<and a postmark is legally defined to give the date when a piece of mail comes into the possession of the Postal Service. Remember, postmarks are used in legal cases as proof of, for example, the date of a tax submission or payment of a bill, so there’s no conceivable way that first class mail is permitted to lie around for a day or two at the SCF prior to postmarking;>

That’s one of the problems it’s very conceivable that letters mailed on a Sunday were back dated on a Monday for a number of reasons.

The official definition of a postmark date currently is specifically as follows and, as far as I have been able to discover, it hasn’t changed:

A postmark indicates the location and date the Postal Service accepted custody of a mailpiece

Again, as far as I have been able to ascertain, the "date the Postal Service accepted custody of the mailpiece" is defined as that on which it had attained the Sectional Center Facility.

As to backdating, this is contrary to policy, except in certain extenuating circumstances, the primary one of which is in relation to philatelic first day covers:

Backdating the postmark on mail is expressly forbidden – except where a specific written authorization is granted to provide philatelic treatment on a new stamp issue beyond the issuance date. … Backdating causes several major problems. It jeopardizes the integrity of the postmark as a legal basis for determining individual or contractual compliance with statutory deadlines…

The few others are pretty much of the nature "We F$@%ed up in a major way." Like, initial attempt at postmarking unreadable or "Oooh, what’s this I’ve been keeping in my pocket for the last three days waiting to do something with?" In any event, the rare uses of (non-philatelic) permitted backdating can only be applied to reinstate what the postmark should have been in the first place.

On the basis of the above, I must conclude that if an item of mail received a Sunday PM postmark, then it arrived at the SCF for processing Sunday PM.

I cannot foresee any reasonable scenario under which such an item of mail could have been mailed in a mailbox on the Saturday, at any location within the SF SCF Zip prefix area, collected and only then reaching the SCF on Sunday PM.

Backdating of Monday-processed mail to Sunday? No.

Mail attaining the SCF on any given (half – AM/PM) date and not being processed with a postmark showing that (half) date? Contravenes the legal definition of postmark dating. So, no.

Shaq, I agree that we’re veering off the central topic, but if someone mails a tax submission in a mailbox on the cut-off date (April 15th), there is no guarantee that that piece of mail will receive an April 15th postmark.

It very well may, but if the processing doesn’t take place until April 16th, it will receive an April 16th postmark (as opposed to a postmark that reflects when the letter was deposited in the box.)

I read that for that reason, on each April 15th, Rincon Annex set up curbside mailing, where people in cars could hand their tax returns to special outdoor clerks until midnight, and the clerks would hand-postmark the returns on the spot.

I absolutely agree that, from the date of mailing alone, the Postal Service cannot guarantee that an item of mail will receive a postmark for that day. The potential for it not doing so, however, comes down to when the next collection is for that mailbox, and how much of a journey the mail has to make to get to the SCF for processing.

If, on the other hand – as we are proposing – the item of mail was delivered to a mailbox at the SCF (Rincon, no travel time) and was known, from the time of last ‘collection’ on this box, to permit date stamping on the 15th, then I’m suggesting that the tax return in question better get an April 15th postmark.

Indeed, the very fact that the system of curbside mailing was set up for this purpose goes to confirming the very point I am wanting to make – that if you can get mail directly to Rincon, and if (in this instance) someone will either take it from you at the curbside, or empty it out of a local mailbox, then it will get a postmark for that day.

<Indeed, the very fact that the system of curbside mailing was set up for this purpose goes to confirming the very point I am wanting to make – that if you can get mail directly to Rincon, and if (in this instance) someone will either take it from you at the curbside, or empty it out of a local mailbox, then it will get a postmark for that day.>

My sense is that it was understood that Rincon was the place to mail something directly that needed a postmark that day. So anything mailed at Rincon before the final marked collection times on the inside slot or outside boxes would have essentially been guaranteed to receive that day’s postmark. The fact that they apparently set up April 15th nighttime outside clerks would imply that the final collection times for the boxes themselves had expired for the day.

I notice a lot of parallels between this and basically what my job is, I oversee the operations of approx 80mil USD of product a year which amounts to about 80 million units (think letters) and over a 8 month time frame 7 days a week (100 – 500,000 units a day)

What is most related to this topic is basically ensuring correct documentation (vitally important) of items incoming including the fixing of dates, location etc and finally aligning correct product lots to the correct areas of dispatch, 10-14 hrs a day, 7 days a week virtually, We receive product from approx 50 locations which are maybe the size of SF.

