Yes, postal money orders do require bank endorsements!

[James DiEugenio]

Oh, I didn't know that Sandy.

Once you understand the rest of it, you will see why this does not at all follow logically from that.

In fact, the rest makes it very unlikely.

[Sandy Larsen]

Jim,

What do you mean when you say "you will see why this does not at all follow logically from that."? What are "this" and "that?"

And in "the rest makes it very unlikely." The rest makes what unlikely?

[James DiEugenio]

Sandy:

When you follow the entire transaction from beginning: that is on the day Oswald was supposed to write the money order, his time cards are all filled up; to the end: that is how could he pick up the rifle if the PO box was not in his name-- and everything in between is just as questionable--then the odds of the money order being genuine are quite unlikely.

This is why i never like to evaluate a piece of evidence in this case at one isolated step. Because sooner or later there is a break, and something fishy happens.

[Sandy Larsen]

Sandy:

When you follow the entire transaction from beginning: that is on the day Oswald was supposed to write the money order, his time cards are all filled up; to the end: that is how could he pick up the rifle if the PO box was not in his name-- and everything in between is just as questionable--then the odds of the money order being genuine are quite unlikely.

This is why i never like to evaluate a piece of evidence in this case at one isolated step. Because sooner or later there is a break, and something fishy happens.

Ah, okay. I thought that's what you meant, but I wanted to be sure.

I edited that post where I said I hadn't studied the whole rifle-purchase thing. What I meant to say was that I hadn't studied it carefully. I actually am aware of the issues you mention. I just like to study things like these in depth before I accept them as fact. It's not a terribly difficult thing to do If the source material is referenced.

[Jim Hargrove]

Warren Commission loyalists want us to believe that this uncashed, unendorsed money order is legitimate proof of purchase by “A. Hidell” of a rifle that was shipped to Hidell via a Dallas P.O. Box under the name of “Oswald,” contrary to U.S. postal regulations, for a price of… well… first it was $12.78 for a rifle without a scope as pointed out by dozens of American dailies for nearly a week after the assassination.

As one example of many, a Nov. 23 article by the New York Times wire service, picked up in daily newspapers in many cities, including the Nov. 24 Salt Lake Tribune, reported the following: “Handwriting, analyzed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in Washington as Oswald's on an assumed-name order to a Chicago mail order house last March 20 for a $12.78 rifle, similar to the assassination weapon.”

When the saga of Dial Ryder and the scope didn't pan out, the FBI apparently lost all its reports of a $12.78 rifle without a scope. But, like magic, "Oswald's handwriting" suddenly appeared on a new and improved money order, this time for $21.45 for a rifle with a scope.

A magic money order to purchase a magic rifle that shot magic bullets. It was truly an age of miracles!

[David Von Pein]

Jim,

There's no "magic" or "miracles" of any kind involved here at all. And there's no sinister or underhanded cover-up involved either. The reason why the media was reporting the $12.78 cost for the rifle (sans the scope) was quite simple --- they were simply referring to the Klein's ads that were currently running in various magazines in November of 1963. Between the time Oswald ordered his rifle in March '63 and the time of the assassination eight months later, the price of the Italian carbine (without the scope attached) in the Klein's advertisements had decreased by 10 cents, from $12.88 to $12.78.

And it's highly unlikely that any of the people in the press still had ready access to any Klein's magazine ads from eight or nine months earlier. So they were merely reporting on the CURRENT price of the gun in their TV and newspaper reports. And even Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry told reporters on 11/23/63: "I believe the gun was supposed to cost twelve dollars and seventy-eight cents, I believe. I believe it was advertised in some magazine for that."



As for any "new and improved money order, this time for $21.45 for a rifle with a scope" --- that's a lot of baloney too, because as early as 11/23/63, we find documentation showing that a money order that was definitely handled by Klein's Sporting Goods AND the First National Bank of Chicago in the amount of $21.45 was recovered at the Federal Records Center in Alexandria, Virginia, on the night of November 23rd, the day after the assassination. This documentation is all laid out in a goodly amount of detail in Commission Document #75 and Commission Document #87.

