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

[Tim Nickerson]

When the Post Office changed the style of money orders in 1951, the postal regulation specified that "the new orders will be handled like checks," as Armstrong has documented (he provides an image of the source page in the postal regulations). Furthermore, has also documented, ALL money orders went to the Federal Reserve System. I'll quote from his article, since you apparently have not read it yet:

That's from 1951 and we don't know what they meant exactly by "handled like checks". One thing is for certain is that in 1963 money orders were not handled exactly like checks. Checks should have received bank endorsement stamps after being cashed. USPS money orders did not. Bank stamps on USPS money orders were not regarded as endorsements. It's right there on the back of the Klein's money order. See for yourself.

The FBI confirmed this fact when it interviewed senior figures at the First Bank of Chicago and the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, as I will discuss later on.

Yes, the money order passed through the Federal Reserve Banking system. I already noted that. So why are you telling it to me if as I don't already know? The money order passed through the Federal Reserve Banking system and reached the US Treasury Dept. where it received a File Locator number. It would not have done so if it had not been cashed.

As for your argument in another reply that since some postmarks have a number and a letter after the city and state, e.g., 3B, therefore this notation cannot be a postal zone. But you said the number 12 on the envelope to Klein's was the number of the cancelling machine that processed the envelope. So now you're saying that those machines had a mix of two-digit numbers in some cases and one digit and one letter in other cases? Why would those machines be labeled like that?  Is it not more logical to suppose that a postal zone could have been administratively (on paper) divided so that zone 3 would be 3A and 3B than to suppose that machines were given two types of identification numbers? Why would a cancelling machine have had the number 3B? 

I don't know why some canceling machines had a number and a letter, but they did. And they continued to do so throughout the 1960s and beyond.

In another reply you also said you see nothing in Robert Stovall's testimony that would suggest it was unlikely that Oswald could have been gone for 30 minutes or more without being noticed. You didn't see where Stovall described the technical nature of the work and said that Oswald was a trainee and that several guys worked "right with him"? Trainees at technical firms usually don't go unsupervised for very long. How about John Graef's WC testimony? Graef was Oswald's trainer at Jaggars-Stovall. Among other things, Graef said Oswald was "very punctual" and did whatever he was asked to do (10 H 180-186).

Yes , Oswald was punctual and always showed up for work. However, there's nothing in Stovall's or Graef's WC testimonies that says that Oswald was watched over at all times or even much at all. Oswald was described as being a slacker. How does one be a slacker while be supervised at all times?

And I don't see anything in your reply that addresses the problems with the deposit statement that Klein's submitted to the WC.

That's because you don't give my posts proper attention. Go back and read my post again.

Take a step back and think about what you are saying: You are saying that "Oswald's" money order was deposited in the First National Bank of Chicago and then processed through the Federal Reserve System but somehow, someway magically avoided receiving a single mark/stamp/notation that it was actually deposited by the bank or that it actually went through the Federal Reserve System. Somehow, someway, according to you, nobody at any of those institutions put a single mark/stamp/notation to document the order's deposit and processing.[/size]   

Yup. That's exactly what I'm saying.

What is your point here? I have said nothing about the color of the money order. What does this have to do with anything? The color of the money order does not change the fact that it should have a bank endorsement and a Federal Reserve endorsement on the back to document its receipt by the Federal Reserve.

I wasn't trying to make a point by posting the image of the blue-tinted money order. I was just offering extra information, that's all.

This is old ground that was covered decades ago, but you do not know this because you have only consulted pro-WC sources. As for the money order's arrival in Alexandria, there is much more to this issue than you seem to be aware. You could start by reading Armstrong's research on the matter:

http://harveyandlee.net/Mail_Order_Rifle/Mail_Order_Rifle.html

This wasn't really covered until 2015, when it was settled in favor of the money order being cashed. You have been out of the loop. You are now just regurgitating slop that Armstrong feeds you. I don't need to read anything from Armstrong or David Josephs. I've already seen it all before. Neither Armstrong nor Josephs knew what that ten digit number on the MO stood for until Lance Payette informed them in the Fall of 2015. 

