Who returned LHOs library books on Oct 3rd 1963?

[Charles Collins]

CE 2560 does indicate a delinquency on Oswald's part, regarding a Dallas public library book.
There is no mention of any investigation into New Orleans library delinquencies.
The entire "investigation " seems rather perfunctory, a.k.a. CYA.

A little googling reveals that some libraries used an Adressograph system, similar to the old credit card system. Not sure of the validity of your "photograph " anecdote.

Conclusion: CE 2560 shows the "due date" of Oswald's library books. When they were actually returned is lost in time...like tears in rain. : )

Aside:  Oswald's overdue Dallas library book, The Shark and The Sardines looks to be a great read. Who better than the ex president ( first democratically elected, to boot) of Guatemala to recount U.S. oppression ( including the 1954 CIA coup de etat) of his country?
This only adds to the enigma of Oswald re: his reading material and actual political beliefs. Spy books glamorizing Western agents of the establishment, and progressive, anti imperialist screeds?

The book "The Shark and the Sardines" was probably the last library book that LHO checked out of the library. It is available on Kindle for a very reasonable price. However, it was a difficult read for me. Mostly because it was full of redundancy and ideas that I simply disagreed with. It did, however, have plenty of fuel to add to the fire in LHO due to his dislike of the political system in the U.S. and his perception of it's mistreatment of Cuba and Latin America in general.

 Now, for the mystery seekers out there: who returned that library book to the Oakcliff Library after LHO was murdered???

[John Iacoletti]

They don't need the actual return dates to administer overdue fines. They typically keep the cards and file them by due (return) dates. And, if a card is still in a certain date's (for instance 10/3/63) file on 10/4/63, after all the books that were returned prior to 10/4/63 have been processed (the cards taken out of the file and placed back in the pockets inside the books and returned back to the shelves) then the books that correspond with those cards are overdue. The librarian can then look up those cards on the microfilm and send out reminders to the borrowers. Therefore the actual return date(s) of the books that anyone borrowed (including LHO) is unknown. We only have evidence that they were returned before 10/4/63.

Every library I ever used had overdue fines per day for late returns.  They would have to keep track of when the book was actually returned in order to calculate that.

No, that is not necessary because the actual return dates were not available under the standard library systems in use during that time period (see above response).

I don't believe you've actually demonstrated any standard.  You gave a single example and assumed that it was a standard.

I have evidence that the actual return dates were not available. Therefore it is not conjecture.

What is your evidence that the actual return dates in this specific case were not available?

[Charles Collins]

Every library I ever used had overdue fines per day for late returns.  They would have to keep track of when the book was actually returned in order to calculate that.

I don't believe you've actually demonstrated any standard.  You gave a single example and assumed that it was a standard.

What is your evidence that the actual return dates in this specific case were not available?

Every library I ever used had overdue fines per day for late returns.  They would have to keep track of when the book was actually returned in order to calculate that.


No, they did not need the actual return date (unless the book became overdue). And in that case, all they needed was how many days it was late (after the due/return date). And they had the due/return date information by using the standard system already described. The elapsed days between the return/due date and when the book(s) were returned was multiplied by the per day rate. Why do you believe they would have gone to the trouble to track unnecessary information?

I don't believe you've actually demonstrated any standard.  You gave a single example and assumed that it was a standard.


My contemporaries and I grew up using the manual system and remember how it worked. It was THE standard system used before computerization, not just a single example as you imply. If you believe there was another system (that included the actual return dates) in use back then in the New Orleans Library System, then where is your evidence of such a system? Otherwise, you are the one assuming something that was not at all common.


What is your evidence that the actual return dates in this specific case were not available?

The standard manual library system did not have that information. The SS report list shows every "return date" as exactly two-weeks from the "date would have been checked out," which is evidence and consistent with the case that the New Orleans Library System used that type of system. What is your evidence that the New Orleans Library System used a system that did have that information?

[John Iacoletti]

No, they did not need the actual return date (unless the book became overdue). And in that case, all they needed was how many days it was late (after the due/return date). And they had the due/return date information by using the standard system already described. The elapsed days between the return/due date and when the book(s) were returned was multiplied by the per day rate. Why do you believe they would have gone to the trouble to track unnecessary information?

It's not unnecessary.  There has to be an audit trail.  What if I came along a week later and challenged their late fee and claimed that I returned it on time?  Would they just take my word for it since they discarded the "unnecessary information"?

My contemporaries and I grew up using the manual system and remember how it worked. It was THE standard system used before computerization, not just a single example as you imply.

I suspect I am your contemporary, if not older.  It was computerization that standardized things, not the other way around.  John Tonkovich has already addressed your claim of your "standard" photograph system not being so standard.  And really it doesn't matter, unless we know what the New Orleans Public library used.  Guessing is fine as long as you realize that it's just a guess.  Until then, the memo says "return date" not "due date".

[Charles Collins]

It's not unnecessary.  There has to be an audit trail.  What if I came along a week later and challenged their late fee and claimed that I returned it on time?  Would they just take my word for it since they discarded the "unnecessary information"?

