A hole in Bledsoe's story?

[Michael Capasse]

  All requests for evidence went thru the FBI.

That is an assumption on your part that is just plain wrong. I have already shown evidence to the contrary and will continue to do so.

 
You have nothing.

[Charles Collins]

Lame excuse.
There is no sarcasm there whatsoever. It is a very serious discussion.
You choose to be ignorant. I have nothing else to add.

Let’s keep this a discussion about the Warren Commission. Ignorant about what exactly?

[Michael Capasse]

Let’s keep this a discussion about the Warren Commission. Ignorant about what exactly?

It is about Warren Commission. I haven't changed a thing.

I provided transcript with full context and you came back with a BS lame excuse of "sarcasm"
It was a very serious discussion in Executive Session. I posted it at least 3-4 times before you even responded to it.
You obviously chose not to read it or even demonstrate where exactly this "sarcasm" is.
You choose to be ignorant to facts that dispute your pre-bias conclusion. That is a choice you make. LNs do it across the board.

What witness or examination was done without the knowledge of the FBI?

[Charles Collins]

As indicated earlier, here is what Howard Willens wrote regarding the tentative outline. From Willens’ book “History Will Prove Us Right” page 58:

When I arrived at the commission, I started working on a tentative outline of the commission’s investigation. I didn’t know what the chief justice had suggested at the commission meeting, but I had with me the criminal division’s proposal of how to organize a comprehensive investigation of the assassination. I augmented that draft in light of what I had learned since coming to the commission.

 I gave my eleven-page outline to Rankin on December 30. In it, I identified five areas for investigation: (1) the basic facts about the events on November 22; (2) the facts that pointed to Oswald as the assassin; (3) Oswald’s background and possible motive; (4) the facts about the murder of Oswald by Ruby; and (5) the security measures that had failed to protect the president. If he approved, I proposed that Rankin submit the draft outline to the commission members.6 Rankin welcomed the suggestion.

 Rankin made one change. He decided to divide the section dealing with Oswald’s background and motive into two sections—one dealing with his activities in the United States and the other dealing with his foreign activities, especially his stay in Russia and his trip to Mexico for the stated purpose of returning to the Soviet Union. Rankin submitted the revised outline to Warren, who sent it to the commission members on January 11. Warren told the members that the proposed organization of the commission’s investigation was necessarily tentative and encouraged them to “advise Mr. Rankin of any suggestions they wish to make regarding this outline.”7

 Little did Rankin and I realize that our tentative organization of the commission’s work—in particular the focus on Oswald as the likely assassin—would be cited for decades as evidence that the commission had prematurely concluded that he was the assassin before any thorough and impartial inquiry had been undertaken. I believed then and now that any effort by the commission to embark on an investigation that ignored the facts implicating Oswald in the killing of the president and Officer Tippit would have smacked of pretense or naïveté that would have thoroughly impeached the commission’s credibility. We had to take as a starting point the facts that had been developed (and publicized worldwide) and make clear that the commission’s final determinations would not be made until its investigation had been concluded.

[Michael Capasse]

Little did Rankin and I realize that our tentative organization of the commission’s work—in particular the focus on Oswald as the likely assassin—would be cited for decades as evidence that the commission had prematurely concluded that he was the assassin before any thorough and impartial inquiry had been undertaken. I believed then and now that any effort by the commission to embark on an investigation that ignored the facts implicating Oswald in the killing of the president and Officer Tippit would have smacked of pretense or naïveté that would have thoroughly impeached the commission’s credibility. We had to take as a starting point the facts that had been developed (and publicized worldwide) and make clear that the commission’s final determinations would not be made until its investigation had been concluded.[/i]

As he looks back from whatever date that book was written.
Where do you think anybody would get the narrative to create an outline so early in the process?

A: The FBI

[Charles Collins]

It is about Warren Commission. I haven't changed a thing.

I provided transcript with full context and you came back with a BS lame excuse of "sarcasm"
It was a very serious discussion in Executive Session. I posted it at least 3-4 times before you even responded to it.
You obviously chose not to read it or even demonstrate where exactly this "sarcasm" is.
You choose to be ignorant to facts that dispute your pre-bias conclusion. That is a choice you make. LNs do it across the board.

What witness or examination was done without the knowledge of the FBI?

That’s a non-responsive reaction to a very specific question.

[Michael Capasse]

That’s a non-responsive reaction to a very specific question.

How so?

[Michael Capasse]

This is a very serious discussion in Executive Session.
They are talking about Oswald being an agent.  They already have evidence of it.
Where is the sarcasm? - Is he joking? - Does he mean something else?
At one point, Boggs: "...I don't even like to see this being taken down."

  There is no sarcasm.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Dulles: Oh, terrible.
Boggs: Its implications of this are fantastic, don't you think so?

A: Terrific.

Rankin: To have anybody admit to it, even if it was the fact, I am sure that there wouldn't at this point
be anything to prove it.

Dulles: Lee, if this were true, why would it be particularly in their interest -- I could see, it would be
in their interest to get rid of this man but why would it be in their interest to say he is clearly the only guilty one?
I mean I don't see that argument that you raise particularly shows an interest.

Boggs: I can immediately --
A: They would like to have us fold up and quit.

Boggs: This closes the case, you see. Don't you see?
Dulles: Yes, I see that.

Rankin: They found the man. There is nothing more to do. The Commission supports their conclusions, and we can go
on home and that is the end of it.

Dulles: But that puts the man right on them. If he was not the killer and they employed him, they are already it, you see.
So your argument is correct if they are sure that this is going to close the case, but if it don't close the case, they are
worse off than ever by doing this.

Boggs: Yes, I would think so. And of course, we are all even grasping in the realm of speculation.
I don't even like to see this being taken down.

Dulles: Yes. I think this record ought to be destroyed. Do you think we need a record of this?

A: I don't, except that we said we would have records of meetings and so we called the reporter in the formal way.
If you think what we have said here should not be upon the record, we can have it done that way. Of course it might. . . .

Dulles: I am just thinking of sending around copies and so forth. The only copies of this record should be kept right here.

Boggs: I would hope that none of these records are circulated to anybody.
A: I would hope so too.