The FBI interviewed First National Bank of Chicago VP Robert Wilmouth and Lester Gohr of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago on this issue, and they explained that the money order would have gone to the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago after it had been deposited. Walmouth said it should have gotten to the Chicago Federal Reserve Bank by March 18. See:

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10408#relPageId=199&tab=page
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10408#relPageId=200&tab=page

To fully understand Wilmouth's statements to the FBI, see:

http://harveyandlee.net/Mail_Order_Rifle/Mail_Order_Rifle.html

Again, you're just repeating something that I already told you myself. The money order 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.

David Josephs has provided an entire appendix on the processing of money orders (Appendix B):

https://kennedysandking.com/images/pdf/JosephsRiflePart1.pdf

Josephs also addresses some of the problems with the story of the money order's "discovery," which I have not even mentioned yet.

David Josephs is as nutty as Armstrong, if not moreso. He has argued that one of the people who was involved in the discovery of the money order in Alexandria was not a real person. That is, that he never existed. His muddled thinking is headache material. He sees conspiracy around every corner.

This, of course, ties back to the altered handwriting in the existing copies of the order form. The original color copy that I presented earlier was included in PBS's 1988 documentary Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald? If Cadigan 3A is a copy of the color original, someone needs to explain why the "A" in "A. Hidell" is clearly, indisputably written differently in the two documents. In the color copy, the "A" is written in cursive, but in Cadigan 3A, it is written in print style. This indicates that somebody faked Oswald's handwriting in a second order form and decided to write the "A" in print style instead of cursive, and a copy of this form became Cadigan 3A.

And another example of you not paying attention to what I say. My patience with you is running thin. The color copy that you posted earlier is a fake. The color original was destroyed by Klein's. They kept all of their records on microfilm. Neither Cadigan nor Cole, or any other investigator ever saw the original.

[Tim Nickerson]

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=56967#relPageId=33&tab=page

 

[Tim Nickerson]

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.

And how does this differ from a photocopy taken from a microfilm of the Klein's order form? I would argue it doesn't, yet there they had no problem claiming the handwriting belonged to Oswald.

The difference being is that none of the examiners described the microfilm of the Klein's order form as being of poor quality.

The original would have to be checked in order to make a more definite analysis and reach a definitive conclusion.

But they didn't require the original of the Klein's order form to "make a more definite analysis and reach a definitive conclusion"?

We have gone over this before.  With photocopies, examiners usually will only offer qualified opinions. Although, I don't believe that Cadigan or Cole did so.

Handwriting identification is consistently accepted in courts of law.

I'm not sure what you mean by the word "accepted", but you are correct when you mean that it is allowed to be entered into evidence, so that it can be examined and challenged by the defense and their experts.

If you mean, however, that the word "accepted" means that the court accepts the findings of the handwriting expert as if it were a proven fact, then you are completely wrong.

The mere fact that courts of law accept handwriting identification into evidence is meaningless and does not say anything about the quality of the expert's findings!

The handwriting on the money order is Oswald's.

Really? It seems to me that, at best, you can say that according to the opinion of some experts the handwriting is Oswald's and even that is putting it to strongly, as from my own experience working with real unbiased handwriting experts I know they will never ever say with 100% certainty that the handwriting belongs to a particular person to the exclusion of all others.

Accepted into courts of law as evidence. If a defense wanted to try and challenge it with experts of their own then they would certainly be allowed to. As it stands though, the established authorship of the money order has never been challenged by any expert in handwriting identification. The handwriting on the money order is Oswald's.

[Tim Nickerson]

The 10-digit number on the front of the money order does not prove it was cashed and does not prove it was processed through the Federal Reserve System. Rather than reinvent the wheel, I am going to take the liberty of quoting from one of David Josephs' replies to David Von Pein on this issue:

The 10-digit number on the top of the money order proves it was cashed.

[Martin Weidmann]

The difference being is that none of the examiners described the microfilm of the Klein's order form as being of poor quality.

A photocopy made from a micro film is by definition a poor quality copy.

