WARNING to Forum Members: Please Read This!

[David Von Pein]

Sandy needs to look up the word "should".

[Scott Kaiser]

Wrong again, Scott.

Yeah, I hate when that happens, thanks for clearing that up for me David.

[Scott Kaiser]

as a result of the FBI applying liquid to the M.O. to check it for fingerprints

Not sure how much "liquid" one would need to apply to paper before lifting prints, or what type of liquid would be needed, would you know what they used? I do know that once "liquid" is applied to paper depending how much is applied the signature will begin to "smudge" very quickly. The last time I ever saw anyone try to life finger prints off paper in those days would use "dusting powder" not liquid, today they use crazy glue and a microwave to lift the prints off paper. If the FBI did in-fact use some type of liquid to lift the prints it's no wonder Hoover was surrounded by idiots.

Edited February 25, 2016 by Scott Kaiser

[David Von Pein]

Anyway, I wondered if DVP posted ANYTHING on that page of his website regarding FRB circulars and my proof. What I found is, to say the least, enlightening. .... There is not one single post where I show that the FRB circulars tell bank managers that bank stamps are indeed required on PMOs. Not One!

You didn't look very hard then, Sandy, because I've given your so-called "proof" plenty of space at my site. Although you haven't proved what you think you've proved, because of the word "should" in the regulation. But anyway, here are excerpts from my webpage (and, no, I didn't just this second add these posts to my page, in case you want to accuse me of that bit of deception. And the reason I didn't copy and paste Sandy's entire post into my page here is because his post was very very long, with a lot of indented text and hyperlinks; and for really long posts like that, I normally do what I did in this instance, I include a direct link to the post and embed the link in the word "THIS". But Sandy's arguments are all here for anyone to read. And I even repeat the regulations Sandy cited in my reply. So the text of the regulation is visible on my site too....

SANDY LARSEN SAID THIS.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

Thanks, Sandy.

But as part of these sections of the regulation you cited....

"Postal money orders will be handled in accordance with an agreement made by the Postmaster General, in behalf of the United States, and the Federal Reserve Banks as depositaries and fiscal agents of the United States. .... All cash items sent to us, or to another Federal Reserve Bank direct for our account, should be endorsed without restriction to the order of the Federal Reserve Bank to which sent, or endorsed to the order of any bank, banker or trust company, or with some similar endorsement. .... The endorsement of the sending bank should be dated and should show the American Bankers Association transit number of the sending bank in prominent type on both sides."

....why couldn't something like this procedure I talked about yesterday at another forum have been in place for "bulk" transfers of U.S. Postal Money Orders?

Yes, it says "All cash items" in that postal regulation you cited, and it also says the cash items should be dated and should show a transit number "on both sides" (geez, imagine the time it would take to place all those markings and stamps on BOTH SIDES of each and every one of the hundreds if not thousands of Postal Money Orders that were being sent to a huge bank like the First National Bank in Chicago on a daily basis), but I'm still thinking that in the case of large bulk transfers or deposits of U.S. Postal Money Orders, the process I speculate about at that last link I provided above was probably the way First National Bank handled the Hidell money order in 1963 (seeing as how that M.O. does not have any First National stamp on it at all).

[Later....]

SANDY LARSEN SAID:

I've notice in the postal money order debate that [Tommy Graves] agree with nearly anyone who presents an argument that bank stamps weren't required on PMOs in 1963. Maybe you believe they were never required. I've given documentary proof that they were required. .... I just want to understand why you pick the less likely of two choices.

Edited February 25, 2016 by David Von Pein

[David Von Pein]

Scott.....

MR. EISENBERG -- "Did you see these items before they were treated for fingerprints."

MR. CADIGAN -- "I know I saw Exhibit No. 788 [the money order] before it was treated for fingerprints. As to Exhibits Nos. 801 and 802, I don't know at this time."

MR. EISENBERG -- "Are the photographs which you produced photographs of the items before they were treated for fingerprints or after?"

MR. CADIGAN -- "Yes; before they were treated for fingerprints. In other words, it is regular customary practice to photograph an exhibit before it is treated for latents for exactly this reason, that in the course of the treatment there may be some loss of detail, either total or partial."

