Who returned LHOs library books on Oct 3rd 1963?

[John Tonkovich]

Since I am an "old" , and do remember checking out books in the late 1960s, I can testify that records were kept of overdue books, since there were fines assessed for tardiness. (5 cents a day, perhaps?)

The Commission document notes a Dallas library delinquency on Oswald's part.

No mention of New Orleans' delinquencies, nor mention of any investigation therein.

Any objections to the above statements?

[Charles Collins]

Well then that would be another unfounded assumption made by you, because you're under the impression that your opinions automatically constitute the "generally held view".  And/or that if a view is "generally held", that makes it automatically true.

You disagree with practically everyone here about whatever. You fit the definition to a tee.

[John Iacoletti]

You disagree with practically everyone here about whatever. You fit the definition to a tee.

Only people who make claims that they can't support with actual evidence.

You seem to have a problem being disagreed with.

[Charles Collins]

Only people who make claims that they can't support with actual evidence.

You seem to have a problem being disagreed with.

You have turned a blind eye towards the already cited evidence.

[Richard Smith]

Using the contrarian's version of logic as applied to any evidence that points to Oswald's guilt in this case, we must have the original library documents (not even copies), a chain of custody (they love that phrase), the recollection of the clerk from whom Oswald checked out the books confirming that he did so, prints on the books in question, and Oswald's motive for checking out these particular books.   Unless that is established beyond any doubt then the return date is moot because there is "no evidence" Oswald ever actually checked out any books from the library.  All we have is "speculation" and "assumptions."   Henceforth they can be referred to as "Oswald's books.  LOL". 

[John Iacoletti]

You have turned a blind eye towards the already cited evidence.

Your already cited evidence consists of a random photo pulled off the Internet of a library book with a "date due" slip, and several unsubstantiated claims and assumptions about what constitutes a "standard system".

[John Iacoletti]

Using the contrarian's version of logic as applied to any evidence that points to Oswald's guilt in this case, we must have the original library documents (not even copies), a chain of custody (they love that phrase), the recollection of the clerk from whom Oswald checked out the books confirming that he did so, prints on the books in question, and Oswald's motive for checking out these particular books.

"Richard's" standard false equivalence game.  Nobody's guilt or innocence of murder hinges on who checked out a library book, or when it was returned or by whom. So if you don't want to believe that there is sufficient evidence to determine beyond a reasonable doubt that Oswald checked out these books then I don't really give a damn.  You're just helping to make my point about the difference between assumptions and evidence.  It's not like the New Orleans public library records help us determine who killed JFK, so what difference does it make?

[Charles Collins]

Your already cited evidence consists of a random photo pulled off the Internet of a library book with a "date due" slip, and several unsubstantiated claims and assumptions about what constitutes a "standard system".

Here is your original claim:

No evidence has been cited in this thread other than the Mosk memo and some conjecture and personal anecdotes.

First it was the entire thread:

No evidence has been cited in this thread other than the Mosk memo and some conjecture and personal anecdotes.


Now you want to change it to my evidence:

Your already cited evidence consists of a random photo pulled off the Internet of a library book with a "date due" slip, and several unsubstantiated claims and assumptions about what constitutes a "standard system".


The entire thread is full of relevant evidence. WC testimony, Texas history unit archives, unemployment records, stamped library book card, calendar, link to a discussion on another internet board regarding exactly how the old manual library systems worked (with many examples, none of which included the actual return date of books returned on or before the due dates). Here are some quotes from this thread that either include this evidence or a response that disagrees with your position and demonstrates how far out in left field you are.

That would be the same thing John---Jerry is correct...So it looks like this whole thread was a chase after wild fowl
Apparently...Oswald was a speed reader.

The memo says: "Card shows return date" rather than just "return date".  A big difference.  It means the "return date" is established from the "card."  And that seems to further confirm Jerry O's theory that it means the due date and not the date actually returned.  Another conspiracy myth busted.

It's interesting that Oswald read "The Huey Long Murder Case" by Hermann B. Deutsch.  A case in which there are disputes over whether Long was killed by an assassin or accidentally shot by his own bodyguards.

LOL.  Do you think Oswald returned every book that he checked out precisely two weeks later?  A logical inference strongly suggests that this reflects the due date.

Evidence that has already been cited in this thread.

Additionally, here is a link for a thread on “The Straight Dope” regarding this type of library checkout system (before computerization). It includes descriptions from various locations. I have read the first 25 posts. All describe a system similar to what I have already indicated as typical. None of them have tracking of the actual return date.

https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=558711

Again, I challenge you to provide any evidence whatsoever of a public library system in operation in the U.S in 1963 that routinely recorded the actual return dates of books that were returned on or before the due dates. Unless you can, I am finished with this discussion. Period.