, according to the rules in Regulation J.

There is absolutely no logical reason why, nor is there any rule stating that, the bank sending and endorsing the cash letter has to also, and competely redundantly, individually and tediously stamp every single money order or check on both sides too. 

And with this, your argument is just gone, disappeared, that (bold below):

No, you've only claimed that. You have not "claimed and proven" that.

The Fed required PMO's to be endorsed to them by submitting banks. But nothing in any regulation you cited requires that endorsement to be "on" the physical PMOs, as opposed to stamped on the cash letter with them.

You have not cited a single statement in the document you have set forth which is explicitly concerned with Regulation J concerning cash letters, upholding your assertion that the banks' endorsements of cash instruments such as PMO's to the Fed, endorsements which already are stamped on both sides of the cash letter, must also redundantly and illogically also be stamped on each individual physical item enclosed with that cash letter.

You just can't, as a non-lawyer, just on your sayso say a rule in a document about cash letters "strongly implies" some meaning other than cash letters that isn't stated explicitly, as if you know that. 

I am expressing this forcefully not with intent to make you look bad or humiliate, not intention here, but to get at the truth on this, which in this case is that Klein's money order has nothing known amiss with it from not having a bank stamp on it. Just nothing is amiss with that on that point on that Klein's money order at all.

And I know you have owned when mistaken in the past (and that's honorable). And I know why it looked to you the way it did, and it was a mistake in good faith. 

But it was a mistake.

That Klein's money order is clean, in order, nothing amiss on this point. 

8 minutes ago, Leslie Sharp said:

@Greg Doudna  my most recent gmail notice for this thread indicates you recently posted the following: 

Mary Haverstick, please be careful. Here is a young man who was brutally intimidated by Ms. Sharp with legal threats, then in some making nice invo.......

Clicking on the EF link in my inbox,  I’m led to your recent extracts from Haverstick’s book. I’m not finding the rest of your Sir Galahad warning to Mary, but I’m taking a leap of logic — you’re referring to Robert “Monte” Montenegro, a two tour Afghan vet who I brutally intimidated.  

Coincidentally, as happens, when I saw your note in my mail I had just hung up from a near two hour convo with Monte regarding topics relevant to this thread, in particular QJ/WIN, Otto and Ilse Skorzeny, Frank Wisner, Heinz Felfe, Frenchy Grombach in Poland, etc.

To be clear, the “legal” threat was a simple cease and desist to protect copyrighted material not yet in the public domain. Had I not intervened, and had our publisher come across the posts, I suspect the ramifications might have been more severe. I think you need to let go of this particular bone you’ve been gnawing on for months.  

You position yourself as beyond reproach, so kindly post the full text of your noble warning to Mary Haverstick — or point me to the complete post if it’s buried in your comments — so that I can finish tearing it to shreds. Or did you think twice and shred it yourself?

I thought twice and shredded it myself. It was up for several seconds and then it was deleted. The message read in full:

Mary Haverstick, please be careful. Here is a young man who was brutally intimidated by Ms. Sharp with legal threats, then after some making nice involving what he later said were many lengthy and friendly phone calls, he claimed on this forum at a later stage he was legally prevented from expressing his own opinion on whether a datebook controlled by Ms. Sharp was authentic. It sounded like he had signed something that encumbered him. Be careful of being offered Very Significant Exclusive Access to June Cobb information, provided you sign a NDA. You could be fed some real leads which you then could not pursue and publish because covered by the NDA. https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/25904-natos-secret-armies-operation-gladio-and-jfk/page/17/#comment-420455

(Continued)

"In the final weeks of a presidential campaign, political actors normally jockey to affect the outcome of the election. But CIA agents who specialize in government overthrows aren't supposed to ply their skills in presidential elections. That's why Cobb's submissions to Goodwin, combined with her business with [Harvard Law School dean] William S. Barnes, a policy adviser who was working to get Nixon elected, are so problematic. And just as with her Kennedy speech, Cobb reported on her dealings with Barnes to her CIA case officer. 

October 13, 1960, Cobb's notes to Pierson

William S. [Barnes] had apparently spent the day down in your hometown [Washington, D.C.] precisely discussing our troublesome friends. He is about ready to come to the conclusion that it is too late to carry out the kind of attempt we discussed last summer. He discussed with me the advantages of making one last effort and then finding some new tenants for the house. He is interested in what can be done to improve the whole neighborhood.

