Free Book Now Available -- Hasty Judgment: Why the JFK Case Is Not Closed

[Tim Nickerson]

Really? I suspect that you did not look at the money order but simply decided to repeat what you read on some pro-WC site.

I invite you to post a copy of that money order that shows a dated bank endorsement stamp, or a bank endorsement stamp of any kind, and the final date stamp that it should have received if it had gone to the Federal Postal Money Order Center in Kansas City, or from any PMOC, after it was cashed. Let's see it.

The only stamp on the back of the money order is an undated stamp put there by Klein's Sporting Goods, Inc., in the “PAY TO” field, the same kind of stamp that any business puts on the back of a check/money order before sending it to their bank to be cashed/deposited.

The only other marks on the back of the money order are dated initials that were made by federal agents who handled the document after the assassination.

So, yes, show me an image of that money order that shows a single bank endorsement stamp of any kind on the money order. Let's see it.

You haven't answered my question. You are working under the notion that the money order should have had a bank endorsement stamp on it. How have you determined that it should have had a bank endorsement stamp on it?  On the back of the money order you can see "Bank stamps are not regarded as endorsements".

Seriously? Have you never seen a cashed money order? How about a cashed check--ever seen one of those? I mean, good grief, how can you not know that when a bank deposits any kind of a check, it stamps it with a dated endorsement stamp to show that it was cashed? Go to your online bank account and look at the image of the back of one of your cashed checks.

John Armstrong provides numerous examples of cashed checks and vouchers from 1963 to show what we should see on the $21.94 money order that Oswald supposedly sent to Klein's.

http://harveyandlee.net/MoneyOrder.html

It should have gone to the KC PMOC. But, wherever it went, once it got there, it would have been stamped a second time after it had been cashed by an associated bank and/or had through the Federal Reserve. The money order contains no such stamp. Because it was not cashed.

The fact that the money order was not cashed explains why Klein’s could not come up with a genuine bank deposit statement from their bank that showed the money order had been deposited. Instead, as I mentioned in my previous reply, Klein’s sent the WC a deposit statement that seemed to show the deposit but that was dated “2/15/1963,” which was nearly a month before the money order was supposedly bought. If you doubt this, just go look at the last page of CE 10, and see for yourself.

I have seen a cashed USPS money order. You can see it below.





USPS money orders and bank checks were not handled in the same way. A check should get a bank endorsement stamp on it when cashed. USPS money orders did not.

You haven't been paying attention to what I have said. I know for a fact that the money order was cashed. And the proof is right on the money order itself. Have you ever seen uncashed USPS money orders from that period? Here is a blue tinted money order of the format that was being fazed out in late 1962 and replaced with Yellow tinted cards in January of 1963:





Smuckler was a collector. The blue tinted cards were replaced with yellow tinted ones like the one Oswald purchased to pay Klein's with. Tom Scully did some research on this issue and made some discoveries. He can fill you in on those if he reads this post. Here is an uncashed money order from 1963:




Take note of what I've boxed in with green border. Then compare that with the Klein's money order.

In the Fall of 2015, Lance Payette found the following PDF and posted it on the ED forum:

https://www.computer.org/csdl/pds/api/csdl/proceedings/download-article/12OmNzmclTx/pdf

Found on page 483 (fifth page of the PDF):



The money order had that file locator number(138 J159796) placed on it by the US Treasury Department in Washington. From there, it went to the federal records retention center in Alexandria, Virginia, where it was found on Nov 23, 1963.

The money passed through the Federal reserve system and reached it's final destination in Alexandria. It never would have done so if it hadn't been cashed.

[Michael T. Griffith]

He fudged the time that it took to do them. Or some of them anyway.

You're just once again repeating your argument without dealing with the responses to it. Why didn’t you address my point about Stovall’s WC testimony and the nature of Oswald’s job and the work environment at Jaggars-Stovall? Why didn’t you explain how Oswald could have falsely claimed he did nine print jobs without anyone noticing, especially given the fact that all his work, like that of other junior associates, was periodically checked by senior associates? Why didn’t you address my point that in the Jaggars-Stovall work environment, he could not have just disappeared for 30 minutes, much less 2 hours, without someone noticing?

Read this very slowly: It's Oswald's handwriting on the money order, as confirmed by four or five handwriting identification experts. Oswald bought the money order and he mailed it to Klein's.

You just go around and circles, repeat yourself, and ignore contrary points and evidence.

