A hole in Bledsoe's story?

[Charles Collins]

That is how it came. I will make it cleaner.

No. - Rankin and other members make it quite clear in this transcript, they were under the direction of the FBI.
The Warren Commission had a mandate detailed in the Katzenbach Memo dated Nov. 25, 1963.
By Jan. 11, '64, they had an outline from the FBI report detailing the lone assassin Lee Harvey Oswald.
In an Executive Meeting, 11 days later, they put into the record that the FBI had "found the man".
"The Commission supports their conclusions, and we can go on home and that is the end of it."

  That's for sure.

You go on and believe whatever your fantasy desires. It matters not to me. But there is nothing in that transcript or in the Katzenbach memo that supports your opinions.

I only engaged with you on this for the benefit of anyone else who might read this with an open mind. Your’s is closed. Here’s some parting words:

Helen Mirren once said: Before you argue with someone, ask yourself, is that person even mentally mature enough to grasp the concept of a different perspective. Because if not, there's absolutely no point.
Not every argument is worth your energy. Sometimes, no matter how clearly you express yourself, the other person isn’t listening to understand—they’re listening to react.

They’re stuck in their own perspective, unwilling to consider another viewpoint, and engaging with them only drains you.
There’s a difference between a healthy discussion and a pointless debate.

A conversation with someone who is open-minded, who values growth and understanding, can be enlightening—even if you don’t agree. But trying to reason with someone who refuses to see beyond their own beliefs? That’s like talking to a wall. No matter how much logic or truth you present, they will twist, deflect, or dismiss your words, not because you’re wrong, but because they’re unwilling to see another side.

Maturity isn’t about who wins an argument—it’s about knowing when an argument isn’t worth having. It’s realizing that your peace is more valuable than proving a point to someone who has already decided they won’t change their mind. Not every battle needs to be fought. Not every person deserves your explanation.

Sometimes, the strongest thing you can do is walk away—not because you have nothing to say, but because you recognize that some people aren’t ready to listen. And that’s not your burden to carry.

[John Mytton]

But they did nothing of the sort. Follow the discussion. Taking something out of context and pretending it means something else is all you are doing. 

Agreed, they called an emergency meeting to discuss the rumour of Oswald being an FBI paid informant and are simply speculating on the ramifications if that is true. There is no doubt that one of the foundations of the fact finding mission originated with the FBI's evidence that they accumulated because that's what they did, the FBI had the labs and the forensic experts in place to carry out and analyse.
The fact that the WC carried out an exhaustive investigation and didn't just "go home" but went beyond the FBI's initial findings and for example took the testimony of 552 witnesses, had the Army analyse the rifle and the probability of taking the shots and even went out themselves to Dallas to visit the relevant locations, can only mean that the WC conclusions went where their extensive investigation led them!

From the first, the Commission considered its mandate to conduct a thorough and independent investigation. The Commission reviewed reports by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Secret Service, Department of State, and the Attorney General of Texas, and then requested additional information from federal agencies, Congressional committees, and state and local experts. The Commission held hearings and took the testimony of 552 witnesses. On several occasions, the Commission went to Dallas to visit the scene of the assassination and other places.
https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/intro

From the get go, it was beyond clear that Oswald with his cheap ass rifle did the assassination and in the immediate aftermath there was no one there to help Oswald get away. Oswald's actions, lack of any specific direction and ending up not in a safe house but in a dark theatre only emphasized to any sane person that Oswald was a Lone nut.

And in conclusion, as for the reason for the emergency WC meeting, the $200 a month pay for being a paid informant was fully investigated by the WC when they extensively studied Oswald's finances, Oswald had no extra money, wasn't living the high life, was going from job to job, was basically living in a shoebox in a rooming house, and was applying for Government benefits.
So the WC did indeed do the exact opposite of "going home"!