"(...) The meaning of the open code becomes clearer in Cobb's next report. Goodwin's misstatement [Goodwin improperly represented JFK to the press without JFK's knowledge or permission as recommending overthrow of Cuba, which JFK staff had to walk back] had just hit the news when Cobb and Barnes reconvened, and the topic between them was how Barnes would help Nixon capitalize (...)

"This would be a good time to ask why, early on the morning of the presidential debate, Barnes would have stopped by Cobb's apartment to share his plan to approach Nixon. Cobb was meeting simultaneously with an adviser who was helping to shape Nixon's response to Kennedy, while also writing a speech to bolster Kennedy's position on Cuba (...)

"That evening, after the meeting between Barnes and Cobb, Nixon drew blood in the debate, citing that Kennedy's position [the Goodwin misrepresentation] violated international law. Had Barnes helped Nixon write his winning response? (...) let's lay out a simplified timeline.

October 12. The CIA installs Cobb in a bugged hotel suite in Manhattan.

October 13. Barnes and Cobb meet to discuss one last attempt and new tenants for the house.

October 20, P.M. Goodwin misstates Kennedy's position without waking the candidate.

October 21, A.M. Barnes and Cobb meet to discuss Kennedy's error, Barnes rushes to help Nixon.

October 21, P.M. Nixon draws blood in the debate, based on Goodwin's mistake

October 23. "Kennedy Plan Risks World War" is the New York Times headline.

October 29. June reads aloud her speech affirming JFK's support for the exiles.

October 30. When JFK retracts exile support, Cobb is furious and calls Kennedy headquarters.

"(...) Goodwin's mistaken position didn't end Kennedy's candidacy. Americans went to the polls on November 8, 1960, and voted for John F. Kennedy as the thirty-fifth president of the United States. The tally was so close that Nixon didn't concede until the next day. He wired his congratulations to Kennedy while the CIA was rolling up the surveillance net on June Cobb's hotel."

(Mary Haverstick, A Woman I Know, 223-241)

Working both sides of the 1960 presidential election to achieve foreign policy objectives

(From Mary Haverstick, A Woman I Know, 223-241)

"In the run-up to the 1960 election, the success or failure of the Bay of Pigs and Orta operations hinged on both candidates supporting the plan. Vice President Richard Nixon had championed the authorization of the CIA's covert program to train the exiles to overthrow Castro, but Kennedy's position was still a question mark (...)

"So in the lead-in to the presidential election, June Cobb turned her attention to Kennedy--specifically, to determining his level of commitment, or lack thereof, to overthrowing Castro. The setting was New York City in the final four weeks of the 1960 presidential campaign. That's when the covert operation I discovered in the June Cobb file began, where she (1) attempted to discern Kennedy's position on the invasion, (2) tried to influence him to support it, and then (3) met with an adviser who was helping Nixon after Kennedy failed to support the invasion (...)

"[I]t's absolutely explosive that in October 1960, June Cobb wrote a speech to be delivered by John F. Kennedy in the final days of his campaign, and a draft of that speech resides in her CIA file. Cobb's speech, written in Kennedy's voice in a way that could be delivered only by him, announces his full-throated support for the Cuban exiles in their effort to regain their freedom from Castro. It was the position that many in the CIA's leadership, who were then hip-deep in Bay of Pigs planning, wanted Kennedy to take, and she penned this speech just ten days before Americans would go to the polls.

"John F. Kennedy never delivered June's speech, but it wasn't for lack of her trying. She was in direct contact with his presidential campaign, and she sent the speech to Kennedy's foreign policy speechwriter (...)

"[N]ot only did [June Cobb's CIA case officer Jean Pierson] accept the speech, she went into Cobb's suite to secure her typewriter carbons after she wrote it (...) 

"But wait--wasn't June Cobb supposed to be sympathetic to communist leaders and a starry-eyed supporter of Latin American revolutions? (...)

"The most salient portion of this speech, and the one that is so provocative, is the paragraph where Cobb has Kennedy say he was 'supporting the fight of the Cuban people to regain the freedom they've been losing more and more every day during Castro's regime.' That language would put Kennedy dangerously close to supporting the overthrow, but that was not his position. Kennedy was always careful to avoid overthrow language or anything close to it. So why was Cobb mouthing that position for him just weeks before the election?

"Incredibly, June wasn't the only one typing up overthrow language for Kennedy--so was the candidate's own speechwriter. What's more, that speechwriter was in direct contact with June Cobb, and he was receiving her materials on behalf of the Kennedy presidential campaign.

