A hole in Bledsoe's story?

[Charles Collins]

You were asked whether or not you found it strange that Hoover had determined the outcome of the investigation into the assassination before the investigation had barely begun and that this was exactly the outcome the FBI report reached.
That is what you were asked about.
You have decided to deflect from this straight forward question because, like any rationally minded person, you do find it immensely strange but are unwilling to say so because you think it undermines what you believe about this case (IMO)
When it has been decided that the outcome of the investigation is that LHO was the lone shooter, then all the evidence is going to show exactly that.

That is simply not true.

Yes it is, and the quotes you've posted from Willens confirm this.
Hoover did have the last word. The Warren Commission went along for the ride.
You don't have to look very hard to see that this is true.

When it has been decided that the outcome of the investigation is that LHO was the lone shooter, then all the evidence is going to show exactly that.

Apparently, the FBI and Secret Service concluded that all three shots hit JFK and JBC. Yet, contrary to your idea, that is not what the evidence shows. If I remember correctly, you yourself have accepted the single bullet theory as being correct. So, if your idea that Hoover could “somehow control the evidence” in this case is correct, then what the heck happened? Did the Warren Commission just accept Hoover’s conclusions regarding where the bullets all went and rubber stamp them? No, they didn’t, the Warren Commission investigated and found the evidence didn’t support what Hoover claimed. And that is just a small example of what all the Warren Commission investigated. Please get your head out of the sand and wake up Dan.


Yes it is, and the quotes you've posted from Willens confirm this.

How can anyone interpret what Willens wrote the way you seem to have? How much bias does that take?

[Dan O'meara]

When it has been decided that the outcome of the investigation is that LHO was the lone shooter, then all the evidence is going to show exactly that.

Apparently, the FBI and Secret Service concluded that all three shots hit JFK and JBC. Yet, contrary to your idea, that is not what the evidence shows. If I remember correctly, you yourself have accepted the single bullet theory as being correct. So, if your idea that Hoover could “somehow control the evidence” in this case is correct, then what the heck happened? Did the Warren Commission just accept Hoover’s conclusions regarding where the bullets all went and rubber stamp them? No, they didn’t, the Warren Commission investigated and found the evidence didn’t support what Hoover claimed. And that is just a small example of what all the Warren Commission investigated. Please get your head out of the sand and wake up Dan.

So, if your idea that Hoover could “somehow control the evidence” in this case is correct, then what the heck happened?

It didn't take too long before the tried and tested LNer Strawman Argument reared it's tedious head.
You have the phrase "somehow control the evidence" in quotation marks.
Your insistence that I've actually posted this phrase is a falsehood.
You then argue against this falsehood so that you can 'win a point' in an argument that you are struggling with.
It's a clear indication that whatever is to follow will descend into farce.

I've never said that Hoover could "somehow control the evidence" and it's a bit of a low point for you to try this tactic.
Do you agree that Hoover had determined the outcome of the FBI's investigation less than 48 hours after the assassination?

Yes it is, and the quotes you've posted from Willens confirm this.

How can anyone interpret what Willens wrote the way you seem to have? How much bias does that take?

How can anyone interpret what Willens wrote the way you seem to have?

By being honest.

[Charles Collins]

So, if your idea that Hoover could “somehow control the evidence” in this case is correct, then what the heck happened?

It didn't take too long before the tried and tested LNer Strawman Argument reared it's tedious head.
You have the phrase "somehow control the evidence" in quotation marks.
Your insistence that I've actually posted this phrase is a falsehood.
You then argue against this falsehood so that you can 'win a point' in an argument that you are struggling with.
It's a clear indication that whatever is to follow will descend into farce.

I've never said that Hoover could "somehow control the evidence" and it's a bit of a low point for you to try this tactic.
Do you agree that Hoover had determined the outcome of the FBI's investigation less than 48 hours after the assassination?


How can anyone interpret what Willens wrote the way you seem to have?

By being honest.

Your insistence that I've actually posted this phrase is a falsehood.

I didn’t insist you posted those words. However, you most certainly implied it when you wrote what I quoted. Here it is again so that there is no further confusion:

“When it has been decided that the outcome of the investigation is that LHO was the lone shooter, then all the evidence is going to show exactly that.“

If that doesn’t imply that Hoover could “somehow control the evidence” then what exactly does it imply? And where is your evidence for this claim?


Do you agree that Hoover had determined the outcome of the FBI's investigation less than 48 hours after the assassination?

