Who returned LHOs library books on Oct 3rd 1963?

[Charles Collins]

The memo doesn’t say that the card being referred to was a card inside the book showing a due date. That’s pure speculation.

Here is how a typical manual system (before computerization) worked:

When I checked out books as a kid in New York in the 1950s, as I recall they would put the book, open to the card holder page, and your library card together in a machine that would photograph them both together. This would provide their record of who had checked out the book. They would put a stamped card in the pocket in the book to let you know when it was due. IIRC correctly, they retained the card that was in the pocket in the book in a file. (I would guess they were filed by due date.) When you brought the book back, they could find the card in the file to see if it was overdue. They could also look up overdue books and match them to the photo to see who had them out.

The report shown in the original post in this thread is from the Secret Service. They would have most likely reviewed the microfilms of the library to determine which books were checked out by LHO. With this type of system, the due date is what would have been stamped on the card and photographed. With this type of system, there was no record of when the books were actually returned. The due date is what was recorded. Whoever wrote the SS list used the word return instead of due. You are arguing semantics.

[John Iacoletti]

...and you (again) are arguing that something is “most likely” based on nothing other than that you think it makes sense.

[Charles Collins]

...and you (again) are arguing that something is “most likely” based on nothing other than that you think it makes sense.

No, I am saying that that IS the way that the library system worked. Now if you have evidence that the N.O. library system worked differently and actually had records of the actual return dates, then YOU might have a leg to stand on. Otherwise, you don’t.

[John Iacoletti]

Wait, so you’re saying that the burden is on me to show that the person who wrote the memo didn’t really mean “due date” when he wrote “return date”?

The burden is on me to show that your conjecture is false?

How is a library supposed to administer overdue fines if they don’t keep records of actual return dates?

[John Tonkovich]

No, I am saying that that IS the way that the library system worked. Now if you have evidence that the N.O. library system worked differently and actually had records of the actual return dates, then YOU might have a leg to stand on. Otherwise, you don’t.

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?

[Charles Collins]

Wait, so you’re saying that the burden is on me to show that the person who wrote the memo didn’t really mean “due date” when he wrote “return date”?

The burden is on me to show that your conjecture is false?

How is a library supposed to administer overdue fines if they don’t keep records of actual return dates?

How is a library supposed to administer overdue fines if they don’t keep records of actual return dates?

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.


Wait, so you’re saying that the burden is on me to show that the person who wrote the memo didn’t really mean “due date” when he wrote “return date”?


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). If you contend that it was the actual return date, then you need to show evidence that that information was available. Example: the New Orleans Library system used a different system than the standard system for libraries elsewhere which included the actual return dates.

The burden is on me to show that your conjecture is false?


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

[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?