"Richard Goodwin, dubbed the 'boy wonder' by the Washington press, was plucked from obscurity and placed in the role of writing Kennedy's speeches throughout the 1960 campaign. Goodwin quickly vaulted from fledgling speechwriter to the architect of Kennedy's policy on Latin America, even though he had never set foot in Latin America, spoke no Spanish, and was fresh out of law school ...

"Cobb expressed to [CIA case officer Pierson] that she felt her submissions through Goodwin had influence, to the point of being 'almost exactly what [an April 1961 State Department] White Paper got on the record now" (...)

"June's only known foreign policy credential was working for Castro (...) 

"June had been hedging her bets. While she was submitting a speech hoping to move Kennedy's position, she was simultaneously meeting with another political strategist. His goal wasn't to influence Kennedy. His goal was to get Nixon elected."

(continued)

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I've never claimed that the postal money order cannot have been processed given that there are no bank stamps on it. (Though that is certainly evidence that it wasn't.) What I've claimed and proved is that U.S. law requires bank stamps to be present on PMOs when presented to Federal Reserve Banks. (They were all eventually presented to FRBs BTW.)

There is no "certainly" that it is "evidence that it wasn't processed", no "certainly" about it being evidence the Klein's money order was not processed.

You are assuming based solely on what you assert is "strongly implied", without quoting anything specifically establishing what you are asserting. 

Thank you for the link you gave to the "Efficiency in Cash Letters" document. Truly, that helps me on a rapid learning curve to see what is going on here.

That document states that Regulation J, which is what you have been on about all along, is about cash letters. The document you linked says that is what Regulation J is about, in the very first words of the document you just linked:

"Cash letters are an integral part of the banking industry, and they allow for the efficient transfer of funds between financial institutions. However, the process of sending and receiving cash letters can be complex and requires adherence to strict guidelines. One such guideline is Regulation J, which outlines the rules and procedures for processing cash letters. 

OK.

And that now locks for me into place the answer to a question which puzzled me no end up until this moment: when that circular you kept citing spoke of the importance of endorsing both sides ... I kept wondering to myself, both sides of what"? Why wasn't that document making clear what? 

Well, the answer is (though it could have been clearer to people like us if it had optionally been stated explicitly): the "what" is cash letters, because both original authors and readers of that original text knew it was about cash letters, because that is what Regulation J is about (see above quote).

No wonder that Fed advisory emphasized to banks stamp both sides! Of the cash letters! A sensible precaution, for very understandable reasons, backup in case the wrong side got photocopied or photographed in a batch scan or whatever. Cash letters! Both sides! Doesn't even matter whether a bank thought it was needed. The Fed is telling banks, you do that, that is what we want done. So banks stamped both sides of those cash letters. 

Then you cite a detail within the document you have just provided which you think still refers to a requirement that the bank must individually stamp every single cotton-pickin' last one of those individual money orders even though the cash letter has fully identified and endorsed them and been stamped on both sides with that endorsement, no matter how tedious and time-consuming and totally unnecessary, because ... rule (you say). 

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

However, cash items themselves are still required to be endorsed, as indicated by this paragraph in the document:

Missing endorsements: Another common error is missing endorsements on the checks. Endorsements are required to transfer the ownership of the check from the payee to the bank or the next endorsee. Missing endorsements can lead to legal issues, as the receiving bank may not be able to clear the check without proper endorsement. To avoid this, banks should ensure that all necessary endorsements are included before sending the cash letter.

But Sandy, this appears in the context of urging banks to make sure all individual items in the cash letter are in order. No missing signatures. No missing dates. And no missing endorsement from the payee to the bank.

Not the bank to the Fed. But the payee named on the money order signing it over or stamping it over to the bank. 

We can see that on the Klein's postal money order. The Klein's money order has that.

Klein's, the payee, has a stamp endorsing it over to its bank, stamped right on the back. 

That is not talking about the bank endorsing those checks to the Fed, which is done in the cash letter. The bank endorses to the Fed by means of the cash letter, according to the rules in Regulation J.

There is absolutely no logical reason why, nor is there any rule stating that, the bank sending and endorsing the cash letter has to also, and competely redundantly, individually and tediously stamp every single money order or check on both sides too. 

And with this, your argument is just gone, disappeared, that (bold below):

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I've never claimed that the postal money order cannot have been processed given that there are no bank stamps on it. (Though that is certainly evidence that it wasn't.) What I've claimed and proved is that U.S. law requires bank stamps to be present on PMOs when presented to Federal Reserve Banks. (They were all eventually presented to FRBs BTW.)