So, Jim Hargrove, do you think that the FBI and Secret Service reports that appear in CD75 and CD87 are phony documents of some kind? And do you think that a money order in the amount of $21.45 was NOT actually found at the Records Center in Alexandria at all?

Edited December 13, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Jim Hargrove]

Handwriting, analyzed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation in Washington as Oswald's on an assumed-name order to a Chicago mail order house last March 20 for a $12.78 rifle, similar to the assassination weapon. -- NYT Wire Service, 11/23/63

Newspaper reporters on 11/23 hardly learned from Klein advertisements that the magic rifle had been purchased on March 20 and that the FBI had already analyzed the handwriting on the ordering material and declared it to be "Oswald's." The information reported could have come ultimately from no place other than the FBI, and why would that information not include the price? The reporters were given the handwriting analysis verdict and the order date and then they guessed at the price? Does that seem like the most logical interpretation of this evidence to you?

Every element of the rifle order story smells really bad. Here's just the first: We are to believe that Oswald left his job at Jaggers-Chiles-Stovall on the morning of March 12, walked 11 blocks to the downtown Dallas Post Office, purchased the money order, and then walked several miles to the "zone 12" postal area across the Trinity River to mail it, where it was postmarked 10:30 am March 12. All this on the very morning when J-C-S records indicate he worked continuously on nine different printing jobs from 8 am to 12:15 pm.

I'm not going to continue with the many problems of the official story now, but there are clearly many others.

[David Von Pein]

The NY Times probably got the "March 20" date from Jesse Curry, who announced it on live TV on 11/23/63 (as well as announcing that the handwriting on the rifle order was Oswald's). So it became common knowledge as of the early evening of Nov. 23rd. Nothing mysterious about it at all. TV stations had the "March 20" info as well. And WBKB in Chicago was also saying the gun cost $12.78 (because they were showing the audience a Nov. '63 ad at the time)....

Edited December 13, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Jim Hargrove]

This just makes my point even clearer. Frank Reynolds, like the NYT reporters and many others, was getting the information on handwriting analysis, date of purchase, and price of the rifle from the only source that put forward that information: The FBI.

[David Von Pein]

Of course it was coming from the FBI originally, Jim. Who ELSE would you expect it to be coming from?

[Jon G. Tidd]

I'm researching 1963 postal regulations, trying to find the 1963 indorsement (the law spells it with an "i") rules for postal money orders.

The research is frustrating. The National Archives provides only the current rules (and information on rules for prior years not going back nearly to 1963).

It's clear that the rules for the years available require indorsement by each party seeking payment on the PMO. This means, under the rules for the years available, a depositary bank such as First Chicago, which pays against the PMO and then seeks payment from another financial institution next up the payment chain, must indorse in order to receive payment. This approach to indorsements was in effect for commercial money orders and checks in 1963. If I had the bet, I'd bet it was also in effect for PMOs, but I don't want a bet. I want certainty. I hope to have it soon.

Edited December 13, 2015 by Jon G. Tidd

[David Von Pein]

But, Jon, I'd be willing to bet that in the case of a commercial bank (like the First National Bank of Chicago, Illinois) sending a LARGE BATCH (or even a not-so-"large" batch) OF *UNITED STATES POSTAL MONEY ORDERS* to the Federal Reserve Bank, a system was in place by which the bank (First National) was not required to place individual stamped markings on each and every money order.

It's fairly obvious to me that a "bulk deposit" system must have been in place in March of 1963, because I certainly don't think for a second that the Hidell money order is a fraudulent document.