JohnM

[John Mytton]

This piece from Bugliosi's Reclaiming History;

The following morning, January 22, a bombshell exploded on the Commission. Texas attorney general Waggoner Carr telephoned the Commission’s general counsel, J. Lee Rankin, to inform him that an allegation was floating around Dallas that Oswald had been an “undercover agent” (the “undercover agent” designation quickly evolved into that of “paid informant”) for the FBI, receiving two hundred dollars a month “for an account designated as number 179.” Rankin immediately informed Chief Justice Warren, who called an emergency meeting of the Commission that evening.123 In a hushed, tense, executive session, Rankin explained the allegation to the Commission. They speculated about what the FBI might have been using Oswald for, then turned their attention to the implications of the allegation. Rankin found it unusual that the FBI was insisting that Oswald was the lone assassin, yet the bureau hadn’t yet run down “all kinds of leads in Mexico or in Russia.” This, he said, “raises questions.”       
Rankin told the Commission members that he and Chief Justice Warren had reflected on this and “we said if [the allegation] was true and it ever came out and could be established,” then simply because of it, some people would think “that there was a conspiracy to accomplish this assassination” and “nothing the Commission did” could change this impression.        Representative Boggs: “You are so right.”       
“Oh, terrible,” Allen Dulles moaned.       
“[The] implications of this are fantastic, don’t you think so?” Hale Boggs observed.       
“Terrific [possibly a typographical error for terrible],” Chief Justice Warren answered.       
When Dulles asked the question of why, if Oswald were an FBI informant, “it would be in their [FBI’s] interest…to say [Oswald] is…the only guilty one?” Warren answered, “They would like to have us fold up and quit.”       
“This closes the case, you see,” Boggs interjected. “Don’t you see?”       
“Yes, I see that,” Dulles acknowledged.       
“They found the man,” Rankin continued. “There is nothing more to do. The Commission supports their conclusions, and we can go home and that is the end of it.”       
“But that puts the men [typo for burden?] right on them,” Dulles argued. “If he was not the killer, and they employed him, they are already it, you see. [This sentence would seem to make sense only if Dulles had not used the word “not.” He could have misspoken or the stenographer could have made a mistake.] So your argument is correct if they are sure that this is going to close the case, but if it [doesn’t] close the case, they are worse off than ever by doing this.”       
“Yes, I would think so,” Boggs replied “…I don’t even like to see this being taken down.”       
“Yes,” Dulles agreed. “I think this record ought to be destroyed. Do you think we need a record of this?”       
Rankin: “I don’t, except that we said we would have records of meetings.”124       
On January 23, 1964, Texas attorney general Waggoner Carr, along with two of his special counsels, Dean Storey and Leon Jaworski, and Dallas County district attorney Henry Wade and his assistant, Dallas DA William Alexander, flew to Washington, D.C. The following day they met with Chief Justice Warren and General Counsel Rankin to discuss the explosive allegation. At the meeting, the Texas contingent said the rumor was “constant” in Texas, and that “the source of their information was a man by the name of Hudkins [newspaper reporter Alonzo Hudkins].”       
Although the source of the allegation has become almost permanently mired in dispute and obfuscation, one thing is very clear. It was a fabricated story with no substance (see in-depth discussion in FBI conspiracy section), but at the time, the Warren Commission did not know this and took the allegation very seriously.
Reclaiming History Vincent Bugliosi

JohnM

[John Mytton]

And the follow up from Bugliosi's Reclaiming History;

Highly illustrative of the Warren Commission’s state of mind vis-à-vis not accepting and being limited by the FBI’s investigation is this exchange at the January 27, 1964, executive session:
       
Rankin: “Part of our difficulty…is that…they [FBI] have decided that no one else was involved [in the assassination].”       
Russell: “They have tried the case and reached a verdict on every aspect.”       
Boggs: “You have put your finger on it.”       
Rankin: “Yes…They decided the case, [but] we are going to have maybe a thousand further inquiries that we say the Commission has to know…before it can pass on this.
McCloy: “Yes…it isn’t only who killed cock robin…We have to go beyond that.”127       