No, you've only claimed that. You have not "claimed and proven" that.

The Fed required PMO's to be endorsed to them by submitting banks. But nothing in any regulation you cited requires that endorsement to be "on" the physical PMOs, as opposed to stamped on the cash letter with them.

You have not cited a single statement in the document you have set forth which is explicitly concerned with Regulation J concerning cash letters, upholding your assertion that the banks' endorsements of cash instruments such as PMO's to the Fed, endorsements which already are stamped on both sides of the cash letter, must also redundantly and illogically also be stamped on each individual physical item enclosed with that cash letter.

You just can't, as a non-lawyer, just on your sayso say a rule in a document about cash letters "strongly implies" some meaning other than cash letters that isn't stated explicitly, as if you know that. 

I am expressing this forcefully not with intent to make you look bad or humiliate, not intention here, but to get at the truth on this, which in this case is that Klein's money order has nothing known amiss with it from not having a bank stamp on it. Just nothing is amiss with that on that point on that Klein's money order at all.

And I know you have owned when mistaken in the past (and that's honorable). And I know why it looked to you the way it did, and it was a mistake in good faith. 

But it was a mistake.

That Klein's money order is clean, in order, nothing amiss on this point. 

18 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

From page 6 of the circular:

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. (Bolding mine.)

 

That puzzles me Sandy but the only sense I can make of it is both sides of whatever paper the endorsement appears.

Nobody including you I think is claiming banks literally had to/always stamp both sides of every single money order instead of just the back, two distinct stamps per piece, so you tell me what it means before citing it as certainty of your prior interpretation. 

Does the Fed want the cover letter endorsement info stamped front and back of that letter as a backup in case machine processing got the wrong side photographed or scanned? 

That aside, I think you do need to go read that again and show the rule saying WHERE physically the endorsement information MUST BE LOCATED to the exclusion of anywhere else. To say you think it is implied, not good enough. 

You’re the one making the strong claim that an existing Kleins money order cannot have been processed for payment based on a strong claim of an interpretation of a rule you are asserting without quoting specific language stating your interpretation. It is unacceptable to handwave and say your claim is “strongly implied” and then demand someone else show otherwise. 

Why is it “strongly implied” that cover letters with the endorsements do not fulfill the language and the purpose and intent of the regulation, which is to have accurate endorsements?

Miles I think I would amend your method statement to this: the more convenient a human error is in supporting an erroneous narrative the less likely the human error is to be true. If the narrative is true, then chances of the human error (removing a discrepancy or dissonance from a witness statement) being true increases. 

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

The circular that I cited for my proof happens to BE regulation J. It was issued to show it in its entirety including an amendment that had been made to it. Why don't you read it for yourself and show us all where there is mention of exceptions to the bank stamping rule? Good luck.

https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/docs/historical/ny%20circulars/1960_04928.pdf

I’m sorry Sandy, I read the Regulation document of your link and I truly do not see a requirement that the required bank endorsement to a federal reserve bank of a money order must be on the physical money order.

I see rule or number 13 saying “All cash items … should be endorsed … the endorsement of the sending bank should be dated and should show (blah blah)”.

OK that’s clear but what isn’t said is that that endorsement has to be on the money order as opposed to a note attached to it, or as the case may be, an endorsement for 500 of them written on a sheet attached to the 500.

I am not talking about any exception to a rule. I would like you to show me where is the rule of where the endorsement of the item has to appear to the exclusion of any other location.

14 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I cannot speak regarding today's banking practices and laws. But for the full span of the 20th century, the law required that checks and postal money orders submitted to a Federal Reserve Bank be endorsed. (That's another way of saying they needed bank stamps.)

AFAIK there was no law requiring regular banks to process only properly endorsed checks. But if a bank did so, they would be held liable for a bad check. That is to say, they would not collect the cash they handed out to whoever cashed the check.

But Federal Reserve Banks, by federal law, required checks and PMOs to be endorsed.

Instead of engaging in saying what seems right to you, why not just read what the law stated. I will link to that below. But first let me note that I got the laws as they were presented in "circulars." Circulars are what bank officials would read. When one of these says that something "should" be done, that doesn't mean that it's optional. "Should" is just a less formal way of saying "shall." (Circulars always use "should" over "shall.")

Following is a link to the relevant law. Read just the parts I highlighted in red... it is very simple and doesn't require a law degree.

