A hole in Bledsoe's story?

[Michael Capasse]

You left out: “conduct its own investigation, and take the testimony of witnesses in Washington.”

Regarding the witnesses already questioned, there are some important distinctions that I think a lot of people are fully aware of.

From “History Will Prove Us Right” by Howard Willens, Page 70:

The process of taking testimony under oath necessarily meant that we went back over ground that had been covered through interviews by the FBI or another federal agency. But these [FBI] agents were not authorized to take testimony under oath recorded by an independent court reporter. The important difference is that only sworn testimony is subject to a perjury charge if the witness lied. We planned to take sworn testimony in two ways: at hearings attended by the members and governed by its procedures and the powers granted by Congress; and in depositions by our lawyers under generally applicable court rules. In both instances, the testimony would be recorded verbatim by an authorized court reporter.


Plus the Warren Commission’s independent investigation provided additional clarifications from the witnesses due to the additional questions asked by the WC. All of this is more evidence that the Warren Commission did not rubber stamp the FBI’s reports but conducted its own investigation.

Jan. 22, 1964
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.

[John Mytton]

I could go on but why bother?

Indeed. It's all strawman nonsense anyway.

There was a time that some of your posts actually made sense, but not anymore. You're slipping! What happened?

This is the second time you've responded to one of my extensive lists exposing the contrarian/conspiratorial mindset, and essentially you are saying the same thing each time, my posts are "a fairytale", "superficial", "ridiculous", "strawman", "nonsense", make no sense, I'm slipping, ETC!

Yeah I get it, we aren't on the same page, so why on Earth take the time to respond, what are you trying to prove with this barrage of insults?

Could it be because you realize the truth of my criticism of the absurd untenable thought processes which drives the CT's extreme paranoia?

JohnM

[Martin Weidmann]

This is the second time you've responded to one of my extensive lists exposing the contrarian/conspiratorial mindset, and essentially you are saying the same thing each time, my posts are "a fairytale", "superficial", "ridiculous", "strawman", "nonsense", make no sense, I'm slipping, ETC!

Yeah I get it, we aren't on the same page, so why on Earth take the time to respond, what are you trying to prove with this barrage of insults?

Could it be because you realize the truth of my criticism of the absurd untenable thought processes which drives the CT's extreme paranoia?

JohnM

This is the second time you've responded to one of my extensive lists exposing the contrarian/conspiratorial mindset,

Only in your paranoid mind! Nonsense is nonsense, no matter how many lists you post.

and essentially you are saying the same thing each time, my posts are "a fairytale", "superficial", "ridiculous", "strawman", "nonsense", make no sense, I'm slipping, ETC!

Well, I may have used some of those words, but the mere fact that I use them should make you think. But it won't, right?

Yeah I get it, we aren't on the same page, so why on Earth take the time to respond,

Because there might be new members here who don't know who they are dealing with. Your disinformation and strawman arguments are worth a little bit of time to debunk them.

what are you trying to prove with this barrage of insults?

I know that you like to play the victum (while constantly insulting others) but what insults are you talking about?
If I am trying to prove anything it will be that there are people like you on this forum who have as their sole purpose to spread disinformation and misrepresent evidence.

Could it be because you realize the truth of my criticism of the absurd untenable thought processes which drives the CT's extreme paranoia?

No, not really. That's just the imagination of your feeble mind

Perhaps you should try to actually have an evidence based discussion instead of blindly parroting the WC and your hero Bugs as well as making up strawman arguments for the purpose of boosting your insecure ego by trying to score cheap points!

[Charles Collins]

More information regarding how the Warren Commission prepared for their independent investigation. From “History Will Prove Us Right” by Howard Willens, page 70


Rankin never wavered in his determination that each team should assess everything that was currently known, from every source, before marching into the field to do further investigating. At the staff meeting a few days later, Rankin set a deadline of February 10 for the comprehensive memo from each team that would summarize the known facts in its area. Redlich complained it wasn’t enough time, citing the voluminous investigative reports from the FBI and other agencies. Redlich had probably read more of these reports than the rest of us because he had been assigned to prepare for Marina Oswald’s testimony. He made the point that future critics would not excuse any failings by the commission on the grounds that it hadn’t had sufficient time to do the job. Most on the staff agreed. Rankin pushed the target date back to February 18.  23

23. Author, memorandum for the record, January 29, 1964, “Staff Meeting-January 28, 1964”, Author’s personal files.


Again, the Warren Commission did not just rubber-stamp the FBI’s reports but conducted their own independent investigation.

[Michael Capasse]

More information regarding how the Warren Commission prepared for their independent investigation. From “History Will Prove Us Right” by Howard Willens, page 70


Rankin never wavered in his determination that each team should assess everything that was currently known, from every source, before marching into the field to do further investigating. At the staff meeting a few days later, Rankin set a deadline of February 10 for the comprehensive memo from each team that would summarize the known facts in its area. Redlich complained it wasn’t enough time, citing the voluminous investigative reports from the FBI and other agencies. Redlich had probably read more of these reports than the rest of us because he had been assigned to prepare for Marina Oswald’s testimony. He made the point that future critics would not excuse any failings by the commission on the grounds that it hadn’t had sufficient time to do the job. Most on the staff agreed. Rankin pushed the target date back to February 18.  23

23. Author, memorandum for the record, January 29, 1964, “Staff Meeting-January 28, 1964”, Author’s personal files.


Again, the Warren Commission did not just rubber-stamp the FBI’s reports but conducted their own independent investigation.

It was all filtered thru the FBI and the guy you just quoted is General counsel for the Commission.
Here he is telling you it was a "rubber stamp"

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."

