FBI's Pants on Fire!

[Tom Scully]

Certainly "chain of custody" is one of several legal prerequisites to the admissibility of a piece of evidence in a legal proceeding. The initials on the back of the money order are merely that, documenting the chain of custody. They do not (legally) prove up the authenticity of the document.

For instance, a detective processing a crime scene might "tag and bag" dozens or hundreds of items. His initials would have to go on them, along with other persons who handle/transport the items. However, the mere presence of initials doesn't mean the item is authentic (think of a counterfeiting ring bust). Or that the item wasn't planted at the crime scene by the perpetrator. It simply documents the path of the item thru law enforcement once it is seized.

..............
Drew,
Doesn't it come down to whether, despite much recent presentation
of evidence, the suspicions and theories of D. Josephs, J. Hargrove, J. DiEugenio, and J. Armstrong comprise a well formed argument credibly challenging the core assertion by the Secret Service agent who filed this report?:
[URL="http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10490&relPageId=120&search=alexandria_and%20jackson"]http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10490&relPageId=120&search=alex andria_and%20jackson

[/URL]The SS report linked above is supported by this.:
CE 788 : http://www.history-matters.com/archive/j..._0352a.htm .........

Drew,
I do not think you answered my question. The WC produced a report
of an SS agent and the initialed postal money order.

http://legalupdateonline.com/4th/394
.......

Sources of Information Establishing Probable Cause:

Other Police Officers

Other Police Officers: Suspect information or other criminal activity information received from other peace officers, either verbally, at pre-shift briefings, from department-originated notices, etc., or when communicated via radio through the police dispatcher, is considered reliable and generally establishes probable cause to arrest or searchby itself. (People v. Hill (1974) 12 Cal.3[SUP]rd[/SUP] 731, 761; People v. Ramirez (1997) 59 Cal.App.4[SUP]th[/SUP] 1548.)
This is sometimes referred to as having received information through "official channels," which refers to when it comes from any law enforcement source. (People v. Lara (1967) 67 Cal.2[SUP]nd[/SUP] 365, 371.) Examples:

• Police radio broadcasts.
  
• Pre-shift briefings.
  
• "A.P.B.s" (i.e., an "All Points Bulletin") and similar law enforcement generated memos.
  

But: Eventually, law enforcement may be required in court to trace the information back to its source in order to disprove an accusation that the information establishing probable cause was "manufactured in the police station;" i.e., that it wasthe result of speculation or other unreliable source. (People v. Orozco (1981) 114 Cal.App.3[SUP]rd[/SUP] 435.)
This is sometimes referred to as the "Harvey/Madden rule," based upon authority in People v. Harvey (1958) 156 Cal.App.2[SUP]nd[/SUP] 516, and People v. Madden (1970) 2 Cal.3[SUP]rd[/SUP] 1017, or an "Ojeda motion," based upon Ojeda v. Superior Court (1970) 12 Cal.App.3[SUP]rd[/SUP] 909.)

What is the substance of the challenge to the Secret Service agent's
report on his receipt of the postal money order? I've established that the money order was, as the SS agent's report claimed, found where a paid money order purchased in Dallas on March 12, 1963 would be found, to the exclusion of the challengers' claims that it should have been found at the Kansas City, MO postal money order center, and that the two names reported to have presented that paid money order to the SS agent were "real" and acting in their documented capacities. There is the additional evidence of the file locator number displayed on the upper face of that paid money order. Nothing has been presented proving a requirement of affixing bank stamps to a postal money order to avoid disqualifying its payment. There is no procedure for inspecting for bank endorsement stamps, automatically processed government checks or postal money orders, for approval of payment or possible disqualification owing to missing endorsement stamps, but there were comments like this, at the time, as state laws were updated in response to UCC regulation "changes" related to banking endorsements.:

(a similar article authored in the same year, 1964, performing a similar comparison of the revised UCC to Nebraska state law.:
pg 2. 1964 - http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewco...ontext=nlr "....In drafting the Uniform Commercial Code, the most controversial article was related to bank deposits and collections....")

and;

...To make a collecting bank's duties depend upon an inscription which it cannot take time to read, or to make the right of a payor bank to recover from prior parties depend on whether a machine failed to stamp, may be likened to a requirement that incantations be prop- erly made.40

from :
.PDF pg. 15, 1964 pub. date: http://scholarship.law.missouri.edu/cgi/...ontext=mlr


The irony here is that David Josephs went on Len Osanic's internet radio show and stated that Robert H Jackson's home address in Alexandria, Virginia, "does not exist". (Link to 90 sec. long sound clip.: https://app.box.com/s/yuq77v3xdp3rmgc3mkc3fwvvbdb7i635 )
...and has posted here that neither Jackson nor J Harold Marks exist, but Jim Hargrove and Dawn seem to feel very strongly that my posting is the problem. My posts could be reduced to one paragraph each if there was less resistance to new evidence.