We have gone over this before.  With photocopies, examiners usually will only offer qualified opinions. Although, I don't believe that Cadigan or Cole did so.

The experts I have worked with in the past will always qualify their opinion. And some would not even acccept a photocopy as a questioned document for the simple reason that photocopies can easily be manipulated. The mere fact that the "experts" in thise case did not qualify their opinions at all, makes their opinions questionable

Accepted into courts of law as evidence.

As long as a piece of evidence has some connection to the case, it will normally be allowed in by the Judge. That itself says nothing about the quality and/veracity of that evidence.

If a defense wanted to try and challenge it with experts of their own then they would certainly be allowed to. As it stands though, the established authorship of the money order has never been challenged by any expert in handwriting identification.

As it stands no defense lawyer or even an independent expert has never been allowed to examine the document and/or the handwriting. With this in mind, to claim that "the established authorship of the money order has never been challenged by any expert" is utterly meaningless.

Since when is the legal standard: "The prosecutor has this evidence, we're not going to let you examine it and by the way your are found guilty because the prosecutor's evidence was never challenged"?

 The handwriting on the money order is Oswald's.

That's just asinine disingenuous.

[Jerry Freeman]

...has it ever been established when the Dallas Post Office in 1963 actually opened?

I will take that one...The Main Post Office was open 24 hrs for mail sorting operations. The windows opened at 8 AM for things like purchases--- [stamps...money orders] and package pick up.
Packages were kept in a big cage room for security purposes and only the window tellers had the key to open it.
Customers may have a pick up package card placed in their PO Box but the pick up during business hours [8Am-5PM] are stated so.

[Walt Cakebread]

Carl Day didn’t photograph the alleged print, or cover it with cellophane like he did with the others, even though he had time to do so. He was told to turn over all the evidence to Vince Drain, but didn’t turn this over or even notify Drain of its existence. Day claimed that there were still traces left on the rifle. Latona didn’t learn of the existence of this print until Nov. 29 when it arrived on an index card, sent separately from anything else. Latona found no traces of the print or even any indication that the area had been processed. Hoover claimed that 5 spots on the lift were matched to “pits” on the rifle, but all we have is a smudge with lines drawn on it, nor is there any documentation or report from who did the match and how it was done. Or even any communication with Day as to exactly where the lift was taken to see if they were “matching” to the same spot. Drain told Henry Hurt that he didn’t think it was legitimate.

ROTFLMAO!!....   Watta gullible sucker!!

[Tim Nickerson]

A photocopy made from a micro film is by definition a poor quality copy.

The experts I have worked with in the past will always qualify their opinion. And some would not even acccept a photocopy as a questioned document for the simple reason that photocopies can easily be manipulated. The mere fact that the "experts" in thise case did not qualify their opinions at all, makes their opinions questionable

As long as a piece of evidence has some connection to the case, it will normally be allowed in by the Judge. That itself says nothing about the quality and/veracity of that evidence.

As it stands no defense lawyer or even an independent expert has never been allowed to examine the document and/or the handwriting. With this in mind, to claim that "the established authorship of the money order has never been challenged by any expert" is utterly meaningless.

Since when is the legal standard: "The prosecutor has this evidence, we're not going to let you examine it and by the way your are found guilty because the prosecutor's evidence was never challenged"?

That's just asinine disingenuous.

CE 773 is a photograph, not a photocopy. It was developed off of a negative from Klein's roll of microfilm. Cadigan, Cole, McNally, and Scott all had that photograph at their disposal and they all concluded that the handwriting on the envelope and the order coupon was that of Oswald's.

"The committee asked the president of the American Society of Questioned Document Examiners for recommendations on the leading experts in the field of questioned document examination, specifically handwritten documents. The committee then asked each of the people he recommended for their suggestions. Three names appeared consistently. After ascertaining that none had had a prior connection with the FBI or the Kennedy case, the committee requested that they undertake and examination of various documents. The panel members, all of whom belong to the American Society of Questioned Document Examiners, were Joseph P. McNally, David J. Purtell, and Charles C. Scott."

There are your three independent experts.