During the long discussion of the Oswald informant issue by Commission members, this amusing dialogue arose:       
Dulles observed that one reason he didn’t believe Oswald was working for the FBI in any type of paid capacity was that “this fellow [Oswald] was so incompetent that he was not the kind of fellow that Hoover would hire…He was so stupid. Hoover didn’t hire this kind of stupid fellow.”       
McCloy responded: “I wouldn’t put much confidence in the intelligence of all the agents I have run into. I have run into some awfully stupid agents.”       
Dulles: “Not this irresponsible.”       
McCloy: “Well, I can’t say that I have run into a fellow comparable to Oswald but I have run into some very limited mentalities both in the CIA and FBI. [Laughter]”128       

Coincidentally, on the very same day (January 27) that the Commission was in session, its office received a letter from Hoover stating that “Lee Harvey Oswald was never paid any money for furnishing information [to the FBI] and he most certainly never was an informant of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.”129 This did not satisfy the Commission, however, and the next day Rankin met personally with Hoover and asked him to conduct a further inquiry into the rumor.130 On February 6, 1964, Hoover wrote a letter accompanied by his affidavit under penalty of perjury stating that search of FBI records showed that Oswald had never been an informant.131 However, a letter from Hoover to Rankin on February 27, 1964, acknowledged for the first time that Jack Ruby “was contacted by an Agent of the Dallas Office [of the FBI] on March 11, 1959, in view of his position as a night club operator who might have knowledge of the criminal element of Dallas…He expressed a willingness to furnish information along those lines. He was subsequently contacted on eight occasions between March 11, 1959, and October 2, 1959, but he furnished no information whatever and further contacts with him were discontinued.” Hoover said that, as was the case with Oswald, “Ruby was never paid any money, and he was never at any time an informant of this Bureau.”13
Reclaiming History Vincent Bugliosi

JohnM

[Michael Capasse]

This piece from Bugliosi's Reclaiming History;

The following morning, January 22, a bombshell exploded on the Commission. Texas attorney general Waggoner Carr telephoned the Commission’s general counsel, J. Lee Rankin, to inform him that an allegation was floating around Dallas that Oswald had been an “undercover agent” (the “undercover agent” designation quickly evolved into that of “paid informant”) for the FBI, receiving two hundred dollars a month “for an account designated as number 179.” Rankin immediately informed Chief Justice Warren, who called an emergency meeting of the Commission that evening.123 In a hushed, tense, executive session, Rankin explained the allegation to the Commission. They speculated about what the FBI might have been using Oswald for, then turned their attention to the implications of the allegation. Rankin found it unusual that the FBI was insisting that Oswald was the lone assassin, yet the bureau hadn’t yet run down “all kinds of leads in Mexico or in Russia.” This, he said, “raises questions.”       
Rankin told the Commission members that he and Chief Justice Warren had reflected on this and “we said if [the allegation] was true and it ever came out and could be established,” then simply because of it, some people would think “that there was a conspiracy to accomplish this assassination” and “nothing the Commission did” could change this impression.        Representative Boggs: “You are so right.”       
“Oh, terrible,” Allen Dulles moaned.       
“[The] implications of this are fantastic, don’t you think so?” Hale Boggs observed.       
“Terrific [possibly a typographical error for terrible],” Chief Justice Warren answered.       
When Dulles asked the question of why, if Oswald were an FBI informant, “it would be in their [FBI’s] interest…to say [Oswald] is…the only guilty one?” Warren answered, “They would like to have us fold up and quit.”       
“This closes the case, you see,” Boggs interjected. “Don’t you see?”       
“Yes, I see that,” Dulles acknowledged.       
“They found the man,” Rankin continued. “There is nothing more to do. The Commission supports their conclusions, and we can go home and that is the end of it.”       
“But that puts the men [typo for burden?] right on them,” Dulles argued. “If he was not the killer, and they employed him, they are already it, you see. [This sentence would seem to make sense only if Dulles had not used the word “not.” He could have misspoken or the stenographer could have made a mistake.] So your argument is correct if they are sure that this is going to close the case, but if it [doesn’t] close the case, they are worse off than ever by doing this.”       
“Yes, I would think so,” Boggs replied “…I don’t even like to see this being taken down.”       
“Yes,” Dulles agreed. “I think this record ought to be destroyed. Do you think we need a record of this?”       
Rankin: “I don’t, except that we said we would have records of meetings.”124       
On January 23, 1964, Texas attorney general Waggoner Carr, along with two of his special counsels, Dean Storey and Leon Jaworski, and Dallas County district attorney Henry Wade and his assistant, Dallas DA William Alexander, flew to Washington, D.C. The following day they met with Chief Justice Warren and General Counsel Rankin to discuss the explosive allegation. At the meeting, the Texas contingent said the rumor was “constant” in Texas, and that “the source of their information was a man by the name of Hudkins [newspaper reporter Alonzo Hudkins].”       
Although the source of the allegation has become almost permanently mired in dispute and obfuscation, one thing is very clear. It was a fabricated story with no substance (see in-depth discussion in FBI conspiracy section), but at the time, the Warren Commission did not know this and took the allegation very seriously.
Reclaiming History Vincent Bugliosi