"As for the lack of any bank stamps appearing on the back of Oswald's postal money order, I don't have a definitive answer to explain it. But I'd be willing to bet the farm that there IS a reasonable and non-conspiratorial answer to explain the lack of markings on the back of that document without resorting to the conclusion that the money order was manufactured and faked by a group of conspirators in a complicated and intricate effort to frame Lee Harvey Oswald for John F. Kennedy's murder. And I know that conspiracy theorists who think Oswald never ordered a rifle from Klein's Sporting Goods in early 1963 have a heck of a lot MORE evidence to explain away than I do. Just check my list [here]." -- DVP; 10/27/15

Edited December 13, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Jim Hargrove]

This just makes my point even clearer. Frank Reynolds, like the NYT reporters and many others, was getting the information on handwriting analysis, date of purchase, and price of the rifle from the only source that put forward that information: The FBI.

Of course it was coming from the FBI originally, Jim. Who ELSE would you expect it to be coming from?

Thank you for the concession, David. Thank you for admitting that the scores of original radio, television, and newspaper accounts of a $12.78 rifle allegedly purchased from Kleins on March 20, 1963 by "A. Hidell," whose handwriting by Nov. 23 was supposedly matched by the FBI to the handwriting of "Lee Harvey Oswald," was indeed information that originated from the FBI... not from Jesse Curry... not from Frank Reynolds... not from NYT or other print reporters guessing about the price of the rifles by skimming through the Kleins catalog and print media ads! Thank you for admitting that this information quite obviously came from the FBI--and nowhere else!

But....

Why would the FBI report that the magic rifle cost only $12.78 if it was already in possession of all those magical documents suggesting the actual cost of the rifle to "Hidell/Oswald" was $21.45? The FBI already had all the paperwork from Kleins, right? They'd already analyzed the handwriting on the order paperwork, right? And that uncashed, unendorsed magical Postal money order you continue to defend by sheer speculation had a face value of $21.45, didn't it? Someone really needs to explain all this magic!

[David Von Pein]

You REALLY can't figure this out, Jim?

I think it's fairly clear that the FBI just simply didn't release the EXACT DOLLAR AMOUNT ($21.45) that appeared on the front of the money order. So the media people were going with the CURRENT Nov. '63 price for the gun (without the scope)--$12.78.

But we know the FBI and Secret Service--on Nov. 23!--had the info regarding the exact dollar amount ($21.45), because CD75 and CD87 that I've linked dozens of times in this thread verify that fact.

So why would you think anything is "magic" or suspicious about this at all? Do you think BOTH of those documents (CD75 & CD87)---which are from TWO different agencies (the FBI and the SS)---are fake documents?

Edited December 14, 2015 by David Von Pein

[Sandy Larsen]

I'm researching 1963 postal regulations, trying to find the 1963 indorsement (the law spells it with an "i") rules for postal money orders.

The research is frustrating. The National Archives provides only the current rules (and information on rules for prior years not going back nearly to 1963).

It's clear that the rules for the years available require indorsement by each party seeking payment on the PMO. This means, under the rules for the years available, a depositary bank such as First Chicago, which pays against the PMO and then seeks payment from another financial institution next up the payment chain, must indorse in order to receive payment. This approach to indorsements was in effect for commercial money orders and checks in 1963. If I had the bet, I'd bet it was also in effect for PMOs, but I don't want a bet. I want certainty. I hope to have it soon.

Jon,

It wasn't postal regulations that dictated how postal money orders were to be processed by banks. It was Federal Reserve Bank regulations that did.

If you look at FRB Circular 4928, dated August 18, 1960, you will see that "cash items" were required to have bank endorsements (paragraph 13 on page 6). The circular defines checks and postal money orders, among other instruments, as "cash item" (paragraphs 1.1 and 1.3 on page 1). Regulations specific to postal money orders are also given (paragraph 11 on page 5).

FRB circulars were and are still used to inform commercial banks what their requirements are for clearing checks.

Postal money orders could also be cashed at post offices. Postal regulations dictated how those were to be handled. (See 12 CFR Part 171.3 , on page 237.)

Edited December 14, 2015 by Sandy Larsen