Edited February 25, 2016 by David Von Pein

[Scott Kaiser]

Bottom line, Sandy was correct about bank endorsements, you chose not to believe him. I know you didn't overlook my post, or I'm sure you would have attacked it, or tried to discredit it. You can't discredit truth! This should now end these discussions really as to whether the federal institution is required to endorse the currency. You can NOW add this information to your sight so that it ends all questions.

3.3Endorsement

The presenting bank and the endorser of a money order presented for payment are deemed to guarantee to the postmaster general that all prior endorsements are genuine, whether an express guarantee to that effect is placed on the money order. When an endorsement is made by a person other than the payee personally, the presenting bank and the endorser are deemed to guarantee to the postmaster general, in addition to other warranties, that the person who so endorsed had capacity and authority to endorse the money order for the payee.

no need to ware your glasses, I don't want you to miss anything, this information is described in "small print"

Edited February 25, 2016 by Scott Kaiser

[David Von Pein]

Bottom line, Sandy was correct about bank endorsements, you chose not to believe him.

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

"All cash items sent to us, or to another Federal Reserve Bank direct for our account, should be endorsed without restriction to the order of the Federal Reserve Bank to which sent."

[David Josephs]

Where does it state that Cadigan 11 is anything but a copy of a copy? And this copy is missing all the impact and bleed thru writing because it was photocopied on top of another piece of paper.

$21.45 is an "impact" mark like "138 4159796" which can be seen from the opposite side of the paper yet for some reason the $21.45 cannot. the "138..." is obviously much less deep and dark as "21" is yet the 21 does not show thru.

The extremely heavy initials from 11/23 can easily be seen on the reverse when no paper is placed on top of it when copying.

There also appears to be a rectangle which encompasses the "PAY TO and FROM" box and all the other PMO data.

Any Idea why a purchase at the (G)eneral (P)ost (O)ffice would be mailed from a different zone or how Ozzie had the time to get it there and back to work?

"TEX 12" is not "G.P.O."

in addition David... The HSCA finally did a handwriting analysis on these items (despite the FBI concluding on 11/22 the PMO was written by Oswald per Holmes) Except there is a HUGE caveat when experts make determinations about handwriting... they use ORIGINALS which include the pressure applied and other minute characteristics which are lost on copies.

Additionally, the HSCA experts themselves describe how a "copy/paste" can accomplish a forgery...

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol8/html/HSCA_Vol8_0168b.htm is #29 the Xeroxed PMO from which a handwriting determination was to be made.

29. Xerox of Klein's money order

Limitations on the examination (71) Five items of evidence were not examined in the original, but were copies. Photocopies have several limitations. They do not reproduce all the fine details in handwriting needed in making an examination and comparison. At best, they do not produce as sharp an image as a properly produced photograph, and they lack tonal gradations, a result of the contrasting process of reproduction. In addition, it is possible to incorporate or insert changes and alterations into copies. A method frequently used is to paste together parts of documents to make one fraudulent document, which is then copied. If the first copy can pass inspection, it will be used; if not, it will be reworked to eliminate all signs of alteration. This amended copy is then recopied for the finished product. This is usually referred to as the "cut and paste" method. (72) Document examiners only render a qualified or conditional opinion when working from copies. They stipulate that they have to examine the original before a definite opinion will be made. (73) Because of problems with the following documents, no definite opinion can be rendered: (74) Item 18, a halftone copy of a photograph of the original document. This is at least a third generation copy and is not suitable for comparison. (A halftone copy consists of very small dots and not continuous lines.) (75) Item 29 was a Xerox copy made from a microfilm copy. Such a second generation copy has the defects of both processes.

Maybe Dave can take a second and explain this: and how these two reports mesh with Holmes finding the PMO sat morning.

Thanks Dave

DJ

Besides - it doesn't actually LOOK like his handwriting

When I examine the PMO under magnification, you can clearly see the words Kleins and Sporting had been erased and re-written, and or written in pencil not pen.

Wrong again, Scott. What you're seeing is merely the bleeding through of the ink from the other side of the money order (as a result of the FBI applying liquid to the M.O. to check it for fingerprints). Fortunately, however, Cadigan Exhibit No. 11 was taken BEFORE the liquid was applied, so we see no bleed-thru at all here....

http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0152a.htm

[Scott Kaiser]

Where does it state that Cadigan 11 is anything but a copy of a copy? And this copy is missing all the impact and bleed thru writing because it was photocopied on top of another piece of paper.

Now David, I think David is correct, lol....