Now, as for the handwriting on the money order, envelope, and order form, such a small sample of handwriting could have easily been faked. Are you familiar with the "Mr. Hunt" note that was allegedly written by Oswald? Most of your fellow WC apologists now agree that the note was faked. Yet, three renowned handwriting experts examined the note and concluded it was written by Oswald. But, the HSCA's handwriting experts could not decide if the handwriting on the note was Oswald's. The history of spying is loaded with examples of expert handwriting forgery. 

David Von Pein reached out to a number of different entities 8 years ago to try and settle the question of the number 12 mark on the stamp.

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

David Von Pein. . . .  Yeap, I suspected that's where you were getting your weak arguments and why you were (and still are) avoiding the readily visible evidence on the money order itself. Did you not notice that Von Pein does not explain or show where a bank endorsement stamp can be seen on the money order? Why do you suppose that is?

Could you not gather up the courage to check out the Armstrong link, where Armstrong provides numerous examples of checks/vouchers cashed in 1963 to show us what we should see on the back of the money order?

I would encourage you to read through the whole thing. Here is some of what you'll find there.

And I would encourage you to do your own research instead of just relying on what you find on some pro-WC website.

You're not going to post an image of the money order that shows any kind of a bank endorsement stamp, are you? Nor are you going to post an image of the money order that shows the stamp it would have received at the PMOC after it was cashed at an associated bank or processed through the Federal Reserve, are you? Do you know why you're not gonna post any such image? Because no such image exists. Because anyone can look at the money order and see what is and is not there.

Not one of the money order images you just posted shows any kind of bank endorsement stamp on the money order that Oswald allegedly mailed to Klein's.

As I've said, and as anyone can confirm with their own two eyes, the only stamp on the back of the money order is an undated stamp put there by Klein's Sporting Goods, Inc., in the “PAY TO” field, the same kind of stamp that any business puts on the back of a check/money order before sending it to their bank to be cashed/deposited.

The only other marks on the back of the money order are dated initials that were made by federal agents who handled the document after the assassination.

DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

[SNIP]

None of this addresses a single point I made about the "12" in the postmark.  And I take it you didn't bother to go to the USPS links that I provided on the purpose of a postmark and on the fact that the Post Office used zone numbers from 1943 until April 1963 before they used zip codes?

You see, when you read the evidence that I presented, your first and only thought was to go running to Von Pein's website and copy and paste a bunch of his non-responsive points.

So let me ask you again: Why would the USPS bother to include the number of the machine that processed the envelope in the postmark? Why? What good would that do? Is it not much more logical that the Post Office would want to be able to document the postal zone from which the letter was sent?

And since when is a machine identified only by a two-digit number? Even making the unlikely assumption that the only ID numbers the USPS put on its processing machines were two-digit numbers, how many machines numbered "12" do you suppose the USPS had just in the Dallas-Ft. Worth area alone?

And I would again point out that we don't have to guess here. We have the Post Office's own website telling us that postmarks are . . . well, let's read it again:

A postmark indicates the location and date the Postal Service accepted custody of a mailpiece. (https://about.usps.com/handbooks/po408/ch1_003.htm)

The USPS did not institute zip codes until April 1963. Before then, starting in 1943, the Post Office divided cities into zones:

1943: The United States Post Office Department divides cities into zones. (https://www.zip-codes.com/united-states-zip-codes-timeline.asp#1943)

And did you notice that Von Pein doesn't explain why the deposit statement that Klein's provided to the WC is dated February 15, 1963, nearly four weeks before the money order was supposedly purchased?

[John Iacoletti]

No, the 12 on the stamp does not represent the number of the Postal Zone. It almost certainly represents the number of the cancelling machine in the Ervay street post office that stamped that envelope.

Why is this almost certain?

By "Jaggars-Stovall records" you mean the timesheet that Oswald filled out himself. The one that he obviously lied on. Oswald likely missed work for no more than a half hour.

Why are these things "obvious" and "likely"?

[John Iacoletti]

Now, as for the handwriting on the money order, envelope, and order form, such a small sample of handwriting could have easily been faked. Are you familiar with the "Mr. Hunt" note that was allegedly written by Oswald? Most of your fellow WC apologists now agree that the note was faked. Yet, three renowned handwriting experts examined the note and concluded it was written by Oswald. But, the HSCA's handwriting experts could not decide if the handwriting on the note was Oswald's. The history of spying is loaded with examples of expert handwriting forgery. 