JohnM

A lot of words that look back nearly 30 years later don't mean very much.
Yes there was a rumor. A newspaper reporter out of Houston said he had a very reliable source in Dallas.
What was that source ? - Do you know?

[Michael Capasse]

And in conclusion, as for the reason for the emergency WC meeting, the $200 a month pay for being a paid informant was fully investigated by the WC when they extensively studied Oswald's finances, Oswald had no extra money, wasn't living the high life, was going from job to job, was basically living in a shoebox in a rooming house, and was applying for Government benefits.  So the WC did indeed do the exact opposite of "going home"!

JohnM

Not sure what all this means. It certainly doesn't explain what Rankin meant by;
"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"
Charles called it sarcasm, there is nothing joking about it. You have given no explanation as well. 
They questioned why the FBI would shut down investigating any conspiracy at this early stage;

"Now in my experience of almost nine years, in the first place it is hard to get them to say when you think you have got a case tight
enough to convict somebody, that that is the person that committed the crime. In my experience with the FBI they don't do that.
They claim that they don't evaluate, and it is uniform prior experience that they don't do that. Secondly, they have not run out all
kinds of leads in Mexico or in Russia and so forth which they could probably -- It is not our business, it is the very --"

Dulles: What is that?

A: They haven't run out all the leads on the information and they could probably say -- that isn't our business.
Q: Yes.

A: But they are concluding that there can't be a conspiracy without those being run out. Now that is not from my experience with the FBI.
Q: It is not. You are quite right. I have seen a great many reports.

...was basically living in a shoebox in a rooming house

He left $173 in Irving, knowing he was going to do this thing.

...was fully investigated by the WC when they extensively studied Oswald's finances...

Really? - Who did they call? - Do you have the reports that investigated Lee was an informant? - or just books 30 years too late?
According the WCR, all they did was ask the agencies. Dulles and Russell both remarked that would be futile. They did it anyway.

"The Directors of the CIA and of the FBI testified before the Commission that Oswald was never employed by either agency or used by either agency in any capacity. Investigation by the Commission has revealed no evidence that Oswald was ever employed by either the FBI or CIA in any capacity" (WCR page 661)

Executive Session | Jan. 27. 1964
Sen. Russell. If Oswald never had assassinated the President or at least been charged with assassinating the President and
had been in the employ of the FBI and somebody had gone to the FBI they would have denied he was an agent.

Mr. Dulles. Oh, yes.
Sen. Russell. They would be the first to deny it. Your agents would have done exactly the same thing.

Mr. Dulles. Exactly.

[John Mytton]

A lot of words that look back nearly 30 years later don't mean very much.
Yes there was a rumor. A newspaper reporter out of Houston said he had a very reliable source in Dallas.
What was that source ? - Do you know?

A lot of words that look back nearly 30 years later don't mean very much.

Bugliosi is looking at the exact same event as you and you think your words 60+ years later mean so much more? Really?