I suspect I am your contemporary, if not older.  It was computerization that standardized things, not the other way around.  John Tonkovich has already addressed your claim of your "standard" photograph system not being so standard.  And really it doesn't matter, unless we know what the New Orleans Public library used. 

It's not unnecessary.  There has to be an audit trail.  What if I came along a week later and challenged their late fee and claimed that I returned it on time?  Would they just take my word for it since they discarded the "unnecessary information"?

If they charged a late fee and you challenged it, then they would have the actual return date recorded (along with the late fee). They wouldn't have discarded any information period. They just do not need the actual return date unless the book becomes overdue. And it would be extra time and work to manually record the actual return dates of books that were returned on or before the due/return date. Challenge: Show me an example of exactly how and where you believe that this extra date was recorded. Personally, I have used libraries all my life and have never needed to question the return date of anything.


I suspect I am your contemporary, if not older.  It was computerization that standardized things, not the other way around.  John Tonkovich has already addressed your claim of your "standard" photograph system not being so standard.  And really it doesn't matter, unless we know what the New Orleans Public library used.  Guessing is fine as long as you realize that it's just a guess.  Until then, the memo says "return date" not "due date".

I do remember when the libraries started using the microfilm method of documenting check-outs. Larger library systems in the larger cities (like New York) likely had microfilm in use before smaller towns. Before that, we signed our names on the cards. There are slight variations (similar to these) from place to place. But they all functioned basically the same way. Computerization brought along automated information. The books have bar codes which are typically simply scanned when checked out or in, therefore the extra information is typically automatically recorded without extra work by the librarians.

Guessing is fine as long as you realize that it's just a guess.  Until then, the memo says "return date" not "due date".


Based on all the evidence (not just guessing) that I and others have specified; in the SS memo, the return date is synonymous with the due date. You are smarter than you are pretending to be. You just don't like admitting when you are wrong.

My initial response to this thread was to indicate that this: [This has to be proof LHO was not on his own in Mexico. Presumably, whoever he was with, he gave that person his library books to return to New Orleans once LHO realized he would not be getting in to Cuba.] is not true. Do you really think it is true?
 

[John Iacoletti]

If they charged a late fee and you challenged it, then they would have the actual return date recorded (along with the late fee). They wouldn't have discarded any information period. They just do not need the actual return date unless the book becomes overdue. And it would be extra time and work to manually record the actual return dates of books that were returned on or before the due/return date.

How do you know that any of Oswald's books were returned on or before the due dates, since you don't know the actual due dates?

Challenge: Show me an example of exactly how and where you believe that this extra date was recorded.

Why?  You haven't shown exactly how and where the due date was recorded for these books.

I do remember when the libraries started using the microfilm method of documenting check-outs. Larger library systems in the larger cities (like New York) likely had microfilm in use before smaller towns. Before that, we signed our names on the cards. There are slight variations (similar to these) from place to place. But they all functioned basically the same way.

The library where I grew up used a similar system as mentioned by John Tonkovich earlier.  An embossed card that looked similar to the old pre-magstripe credit cards.  Generalizing from personal anecdote is not particularly rational.

Based on all the evidence (not just guessing) that I and others have specified; in the SS memo, the return date is synonymous with the due date. You are smarter than you are pretending to be. You just don't like admitting when you are wrong.

It's not particularly smart to just assume that something means what you want it to mean as opposed to what it actually says.

My initial response to this thread was to indicate that this: [This has to be proof LHO was not on his own in Mexico. Presumably, whoever he was with, he gave that person his library books to return to New Orleans once LHO realized he would not be getting in to Cuba.] is not true. Do you really think it is true?

What I think is that we don't really know who returned Oswald's library books.  All we have is a memo showing their return dates.

[Charles Collins]

How do you know that any of Oswald's books were returned on or before the due dates, since you don't know the actual due dates?

Why?  You haven't shown exactly how and where the due date was recorded for these books.

The library where I grew up used a similar system as mentioned by John Tonkovich earlier.  An embossed card that looked similar to the old pre-magstripe credit cards.  Generalizing from personal anecdote is not particularly rational.

It's not particularly smart to just assume that something means what you want it to mean as opposed to what it actually says.

What I think is that we don't really know who returned Oswald's library books.  All we have is a memo showing their return dates.

Why?  You haven't shown exactly how and where the due date was recorded for these books.

Jerry Organ showed a photo of a typical date stamp system card with the due dates stamped on it. And I have briefly described how that type of system typically worked.


The library where I grew up used a similar system as mentioned by John Tonkovich earlier.  An embossed card that looked similar to the old pre-magstripe credit cards.  Generalizing from personal anecdote is not particularly rational.



So, did your embossed library card magically record the actual return date in some mysterious place (or what)? Like the credit cards of that era, it just had account numbers, etc embossed on it. So what is the big deal about it. And going from memory, LHO's library card wasn't embossed.


It's not particularly smart to just assume that something means what you want it to mean as opposed to what it actually says.

No assumption, the evidence is convincing. The two words are synonymous in the context of this specific situation.


What I think is that we don't really know who returned Oswald's library books.  All we have is a memo showing their return dates.

We have other evidence than just the memo. That is not "all we have."