Handwriting "analysis" is unscientific and biased.  The so-called Hitler diaries fooled "experts" too.

Besides, there is no way to connect the money order found in Virginia to any specific Klein's order.

[John Mytton]

one of which shows a silhouette where the Oswald figure was supposed to be,

The image that you refer to was taken many months after Oswald's backyard photo and shows massive new growth on the shrub to Oswald's left, the bush in front of the post holding the stairs has grown and lost it's leaves and the tree behind has also lost it's leaves, please explain in your own words where this leads to? Btw you also claim that Oswald's chin in the backyard photo wasn't Oswald's so how does that fit into a full sized cut-out? Enquiring minds would at least like to hear your rational explanation?



Photographic scholars have long understood how light and shadow works and how a harsh overhead light will create a more defined masculine chin line, also notice the strong similar shadow in the eye area along with the tell tale triangular shadow under the nose





JohnM

[John Mytton]

How about the 9 printing jobs that he was recorded as doing? Did he fudge those as well, and nobody noticed?

You just can't connect the dots, can you? Read this really slowly: Oswald did not buy the money order and did not mail it to Klein's.

What were you saying about thinking about what you write before you post it?! Now, think about this: Why would the USPS bother to include the number of the machine that processed the envelope in the postmark? Why? What good would that do? Is it not much more logical that the Post Office would want to be able to document the postal zone from which the letter was sent?

And since when is a machine identified only by a two-digit number? Even making the unlikely assumption that the only ID numbers the USPS put on its processing machines were two-digit numbers, how many machines numbered "12" do you suppose the USPS had just in the Dallas-Ft. Worth area alone?

But we do not need to guess about the information in the postmark. Turning to the USPS's official website, we learn that postmarks are intended to provide "the location and date" the USPS accepted custody of the item:

The USPS did not institute zip codes until April 1963. Before then, starting in 1943, the Post Office divided cities into zones:

So, obviously, it made sense to stamp the letter with a postmark that included the postal zone from which the letter was mailed.

Here again, as you are prone to do, you base your arguments on debunked or unproven assumptions. Why don’t you go read Robert Stovall’s WC testimony and come back and tell me that Oswald could have been gone for 30 minutes, much less 2-3 hours, without anyone noticing, and could have gotten away with claiming to have done nine printing jobs that he did not do.
 
Really? I suspect that you did not look at the money order but simply decided to repeat what you read on some pro-WC site.

I invite you to post a copy of that money order that shows a dated bank endorsement stamp, or a bank endorsement stamp of any kind, and the final date stamp that it should have received if it had gone to the Federal Postal Money Order Center in Kansas City, or from any PMOC, after it was cashed. Let's see it.

The only stamp on the back of the money order is an undated stamp put there by Klein's Sporting Goods, Inc., in the “PAY TO” field, the same kind of stamp that any business puts on the back of a check/money order before sending it to their bank to be cashed/deposited.

The only other marks on the back of the money order are dated initials that were made by federal agents who handled the document after the assassination.

So, yes, show me an image of that money order that shows a single bank endorsement stamp of any kind on the money order. Let's see it.

Seriously? Have you never seen a cashed money order? How about a cashed check--ever seen one of those? I mean, good grief, how can you not know that when a bank deposits any kind of a check, it stamps it with a dated endorsement stamp to show that it was cashed? Go to your online bank account and look at the image of the back of one of your cashed checks.

John Armstrong provides numerous examples of cashed checks and vouchers from 1963 to show what we should see on the $21.94 money order that Oswald supposedly sent to Klein's.

http://harveyandlee.net/MoneyOrder.html

It should have gone to the KC PMOC. But, wherever it went, once it got there, it would have been stamped a second time after it had been cashed by an associated bank and/or had through the Federal Reserve. The money order contains no such stamp. Because it was not cashed.

The fact that the money order was not cashed explains why Klein’s could not come up with a genuine bank deposit statement from their bank that showed the money order had been deposited. Instead, as I mentioned in my previous reply, Klein’s sent the WC a deposit statement that seemed to show the deposit but that was dated “2/15/1963,” which was nearly a month before the money order was supposedly bought. If you doubt this, just go look at the last page of CE 10, and see for yourself.