The first time I read the line that you have quoted a bazillion times, within context seemed to me to be sarcastic, because they didn't just go home but spent months and months doing their own investigation and less than a week later they held another meeting and specifically said that they "had to go beyond" what the FBI provided!

There is no way Oswald was an FBI informant being paid $200 dollars a month because Oswald never had an extra penny beyond what he earned, he even applied for unemployment benefits, some secret agent! 
And you somehow seem to think that Hoover was complicit in his "rush to judgement" but as already explained to you, the first day evidence was that Oswald killed the President with a $13 dollar rifle and had no confederates to help him escape therefore was provably a Lone Nut. And what do you know, more than half a Century later after arguably the most investigated Murder ever, and don't forget that the CT's did the majority of that further investigation, there is still no Smoking Gun and not a shred of evidence that Oswald was a paid informant or that anyone else was involved. And that's a fact Jack!

Oswald a political nut who at the height of the Cold War defected to the enemy, tried to kill General Walker, was handing out Hands of Cuba pamphlets in New Orleans, went to Mexico city in an attempt to defect again, had a stack of pro Castro literature and finally took his rifle to work and assassinated the President, and that's all she wrote.

Besides the FBI, the WC went beyond the FBI and used many different sources and even visited the Texas School Book Depository!
From the first, the Commission considered its mandate to conduct a thorough and independent investigation. The Commission reviewed reports by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Secret Service, Department of State, and the Attorney General of Texas, and then requested additional information from federal agencies, Congressional committees, and state and local experts. The Commission held hearings and took the testimony of 552 witnesses. On several occasions, the Commission went to Dallas to visit the scene of the assassination and other places.
https://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-report/intro




JohnM

[Charles Collins]

A snip from “Witness to History” by Hugh Aynesworth, page 107-109:

“I guess you know my son was an agent for the federal government, she said, “and they just threw him away. I can prove that.” That’s where I stopped Marguerite and said I’d like to come over and see her proof. During this period, there were rumors everywhere that Oswald once worked for the FBI or the CIA as a paid informant. I was skeptical but willing to be convinced.

One reporter who felt certain Oswald had worked for the government was Alonzo “Lonnie” Hudkins of the Houston Post. Lonnie called me constantly, hoping I’d uncovered something to move the story along. In time I grew tired of Lonnie’s queries, especially since I doubted his sources were that good. One day as I was busily juggling deadline stories for Newsweek, where I was then a stringer,  and the Times of London as well as a weekend piece for the News, Lonnie called once more and asked me, “You hear anything about this FBI link with Oswald? Tired of him begging me, I said to him, “You got his payroll number don’t you?”

Yeah, yeah Lonnie said.

I reached over on my desk for a telegram and read part of a Telex number to him.

“Yeah, yeah,” he said, “that’s it. That’s the same one I’ve got.”

I knew that if Lonnie accepted the number as legitimate, he had nothing. He said he’d check his sources and get back to me.

Weeks passed, and I forgot about the call until January 1, 1964, when Hudkins published a front page article in the Post, alleging that Oswald may have been a federal operative. Naturally the story caused quite a stir. Members of the newly created Warren Commission summoned several top Texas law enforcement officials and advisers to Washington to discuss the development, including Waggoner Car, the state Attorney General, Dallas DA Henry Wade, and his assistant Bill Alexander; J. Edgar Hoover of course told the commission that the story was not true. The Texas folks denied any knowledge of where Hudkins got his story, and the story pretty much died — for a while.

Lonnie never disclosed his sources and for the bogus number, and I didn’t admit to it for at least several years.

FBI Agent Joe Hosty was among those upset over the Hudkins story. In Assignment Oswald, he castigated me not only for the Jack Revill story that Jim Ewell and I published but also for being, along with Bill Alexander, the supposed source of Hudkins’ fantasy.

When Hosty later called me, it was in part to apologize for that mistake. “Just want you to know that I visited with Hudkins later,” he said, “and understand that it was his contention, not yours and Alexander’s, about the alleged financial connection between the bureau and Oswald. I always admit my errors.”