[Scott Kaiser]

Any Idea why a purchase at the (G)eneral (P)ost (O)ffice would be mailed from a different zone or how Ozzie had the time to get it there and back to work?

David V, would you agree that my suspicions of this forged postal money order by Hidell maybe wasn't Ozzie after all? Hmmmm?

Edited February 25, 2016 by Scott Kaiser

[David Von Pein]

David (J.) is wrong, Scott. As usual.

And there's a very good chance that the CTers are dead wrong about the "Zone 12" argument too....

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-postmark-on-commission-exhibit-773.html

Edited February 25, 2016 by David Von Pein

[Scott Kaiser]

David (J.) is wrong, Scott. As usual.

And there's a very good chance that the CTers are dead wrong about the "Zone 12" argument too....

jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-postmark-on-commission-exhibit-773.html

There's also a good chance they're right! Last word, lololol... hahahaha!!

[Sandy Larsen]

Sandy needs to look up the word "should".

It is well known that "should" is the past tense of "shall" and is often used in its place in polite conversation. The two words share the same meaning.

Definition according to Dictionary.com:

should

[shoo d] /ʃʊd/

1. simple past tense of shall.

2. (used to express condition):

Were he to arrive, I should be pleased.

3. must; ought (used to indicate duty, propriety, or expediency):

You should not do that.

4. would (used to make a statement less direct or blunt):

I should think you would apologize.

Definitions 1, 3, and 4 confirm my understanding of the word, as I stated above.

Edited February 25, 2016 by Sandy Larsen

[David Von Pein]

I look at it this way....

If Sandy Larsen is 100% correct about bank endorsements being mandatory on the front and/or back of every single individual U.S. Postal Money Order that was deposited by First National Bank of Chicago in March 1963, then one of the following two things must have occurred....

1.) If the Hidell money order is a fake (and the plotters had any brains at all), then those plotters faking the PMO would have surely known that at least SOME First National Bank markings would need to be placed on the PMO if they wanted it to look "real" and "kosher". Right?

But the plotters not only failed to stamp the money order ONE time with a phony First National endorsement, but (per the FRB regulations cited by Sandy Larsen) those stupid conspirators omitted at least three or four separate FNB markings that should be on that money order -- including the date of the transaction and TWO separate ABA transit numbers.

or:

2.) If the Hidell money order is legitimate and was not faked by anyone, then we'd have to believe that the First National Bank personnel just forgot to put at least 3 or 4 of their stamps on the Hidell money order before sending it along to the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago.

I ask --- How likely is it for EITHER one of the above two scenarios to be the true and accurate one? I'd say it's pretty unlikely that either option is correct.

Therefore, IMO, this is the likely solution....

"I would guess that the Hidell money order was probably "endorsed" as part of a bulk batch of U.S. Postal Money Orders sent by First National Bank to the Federal Reserve Bank in Chicago. All of the money orders in such a "bulk" transfer were going to be sent to the very same place--the FRB in Chicago, Illinois--so I can't see why a single stamped endorsement placed on a separate document (which would be attached to the bundle of bulk money orders being sent from First National to the FRB) wouldn't suffice in a bulk transaction like that, instead of having to stamp a separate endorsement on each and every money order. I do not know for certain if such a "single endorsement on bulk transfers" procedure was actually in place at major U.S. banks in 1963, but such a process makes perfect sense to me. And it would certainly save the bank a lot of "stamping" time too." -- DVP; December 3, 2015

Edited February 25, 2016 by David Von Pein

[Scott Kaiser]

"1.) If the money order is a fake (and the plotters had any brains at all), then those plotters faking the PMO would have surely known that at least SOMEFirst National Bank markings would need to be placed on the PMO if they wanted it to look "real" and "kosher". Right?"

​WRONG! That would have led to another investigation, which teller "approved" the PMO, who stamped it, time, date, and would have narrowed down to no one, that would have caused an explosion.

2.) If the Hidell money order is legitimate and was not faked by anyone, then we'd have to believe that the First National Bank personnel just forgot to put at least 3 or 4 of their stamps on the Hidell money order before sending it along to the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago.

Bank Tellers go through extensive training, and before acting on their own, they are supervised, the routine is de novo, over and over, you don't forgot your job at a bank, you can easily lose it that way.

Edited February 25, 2016 by Scott Kaiser