OMG, I suppose you've never heard of the "KISS principle", why on Earth would any conspirator go to the trouble of doing masses of research, inventing so much evidence, placing it all over the country and in turn inadvertently involving Kleins, Crescent, the US postal service etc etc, when the alternative of actually just buying a rifle with a Kleins magazine coupon would only cost $21.45 or even simpler still, just buy a rifle from a local gunshop and have the owner "remember" Oswald then plant the receipt on Oswald? Doh!

BTW why would conspirators directly tie the name A.  Hidell instead of Lee Harvey Oswald to the order process, why add unnecessary complications?  The only person who would feel the need to use an alias could only be Oswald.

JohnM

[Michael T. Griffith]

On the fact that postal zones were the early version of the zip code:

Initially, the first postal zoning system had been developed during WWII, assigning 2-digit numbers to the largest metro areas across the country. That system was later expanded with the introduction of the 5-digit number in [April] 1963, made mandatory in 1967. (https://www.policymap.com/2013/04/tips-on-zips-part-ii-a-brief-history-us-postal-codes/)

San Diego, California, had a postal zone 12. Waco, Texas, had a postal zone 1, as did Dallas. Dallas also had a postal zone 12, which is undisputed. An envelope postmarked in Waco in 1962:



According to the USPS, postmarks include “a two-letter state abbreviation, ZIP code, and date of mailing” (https://about.usps.com/handbooks/po408/ch1_003.htm).

If post-April-1963 postmarks include the zip code, it stands to reason that previous postmarks included the postal zone, which was then replaced by the zip code when the zip code came along.

Let us look at the back of the money order, just to confirm that there is no bank endorsement or PMOC endorsement of any kind on it. (And do not mistake the circular stamp mark in the bottom right corner as a bank endorsement—it is just bleed-through from the front of the money order.)



The only stamp on the back of the money order is an undated stamp put there by Klein's Sporting Goods, Inc., in the “PAY TO” field, the same kind of stamp that any business puts on the back of a check/money order before sending it to their bank to be cashed/deposited. The only other marks on the back of the money order are dated initials that were made by federal agents who handled the document after the assassination.

Armstrong provides a detailed, illustrated explanation of how money orders were processed in Oswald's day:

http://harveyandlee.net/Guns/PMO/Money_Orders.html

Regarding Oswald's Jaggars-Stovall timesheet, if we look at the timesheet, we see that every print job had a job number and that the time spent on each job had to be noted:



Finally, notice the obvious difference in how the "A" in "A. Hidell" is written on the color original of the order form vs. how it is written in Cadigan Exhibit 3A:



Clearly, somebody was meddling with the writing of the name on the order form between the time the order form was first filled out and the time it was copied as an evidence exhibit for the WC.

[Tim Nickerson]

You're just once again repeating your argument without dealing with the responses to it. Why didn’t you address my point about Stovall’s WC testimony and the nature of Oswald’s job and the work environment at Jaggars-Stovall? Why didn’t you explain how Oswald could have falsely claimed he did nine print jobs without anyone noticing, especially given the fact that all his work, like that of other junior associates, was periodically checked by senior associates? Why didn’t you address my point that in the Jaggars-Stovall work environment, he could not have just disappeared for 30 minutes, much less 2 hours, without someone noticing?

I've read Stovall's testimony. You're going to have to highlight the part of it where he offers, or even hints, that Oswald could not have just disappeared for 30 minutes, or even longer, without someone noticing. Because I don't see it. All I see is him noting that Oswald never took any days off. He also noted that Oswald was a slacker. He was not very productive at all.

Now, as for the handwriting on the money order, envelope, and order form, such a small sample of handwriting could have easily been faked. Are you familiar with the "Mr. Hunt" note that was allegedly written by Oswald? Most of your fellow WC apologists now agree that the note was faked. Yet, three renowned handwriting experts examined the note and concluded it was written by Oswald. But, the HSCA's handwriting experts could not decide if the handwriting on the note was Oswald's. The history of spying is loaded with examples of expert handwriting forgery. 

Who were the three renowned handwriting experts who examined the note and concluded it was written by Oswald? Name them.

The HSCA handwriting experts were unable to render a decision on the note because they only had poor quality photoreproductions of it at their disposal. However, they pretty much dismissed it as fake anyway.

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol8/html/HSCA_Vol8_0120a.htm

41)  VIII. The signature, "Lee Harvey Oswald," on the Hunt note (item 4-7) does not correspond to the Oswald signatures described under section I [signatures judged to be Oswald's].
.......
(43)  From the examinations of item 4-7, it was determined that the signature does not correspond with any of the Oswald signatures of section I. Similarly, the writing does not correspond to that in the section II Oswald documents.