No, not in the context that you are trying to use the word determined. By using it as a verb, you are implying that Hoover was somehow omnipotent and could control everything and everyone in order to achieve his desired outcome. That is ridiculous. A better word would be concluded. Even better would be the phrase “concluded based on the evidence”.

[Michael Capasse]

Hoover, absolutely controlled the evidence. WC could only see what they showed them.
There are NO independent investigators - When the WC asked for anything, it only came from the FBI thru Hoover.

One obvious evidence of FBI control is in Executive Session (Jan 22 '64) when the members realize, it has already been
decided that Lee Harvey Oswald is the only killer. They are concerned if Lee is the man, the FBI had better be right.
Here, they talking about the implications of Lee being one of their agents. "...if it don't close the case, they are worse off than ever by doing this."
It was all phoney-baloney when they were talking to Marguerite (the mother) and denying they had any knowledge of Lee being an agent or informant.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From the Jan. 22nd session...
https://jfk.boards.net/post/2185

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.

https://jfk.boards.net/post/7711/thread

[Charles Collins]

“History Will Prove Us Right” by Howard Willens, page 39:

[At the second meeting of the Warren Commission on December 6, 1963:]

The commission agreed to ask Congress for the subpoena power and the authority to grant immunity to witnesses that it might summon to testify. This was the first step toward a thorough and independent investigation. The subpoena power grants the authority to require a person or organization to appear and provide oral testimony, documents, and physical objects. The authority to grant immunity prevents any state or federal prosecutor from using what a witness says, or the documents that a witness produces, to build a criminal case against that witness. The FBI did not have these investigative powers, which the commission could use to go far beyond what the FBI had produced in its investigation. Both were readily granted by a law enacted on December 13.40

Emphasis by me.
.

[Michael Capasse]

“History Will Prove Us Right” by Howard Willens, page 39:

[At the second meeting of the Warren Commission on December 6, 1963:]

The commission agreed to ask Congress for the subpoena power and the authority to grant immunity to witnesses that it might summon to testify. This was the first step toward a thorough and independent investigation. The subpoena power grants the authority to require a person or organization to appear and provide oral testimony, documents, and physical objects. The authority to grant immunity prevents any state or federal prosecutor from using what a witness says, or the documents that a witness produces, to build a criminal case against that witness. The FBI did not have these investigative powers, which the commission could use to go far beyond what the FBI had produced in its investigation. Both were readily granted by a law enacted on December 13.40

Emphasis by me.

So what? - WC subpoenaed witnesses based on what the FBI told them. 
There were plenty of witnesses that gave different accounts, and should have been called.
Carolyn Walther and Richard Carr, both told the FBI similar stories of more than one man in the window. Neither were called.

[Charles Collins]

So what? - WC subpoenaed witnesses based on what the FBI told them. 
There were plenty of witnesses that gave different accounts, and should have been called.
Carolyn Walther and Richard Carr, both told the FBI similar stories of more than one man in the window. Neither were called.

Do you have evidence that the FBI withheld their stories from the WC? If so, how did you learn about them?

[John Mytton]

So what? - WC subpoenaed witnesses based on what the FBI told them. 
There were plenty of witnesses that gave different accounts, and should have been called.
Carolyn Walther and Richard Carr, both told the FBI similar stories of more than one man in the window. Neither were called.

Richard Carr, ... told the FBI ...... stories of more than one man in the window.

??

On 22nd November, 1963, Carr was working on the seventh floor of the new courthouse building on the corner of Houston Street in Dealey Plaza. Just before President John F. Kennedy was shot Carr saw a heavy-set man with horn-rimmed glasses and a tan sport jacket on the sixth floor of the Texas Book Depository.
After the shooting Carr saw the man emerge from the building. Carr followed the man and later told the FBI: "This man, walking very fast, proceeded on Houston Street south to Commerce Street to Record Street.
https://spartacus-educational.com/JFKcarrR.htm

Carolyn Walther lived in Dallas, Texas and on 22nd November, 1963, saw the motorcade of President John F. Kennedy from Elm Street. She later claimed that saw two men firing at Kennedy from the Texas School Book Depository.
She gave this information to the FBI. According to her testimony: "I saw a man with a gun, and there was another man standing to his right. I could not see all of this man, and I couldn't see his face. The other man was holding a short gun. It wasn't as long as a rifle. He was holding it pointed down, and he was kneeling in the window, or sitting. His arms were on the window. He was holding the gun in a downward position, and he was looking downward... I said the man was on the fourth or fifth floor, and I still feel the same way."
https://spartacus-educational.com/JFKwalther.htm

JohnM