The book of company policies and procedures is the bible until if ever an individual who over time understands it’s rubbish and that there many more efficient avenues that might be taken for any number of reasons at any point in time to improve productivity (the list is a mile long literally) to lessen issues and to produce a better more timely delivery which is better for the customer and saves a lot on wages double handling etc etc.

We too do not have a full operation on Sundays of which staff process by hand on monday (majority of the time ) whilst the machines in another warehouse are set for incoming monday for simple reasons Sunday’s produce the least, people are dumb, lazy and will mix things up and machines are too expensive and technical to have many and mistakes are very expensive for business and myself personally who relies on meeting targets for bonuses.

On top of this, we have minor warehouses around that don’t have such machines but will process by hand items going locally this is to reduce chaos of a monday, reduces fuel useage, labour and provides a much better outcome. This differs from company procedure yes but not for any vital reason.

To go further, we actually had a major contamination issue (sabotage) which spread internationally last year, I had Federal police breathing down my neck, The threat was new and we weren’t prepared to counter it. Police took my logs books, they plugged a usb into my work computer which instantly extracts all information, they follow leads like stamping times, stamps styles and markings made by different machines all in a effort to find where this incident occurred. And guess what? they weren’t even close, they could not accurately figure this out despite having exceptionally good information and everything was marked correctly and this is with 3 indicators date, location of production and variances of product.

I however pointed the individual out by name with in minutes of having my files and samples shown to me (there’s a secret method to trace every single package swish.

My point, from 50 years away with out a more indicative postmark forget it, it’s chinatown

Basically locate the Postmaster that police interviewed back then or find the report.

I wouldn’t take much stock from those who worked the floor no matter how many years some people just don’t have it.

My point, from 50 years away with out a more indicative postmark forget it, it’s chinatown

Well, Simplicity. If, in fact, it does turn out to be Chinatown, that’s not too far away from our current best guess of Rincon now, is it?

Lim Poon Lee, Postmaster 06/26/1967 till 06/30/1980 San Francisco.

Curiouscat i’ve had it with this case..

He has unfortunately passed, reading his orbituary he was a sharp individual, certainly police must have enlisted his help here.

Did Kim Rossmo address the mailings in the SFPD report?

“Mr. Lee quickly mastered the nuances of the job and, during his 14-year tenure, the San Francisco post office greatly increased its hiring of minority and disabled persons and started an alcoholic recovery program.”

I bet you police know way more than you could ever imagine, freedom of information anyone?

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/www.sfgate.com/bayarea/amp/Lim-Poon-Lee-former-postmaster-of-San-Francisco-2829079.php

My point, from 50 years away with out a more indicative postmark forget it, it’s chinatown

Well, Simplicity. If, in fact, it does turn out to be Chinatown, that’s not too far away from our current best guess of Rincon now, is it?

No promises but something.

Did Kim Rossmo address the mailings in the SFPD report?

He actually doesn’t, X. Not in terms of the locations where the actual mail drops might have been made. He does use the content of some of the letters to illustrate what he believes is a stronger local knowledge of the Vallejo area than any other likely location, such as San Francisco. I don’t know – I’m trying to work out whether that feels like an important omission, or not.

Did Kim Rossmo address the mailings in the SFPD report?

He actually doesn’t, X. Not in terms of the locations where the actual mail drops might have been made. He does use the content of some of the letters to illustrate what he believes is a stronger local knowledge of the Vallejo area than any other likely location, such as San Francisco. I don’t know – I’m trying to work out whether that feels like an important omission, or not.

Okay thank you Shaq. I just emailed Rossmo as well with the same question.

My guess is SFPD did not fully address the mailings locations, since Rossmo almost certainly would have been privy to that information and would have likely employed it in his report.

Remember the link someone posted regarding letters of espionage? Whilst they might have undertaken such steps the findings might in their view jeopardise national security of the time. This sort of information might be akin to a vital piece software used by governments today of which naturally isn’t for local police to know about.

That’s my 2 cents, not sure if it’s in the realms of reality.

Oh and SF being the fruit salad it was, just saying maybe.

Remember the link someone posted regarding letters of espionage? Whilst they might have undertaken such steps the findings might in their view jeopardise national security of the time. This sort of information might be akin to a vital piece software used by governments today of which naturally isn’t for local police to know about.

That’s my 2 cents, not sure if it’s in the realms of reality.

Oh and SF being the fruit salad it was, just saying maybe.

Hmm.

Hey guys,

I am going to be talking to a woman who works at the Smithsonian Institute’s National Postal Museum on the phone this week. Please let me know if you have any specific questions that I should ask her. Thank you.