(44)  I would like to note, however, that the quality of the original photoreproductions of the Hunt note was poor. Under the best of circumstances, reproductions lack clarity and detail. Here, as can be seen from the copies, the original photoreproduction was out of focus, giving the document a fuzzy appearance. Accurate analysis was difficult. The note is highly suspicious. The original would have to be checked in order to make a more definite analysis and reach a definitive conclusion.

Your attempt to discredit handwriting identification done by real experts has flopped. Handwriting identification is consistently accepted in courts of law. The handwriting on the money order is Oswald's.

David Von Pein. . . .  Yeap, I suspected that's where you were getting your weak arguments and why you were (and still are) avoiding the readily visible evidence on the money order itself. Did you not notice that Von Pein does not explain or show where a bank endorsement stamp can be seen on the money order? Why do you suppose that is?

How are my arguments weak? Did you even read what I posted? Members of the "Machine Cancel Society" and a senior Postal manager confirmed that the 12 represents a canceling machine, not a Postal zone.

Could you not gather up the courage to check out the Armstrong link, where Armstrong provides numerous examples of checks/vouchers cashed in 1963 to show us what we should see on the back of the money order?

How does Armstrong know that the numerous examples of checks/vouchers cashed in 1963 show us what we should see on the back of the money order?

You're not going to post an image of the money order that shows any kind of a bank endorsement stamp, are you? Nor are you going to post an image of the money order that shows the stamp it would have received at the PMOC after it was cashed at an associated bank or processed through the Federal Reserve, are you? Do you know why you're not gonna post any such image? Because no such image exists. Because anyone can look at the money order and see what is and is not there.

Not one of the money order images you just posted shows any kind of bank endorsement stamp on the money order that Oswald allegedly mailed to Klein's.

As I've said, and as anyone can confirm with their own two eyes, the only stamp on the back of the money order is an undated stamp put there by Klein's Sporting Goods, Inc., in the “PAY TO” field, the same kind of stamp that any business puts on the back of a check/money order before sending it to their bank to be cashed/deposited.

The only other marks on the back of the money order are dated initials that were made by federal agents who handled the document after the assassination.

You keep saying the same thing over and over again. Remove your damn CT blinders and answer the question that I have asked you repeatedly.

HOW HAVE YOU DETERMINED THAT THE MONEY ORDER SHOULD HAVE HAD A BANK ENDORSEMENT STAMP ON IT?

You completely ignored what I posted that shows that the money order was cashed. Why?

So let me ask you again: Why would the USPS bother to include the number of the machine that processed the envelope in the postmark? Why? What good would that do? Is it not much more logical that the Post Office would want to be able to document the postal zone from which the letter was sent?

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

"The purpose of the "12" is to distinguish the mail from any other machine that cancelled mail from Dallas. Each post office uses these methods to track workers assigned to cancelling, to distinguish mail from one station from another, to identify the machine that applied the cancel, and the list goes on." -- A.J. Savakis, "Machine Cancel Society" member

And since when is a machine identified only by a two-digit number? Even making the unlikely assumption that the only ID numbers the USPS put on its processing machines were two-digit numbers, how many machines numbered "12" do you suppose the USPS had just in the Dallas-Ft. Worth area alone?

And I would again point out that we don't have to guess here. We have the Post Office's own website telling us that postmarks are . . . well, let's read it again:

The USPS did not institute zip codes until April 1963. Before then, starting in 1943, the Post Office divided cities into zones:

Your link does not back you up. It does not say that postal zones were included on postmarks in the 1960s. Let me ask you this: Where was Postal Zone 2B located in Dallas in 1963?

https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh20/html/WH_Vol20_0147b.htm

From your link:

A “local” postmark shows the full name of the Post Office, a two-letter state abbreviation, ZIP Code

Now take a look at the following:



What areas of Dallas fell under the Zip Codes 3B and 1B in the late 1960s?

And did you notice that Von Pein doesn't explain why the deposit statement that Klein's provided to the WC is dated February 15, 1963, nearly four weeks before the money order was supposedly purchased?

Notice that the amount on the deposit slip ($13,827.98) is the exact amount to the penny as that of the itemized deposit document dated March 13, 1963. How would you explain that?