Here is the outline the Commission was to follow as early as Jan. 11, 1964
https://ratical.org/ratville/JFK/PG/PGappA.html
 

[Charles Collins]

It was all filtered thru the FBI and the guy you just quoted is General counsel for the Commission.
Here he is telling you it was a "rubber stamp"

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."

Here is the outline the Commission was to follow as early as Jan. 11, 1964
https://ratical.org/ratville/JFK/PG/PGappA.html

More from “History Will Prove Us Right” by Howard Willens, page 72:

The words of warning about the press had hardly escaped Rankin’s lips before Waggoner Carr, the Texas attorney general, called him to pass on a thirdhand report that Oswald might have been a paid FBI informant before the assassination. Carr had gotten this information from Henry Wade, the Dallas County district attorney, who in turn had received it from an undisclosed source. The source said that the FBI had paid Oswald at the rate of two hundred dollars per month from some time in 1962 until the assassination. Carr told Rankin that Wade or one of his staff lawyers had mentioned this allegation at a public court hearing in the Ruby case, so the Dallas officials believed that one or more newspaper reporters had the story even if it hadn’t yet been published.27

Rankin immediately called the chief justice to report this allegation and told me very soon thereafter. Warren and Rankin wanted to go directly to Robert Kennedy to pursue this allegation with Hoover. I got on the phone and called Katzenbach and Jack Miller. They both emphatically vetoed this idea. They said it would be embarrassing for Kennedy, who was, after all, Hoover’s boss, and would make his continued administration of the department more difficult. I believed from the beginning that the allegation was improbable, but agreed it required immediate consideration by the full commission.28

Warren convened an emergency meeting of the commission the next day, January 22. The members recognized the difficulty in the FBI disproving such an allegation in light of the records, or likely lack of records, at the bureau. In the course of speculating about this allegation and its implications, Rankin told the commission that he suspected that the FBI had jumped the gun by identifying Oswald as the lone assassin before completing its investigation. Rankin emphasized that this was not consistent with his experience with the FBI. Responding to questions from commission members, he said the FBI “would like us to fold up and quit.… They found the man. There is nothing more to do. The Commission supports their conclusions, and we can go home and that is the end of it.”29

The commission decided to ask some key Texas officials to come to Washington. Carr, Wade, assistant district attorney William Alexander, Leon Jaworski, and Robert Storey (former dean of Southern Methodist University Law School) all quickly made their way to Washington to discuss the matter with Rankin. None of the Texas officials knew the origin of the allegation about Oswald. Some had heard that this possibility had surfaced in connection with a dispute in the Ruby criminal case whether the FBI should be compelled to produce certain documents sought by Ruby’s attorneys. By this time, the Nation had published a story about the possibility that Oswald was an informant not only for the FBI but also for the CIA. Lonnie Hudkins, a reporter for the Houston Post, had authored the Nation story. It turned out that a similar allegation had been made to the Secret Service in December, but a report from that agency on the allegation did not reach the commission until late in January. That tip also mentioned Hudkins as the source for the allegation.30


The comment was not in any way an outline for them to follow or a directive for the WC to pack it up and go home. It was simply what Rankin said that he suspected that the FBI would like for them to do.

If you are curious about the allegation’s origin, Hugh Aynesworth writes all about it in his book “November 22, 1963, Witness To History”. If I remember correctly it was a prank they played on Hudkins. And Aynesworth admits to being the origin and making the whole thing up.

[Martin Weidmann]

More information regarding how the Warren Commission prepared for their independent investigation. From “History Will Prove Us Right” by Howard Willens, page 70


Rankin never wavered in his determination that each team should assess everything that was currently known, from every source, before marching into the field to do further investigating. At the staff meeting a few days later, Rankin set a deadline of February 10 for the comprehensive memo from each team that would summarize the known facts in its area. Redlich complained it wasn’t enough time, citing the voluminous investigative reports from the FBI and other agencies. Redlich had probably read more of these reports than the rest of us because he had been assigned to prepare for Marina Oswald’s testimony. He made the point that future critics would not excuse any failings by the commission on the grounds that it hadn’t had sufficient time to do the job. Most on the staff agreed. Rankin pushed the target date back to February 18.  23

23. Author, memorandum for the record, January 29, 1964, “Staff Meeting-January 28, 1964”, Author’s personal files.


Again, the Warren Commission did not just rubber-stamp the FBI’s reports but conducted their own independent investigation.

Again, the Warren Commission did not just rubber-stamp the FBI’s reports but conducted their own independent investigation.

If I remember correctly, it was soon after receiving Hoover's report in early December 1963 that separate teams (of two lawyers each) were appointed to each write a chapter of the WC report.
This indicates that they had already accepted the lone gunman story, because if they had not already concluded that Oswald was the shooter, then why would you have lawyers write a chapter about Oswald's history?

The "independent investigation" was clearly an exercise to gather supporting evidence instead of an open minded investigation in which they followed the evidence to wherever it take them.

[Michael Capasse]

Again, the Warren Commission did not just rubber-stamp the FBI’s reports but conducted their own independent investigation.

If I remember correctly, it was soon after receiving Hoover's report in early December 1963 that separate teams (of two lawyers each) were appointed to each write a chapter of the WC report.
This indicates that they had already accepted the lone gunman story, because if they had not already concluded that Oswald was the shooter, then why would you have lawyers write a chapter about Oswald's history?

The "independent investigation" was clearly an exercise to gather supporting evidence instead of an open minded investigation in which they followed the evidence to wherever it take them.

Who said the lawyers prepared any chapter that early - it was an outline, distributed to the members by the Chief Justice - where would he get that from?
Whaetver you are calling an "independent investigation" was filtered thru the FBI.  All requests for evidence went thru the FBI.

Can I ask you something? When are you going to address this blatantly obvious quote?

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."