 

 

Sandy I am no expert on 1963 Federal Reserve and other check or money order processing procedures, but your argument is not really convincing to me, here's why:

First, yes, the regulations you cite require a certain kind of bank endorsement for each money order. But how do you know that was not considered legally satisfied by some means acceptable to courts but not involving an actual physical stamp on the instrument itself? There are a whole range of comparative examples, legal recognition of equivalents, agency law, I don't know, I'm not a lawyer but I suspect a lawyer could rattle off dozens of comparative examples with interesting case law support to what I am talking about. Frankly I found the discussion you cite confusing and would be a bit more willing to believe your conclusion if it were coming from a lawyer with expertise in that line of law, rather than you or me who I doubt either of us know fully what we are talking about here.

Second, it just on common sense makes hardly any sense to me that there would not be legal propriety for batch deposits in which money orders were considered stamped if they were in a batch that had that information in a cover document applicable to all identified items inside. Legally "considered individually stamped" equivalent. The amount of paper processing to individually rubber or machine stamp millions of checks and money orders week in and week out is such a waste of time and cost for no point, when that can be done by batch ... it boggles my mind if batch processing was not considered in legal satisfaction of requirements for money order processing by those banks.

Third, if the conclusion you think is the only possible interpretation of those regulations, and if you think that money order for the rifle was forged, can you offer a plausible reason why a forger would leave off the bank stamp? Doesn't make sense to me.

Fourth, that money order might be argued prima facie to be evidence that not all money orders needed to have a physical stamp on them, in order to comply with mandated due process and procedure for proper endorsing of money orders. Rather than citing a regulation and citing a non-lawyer (yourself) interpreting it narrowly as falsification, where are lawyers addressing this at the time? Where is photo evidence of similarly processed money orders sampled showing how it was always done differently Etc.

Fifth (continuing from the previous), the absence of contemporary witness testimony from persons inside the system telling how it was done, more information, more context, not just a non-lawyer such as yourself exegeting printed regulations as stand-alone conclusions ... these things seem to be missing from the discussion.

On 12/4/2023 at 9:55 AM, Leslie Sharp said:

@Greg Doudna i’ll respond to your wild assertions shortly. This now transcends logic. We’re entering new territory.

Looking forward to any facts you can disclose and/or verify. Please do. 

Joe B, that is Miles' words you are quoting attributed to me, not my words; please edit, thanks. On the sexual issue, this 2014 article from Philadelphia Gay News makes the case that although William Manchester raised that prospect in Death of a President, there was no substance to it, not that I have any idea: https://lavendermagazine.com/our-affairs/education/uncovering-the-alleged-lgbt-connections-in-the-jfk-assassination/. Miles' suggestion is nuanced and might be possible but who knows.

On 12/4/2023 at 6:13 AM, Michael Griffith said:

One, I repeat that Jerrie Cobb had the same left-clavicle leishmaniasis scar that the CIA June Cobb had, and had the same left-forearm "69" scar that Catherine Taafe had.

Two, as Haverstick explains in the book, there was a real June Cobb and a real Catherine Taafe, and their identities were used by Jerrie Cobb.

Three, the long list of remarkable similarities between the life actions and movements of Jerrie Cobb and the CIA June Cobb defy all odds of coincidence. 

Four, John Newman also interviewed a woman who claimed to be the CIA June Cobb, and she even sent Newman a photo. However, Fortuna Calvo-Roth, who knew the CIA June Cobb very well, said that Newman's photo of the CIA June Cobb was not the CIA June Cobb that she had known; but, Fortuna said that the two photos of Jerrie Cobb that Haverstick showed her were photos of the CIA June Cobb. 

In the interests of accuracy a couple of comments. On that left-clavicle scar published in a medical journal article with photos in the early 1950s for June Cobb, I know that author Haverstick asserts unequivocally that she saw a scar in the same location on Jerrie Cobb, and publishes a photo of Jerrie Cobb's neck in the book ... but, for what it is worth, I fail to see a scar in the photo Haverstick has published.

On the left-forearm "26” scar as identifying Jerrie Cobb with Catherine Taaffe, Haverstick publishes a photo from a contemporary newspaper story telling of an assault on Catherine Taafe and a carved "26” in her forearm by her Castro-Cuban assailants (apparent purpose: so that that person could never again infiltrate Castro-Cuban circles without being identified as a spy).

The "26” on the forearm of the contemporary published newspaper photo is not the same as the much larger "2" plus indeterminate small scars on Jerrie Cobb's forearm in the photo published by Haverstick. 

If the Miami newspaper photo of Taafe’s arm is accurate, they are not the same injuries or same woman.